Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 11/10/2010 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
MEETING #5 - (11/10/2010)
Table of Contents
11/10/2010 Meeting Agenda.........................................................................................................................................2
CAC Meeting Summary(10/13/2010).......................................................................................................................3
Comments..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Log of Revisions by Staff to the Preliminary"Draft" Hazard Tree Code ..........................................................30
Staff Response to 10/13/2010 CAC Comments on Preliminary"Draft" Street Tree Code ..........................32
Log of Revisions by Staff to the Preliminary"Draft" Street Tree Code.............................................................35
Staff Response to 10/13/2010 CAC Comments on the Use of the Tree Replacement Fund ........................36
Summary of the Components of a Resolution Clarifying the Use of the Tree Replacement Fund ...............37
Urban Forestry Standards for Development,Background and Options Memo................................................42
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC — Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Library, Community Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223
MEETING GoALs: Review and recommend revised draft Street Tree Code
Review and discuss proposed use of the Tree Replacement Fund
Brainstorm options for Urban Forestry Standards for Development
1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6:30-6:40 PM
• Review Meeting packet materials
• Recap Meeting#4
• Approve Meeting#4 Summary
/Adrienne DeDona/
2. (Info) Public Comment 6:40-6:50 PM
3. (Info) Open House Report 6:50-6.•55 PM
/Marissa Daniels/
4. (Action) Revised Draft Street Tree Code 6:55-7.•15 PM
/ Gary Pagenstecher /
5. (Action) Proposed Use of the Tree Replacement Fund 7.•15-7.•35 PM
/Gary Pagenstecher/
BREAK
6. (Discussion) Urban Forestry Standards for Development Brainstorming 7:40-8:25 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: January 12, 2010
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— November 10, 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# 4
October 13, 2010
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance:
Don Schmidt, Planning Commission John Frewing, Citizen at-large
John Wyland, Developer Scot Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory
Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Committee
Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders Dave Walsh, Planning Commission
Tony Tycer,Tree Board
Committee members absent:
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
Brett Lieuallen,Tree Board
Consultant staff present:
Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement
Sylvia Ciborowski,JLA Public Involvement
Staff present:
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard
Todd Prager, City of Tigard
John Floyd, City of Tigard
Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard
Members of the public present:
None
Information requests from this meeting:
• None
Parking lot items:
• Discuss stand management of a large scale insect infestation in tree stands.
• Discuss issue of long-term maintenance of mitigation trees, what this should include and
who should pay for it.
• "To Do" list—improve definition of"noxious vegetation" to exclude vegetation in natural
areas so that vegetation in natural areas does not have to be maintained at 10" high.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Pagel
Meeting#4 Summary
-3-
Overview Summary
The following is an overview of the main comments made by members for the three topic sections
discussed at the October 13, 2010 CAC meeting.
Overview of comments on Revised Draft Hazard Tree Code:
• Many members felt that legal standing of the claimant needs to be spelled out in the Code,
such that only a person impacted by the hazard tree can bring a claim.
• Most members agreed that it does not seem fair to disenfranchise people from bringing
legitimate claims if they have standing but do not have the$500 to pay for the entry fee. A
couple of people suggested lowering the fee to cover only the real cost of assessment.
• One person suggested that the Code language should treat hazard trees on developed
property different from hazard trees on developable property.
• Committee members prefer that city and private property be treated equally when it comes
to hazard trees.
• One person was uncomfortable with the idea of reimbursing the fee to the claimant.
• One person suggested that the Code should state a preference for hazard tree correction over
removal if possible,especially when the tree is an amenity to the street or neighborhood such
as having a large canopy.
• One person suggested clarifying the language in Section 7.0.90:Greenway Maintenance.
Overview of comments on Draft Street Tree Code:
• Suggestion to include a maximum fine amount rather than linking it to the appraisal value of a
tree, and perhaps having a separate fee schedule for illegally removing a heritage tree.
• The title of the chapter includes "parks" but the content does not seem to deal with parks at
all.
• Suggestion to include language that the City assumes risk when it declines someone's
application for removal of a tree.
• ISA and ANSI standards need to be clear and easy to research by the public.The language
should indicate that the City will maintain copies of the standards at the office.
• In the case of poor workmanship of pruning trees,the contractor needs to be responsible.
• Suggestion that the City set a rate for tree assessments, such as$100 per investigation.
• One comment of concern about the definition of"tree."
Overview of comments on Mitigation Fund Options:
• Members agreed that the existing tree mitigation funds should be used only for planting and
maintaining trees, and that future collected funds could possibly be used for other uses.
Developers paid into the fund for a specific purpose, and that should not be changed.
• Overall, members agreed with the prioritization of funding in the charts presented by
Adrienne for future collected funds only.
• Members who commented on location of mitigation trees noted that it did not matter much
whether they were planted in private or public land.
• Members had varying opinions on how long a tree should be maintained by the City within
"mitigation" and at what point the burden of maintenance is a public or private burden.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2
Meeting#4 Summary
-4-
Introductions and Agenda Overview
Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda.
Meeting Packet
Adrienne reviewed the contents of the meeting packet. She also passed out copies of two additional
handouts—the Mitigation Fund Survey summary and Meeting Protocols.The packet includes most
emails received from CAC members, but the email Ken Gertz wrote in response to John Frewing's email
will be included in the next meeting packet.
She also noted that staff looked into the idea of creating a blog for CAC comments, but this would
require additional time and staff resources that are out of scope.
Recap of Meeting#3
Adrienne noted that at the September 8 meeting, members reviewed hazard tree code and brain-
stormed options for the street tree code.
Meeting Protocols
Adrienne reminded CAC members of the Meeting Protocols they approved in earlier meetings. She
noted that at the last meeting, members did talk over one another a bit. She reminded them that the
protocols direct members to share the air and let others speak once before speaking twice. Adrienne
encouraged members to raise their name tents when they want to speak,and that she might skip
around calling on people in order to give those who have said little a chance to speak.
Adrienne reviewed the community decision-making protocol, explaining that members agreed to try
their best to come to consensus, but if they don't,the majority and minority opinions will be recorded.
These will be shared with staff and City Council when it comes time to develop comprehensive Code.
John F. asked if minority points will be brought up in the final report as well as parking lot and other
issues. Adrienne replied that the final report will include other discussion topics in addition to
recommended code changes.
Approve Meeting summary
Adrienne asked members to provide any comments or revisions to the Meeting#3 summary. Morgan
noted that the word "public" should be omitted from the word "target" in her point on page 6 under
"Draft Hazard Tree Code."This change will be made.
Members approved the meeting summary with Morgan's revision.
Open House Update
Marissa Daniels passed around a summary of the Tree Grove Protection Program Open House that was
held on October 6.The open house had about 60-65 attendants,and many had questions about the
parks bond. More people who came had a tree grove on their property than people who did not.
Marissa explained that the summary includes a preliminary analysis of whether people do or do not
support the City's effort to protect tree groves. Marissa will provide a full report with all comments and
responses when it is available.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3
Meeting#4 Summary
-5-
Revised Draft Hazard Tree Code
Gary Pagenstecher reviewed the matrix of staff responses to CAC comments on the revised draft hazard
tree code (pages 24-25 of meeting packet). He also reviewed the log of housekeeping revisions by staff
on page 26. He noted that the Draft amendments to the Hazard Trees Code begin on page 27. CAC
members generally directed staff to more clearly define the terms "hazard tree" and "target," and to
use third party arborists.These elements were incorporated in the Code.
Members asked clarifying questions:
• John F. asked if the issue of maintaining grass at ten inches high could be put on a "To Do" list of
items to be considered outside of the Tree Code process. He suggested improving the definition
of"noxious vegetation"to exclude vegetation in natural areas.Todd Prager responded that it
makes sense to add this to a future "To Do" list.
• Tony Tycer gave the example of Mission Creek in the context of using the structure of the
existing code. He also stated that the legal standing of the claimant needs to be spelled out in the
Code.
o Gary responded that"structure of existing code" refers to the structure, headings and
formatting of the existing Code.
• Members discussed the issue of requiring standing of a person before he or she can bring a
claim.
o Todd explained that the current code applies to all property—public and private—and it
will continue to apply to all property. All definitions and protocols apply the same to
both city and private property.
o Tony stated that if the Code is expanded to include all properties,the Code must include
a definition of standing.
o Todd explained that the code currently outlaws hazard trees everywhere, but the
definition of"hazard tree" is not well defined.The intent of the revisions is to clearly
define "hazard tree." He noted that city staff considered how it could revise the code to
address the standing issue, but came up with four main reasons why it makes more
sense to keep the language expansive so that anyone can make a claim:
1. The $500 fee of entry should limit claims to only those people who really are
impacted.
2. Citizens should be allowed to bring claims on behalf of other neighbors who do
not want to jeopardize relationships with their landlords.
3. Making the standing determination will take lots of staff time—these will be
free evaluations before someone has even made a claim.
4. Just because someone makes a claim does not mean the City will automatically
enforce cutting the tree down.The claim must be valid.
■ Ken Gertz agreed with Tony that the person who brings the claim should be
directly impacted in order to bring a claim.The person should be attached to
the tree in some tangible fashion.
• Ken commented that the Code language should treat hazard trees on developed property
different from hazard trees on developable property. He warned that we should not roll this
hazard tree definition into the developable property context.
• Ken asked how bug infestations play in the definition of"hazard tree." He noted that in
development context,this is very important to the developer because of the long-term project
length.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4
Meeting#4 Summary
-6-
o Todd responded that the definition implicates hazards to people, not hazards to other
trees.
o Morgan Holen commented that a large scale insect infestation would be more of a
forest stand management issue, not an individual tree issue. It would not be a tree-by-
tree assessment, but identifying the broad level problem and coming up with a
management strategy to address it.This is an issue that should not be dealt with tree-
by-tree, but within a land management or resource enhancement project. When a
developer creates a tree plan,the arborist should recommend a course of action.
o Adrienne added that this issue will come up under a later topic and added it to the
parking lot list.
o Tony commented that the previous definition of"hazard tree" included "a tree which by
reason of defect, disease . . . presents a known and immediate hazard."That portion of
the definition been stricken. Keeping the "defect, disease" language would address
Ken's concerns.
• John Wyland asked how Chapter 9.06—"Trees on City Property" comes into play with private
property.Todd responded that it seems like committee members prefer that City and private
property be treated equally when it comes to hazard trees. So, it would be prohibited for the City
to retain hazard trees. In fact, City trees—and not private trees—are usually the topic of
complaint by most by citizens.
• Tony commented that it does not seem fair to disenfranchise people from bringing legitimate
claims if they have standing but do not have the$500 to pay for the entry fee.
• Ken asked if the$500 fee gets refunded later.
o Todd explained the claims process. First,the citizen must talk to the neighbor to show
that there has been an attempt to resolve the problem. If the neighbor does not
cooperate,the citizen can get the City involved and will need to pay a fee; City Council
sets the fee schedule. The City will assess the tree using a third party arborist. If the
arborist finds that the tree meets the definition of"hazard tree"then the fee is
refunded to the person who made the complaint and the hazard tree owner is required
to remove the tree and pay back the fee.
o Ken responded that the idea of paying for somebody to file a suit and then reimbursing
them for doing so seems punitive and does not seem fair. He expressed that he
wholeheartedly believes that a claimant must have standing—the person must be
directly affected in some way by the hazard tree, except that any citizen should be able
to bring a claim against City.
Round Robin Poll
Adrienne asked members to consider the Draft Hazard Tree Code language and to respond whether:
1) I'm okay as it stands;
2) I'm okay,still would like ; or
3) I'm not okay with it because
Members responded:
• Don Schmidt responded that he is okay with the language with the exception of requiring a
person to pay$500 to bring a claim.
• John W. responded that he is okay with the language with the exception of requiring a person to
pay$500 to bring a claim.
• Morgan responded that she is okay with the language as it stands. She would also be okay with
revising the language to include claimant standing.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5
Meeting#4 Summary
-7-
• Ken responded that he falls under#2. He is not comfortable with the reimbursement of fees, and
believes that a person must have standing to file a claim.
• Dave Walsh responded that he is also concerned about the$500 fee, and that the amount is too
high. He understands the need to have something in place to avoid the nuisance.The fee should
be imposed only to cover the cost of assessment. He asked what the cost is of an assessment.
Todd responded that it ranges between $250 and $500. Dave responded that the fee should be
on the lower end of that.
• Tony responded that he falls into#2.5. He commented that a claimant must have standing. If
someone is not a target, he or she should not be able to bring a claim.
• Scott Bernhard responded that he falls into#2.5 for the same reason as Tony.There will be
frivolous claims if the Code language does not limit standing. He also commented that the fee is
loaded. He does not want to have an expense waged on somebody who does not end up losing
the tree.
• John F. responded that he falls under#2. He made two suggestions:
0 1) Section 7.40,which applies to both private and public property, should state a
preference for hazard tree correction over removal if possible,especially when the tree is
an amenity to the street or neighborhood such as having a large canopy.
0 2) Staff should clarify the language in Section 7.0.90: Greenway Maintenance.The
following sentence is confusing: "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."John noted that Clean Water Services requires a buffer along
streams and there should be more detail and clarification in this section.
Draft Street Tree Code
Gary reviewed the matrix of staff responses to CAC comments on the draft Street Tree Code (pages 38-
39 of meeting packet). He also reviewed the main changes to the proposed code and CAC commentary
on these revisions(page 48-65).
CAC members asked clarifying questions:
• John F. asked how section 906 relates to the previous discussion. He noted that page 35 refers to
"trees on city property"yet page 49 strikes out the words "on city property."
o Todd responded that the new proposal supersedes the old one, except for the hazard
tree language in Chapter 7. He added that this discussion on Draft Street Tree Code is
primarily about Title 9 and pretty much strikes the entire title and makes it applicable to
private and public trees.
• Ken made a comment on Section 9.06.100 on enforcement and minimum penalties. He
expressed concern that while the$250 fee is fine,there is ambiguity in that the "appraised
value" is also attached to the fee calculation. Gary responded that the appraisal value is an upper
limit for a violation.
• John W. noted that the old definition for"city trees" included parks, but this version does not. He
asked where parks fall in into the hazard tree discussion.Todd responded that Title 7 prohibits
hazard trees anywhere in the city, on any property.
Adrienne led CAC members in an exercise. She passed out sheets of paper, and asked members to
individually answer 3 questions:
1) Does the Street Tree Code adequately reflect the CAC's input?
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6
Meeting#4 Summary
-8-
2) What is missing, if anything?
3) Is there anything new to add?
Members wrote down their answers, discussed their answers with the person sitting next to them,then
reported out to the group.
CAC Responses:
• John W. and Don reported that they feel the staff responses are adequate and that nothing is
missing and nothing needs to be added.
• Morgan and Ken had two suggestions:
1. The code indicates a minimum $250 fine as an enforcement penalty,or up to the
appraisal value.This is too ambiguous.Ten different arborists would give ten different
appraisal values.They suggested including a maximum fine amount, and perhaps having
a separate fee schedule for illegally removing a heritage tree.
2. The title of the chapter includes "parks" but the content does not seem to deal with
parks at all.
• Tony and Dave noted that staff should be aware the language extends the City's oversight of
trees in Sections 7 and 9.They made three suggestions for things to add:
1. The language should include assumption of risk by the City when the City declines
someone's application for removal of a tree.
2. ISA and ANSI standards need to be clear and easy to research by the public.
3. A contractor works at the behest of a property owner. In the case of poor workmanship
of pruning trees,the contractor needs to be responsible.
• Scott noted that there is such a variance in fees. He suggested that the City should offer a
contract to arborists that they could work at$100 per assessment for investigations.
• John F. made several comments:
o The Language should indicate that, "City will maintain a copy of the ISA and ANSI
standards at the permit desk."
o John expressed concern with the definition of"tree." He noted that it sounds like a
brand new definition, and that it should be revised. Previously,the tree definition
included 6"or 12" DBH. He suggested that City staff look at other jurisdictions to see
what their definition is. Todd responded that the definition for"tree" came from ISA
definition. City staff has looked to other jurisdictions, and definitions vary widely.
Mitigation Fund Options: Discussion of Survey Responses
Adrienne reminded members of the process that they will go through for each draft code section. For
each topic section, members will first take an online survey as a "brainstorming process."Then they will
discuss the topic at the CAC meeting. Staff will take feedback and create a first draft of code language.
At following meeting, CAC members will have an opportunity to comment on this first draft.Then staff
will revise one more time,and members will get a chance at a third meeting for another round of
discussion on a particular topic.
Adrienne noted that the goal today is to have a first discussion on mitigation fund options to give staff
some direction in creating the first draft of code language.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7
Meeting#4 Summary
-9-
Adrienne began a discussion of member responses to the online survey on mitigation fund options.
Survey Question#2: Expanded Use of Mitigation Funds
Question#2 asked whether the existing tree mitigation funds should be used only for planting and
maintaining trees, or whether funds should be expanded to cover other areas such as forest restoration,
tree grove preservation, long term maintenance, education and outreach, planning, and other urban
forestry related programs.
On the survey, seven people preferred to expand use of funds, while two people preferred to continue
the current practice of only use funds for planting and maintaining mitigation trees.
Members discussed the issue:
• Ken noted that the mitigation funds were paid by a small percentage of the developers for the
purpose of mitigating trees that were removed. Developers feel that the funds should be used
for their intended use only—otherwise it is a bait and switch situation.The HBA would support
reforestation if the City wanted to use general funds to do this, but it would not be equitable to
use the mitigation fund.
• Tony commented that the Tree Board's mission is to extend the urban forest canopy and to
protect canopy. It would be an inappropriate use of funds to fund activities that fall outside of
the mission.
• Morgan said that even though she responded differently on the survey, she now agrees that the
funds should be used for their stated purpose only. Future collected funds could be used in
different ways, but not past collected funds.
• Dave W. asked why the mitigation funds are not being spent.Todd answered that the money is
being spent, but the City budget is$150,000per year.The City began spending the funds just a
couple of years ago. Before that, the City tried to plant mitigation trees through volunteers, but
this was not very effective for large-scale plantings.The money was sitting and growing a while.
Now there is a part of Capital Improvement Program to plant trees, and it is being used at a rapid
rate.
Survey Question#3:Types of Uses for Mitigation Funds
Question#3 listed possible uses for existing mitigation funds and asked members to rank whether or not
funds should be used for such activities.
Adrienne presented a list of the types of uses that rose to the top as most important:
• Forest/tree grove restoration on public property
• Plant/establish street trees in right-of-way
• Plant/establish trees on public property
• Urban forestry education and outreach
• Long-term maintenance of right-of-way trees(street trees).
Adrienne also presented list of the types of uses that seemed somewhat important.
• Long-term maintenance of private property trees.
• Preservation through acquisition of tree grove easements on private property
• Long-term maintenance of public trees.
• Tree grove restoration on private property.
• Planning for future items.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 8
Meeting#4 Summary
-10-
• Planting and early establishment of individual trees on private property.
• Preservation through purchase of tree groves on private property.
Adrienne also presented two items that seemed unimportant.
• Long-term maintenance of private property trees.
• Long-term maintenance of private forests/tree groves.
She asked members if the last accurately lists those uses that should get priority for funding.
Members discussed:
• Tony stated that the funds should be used only for the purposes that they were collected—
mitigation.
• John F. commented that mitigation includes much more than just planting a small tree. If a
mitigation tree is planted on someone's private property, it should be in City's interest to see
that it is a tree that works. Whether that responsibility is on the person who cut the tree,the
property owner or the City—mitigation is important.Just throwing tree in ground and watering
for a year is not fulfilling"mitigation." He noted that it does not matter to him whether
mitigation happens on private or public land—but either way it should be true mitigation.There
should be long term maintenance of mitigation trees—whether on private, public land.
• Scott agreed with John F. and gave the example of supposed mitigation of the Lowe's property
on Fanno Creek. In the mitigation effort,trees were planted in the lagoon and almost all of the
trees died.There was no obligation to make sure that the trees would survive.
• Ken responded that the issue is whether we are going to garner existing mitigation funds for a
different purpose—not the minutia about how a tree is maintained. Funds should be used for
planting a mitigation tree,and when it comes to maintenance,that is a City benefit; it ceases to
become mitigation at that point. Maintenance is a public service and it should not be the burden
of a small segment of the population to pay for that. It should be everyone's responsibility to
maintain trees—not 25%of land developers.
• Morgan stated that she felt uncomfortable continuing the conversation after giving the opinion
that the mitigation fund should be used for its intended purpose. She added that the charts seem
to be accurate for future collected funds.A lot of long term maintenance can be accomplished
through education and outreach, and through grant opportunities.
• Don commented that in his view a mitigation tree can be planted wherever. He is interested in
the question of whether long-term maintenance of a mitigation tree is a public or private burden.
He asked why there does not seem to be a plan in place for how to use existing funds.
• John W. expressed that the funds should be used for their intended purpose of planting trees
only, or should be given back to developers if it will not be used. He added that maintaining the
trees for a few years would be a proper use of mitigation funds as well. Moving forward, he
thinks that the charts represent well how future collected funds should be used. He noted that
$1.1 million has been collected, and asked why the City can only spend $150,000 per year.
• Todd commented that the intent of this discussion was to talk about funds that have already
been collected. Moving forward, when we work on Development Code,we could write it in ways
that fund these different items. But it is not clear if everyone who took the survey understood
that we were talking about existing funds.
• Adrienne summarized that members seem to want existing funds to be used for planting only
and that future funds could be used for a variety of purposes.
• Dave added that he is generally supportive of expanded use for tree activities,though he
understands Ken's point that developers might not be supportive of expanded uses of the
existing funds. He asked about the legality of using funds for something else?
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 9
Meeting#4 Summary
-11-
o Todd responded that the City Attorney and Finance Department indicated that the fund
could be expanded for other uses legally.
• Dave stated that he was interested in discussing the mitigation process more broadly, and
answering questions of the purpose of mitigation, and whether the formula is equitable and
balanced. He heard from the HBA that they are not pleased with the current balance of the
formula.The Planning Commission wants this discussion to occur in order to determine a
balanced system, including a look at the whole mitigation process.
o Todd responded that the upcoming topic will be how mitigation is addressed in the
development process.
• Tony suggested that staff separate existing funds and future collected funds into Mitigation Fund
1.0 and Mitigation Fund 2.0. Both pools could be governed by separate rules.
Wrap Up and Next Steps
Adrienne summarized and noted that members provided lots of feedback on Hazard Tree Code that staff
can take into consideration and carry forward to City Council. Members will not revisit this topic until
the very end of the process when we look at the comprehensive code document.
Adrienne said that staff will consider committee feedback on the draft Street Tree Code and will present
a revised draft at the next committee meeting. For the Mitigation Fund topic, it seems that members
feel that the existing fund should only be used for mitigation purposes only, and that future collected
funds could be governed under a different approach. Staff will present a first draft on the use of existing
mitigation funds for the CAC's review and discussion at the next meeting.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 10. The next, new topic for discussion will be tree
plan requirements for development.
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#4 Summary
-12-
From: Todd Prager
To: "Amy Patton"; Darren Wyss
Cc: "adrienneCnbjla.us.com"; Marissa Daniels
Subject: RE: Tree Grove Comments
Date: Thursday,October 07,2010 8:29:00 AM
Thank you Amy,
I will share your comments with the Citizen Advisory Committee that is advising City staff on how
to revise the urban forestry code. Also, would you like me to sign you up for the interested parties
list so you can receive emails of urban forestry related meetings and materials?
Thanks,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: Amy Patton [mailto:kapatton@jeffnet.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Todd Prager; Darren Wyss
Subject: Tree Grove Comments
Hello Todd,
I spoke with Darren this morning and he suggested I send my comments to you. They are attached.
We own appx. 2 acres on 76th Avenue near Durham and chose not to sell to a developer who
promised to take down all the trees and build two rows of houses (as all our neighbors were doing
in the '90s). We did not develop because we felt the tree grove had value and contributed greatly
to the town. But, we also passed up quite a lot of money by not selling out on our values.
I appreciate that this process 1) seeks to preserve the valuable trees AND 2) seeks to be fair to
landowners who did not sell out at the expense of the beauty of the city.
How this process is handled may influence the speed at which trees get cut down for development
in other, outer communities who might see this coming down the pike to their towns soon. If
landowners see that the City of Tigard has found a way to make preserving trees beneficial or
equitable for them, we may have better land use planning and natural beauty preserved in our
neighboring communities.
Thank you
Amy
-13-
Tigard Tree Grove Protection Program Comments
Amy and Kent Patton, 9 Hillcrest St,Ashland OR
kapatton@jeffnet.org
October 6, 2010
Comments:
As owners of an old tree grove in Tigard, and as former and possibly future Tigard
residents,we are pleased to hear that the City of Tigard is valuing its few remaining
tree groves with protection considerations.
That said,we also appreciate that the City of Tigard is planning to find ways to
provide flexibility and incentives to landowners in order to protect these trees. In
our case, and probably in the case of many other Tigard tree grove owners,the trees
are still there only because the landowners decided not to sell their land to
developers whose mode of development was to cut all the trees and develop the
entire land space. The landowners have already passed up considerable earnings
by that decision and should not be further penalized by having more costs
associated with a less invasive development that preserves the grove.
I believe that meaningful incentives for landowners with tree groves would include:
-City assistance with tree surveys and identification of valuable trees in a grove.
-Differentiation between valuable large trees (sequoias, firs,walnut) and large trees
of low value (tree of heaven, non-producing orchard trees,trees planted in rows,
etc.)
-Flexibility and City assistance with city code (such as allowing skinnier streets,
clustered and/or reduced parking requirements,variations of utility trenching, etc)
to allow creative clustered housing or duplex condo options to preserve open space.
-Consideration of increased zoning in exchange for preservation of grove
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. I look forward to
receiving further information about this program.
-14-
From: Todd Prager
To: "John Frewina"
Cc: "adrienne(@i1a.us.com"; "Ken(d)Gertzco.corn"; "tonAree(o)easystreet.net"; "david.walsh(&spnewsprint.com"; G�
Pagenstecher
Subject: RE: Use of"Mitigation"funds
Date: Thursday,October 14,2010 8:45:00 AM
Thanks John,
We will include this in the next packet, and please bring up your concerns when we discuss the
language in the draft Resolution. However, the plan for now is to draft the Resolution based on the
group's consensus last night that past funds already collected should continue to be used for
planting trees.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: adrienne@jla.us.com; Ken@Gertzco.com; tonytree@easystreet.net; david.walsh@spnewsprint.com
Subject: Use of "Mitigation" funds
Todd,
I appreciate the fact that Adrienne makes a very strong effort to keep the discussion moving, but I
feel that sometimes our discussion is cut short and the full case for one position or another is not
heard by the group.
Last evening, in our discussion of the use of'mitigation funds'there was a difference of opinion as
to what the existing fund should/could be used for. On the one hand, Ken Gertz opined that it was
strictly limited to planting of trees. I disagreed, saying that caring for mitigation trees was included
in the charge which has long existed in the Tigard code.
My argument is based on the wording of the long existing code. Chapter 18.790 begins with a
statement of value of trees and its purpose is to "encourage the preservation, planting and
replacement of trees in the city." Another purpose is to "provide incentives for tree retention and
protection." Section 18.790.060 D is the place where mitigation funds are discussed; it is titled
'Guidelines for replacement'. I put this in quotes, because this section is not titled 'mitigation', but
'replacement'. If a big tree is removed, what the code calls for is 'replacement' of such a tree.
Subparagraph 3. of this section says clearly"if a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably
available . . . .', indicating that the goal is to actually replace whatever tree is cut with a same size
tree, if possible. Subparagraph 2. of this section reinforces this purpose, saying that the Director
may"allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value." Replacing a
big tree by planting small trees does not produce equivalent natural resource value until many
-15-
years later. Hence, any activity which produces 'replacement', and I mean replacement at the time
of tree removal, is within the scope of the existing words of the code.
Ken's statement that use of what are called mitigation funds for anything other than planting
would constitute a 'bait and switch tactic' is good TV type language, but is without basis. Where is
such a limitation written down, or what other basis would the Homebuilders Association have for
thinking that this is the limitation of use for'mitigation'funds? The long existing code allows any
actions by the city "in performing such tree replacement" (quote is from paragraph E of
18.790.060). You indicated that the City Attorney agrees with the concept allows for mitigation
work other than planting. Indeed, such actions must be related to tree replacement, so activities
such as education and training of the general public can legitimately be ruled out, but activities
such as monitoring, inventory, care, purchase of a tree grove or easement for a sustainable
group/grove of trees falls within the concept of'replacement'. Again, I am talking about
replacement of equivalent natural resource value now (ie the time of tree removal). I would agree
that the mitigation fee need not be so high as to care for a replacement tree forever, but it should
be high enough to care for a replacement tree (if it is not the same size as the tree removed) until
it reaches the size/age equivalent to a human 'adult'—in most cases this is at least ten years.
Please share this note with others on the CAC and develop language for the code which clearly
allows for 'replacement' of trees removed consistent with the Tigard existing code and
Comprehensive Plan. Thanks,
John Frewing
-16-
From: Ken Gertz
To: John Frewino
Cc: Todd Prager; adrienne(cbjla.us.com;tonAree(s easystreet.net; david.walsh(a)spnewsprint.com; Dave Nielson;
Ernie Platt
Subject: Re: Use of"Mitigation"funds
Date: Thursday,October 14,2010 11:08:51 AM
Thank you for your comments John. I will add my comments to yours
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
On 10/14/2010 7:00 AM, John Frewing wrote:
Todd,
I appreciate the fact that Adrienne makes a very strong effort to keep the discussion
moving, but I feel that sometimes our discussion is cut short and the full case for one
position or another is not heard by the group.
Last evening, in our discussion of the use of'mitigation funds'there was a difference
of opinion as to what the existing fund should/could be used for. On the one hand,
Ken Gertz opined that it was strictly limited to planting of trees. I disagreed, saying
that caring for mitigation trees was included in the charge which has long existed in
the Tigard code.
I see your point. Good call. It is currently the practice to require the Developer to maintain
the trees for two years in order to receive a refund. So the cost of maintenance is included in
the Mitigation amount for 2 years. After which it would fall to the tree owner.
My argument is based on the wording of the long existing code. Chapter 18.790
begins with a statement of value of trees and its purpose is to "encourage the
preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the city." Another purpose is to
"provide incentives for tree retention and protection." Section 18.790.060 D is the
place where mitigation funds are discussed; it is titled 'Guidelines for replacement'. I
put this in quotes, because this section is not titled 'mitigation', but 'replacement'. If
a big tree is removed, what the code calls for is 'replacement' of such a tree.
Subparagraph 3. of this section says clearly"if a replacement tree of the size cut is not
reasonably available . . . .', indicating that the goal is to actually replace whatever tree
is cut with a same size tree, if possible. Subparagraph 2. of this section reinforces this
purpose, saying that the Director may"allow replacement with a different species of
equivalent natural resource value." Replacing a big tree by planting small trees does
not produce equivalent natural resource value until many years later. Hence, any
activity which produces 'replacement', and I mean replacement at the time of tree
-17-
removal, is within the scope of the existing words of the code.
I believe replacement means to replace the tree with a new tree to reach the goal of replaced
tree canopy. Here is the simple mathematics on this:
Tree on remote site already standing (S1), Developer tree to be cut (D1), Tree to be Planted
(P1).
Existing trees S1+D1=2
Replacement of tree with new tree S1-DI+PI=2 (no loss of trees)
Buy a Tree on remote site already standing and do not replace it with a planted tree D 1+S 1-
D1=1 (Loss of one tree)
If you end up with less trees than you started with, how is this replacement? How does this
increase tree canopy?
The reality is, due to the inflated requirement of mitigation based on inches and not trees for
tree, when we replace a tree; we have to plant several times more trees than just the one we
removed. Example: Using the smallest amount of mitigation, 24" DBH tree = 12 - 2" trees to
be planted at the lowest mitigation. So by planting new trees you get an exponential growth
in tree canopy, where when buying a tree off site, you have negative growth in tree canopy as
you cut a tree that was not replaced, and you are buying trees with a shorter life span than the
new trees. If the goal is to increase tree canopy, replanting is the only way.
Ken's statement that use of what are called mitigation funds for anything other than
planting would constitute a 'bait and switch tactic' is good TV type language, but is
without basis. Where is such a limitation written down, or what other basis would the
Homebuilders Association have for thinking that this is the limitation of use for
'mitigation'funds? The long existing code allows any actions by the city "in
performing such tree replacement" (quote is from paragraph E of 18.790.060). You
indicated that the City Attorney agrees with the concept allows for mitigation work
other than planting. Indeed, such actions must be related to tree replacement, so
activities such as education and training of the general public can legitimately be ruled
out, but activities such as monitoring, inventory, care, purchase of a tree grove or
easement for a sustainable group/grove of trees falls within the concept of
'replacement'. Again, I am talking about replacement of equivalent natural resource
value now (ie the time of tree removal). I would agree that the mitigation fee need
not be so high as to care for a replacement tree forever, but it should be high enough
to care for a replacement tree (if it is not the same size as the tree removed) until it
reaches the size/age equivalent to a human 'adult'—in most cases this is at least ten
years.
John we just disagree on this issue. Particularly in the purchase of land. As I said last
night, The HBA is behind the idea of the city buying the land with other funds, preferably
land with no trees, and using the mitigation fund to reforest this vacant land. Net result,
more tree canopy. I believe that satisfies everyone.
John, I do understand your passion for saving groves, but the money should come from a
more substantial pot. I don't think you have a grasp on how expensive land is.
John, I do understand your passion for saving groves, but the money should come from a more
-18-
substantial pot. I don't think you have a grasp on how expensive land is. If the City were to use all
the Mitigation funds to buy Land,you would end up with a very small piece of land, about 4 acres,
and no money to plant any new trees. That seems pretty silly to me.
Tigard should take the money and use it to plant trees wherever they are needed, Street trees,
planter strips, right-of-ways, whatever.
Please share this note with others on the CAC and develop language for the code
which clearly allows for`replacement' of trees removed consistent with the Tigard
existing code and Comprehensive Plan. Thanks,
John Frewing
Please share this note with others on the CAC
Thanks you
Ken Gertz
-19-
From: Todd Prager
To: "Walsh. David"
Cc: "Adrienne DeDona"; Susan Hartnett; Marissa Daniels; Gary Pagenstecher;John Floyd; Ron Bunch
Subject: RE: Use of"Mitigation"funds
Date: Monday,October 18,2010 1:06:00 PM
Thanks. We will plan on bringing this to the group at the next meeting.
-Todd
From: Walsh, David [mailto:David.Walsh@spnewsprint.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:02 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Adrienne DeDona; Susan Hartnett; Marissa Daniels; Gary Pagenstecher; John Floyd; Ron Bunch
Subject: RE: Use of "Mitigation" funds
Good response Todd. Thanks
You know that I am the last person to want another meeting so I do appreciate the discipline you,
Adrienne and Marissa have applied to this process and I encourage you to continue.
What I would suggest at this point is for Adrienne to bring the issue out for discussion and feedback.
Acknowledge what you have heard and ask for feedback as well share the thoughts you expressed in
writing below about how you value and use the feedback. That discussion may very well diffuse the
issue entirely.
Thanks
Dave
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:42 PM
To: Walsh, David
Cc: Adrienne DeDona; Susan Hartnett; Marissa Daniels; Gary Pagenstecher; John Floyd; Ron Bunch
Subject: RE: Use of "Mitigation" funds
Hi Dave,
The quotes from John are true and will be shared with the CAC at the next meeting. We also heard
some middle of road comments from CAC on the topic and plan on coming back with additional
details on how maintenance of mitigation trees is addressed. We don't plan on coming back with a
proposal to use existing mitigation funds to purchase property or easements at this time since the
group didn't seem like they wanted to go in that direction. However,there will be multiple
opportunities for the group to change direction on any of the code items before a final proposal
goes to Planning Commission and Council.
For the hazard tree discussion, we think the group's consensus that someone should have to have
"standing"to make a complaint is valid and can be incorporated into the final proposal. The cost
issue of the hazard tree program could be addressed by another program the City currently has to
assist low income people with permits, etc. I will look into this and get back to the group on both
-20-
items.
We have been working to address the issue of the discussions being cut short/rushed by:
1. Allowing CAC and public comments to be included in the meeting packets for the groups
consideration before and after meetings.
2. Getting CAC input through the advance meeting surveys and sharing results for
consideration by the group.
3. Allowing topics to span multiple meetings with:
a) an introductory discussion about a topic,
b) a subsequent meeting where the CAC responds to the preliminary draft code
language,
c) a third meeting where staff explains how they responded to the CAC's comments
on the preliminary draft, and
d) a comprehensive review at the end of the CAC process and before the adoption
process.
That being said, I realize the pace is fast and the meetings can feel rushed. We will work with
Adrienne to find additional ways to address this issue. It is important to keep in mind that prior to
the code revisions process, people wanted to see implementation in a timely manner. Staff
proposed and Council approved an aggressive schedule for completion, and there were still many
that thought the process was too long. There is a struggle between staying on track, and allowing
enough time for meaningful discussions.
For the code writing piece, I can honestly tell you that the code looks much different than if staff
had written it without the CAC(not sure how to prove that). That is not to say that staff is coming
about this with a blank slate. The Comp Plan, Urban Forestry Master Plan, and professional
experience with code implementation all have provided a framework for each topic.
Staff is charged with developing the proposal, the CAC and TAC are advisory during the
development of that proposal, and staff will then deliver a final package to Planning Commission
and Council for adoption. The urban forestry code was never intended to be directly written by the
committees, but the goal is to achieve consensus from the committees before the adoption
process. We realize there is still a lot of work to do to get there, but we are confident this
collaborative process will result in a final proposal that everyone can support (not necessarily be in
love with).
Please provide us with any additional questions, concerns, or suggestions so we can address them
and continue to improve the process. We could also set up a time to discuss if you think the
process is getting off track.
-Todd
From: Walsh, David [mailto:David.Walsh@spnewsprint.com]
-21-
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com
Subject: FW: Use of "Mitigation" funds
If what John is stating is true, this language should be shared the Committee. Is this true?
I heard a lot of middle of the road opinions on this matter and Ken made a convincing argument
against and took the majority with them.
If true, this information may very well have changed some opinions.
John makes another comment that I have heard from two other committee members. "1 feel that
sometimes our discussion is cut short and the full case for one position or another is not heard by
the group". Some members feel that their input is heard "somewhat' and then the staff goes and
writes up what they had already planned to write up and present it as the opinion of the Committee.
They feel the pace is too quick to allow good dialogue to complete a discussion of an issue. One
member clearly stated to me that he is adjusting his understanding of his role to be that of merely
reviewing materials and code developed by the staff rather than contributing to the development of the
content of the material.
How do we address this issue?
Dave
From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:01 AM
To: todd@tigard-or.gov
Cc: adrienne@jla.us.com; Ken@Gertzco.com; tonytree@easystreet.net; Walsh, David
Subject: Use of "Mitigation" funds
Todd,
I appreciate the fact that Adrienne makes a very strong effort to keep the discussion moving, but I
feel that sometimes our discussion is cut short and the full case for one position or another is not
heard by the group.
Last evening, in our discussion of the use of'mitigation funds'there was a difference of opinion as
to what the existing fund should/could be used for. On the one hand, Ken Gertz opined that it was
strictly limited to planting of trees. I disagreed, saying that caring for mitigation trees was included
in the charge which has long existed in the Tigard code.
My argument is based on the wording of the long existing code. Chapter 18.790 begins with a
statement of value of trees and its purpose is to "encourage the preservation, planting and
replacement of trees in the city." Another purpose is to "provide incentives for tree retention and
protection." Section 18.790.060 D is the place where mitigation funds are discussed; it is titled
'Guidelines for replacement'. I put this in quotes, because this section is not titled 'mitigation', but
'replacement'. If a big tree is removed, what the code calls for is 'replacement' of such a tree.
Subparagraph 3. of this section says clearly"if a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably
-22-
available . . . .', indicating that the goal is to actually replace whatever tree is cut with a same size
tree, if possible. Subparagraph 2. of this section reinforces this purpose, saying that the Director
may"allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value." Replacing a
big tree by planting small trees does not produce equivalent natural resource value until many
years later. Hence, any activity which produces 'replacement', and I mean replacement at the time
of tree removal, is within the scope of the existing words of the code.
Ken's statement that use of what are called mitigation funds for anything other than planting
would constitute a 'bait and switch tactic' is good TV type language, but is without basis. Where is
such a limitation written down, or what other basis would the Homebuilders Association have for
thinking that this is the limitation of use for'mitigation'funds? The long existing code allows any
actions by the city "in performing such tree replacement" (quote is from paragraph E of
18.790.060). You indicated that the City Attorney agrees with the concept allows for mitigation
work other than planting. Indeed, such actions must be related to tree replacement, so activities
such as education and training of the general public can legitimately be ruled out, but activities
such as monitoring, inventory, care, purchase of a tree grove or easement for a sustainable
group/grove of trees falls within the concept of'replacement'. Again, I am talking about
replacement of equivalent natural resource value now (ie the time of tree removal). I would agree
that the mitigation fee need not be so high as to care for a replacement tree forever, but it should
be high enough to care for a replacement tree (if it is not the same size as the tree removed) until
it reaches the size/age equivalent to a human 'adult'— in most cases this is at least ten years.
Please share this note with others on the CAC and develop language for the code which clearly
allows for 'replacement' of trees removed consistent with the Tigard existing code and
Comprehensive Plan. 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-
From: Adrienne DeDona
To: Ken Gertz;Todd Prager
Cc: Marissa Daniels; Sylvia Ciborowski
Subject: RE: Mitigation explained
Date: Thursday,October 28,2010 6:57:27 PM
Hello Ken —
Thank you for your comments and the additional information on mitigation.
At the last meeting, we determined that creating a blog would be out of scope and beyond the
budget set forth for this project. Therefore, we didn't make any changes to the process for
submitting comments between meetings. We've been collecting e-mails received from committee
members and the public between meetings and including them in the meeting packet that is sent
out one week prior to the meeting. We agreed to do this as part of the meeting protocols. Your e-
mail will be included with the upcoming meeting packet that goes out to the group next week.
At our meeting on Nov. 10,we will hold a group brainstorming session regarding standards for
development (using the survey results at a starting point for discussion). The feedback gathered
during the meeting will provide staff with general direction prior to beginning work on a first draft
of this section of the code. Your perspective will be a valuable part of that discussion. There will
be additional opportunities for the group to weigh-in on this topic at future meetings before
anything is finalized.
The survey does include some background on mitigation. If you have further questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me directly.
Best regards,
Adrienne
Adrienne DeDona
Project Manager
jla I public involvement
Collaborative planning, decisions& communication
(360) 993-0025 :: 1920 Broadway Street::Vancouver,WA 98663
(503) 235-5881 x 1 17:: 1 1 10 SE Alder Street,Suite 301 :: Portland, OR 97214
web: adrienne@jla.us.com ::www.jla.us.com
From: Ken Gertz [mai Ito:Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:58 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Adrienne DeDona; Marissa Daniels; Sylvia Ciborowski
Subject: Re: Mitigation explained
Really? I though the consensus was that there was no practical way to have a blog, and e-
-24-
mails were the prefered method of communication of relevant content between meetings. I
have not looked at this months survey, but I expect it will ask about mitigation and thought it
make sense to have info about mitigation before marking the ballot as is may change the face
of the ballot.
If you are correct, by all means please attach to the packet.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
On 10/28/2010 4:44 PM, Todd Prager wrote:
Thanks Ken. I will forward this to the CAC for inclusion in the meeting packet. We set a policy
previously not to forward emails to the CAC in between meetings, but rather to collect all the
comments and include them in the meeting packet.
Also, as demonstrated at the previous meeting, the survey results do necessarily represent the
group's consensus or dictate how the code will be written. The survey is intended more as a
conversation starter and to give people time to consider the upcoming topics for discussion at the
CAC meetings.
-Todd
From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken(�bGertzco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Adrienne DeDona
Cc: Todd Prager; Marissa Daniels; Sylvia Ciborowski
Subject: Mitigation explained
Please forward so the CAC can be better informed before they fill in the survey .
To better explain our position and to aid in further discussion about mitigation, I will try to
provide a more in-depth history/ explanation as seen from the people that have to work with
the current code in the present form.
Why do we have so much residual Mitigation Money?
Property Owners pay for trees removed from Right of ways, Sidewalks, all easements
including utility and access. These are all required for any development of any kind and
should have been exempt but were not. The result is that mitigation is collected for a far
greater area than would be reasonable
Property Owners pay by the inch rather then the tree: When you pay by the inch, mitigation
is collected for many times more trees than you removed. An average 24" tree at the
minimum Mitigation of 50% would garner 12" of mitigation or six 2" trees, or at 100%
Mitigation twelve 2" trees.
Property Owners pay for trees removed from the building area and required driveways, patios
and utility trenches to the project. The result again is collecting way more money than can
be used...
To answer your question, we have found no other city that does any of this.
-25-
Why can't we plant enough trees in Tigard to use the tree fund?
Consider that Tigard has already used the mitigation fund to plant on every available piece of
land they have access to and currently they have no land left to plant on. Also the current
fund is a fraction of what has been collected.
Now let's do some math:
If you planted a continuous area with trees growing to a full canopy with no spacing for
roads, trails, meadows, to let light in, or wetlands it would go like this:
To provide an adequate spacing for proper tree growth, each 2" tree is allowed approximately
30' spacing.
Simple geometry tells us that a 30' circle uses 706.5 Square Feet. One acre is 43,560 Sq Ft,
so 43,560/ 706.5 = 62 trees per acre.
Using $125 per inch of tree, each tree is $250.00, so $1,400,000.00/ $250= 5,600 trees.
5600 X 706.5 Sq Ft = 3,956,400 Square feet just for the trees.
3,956,400/ 43,560 = 90.83 Acres just for the trees an area equivalent to %the developed
parks in Tigard, or I/4 of all Parks including undeveloped greenways, wetlands etc.
Ref: htlp://www.tigard-or,gov/community/narks/default.asp
Why can't Land Owners plant all the trees on their own property?
Consider an average city lot of 70 X 100 (7000 Sq Ft) where mitigation is required at the
lowest amount 50% on average sized 24" Fir Tree. 100% mitigation would double the below
number of trees required.
Mitigation Inches = 12"
Cost to Mitigate = 12 X 125 = $1,500.00.
Mitigation trees required = 6 @ 2" Caliper
Area required for 6 trees @ 2" Caliper 6 X 706.5 = 4,239
Lot area 7000—Building Area including garage 3900—Driveway 400—Front Walkway 100
—5' Side yards too narrow to plant trees in 750—Utility trenches 160 = a Maximum
Theoretical Plantable area of 1690 Sq Ft. In reality, there is less due to roof Overhangs,
Patios Decks, Play Areas, Lawn etc.
Max Plantable Area = 1690/ 706.5 = 2.39 trees allowed.
Obviously, if mitigation was at 100% it would require 12—2" trees or 8,478 Sq Ft.
(See what is wrong with stepped mitigation below)
Why is Tigard the only City to force people to pay to cut down their own trees?
That is a good question there does not seem to be an answer for.
A case of inequality.
Why should a person with trees, (the thing you want,) pay and someone without trees pay
nothing? Doesn't that seem backwards?
Have you asked yourself, who really pays for mitigation?
Most people think the Developer pays the mitigation bill, but this is not really true. When a
Developer looks at a piece of land to develop, the price they pay is based on a simple
mathematical formula. The number of lots times the retail value of the lots when complete,
less all costs attributed to the development and a reasonable percentage for profit and
overhead. When we look at a piece of property with trees, the cost of the trees has to be
added into the cost of development , tree reports, tree planning, tree protection, tree and brush
removal, stump grinding and the added cost of working around trees as fixed obstacles.
Developers would then weigh the value the trees add to the project against that additional
cost. In most cases, the cost of working with the trees is equal to the added perceived value
-26-
of the community. The net result is the land value of treed versus the land value of the bare
property end up being about the same. Now if you were to add $100,000 of mitigation into
the formula or if you loose a lot due to the trees, the only place for that money to come from
is from the purchase the price of the land.
So the people who really pay the mitigation is the land owner in the form of a lower sales
price compared with a similar property without trees.
Who are the Land Owners?
In my experience, the demographic of the developable land owner is a senior citizen or their
families acting on their behalf. 3 of the last 5 properties I have purchased have been from
seniors who have lived on the property for many years, often having planted the trees, and
now in need of the money from their property to either pay medical bills or to move to a
smaller more manageable place to live. For many, the money they get from their property is
the only money they have. Mitigation fees reduce the money they will receive for their land
and financially harms these seniors.
What is wrong with the stepped mitigation system?
Say you have 4 trees on your property and need to remove 3 because one is in the public
street, one is in the house area and one is in the utility area. The land owner will be paying
100% mitigation in this case which could be in the thousands of dollars.
It's all in the math.
Say you have 100 trees averaging 24" DBH for 2400 inches. Below we will explore how the
variance of one inch can cost tens of thousands
The cost in mitigation for 50% of the inches is 1,200 x $125 = $75,000.00
The cost in mitigation for 50% of the inches plus one inch is 1201 X $125 = $100,323.30
So that one added inch Cost the land owner $25,323.00
The cost in mitigation for 75% of the inches is 1,800 x 125 = $149,985.00
The cost in mitigation for 75% of the inches plus one inch is 1,801 x $125 = $225,125.00
So that one added inch Cost the land owner $75,140.00
The ramifications of this are multi faceted.
1: In order to keep from paying Mitigation the land owner removes some of the good trees to
fall under the % needed to save money
2: The land owner feels they are unfairly taxed and removes all of the good trees.
3: The developer feels financially forced to keep trees that should be removed forcing him to
assume the liability of potential catastrophic tree failure.
If you multiply the math above times 2300 trees, you can see why the Fields property will
end up being clear cut.
Should all trees be treated equally?
Several species of trees are considered to be invasive or detrimental to the long term health
of the tree canopy. More commonly know as "Weed Trees", these trees should be exempt
from any mitigation. Several other species may be considered trees, but will never contribute
to the tree canopy. These should also be exempt, while Heritage trees should have a highest
value
Should larger trees weigh more heavily than smaller trees?
That would depend on the type of tree. For example, several species like fir trees that have
-27-
been grown in tight groups have small shallow root systems because they have grown
depending on each other to withstand windstorms. When the surrounding trees are removed,
the remaining trees may be unsafe to leave standing around human habitation. In these cases,
smaller trees would have a much more likely chance to survive and would be more valuable
in the long run.
Save or Cut, No Middle ground
Currently there is no provision for trees I want to save if I can. In other words, I have to pay
mitigation on trees I may save if I feel it is reasonable to do so as construction progresses,
and if I am lucky, I will get a refund 2 years in the future. In my tree Performa, I have added
a "Try to Save" column. Others may feel that the added cost of protection, tree reports, all
the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to get a refund and the extreme cost of
removing tall trees that couldn't be saved once homes have been started, don't justify the
effort and would prefer to just cut them down rather than try to save them, but many of us
prefer to try to save the tree. These costs are particularly expensive for trees under 12". I
think giving a person the opportunity to try to save a tree without monetary consequences is a
good thing.
No Credit for Trees under 12"DBH?
Currently there is no credit for saving trees less than 12" DBH, yet it often takes twice the
effort to protect small groves than it does a single bigger tree. Bi-Monthly Tree reports,
costly tree protection method requirements, reduced mobility on the site and most of all,the
reduced area on site to be able to plant mitigation trees make it a necessity to remove any
trees under 12". This is CRAZY! This is a rule that needs to be changed.
No Credit for Street Trees?
This is a true and typical story. I bought some land, developed it into 6 lots, cut down only 3
trees that were in the middle of the houses or roads, I paid $8580.00 in Mitigation, and
planted 11 new street trees. That is 3.67 times the number of trees I cut. Why am I not
getting credit for them? Aren't they trees? Aren't they adding to the tree canopy?
Why do Developers sometimes cut down all the trees?
Most would prefer to work with the trees when possible, however there are many reasons a
development would be better off to be clear-cut. The health of the trees, topography
requiring large grading areas, soil conditions, grading requirements both on and adjacent to
the site, utility vaults, trenches, storm and sewer requirements, water quality facilities may all
combine to make it impractical to save the trees. Also the type of project (warehouse or
apartments, see differences in zoning below) has a lot to do with how many trees can be
retained.
Differences in Zoning
When considering how many trees a particular type of zoning is capable of supporting, the
type of zoning needs to be considered. Warehouse and industrial areas require huge areas for
buildings and Semi truck loading zones, retail and restaurants are much the same as they
need large areas for buildings, car parking additionally most retail shops do not want to have
their buildings and signs hidden by trees that would detour customers from being enticed into
their establishment.
Due to its nature, high density housing property leaves little room for mature trees.
Ramifications of a punitive Tree code
-28-
The punitive nature of Tigard/s Tree Code has done little to enhance the tree canopy of
Tigard. Page 25 of the UFMP confirms despite the largest building boom in Tigard's history,
only a 1% decrease in tree canopy from 1996-2007 has occurred. Almost no canopy was
lost. However what it has done is to cause large tracts of trees like the development in King
City and many others to be largely clear cut. Had there been no tree code at all, clear cutting
may have been avoided and the City would have more canopy.
Currently, there is a large commercial project that is planning the removal of 2300 trees.
From the Owners standpoint, they do not have a reasonable choice. The land is zoned
commercial and will require large buildings, parking and trucking areas. Due to the huge
cost of Mitigation, keeping trees on this site would be impractical. In order to reach his
maximum potential for this investment property when he sells it, he has to cut down the
trees. There is no other reasonable choice. Had there been no tree code, he would be able to
leave the trees in place for the final developer of the property to decide if some could be
saved.
I hope I have helped to clarify the current tree code as it applies to the development
community. Thank you for your consideration.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
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."
-29-
City of Tigard
0"D
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Log of Housekeeping Changes to the October 13,2010 Preliminary Draft
Hazard Tree Code
Date: October 20,2010
7.40.060 Trees(Commentary)
The proposed Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure is detailed in the attached Tigard
Urban Forestry Manual and includes a tiered approach that begins with 1)Informal Reconciliation
between parties without City involvement; and ends with 2) Formal Reconciliation where the
claimant submits an application, provides information, pays fees, documents informal
reconciliation, and ensures abatement and apportionment of costs by private property owners or
through City action.
The City's Risk Manager and Attorney support implementing the above summarized Hazard Tree
Evaluation and Abatement Procedures administratively by inclusion in the attached Tigard Urban
Forestry Manual to allow more flexibility to adjust the procedures as needed, as opposed to
inclusion in the Municipal Code. This administrative rule and others included in the Tigard Urban
Forestry Manual would be by adoption by City Council.
A person has standing to participate in the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure only
if they can demonstrate that thEy have the potential to be iml2acted by a tree the believe is a hazard.
7.40.060 Trees Code
D. Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure:
Any person (claimant) that believes in good faith there is a hazard tree on a property(respondent),
and can demonstrate that their life,limb,or property has the potential to be impacted by said tree,
may seek resolution through the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure specified in the
Tigard Urban Forestry Manual.
-30-
Section 1-Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure(Tigard Urban Forestry Manual)
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 reasons they
believe there is a hazard tree on the respondent's proper4 demonstrates how the claimant's life
limb,or property has the potential to be impacted by said tree, and offers and—IFF, to negotiate a Comment[tp2]:A person needs to
solution that is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations either directly or through a demonstrate how they have the potential to be
impacted by the hazard tree in their
third party mediator. The claimant is encouraged to support their claim with documentation by a correspondence with the tree owner and City.
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.
-31-
Staff Response to October 13, 2010 CAC Comments on the
i Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree (Non-Development) Code
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
Suggestion to include a maximum fine amount rather A maximum fine of the City's cost to plant an equivalent number of trees with a 9.06.100
than linking it to the appraisal value of a tree, and combined caliper equal to the DBH of each unlawfully removed tree has been
perhaps having a separate fee schedule for illegally added to the preliminary draft. The City's current estimated cost to plant is
removing a heritage tree. $125/caliper inch. If this cost is applied to the removal of a 60 inch DBH tree
(that largest size tree common locally),then the maximum fine would be $7,500
for illegal removal ($125/caliper inch x 60 inch = $7,500).
The current penalty for illegal Heritage Tree Removal in Chapter 9.08 is twice
the appraised value of the tree. If a Heritage Tree is also a street tree,it would
be subject to the penalties in both Chapters 9.06 and 9.08.
The title of the chapter includes "parks" but the Title 9 is currently called"Parks"in the Tigard Municipal Code. The title Title 9
content does not seem to deal with parks at all. contains Chapter 9.04 (General Provisions),Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City
Property), and Chapter 9.08 (Heritage Trees). Chapter 9.04 deals mainly with
reserving parks facilities. Chapters 9.06 and 9.08 deal mainly with trees. Staff
thought it would be appropriate to revise the Title to "Parks and Trees" as part
of the code revisions project, since the title addresses both topics.
However, staff is currently considering consolidating as many of the tree related
code provisions as possible into a new, stand alone"Urban Forestry"title. If
this happens, then Title 9 will likely continue to be called"Parks", and Chapters
9.06 and 9.08 will be moved into the "Urban Forestry" title.
-32-
Staff Response to October 13, 2010 CAC Comments on the
i Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree (Non-Development) Code
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
Suggestion to include language that the City assumes The standards in the preliminary draft code and Tigard Urban Forestry Manual 9.06.030
risk when it declines someone's application for have been developed to grant automatic approval if a tree is hazardous, dead, Tigard
removal of a tree. dying, or causing damage. The City's Risk Management Division has reviewed Urban
the preliminary draft and has determined the process and approval criteria are Forestry
sufficient to limit the City's liability when making permitting decisions. It is Manual
important to note that the evaluation of street trees would be based on current
conditions, and property owners would be responsible for continued monitoring
of street trees. If and when conditions change, property owners could reapply
for a new decision and the City would approve if any of the approval criteria
(including whether a tree is hazardous, dead, dying, etc.) are met.
Staff recommends not including language in the code that the City assumes risk
when denying an application since the City is not responsible for ongoing
monitoring of street trees.
ISA and ANSI standards need to be clear and easy to The ISA and ANSI standards are currently available online with easy to interpret 9.06.020
research by the public. The language should indicate pictures and illustrations at htip://treesaregood.com/treecare/treecareinfo.asVx. Tigard
that the City will maintain copies of the standards at The link is available from the "Trees in Tigard"website, and has been added to Urban
the office. the UFCR Resource Documents page. Forestry
Manual
There are easy to use brochures available at the Permit Center that explain and
illustrate the standards. Hard copies of the ANSI standards are also available at
the Permit Center, and the City's Arborist is always available to explain and
direct people to the ISA and ANSI standards.
Staff recommends updating the City's website after adoption of the code to let
people know where the standards are available rather than incorporating
language into the code. The public is more likely to find this information on the
website and by contacting staff,rather than in the code.
-33-
Staff Response to October 13, 2010 CAC Comments on the
i Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree (Non-Development) Code
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
In the case of poor workmanship of pruning trees,the The preference of the CAC at the September 8,2010 meeting was to not include 9.06.100
contractor needs to be responsible. language in the enforcement provisions requiring the City to pursue enforcement
against contractors such as tree companies. It was not clear whether the group
reached consensus at the October 13, 2010 meeting that there should be specific
language in the code requiring the City to pursue enforcement against
contractors for poor workmanship. Staff will consider incorporating this into
the preliminary draft if it is clear the group consensus is to reverse their previous
recommendation.
Suggestion that the City set a rate for tree assessments, This comment appears to be related to the cost of tree risk assessments by Tigard
such as $100 per investigation. certified tree risk assessors (which were estimated to be from $250-$500 per Urban
assessment). If the City adopts a tree risk assessment program, they could Forestry
contract with an on-call arborist for the service and possibly receive a "per Manual
assessment" cost. Council could then adopt a fee to cover all or part of the per
assessment cost as part of its annual fee schedule for the Tree Hazard
Evaluation and Abatement program application.
Staff is unaware of a process whereby the Department Director or City Manager
may reduce or waive application fees due to financial hardship, although this
option could be investigated further.
The CAC could consider recommending that Council create an"urban forestry
account" that could be used to assist people that fit a set of defined economic
criteria with the cost of permits, etc.
One comment of concern about the definition of The proposed definition of"tree"in the preliminary draft was based primarily 9.06.020
"tree." on the ISA definition of tree. Based on a review of other cities codes, staff has
determined there is not a standard definition for"tree" by local jurisdictions.
Staff thinks the proposed definition of tree will adequately address most
circumstances,and recommends leaving it as is.
-34-
City of Tigard
all
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Log of Changes to the October 13, 2010 Preliminary Draft Street Tree Code
Date: October 20, 2010
9.06.100 Enforcement(Commentary)
A minimum fine is imposed ($250) and maximum fine (the City's cost to plant and maintain an
equivalent number of trees as the one that was removed) for illegal street or median tree removal
consistent with the recommendation from the CAC.
eensistent with the r-eeamffiendatien freffi the GA!`
9.06.100 Enforcement (Code)
(2) 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 Removal) or 9.06.090 (Median Tree Removal) of 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 City's cost to plant and maintain per Tree Care Industry Standards and the standards
in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual for a period of three (3) years an equivalent number of trees
with a combined caliper equal to the DBH of each unlawfully removed tree. tha the estimate
value of any u-rAawft&y removed tree as deterngined by a eertified arbarist using the most eurrefit,
international Seeiety of Aibar-ieulture's Guide for Plant Appraisal.
-35-
Staff Response to October 13, 2010 CAC Comments on the Direction for the
i Preliminary Draft of the Resolution Clarifying the Allowed Uses of the Existing Tree Replacement Fund
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
Members agreed that the existing tree mitigation funds Staff has outlined in the memo that the preliminary draft Resolution and Resolution
should be used only for planting and maintaining corresponding Exhibit will specify that existing funds should be used only for Exhibit
trees, and that future collected funds could possibly be activities necessary for the planting of trees,and the maintenance of the same
used for other uses. trees that were planted. The specific activities will be listed in an Exhibit and are
proposed to include Tree Planting Site Planning,Tree Planting Site Preparation,
Developers paid into the fund for a specific purpose, Tree Planting, and Tree Maintenance to capture the full range of required
and that should not be changed. activities for planting and maintaining trees.
Overall, members agreed with the prioritization of The prioritization of how future funds should be used will be carried forward for Resolution
funding in the charts presented by Adrienne for future discussion at the November 10, 2010 CAC meeting. Exhibit
collected funds only.
Members who commented on location of mitigation The introduction to the preliminary draft Exhibit will clarify that trees may be Resolution
trees noted that it did not matter much whether they planted on both public and private property. Exhibit
were planted in private or public land.
Members had varying opinions on how long a tree The City's current practice is to maintain trees for a period of 3 years after Resolution
should be maintained by the City within "mitigation" planting to ensure early establishment. The City currently seeks to partner with Exhibit
and at what point the burden of maintenance is a the owners of properties (school district, ODOT, citizens that ask for street
public or private burden. trees, etc.) on long term maintenance. Agreements with property owners are
made in writing and kept as part of the City's records. The introduction to the
preliminary draft Exhibit will clarify that seeking partnerships and recording
written agreements should continue to be the City's practice.
However,lack of funding for long term maintenance of trees is the greatest
inhibitor to planting in locations such as ODOT right of way or City property.
Staff is proposing the preliminary draft Resolution and corresponding Exhibit be
written to allow the funds to be used for long term maintenance of only those
trees that were planted using the Tree Replacement Fund. This could allow
important projects to move forward since there would be certainty for long term
maintenance. However,the policy to continue to identify partnerships wherever
possible could still be required and implemented so Tree Replacement Fund
dollars and growth of the urban tree canopy can be stretched as much as
possible.
-36-
City of Tigard
all
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Use of the Current Tree Replacement Fund
Date: October 27, 2010
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) provided staff with input
on the topic of"use of the current Tree Replacement Fund" at their October 13, 2010 meeting. Staff will
carry forward this portion of the UFCR project as a Resolution for Council's consideration. Resolutions
represent a formal decision by Council and typically consist of two main parts. The first part are the
"whereas" clauses which provide background for why a particular decision is being made. The second part
is the "now therefore be it resolved" section which describes the action being taken. Exhibits are also
commonly referenced in Resolutions when there is lengthy or detailed information associated with
Resolutions.
Staff is proposing that the "whereas" clauses of the preliminary draft Resolution include the following:
• WHEREAS, Ordinance 98-19 established Chapter 18.790, and the Tree Removal standards in
the Tigard Development Code;and
• WHEREAS, the Tree Removal standards include a formula for tree replacement proportional
to the percentage and size of trees removed during development;and
• WHEREAS,the Tree Removal standards allow for an"in-lieu of tree replacement payment by
developers that do not perform tree replacement themselves to cover the City's cost of tree
replacement;and
• WHEREAS, the City established Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 to accept "in-lieu of
tree replacement payments;and
• WHEREAS, the Tree Removal standards and the Tree Replacement Fund are not specific on
the allowed uses of funds collected as "in-lieu of'tree replacement payments;and
• WHEREAS,on February 16,2010 City Council directed City staff to clarify the allowed uses of
the Tree Replacement Fund as part of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project;and
-37-
• WHEREAS, City staff has worked with community volunteers including the Urban Forestry
Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee and Tigard Tree Board to identify appropriate
uses of the Tree Replacement Fund that will support the City's broader urban forestry goals;
and
• WHEREAS, the consensus view expressed by the community volunteers to City staff was to
use the Tree Replacement Fund for activities necessary for the planting of trees and
maintenance of such trees to support the City's broader urban forestry goals.
Staff is proposing that the"now therefore be it resolved" section of the preliminary draft Resolution include the
following:
• SECTION 1: The Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 shall be renamed the Urban Forestry
Fund Number 260 to reflect its broader purposes.
• SECTION 2: The allowed uses of funds that have been or will be collected under the
auspices of Ordinance 98-19 and Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code, deposited
into the Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 (now known as the Urban Forestry Fund
Number 260), and available for City use shall be limited to only those tree planting and
maintenance activities more fully described in Exhibit A.
• SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective beginning Fiscal Year 2012 on July 1,2011.
"Exhibit A" is proposed to specify the tree planting and maintenance activities that can be funded by the
Urban Forestry Fund.
-38-
Exhibit A
Introduction
The Urban Forestry Fund Number 260 (formerly the Tree Replacement Fund Number 260) shall be available for
City use to pay for the labor and materials necessary to complete only those activities listed below for tree planting
site planning, tree planting site preparation, tree planting, and tree maintenance whether on public or private
property within the city limits of Tigard. The activities listed below are intended only for trees that have been or
will be planted using Urban Forestry Fund Number 260. The activities listed below will only be implemented when
determined necessary by the City for a particular tree planting project.
When considering where to implement particular tree planting projects, the City shall consider both short and long
term costs and benefits,as well as how the projects will further the City's urban forestry goals. The City shall strive
to identify partnerships for planting and maintenance activities whenever possible, and record the stipulations of
partnerships in writing. The City shall record and track information about each tree planting project in a publicly
accessible inventory of trees and forests.
Approved Tree Planting and Maintenance Activities
Tree Planting Site Planning
• Site Survey—Including by not limited to a survey of soil conditions,topography,drainage,water sources,water
pressure,water availability,above and below ground utilities,buildings,infrastructure, street lights,intersections,street
signs,driveways, fire hydrants,existing trees, existing landscaping,existing pests and diseases, existing drainage,and
any other existing site conditions that may be relevant to a particular tree planting project.
• Lab Tests—Including but not limited to the collection and preparation of soil and/or plant samples for analysis by a
qualified testing laboratory in preparation for a tree planting project. The purpose of the tests may include but not be
limited to determining soil texture, soil fertility,and existing pests and diseases.
• Site Plan Preparation—Preparation of accurately scaled landscape drawings that reflect both existing site conditions
and future tree planting plans. Information displayed on the plans may include but not be limited to the site survey
information listed above, as well as proposed tree planting locations,proposed irrigation installations,proposed soil
amendments,proposed tree protection and erosion control materials and methods,proposed planting
details/specifications,proposed irrigation details/specifications and other information relevant to a particular project.
• Permit Acquisition—Securing of federal,state,regional,local and any other permits required for the execution and/or
completion of a particular tree planting project.
Tree Planting Site Preparation
• Tree Protection—Including but not limited to the planning,installation,monitoring,and removal of tree protection
methods and devices for existing site trees with the potential to be directly impacted by a particular tree planting
project. Tree protection shall be in a manner consistent with generally accepted industry standards for tree care
practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)A300 Standards
for Tree Care Operations. In addition,the tree protection shall be in accordance with all federal, state,regional,and
local rules and regulations.
• Unwanted Plant Removal—Including but not limited to the removal of unwanted plants by physical,mechanical,
biological and/or chemical means in order to prepare a particular site for tree planting in accordance with all federal,
state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
• Grading and Filling—Including but not limited to the grading,import,and/or removal of soil if required for a
particular tree planting project in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
Page 1 of 3
-39-
Exhibit A
• Drainage Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of drainage systems such as French drains,boring
through hardpan soil layers,and otherwise amending/altering existing soil conditions to facilitate drainage in
accordance with all federal, state,regional, and local rules and regulations if required for a particular tree planting
project.
• Irrigation Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of irrigation systems such as above or below
ground sprinkler systems,as well as drip irrigation for the purpose of delivering water to trees if required for a
particular tree planting project. Irrigation installation may include but not be limited to the additional requirements
such as installation of water meters,backflow preventers,valves,pumps, sprinkler heads,laterals, automatic timers,
and other equipment depending on the scope,requirements,and objectives for the particular tree planting project.
Irrigation installation shall be in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations,and the
most current revision of the Irrigation Association's, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practicer.
• Soil Preparation—Including but not limited to the loosening and tilling of soil in order to prepare compacted soil
areas for tree planting in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations if required for a
particular tree planting project.
• Soil Amendment—Including but not limited to the amendment of soils with inadequate or low fertility with organic
materials,fertilizers,or other soil amendments at the required depth and ratio necessary to support tree growth if
required for a particular tree planting project.
• Erosion Control—Including the planning,installation,monitoring,and removal of erosion control devices in
accordance with all federal, state,regional, and local rules and regulations prior to tree planting site activities when
required by a particular permit or project.
Tree Planting
• Tree Selection and Purchase—Including the selection and purchase of the species,size,and number of trees identified
for a particular tree planting project. Trees shall meet the standards detailed in the most recent edition of the
American Standard for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z-60.1).
• Tree Delivery and Storage—Including but not limited to the delivery and storage of trees and associated materials in a
manner that protects the trees and associated materials from damage.
• Tree Planting—Including but not limited to the planting of trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted
industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. In addition,the tree planting shall be in accordance with
all federal, state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
• Root Barrier Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of root barriers per the manufacturers'
specifications for the purpose of protecting hardscape,infrastructure,utilities,and other features when required by a
particular permit or project.
• Tree Staking and Guying—Including but not limited to the staking and guying of any new planted tree identified as
requiring supplemental support in order to remain upright. Staking and guying shall be in a manner consistent with
generally accepted industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. Stakes and guys shall be monitored to
ensure they are not causing tree damage,and shall be removed as soon as a tree is able to stand upright without
supplemental support.
• Tree Protection from Wildlife—Including but not limited to the installation,monitoring,and removal of plant tubing
or wire caging for the purpose of protecting newly planted trees from damage or death from wildlife if required for a
particular tree planting project.
Page 2 of 3
-40-
Exhibit A
• Mulch Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of mulch in the form of wood chips, shavings,or
other acceptable material around the bases of newly planted trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted
industry standards for tree care practices.
Tree Maintenance
• Truck or Hand Watering of Trees—Including but not limited to the delivery and application of specified quantities
and frequencies of water during specified time periods using a tanker truck,hoses,and/or other equipment when
required for the survival of trees.
• Irrigation System Maintenance—Including but not limited to programming,monitoring,and maintenance of irrigation
systems necessary for the application of specified quantities and frequencies of water during specified time periods
required for the survival of the trees. Irrigation programming,monitoring,and maintenance shall be in accordance
with the most current revision of the Irrigation Association's, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices if
required for a particular tree planting project.
• Tree Pruning—Including but not limited to pruning of trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted industry
standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. Pruning objectives shall include the removal of dead,dying,and
diseased tree parts,establishment of strong tree structure,development of a desirable form,abatement of tree hazards,
and compliance with branch clearance requirements and other federal, state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
• Unwanted Plant Removal—Including but not limited to the removal of unwanted plants by physical,mechanical,
biological and/or chemical means in accordance with all federal,state,regional, and local rules and regulations in
order to limit competition and allow trees to survive and thrive if required for a particular tree planting project.
• Pest and Disease Control—Including but not limited to the control of tree pests and diseases using physical,
mechanical,biological and/or chemical means in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and
regulations in order to allow trees to survive and thrive if required for a particular tree planting project.
• Tree Inventory—Including but not limited the use of global positioning system(GPS) and geographic information
system (GIS) technology to identify the location, species,planting date,maintenance activities,fund expenditures and
other pertinent information for a publicly accessible tree and urban forest inventory.
• Tree Debris Disposal—Including but not limited to the collection and disposal of all debris generated from tree
planting site preparation,tree planting,and tree maintenance in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local
rules and regulations.
Page 3 of 3
-41-
qQ City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Standards for Development, Background and Options
Date: October 18, 2010
Introduction
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be providing staff
with input on the topic of"urban forestry standards for development" at their November 10, 2010 meeting.
Please note that this topic will span several meetings. Staff is proposing to address the issue of development
standards for individual trees on November 10, 2010 and then move on to development standards for tree
groves on January 12, 2010. 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
Master Plan Code Sections
Goals
Urban Forestry -Tree Code (clear standards,view towards future) 1.1, 1.2,2.1,2.2, Chapter 18.790
Standards for -Balance development and standing trees 5.1, 5.2,6.4 Chapter 18.745
Development -Review Mitigation Chapter 9.06
-Incentives for Tree Retention
-Multi-level permits
-Canopy Enhancement(street trees and parking lot trees)
-Lot standard size flexibility and street variation to support
tree retention
-Soil Volume Standards
-Nuisance vs.Desired Species
-Solar access/view corridors
Background
The City currently addresses trees during development scenarios primarily through Chapters 18.790 (Tree
Removal), 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening),and 9.06 (Trees on City Property).
-42-
Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal
Chapter 18.790 requires a"tree plan"by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist for
subdivisions (dividing one lot into four or more lots), partitions (diving one lot into two or three lots), site
development reviews (primarily commercial, industrial, or multifamily development or redevelopment),
planned developments (residential, commercial, or industrial development that have more flexible
standards), and conditional uses (uses such as schools, religious institutions, or cemeteries that may only be
permitted, altered, or enlarged following a public hearing).
The requirements for the tree plan include identifying all trees over 6 inch diameter, identifying which trees
will be removed and retained, developing a protection program for the trees to be retained, and mitigating
the loss of trees proportional to the percentage and size of trees over 12 inch diameter removed. Incentives
and flexibility for tree retention include increased density for tree preservation, modifications to standard lot
dimensions for tree preservation, and reduction in parking and landscaping requirements for tree
preservation.
The most common concerns about the current tree plan standards in Chapter 18.790 are:
• The mitigation standards which are meant as a disincentive for tree removal encourage overplanting
of replacement trees since trees are replaced on an "inch for inch" basis rather than "tree for tree".
For example, often one 12 inch diameter tree is required to be replaced with 6,2 inch diameter trees.
• The mitigation standards are an ineffective deterrent to tree removal because often development
sites are cleared of trees, or marginal trees are incentivized for retention to avoid mitigation
requirements.
• Since mitigation requirements are applicable only to trees over 12 inch diameter,there is an incentive
to retain only large trees,which are often less likely to survive development impacts.
• The tree plan standards apply only to sites with existing trees. Property owners with trees are
penalized while property owners without trees are not.
• The mitigation standards do not differentiate between quality of trees, or safety of trees both pre
and post development. All trees are mitigated equally.
• The current "in-lieu of tree mitigation fee is $125 per caliper inch. The methodology for the fee is
not clearly defined in the code, and many think the fee is too high.
• Tree plan requirements are only applicable to trees on site at the time of development, or within one
year prior to development. This has created a loophole where people remove trees,wait a year, and
then apply for development to avoid tree plan requirements and mitigation.
• There is no way to modify a tree plan without reapplying for an entirely new land use approval,
which can be a cumbersome process, or paying significant penalties (fines in addition to the
appraised value of trees removed). People often want to modify their tree plans during the course of
development when they find there are conflicts between tree locations, and buildings, roads, or
infrastructure. This can incentivize developers to plan on removing all trees before development
rather than risk conflicts with trees during the course of development.
• Mitigation trees are not actually protected. After a developer meets their planting obligations,
people can remove the trees without penalty. This is common because new property owners
sometimes don't like the layout, species, or density of new plantings by developers.
• State,Metro, and City planning goals favor density in urban areas,which often conflict with the goal
of tree preservation. Many would like more flexibility on site layout and density requirements than
-43-
currently provided in the Tigard Development Code. The existing incentives for tree retention are
ineffective.
Other provisions of Chapter 18.790 require trees that were preserved and incorporated into the
development to be recorded on the deed of the property. These "deed restricted trees" can only be
removed if they die or are declared hazardous by an ISA certified arborist.
The City has the authority to apply conditions of development approval to better implement the provisions
of the Development Code. The typical conditions of approval require:
• Installation of metal tree protection fencing as opposed to orange plastic fencing for preserved trees;
• Regular monitoring (twice monthly) of the tree protection plan by the project's arborist throughout
the development process,and;
• A cash assurance fee ($125/inch) 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.
Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screenin4
Chapter 18.745 establishes standards for landscaping and tree planting for development. This includes
planting of street trees, planting of buffer trees between differing land uses (e.g. between commercial and
industrial areas), and planting of trees in parking lots. Others types of plant materials such as shrubs and
groundcover are required by this Chapter, although they are not within the scope of the UFCR project.
The most common concerns about the tree planting standards in Chapter 18.745 are:
• The standards apply to all "development". The definition of development in the code is "(1) A
building or mining operation; (2) a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land;
or (3) division of land into two or more parcels,including partitions and subdivisions as provided in
Oregon Revised Statutes 92." City planners struggle to determine what types and intensity of
development should be required to comply with the landscaping standards. Typically, the standards
are applied to the same types of development that required a tree plan per Chapter 18.790,but there
are many gray areas where it is not clear whether the standards should apply. For example, should a
business that is remodeling their building be required to upgrade their parking lot by removing
asphalt and planting trees? What level and intensity of development can legally be required to make
these types of improvements? The current code is not clear about this.
• Trees that are planted to meet the landscaping requirements in Chapter 18.745, are not eligible for
mitigation credit by the current code. Many think this is unfair and further contributes to
overplanting of sites.
• The parking lot and street tree standards do not have any soil volume requirements. In many cases
trees are failing to thrive or are damaging pavement due to lack of adequate space for roots.
-44-
• The street standards in Chapter 18.810 call for five foot planter strips between curb and sidewalk.
The street tree list calls for most medium and large stature trees to be planted in planter strips over
five feet wide. If the City's goal in the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to increase tree canopy over
streets, then larger stature streets trees need to be accommodated. However, revising the City's
street standards are not within the scope of the UFCR project. After adoption of the updated
Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan, City staff will follow up with a review of the current street
standards and make any appropriate amendments.
• Success of establishment of required landscape trees can vary widely. There are currently no
bonding or assurance requirements for the establishment of required landscape trees as there are for
mitigation trees.
Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property
Chapter 9.06 requires tree protection for "any type of disturbance" on City property or within the right of
way for street projects in accordance with the Tree Manual. The Tree Manual requires a tree plan by an ISA
certified arborist similar to the tree plan requirements in Chapter 18.790 (identification of all trees over 6
inch diameter, identification of which trees will be removed and retained, development of a protection
program for the trees to be retained, and mitigation of the loss of trees proportional to the percentage and
size of trees over 12 inch diameter removed).
The most common concerns about the tree protection requirements (in addition to those listed for Chapter
18.790) include:
• The expansive definition of"any type of disturbance" could be interpreted to require a tree plan for
almost any type of construction activity on City property.
• Often, construction activities occur within a very limited area on City property. However, the tree
plan requirements in Chapter 9.06 are for all trees on site. Should the installation of a playground in
Cook Park require an inventory and protection program for all trees in Cook Park? The plain
reading of the code implies it would.
Consolidation of Urban Forestry Standards for Development
There are many miscellaneous tree provisions within the Development Code that will be reviewed for
consistency purposes in addition to the primary Chapters 18.790, 18.745, and 9.06. These include Chapters
18.120 (Definitions), 18.330 (Conditional Use), 18.350 (Planned Developments), 18.360 (Site Development
Review), 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments), 18.390 (Decision-Making Procedures), 18.420 (Land
Partitions), 18.430 (Subdivisions), 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts), 18.520 (Commercial Zoning
Districts), 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts), 18.610-640 (Design Districts), 18.730 (Exceptions to
Development Standards), 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations), 18.765 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements), 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities), and 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards).
When analyzing the development related tree provisions above, there are 3 primary code chapters to be
revised, and at least 20 related code chapters that would potentially require revisions for consistency
purposes. City staff is considering consolidating as many of these development related tree provisions as
possible into a single urban forestry title in the municipal code for the following reasons:
-45-
• By having all the urban forestry related provisions in one place, there is less chance for
accidental conflicts as the code is being written and administration will be less confusing after
adoption.
• The City of Portland is nearing completion of a robust,peer reviewed process of consolidating
their urban forestry code provisions. The City of Tigard can benefit from reviewing their recent
work and determining if there are similar consolidation techniques that could be utilized locally.
• Implementation of an urban forestry ordinance is largely technical in nature. Technical decisions
are best made within the framework of the municipal code rather than as land use decisions in
the development code.
Overview of CAC Priority Issues/Outcomes Related to Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Tree code (clear standards,view towards future)-The urban forestry standards for development will likely be
more clear if they are consolidated wherever possible. Staff anticipates working with the CAC to develop
standards that not only result in preservation of the urban forest, but also growth of the urban forest in the
future consistent with the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Balance development and standing trees-Staff is looking to the CAC for assistance with what the
appropriate balance should be. The Urban Forestry Master Plan goals are to shift the existing mitigation
based code to more of a balance between preservation and mitigation.
Review mitigation-The existing mitigation requirements have been reviewed by the CAC, and are
summarized again in this document. The CAC has indicated that past mitigation funds should continue to
be used primarily for planting and maintaining mitigation trees. Moving forward, the CAC will be advising
on how the City should address the issue of mitigation, if mitigation fees should be collected, and how they
should be used if they are collected.
Incentives for tree retention-Incentives for tree retention should be reviewed since the existing incentives in
the code are rarely utilized. The CAC could consider whether the City should value the retention of trees
over planting new ones as a mitigation incentive.
Multi-level permits-The current code has a "one size fits all" approach to urban forestry standards for
development. The code could be revised to more clearly relate urban forestry standards to various
intensities of development(thus creating multi-level standards).
Canopy enhancement (street trees and parking lot trees-Enhancing Tigard's citywide tree canopy through
street tree and parking lot planting was identified as a major goal in the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Development standards that ensure sufficient growing space for street and parking lot trees can be
addressed during this phase of the UFCR project. While Tigard's street standards will not be directly
addressed by this process, other standards such as soil volume standards could be established to ensure
street trees are able to thrive without damaging infrastructure.
Lot standard size flexibility and street variation to support tree retention-Incentives and flexible standards
for lots and streets will be reviewed to see why they are not currently being utilized, and how they could
become more attractive.
-46-
Soil volume standards-Soil volume standards are most critical for street and parking lot trees due to limited
space. Soil volume standards could be established to ensure street and parking lot trees are able to thrive
without causing damage.
Nuisance vs. desired species-A nuisance tree list has been developed. These trees could be exempt from
mitigation requirements, prohibited from planting, and/or required to be removed in the urban forestry
standards for development. The City could establish a desired tree list for specific applications. This has
already been completed for street trees, but there could be additional desired trees established for parking
lots and development.
Solar access/view corridors- The CAC has expressed interest in preserving solar access and view corridors.
Proposed code language could include provisions to exempt planting/preservation requirements for solar
access or view (perhaps through a discretionary review as is proposed for street trees).
Discussion Items
Staff would like the CAC to provide guidance on the following options for consideration when developing
"urban forestry standards for development":
1. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals during development:
a) continue to allow the removal of all trees in all cases as long as mitigation (not necessarily
according to the current formula) is provided; or
b) require a base level of preservation of quality trees if feasible.
2. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals during development:
a) require mitigation in increasing amounts based on the number of existing trees removed as is
current practice;
b) require mitigation on more of a "tree for tree" basis (one tree removed, one tree replaced);
c) require a tree density standard that can be met by a combination of preservation (if there are
quality trees on site) and planting (whether or not there are trees on site);
d) require a tree density standard as described in c), but require a base level of preservation of
quality trees if feasible; or
e) other (explain).
3. Trees on site within one year of a development application are currently required to be part of tree plan.
This has created a loophole whereby trees are cut down over a year before development application to avoid
tree plan requirements. Which of the following solutions would best implement the City's urban forestry
goals:
a) increase the amount of time that removed trees have to be part of a tree plan;
b) limit the removal of over a certain number or percentage of non-hazardous or nuisance trees
from any site (if chosen this could be part of the upcoming "tree permits for non-development
scenarios" discussion);
c) continue current procedures; or
d) other (explain).
4. If the City adopts a tree density standard and gives extra credit for preservation of quality trees,which of
the following would best define quality trees and implement the City's urban forestry goals:
-47-
a) a mix of young to mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can
be a nuisance);
b) mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can be a nuisance)
c) a mix of young to mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species;
d) mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species; or
e) other (explain).
5. If the City adopts a tree density standard would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to give credit
for required landscape trees such as street trees,parking lot trees,and buffer trees?
a) yes; or
b) no.
6. When reviewing incentives to encourage preservation of quality trees, should the City investigate whether
minimum density requirements could be reduced to preserve trees?
a) yes; or
b) no.
7. When reviewing incentives to encourage preservation and planting of quality trees, should the City
investigate whether minimum parking requirements could be reduced to preserve trees or provide more
space (increase soil volume) for planting new trees?
a) yes; or
b) no.
8. What other incentives not currently provided through the development code could result in increased
preservation of quality trees? Explain.
9. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was an option for a discretionary review of
tree preservation and planting plans in addition to a clear and objective review?
a) yes; or
b) no.
10. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was a less rigorous option than currently
allowed to modify a tree plan after land use approval if the revised plan could demonstrate the tree plan
standards will continue to be met?
a) yes; or
b) no.
11. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to establish soil volume standards for trees?
a) yes; or
b) no.
12. If soil volume standards cannot be met within existing soil areas, would it implement the City's urban
forestry goals to require alternative methods to achieve soil volumes such as the use of engineered soils that
can support tree growth under pavement?
a) yes; or
b) no.
-48-
13. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to require tree plans in additional circumstances
such as prior to issuance of demolition permits, grading permits, building additions, and capital
improvement projects (infrastructure and utility upgrades)?
a) yes; or
b) no.
14. If tree plans are required in additional circumstances (to land divisions, site development reviews,
planned developments, and conditional uses) which of the following projects should the requirements be
applied to in order to implement the City's urban forestry goals:
a) demolition permits;
b) grading permits;
c) any building addition;
d) only building additions over a certain value;
e) all capital improvement projects;
f) only capital improvement projects over a certain value;
g) only land divisions, planned developments, conditional uses, and site development reviews
over a certain value;
h) brand new construction of residential,commercial, or industrial property;or
i) other (explain).
15. If tree plans are required in the additional circumstances above, would it implement the City's urban
forestry goals to establish boiler plate tree protection standards (such as fencing to be installed at the
driplines of protected trees) that, if adhered to, would negate the requirement for someone to hire an ISA
certified arborist for smaller projects?
a) yes; or
b) no.
16. As described earlier, it is currently unclear whether relatively minor projects such as commercial
building additions are required to perform certain upgrades such as street tree and parking lot tree planting.
Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an "in-lieu of' planting fee if the cost to meet
soil volume standards for street tree and parking lot tree retrofit projects exceeds a certain threshold or
percentage of the total project cost?
a) yes; or
b) no.
17. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an "in-lieu-of' planting fee if people do not
want to plant for reasons such as solar access or view corridors?
a) yes; or
b) no.
18. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow people to install green roofs,water quality
swales, or other low impact development techniques "in-lieu-of"planting trees?
a) yes; or
b) no.
19. The CAC discussed expanding the use of urban forestry funds collected after adoption of the revised
code. The average of the types of projects and percent funding were; 41% for planting and restoration;26%
for preservation; 10% for long term tree maintenance; 10% for education and outreach, and; 7% for urban
-49-
forestry planning. If the City continues to collect "in-lieu-of" fees in the future, how should future funds be
utilized to implement the City's urban forestry goals? (Please keep in mind that mitigation and "in lieu of'
fees for groves will be addressed as a future topic.)
a) utilize future funds for urban forestry projects and allocate funding as previously averaged by
the CAC (41% for planting and restoration; 26% for preservation; 10% for long term tree
maintenance; 10% for education and outreach, and; 7% for urban forestry planning); or
b) dedicate funding to the following activities in the following percentages (please assign a value
to each and make sure total is 100%.
o Tree planting and grove restoration
o Preservation of groves
o Long term tree maintenance
o Urban forestry education and outreach
o Urban forestry planning
o Other (please explain)
20. The City currently requires monitoring of tree protection fencing by a certified arborist twice per month
as a condition of land use approval. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry
goals?
a) codify the monitoring requirement;
b) do not codify the monitoring requirement, but continue to require as a condition of land use
approval when deemed appropriate;
c) do not require monitoring of tree protection fencing, just address violations when they arise;
or
d) other (explain).
21. The City currently requires developers to guarantee mitigation tree survival during a two year
establishment period. Guarantees are not currently required for the establishment of street trees,parking lot
trees, and other required landscape trees. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban
forestry goals?
a) continue current practice of requiring two year guarantees for mitigation trees only;
b) require two year guarantees for all trees planted as a condition of development approval;
c) only require guarantees when automatic irrigation is not provided;
d) don't require guarantees, address required tree survival on a complaint basis; or
e) other (explain).
22. Trees that are preserved as part of a development project are noted on the deed of the property, and
their removal is restricted. Trees planted to meet landscaping requirements (street trees, parking lot trees,
etc.) and trees planted to meet mitigation requirements are not noted on the deed. Which of the following
would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
a) continue current practice of only requiring preservation trees to be noted on the deed;
b) require all trees (both planted and preserved) to be noted on the deed;
c) do not note land use requirements on the deed (rely on a publicly accessible inventory of
protected trees); or
d) other (explain).
23. Other issues for group discussion (explain).
-50-