The URL can be used to link to this page

Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 10/13/2010 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC MEETING #4 - (10/13/2010) Table of Contents 10/13/2010 Meeting Agenda.........................................................................................................................................2 CACMeeting Summary(9/8/2010)............................................................................................................................3 Comments..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Staff Response to 9/8/2010 CAC Comments on Preliminary"Draft"Hazard Tree Code.............................24 Log of Housekeeping Revisions by Staff to Preliminary"Draft"Hazard Tree Code ......................................26 Preliminary"Draft"Hazard Tree Code w/o Commentary...................................................................................27 Staff Response to 9/8/2010 CAC Comments on Preliminary"Draft" Street Tree Code ...............................38 Preliminary"Draft" Street Tree Code w/ Commentary .......................................................................................40 Preliminary"Draft"Tigard Urban Forestry Manual ..............................................................................................64 Use of Existing Tree Mitigation Fund Background and Options Memo............................................................84 TAC Meeting Summary(9/21/2010)........................................................................................................................90 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC — Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223 MEETING GOALS: Review and recommend revised draft Hazard Tree Code Review and recommend draft Street Tree Code Brainstorm options for Mitigation Fund 1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6.•30-6:40 PM • Review Meeting packet materials • Recap Meeting#3 • Approve Meeting#3 Summary /Adrienne DeDona/ 2. (Info) Public Comment 6:40-6:50 PM 3. (Info) Open House Update 6.•50-6.•55 PM /Marissa Daniels/ 4. (Action) Revised Draft Hazard Tree Code 6.-55-7.-15 PM /Gary Pagenstecher/ 5. (Action) Draft Street Tree Code 7.•15-7.•45 PM /Gary Pagenstecher/ BREAK 6. (Discussion) Mitigation Fund Options 7:50-8:25 PM /Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager/ 7. (Info) Wrap up/Next Steps 8:25-8:30 PM 8. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 8:30 PM Next meeting: November 10, 2010 URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— October 13, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of -2- Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Meeting# 3 September 8, 2010 Summary Notes Committee members in attendance: John Frewing, Citizen at-large Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Don Schmidt, Planning Commission Scot Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory Tony Tycer,Tree Board Board Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Committee members absent: Dave Walsh, Planning Commission Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers John Wyland, Developer Jason Rodgers, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Consultant staff present: Staff present: Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Sylvia Ciborowski,JLA Public Involvement Todd Prager, City of Tigard Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard John Floyd, City of Tigard Long-Range Planning Members of the public present: None Information requests from this meeting: • Direct link to the entire City of Portland Tree Code • Direct link to entire Pacific NW ISA document • Answer to question: Is there a grandfather clause which would allow property owners to cut down trees that were planted before the Code,without going through the criteria? Parking lot items: • Carry forward hazard tree code definition to development code? • Include same definition of"hazard tree" and other definitions throughout the entire Code (no inconsistent definitions) • Standards should be the same for the City and for citizens • Sidewalk size related to development code • Soil compaction and soil vaults Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 1 Meeting#3 Summary -3- Overview Summary The following is an overview of the main discussion topics,follow-up items, and decisions made by members at the September 8, 2010 CAC meeting. Meeting packet and logistics • Lengthy meeting packets will be mailed by postal service to members • Members will receive clear notification of upcoming meeting topics with time to prepare • Staff will research a way for members to respond to public comments online for a cohesive record Overview of comments and revisions to draft hazard tree code language • Should have defined natural habitat areas where grass can be kept over 10" high. • Claimants should be required to have standing in order to seek resolution through the hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure (claimant should be one who regularly uses the target area or is otherwise threatened by the tree). • Definition of"noxious vegetation" as"vegetation that is likely to cause fire" should be revised or limited to exclude compost piles. • Removal may not be the only solution to abating hazard trees.The Code should allow for other options such as pruning when appropriate. • Members discussed revising the definition of"hazard tree"to include an overall minimum risk rating of lower than "9." Most members thought the rating should be lowered, and would like to see more language in the Code to provide some interpretation on the rating. • The ISA rating table should be accompanied with excerpts from the user's manual about the table, or a link or reference to this manual. Street tree code options • Members agreed that approval criteria for removal of street trees should be established. o One member commented that it seems unfair to require property owners who planted trees before the Code's existence to be held by the standards of approval criteria to remove those trees. • Members agreed that all approval criteria in the survey should be included.They had differing opinions on "previously approved development criteria." • Members agreed that if a request to remove a street tree is denied, the applicant should have the opportunity to appeal the decision and receive a discretionary review. • Members did not come to consensus on whether individuals should be given the option to pay a fee or replant a tree elsewhere if they do not want to replant a removed tree. • Members agreed that it would be best for the City to seek alternative options that allow for more local control rather than simply adopting ODOT or County standards to street trees, though one member expressed doubt in the feasibility of alternative options. • Members agreed that,when enforcing the street tree code, it would be most appropriate to rely on minimum penalties in addition to a discretionary process that seeks to achieve substantial compliance. Members agreed that it would be most appropriate to make the minimum penalty a strict dollar amount. • Members agreed that the City should not have the ability to enforce violations against anyone other than property owners. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2 Meeting#3 Summary -4- Introductions and Agenda Overview Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda. Meeting Packet Adrienne reviewed the meeting packet, noting that it includes comments received from members and the public with responses. She asked for comments or suggestions on how to make the meeting packet more useful for members. Members made the following comments: • Bret Lieuallen recommended postal mailing for large packets. • Ken Gertz noted that the layout of the Draft Code is easy to read, with text on one page and comments on the adjacent page. • Tony Tycer said that he is not always sure what will be discussed at the next meeting. He suggested more clearly indicating what topics would be discussed and how to prepare,such as including it very clearly on the upcoming agendas. • Ken noted that the email from John Frewing in the packet makes reference to the City of Portland's tree code, but the links to the code make it difficult to find the appropriate sections to print. He asked for a direct link to the all-encompassing code. • John Frewing added staff should also provide a link to the entire Pacific NW ISA document. • Tony asked what weight members should give to the comments in the packet.Adrienne responded that members can choose how much weight to give comments. Marissa Daniels added that, in this process, staff will pass along all public comments to members for a transparent process. • Ken asked whether members could respond to the comments in the packet and include this as part of the public record as well. Adrienne responded that staff may try to explore some way of responding to comments online to keep all comments in one place. Staff noted the difficulty in trying to get the meeting packets out on time while providing time for members to comment. Recap of Meeting#2 Adrienne provided a brief recap of the July 7, 2010 CAC meeting. At that meeting, members received a primer from Susan Hartnett about the legislative process and began a conversation on hazard trees. Adrienne acknowledged that some members expressed that they did not have enough time for discussion. Future meetings will include more discussion time. Surveys will also be used to serve as preliminary discussion on future topics.This group has many topics to discuss, and will need to decide which topics should be discussed in detail, and which should be discussed more briefly in order to move forward when time is short. Approve Meeting summaries Adrienne asked for comments or feedback on the June 9 and July 7 meeting summaries. One change was suggested: • Morgan Holen added that on the last page of the July 7 meeting summary, her comment was specifically about the City of Lake Oswego. Members approved both meeting summaries by consensus, including Morgan's revision. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3 Meeting#3 Summary -5- Public Involvement Plan Marissa reviewed the Public Involvement Plan included in member packets (pages 28-37). She outlined some specific public involvement aspects of this project, including: • Online resource list for members to access information in one place • Farmers Market outreach and plantable bookmark • Urban forestry newsletter • Tree Grove Workshop on October 6 at the Tigard Library from 6:30-8:30 p.m. • Intergenerational component of the project will get different ages involved through arts activities Draft Hazard Tree Code Gary Pagenstecher summarized the main proposed revisions to the Hazard Tree Code draft language (included in the member packet pages 38-65). He explained the code revisions process. Currently, staff is working on the preliminary draft for the hazard tree code language with input from TAC and CAC members. A preliminary draft will be written for all other topics in subsequent meetings.After CAC members have discussed all topics,they will get a chance to see the draft of all topics as a cohesive whole, and revise again. Members discussed the draft hazard tree code language: • Gary clarified that the Forestry Manual (pages 63-65) is all new text. • John expressed that grass should not have to be kept at 10 inches or shorter in designated natural areas. He is concerned that,without some exclusion for defined natural habitat areas, Tigard would end up with all mowed lawns and no areas for habitat. • Discussion on "claimant" and the issue of"standing" (page 51) o Tony commented that the use of the term "claimant" is too vague.The language does not limit liability and opens up to complaints from citizens who are in no way affected by the hazard tree.Tony suggested language should require a claimant to have standing in order to make a claim, such as a person who lives or regularly uses the target area. o Ken and Bret agreed that if a tree on private property is not a public hazard,the property owner should not be required to remove it.Yet if the tree stands over a frequently used footpath or public right of way,the City should get involved. o Morgan added that hazard tree should be defined as both being defective and having a public target. o John added that in public lands, some dying trees should be allowed to stand in natural areas for wildlife habitat. o Todd commented that using the tree risk assessment criteria—which includes target, probability of failure, etc—will cover a lot of the issues presented. • Bret presented a concern about noxious vegetation (page 49–7.40.050(B)(4)). He was concerned about compost piles being included in "vegetation that is likely to cause fire." He suggested putting"noxious" before the word "vegetation" in that section in order to resolve this concern. • John presented a different definition of"hazard tree"as any tree which constitutes a high level of hazard that cannot be solved by pruning or other arborist management solution. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4 Meeting#3 Summary -6- o Morgan agreed that some hazard trees can be pruned or otherwise managed; bringing the risk rating down to a level that is no longer considered a hazard. o Ken added that residents may be able to prune in order to save trees, but this is not a good strategy in the development sector. • Discussion on "9" risk rating to define "hazard tree" (page 49) o Ken commented that the "9" risk rating seems too high, especially in the development sector. ■ Morgan replied that in development projects,she usually starts with a tree inventory and decides whether trees are in poor condition or important—she does not do an individual risk rating for every tree. If a tree is in poor condition, she would permit removal of those trees with reduced or no mitigation. o Morgan replied that a "9" rating is a good cut off point. In the ISA system of risk ratings, "8" and below requires monitoring and "9" and above represents a risk that should be removed.There are exceptions; some trees with only a "7" rating sometimes should be removed for reasons beyond the ISA scale. o Scott asked if the rating scale is logarithmic or linear. Morgan replied that it is linear.The rating takes into account probability of failure, size of defective part and type of target damage. She added that she was at first skeptical about the rating system, but now she believes it works very well and is accurate most of the time. o John asked if there is anything written to help one understand how to use the ISA rating table. Morgan replied that there is an entire user's manual.John recommended including excerpts from the manual in the tree code to help users, and Ken recommended including a link or reference to the manual. o Adrienne asked for agreement from the group to lower cut-off rating from "9." ■ Morgan recommended using a number and a recommended arborist treatment. ■ Adrienne asked members if what they are looking for is more language in the Code to provide some interpretation on the rating.They responded yes. ■ Scott expressed fear that subjectivity in the Code will be problematic in the legal world. ■ Ken agreed that a numerical rating is important. ■ Tony added that the issue partly be resolved by including the principles of claimant standing and assumption of risk. Bret agreed about including claimant standing. ■ Morgan suggested that the rating could be lowered, but that would not result in automatic removal. The owner should still evaluate abatement options, and monitoring might be appropriate. Ken agreed that there should be an option to either remove the tree or abate in some way that fixes the hazard. Adrienne concluded the discussion with a brief overview of member concerns. She added that at the next meeting, staff will have a revised draft of the hazard tree code language. Street Tree Code Options (Survey) Adrienne led a discussion on the results of the street tree code options survey that members completed online. She went through the survey, addressing each question and topic area. Approval criteria for removal of street trees(Survey Question#2) Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5 Meeting#3 Summary -7- • On the survey, nearly everyone thought approval criteria should be established. • Bret commented that the City should continue is current practice of allowing the removal of a street tree as long as there is room for a replacement tree to be planted. He has trees on his property planted 40 years ago, before any tree criteria existed. He felt it would be unfair for him to now be required to meet approval criteria to remove those trees. o Ken added that the question is about street trees, not trees on private property. o John asked if there is a grandfather clause to prevent this issue. • Tony suggested that the City be more willing to place sidewalks next to streets to allow more room for trees to grow, rather than squeezing trees into the planter strip between street and sidewalk.John responded that he prefers separated streets and sidewalks to not be disturbed by splashing from cars when walking. Ken added that Washington County allows flexibility to allow wider planter strips for more room for street trees. Approval criteria for removal of street trees(Survey Question#3) • Members responded to the question by prioritizing the importance of a list of possible approval criteria. Each criterion was discussed: • Tree health/safety o Members are in agreement that this is an important criteria • Species o Members are in agreement that this is an important criteria o Ken commented that it would be best to have a variety of species throughout an area rather than homogeneity. • Size o On the survey, members were split in their response. o Tony commented that size does not seem very important because some large trees have little value,and some small trees are very valuable. o John noted that the City of Portland identified Madrone and White Oak as "priority trees."Tigard should also single out specific species to be saved.Tony added that at one time, Portland recommended Ailanthus be planted. Ken noted that the City of Tigard has a recommended tree manual. • Roots causing damage o Members agreed that this criterion should be left on the list to carry forward. o Scott commented that some historic trees have roots that cause damage, but should not necessarily be removed. • Previously approved development permit o Todd explained that currently, if someone does not like a street tree and wants to plant something else,the City allows it. However,some neighbors like the uniform look of street trees that might have been called for as part of a development permit being issued. o Ken commented that neighbors should be able to weigh in and continuity is important. o Tony disagreed, noting that if all street tree species are the same,they could all be affected by disease or infestation. In the case of street trees, diversity is important. o Ken suggested that the Code include a caveat that a different species should be planted if there is a good reason for disrupting the uniformity of species. ■ Bret added that a desire to change the canopy would be a valid reason to replant with a different species. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6 Meeting#3 Summary -8- o Morgan suggested evaluating why the tree has to be removed and implementing adaptive management to find something better.There should be flexibility in a previously approved development. • Spacing o Ken commented that the tree manual discusses spacing depending on the tree species. He added that developers are subject to a plethora of design criteria, including spacing. o Scott commented that from safety standpoint, some trees are dependent on spacing. • View corridor and Solar access o Members commented that there will be a lot more solar power in the future,so solar access should be considered o Ken added that he has had discussions with residents in the past about concerns with regard to blocked views and the impact to property value. • Members added additional criteria in the survey, including adequate uncompacted soil volume and conflict with power/utility lines.Tony suggested that these two be forwarded. Appealing denials for request to remove street trees(Survey Question#4) • Members unanimously agreed that if a request to remove a street tree is denied based on the approval criteria,the applicant should have the opportunity to appeal the decision and receive a discretionary review from the Tree Board or other body. Criteria for replacement street trees(Survey Question#5) • Todd noted that the criteria in this exercise are pretty similar to the criteria for street tree removal. • Members agreed to send along their survey responses, noting that their comments on street tree removal would be applicable to replacement criteria. • Todd noted that for some criteria, if would be difficult to develop an objective standard (for example,view corridor). He suggested that for these criteria,the City could set up a system in which if the applicant does not meet the objective criteria,they could go through discretionary review. Option to pay a fee to replant a tree elsewhere(Survey Question#6) • Members discussed whether individuals should be given the option to pay a fee or replant a tree elsewhere if they do not want to replant a removed tree. • Morgan commented that if a tree really is inappropriate for the location,the owner should not be required to replant or pay a fee. But if a tree is historic and important,the owner should be required to replant. Solar access and view corridors should be considered conflicts to take into consideration that would not require the individual to pay to replant. • John expressed that it would be appropriate to require the individual to pay to plant a tree of elsewhere only if the tree is of equivalent value. • Scott commented that individuals should not be able to plant inappropriate trees in other locations. Developments have certain architectural and landscape themes. Ken responded that the proposal is not to allow an individual to plant any kind of tree anywhere. • Ken suggested that the Code language allow the option of either"paying or replanting on another part of the owner's property in an approved location." Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7 Meeting#3 Summary -9- Clarifying jurisdictional requirements(Survey Question#7) • Members agreed that it would be best for the City to seek alternative options that allow for more local control rather than simply adopting ODOT or County standards to street trees. • Ken expressed doubt in the feasibility of alternative options. He noted that is easier for Tigard to follow ODOT than for ODOT to follow Tigard. • Tony commented that Tigard should have more local options and should speak out on its' citizens behalf. • Gary added that the City will bring up the issue of alternative options before the City Attorney next week. We will find out then what is possible. Street tree code enforcement(Survey Question#8) • Members agreed that,when enforcing the street tree code, it would be most appropriate to rely on minimum penalties in addition to a discretionary process that seeks to achieve substantial compliance. • John asked for a clarification on the term "discretionary process."Todd answered that, in the Code enforcement process,there is wide discretion on seeking voluntary compliance. Some portions of the Code require a minimum penalty, but there may also be other penalties on top of that. Minimum penalties(Survey Question#9) • Members agreed that it would be most appropriate to make the minimum penalty a strict dollar amount. Enforcement of penalties against anyone other than property owners(Survey Question#10) • Members discussed this issue and agreed that the City should not have the ability to enforce violations against anyone other than property owners. • Ken said that it would be inappropriate for the City to be able to enforce violations against the business community.This would create animosity between the professional community and the City,which would be counterproductive.The City does not need to be involved in all claims. o Morgan agreed that the City should not get involved in disputes between a private tree company and the homeowner. • Tony added that,when a home owner retains tree service from a tree company,the culpability if anything goes wrong should rest with the home owner. Resolution should be sought at the lowest common denominator. • John commented that if a tree company is constantly performing inappropriately,you use your discretion to raise the penalty. Next Steps and Wrap Up Adrienne summarized the meeting and noted that members seem to feel that the code language was a good first draft. Staff will work on revising the draft and incorporating member comments and get back to members with a revised draft.The next draft will appear in the meeting packet prior to the next meeting. Next Meeting: October 13, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the City of Tigard Library Discussion topics: ■ Revised draft Hazard Tree code Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 8 Meeting#3 Summary -10- ■ Draft Street Tree code ■ Mitigation and options for tree fund use Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 9 Meeting#3 Summary -11- Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Decision Log July 7, 2010— Members approved Meeting Protocols by consensus. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 10 Meeting#3 Summary -12- Lora Garland From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:05 PM To: Adrienne DeDona Cc: Todd Prager Subject: Emailing: Tree removal to take out more than 2,300 trees in Tigard OregonLive.com Attachments: logo_olive.gif; user_default_40.png; tr_signin_dialog_x.gif; round box_arrow_down.gif; userpic-8547289-100x100.png; user_default.png; userpic-8612207-100x100.png; userpic-8770271-100x100.png; userpic-8541253-100x100.png; userpic-8555525-100x100.png; userpic-8885882-100x100.png; userpic-8886323-100x100.png; chester-panejpg-a76681fffd0525b6- thumb-40xauto-8860117.jpg; logo_footer_advanceinternet.gif; affiliatelogo.gif; green_arrow.gif; roundcorner_gray_topleft.gif; icon_rss.gif; icon_email.gif; icon_twitter.gif; icon_video_small.gif; icon_mobile.gif; roundcorner_lightgray_bottomleft.gif; oregonian_subscribe.gif Adrienne, Please forward this newsclip to others on the Tigard Tree Code CAC, especially those who don't live in Tigard or read the local newspaper. Maybe this is something to consider as we work through the code. John Frewing Oregon I forgot my username or password 0 Search Local Home :N=ewsn Sports Entertainment Living Interact lobs Autos Real Estate Reni • Business • Education • Environment • Metro • Obits • Photos • Politics • Special Coverage • US &World • Weather • more News Home > Tigard News > Breaking News Tree removal to take out more than 2,300 trees in Tigard Published: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 11:44 AM Updated: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 11:58 AM Eric Florip, The Oregonian Follow 1 -13- Share this story Story tools A planned removal of more than 2,300 trees on private land near Hunziker Street in Tigard is expected to begin this week, more than a year after the city issued permits to clear the forested area. Site preparation began late last week. The tree cutting is expected to take about three weeks, according to the city. 24 [Button] 0 [Button] Share The 42-acre hillside, located between Hunziker and the railroad tracks west of Cherry Drive, is owned by retired Portland manufacturing executive Fred Fields. Fields also owns another property on the other side of the railroad tracks, which he's pushed to gain access to by extending Wall Street over Fanno Creek wetlands, hoping to sell that land for residential development. For the property off Hunziker, crews will leave some trees to create a 50-foot barrier between existing neighborhoods near Cherry Drive and possible industrial activity that may arise on the site, according to the city. The tree removal permit was granted by city staff, and did not require City Council approval, said associate planner Gary Pagenstecher. The permit authorizes the cutting of 2,310 trees. Instances of large-scale tree cutting have raised concerns among some Tigard residents in the past. The city's most recent Urban Forestry Master Plan was adopted last year, and further revision of those rules is underway, according to the city. -- Eric Florip Inappropriate post? Alert us. Related topics: fred fields, tigard, tree removal, urban forestry master plan Sponsored Links Share this story Story tools More stories in Tigard News Previous story Cross country: Secret to success can be found in the numbers Next story Washington man accidentally gives father of Tigard girl he molested digital photos of the crime 24 Comments Feed [Button] View: Oldest first I Newest first 2 -14- 1 1 2 Next comments dpm September 14, 2010 at 12:14PM Follow Can you please explain the reason for cutting the trees. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new Qabino September 14, 2010 at 12:16PM Follow Growth Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new indridcol I September 14, 2010 at 12:27PM Follow Yep. Growth... like a cancer cell Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new elrweirdo September 14, 2010 at 12:27PM Follow dpm; From the article, above.............. "crews will leave some trees to create a 50-foot barrier between existing neighborhoods near Cherry Drive and possible industrial activity that may arise on the site", which of course, means..............The owner is developing the property to be used for possible "future industrial development"!? I would think, that the key words of "MAY ARISE", to mean "I already have someone interested in putting something industrial on my property, so I can such in more bucks from it, than I do from it sitting "unused and covered in trees". Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new eirweirdo September 14, 2010 at 12:29PM Follow 3 -15- SORRY! *"Suck in, more bucks from it, not; "such in"! Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new ■ 11 words or less September 14, 2010 at 12:58PM Follow The Lorax weeps. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new saltyfella September 14, 2010 at 1:04PM Follow Sounds like it time to have Tigard removed from the "Tree City" list. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new babcock September 14, 2010 at 1:16PM Follow Where is our mayor??? Notice that he is MIA. Oh wait, he's looking for another tax to increase. The ultimate tax and spend liberal. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new bwegener September 14, 2010 at 7:18PM Follow Pardon me. Your ignorance is showing. Inappropriate? Alert us. Reply Post new jsilver2th September 14, 2010 at 1:16PM Follow Take paradise and put up a parking lot... 4 -16- Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new stingerl39 September 14, 2010 at 1:20PM Follow another developer that would chop his own kids down to make a buck. People like Fred Fields make me sick! I don't care about more development. Half the new homes built are still sitting empty. With any luck this will be a financial disaster and he will go away. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new sigmundf September 14, 2010 at 1:23PM Follow The trees and the property belong to the property owner, not to neighbors or to passers-by. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new liberal_homeless_pdX September 14, 2010 at 1:36PM Follow evil just evil....tress are for hugging not cutting down Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new kurmudgeonOO September 14, 2010 at 2:07PM Follow Seems to me that it would make much more sense to take out the trees necessary for the streets and other infrastructure, and THEN take out the trees necessary for building individual houses. I'm sure most buyers would rather buy a new house in a "treed" neighborhood than one that has been bulldozed clean and planted with nominal replacements from a nursery. Even if a majority of trees have to go, having a few larger, established trees will only add to the environmental quality and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new 5 -17- wsbtown September 14, 2010 at 2:11PM Follow What kind of trees are these? How old are they? What type of natural environment are they part of? 2,310 is a lot of trees, but are they old growth conifer or less aged deciduous? The map shows this area to be considerably east of Tigard's downtown and Hall Blvd, west of Hwy 217. I suppose that Tigard wants to compete for growth like other cities in the metro area seem to want to, which probably in part accounts for it granting Fields the permits more than a year ago. These cities seem to be in a kind of race to see who can provide the most amount of buildable commercial land for the least amount of money. It costs more to build land use efficient multi-story structures, so cities instead allow large stands of trees to be cut down to provide space for single story structures. Note that the writer of this story mentions that rewriting of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan is underway, and that some Tigard residents aren't so comfortable with large tracts of land being cut down. That uneasiness on their part alone might have been the cue to Fields to start cutting. Fields (he used to be a Chevy dealer if I remember correctly) reminds me of Portland's Tom Moyer...also retired guy. Both of them are older, have made a lot of money, both have done some good things for the community, but both still seem to think it's important to make lots more money, arguably at the expense of natural beauty, before they pass on. Why? Are they afraid they're going to run out of money? Inappropriate?Alert us. Reply Post new 1 1 2 Next comments Follow OregonLive.com What's this? • All OregonLive.com Facebook&Twitter accounts » Most Popular Stories Commented Recommended Tigard News stories with the most comments in the last 7 days. 33 Oregon Congressman David Wu and challenger Rob Cornilles clash on economic growth, unemployment in first election debate 28 Washington man accidentally gives father of Tigard girl he molested digital photos of the crime 24 Tree removal to take out more than 2,300 trees in Tigard 6 -18- 22 Family accuses Chen's Dynasty of overserving Lake Oswego teacher before fatal crash 13 In four weeks, TV Click will be replaced by TV Weekly: Questions and answers Tigard News headlines •Your comments: Family accuses Chen's Dynasty of overserving Lake Oswego teacher before fatal crash 10:39AM •Tigard-Tualatin groups in popularity contest for Pepsi grant 4:35PM • Family accuses Chen's Dynasty of overserving Lake Oswego teacher before fatal crash 4:26PM • Washington man accidentally gives father of Tigard girl he molested digital photos of the crime 2:45PM • With the economy down, Oregonians generated less waste in 2009 1:0013M More: Tigard News Most Active Users What's this? Users with the most OregonLive.com comments in the last 7 days 274 EagleforFree... 161 Mazama 154 pfigment 107 Elphie 106 hopefulovey 9 Users We Love �.F 'Chester Pane' Meet the self-proclaimed "shape shifter" More Users We Love From Our Advertisers Advertise With Us 7 -19- Popular Tags What's this? hi watt • Site Search • Search Local Business Listings Search by keyword, town name, Web ID and more... [Submit] Site Map Advertise Contact us Make us your home page Home News Weather Sports Entertainment i Living Interact Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds " Shopping • Your Photos • Your Videos • Blogs • Forums • Travel • Music • Post a job • Post a free classified ad • Sell your car • Sell/rent your home • Apartments & rentals • Claim your Business Listing for free • Obits / Death Notices • Business News • Environmental News • Contests • Dining • Movies • 13Subscribe to our content (RSS) • C-►News alerts I Sports alerts • Twitter feed • if]OregonLive.com Multimedia • �OregonLive.com Mobile Site • ®Learn about our mobile site The Oregonian - The Oregonian Business Center I Hillsboro Argus © 2010 Oregon Live LLC. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement. Please read our Privacy Policy. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. Contact interactivity management. 8 -20- Lora Garland From: Adrienne DeDona [Adrienne@jla.us.com] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:26 PM To: jfrewing Cc: Todd Prager; Marissa Daniels Subject: RE: Tree Code CAC Recommendation Hi John— Thanks for your comment. It does appear to be out of the scope for this project, but we'll include your note with the next CAC meeting packet. Take care. Adrienne From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 8:12 PM To: Adrienne DeDona Cc: Todd Prager Subject: Tree Code CAC Recommendation Adrienne, Since we have been talking about street trees,I have been keeping my eyes open for good and bad situations in Tigard. One of the sad things is that some trees alongside streets are pruned severely,giving odd shapes and weakened trees. I know there are street tree standards to put in only short trees where utility lines are overhead,which I understand. Tigard needs a priority list for undergrounding power/phone/cable utilities on some streets for some stretches,so our street tree effort really has results,ie something more than small trees. I know that undergrounding normally takes place at the time of development, but some additional undergrounding should take place,at city expense or maybe as'mitigation'for a frontage owner who doesn't want to put in street trees for a good reason. Maybe there are other circumstances when we can get more undergrounding (LID?). Such a priority list is outside our CAC scope,ie code revision,but I am asking if you can put it on a list of possible recommendations by the CAC when we finish the code work. If Tigard already has such a listing,could the CAC see it?? Thanks, John Frewing i -21- From: Todd Prager Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:15:49 AM To: Patty Lunsford Subject: FW: Tigard Tree Code Response requested: No From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:29 AM To: Ken@Gertzco.com Cc: Susan Hartnett; Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com; brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org; david.walsh@spnewsprint.com Subject: Tigard Tree Code Ken, At the last Tree Code CAC, you mentioned an interesting item that deserves more discussion and review. I noted it down and in preparing for our next meeting, thought some conversation might be useful. You suggested that a good fix for you would be to allow a sidewalk to be placed in an easement rather than on a Tigard dedicated street; Washington County apparently does this. My immediate reaction was `no', because this is basically a 5-10 percent increase in density, depending on lot size, but maybe there is some `incentive based' approach which could work. The impact of placing the sidewalk in an easement is a smaller usable lot for the resident, even though the legal size of the lot remains large. I think the resident remains responsible for sidewalk maintenance in any event, but need to check out the details on this with Tigard. BUT, if a `sidewalk in easement' were coupled with two tree-related amenities, it might work out. I would suggest that a parallel requirement be in the code that in such cases, a 5-foot planter strip (planted with appropriate trees) be placed between the sidewalk and street (already a requirement in many situations) and that some defined fraction of standing trees on the undeveloped lot remain, and remain protected in some sense. Maybe the requirement might be that a prior standing tree (of decent quality and species) remain in the front yard of the residence. Maybe you can think of other -22- tree amenities which would assuage the impact of higher density. Maybe City of Tigard has other reasons for not liking this kind of change; it would be good to hear them. To Susan, Todd and Adrienne — please post this to CAC and hopefully we can put it in the `discussion' box before our work is done. Thanks, John Frewing DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." -23- Staff Response to September 8, 2010 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Draft of the Hazard Tree Code CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Should have defined natural habitat areas where grass Staff does not disagree with the comment. However, this revision is not within 7.40.050 can be kept over 10"high. the scope of this project. Claimants should be required to have standing in Under the proposed process,in order for a claimant to have standing for formal 7.40.060 order to seek resolution through the hazard tree reconciliation, they have to complete the informal reconciliation process (send evaluation and abatement procedure (claimant should concurrent regular and certified letters to the respondent, explain why they think be one who regularly uses the target area or is there is hazard, and offer to negotiate a solution). The claimant would also have otherwise threatened by the tree). to pay the City a fee for formal reconciliation to cover the City's cost of a third party Certified Tree Risk Assessor (which could be $500 or more). Staff thinks this relatively high bar of entry would limit frivolous claims. There have been and likely will continue to be legitimate situations where someone wants to file a claim on a friend or family member's behalf even though they themselves don't regularly use the target area. Staff's preference is to leave the language as is to account for a wider range of situations. Definition of"noxious vegetation" as "vegetation that The primary objective of the proposed revision is to reverse a previous 7.40.050 is likely to cause fire" should be revised or limited to prohibition of all dead trees and stumps (whether or not they are hazardous or exclude compost piles. have wildlife and/or erosion control functions). In discussing the proposed revision with the City's Code Compliance Team, an appropriately managed compost pile would be considered"not likely to cause a fire". Therefore, staff recommends not further revising the definition to specifically exempt compost piles. Removal may not be the only solution to abating The current definition of"hazard tree abatement" does not require removal as 7.40.060 hazard trees.The Code should allow for other options the only solution. Instead, the current definition states the hazard can be abated such as pruning when appropriate. by pruning or other means (such as moving the target) that reduces the risk rating to less than "9". Staff agrees that removal is not the only solution to a hazard tree. -24- Staff Response to September 8, 2010 CAC Comments on the Preliminary Draft of the Hazard Tree Code CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Members discussed revising the definition of"hazard Staff recommends continuing to refer to an overall risk rating of"9" or above in 7.40.060 tree" to include an overall minimum risk rating of the proposed definition of"hazard tree"because it is a natural break between a lower than"9."Most members thought the rating "high"level requiring action and a "moderate"level hazard that can simply be should be lowered, and would like to see more monitored. In conferring with other certified tree risk assessors,there is language in the Code to provide some interpretation agreement that"9"is an appropriate threshold for defining a hazard tree on the rating. requiring action. For lower level hazards (less than"9"), staff anticipates continuing its current practice of communicating the importance of continued monitoring of trees to prevent future hazards. Please note the hazard tree rating system is only for use by certified tree risk assessors. These individuals are very familiar with the tree risk assessment process through certification and continuing requirements. If the proposed revisions are adopted, the City can keep a copy of Tree Risk Assessment Manual on file for people that would like more information on the hazard tree rating system. The ISA rating table should be accompanied with The Tree Risk Assessment Form and Rating Table are for use only by certified Tigard excerpts from the user's manual about the table, or a tree risk assessors. These individuals should have copies of the manual and be Urban link or reference to this manual. familiar with the course materials through certification and continuing education Forestry requirements. Staff recommends not including further reference to the manual, Manual and links are not available online. If the proposed revisions are adopted,the City can keep a copy of Tree Risk Assessment Manual on file for people that would like more information on the hazard tree rating system. -25- City of Tigard Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Log of Housekeeping Revisions by Staff to Preliminary Draft Code Language Date: September 23,2010 7.40.060.A.1/2/3/4 Trees(Commentary) Definitions have been added to this section to include four new definitions for Ha.Zard Tree,Ha.Zard Tree Owner or Responsible Par?), Ha.Zard Tree Abatement, and Certified Tree Disk Assessor. These proposed definitions are necessary to more clearly define the threshold for what constitutes a hazard tree (using tree care industry standards which factors in probability of failure, �alue and occupancy target{,and size of defective part),who is responsible for hazard trees (the property from where the ,. Comment[tpi]:clarifies that the target includes hazard originates), the requirements for hazard tree abatement (which can include reducing or a e intrinsic value of the target and how often the target is occupied. eliminating the hazard), and professionals that are qualified Certo assign risk ratings to trees (Certified Tree Risk Assessors). The definitions are also necessary to support the proposed certified,not just- Comment[tp ]:professionals sees to be qualified. abatement process. 7.40.060 Trees.(Code) A. Definitions As used in this section and in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manuals - Comment[tp3]: Clarifies the that e aefin dons apply to both the Code and the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual 7.40.060 Trees. Code A. Definitions 5."Person"means an individual_corporation,Zovernmental agency_official advisory committee of the Cily,business trust_ estate, trust.partnership, association, or two or more people having a joint or common interest or any other le al entity. Comment[tp4]:A definition for person was added to clarify that it can mean more than just an individual. -26- CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: HAZARD TREES (AUG 2010) STREET TREE-NON-DEVELOPMENT (SEPT 2010) USE OF CURRENT MITIGATION FUND (OCT 2010) DEVELOPMENT CODE I (NOV 2010) DEVELOPMENT CODE II (JAN 2011) NON-DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, BESIDES STREET TREES (FEB 2011) PRELIMINARY DRAFT October 13, 2010 -27- BACKGROUND Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) in 2009 to help guide and inform an update of the City's tree and urban forestry related code provisions. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project implements four goals of the UFMP including: 1) Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790); 2) Revise Tigard's landscaping code (Chapter 18.745); 3) Develop a tree grove protection program; and 4) Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. PROJECT SUMMARY The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will address the UFMP goals through a series of six thematic code packages including 1) Hazard Trees; 2) Street Trees-Non-Development; 3) Use of Current Mitigation Funds; 4) Development Code I; 5) Development Code II; and 6) Non- Development Permits, Besides Street Trees. These packages will be developed sequentially by staff under Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee (TAC and CAC) review through June 2011. On consensus by the Advisory Committees, the proposed code amendments will be forwarded as a single package to the Planning Commission after review by a panel of development and urban forestry experts. Commission hearings will be scheduled for the second half of 2011 with City Council hearings and adoption by year's end. Hazard Trees At the July 7, 2010 meeting of the CAC, the group prioritized building off the framework that exists in the current code; more clearly defining what constitutes a "hazard tree" and "target"; developing a resolution process that limits false claims and incentivizes people to work out issues informally; use third party arborists when independent decisions are warranted; and recover City costs if parties cannot work out issues informally and rely on City staff and resources for settlement. These CAC priorities are proposed to be implemented through a series of code revisions to Chapters 7.40 (Nuisances) and 9.06 (Trees on City Property) as detailed on pages 4 through 21 of this document. The highlights of the revisions include more clearly defining a hazard tree using the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (2010). This methodology factors in the probability of tree failure, the target area, and the size of defective part in order to assign an overall risk rating. The proposed code would require hazard tree abatement if the risk rating is high. The proposed code also requires property owners to attempt to resolve hazard tree issues informally before relying on City staff and resources. If City staff and resources are utilized to settle issues, the proposed code would require reimbursement. Finally, the proposed code specifies that the City does have a right to gain access to private property for hazard tree abatement to enforce code provisions or in case of emergency. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (October 13,2010) -28- This page left intentionally blank -29- Code Amendments CODE AMENDMENTS How to Read This Section This section is organized by Development Code chapter number. Odd-numbered pages show the existing language with (proposed/recommended/adopted) amendments. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be added to the code is shown with double underlines. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be deleted is shown with st-rikethrough. (New chapters,where all the text is new, are not shown in double underlined text for ease of reading.) Even-numbered pages contain commentary on the amendments, which establish, in part, the legislative intent in adopting these amendments. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (October 13,2010) -30- TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 7.40 NUISANCES. ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.40.010 Short Title. 7.40.020 Definitions. 7.40.030 Nuisances Designated--Class 1 Infraction. ARTICLE II. PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES 7.40.040 Nuisances Affecting The Public Health. ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY. 7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation. 7.40.060 Trees. 7.40.070 Streets And Sidewalks. 7.40.080 Vehicles Not To Drop Material On Streets. 7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance. 7.40.100 Open Storage Of Junk. 7.40.110 Attractive Nuisances. 7.40.120 Scattering Rubbish. 7.40.125 Graffiti. ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE 7.40.130 Prohibition On Excessive Noises. 7.40.140 Sound Measurement. 7.40.150 Definitions. 7.40.160 Noise Limits. 7.40.170 Prohibited Noises. 7.40.180 Exceptions. 7.40.190 Maximum Limit For Certain Activities. 7.40.200 Evidence. ARTICLE VI. VIOLATION--PENALTY 7.40.210 Penalty For Chapter Violations. Chapter 9.06 TREES ON CITY PROPERTY. Sections: 9.06.010 Purpose. 9.06.020 Definitions. 9.06.030 Tree Planting on City property. 9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance on City property. 9.06.050 Tree Protection. 9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City property. 9.06.070 Tree Removal and Replanting. 9.06.080 Enforcement. -31- Code Amendments ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY. 7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation. A. The term "noxious vegetation" does not include vegetation that constitutes an agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation within the meaning of Subsection B of this section. B. The term "noxious vegetation" includes: 1. Weeds more than ten inches high; 2. Grass more than ten inches high and not within the exception stated in Subsection A of this section; 3. Poison oak,poison ivy, or similar vegetation; 4. Vegetation that is likely to cause fire; 5. Blackberry bushes that extend into a public thoroughfare or across a property line; 6. Vegetation that is a health hazard; 7. Vegetation that is a health hazard because it impairs the view of a public thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare hazardous. C. No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious vegetation to be on the property or in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from becoming unsightly or, in the case of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(1)), 1986). 7.40.060 Trees. A. Definitions As used in this section and in the Tivard Urban Forestry Manual: 1. "Certified Tree Risk Assessor" is an individual certified by the Pacific Northwest Chanter of the International Society of Arboriculture to conduct tree risk assessments. 2. "Hazard Tree" means any tree or tree part that has been or could be determined by an independent certified tree risk assessor to constitute a high level hazard requiring hazard tree abatement with an overall minimum risk rating;of 9 using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (October 13,2010) -32- 3. "Hazard Tree Abatement" means the process of reducing or eliminating a hazard to an overall risk rating of less than 9 using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Societe of Arboriculture through prunin , tree removaL or other means in a manner that complies with all applicable rules and regulations. 4. "Hazard Tree Owner or Responsible Party" means the property owner or responsible paM with the largest p�gze of a hazard tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses. In cases where the hazard tree consists of a branch instead of an entire tree, the hazard tree owner or responsible party is the person who owns or is responsible for the VropeM from where the branch originates. 5. "Person" means an individual, corporation, lZovernmental agencyofficial advisory committee of the City, business trust, estate, trust. partnership, association, or two or more people having a joint or common interest or any other entity. A-.B No owner or responsible party shall permit tree branches or bushes on the property to extend into a public street or public sidewalk in a manner which interferes with street or sidewalk traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or responsible party to keep all tree branches or bushes on the premises which adjoin the public street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than 13 ten feet above the street. C. Hazard trees are prohibited within the Citv of Tigard. N-e Any hazard tree owner or responsible party shall be required to complete hazard tree abatement. that is in danger of&1ling-er-ethe-vWise eenstitutes a hazard te, the publie or to per-sons or property on or near the proper . (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(a) and (b)), 1986). D. Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure: Any person (claimantl that believes in good faith there is a hazard tree on a proper (respondent, may seek resolution through the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure specified in the Tigard Urban Forestry M E. Emergency Abatement Procedure: If the Cite has reason to believe a hazard tree poses an immediate danger and there is not enough time to complete the above hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure. the Citv may choose to take emergency remedial action as outlined in Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code. -33- Code Amendments 7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance. A. The owner or responsible party shall be responsible for the maintenance of the property, subject to an easement to the City or to the public for greenway purposes. Except as otherwise provided by this section and Sections 7.40.050 through 7.40.120, the standards for maintenance shall be as follows: 1. The land shall remain in its natural topographic condition. No private structures, culverts, excavations or fills shall be constructed within the easement area unless authorized by the City Engineer based on a finding of need in order to protect the property or the public health, safety or welfare. 2. No tree ever fi-ve feet in height shall be removed unless atithofized by the Planning Direeter based on a finding that th- 1--ates a fittfsan-ce of a hazard. 32. Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceeding ten inches, except when some natural condition prevents cutting. B. In situations where the approval authority establishes different standards or additional standards, the standards shall be in writing and shall be recorded. No person shall be found in violation of this section of the code unless the person has been given actual or constructive notice of the standards prior to the time the violation occurred. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(3)), 1986). URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (October 13,2010) -34- Chapter 9.06 TREES ON CITY PROPERTY. Sections: 9.06.010 Purpose. 9.06.020 Definitions. 9.06.030 Tree Planting on City property. 9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance on City property. 9.06.050 Tree Protection. 9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City property. 9.06.070 Tree Removal and Replanting. 9.06.080 Enforcement. 9.06.010 Purpose. (1) Value of Trees. The City of Tigard recognizes that trees are vital components of the urban forest environment. Trees reduce air, water, soil and noise pollution, provide energy- reducing shade, control erosion, supply oxygen to breathe, provide habitat for wildlife, enhance quality of life and property values in every community, and are sources of pride for the entire city. (2) Purposes. (A) To provide guidance for the planting, maintenance and protection of trees on City property; and (B) To provide a priority system for removal of hazardous trees from City property; (C) To ensure the protection of trees during the development of properties on City property. (3) Authority to Adopt a Tree Manual. The City Council may adopt by resolution a Tree Manual implementing the provisions of this Chapter and providing detailed standards for tree planting, maintenance,protection and removal on City property. 9.06.020 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this chapter: (1) City Forester. Under the direction of the Public Works Director is responsible for planning, developing and implementing a comprehensive urban forestry program, and providing community education and advice in support of urban forestry activities. (2) City Property. "City property" includes all land owned by the City and all lands dedicated to the public and administered by the City, including but not limited to City right of way and City parks. (3) City-owned Property. City property other than the right of way. (4) Hazardous Tree. A tree which by reason of disease, inf�statien, age or other Condition pfesents a 1r-4q—fz)A1qn qa-nd ik;-�-m—e—diate hazard to persons or to public or private property. -35- Code Amendments (5) Mitigation. Methods of tree replacement, direct costs, and/or retention used to lessen the environmental impact of development. (6) Removal. The cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk, or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. (7) Street Tree. Any tree that is growing along a street within the public right of way. (8) Street Tree List. A list of approved tree species that may be planted within the public right of way. (9) Tree. A standing woody plant having a trunk(s) two inches or more in diameter when measured four and a half feet from the ground. If the tree is on a slope, the measure is taken on the uphill side. (10) Tree Manual. The manual governing tree planting, care, maintenance and removal adopted by the City by resolution pursuant to section 9.06.010. 9.06.030 Tree Planting (1) Tree Planting: (A) No person other than the City shall plant a tree on City property without the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. In approving tree plantings, the Public Works Director or designee may impose conditions of approval; (B) Any City department responsible for City property shall consult with the Public Works Director or designee before planting trees on City property; (C) The Public Works Director or designee may grant approval of tree-planting on City property under subsection a of this section only if the applicant has submitted a tree plan showing compliance with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual, and has signed a maintenance agreement consistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The requirement for a maintenance agreement may be waived if the tree-planting is voluntary and not required by any City code provision or condition of approval; (D) All tree plantings on City property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with the approval of the Public Works Director or designee and the standards set forth in the Tree Manual; (E) Only trees listed in the Street Tree List or those specifically approved by the Public Works Director or designee may be planted as street trees. 9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance (1) General Provisions (A) All trees planted pursuant to the written approval of the Public Works Director or designee under Section 9.06.040 shall be cared for and maintained according to the standards set forth in the City Tree Care Manual. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (October 13,2010) -36- 9.06.050 Tree Protection (1) Care of Trees on City Property. The City shall follow the Tree Manual in caring for and protecting trees on City property. (2) These requirements shall provide for the proper protection of tree roots, trunk(s) (or stem(s)), branches, and foliage within a tree's critical root zone for any tree on City property during any type of construction activity or project (excavation, demolition or any other type of disturbance); 9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City Proper (1) Removal Prjerijy (A) When any person repofts to the Public Works Difeeter of des*ee that a tree oft City property is hazafdetts, the Public Works > of appointed designee, condition of the tree. The Public Works Director or designee shafl establish a removal prior-i among trees determined to be ha2ardous and the City sha]4 proeeed with removal of hazardous trees ftem City pfoperty according to the p6or-ity established by the Pubhe Works Difector 0 designee, subjeet to the a-vailability of financial and other resourees. (2) Removal of Hazardous Tre (A) The removal of hazardous trees from City property shall be perfefmed by City of Tigafd employees or contfacted commercial tree care eempai-iies with expe6enee removal. The Public 391ofits Difecter or design sh*U provide guidance as to the disposition 0 any wood or debris from any tree removal on City property. 9.06.070 Removal of Trees from City Property (1) Removal of Trees from City Property other than Right of Way Prohibited. No person other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City park or any City-owned property without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee.. Any person removing a tree from City property other than right of way shall provide mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual. (2) Removal of Trees from Right of Way. No person other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City right of way without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. As part of the written approval for tree removal from right of way, the Public Works Director or designee shall require mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual. (3) Removal of Wood or Tree Debris from CityProperty. No person shall remove wood or tree debris from City property without written approval of the Public Works Director or designee, provided however that the Public Works Director or designee may retroactively approve removal of wood or tree debris from City property if the removal was under emergency circumstances. This section does not prohibit clearing of paths or other clean-up that leaves wood or tree debris on City property. -37- Staff Response to September 8, 2010 CAC Comments on the Direction for the i Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree (Non-Development) Code CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Members agreed that approval criteria for removal of Approval criteria for the removal of street trees are proposed for section 9.06.060 street trees should be established. 9.06.060 and for median trees in 9.06.090. Referenced in both sections are the 9.06.090 City Manager process (clear and objective) and the City Board or Commission Tigard One member commented that it seems unfair to process (discretionary). The standards of approval from the City Manager Urban require property owners who planted trees before the process are detailed in the proposed Tigard Urban Forestry Manual Sections 4 Forestry Code's existence to be held by the standards of (Street Tree Removal Standards) and 7 (Median Tree Removal Standards). Manual approval criteria to remove those trees. Sections 2 and 5 of the proposed Tigard Urban Forestry Manual allow for"non- conforming" street trees planted prior to the adoption of the code. However, street trees planted prior to code are not proposed to be exempt from the maintenance and removal standards. Members agreed that all approval criteria in the survey All of the approval criteria in the survey have been incorporated into the 9.06.030 should be included. They had differing opinions on proposed code. Those approval criteria that are clear and objective have been Tigard "previously approved development criteria." incorporated into the City Manager process and those that are discretionary have Urban been incorporated into the City Board or Commission process. The criteria are Forestry detailed in the proposed Tigard Urban Forestry Manual Section 2-7. Manual Members agreed that if a request to remove a street The proposed code allows for a discretionary review through the City Board or 9.06.030 tree is denied, the applicant should have the Commission process either directly or by appeal. opportunity to appeal the decision and receive a discretionary review. Members did not come to consensus on whether Staff is proposing in Sections 2 and 5 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual that Tigard individuals should be given the option to pay a fee or the City Manager or designee be given the authority to offer an"in lieu of Urban replant a tree elsewhere if they do not want to replant planting fee" equivalent to the City's cost to plant and maintain a tree for 3 years Forestry a removed tree. after planting. This could allow people that are required to plant a street or Manual median tree, but want to preserve a view corridor or solar access,to opt out and have the City plant a street or median tree elsewhere. The proposed Sections 4 and 7 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual do not require replanting or an "in lieu of planting fee"if there is not a "conforming" street or median planting location on site. -38- Staff Response to September 8, 2010 CAC Comments on the Direction for the i Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree (Non-Development) Code CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Members agreed that it would be best for the City to Staff has worked with the City Attorney to seek alternatives that allow for local 9.06.020 seek alternative options that allow for more local control over ODOT or County right of way in Tigard. The City Attorney has control rather than simply adopting ODOT or County advised that ODOT and County standards supersede City standards. It is standards to street trees,though one member possible for other arrangements to be made with ODOT and the County expressed doubt in the feasibility of alternative regarding street trees through an Intergovernmental Agreement or other options. contract. However, that is not within the scope of this project,although the City is interested in pursuing this in the future. The proposed definitions of street and median trees are specific to trees under City jurisdiction to clarify that the fact that the City can not apply its standards to ODOT and County right of way. Members agreed that,when enforcing the street tree The proposed enforcement provisions in section 9.06.100 include both 9.06.100 code,it would be most appropriate to rely on discretionary enforcement and minimum penalties. The discretionary minimum penalties in addition to a discretionary enforcement standards in Chapter 1.16 are incorporated by reference. In process that seeks to achieve substantial compliance. addition,minimum penalties of not less than$250 per violation and not more Members agreed that it would be most appropriate to than the appraised value of an illegally removed tree have been added. make the minimum penalty a strict dollar amount. Members agreed that the City should not have the The City's practice has been to enforce violations against property owners, even 9.06.100 ability to enforce violations against anyone other than when the violation was not directly caused by the property owner. Language property owners. specifying that the City shall fine contractors, etc. has not been incorporated into the proposed code. -39- CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: HAZARD TREES (AUG 2010) STREET TREE-NON-DEVELOPMENT (SEPT 2010) USE OF CURRENT MITIGATION FUND (OCT 2010) DEVELOPMENT CODE I (NOV 2010) DEVELOPMENT CODE II (JAN 2011) NON-DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, BESIDES STREET TREES (FEB 2011) PRELIMINARY DRAFT October 13, 2010 -40- Acknowledgements Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen Council President Nick Wilson Councilor Gretchen Buehner Councilor Sydney Webb Councilor Marland Henderson Tigard Planning Commission Dave Walsh, President Jeremy Vermilyea,Vice President Tom Anderson Margaret Doherty Karen Ryan Timothy L. Gaschke Stuart Hasman Donald Schmidt,Alternate Richard Shavey,Alternate Citizen Advisory Committee Jason Rogers,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Scott Bernhard,DC,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Dave Walsh,Planning Commission Don Schmidt,Planning Commission Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Tony Tycer,Tree Board Ken Gertz, Portland Metropolitan Home Builders John Wyland,Developer Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers and Board Member of Oregon Community Trees Morgan E. Holen,ISA Certified Arborist John Frewing, Citizen at Large Technical Advisory Committee Susan Harnett,Assistant Community Development Director Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director Gus Duenas,Development Engineer Ted Kyle, City Engineer Steve Martin,Parks and Facilities Manager Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Todd Prager,Associate Planner&City Arborist Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst Albert Shields,Permit Coordinator Carla Staedter, Surface Water Quality Coordinator Mark Van Domelen,Building Official Vance Walker, Streets Supervisor Damon Reische, Clean Water Services Ron Kroop, ODOT District 2A Manager Mark Buffington, ODOT Region 1 Landscape Manager -41- Additional Tigard Staff Contributors (Not on Technical Advisory Committee) Craig Prosser, City Manager Ron Bunch, Community Development Director Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Cheryl Caines,Associate Planner& Code Editor Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner John Floyd,Associate Planner Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant -42- Table of Contents Background .........................................................................................................................1 ProjectSummary..................................................................................................................1 Development Code Amendments and Commentary..........................................................4 -43- BACKGROUND Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) in 2009 to help guide and inform an update of the City's tree and urban forestry related code provisions. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project implements four goals of the UFMP including: 1) Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790);2) Revise Tigard's landscaping code (Chapter 18.745); 3) Develop a tree grove protection program; and 4) Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. PROJECT SUMMARY The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will address the UFMP goals through a series of six thematic code packages including 1) Hazard Trees; 2) Street Trees-Non-Development; 3) Use of Current Mitigation Funds;4) Development Code I; 5) Development Code II; and 6) Non- Development Permits,Besides Street Trees. These packages will be developed sequentially by staff under Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee (TAC and CAC) review through June 2011. On consensus by the Advisory Committees, the proposed code amendments will be forwarded as a single package to the Planning Commission after review by a panel of development and urban forestry experts. Commission hearings will be scheduled for the second half of 2011 with City Council hearings and adoption by year's end. Street Trees (Non-Development) At their September 8,2010 meeting the CAC discussed the City's current practices regarding street tree permitting during non-development scenarios, and recommended revisions to the code to make it more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the UFMP. The CAC recommended a major shift away from the City's current practice that allows the removal of any street tree as long as a replacement tree is planted. The suggested code revisions include establishing clear and objective City Manager approval criteria for the planting and removal of street trees; establishing a discretionary process that allows for City Board or Commission review if the City Manager criteria for removal cannot be met; exploring the City's ability to have more local control over street tree permitting decisions in county and state right of way within Tigard, and; establishing minimum penalties in addition to discretionary compliance agreements for code violations by property owners. Among the items still being discussed by the CAC is whether to allow for a fee in lieu of planting if people simply don't want to plant. These CAC recommendations are proposed to be implemented through a series of code revisions to Title 9 (Parks) and Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property) as detailed on pages 4 through 19 of this document. The highlights of the revisions include establishing a clear and objective City Manager process and standards for the planting, maintenance,and removal of street trees and median trees. The City Manager standards are detailed in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which will act as a companion to the code. As recommended by the CAC,the revisions also include a process for discretionary review and approval by an appointed City Board or Commission when the City Manager criteria for street or median tree removal cannot be met. The code revisions also seek to clearly delegate authority for street and median trees; giving adjacent property owners responsibility for street trees and the City responsibility for median trees. However, the proposed amendments do grant the City ultimate authority over street trees to allow for continued protection of the right of way and improvements to the right of way. Finally,the proposed revisions establish minimum penalties for violations in addition to discretionary compliance procedures. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 1 -44- Code Amendments CODE AMENDMENTS How to Read This Section This section is organized by Development Code chapter number. Odd-numbered pages show the existing language with (proposed/recommended/adopted) amendments. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be added to the code is shown with double underlines. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be deleted is shown with s-tfilethf&dgh. (New chapters,where all the text is new, are not shown in double underlined text for ease of reading.) Even-numbered pages contain commentary on the amendments, which establish, in part, the legislative intent in adopting these amendments. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 3 -45- Commentary Title 9 Parks and Trees Title 9 is re-titled to reflect the proposed Street Trees (Non-Development) code revisions as well as the existing Heritage Trees (9.08) chapter. Chapter 9.06 Street and Median Trees an City Proper-ty The chapter title (9.06) is revised to reflect the new content and to omit the distinction made between trees on city property versus private property. Four new sections are added including General Provisions and Median Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Removal. Street tree sections are renamed and are symmetrical with the median tree sections including planting,maintenance, and removal. A distinction was made between street and median trees because they are defined differently,and authority for street and median trees are delegated differently. 9.06.010 Purpose. This section is simplified, omitting the statement of values which is otherwise contained in the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP.Authority to adopt a tree manual (renamed the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) is being investigated and has been omitted for the time being until the City determines the best location to state the authority. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 4 -46- Code Amendments TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Title 9 PARKS AND TREES Chapters: 9.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.06 STREET AND MEDIAN TREES ON Gr-ry PROPE ry 9.08 HERITAGE TREES Chapter 9.06 STREET AND MEDIAN TREES ON CITY PROPnh v Sections: 9.06.010 Purpose. 9.06.020 Definitions. 9.06.030 General Provisions. 9.06.0-340 Street Tree Planting an City pfopefty. 9.06.0450 Street Tree Care an Maintenance en Cit_pr-epeAy. n 06 050 Tree Pr-eteetie-R, 9.06.0-760 Street Tree Removal. and Replantifit. 9.06.070 Median Tree Planting. 9.06.080 Median Tree Maintenance. 9.06.090 Median Tree Removal. 9.06.0801-WEnforcement.. 9.06.010 Purpose. shade,(1) Valtie of Trees. The City of Tigafd reeegnizes that trees are -,,4A eempefients of the ur f4est efivir-ofifnefit. Trees feduee air,water-, soil and laoise pollution,provide energy redueing property values in ev—, ,�.yy and are setifees of pride far-the entire efitr. esus (A) To provide guidanee faf the plan nee and proteetion of trees on Gi p'r (G URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 5 -47- Commentary 9.06.010 Purpose. This section is simplified, omitting the statement of values which is otherwise contained in the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP. Authority to adopt a tree manual (renamed the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) is being investigated and has been omitted for the time being until the City determines the best location to state the authority. 9.06.020 Definitions. Proposed code amendments for this section include deleting definitions for: City Forester, City Property, City Owned Property,Hazardous Tree,Mitigation, Street Tree List,and Tree Manual. New definitions are proposed for: Caliper,Diameter at Breast Height (DBH),Median Tree, Person, and Tree Care Industry Standards. Definitions for Tree and Street Tree are revised. Definitions are also proposed to apply to the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual rather than create duplicate definitions in that document. The revisions to the definitions reflect a shift in the chapter from"Trees on City Property" to trees in the right of way (Street and Median Trees). The definitions seek to clearly define exactly what and where Street and Median trees are, and how to measure them. The definitions of Street and Median Trees include reference to right of way and easements under City jurisdiction to clarify that the standards of the Chapter do not apply to right of way and easements under County and State jurisdiction. Tree Care Industry Standards are defined using the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care operations. ANSI standards outline accepted practices for planting,pruning, and maintenance of trees. Staff recommends incorporating the ANSI standards by reference rather than trying to explain standards in detail in the code or Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 6 -48- Code Amendments (1) Purpose.The purpose of this Chapter is to provide standards and procedures for the planting=. maintenance, and removal of street and median trees in order to maximize their environmental_ aesthetic, social,and economic benefits. 9.06.020 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this chapter and in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual: Under-the difeetion of the Public Works Direeter is r-espensible for-planning, education and advieein support of urbffi forestry a (2) GittPropegy. "City proper-t34'itieludes FA laftd owned by the City and all lands dedieated to (3) City &w-ned Pr-eVeM. City property other than the r-i�t of way. (4) Hazardous Tree. A tree which by feason of disease,infestation, age or other condition presents (1) Caliper. The tree care industry standard for measuring the trunk diameter of nursery stock. Caliper is the average diameter of the trunk of a nursery tree measured six(6)inches above the ground for trunks less than or equal to an average of four(4)inches in diameter(when measured six (6)inches aboveground). When the trunk of a nursery tree is greater than an average of four (41 inches in diameter(when measured six (6)inches above ground),caliper is the average diameter at 12 inches above ground. (2) Diameter at Breast Height(DBH). The average diameter of the trunk of a tree measured 4 1f2 feet above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If the tree splits into multiple trunks above ground_but below 41/2 feet_the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the split. If the tree has excessive swelling at 4 1/2 feet_the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the swelling. If the tree splits into multiple trunks at or directly below ground,it shall be considered one tree and the DBH shall be the sum of the DBH of each trunk measured according to the above methods. (3) Median Tree.Any tree within the public right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction between opposing lanes of vehicular traffic. Trees in the centers of cul-de-sacs and roundabouts within the public right of way under Ci • of Ti and jurisdiction shall also be considered median trees. {fir}44�Removal. The cutting or removing of 50 percent(50%) or more of a crown,trunk,or root system of a tree,or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. {�}(5 Street Tree. Any tree equal to or greater than 1 1/2 inch caliper or DBH his within a ale-ng a street Within public right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction or easement for public access under City of Tigard jurisdiction, or any tree equal to or greater than 1 112 inch caliper or DBH outside of a public right of way or easement for public access that the City can demonstrate was planted or preserved as a street tree to meet the requirements for a GW permit or project. Median trees shall not be considered street trees. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 7 -49- Commentary 9.06.020 Definitions. Definition continued. 9.06.030 General Provisions. A new section is proposed to delineate property owners'responsibility for street trees and the City's responsibility for median trees and authority regarding street trees. City Manager clear and objective decision making procedures for street and median tree planting and removal are detailed, as well as the City Board or Commission's discretionary decision making procedures for the removal of street and median trees. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 8 -50- Code Amendments trees Tfee List. A list of appra-,,ed tree speeies that ffia-y be planted Within the ptthlie right E) (6) Person. An individual, corporation_governmental agency_,official advisory committee of the City,business trust, estate,trust.partnership, association, or two or more people havin a joint or common interest or any other legal entity. Tree. A woody perennial plant,usually having;one dominant trunk,the capacity to achieve a mature height greater than 16 feet. and primarily referred to as a tree in scientific literature. woody plant hav*a trufik(s) two inehes or more in diameter-when measur-ed four alld a half feet from the greund. if the tree is an a slape,the ffieetsur-e is taken on the upl-�N si (8) Tree Care Industry Standards. Generally pted industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute(ANSA A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. In addition.tree care industry standards shall include adherence to all applicable rules and regulations for the completion of any tree care operation. (10) Tree?v!ftfiuA The manual governila tree plaiatiiig eare,maifitenance and i!emoval adopted by 9.06.030 General Provisions. (1) Responsibility for Street Trees. It shall be the duty of owners of lots or portions of lots immediately abutting on, frontingon,adjacent to,or ownin the largest percentagey street tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses to maintain and remove street trees in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. No person,except as specified in section 9.06.030(31 of this Chapter, shall plant a street tree on any lot,or within the public right of way immediately abutting nn,fronting on,or adjacent lot without the responsible propertyowner's permission. 2) Responsibility for Median Trees. It shall be the duty of the City to plant,maintain.and remove median trees in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (3) City Authority Regarding Street Trees. The CiM may,at any time:exercise its authority over the public right of wabyplanting.maintaining.or removing any street tree or tree part within a public right of wav in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Any action taken by the City in accordance - with this subsection shall not abdicate property owners from their ongoing responsibility for street trees pursuant to section 9.06.030(1) of this Chapter. 4�tv Manger Decision Making Procedures: (A) City Manager Street Tree Planting,Street Tree Removal.Median Tree Planting and Median Tree Removal applications shall be made on forms provided by the Manager or designee. (B)City Manager Street Tree Planting.Street Tree Removal,Median Tree Planting and- Median ndMedian Tree Removal applications shall: i. Include the information requested on the application form; URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 9 -51- Commentary 9.06.030 General Provisions. General Provisions continued. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES (Non-Development) September 2010 Page 10 -52- Code Amendments Address relevant standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual in sufficient detail for review and actionL and iii. Be accompanied by the required fee. (C) The City lManager'sor designee's decision shall address all of the relevant standards in the Tieard Urban Forestry Manual.The City Manager or designee shall approve,approve with conditions_or deny the requested permit or action in writing based on the relevant standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. (D) The City Manager's or designee's decision shall be final and valid for a period of up to one year after issuance except in cases where: i. The applicant can demonstrate through a new application for Street Tree Removal that any one of the street tree removal standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual has been met. O City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures: (A) City Board or Commission Street Tree Removal.and City Board or Commission Median Tree Removal applications shall be made on forms provided by the City Manager or designee. a City Board or Commission Street Tree Removal and City Board or Commission Median Tree Removal applications shall: i Include the information requested on the application form: ii. Explain in sufficient detail for review and action why thedesignated City Board or Commission should use their discretion to approve the removal:and ui Be accompanied by the required fee. (C) The designated CityBoard or Commission shall be authorized to use their discretion when issuing their decision and include but not be limited to the following considerations: i— ii— ii ie iii. Quahty of trees ecies,condition_and location: iv. Contribution to the environment Contribution to the community;and vi. Aesthetics. (D) The designated City Board or Commission's decision shall be made in writing. X) The designated City Board or Commission's decision shall be final and valid for a period of up to one year after issuance except in cases where: i_ The applicant can demonstrate through a new application for Street Tree Removal that any one of the street tree removal standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual has been met:or u_ The applicant can demonstrate through a new application for Median Tree Removal that any one of the median tree removal standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual has been met. (E)Any applicant shall be prohibited from receiving a City Board or Commission review for the same tree for a period of up to one year after issuance. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 11 -53- Commentary 9.06.030Q40 Str t Tree Planting. This section provides a reference to the City Manager Decision Making Procedures for persons interested in planting street trees and deletes text referring to City property and Director authority. The City Manager Decision Making Procedures require approval based on the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which references Tree Care Industry Standards (for planting),requires selection of appropriate species,requires a balance between consistency with existing trees and species diversity,requires appropriate spacing standards, requires placement of street trees so as to minimize damage caused by roots and branches and to minimize traffic safety hazards. The Tigard Urban Forestry Manual also explicitly allows for"non-conforming" street trees that were planted prior to the adoption of the revisions. No City Board or Commission process for street tree planting is proposed due to safety and other concerns of allowing for modification of street tree placement standards. The proposed Street Tree Planting Standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual do allow the City Manager or designee to use their discretion to accept a fee in lieu of planting if a tree is otherwise required to be planted. The fee is proposed to cover the City's cost to plant and maintain a street tree for three years after planting. 9.06.940050 tr t Tree Gare ftfld Maintenance. This section is simplified and references the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The Tigard Urban Forestry Manual requires maintenance in accordance with Tree Care Industry Standards, requires branch clearance over streets and sidewalks in accordance with the City's Streets Division's input, and prohibits allowing street trees to become hazardous. 9.06.050 rccrrQtccarnz This section is proposed for deletion. The protection standards for street trees will be revisited later in the UFCR process when Development Code standards are discussed. This section is proposed to be deleted as redundant to Section 7.40.060; hazard trees on private property are proposed to be treated the same as on public property. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 12 -54- Code Amendments 9.06.838040 Street Tree Planting. (1) Street Tree Planting: (A) No person shall plant a street tree without prior written approval obtained through the City Manager Decision Makin Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(41. No per-saft other than the Gify shaR plant a tree on City property wit-hatit the written approval of the Publie Warks Direetar ar designee. ift appf-a-,4ng tree plantings,the Publie Warks Bir-eetar-E) (B) Any City depffr-tmeiit r-espeiisible f;Biz City pf-eper-fy shall eenstilf with the publie Wewks Direetor or designee befi5re planting trees on City property; eaffiphanee with the standards set fqrth ift the Tree Maftual,aftd has signed a ffiafiftteftafiee agfeeffieft eonsistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The requirement figr a maintenanee agreement ffiay be waived if the tree plaii6fig is 10961tintaimy and not required by any City ead- eanditien (9) All tree pla-ntings aft City proper-ty shaH be tinder-takeft ift a ffiftft,.-, ----tent with the approval of the Publie Works Direetef-or-designee and the standards set figrth ifi the Tree Alantiftk; (h) Oialy trees listed in the Street Tree List or-these speeifiea4y appr-e-,�ed by the ptthli-e War-ks Diveeter or designee may be planted as street trees. 9.06.848050 Street Tree C=ar-e an Maintenance. (1) C efi r l n.e_.:sign. Street Tree Maintenance (A) --the- ---Warks Dire—tar -- designee under-Seetion 9.06.040 shag be efffed fer ftfid ffiffiiitained aeeefdifig to the standftfds set fer-th in the City`f"..,,e Care Ad,. All street trees shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the street tree maintenance standards specified in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. 9.06.050 Tree Pfoteetien (1) Care of Trees on City Propert . The City shaR foHow the Tree Alanug in earing for and , eenstru- —y or projeet (exea-vation,demalition or any other"e of , 9.06.060 Reffioval ef 14a5!afdetts Trees fr-effi City Property (4) Reffie-eal (A)When afty person repefts to the Pubhe Wer-ks Dir-eeter-or designee that a tfee Off Q URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 13 -55- Commentary 9.06.0-70060 Street Tree Removal -ees from City Property.of Tr This section is renamed and refers to the City Manager and City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures in 9.06.030(4) and (5) and detailed in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The City Manager Standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual require street tree removal in accordance with Tree Care Industry Standards, and allow street tree removal only if a tree is hazardous (and the hazard cannot be abated by treatment), dead, dying,in a"non-conforming" location, the roots are causing damage,the tree needs to be removed for right of way improvement consistent with the Transportation Systems Plan, or the tree needs to be removed for the installation or repair of utilities. The removal standards also require replacement of street trees consistent with street tree planting standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures are available for Street Tree Removal and allows for an appointed body to use their discretion to approve or deny removal for any reason including solar access,views, species quality, and aesthetics. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 14 -56- Code Amendments of the tree. The Publie Works Direeter or designee shall establish a reffieval F, pr-eper-ty aeeording to the priority established by the Publie Warks Direeter E)r-designee, subjeet to the (A) The r-emoval of hazardous trees from City property shall be performed by Gity of Tig#fd tree refneval en City pfepefty. 9.06.978000 Street Tree Removal (1) Street Tree Removal (A) NQ person shall remove a street tree without prior written approval obtained either through the City Manager Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(4) or the City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(5). (B)Ifan emergency exists because a street tree presents such a clear and present danger to people,structures,infrastructure, or utilities that there is insufficient time to obtain a permit,any person may remove the subject street tree without first having obtained a permit. The person shall.within 14 calendar dans after having removed such street tree. submit a retroactive application for Street Tree Removal through the City Manager Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(4), Applicants are encouraged to take photographs of the subject street tree and obtain written documentation from a certified arborist prior to the removal. If the City Manager or designee determines that there was no emergency;he/she shall pursue enforcement action through section 9.06.100 of this Chapter. (1) Remova4 of Ti!ees from Gity Property other than Right of Wav-Prolgibited. No person othe than the City er-a persen aeting under-eentr-aet with the City sha]4 fefneve a tfee fi�effi any City park er per-son f�effi City pfeper-ty ether than right E)f way shall pr-Ew4de ffitaigati"eii as-speeified in the Tree Alaftual. (2) Reffieval ef Trees fr-E)ffi Right E)f Ww. NE)pefsee other-thaii the City of a per-seft aeting undef eeiitr-aet with alie Citysihal—I tree fr-effi aiiy City right ef way witheut written appr-e-,Fal ef the Public Works Direetor of designee.A,--T-1-.-A��L.- . , (3) Removal ef Weed er Tree Debris fr-E)ffi Gity Pr-ever-tt. NE)per-sen shall r-efnE)-,,e weed or-tree however that the Publie V��rks Direetor of designee tnay retroactively Vprove rernoval of wood or tree debris freffi City preperty if the reffieval was wider-effier-gen es. T-I-As seetion does fiet. pr-ehibit eleafifig of paths or-other elean up that leFvels $-*-Pe debris aii City pr-eperty. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 15 -57- Commentary 9.06.070 Median Tree Planting Similar to the Street Tree Planting Section,this new section provides a reference to the City Manager Decision Making Procedures for persons interested in planting median trees. The City Manager Decision Making Procedures require approval based on the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which references Tree Care Industry Standards (for planting), requires selection of appropriate species, requires a balance between consistency with existing trees and species diversity,requires appropriate spacing standards,requires placement of median trees so as to minimize damage caused by roots and branches and to minimize traffic safety hazards. The Tigard Urban Forestry Manual also explicitly allows for"non-conforming" median trees that were planted prior to the adoption of the revisions. No discretionary City Board or Commission process for median tree planting is proposed due to safety and other concerns of allowing for modification of median tree placement standards. The proposed Median Tree Planting Standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual do allow the City Manager or designee to use their discretion to accept a fee in lieu of planting if a tree is otherwise required to be planted. The fee is proposed to cover the City's cost to plant and maintain a median tree for three years after planting. 9.06.080 Median Tree Maintenance. Similar to the Street Tree Maintenance Section,this new section references the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The Tigard Urban Forestry Manual requires maintenance in accordance with Tree Care Industry Standards,requires branch clearance over streets and sidewalks in accordance with the City's Streets Division's input, and prohibits allowing median trees to become hazardous. 9.06.090 Median Tree Removal. Similar to the Street Tree Removal Section, this new section refers to the City Manager and City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures in 9.06.030(4) and (5) and detailed in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The City Manager Standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual require median tree removal in accordance with Tree Care Industry Standards, and allow median tree removal only if a tree is hazardous (and the hazard cannot be abated by treatment), dead, dying,in a "non-conforming" location, the roots are causing damage, the trees need to be removed for right of way improvement consistent with the Transportation Systems Plan, or the trees need to be removed for the installation or repair of utilities. The removal standards also require replacement of median trees consistent with median tree planting standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures are available for Median Tree Removal and allows for an appointed body to approve or deny removals for any reason including solar access,views, species quality,and aesthetics. 9.06.0801W Enforcement. This section replaces the authority of the Public Works Director with the City Manager or designee. The largely discretionary enforcement procedures in Chapter 1.16 are retained while the reference to the development code enforcement provisions (Section 18.230) is deleted in favor of a more explicit stop work order procedure.A minimum fine is imposed ($250) for illegal street or median tree removal consistent with the recommendation from the CAC. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 16 -58- Code Amendments 9.06.070 Median Tree Planting. (1) Median Tree Planting_ (A) No person shall plant a median tree without prior written approval obtained through the City Manager Decision Makin Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(41. 9.06.080 Median Tree Maintenance. (1) Median Tree Maintenance: (A) All median trees shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the median tree maintenance standards specified in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. 9.06.090 Median Tree Removal. (1) Median Tree Removal: (A) No person shall remove a median tree without prior written approval obtained either through the City Manager Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(4) or the City Board or Commission Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(5). (B) If an emergency exists because a median tree presents such a clear and present dangerto people,structures,infrastructure, or utilities that there is insufficient time to obtain a permit,any person may remove the subject median tree without first having obtained a permit. The person shall.within 14 calendar dusys afterhaving removed such median tree, submit a retroactive application for Median Tree Removal through the City Manager Decision Making Procedures detailed in section 9.06.030(4). Applicants are encouraged to take photographs of the subject median tree and obtain written~ documentation from a certified arborist prior to the removal. If the City Manager or designee determines that there was no emergency,he/she shall pursue enforcement action through section 9.06.100 of this Chapter. 9.06.080100 Enforcement. (1) The Pttblie Warks Dir-eete City Manager or designee may do any or all of the following if there is reason to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred: ; (BA) issue a -A'in f aetio ,.itat.... Pursue enforcement action pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 1.16; (B)When any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this Chapter.the City Manager or designee may order the work corrected or stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing such work to be done,and such persons shall forthwith make the necessary corrections or stop work until authorized by the City Manager or designee to proceed with the work:and (C) Take any other action allowed by law to abate or obtain compensation for the violation. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 17 -59- Commentary 9.06.080100 Enforcement. A minimum fine is imposed ($250) for illegal street or median tree removal consistent with the recommendation from the CAC. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 18 -60- Code Amendments L21 In addition to the enforcement provisions of section 9.06.100(1), any party found to be in violation of sections 9.06.060 (Street Tree Removall or 9.06.090 (Median Tree Removal this Chapter shall be required to remit payment into the Tigard Urban Forestry Fund within 30 calendar days of issuance of a notice of violation of not less than $250 per unlawfully removed tree and not more than the estimated value of any unlawfully removed tree as determined b certified arborist using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: STREET TREES(Non-Development) September 2010 Page 19 -61- Inside Back Cover -62- Outside Back Cover -63- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Preliminary Draft CONTENTS Section 1 - Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure Preliminary Draft September 1, 2010 Section 1,Attachment 1 - Tree Risk Assessment Form Preliminary Draft September 1, 2010 Section 2 - Street Tree Planting Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 2,Attachment 1 - Street Tree List Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 3 - Street Tree Maintenance Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 4 - Street Tree Removal Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 5 -Median Tree Planting Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 6 - Median Tree Maintenance Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 Section 7 -Median Tree Removal Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 2010 -64- Section 8—Nuisance Tree List Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 -65- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 1 - Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure Preliminary Draft September 1,2010 Part 1. Informal Reconciliation: If interpersonal communication is not feasible or is unsuccessful the claimant shall contact the respondent by concurrently sending a regular and certified letter that explains the reasUaLthey=== believe there is a hazard tree on the respondent's property, and offer to negotiate a solution that is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations either directly or through a third party mediator. The claimant is encouraged to support their claim with documentation by a certified tree risk assessor. The respondent shall have 7 calendar days or less from receipt of the certified letter or 14 calendar days or less from the postmarked date of the regular letter (whichever is sooner to respond to the claimant's proposal in writing by concurrent regular and certified mail. In order to become eligible for formal reconciliation, the claimant's letter shall cite Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060.0 and D_ explain the respondent's written response deadlines, and include all of the other required elements listed above. Part 2. Formal Reconciliation: If the results of informal reconciliation are not acceptable to the claimant or there has been no response for 21 calendar days or more since the claimant sent the concurrent regular and certified letters, the claimant may seek resolution through formal reconciliation by completing a hazard tree dispute resolution applies paving a deposit for all applicable hazard tree dispute resolution fees and providing the City all documentation of informal reconciliation including but not limited to any letters to and from the respondent, proof of certified mail delivery and proof of certified mail receipt if available). The City shall use all readily available tools and technologyv when assi2�mng the hazard tree owner or responsible party as defined in Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060. If the City determines that the claimant's previous correspondence was with the incorrect respondent. then the claimant shall be required to complete the previous steps of the hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure with the correct respondent before proceeding with formal reconciliation. If the claimant or respondent disagrees with the City's assignment of the hazard tree owner or responsible party City shypresented a land survey by professional land surveyor that demonstrates the location of the tree in question in relation to property lines within all listed deadlines in order for the City to consider a reassignment of the hazard tree owner or responsible party. Within 7 calendar days of receipt of all the required application materials. the Cita shall gain access to the respondent's property either voluntarily or with a warrant pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code_conduct a tree risk assessment by a certified tree risk assessor using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, determine if the definition of hazard tree in Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060 has been met and, if necessar,prescribe hazard tree abatement as defined in Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060. -66- If the City determines the definition of hazard tree has been met_ the Citv shall send a concurrent regular and certified letter to the respondent_ explain that the definition of hazard tree has been met explain the required hazard tree abatement procedures_ and require that hazard tree abatement be completed in 7 calendar days or less from receipt of the certified letter or 14 calendar daysys o from the mailing date of the regular letter (whichever is less). The City shall also bill the respondent for all applicable hazard tree dispute resolution fees_ and refund the claimant previously&posited hazard tree dispute resolution fees. If the respondent fails to complete the hazard tree abatement within the required timeframe_ the City shall gain access to the property either voluntarily or with a warrant: abate the hazard: bill the respondent for the cost of abatement including administrative costs_ or place alien on the property for the cost of abatement including administrative costs pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code. If the City determines the definition of hazard tree has not been met_ the City shall send a concurrent regular and certified letter to both the claimant and respondent explaining that the definition of hazard tree has not been met and close the case. The City of Tigard Ci�ger or designee is authou fed to adopt rules con.ri.rtent with this section, so as to enact a more C=brehensive reconciliation procedure. -67- City of Tigard a , , Tree Risk Assessment Form Hazard Rating: Probability + The Target + Size of = Overall Risk of Failure Area Defective Part Rating Recommended Hazard Tree Abatement Procedures (If overall risk rating is 9 or above): Property Address: Location: ❑ Public ❑ Private ❑ Right-of-way Protected Tree: ❑ Yes ❑ No Tree Species: Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): Tree Height: Crown Spread: Tree part subject of evaluation: Diameter of subject tree part: Distance to target of subject tree part: Length of subject tree part: Target: Occupancy of Target: ❑ Occasional Use ❑ Intermittent Use ❑ Frequent Use ❑ Constant Use Date of Evaluation: Certified Tree Risk Assessor: Certificate Number: ISA Number: Certified Tree Risk Assessor Signature: *Fill out this and supplemental rating form completely and attach:1)photos of the tree;2)an aerial photo showing the location of the tree on the subject property;and 3)a supplemental tree risk assessment report more fully describing whether the definition of hazard tree has been met and,if necessary,recommended hazard tree abatement procedures. -68- ProbabilityIN . .. • Low Defect is not likely to lead to imminent Minor branch or crown dieback,small wounds,minor defects. 1 point failure,and no further action is required. In many cases,defects might not be recorded. Moderate One or more defects areas well-established Several defects present. 2 points but typically do not lead to failure for several - Shell wall exceeds minimum requirement years. Corrective action might be useful to - Cracks initiated but no extensive decay prevent future problems but only if time and - Cavity opening or other stem damage less than 30%of circumference money are available. Not the highest priority - Crown damage or breakage less than 50%of canopy(30%in pines) for action,these are retain and monitor - Dead crown limbs with fine twigs attached and bark intact situations used to inform budget and work - Weak branch union such as major branch or codominant stem with included schedules for subsequent years. bark - Stem girdling roots with less than 40%of circumference compressed - Root damage or root decay affects less than 33%of roots within the critical zone - Standing dead tree that is recently dead(still has fine twigs)and no other significant defects Moderately One or more defects areas well-established, Areas of decay that may be expanding;trees that have developed a recent but not High but not yet deemed to be a high priority issue. yet critical lean;cracks noted but may be stable;edge trees that may adapt and 3 points Additional testing may be required or,the become more stable. assessor may feel the problems are not serious enough to warrant immediate action, but do warrant placing the tree on a list of trees to be inspected more regularly. These are Retain and Monitor trees. High The defect is serious and imminent failure is One or more major defects present. 4 points likely and corrective action is required - Insufficient shell wall thickness immediately. These cases require treatment - Large cracks,possibly associated with other defects within the next few days or weeks. - Cavity opening greater than 30%of circumference - Crown damage or breakage more than 50%of canopy(>30%in pines) - Dead crown limbs with no fine twigs and bark peeling away. May be some saprophytic fungal evidence - Weak branch union has crack(s)or decay - Stem girdling root affects 40%or more of trunk circumference - More than 33%of roots are damaged within the critical zone - Tree is leaning. Recent root breakage,or soil mounding,or cracks, or extensive decay evident - Standing dead tree,has very few fine twigs,and no other significant defects Extreme The tree or component part is already failing. Multiple high or extreme risk defects present. 5 points An emergency situation where treatment is - Shell wall is already cracked and failing required today. - Major cracks already open,such as hazard beams or split trunks - More than 30%of circumference defective and cracks or decay obvious - Dead crown limbs,no fine twigs,no bark,decay present - Weak branch union has crack(s)and decay - Leaning tree with recent root failure,soil mounding,and cracks or extensive decay - Dead branches hung up or partly failed - Visual obstruction of traffic signs/lights at intersections - Any partly failed component or whole tree - Standing dead trees that have been dead for more than one season with multiple defects such as cracks,decay,damaged roots,shedding bark -69- The Target Area(1-4 points) • Low Sites rated at one point are very rarely used for any long period of time,and people passing through the area(regardless of how 1 point i they travel)do not spend a lot of time within the striking range of the tree. There are no valuable buildings or other facilities within striking range. Examples are seldom used back country roads or trails,seldom used overflow or long-term parking, industrial areas where workers drive machines(trucks,forklifts,tractors)with substantial cab protection;natural or wilderness areas;transition areas with limited access;remote areas of yards,parks,or private lands open for public use within set hours. All of these sites have relatively low occupancy within any one day. Moderate Valuable buildings are at the edge off the striking distance,so they would not be seriously damaged even if the tree did fall down. 2 points The site has people within striking range occasionally,meaning less than 50%of the time span in any one day,week,or month,and do not stay within striking range very long. Examples include areas that are used seasonally;more remote areas of camping areas or parks;minor rural roads;picnic areas;low to moderate use trails;most park and school playgrounds.** Moderate to low use parks,parking lots with daily use;secondary roads and intersections,dispersed camping sites,moderate to high use trails,works and/or storage yards. Moderately The site has valuable buildings within striking range. People are within striking range more than 50%of the time span in any one High day,week,or month,and their exposure time can be more than just passing by. Examples include secondary roads,trails,and 3 points access points;less commonly used parking areas and trails within parks;trails alongside fairways,bus stops. High The highest rated targets have a)a building within striking range frequently accessed by people,often for longer periods of time,or 4 points high volumes of people coming and going within striking range. Valuable buildings or other structures within striking range that would suffer major structural damage in the event of tree failure or;b)people within striking distance of the tree,or both,seven days a week,all year long,and at all times of the day. Examples include main roads,the busiest streets or highways;high volume intersections power lines;*paths through busy open space areas and parks;short-term parking constantly in use;institutional buildings such as police stations,hospitals,fire stations;shopping areas;highly used walking trails;pick up and drop off points for commuters;golf tees and greens;emergency access routes and/or marshalling areas;handicap access areas;high use camping areas, visitor centers or shelters;residential buildings;industrial areas where workers take outside breaks;development sites where work activity within strikin range lasts more than a few hours at a time. *There are very specific safe work practices required when working close to Power Lines. These vary depending on location,but all employ similar principles. **It is recognized that there is a tendency to rate playgrounds higher simply because children are involved. Most playgrounds are occupied for short periods of time in daylight hours. Overall,their use is infrequent when compared to other locations such as busy streets. points)Size of Defective Part(1-3 I point Branches or stems up to 10 centimeters(4 inches)in diameter 2 points Branches or stems between 10 to 50 centimeters(4 to 20 inches)in diameter. 3 points Branches or stems greater than 50 centimeters(20 inches)in diameter. *In some cases,there may be large areas of sloughing back bark,dwarf mistletoe brooms,branch stubs,or large bird nests in cavities that pose a risk. The assessor must use his or her judgment to assign a number to these components. In general,the lowest rating(1 point)is reserved for component parts that would not create much impact on a person or property if it were to fail. The highest rating is used for parts that have the potential to kill people or seriously damage property. -70- Overall . . Action Thresholds • Risk Rating I Risk Category ^ Interpretation and Implications 3 Low 1 Tnsignificant—no concern at all. 4 Low 2 Insignificant—very minor issues. 5Low 3 Insignificant—minor issues not of concern for many years yet 6 Moderate 1 Some issues but nothing that is likely to cause any problems for another 10 years or more. 7 Moderate 2 defined issues—retain and monitor. Not expected to be a problem for at least another 5-10 :1: rU:s. 8 Moderate 3 Well defined issues—retain and monitor. Not expected to be a problem for at least another 1-5 years. 9 High 1 The assessed issues have now become very clear. The tree can still reasonably be retained as it is not likely to fall apart right away,but it must now be monitored annually. At this stage,it may be reasonable for the risk manager/owner to hold public education sessions to inform people of the issues and prepare them for the reality that part or the entire tree has to be removed. 10 High 2 The assessed issues have now become very clear. The probability of failure is now getting serious,or the target rating and/or site context have changed such that mitigation measures should now be on a schedule with a clearly defined timeline for action. There may still be time to inform the public of the work being planned,but there is not enough time to protracted discussion about whether or not there are alternative options available. 11 High 3 The tree,or a part of it has reached a stage where it could fail at any time. Action to mitigate the risk is required within weeks rather than months. By this stage there is not time to hold public meetings to discuss the issue. Risk reduction is a clearly defined issue and although the owner may wish to inform the public of the planned work,he/she should get on with it to avoid clearly foreseeable liabilities. 12 Extreme This tree,or part of it,is in the process of failing. Immediate action is required. All other,less significant tree work should be suspended,and roads or work areas should be closed off,until the risk issues have been mitigated. This might be as simple as removing the critical part,drastically reducing overall tree height,or taking the tree down and cordoning off the area until final clean up,or complete removal can be accomplished. The immediate action required is to ensure that the clearly identified risk of harm is eliminated. For areas hit by severe storms,where many extreme risk trees can occur, drastic pruning and/or partial tree removals,followed by barriers to contain traffic,would be an acceptable first stage of risk reduction. There is no time to inform people or worry about public concerns. Clearly defined safety issues preclude further discussion. The Table shown above outlines the interpretation and implications of the risk ratings and associated risk categories. This table is provided to inform the reader about these risk categories so that they can better understand any risk abatement recommendations made in the risk assessment report. Notes: -71- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 2- Street Tree Planting Standards Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 Part 1. Street Tree Planting Standards: a. Street trees shall be planted in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. b. Street trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 1/2 inches at the time of plantin& c. Street tree species shall be from the Street Tree List,unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. d. Street tree species shall be appropriate for the planting environment as determined by the City Manager o�gnee and seek to achieve a balance of the following i. Consistency with previously pproved street tree plans given space constraints for roots and branches at maturity: ii. Compatibility with space constraints for roots and branches at maturity;and iii. Providing adequate species diversity citywide and reasonable resistance to pests and diseases; and iv. Consideration of the objectives of the current street tree planting proposal. e. Street trees shall be provided adequate spacing from new and existing trees according the following standards wherever possible: i. Street trees categorized as small stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet on center and not closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted street trees or an ev xisting tree that has been in the ground for over 3 eV ars. ii. Street trees categorized as medium stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet on center and not closer than 20 feet on center from other newly planted street trees or any existingtrete has been in the ground for over 3 years. iii. Street trees categorized as large stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet on center and not closer than 30 feet on center from other newly planted street trees or any existing tree that has been in the ground for over 3 eVars. iv. Any tree determined by the Manager or designee to have a mature spread of less than 20 feet shall be considered a small stature tree, and spaced according when used as a street tree. f. Street trees shall be placed according to the followingstd i. Street trees categorized as small stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two (21 feet from any hard surface paving ii. Street trees categorized as medium stature on the street tree list or by the Citv Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than o-and-a-half(2 1/2) feet from any hard surface paving iii. Street trees categorized as large stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than three (31 feet from any hard surface paving -72- iv. Not closer than four (41 feet on center from any fire hydrant, utility box. or utility ole• V. Not closer than two (2) feet on center from an uv�derground utility: vi. Not closer than 10 feet on center from a street light standards: vii. Not closer than 20 feet from a street right of way corner (see diagrams as determined by the City Manager o�gnee. The City Manager or designee may require a greater or lesser corner setback based on an analysis of traffic and pedestrian safety impacts: viii. Where there are overhead utility lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a rune which,at full maturity,will not interfere with the lines:and ix. Any other standards found by the City Manager or designee to be relevant in order to protect public safety and public or private property. g. Root barriers shall be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications when a street tree is planted within five (51 feet of any hard surface pavinaor utility box: or as otherwise required by the City Engineer. h. Street trees planted prior to the adoption of the most current version of the Street Tree Planting Standards shall be exempt from the most current version of the Street Tree Planting Standards. However, the most current version of the Street Tree Maintenance Standards and the most current version of the Street Tree Removal Standards shall apply. i. If street tree planting is required by another section of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or Tigard Municipal Code_ the City Manager or designee allow for an "in lieu of planting fee" equivalent to the City's cost to plant a street tree per the standards in this Section and maintain a street tree per the standards in Section 3 for a period of three (3)years after planting. Payment of an in lieu of planting fee shall satisfy the street tree planting requirement. The CgardCity Manager or desnee is authorized to adopt rules consistent avith this section. -73- Large Stature Trees(over 40'in height at maturity) Common Name Scientific Name Height(feet) Spread(feet) Soil Type Suitable for Under Powerlines Special Features/Consideration Red Maple Acer rubrum 50' 35' any No many large stature varieties available Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 45' 35' any No tolerant of urban stresses,deep rooted European Beech Fagus sylvatica 50' 40' well drained No beautiful bark White Ash Fraxinus americana 60' 45' any No plant seedless varieties Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 50' 30' any No native to Portland metropolitan region Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 50' 40' any No plant seedless varieties Maidenhair Tree Ginkgo biloba 60' 45' any No many large stature varieties available,plant males only Honevlocust Gleditsia triacanthos var.inermis 45' 35' any No thornless,tolerant of urban stresses Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus 65' 50' any No fragrant flowers Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 60' 30' any No beautiful fall color Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 70' 60' any No broadleaf evergreen,large fragrant white flowers Blackqum Nyssa sylvatica 45' 25' any No beautiful fall color London Planetree Platanus x acerifolia'Bloodgood' 50' 40' any No disease resistant,pollution tolerant Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris 50' 40' any No evergreen conifer,striking orange bark Oregon White Oak Quercus garryana 65' 50' any No native to Portland metropolitan region Willow Oak Quercus phellos 60' 45' any No tolerant of urban stresses Red Oak Quercus rubra 60' 45' any No beautiful fall color American Linden Die americana 60' 30' any No tolerant of urban stresses Sterling Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa'Sterling Silver 45' 30' any No dark green leaves with silver undersides Zelkova Zelkova serrata 65' 50' any No attractive shade tree -74- Medium Stature Trees(between 25'and 40'in height at maturity) Common Name Scientific Name Height(feet) Spread(feet) Soil Type Suitable for Under Powerlines Special Features/Consideration Hedge Maple Acer campestre 35' 30' all No tolerant of urban stresses Sunset Maple Acer truncatum x Acer platanoides 35' 25' all No many varieties available Strawberry Tree Arbutus'Marina' 30' 30' all No broadleaf evergreen European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus 35' 25' all No dense crown Katsura Cercidiphyllum japonicum 40' 40' all No requires moist soils Yellowwood Cladrastis kentuckia 35' 35' all No fragrant,white,pendulous flowers June Snow Dogwood Comus controversa 'June Snow' 30' 35' well drained No wide spreading,flowers in May/June Pacific Dogwood Cornus nuttallii 40' 30' loam No native to Portland metropolitan region,requires moist soil and some shade Dove Tree Davidia involucrata 35' 30' well drained No dove-like flowers Raywood Ash Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywood' 35' 30' all No smog tolerant Goldenrain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata 35' 35' all No tolerant of urban stresses Yulan Magnolia Magnolia denudata 35' 30' all No white,fragrant flowers Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora'Edith Bogue' 35' 20' all No broadleaf evergreen,many other varieties available Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum 30' 20' well drained No white,midsummer flowers American Hoohornbeam Ostrya virginiana 35' 25' all No exfoliating bark texture is attractive Persian Parrotia Parrotia persica 35' 25' well drained No beautiful bark and fall color Amur Corktree Phellodendron amurense 40' 30' all No fragrant leaves and fruit Gallery Pear Pyrus ca/leryana 40' 25' all No many varieties available Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 35' 25' all No native to Portland metropolitan region Frontier Elm Ulmus'Frontier 40' 30' all No pest and disease resistant,substitute for American Elm -75- Small Stature Trees(up to 25'in height at maturity) Common Name Scientific Name Height(feet) Spread(feet) Soil Type Suitable for Under Powerlines Special Features/Considerations Paperbark Maple Acergriseum 25 25 all Yes* peeling bark,tolerates some shade Tatarian Maple Acer tataricum 20 20 all Yes tolerant of urban stresses Trident Maple Acerbuergeranum 25 20 all Yes tolerant of urban stresses Serviceberry Amelanchier x grandiflora 25 15 well drained Yes white flowers,edible fruit Western Serviceberry Amelanchieralnifolia 20 20 loam Yes native to Portland metropolitan region American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana 25 20 all No needs ample water Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 25 25 all Yes pink flowers in spring before leaves emerge Glorvblower Tree Clerodendrum trichotomum 20 20 all Yes colorful flowers in summer,blue berries in fall Kousa Dogwood Cornus,kousa 25 25 all Yes shade tolerant Flowering Dogwood Cornus,florida 25 25 all Yes large number of varieties available Lavalle Hawthorne Crataegus x lavallei 25 20 all Yes white flowers in May,orange-red fruit persist into Winter Black Hawthorne Crataegus douglasii 20 20 all Yes native to Portland metropolitan region,has thorns Golden Desert Ash Fraxinus excelsior'Golden Desert' 20 20 all Yes golden twigs Flowering Ash Fraxinus ornus 25 25 all Yes fragrant flowers Merrill Magnolia Magnolia x loebneri'Merrill' 25 25 all No fragrant white flowers Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora'Victoria'or'Little Gem' 25 25 all No broadleaf evergreen,large fragrant white flowers Prariefire Crabapple Malus spp. 'Prariefire' 20 20 all Yes disease resistant Japanese Stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia 25 25 loam No needs ample water Japanese Snowbell Stryax japonicus 25 25 well drained Yes white flowers hang down from branches Japanese Tree Lilac Syringe reticulata 20 15 well drained Yes showy,creamy white flowers *These trees have been approved by Portland General Electric(PGE) for planting beneath overhead powerlines -76- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 3 - Street Tree Maintenance Standards Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 Part 1. Street Tree Maintenance Standards: a. Street trees shall be maintained in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. b. Street trees shall be maintained in a manner that does not impede public street or sidewalk traffic consistent with the specifications in section 7.40.060B of the Tigard Municipal Code in lu i. EiQ;ht(8) feet of clearance above public sidewalks: ii. 13 feet of clearance above public local and neighborhood streets: iii. 15 feet of clearance above public collector streets:-"n iv. 18 feet of clearance above public arterial streets. c. Street trees shall be maintained so as not to become hazard trees as defined in section 7.40.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The Citv of Tigard Citv Manager or designee is authori bed to adobt rules consistent with this section. -77- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 4 - Street Tree Removal Standards Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 Part 1. Street Tree Removal Standards: a. Street trees shall be removed in a manner consistent with tree care industg standards. b. The City Manager or designee shall approve the removal of a street tree if any one of the following criteria are met: i. The tree is a "hazard tree" as defined in Chapter 7.40 and "hazard tree abatement" as defined in Chapter 7.40 cannot be completed in a manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards: ii. The tree is dead: iii. The tree is in an advanced state of decline with insufficient live foliage, branches. roots, or other tissue to sustain life: iv. The tree is infested with pests or diseases that if left untreated will cause the tree to e, enter an advanced state of decline, or cause other trees to die or enter an advanced state of decline; V. The tree has sustained physical damage that will cause the tree to die or enter an advanced state of decline. If the physical damage was caused by person in violation of Chapter 9.06 or the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, the enforcement process outlined in section 9.06.100 shall be completed prior to approval. vi. The tree is listed on the Tigard Nuisance Tree List: vii. The tree location is such that it would not meet all of the street tree planting standards in Section 2, Parts 1e and 1f of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual if it were a newt planted tree. viii. The tree roots are causing damage to paved surfaces, infrastructure, utilities, buildings, or other parts of the built environment. ix. The tree location conflicts with areas of public street widening, constructionor extension as shown in the Transportation System Plan. X. There is no practicable alternative to tree removal for the purposes of development utility or infrastructure installation, or utility or infrastructure repair. c. The City Manager or designee shall condition the removal of a street tree upon the planting of a replacement tree in accordance with the Street Tree Planting Standards in Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. d. If the Street Tree Planting Standards in Section 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestu Manual preclude replanting within the same riVht of way abutting on, fronting on, or adjacent to the property as the tree was removed or on private property within six (6) of feet of the same rivht of way as the tree that was removed, the applicant shall be exempt from planting a replacement tree. The Ci tv of Tigard City Manager or designee is authon zed to adobt rules consistent avith this section. -78- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 5 -Median Tree Planting Standards Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 Part 1. Median Tree Planting Standards: a. Median trees shall be planted in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. b. Median trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 '/2 inches at the time of planting c. Median tree species shall be from the Street Tree List,unless otherwise approved the Citv Manager or designee. d. Median tree species shall be appropriate for the planting environment as determined=by City Manager or designee and seek to achieve a balance of the following i. Consistencypreviously approved median tree plans given space constraints for roots and branches at maturity: ii. Compatibility with space constraints for roots and branches at maturity: iii. Providing adequate species diversi , citywide and reasonable resistance to pests and diseases; and iv. Consideration of the objectives of the current median tree planting propos e. Median trees shall be provided adequate spacing from new and existing trees accordingthe following standards wherever possible: i. Median trees categorized as small stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet on center and not closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted median trees or any existing tree that has been in the ground for over 3 e u. Median trees categorized as medium stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet on center and not closer than 20 feet on center from other newly planted median trees or an evesting tree that has been in the ground for over 3 e iii. Median trees categorized as large stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet on center and not closer than 30 feet on center from other newly planted median trees or any existing tree that has been in the ground for over 3 ,years iv. Any tree determined by the Manager or designee to have a mature spread of less than 20 feet shall be considered a small stature tree, and spaced accordingly when used as a median tree. f. Median trees shall be placed according to the following standards: i. Median trees categorized as small stature on the street tree list or by the Citv Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two 2) feet from any hard surface paving; ii. Median trees categorized as medium stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two-and-a-half(2 Y2) feet from any hard surface paving iii. Median trees categorized as large stature on the street tree list or by the City Manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than two (3) feet from any hard surface paving -79- iv. Not closer than four (41 feet on center from any fire hydrant, utility box_ or utility ole• V. Not closer than two (2) feet on center from an uv�derground utility: vi. Not closer than 10 feet on center from a street light standards: vii. Not closer than 20 feet from a street righty corner (see diagram belowl as determined by the City Manager o�gnee. The City Manager or designee may require a greater or lesser corner setback based on an analysis of traffic and pedestrian safety impacts: viii. Where there are overhead utility lines_ the median tree species selected shall be of a tune which_at full maturity,will not interfere with the lines:and ix. Any other standards found by the City Manager or designee to be relevant in order to protect public safety and public or private property. g. Root barriers shall be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications when a street tree is planted within five (51 feet of any hard surface pavingor utiEZ:box_ or as otherwise required by the Cits�Engineer. h. Median trees planted prior to the adoption of the most current version of the Median Tree Planting Standards shall be exempt from the most current version of the Median Tree Planting Standards. However_ the most current version of the Median Tree Maintenance Standards and the most current version of the Median Tree Removal Standards shall aLply. i. If median tree planting is required by another section of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual or Tigard Municipal Code_ the City Manager o�gnee mav allow for an "in lieu of planting fee" equivalent to the City's cost to plant a median tree per the standards in this Section and maintain a median tree per the standards in Section 6 for a period of three (31 years after planting. Payment of an in lieu of planting fee shall satisfy the median tree planting requirement. The CgardCity Manager or desnee is authorised to adopt rules consistent avith this section. -80- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 6-Median Tree Maintenance Standards Preliminary Draft October 13,2010 Part 1. Median Tree Maintenance Standards: a. Median trees shall be maintained in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. b. Median trees shall be maintained in a manner that does not impede public street or sidewalk traffic consistent with the specifications in section 7.40.060B of the Tigard Municipal Code in lu : i. EiQ;ht(8) feet of clearance above public sidewalks: ii. 13 feet of clearance above public local and neighborhood streets: iii. 15 feet of clearance above public collector streets:-"n iv. 18 feet of clearance above public arterial streets. c. Median trees shall be maintained so as not to become hazard trees as defined in section 7.40.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The Citv of Tigard Citv Manager or designee is authori bed to adobt rules consistent with this section. -81- TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL Section 7 -Median Tree Removal Standards Preliminary Draft October 13, 0010 Part 1. Median Tree Removal Standards: a. Median trees shall be removed in a manner consistent with tree care indust y standards. b. The City Manager or designee shall approve the removal of a median tree if any one of the following criteria are met: i. The tree is a "hazard tree" as defined in Chapter 7.40 and "hazard tree abatement" as defined in Chapter 7.40 cannot be completed in a manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards: ii. The tree is dead: iii. The tree is in an advanced state of decline with insufficient live foliage, branches. roots, or other tissue to sustain life: iv. The tree is infested with pests or diseases that if left untreated will cause the tree to e, enter an advanced state of decline, or cause other trees to die or enter an advanced state of decline; V. The tree has sustained physical damage that will cause the tree to die or enter an advanced state of decline. If the physical damage was caused by person in violation of Chapter 9.06 or the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, the enforcement process outlined in section 9.06.100 shall be completed prior to approval. vi. The tree is listed on the Tigard Nuisance Tree List: vii. The tree location is such that it would not meet all of the median tree planting standards in Section 5, Parts 1e and 1f of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual if it were a newt planted tree. viii. The tree roots are causing damage to paved surfaces, infrastructure, utilities, buildings, or other parts of the built environment. ix. The tree location conflicts with areas of public street widening, constructionor extension as shown in the Transportation System Plan. X. There is no practicable alternative to tree removal for the purposes of development utility or infrastructure installation, or utility or infrastructure repair. c. The City Manager or designee shall condition the removal of a median tree upon the planting of a replacement tree within the same median as the tree was removed in accordance with the Median Tree Planting Standards in Section 5 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. d. If the Median Tree Planting Standards in Section 5 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual preclude replanting within the same median as the tree was removed, the applicant shall be exempt from planting a replacement tree. The City of Tigard City Manager or designee is authori bed to adopt rules consistent with this section. -82- Nuisance Tree List Common Name Scientific Name Photos Photos Photos Norway maple Acer latanoides leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Sycamore maple Acer seudo latanus leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima leaf detail fruit detail flower detail European white birch Betula pendula leaf detail fruit detail flower detail English hawthorn Cratae us monogyna leaf detail fruit detail flower detail English holly Ilex a uifolium leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa leaf detail fruit detail flower detail White poplar Po ulus alba leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Sweet cherry Prunus avium leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Euro can mountain ash Sorbus aucu aria leaf detail fruit detail flower detail Siberian elm Ulmus pumila, leaf detail fruit detail flower detail -83- City of Tigard all Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Use of Existing Tree Mitigation Funds, Background and Options Date: September, 27 2010 Introduction The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be providing staff with input on the topic of"use of existing tree mitigation funds" at their October 13, 2010 meeting. This memo is intended to provide the CAC with background on the topic, commentary on CAC priority issues related to the topic, and discussion items for potential options for this portion of the UFCR project. The table below summarizes the code topic, relates it to CAC priority issues and Urban Forestry Master Plan goals,and lists the main code sections that will likely be impacted by the revisions. Code Topic CAC Priority Issues Urban Forestry Primary Tigard Code Sections Master Plan Goals Use of Existing -Tree Code (clear standards) 1.1, 1.2,2.2,3.2, 5.1, Council Resolution- Tree Mitigation -Review Mitigation 6.4 Exactly how the City should use existing Funds -Conservation Easements Paid for tree mitigation funds is not currently through Mitigation codified. Clarification on how the City -Canopy Enhancement(private should use existing tree mitigation funds mitigation) will likely require a Council Resolution. Background Section 18.790.0303 of the Development Code requires tree replacement proportional to the percentage and size of trees removed during development. The City currently requires developers to pay a tree mitigation cash assurance fee based on the combined diameter inches of trees removed as a condition of development approval. Cash assurance is required to help ensure the City will receive funds to plant trees if the developer's trees are not planted or do not survive a specified period of time. Trees that are successfully planted by a developer allow for a portion of the cash assurance fee to be credited back to the developer in a proportional amount to the number of caliper inches planted. If a developer does not plant replacement trees or they do not survive a specified period of time, the City will deposit the cash assurance into the tree replacement (mitigation) fund that the City uses to cover its cost of planting trees. -84- The tree mitigation fee is authorized by Section 18.790.060.E of the Code which states: E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. For the past seven years, the City has estimated its cost to plant trees at $125/caliper inch. Therefore, the fee set by the City for cash assurance and tree mitigation during development is $125/caliper inch. The current amount of funds in the tree mitigation fund is approximately $1.1 million. The tree mitigation fund is available for the City to use to plant trees. The current amount in the tree mitigation cash assurance account is approximately $300,000. The tree mitigation cash assurance account is not available for City use because if developers plant trees per their conditions of development approval, they will receive refunds from this account. The City actively monitors the tree mitigation cash assurance account to determine when funds should be transferred to the tree mitigation fund for City use. Although it is not current City practice to allow developers to bond for tree mitigation, there is approximately $1 million in outstanding bonds for tree mitigation from when the City did allow bonding. The City actively monitors tree mitigation bonds to determine when funds should be collected and deposited into the tree mitigation fund. The City uses tree mitigation funds to plant trees through the "Tree Canopy Replacement Program"which is part of the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The City budgets between $75,000 and $150,000 annually for the Tree Canopy Replacement Program. Projects are focused on planting trees on public properties such as schools, parks, and along streets such as Pacific Highway and through the annual free street tree program. A recent review of Tree Canopy Replacement Program projects by the Tree Board (March 8, 2010 meeting) showed the City's average cost to plant trees is approximately $136/caliper inch. Excluded from the cost estimate is design, permitting,inventorying, maintenance, and City staff time. Design, permitting,inventory, and maintenance typically add about 20% to each project. City staff time dedicated to managing the Tree Canopy Replacement Program is equivalent to about .15 FTE. The City also currently budgets over$100,000 per year to restore forests (remove invasive plants and replace them with native trees, shrubs, and other plants) within the City's stream corridors. Funding for this work comes from a $1 surcharge on utility bills and covers site preparation, planting, and five years of maintenance. In addition,Tigard voters will be considering a bond measure for $17 million to acquire parks and natural areas in November. Over the past year the Tree Board has been discussing the prospect of expanding the use of existing tree mitigation funds into areas such as tree planting/forest restoration and maintenance on private property, preserving tree groves through property and/or easement acquisition, and increasing urban forestry education and outreach. On June 14, 2010 the Tree Board reached consensus on a proposal to fully utilize existing tree mitigation funds on the following items: • Planting/Restoration (both on public and private property) 50% • Preservation (through property and easement acquisitions) 32% • Maintenance (includes long term maintenance for trees and forests) 08% • Education/Outreach 05% -85- • Planning (for future Master Plan, Code, or Manual items) 05% The Tree Board is also considering working with the City in 2011 to develop a detailed funding proposal for Tigard's urban forestry program which they are proposing should be sustainable and draw from multiple sources in addition to the existing tree mitigation fund. This is consistent with the goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Preliminary discussions with the City Attorney and Finance department indicate that Council action, likely by Resolution, would ultimately be required to use existing tree mitigation funds for items other than planting trees. Developing a proposal on how to utilize current tree mitigation funds is within the scope of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project. Please keep in mind that the CAC will be discussing if and how the City should collect and use mitigation funds in the future as part of the upcoming topics. The objective for now is to clarify how existing tree mitigation funds should be utilized. Overview of CAC Priority Issues/Outcomes Related to Use of Existing Mitigation Funds Tree Code (clear standards)-Although this portion of the project will not likely result in changes to the code, it is intended to develop clear standards for the use of existing tree mitigation funds. Review Mitigation-This portion of the project is intended to review the use of existing tree mitigation funds. If and how mitigation is used in the future will be reviewed and clarified as the CAC and staff work through the remaining sets of revisions. Conservation Easements Paid for through Mitigation -This option is on the table with regard to existing tree mitigation funds. Canopy Enhancement (private mitigations-There is nothing currently precluding the City from planting trees on private property in addition to public property and rights of way. The option of using existing mitigation funds for private forest restoration projects, purchasing or acquiring forest easements, funding tree and forest maintenance on private property, conducting public education/outreach, urban forest planning, and other activities are all on the table. Discussion Items Staff would like the CAC to provide guidance on the following options for consideration when developing the "use of existing tree mitigation funds"language: 1. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals: a) expand the use of existing mitigation funds into areas such as forest restoration, tree grove preservation,long term maintenance, education and outreach,planning,and other urban forestry related programs;or b) continue current practice of using existing tree mitigation funds only for planting and maintaining trees during early establishment. -86- 2. If the City expands the use of existing mitigation funds, what types of uses would help implement the City's urban forestry goals (select all that apply and rank): a) planting and early establishment of individual trees on public property such as parks and schools; b) planting and early establishment of individual trees in rights of way (street trees); c) planting and early establishment of individual trees on private property; d) forest/tree grove restoration (includes removal of invasive plants and planting of native trees, shrubs, and other plants) on public property; e) forest/tree grove restoration (includes removal of invasive plants and planting of native trees, shrubs, and other plants) on private property; � preservation through purchase of forests/tree groves on private property; g) preservation through acquisition of forests/tree grove easements on private property; h) long term maintenance of public trees; i) long term maintenance of right of way trees (street trees); j) long term maintenance of private property trees; k) long term maintenance of public forests/tree groves; 1) long term maintenance of private forests/tree groves; m) urban forestry education and outreach; n) planning (for future items that could be incorporated into the Urban Forestry Master Plan, Code or Urban Forestry Manual such as tree inventories, inventorying and protecting additional tree groves, or developing a streetscape master plan for Pacific Highway);and o) other (explain). 3. The above list could be categorized into the topic areas identified by the Tree Board in June of this year. (i.e. Planting and Restoration(a-e), Preservation(f and g), Maintenance(h-1), Education/Outreach(m), and Planning(n)). If the City expands the use of existing mitigation funds, what percentages do you think should be dedicated to each activity in order to help implement the City's urban forestry goals (assign a percentage to each item and make sure the total is 1W/o): a) Planting and Restoration; b) Preservation; c) Maintenance; d) Education/Outreach; e) Planning; and f} other (explain). 4. When drafting a Resolution or other instrument to clarify the use of existing tree mitigation funds which of the following would best help implement the City's urban forestry goals: a) high level of specificity on dedicating funds to urban forestry program components (limit flexibility on how funds can be used to ensure they are used for specific purposes in specific amounts); b) moderate level of specificity on dedicating funds to urban forestry program components (try to balance being specific about what funds can be used for and being able to take advantage of opportunities that may arise in a given year); c) low level of specificity on dedicating funds to urban forestry program components (focus on opportunities that may arise in a given year rather than how much is dedicated to each component); or d) other (explain). -87- 5. Other issues for group discussion (explain). -88- Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Use of Existing Tree Mitigation Funds 2004-Current Current Annual In Lieu-of-Planting Fees from Tree Tree Replacement Fund Balance Capital Improvement Program Mitigation Requirements in Development Code $1.1 Million $150,000/year 2008 Urban Forest Section, Comprehensive Plan 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan 2010 Tree Board Review and Funding Discussions Inform... 2010-2011 Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project Should the City Continue to Use the Tree Replacement Fund for Planting or Expand its Use for Preservation, Restoration, Maintenance, Outreach,Etc.? -89- City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC — Meeting Summary MEETING DATE: September 21,2010, 3:00-4:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Public Works Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present—Susan Hartnett (Assistant Community Development Director),Brian Rager (Assistant Public Works Director), Gus Duenas (Development Engineer),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist), Gary Pagenstecher (Associate Planner),Ted Kyle (City Engineer), Steve Martin (Parks and Facilities Manager), Greg Stout (Grounds and Open Space Coordinator),Mark Buffington (ODOT Region 1 Landscape Manager),Mark VanDomelen (Building Official) Visitors Present—Loreen Mills (Assistant to the City Manager/Risk Management) 1. Call to Order/Review and Approve August 17,2010 Meeting Summary Gary Pagenstecher called the meeting to order and asked the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) if there were any changes needed to the August 17,2010 meeting summary. No changes were requested, so the meeting summary was approved by the TAC. 2. Update on Hazard Tree Code Revisions Gary Pagenstecher then noted the revisions to the preliminary draft Hazard Tree Code summarized on pages 6 and 7 of the meeting packet. He said the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) reviewed the preliminary draft Hazard Tree Code as well, and staff will be further clarifying some of the code provisions for them at their October meeting. 3. Presentation and Discussion of Street Tree Code Revisions Gary Pagenstecher then walked the TAC through the documents for the second set of Urban Forestry Code Revisions related to the issue of Street Trees during Non-Development on pages 16 through 70 of the meeting packet. He first explained the background documents for the topic and noted the survey results from the CAC which informed the preliminary draft code revisions. A question came up about the City's jurisdiction in ODOT right of way. Gus Duenas said the standard has been that sidewalk issues are differed to the City, street tree planting is controlled by ODOT and is negotiable,and road width issues are controlled by ODOT and are non-negotiable. Mark Buffington said ODOT reviews each street tree planting on a case-by-case basis and ODOT usually respects local tree codes. Gary Pagenstecher moved through the preliminary draft Street Tree Code beginning on page 27 of the meeting packet and took questions as they arose. The following changes were discussed by the TAC: Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary— September 21, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of3 -90- • The Definitions section (9.06.030) should be placed before the General Provisions section (9.06.020) as is standard for most code sections. • The General Provisions section (9.06.020), there should be alternative language to "Clear and Objective Decision Making Procedures" and "Discretionary Decision Making Procedures". These terms are land use terms,and not appropriate for the Municipal Code. • In Section 4 (Street Tree Removal Standards) and Section 7 (Median Tree Removal Standards) in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual,it should be clarified that criteria "b.v."is referring to physical damage that was not caused by illegal activities. • There should be a heading in section 9.06.020 for the Discretionary Decision Making procedures and revisions to the lettering. • The definition of"Median Tree"in 9.06.030 should be clarified to include trees in roundabouts. • The definition of"Street Tree"in 9.06.030 should include trees in "easements for public access",and the exclusion of median trees should be a separate sentence. • The City's Risk Manager said that the requirement for adjacent property to maintain right of way has been upheld in case law. There was some discussion of whether the City should raise the safety and energy aspects of street trees above the aesthetic issues within the code text or within the findings. There was not clear consensus on this issue. • The TAC agreed that the "Designee" for enforcing the code should be within the Community Development Department since that is where the function currently resides. • In Section 2 (Street Tree Planting Standards) and Section 5 (Median Tree Planting Standards) of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual,the setback from the intersection should be revised to no closer than"20 feet from a street intersection or as.specified by the City Engineer". There may be cases where a tree could be planted closer or further away based on the nature of the intersection. • The definition of setback from an intersection should be revised in consultation with the City Engineer and a drawing should be added to the manual to explain the setback. • In Section 2 (Street Tree Planting Standards) and Section 5 (Median Tree Planting Standards) of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, the setback from underground utilities should be revised from 4 feet to 2 feet in order to allow more planting opportunities. • In Section 2 (Street Tree Planting Standards) and Section 5 (Median Tree Planting Standards) of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual,the root barrier requirement should be revised to allow the City Engineer to require installation of root barrier in additional circumstances. • The definition of"Person" should be added to section 9.06.030 if there is not already a definition in Title 1. The definition of"Person" should be expansive to include businesses,governments, etc. • Throughout the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, the setback requirements should specify that they mean "on center". • It was noted that eventually the language about street trees and hazard trees in the Code need to be tied to the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Staff will be working with the City Attorney to determine the best way to do this. • Throughout the documents,the word"Manger" should be replaced with "Manager". • Throughout the documents,the word"assignee" should be replaced with "designee". Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary— September 21, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of3 -91- • Throughout the documents,the word "days" should be clarified to "calendar days" so there will be less confusion about deadlines. 4. Overview of Use of Existing Tree Mitigation Fund Topic Gary Pagenstecher briefly reviewed the upcoming topic of"Use of Existing Tree Mitigation Funds", and asked if there were any initial questions or thoughts on the topic. The TAC had the following questions and comments: • The Tree Board's proposal looks good, but it should be clarified whether the funds are to be used for planting more than just trees. • The Home Builder's Association may be opposed to using funds for anything other than tree planting. • There were questions about how much land there is left to plant, and what the priority plantings should be. • It was explained that the Tree Board will be working on many of these issues in the future, the question now is whether existing funds should be able to be used for items other than planting trees. The TAC noted that there are discrepancies between the definition of street trees in Chapter 18.745 and 9.06 and that issue should be part of the upcoming discussions. The TAC also said that the upcoming code should specify that street tree maintenance should be in accordance with industry standards, and it should also clearly delineate between property owner responsibility and City responsibility. The TAC agreed that it would be good for the City to be responsible for all trees in medians,but continue to allow the City to partner with Homeowner's Associations. The TAC noted that the City should also seek to clarify with the City Attorney its options for administering the street tree program in County right of way such as Bull Mountain Road, Greenburg Road,and Scholls Ferry Road, in addition to ODOT right of way. 5. Scheduling, Closing Remarks, and Adjournment Susan Hartnett said the next meeting of the TAC would be October 19,2010 and that hard copies of the packet would be sent to all members in advance of the meeting. Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary— September 21, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 wwwxigard-or.gov I Page 3 of3 -92-