Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 08/10/2011 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
MEETING #10 - (8/10/2011)
Table of Contents
8/10/2011 Meeting Agenda..............................................................................................................................2
CACMeeting Summary (6/8/2011)...............................................................................................................3
Comments.........................................................................................................................................................15
Housekeeping Revisions Incorporated into the Comprehensive Draft.................................................19
Parking Lot Items for Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation..............................22
Memo Regarding the Canopy Standard ......................................................................................................26
Draft Guiding Principles for Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation..................29
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC - Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223
MEETING GOALS: Review organization of comprehensive draft code document.
Review parking lot items from previous CAC discussion.
Review and approve guiding principles for Urban Forestry Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives.
1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6:00-6:30 PM
• Recap Meeting #9
• Approve Meeting #9 Summary
/Adrienne DeDona/
• Review Meeting#10 packet materials
✓ Summary of Housekeeping items
✓ Summary of Parking Lot items
✓ Memo re: Canopy Standard
✓ Review of organization of comprehensive code
2. (Info) Public Comment 6:30-640 PM
3. (Discussion) Clarifying questions related to draft code document 6:40-7:00 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
4. (Action) Standards for Development Guiding Principles 7.•00-7:50 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
BREAD
5. (Action) Tree Grove Preservation Guiding Principles 7:55-8.-45 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
6. (Info) Meeting Wrap up 8:45-9:00 PM
7. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 9:00 PM
Next meeting: September 14, 2011
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— August 10, 2011
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
-2-
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting #9
June 8, 2011
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance
John Wyland, Developer Dave Walsh, Planning Commission
Morgen Holen, Certified Arborist Don Schmidt, Planning Commission
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers Tony Tycer,Tree Board
John Frewing, Citizen at-large
Committee members absent
Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders
Scot Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory Committee
Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board
Consultant staff present
Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement
Sylvia Ciborowski,JLA Public Involvement
Greg Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning
Staff present
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Todd Prager, City of Tigard
Information requests from this meeting:
There were no information requests at this meeting.
Parking lot items and items for further discussion:
None.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 1
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-3-
Overview Summary
The following is on overview of the main comments mode by members of this meeting:
Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
• Members thought it would be helpful to have language in the Code that provides standards
for assessing tree groves,to give arborists directions in figuring out whether removal of one
tree will impact the grove as a whole. Some sort of checklist would be good to make sure
arborists cover everything, and would allow for more transparency for public. Due to the
variety of tree groves,the standards should be labeled as "considerations"to allow for
flexibility in individual circumstances.
• Staff should look further into options for a credit transfer program as an incentive to
developers to preserve tree groves.
• Members were satisfied with the matrix for incentives for tree grove preservation in
residential lots.
• Almost all members were okay with the draft Tree Grove Preservation Incentives language as
it stands, though many would like more study on a credits transfer program.
Draft Tree Permit Requirements
• There should be better education to homeowners about which of their trees require permits
for removal.
• Need to clarify that intent of last paragraph on page 44 of the packet is that if there is not
room for a new tree,then an in lieu of fee should not be required. (Text: "Replacement is
required through planting or a fee in lieu (unless there is not room on site).)
• Members agreed that there should be a replacement provision for heritage trees just like
there is for other tree removal situations.
• Add a provision to the Code that a permit should be required for dead tree removal on
sensitive lands.
Introductions and Agenda Overview
Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda.The purpose of this
meeting is to review and recommend a draft of the Tree Grove Preservation Code, and to review the
Tree Permit Requirements. Adrienne directed members to a memo that Ken Gertz wrote related to the
Standards of Development Code to share with the group, since he won't be at the meeting today.
Overview of Last Meeting
Adrienne reviewed what the committee did at the April CAC meeting. Members wrapped up the
Standards for Development section and agreed to a tiered approach and a periodic assessment of how
the code is functioning. Some parking lot items remain and will be discussed in August. Members also
reviewed a first draft of the Tree Groves Preservation code; most people supported the incentives for
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-4-
tree grove preservation,though there was some concern about stability and health of a grove if some
trees were removed. Members also reviewed the tree permit requirements at the last meeting. Finally,
Marissa Daniels gave a report on the Tree Groves Open House at the last meeting.
Approval of Meeting#8 Summary
Members approved the April meeting summary by consensus.
Tony Tycer asked how many years a tree is required to be preserved after a development project plants
the tree.Todd Prager responded that after the initial period of responsibility for the developer,
individuals or homeowners would need a tree permit to remove the tree.
John Wyland asked if City staff talked to the school district about their concerns in the letter they wrote
about the financial hardship to create canopy cover. Todd responded that the City spoke to the district
about the 25%canopy cover requirement for schools.The City has lots of partnerships with the school
districts and does plantings with them. City staff showed the district what the canopy will be in the
future from these city plantings. Every school that has received plantings by the City would achieve over
25%canopy cover. However,the school district was still uneasy about a 25% requirement.
Public Comment
None.
Revised Draft Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Darren Wyss gave a short presentation about the revised Tree Grove Preservation Incentives section of
the Code, referring members to page 17 of the meeting packet. He noted that this group had its first
discussion on the topic in April, and this is second discussion. Greg Winterowd has been working on the
tree grove preservation program as well. His team identified 70 tree groves in Tigard last fall totaling 540
acres.
Darren noted that the intent of the Tree Grove Preservation Incentives Program is to preserve groves
through flexible, incentive based standards. At the last meeting, CAC members asked staff to look at
three different suggestions for improvement. Darren went over these suggestions and concerns, and
members discussed.
1)Effect of tree removal on stability and health of grove
Darren noted that CAC members had expressed concern about the effect on the stability and health of a
tree grove as a whole if a portion of the grove is removed. He explained that staff recommends not
changing the Code based on this comment. In the current Code, since the Tree Grove Preservation
Incentives Program is intended to be flexible, the professional arborist is given discretion to determine
whether a partial removal would affect the whole grove. Each project is thus assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Also,the canopy cover requirements program would give developers credit for preserving more
tree groves and canopy, which is an added incentive to preserve as much grove as possible since existing
trees get double credit. Additionally,the Tree Board is considering asking the Council for allocation of
funds to preserve tree groves.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-5-
CAC discussion:
- John Frewing clarified that the incentive for tree grove retention only applies to developers.
There is no incentive for residents to retain groves.
- Tony asked for an explanation of the financial incentives being considered.Todd responded that
currently,there is no funding for tree grove easement acquisition.The Tree Board is considering
recommending Council fund easement acquisition.
- Tony asked if there will there be any language in the Code that provides standards for tree
groves. Morgan Holen agreed that standards would be helpful because many arborists do not
have forestry backgrounds and may not really know how to assess tree groves adequately. She
added that having standards or some sort of checklist would be good to make sure arborists
cover everything, and would allow for more transparency for the public.
o Greg agreed, and added that standards would also allow for easier review of the
arborists' work.
o John F. was concerned that with the variety of tree groves out there, it would be difficult
to write standards. He suggested naming them "considerations." Morgan agreed that
"considerations" could be better.
o Todd noted that the City feels comfortable with deferring to an arborist's professional
judgment because arborists will be required to have tree risk assessment certification to
do their work. Nevertheless, he added it could be helpful to add some considerations to
highlight the major elements in grove preservation that the arborist should be thinking
about.The considerations cannot be too prescriptive, since there is so much variety
among groves.
- Brian Wegener asked if arborists have some consequences or liability for their work.Todd
responded that the Code gives the City power to file an ethics claim against an arborist who
submits false or misleading information. Morgan added that arborists are good about putting in
language in their contracts to limit their liability. She added that there is a difference between
doing the best you can and being blatantly dishonest, and the City can pick up on that.
2)Credit transfer program for excess canopy
Darren discussed the idea of providing incentives to developers to preserve canopy by providing credits
to them to use in future projects for excess canopy saved in current projects. Darren explained that staff
thinks this is a good idea, but that it is not really feasible.There would be a lot of upfront work to get a
legal component to the program and documentation of the transfer.The City would need to provide a
record keeping mechanism to track the transfers, and there are budget issues. Darren explained that a
better option would be to use any funds allocated for tree groves to purchase easements or properties
rather than developing a transfer program that we can't guarantee would even be taken advantage of
by property developers.
CAC discussion:
- John W. commented that the success of such a program will depend on how many developable
properties exist that have large tree groves and would have excess canopy to offer. Darren
responded that 131 acres of buildable land have tree groves on them, and a lot of these are
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-6-
small parcels. Brian added that we must also consider the land that will be available in the
future when Tigard expands its UGB.
- John F. clarified that a credits transfer program would only apply to developers, not residents.
John W. countered that a credits program would not require a huge amount of legal up-front
work. He said that this is often done in other areas, and all it requires is an accountant.
- Greg responded that the program would be simple if it only included scenarios in which one
developer has excess canopy on a property and would like credit for future projects.That kind of
record keeping would be easy.
- John F. asked if any other city has such a program. Greg and Darren responded that they have
not heard of one, and that usually such a program would only take place in large agricultural or
natural resources areas.
- Todd added that any sort of transfer of credits program should include an expiration period or
sunset provision.
- Morgan asked if such a program would treat all tree groves the same.The program should not
give credit for preserving low quality canopy and then allow development of high quality
canopy. She suggested ranking tree groves and only allowing trading or credit transfer for similar
groves. Greg agreed that a ranking system is important, but could complicate the program.
- Darren concluded that staff would further look into options for a credits transfer program.
3)Incentives for increased preservation
Darren noted that at the previous meeting, CAC members suggested increasing incentives for increased
preservation of tree groves. Staff did not modify language in the Code for tree groves in industrial or
commercial areas, but did make changes for tree groves in residential areas as shown on pages 20-21 of
the meeting packet. The table shows a new matrix which lays out a system in which the more tree grove
a person preserves, the smaller lot size they can get. The highest category would allow a reduction of lot
size by 75%.There are also specs on when detached housing is allowed and when small duplex lots are
allowed. Greg added that the idea was to apply a simple mathematical formula.
CAC discussion:
- John F. clarified that the term "percentage of tree grove preserved" refers only to the grove on
the property being developed.
- Committee members agreed that the matrix is reasonable and logical.
- Darren added that the matrix incentivizes preservation of tree groves by allowing more transfer
of lots in development. Greg added that this system could also benefit small lot owners. If they
save a corner of a lot in trees, that would allow them to put small homes in small lots in a
cluster.This would also allow more infill by putting lots in the front of properties and saving
trees in the back, which represents good urban growth management.
Adrienne asked members whether they agreed or disagreed with the Revised Draft Tree Grove
Preservation Incentives through a round robin exercise.
- Brian and Dave said they were okay with the draft language as it stands.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-7-
John W., Don and Morgan said they were okay with the language, but would like staff to look
into a transfer of credits program.
- Tony said he was not okay with the draft language because it all rests on the presumption that
there is a canopy that can be calculated. Several months ago there was a huge transition from
looking at caliper inch diameter of trees to suddenly calculating the percentage of canopy
coverage after planting. Individual trees in groves don't count with the new canopy percentage
calculation system. He feels that the old system has more benefits; for example, if you preserve
a tree that is 54 inches in diameter, that would make an easier calculation for a transfer of credit
system, and would be easier to keep track of.
- John F. said he was okay with the language as it stands. He would prefer to put the transfer of
credits program onto a list of things to try in a later round of Code development. He said that
such a program is a worthwhile thing to try, but would rather move ahead with what we have
now and then think about the credit transfer idea later.
Draft Tree Permit Requirements
Todd gave a brief overview of tree permit requirements.The City currently regulates tree removal for
certain categories of trees, including street trees,trees in sensitive lands, parking lot trees and heritage
trees.The City also protects trees that were planted using the urban forestry fund, by either focusing
efforts on street trees or writing protection agreements. Existing regulations are scattered throughout
the Code, or are included in planting agreements.The proposal for the Draft code is to consolidate the
regulation into one new title in the municipal code to make it easier for the public to use and for staff to
administer. Staff is not proposing to regulate any new tree situations,just trying to consolidate and
tailor the regulations in a more straightforward way, and make them more consistent with sound urban
forest principles.
Todd reviewed the main proposed revisions in the New Title 8 code:
- Permits will be required for planting, removal and maintenance of all street and median trees.
- Permits will be required for only native trees in sensitive lands—and not for non-native trees in
sensitive lands. Currently, permits are required for both native and non-native.
- Permits will be required for trees that were required to be planted for land use approval. (This is
the same as the current code.)
- Permits will be required for all heritage trees. (This is the same as the current code.)
- Permits will be required for trees that were planted using the urban forestry fund.This is not a
requirement in the existing code, but would negate the need to do a separate agreement every
time the City does a tree planting project. Currently, the City writes a contract every time it does
a planting to require the beneficiaries to protect the tree or trees.
- There will be two main ways to get permits.The first is a City manager decision-making
procedure administered by City staff.This has no public review, and is intended for removal of
trees that are hazardous, in poor condition, damaging property, or would prevent allowed
development to occur.The second way would be through a City Board or Commission decision-
making procedure.This process would include a public review process, and is intended for more
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-8-
complex situations where the reasons for tree removal are not related to safety, tree health,
property damage, or development.The Board or Commission would be able to use its own
discretion to make a decision.
Replacement of all tree types is proposed, except for heritage trees because they are unique
and cannot be replaced just by planting a new tree.
- A fee in lieu of option is available in a situation where the person removing a tree does not want
to replant, or has no room on site to plant new tree.
CAC discussion:
- Dave asked how homeowners know whether trees on their property were required for
development and thus require permits to be cut down.Todd responded that the City website
asks citizens to call the City if they have questions about tree removal on their property.Also,
whenever property changes hands,the Tree Board mails postcards to new owners to tell them
about the tree regulations and "call before you cut" phone line number.
- Morgan asked if homeowners are in violation if they remove trees that were required for
development by the subdivision developer. Todd responded yes.Trees that require a permit for
removal include those planted to meet a code requirement, street trees in front yard,trees for
buffering, etc. If a tree was not required for the development, then it does not need a permit for
removal.
- Morgan responded that there should be more homeowner education on this.
- John W. asked if the homeowner or the developer is liable if a tree is removed during the first
two or three years after development.Todd responded that permit requirements are exclusive
of development code; they don't apply at the same time. During the two year establishment
period,the developer is liable because they have cash assurance put in for those years and only
get money back if trees survive. After that period,the homeowner is responsible for the trees.
This is only the case for trees required for development—not all trees.
- Tony commented that there is a major disconnect here, and the Code infringes on people's
rights to cut down trees on their own property. Here we look at individual trees, but in
development we have a canopy coverage percentage requirement.
o Todd said that the proposed development requirements require documentation of
individual tree species, location, and growing conditions.The proposal also has a canopy
standard which is intended to encourage large stature trees rather than planting a
specified number of trees regardless of their future growth habit.The existing code only
looks at number of trees and the result is often excessive tree planting with little
attention to long term growth.The canopy proposal means that one can meet the
requirement in some cases with just planting one or two trees if they will grow into
quality, big trees and are well placed. Every tree that is planted would still need to be
accounted for on a tree inventory, which will also help people in the future be able to
identify which trees are protected. The existing code does not have a process for
individual trees that were required by development other than that you have to modify
the original land use approval,which is a nearly impossible process for an individual
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-9-
property owner.The intent of the proposal is to give people more flexibility on how to
deal with trees that were previously planted with developments.
o Morgan agreed that this does provide homeowners more flexibility, and that there is a
difference between the way individual trees and groups of trees should be managed.
The homeowner education component will be very important to help people know the
best tree types to plant, and differences between native and non-native species.
o Dave explained that the canopy cover requirement is a yard stick for development, but
at some point, individual trees will have to come down, and so the permit requirements
apply to the individual trees that make up the larger canopy cover.
- Todd explained the tree removal permitting process. In his experience, 90% of tree removals are
for rational,valid reasons such as the health of tree, power line obstruction, or messing up the
sidewalk.There will be a City process where someone can submit a request for removal and the
City will require removal and replacement of the tree.There will be a separate process for other
situations where there is no health, safety, or property damage reason to remove the tree, such
as on a commercial property where someone doesn't want signage blocked. Currently,the Code
mandates that the City deny such requests, or require a new land use plan.The revised Code
proposes a process to review these situations on a case by case basis with a peer review body
authorized to use their discretion.This would be less onerous than requiring a new land use
plan.
- Todd explained that the proposed code requires the City to GPS all trees and put them into a
database.There is talk about an intern putting all of the trees from old land use plans in the
database.The City is currently considering whether or not this would be an online resource
available to all citizens, because there might be a privacy issue. It may be the case that a citizen
has to go to the City office to use the database.
John W. asked for clarification about the language in the last paragraph on page 44 of the
packet: "replacement is required through planting or a fee in lieu (unless there is not room on
site)."Todd responded that the language is correct and intended to say that if there is not room
for a new tree, then an in lieu of fee should not be required.Todd added that he would change
the language to make that clear.
- Tony noted that the same paragraph says that heritage trees cannot be replaced by new trees.
He recommended that there should be a replacement provision for heritage trees. Other
members agreed.
- Dave asked committee members to consider the value we place on trees versus the value of
property owner rights. If a homeowner has no protected trees on his property, can public outcry
at cutting down the trees call for more permitting? Or should it be the right of the property
owner to cut down all his trees?
o Don responded that individual property rights are highly valued.
o Todd said that the City often gets calls when trees are cut down and in most cases,
permits were not required. Neighbors just want to know if the tree cutter was playing
by the rules. Usually, once they know no permit was required, their concern goes away.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 8
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-10-
o John responded that if too many people cut down their unprotected trees, canopy cover
would go away and could be a detriment to achieving the 40%overall goal. In that
sense, we may not be doing our job by allowing trees to be cut down.
o Dave added that since there are strong opinions valuing both trees and individual
property rights,the Code needs to allow flexibility.
- Dave said that he is in favor of low-cost tree removal permit process. He would like real estate
agents informing buyers about trees that are protected. He suggested some sort of birth
certificate for all trees planted by the City that are transferred to the buyer as part of education
process so that the burden isn't on city to keep that information.
- John F. suggested some kind of notice that goes to new homeowners to make them aware that
the City has a program in place to plant free street trees.
Discussion on permits for removal of dead trees
- John F. expressed concern that the entire tree permit discussion does not give proper attention
to protection of natural values of trees because it exempts dead trees from permitting. Dead
trees are needed for natural resource purposes. He suggested amending the Code to say that
natural resource purposes should be considered and protected as much as possible.
- Todd responded that the consensus of the group at the last CAC meeting seemed to be that the
Code should not require permits for removal of dead trees. We said that keeping dead trees can
be encouraged, but not protected.The existing code requires removal of dead trees.The new
proposal allows dead trees to remain unless they are hazard trees,which is something of a
compromise.The proposal does not require permits for removal of dead trees in sensitive lands,
but at the same time it does not require that dead trees be cut down.
- John F. responded that most dead trees are along creeks and streams and in natural areas, and
that is the most valuable place for those dead trees. Brian commented that those are the places
where dead trees are not a hazard and no one is motivated to cut them down.Todd agreed that
dead trees are important, but regulations are not needed to protect against cutting them down
because people are not motivated to go into natural areas and cut down dead trees unless they
are a threat.
- Morgan suggested that whatever the City Council adopts regarding dead tree removal, staff
should review it after a year and tell the public how well it is working.The City should count how
many dead trees are being removed from sensitive areas, and how it can even get that
information if there is no permit required. It might make more sense to require permits for dead
trees to see how many dead trees are being cut down. She agreed that people aren't motivated
to cut dead trees in bogs and natural areas, but at the same time, snags are the limiting feature
for wildlife in the northwest, so the more we can do to protect them,the better.
o Tony and John F. agreed that the Code provisions should undergo some probationary
period to see how well things are working after a year.This should be expanded to other
areas of the Code as well.
- Todd asked members to indicate whether they would like to add a provision for notification or
permitting requirements to remove a dead tree from sensitive lands.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 9
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-11-
o John F. asked if, instead of permitting, the City could do a survey now and again in a
year or two on the number of dead trees in Tigard. Don asked who would pay for that,
and asked whether a no-fee permit or a yearly survey would be more costly to the City.
Todd responded that in the next Urban Forestry Master Plan update,there was a
recommendation by Council to do a tree specific survey to help inform future
management of the urban forest. He said he would recommend waiting to do a survey
until that time.
o Dave said that having no permit gives people an opportunity to cut down trees that may
not be totally dead but just annoys them.To prevent that abuse, he thinks it makes
sense to have some form of notification or permit for removal of dead trees.
o Brian added that a permit system would allow the City to assess whether the tree is
actually dead and needs to be cut down.
o Tony commented that there are cases where a tree is dead and should be taken down
to reduce the spread of infestations. In such cases,the homeowner should be trusted to
make the decision to get rid of the tree.
o Morgan said she does dead tree removal permits in Lake Oswego all the time. Many
times,the tree is not even close to dead. She added that it is good to get another
person's perspective on the issue to see whether the tree is actually dead, and if so
why—is there some infestation that needs to be taken care of?
o Don said he is in favor of a no-fee permit for dead tree removal, as it does not seem
onerous to notify the City. Morgan agreed and added that this gives the City a chance to
track the number of dead tree removals. Johns W. and John F. also agreed.
o The committee came to consensus that a no fee permit should be required for dead tree
removal on sensitive lands.
Adrienne explained that committee members will review the revised draft of the tree permit
requirements section of the Code during the comprehensive review in September.
Adrienne asked members whether they agreed or disagreed with the Draft Tree Permits Requirement
language through a round robin exercise:
- Morgan,Tony, Don, Dave,John, and Brian agreed that the first draft is fine and adequately
reflects the CAC's input.
- John F. commented that page 47 of the packet, which says that the City Manager's decision to
allow or deny tree removal should address all approval criteria and should be based on relevant
approval criteria. But, it does not say that the applicant must comply with the approval criteria.
On the other hand, Chapter 18 says that the streets shall comply with the street manual.John F.
suggested that this section use stronger language and say that the "application shall meet the
approval criteria in the forestry manual"to give it the same weight as in the street manual.
Comprehensive Review Process & Next Steps
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 10
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-12-
Adrienne noted that there will be only two more meetings of the CAC—on Wednesday,August 10 and
Wednesday, September 14. Both meetings will be dedicated to the comprehensive review of the Code.
Todd directed members to a memo he wrote in the packet. He noted that the purpose of the code
revision project is not to meet the 40%canopy requirement in the UFMP; it is to be supportive of that
goal, but regulation alone won't get us there.There are lots of additional programs, like education and
outreach and tree plantings by the City to meet the 40%goal and other important urban forestry goals.
As part of the update to the master plan, we can get more refined information (looking at species
diversity, condition, etc. for urban forest) but it won't be part of this Code update process. He added
that the Code moves towards those goals, but is not the vehicle for achieving those goals.
Adrienne reviewed how the group will go through the comprehensive review process. Staff has decided
to break the Code into four topics, which includes everything the group has talked about over the last
year during meetings: 1) standards for development, 2)tree groves, 3) tree permits and 4) hazard trees.
The August meeting will cover standards for development and tree groves.The September meeting will
cover hazard trees and tree permits. Before each of these meetings, members will receive draft code to
review. She asked members to please review the draft code language before each meeting to be ready
to make comments at the meeting since the draft code will not be reviewed during meetings. Rather,
the comprehensive review will focus on any loose ends or parking lot items related to each topic and a
list of guiding principles developed by staff.
Guiding Principles
Adrienne explained that staff also intends to develop guiding principles for each of the four topics based
on CAC discussions this year. For example, there may be ten to twelve guiding principles for each topic
area.The guiding principles will convey the intent of the proposed code agreed upon by the CAC that
will be carried forward to the Planning Commission and City Council throughout the entire adoption
process.The guiding principles will represent the core of this group's beliefs related to the code
language, and provide a concise message about what all members have come to consensus on.
Adrienne noted that a list of the guiding principles will be provided to the CAC for review before each
meeting and will really be the basis of discussion. Members will also get a chance to revisit some loose
ends and outstanding parking lot items at each meeting. Staff will ask members to come to consensus
on the guiding principles.
Marissa added that the guiding principles will act as a great communication tool to the Planning
Commission and City Council. Dave agreed that the Planning Commission would greatly appreciate this
because it cannot read through every word of the Code and all meeting summaries. Understanding the
basis of this committee's voice in a short message will be great, but it will also be important to hear the
minority and majority opinions.
John F. was concerned that such an overall summary would leave out the minority positions of group.
Adrienne responded that City Council will be provided with the majority and minority reports as
documented in the meeting summaries.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 11
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-13-
Urban Forestry Code Revision Process
Marissa directed members to the handout on the Urban Forestry Code Revision Process. She noted that
staff has thought about how members can stay involved in adoption process. Some of the specific
language of Code will change through the steps outlined in the handout, such as during the technical
review and input process and public review. Staff wants to make sure that the guiding principles are
preserved through this language change.
Staff will email to members the results of the technical review and peer review, but there won't be
many opportunities for direct involvement there. During the input process and approval process,there
will be more opportunities for public involvement.There will also be an open house in November. At
that time,the public will have the opportunity to review the revised staff proposal,which goes through
the adoption process with workshops and hearings.
Marissa noted that the last CAC meeting is in September.Then, members will have an opportunity to
participate in the adoption process, including the input process and approval process, by submitting
comments.
Tony was concerned about members of the public who haven't been involved throughout this process
getting involved at the end of the process and changing the outcome of the process. Marissa responded
that the City has had ongoing public involvement opportunities throughout this process, including
project newsletters, an online comment form, and two tree grove open houses. Staff will also be
presenting information at Farmers Markets and the Balloon Festival this summer. She added that the
public process during approval process is the formal legislative public comment period.
Dave added that there can often be a very vocal minority during the hearings process, but that this can
be prevented by having a strong showing of this group to testify on behalf of this group.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 12
Meeting#9 DRAFT Summary
-14-
Patty Lunsford
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:12 PM
To: 'ken@gertzco.com'
Cc: 'Adrienne DeDona'
Subject: Comments on Packet
Thanks Ken. We will distribute.
One thing I want to point out is Title 8 applies when Title 18 does not apply (see page 35, section 8.02.020). For
example, if you are approved to remove trees through a Subdivision (SUB) or Partition (MLP) land use permit, you do not
need individual tree permits through Title 8. Title 8 would apply, for example, in situations where a subsequent
property owner wants to cut down a street tree that was required by development.
-Todd
From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna; Todd Prager
Subject: Comments on Packet
Adrienne and Todd,
I will not be able to attend Wednesday nights meeting.
Please distribute my comments at the meeting or before.
Attached is a PDF for you to use.
Todd and CAC Members,
I will be unable to attend the scheduled meeting of the CAC on Wednesday. Gertz Fine Homes with our 34-
year history of quality building and development has been recognized as leaders in Green Building Excellence
and are up for awards in 9 categories of Green Building Excellence. I must be present to accept any awards we
may win so I will not be able to attend the CAC meeting.
As a part of this packet is directly related to Development, I hope no final decision will be made regarding
development standards at this time. I will look forward to reading the minutes of the meeting;perhaps it can be
e-mailed to me.
Below are questions about the packet that was mailed to me that I would like answered.
The first basic question I have is if a permit is required for each tree, or trees as a group. I believe the CAC
agreed on fees applied, as a group as individual tree permits would be too expensive.
Page 45. Should the City Managers allowed decision be more spelled out? It seems not clearly defined and
may give grounds for appeal. Perhaps you should include the definition from page 44 and add anything else
you deem as allowable for the Manager to act on.
Should a time frame be included for both types of review.
i
-15-
8.10.020 Does Tigard prune the street trees as most other cities do? Should a provision be added to allow that
and or maintenance of street trees?
8.10.040 I assume new development, minor partitions and the like will be specifically spelled out here or in
8.4.020.
Page 66 last paragraph Trees removed under 18.16.040, for clarity, I think this section"According to Section 6.
etc, should be included in the code for clarity. It seems like items 4, 5 & 6 should not require replacement
under Section 6. 4 because if roots are causing damage to a building, a new tree will do the same, 5 if there is
an approved street improvement replacement would not be possible, 6 if trees are removed for approved
development or utility repair, it may not be wise or possible to replace them this should be allowed for in the
code. I realize it says if here is room on the site, but that does not stop appeals. I don't see where it is
referenced anywhere. Also in the sections that apply below.
Page 70 last paragraph Trees removed under 18.16.040, for clarity, I think this section"According to Section 7.
etc, should be included in the code for clarity. It seems like items 4, 5 & 6 should not require replacement
under Section 7. 4 because if roots are causing damage to a building, a new tree will do the same, 5 if there is
an approved street improvement replacement would not be possible, 6 if trees are removed for approved
development or utility repair, it may not be wise or possible to replace them this should be allowed for in the
code. I realize it says if here is room on the site, but that does not stop appeals. Apply as necessary to the
UFM.
Page 74 last paragraph Trees removed under 18.16.040, for clarity, I think this section "According to Section 8.
etc, should be included in the code for clarity. It seems like items 4, 5 & 6 should not require replacement
under Section 7. 4 because if roots are causing damage to a building, a new tree will do the same, 5 if there is
an approved street improvement replacement would not be possible, 6 if trees are removed for approved
development or utility repair, it may not be wise or possible to replace them this should be allowed for in the
code. I realize it says if here is room on the site, but that does not stop appeals.
Page 87. Is this reading $250 per inch? Is it based on a replacement tree of 1" or 2" or 3"The way I read it, if
a person cut down 3 —24 inch DBH fir trees accidentally, it would cost them $18,000.00? (3 X 24 X 250=
18,000) I think we need to have a clear number that is reasonable. Accidents happen. I could see this
happening along a long delineation between private land and buffer areas.
Page 99 F.iv. I think you better check with TVFD to be sure they are Okay with 4' to a fire hydrant. I don't
really think they are. See also Page 102 £iv
Page 99 U. Should this be more? I was thinking about electric vaults and water meters. I think 2' may be
asking for future trouble. See also Page 102 £v
Page 99 g. What is a root barrier? I have never used one on a standard development, and would wonder how it
plays out with the tree root boxes designed to go under hard surfaces you have spoken about? Will tree boxes
be incorporated in the code? See also Page 102 g
Page 106 Section 7,Part l.b.i Shouldn't 8.02 be 8.08 hazard tree? I think Development needs it's own
definition of a hazard tree that does not include a target, as there may be no actual targets until the development
is completed. This has been the subject of appeal before and the loophole should be closed.
Page 106 Section 7,Part l.b.viii add building pads to the definition to allow cutting trees in areas of upcoming
building. This process is done during development, not during building construction.
i
-16-
Page 107. I am looking for all the criteria for when a development has to replace a tree, and have not found
it. I was expecting the canopy required to enter in somewhere. Am I missing something?
Page 109 Part l.b.viii add building pads to the definition to allow cutting trees in areas of upcoming
building. This process is done during development, not during building construction.
Page 110. I am looking for all the criteria for when a development has to replace a tree, and have not found it.
Page 114: 1 am not a tree expert, so I have to ask. Have we got the right standard for an urban environment? In
previous chapters, what has been talked about is a point rating of 8, 9 or 10 depending on the size. Now that I
read this, it does not make sense to me in an urban environment.
Under probability of Failure,
Moderate, the symptoms sound like something that I would not want hanging over my home. A Standing dead
tree? Shouldn't that be an automatic OK to remove? Root damage of 20%-33% on a tree near my new home
would cause me sleepless nights in a windstorm and Crown damage generally leads to a bad tree. Shouldn't it
be removed, especially before construction? And that is just the Moderate 2 point class.
Moderately high: Areas of decay that may be expanding. Sounds ominous. I guess if they were small enough,
it might be okay for a while, but it would sound like eventually it will need to be removed at the owners
expense after new construction had occurred. It is far less expensive to remove a tree before construction
High: It would seem that any of these would be cause for removal.
Extreme: An emergency treatment where treatment is required? Some of these are recoverable, but some are
not. Again, is this the right standard for Development?
Page 115. I think Target should just be assumed as high in all cases or the Target criteria should just be
removed, and the point scale revised. I was trying to figure out when in the city there is not a target. Parking
lots, shopping centers, street trees, apartment complexes,parks, industrial areas, libraries, schools, hospitals and
especially homes, all have obvious targets. Perhaps some sensitive lands may be ok,just not those near
walkways or neighboring developed property. Wouldn't it just be easier to remove this criteria from the
mix. Whether or not a tree has a target does not make it a health tree.
In the very least, I think development sites should be treated differently than developed sites. As Developers,
we must ensure the safety of the site for future construction and occupants. The entire site should be rated as
High in the target area as it will be high upon completion. I really think Target should be removed from the
Development Section of the code. This has been something that has be the object of appeal and should be
corrected in the new code.
Page 116 Risk 6-12 By the time a tree is at these stages, shouldn't it be removed from your property or
community?
I may not have the correct solution for this, but I don't think this scale is doing the job in habitable areas.
Page 125: 1 have not found where any of the tier requirements have been incorporated into the code. Is it forth
coming? I see the Tiers have a range of percentage of coverage, exactly how will that be decided?
3
-17-
I appreciate the effort staff has put in and fundamentally approve of their plan. I particularly approve of not
requiring tree permits for non-native trees. Well done. I think, depending on how it is implemented, there may
be room for adjustment on the expected canopy coverage of residential lots. I would encourage the CAC to
review their own homes using Google Maps with property lines turned on. You will find that people do not like
trees over their homes and they like yards with areas of grass. By the time you remove the home and a yard
area from the lot area, you may be surprised at the remaining area left for canopy. If it would be helpful, I
would prepare a presentation showing actual homes in Tigard that would show various tree canopy coverage.
In the previous packet Todd presented examples of First edition in Lake Oswego as an example of achievable
coverage. Having built in that area, I can tell you that is not and will not be the case. First edition is an area of
small homes on often double or triple lots that is steadily going through redevelopment. During redevelopment
these smaller homes are being replaced with larger homes or duplexes and the lots are being redeveloped into
one home on one lot. One of the examples shows a lot with dense coverage, but if you look closely at the map,
it is a treed vacant lot, not a lot with a home as stated. Additionally, First Addition is comprised of
predominantly narrow unfinished streets. They are substantially narrower than what they will eventually be
after redevelopment, they presently have no curbs, gutters, storm system, planter strips or sidewalks allowing
more room for the current trees. Trees that will have to be removed when the streets are completed to standard.
In conclusion, First edition is not a good example of achievable coverage.
Page 128: I fundamentally oppose any additional requirements that would involve CWS or any other entity. I
feel the City is fully capable of regulating their own territory including tree removal. CWS is difficult to deal
with, and I doubt they would be interested in taking on any new work.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
4
-18-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Summary of Housekeeping Revisions Incorporated into the Comprehensive
Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Date: July 7, 2011
Introduction
Staff has completed a preliminary review of the Comprehensive Draft Urban Forestry Code
Revisions to identify any necessary revisions to improve code clarity, consistency, and effectiveness.
When completing the preliminary review, staff paid particular attention to the compiled list of
housekeeping revisions suggested by CAC members. Below is a summary of the housekeeping
revisions that have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Draft since the June 8, 2011 meeting
of the CAC. Please note that the Comprehensive Draft has been reviewed by the City Attorney and
will be further refined during the upcoming Technical Review process.
Summary of Housekeeping Revisions
1. Added a consolidated project background and summary to the Urban Forestry Code Revisions.
This involved taking the background and summary for each topic area (hazard trees, tree permit
requirements, urban forestry standards for development, and tree grove preservation incentives)
and combining into one.
2. Made minor spelling, punctuation, and grammar revisions to the code and commentary as
needed consistent with city standards.
3. Added commentary for each section of code. Previously there was not commentary for some
code sections such as purpose statements, and now there is corresponding commentary no
matter how self-explanatory the code section.
4. Revised commentary language as needed to reflect that the document is now a comprehensive
draft. For example, statements such as "this will be addressed as part of an upcoming topic"
have been removed.
5. Sections of the Urban Forestry Manual have been rearranged and consolidated in some cases.
For example, Street Tree Planting and Street Tree Maintenance were previously two separate
sections and have been consolidated into one section (Street Tree Planting and Maintenance).
-19-
Since this changes the numbering of the sections, corresponding cross references to the Urban
Forestry Manual in the code have been revised accordingly.
6. All references to the "Tigard Urban Forestry Manual" have been revised to "Urban Forestry
Manual" for consistency.
7. Throughout the code and commentary, clarified that the Urban Forestry Manual contains
"administrative rules" not "supplemental regulations." Previously there were inconsistencies in
the code and commentary in describing what the Urban Forestry Manual contains, and now the
description of the Urban Forestry Manual is consistent with city terminology.
S. Throughout the code, clarified that the "canopy" refers to "tree canopy" to avoid any confusion
since both words have separate definitions in chapter 18.120.
9. Revised the commentary for definitions in chapter 8.02 by providing a cross reference to the
commentary for the same definitions in chapter 18.120. Commentary for definitions in chapter
8.02 is only provided for words that are not also defined in chapter 18.120. This is to avoid
repeating the same commentary for the same words that appear in both chapters.
10. Revised the enforcement provisions in chapter 8.20 and 18.790 to remove reference to a
requirement for payment of penalties within 30 days of a notice of violation because chapter
1.16 contains the procedures and timelines for payment of penalties for code violations.
11. Revised the definition of "Significant Tree" in section 8.02.030 to clarify that the tree owner's
approval is required for designation.
12. Revised the commentary for section 8.04.020 to clarify that a replacement tree is not required if
there is not a room for a replacement tree on site.
13. Revised language slightly in sections 8.14.020 and 8.16.020 to clarify when the code provisions
are applicable.
14. Revised language slightly in section 8.18.030.0 to clarify the process for signing a deed
restriction as part of the Heritage Tree designation process.
15. In title 18 only, changed the term "City Manager or designee" back to "Director" throughout.
The City Manager has granted the Director final decision making authority for code provisions
in title 18. In all other titles in the code, the City Manager has final decision making authority.
16.Added commentary for every tree related definition in chapter 18.120. Previously there was not
commentary for some of the simpler definitions, and now there is corresponding commentary
no matter how self-explanatory the definition.
17. Revised section 18.790.040 and corresponding commentary to clarify that a Type III
Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review can be reviewed and approved by either the Planning
Commission or the Hearings Officer. Previously, reference was only made to the Planning
Commission, but the Hearings Officer is also authorized to review and approve Type III land
use permits.
18. Revised Section 10, Part 1j, 1k, 2h, and 3d of the Urban Forestry Manual in conjunction to
require trees less than six inch DBH that are protected by title 8 to be included in the urban
forestry plan. Previously the language required an inventory of only street trees, median trees,
and Heritage Trees less six inch DBH in the urban forestry plan (in addition to all open grown
trees six inch DBH and greater, and all stands of trees). Since that time, additional categories of
protected trees have been defined in title 8 such as trees that were required with development
(e.g. parking lot trees) and trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund.
-20-
Referencing trees protected by title 8 rather than listing each category of tree is more efficient.
19. Revised Section 10, Part 2h of the Urban Forestry Manual so that only preserved trees (in
addition to planted trees) are required to be shown on the Tree Canopy Site Plan. Previously,
the language was unclear and could be interpreted as requiring preserved and removed trees to
be shown on the Tree Canopy Site Plan. In order to simplify the plan, removed trees should
not be shown since they are obviously not eligible for credit towards the tree canopy standard.
20. Revised Section 10, Part 3d-vi of the Urban Forestry Manual so that the tree inventory addresses
whether a particular tree is a Heritage Tree or not. Previously the tree inventory addressed
whether a particular tree is a "Heritage Tree, street tree, median tree, or other". However, since
only Heritage Trees are protected from removal with development, it is really only important to
know whether a particular tree is a Heritage Tree or not.
21.Added a provision to Section 11, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual that twice monthly site
inspections and reports by the project arborist are required only during periods of active site
development and construction. There are often extended periods of inactivity during the
development and construction process, and the city's current practice of temporarily suspending
inspection and report requirements during periods of inactivity is now reflected in the Urban
Forestry Manual.
22. Revised Section 10, Part 3d to specify that documentation of compliance with soil volume
standards is required prior to final acceptance by the City Manager or designee (final planning
inspection, final engineering inspection, etc.) in cases where there is no building permit
associated with the land use permit (as is sometimes the case for non-residential projects).
23.Modified Section 13, Part 3b-xii of the Urban Forestry Manual so that the project arborist is
required to propose the canopy size for an alternative parking lot tree (not on the approved
parking lot tree list) for review and approval by the city. This is consistent with the urban
forestry plan requirements in Section 10. Previously the language read that the city would
determine the canopy size for alternate parking lot trees. However, the city's role is review
applicant's proposals, not develop proposals.
24. Modified Section 12, Part 3b-x and Section 13, Part 3b-xv of the Urban Forestry Manual to
simplify the name of the standard soil volume plan drawings and specifications.
-21-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Summary of Parking Lot Items for Urban Forestry Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Date: July 19, 2011
Due to limited meeting time, a number of issues raised by Citizen Advisory Committee members
during meetings and not fully addressed at meetings have been placed in a list of "Parking Lot"
items to be addressed as part of the comprehensive review phase of the project. Below are the
Parking Lot items from the topics of Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove
Preservation Incentives, with a staff update/response and applicable code sections. Citizen
Advisory Committee members may choose to discuss further at the August 10, 2011 meeting.
-22-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
1. Urban 40%canopy target is too This has been incorporated into the draft 18.790.030
Forestry ambitious. proposal. A blanket 40%canopy target is
Standards for no longer proposed. Instead,a tiered
Development approach to the canopy standard based on
zoning has been developed. Averaging of
canopy across a development site is
allowed rather than applying the overall
standard for each lot as originally
proposed.
There are a number of incentives/credits
for preserving existing trees and planting
street trees which make canopy standard
more easily achieved. A fee in lieu and
discretionary approval option are available
when the required amount of trees is not
desirable or achievable.
Due to the incentives/credits it is more
accurate to label the standard as an
effective canopy requirement rather than
an actual canopy requirement. Based on
the incentive/credits to meet the effective
canopy requirements, the actual canopy
required falls into the following ranges:
Tier 1 —16%-40% for low&medium
density residential'
Tier 2—13%-33% for medium-high&high
density residential/commercial/mixed
use/industrial park2
Tier 3—10%-25% for
industrial/downtown/schools3
2.Urban Overhanging trees should This has not been incorporated into the 18.790.030
Forestry receive double credit for draft proposal. Based on test cases, staffs
Standards for canopy when a tree may cover believes there are adequate
Development more than one lot. incentives/credits that will allow the tiered
canopy standard to be met on a wide range
of development sites while resulting in a
reasonable amount of trees. Granting an
additional double credit for overhanging
trees could incentivize planting very close
to property lines to maximize double
credits. This may not be a desirable
1 R-1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5,R-7,and R-12
z R-25,R-40, C-N,C-C,C-G,C-P,MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2,MUC,MUR,and I-P
3 MU-CBD,MUC-1,I-L,I-H,and schools (18.130.0500))
-23-
incentive. Staff recommends implementing
the proposed methodology(without
offering double credit for overhang) and
reviewing periodically as recommended by
the CAC to identify any implementation
issues for future revision.
3.Urban Determine the impact of tree This has been incorporated into the draft 18.745.050
Forestry canopy targets on parking proposal. The parking lot tree canopy 18.790.050
Standards for standards are flexible enough to allow
Development parking requirements to be met on a wide
range of development sites. Use of
methods such as structural soils is allowed
to meet soil volume requirements under
pavement without impacting parking. In
addition,reduction of up to 20%below
minimum parking is allowed to install
traditional landscape islands for parking lot
trees.
4. Urban How will the tree canopy Tree canopy targets would apply to infill 18.790.030
Forestry targets apply to infill lots (i.e. minor land partitions) in the same
Standards for manner as larger developments such as
Development subdivisions.
The tree canopy targets would not place
additional burden on minor land partitions
because the underlying zone requirements
(lot size,lot coverage,tiered canopy
standards,etc.)would apply in a
proportionate amount whether a
development is a minor land partition or a
large subdivision. When applying the draft
standards to test cases,the amount of trees
required by the proposed standards are
more reasonable, equitable,and achievable
than required by the existing code which
requires inch for inch mitigation based on
tree removal.
5. Urban Periodic evaluation after This can be addressed through N/A
Forestry adoption incorporation into the final recommended
Standards for draft. Staff supports this recommendation.
Development
-24-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
1.Tree Concerns about health of Tree The concern has been addressed and 18.790.050.0
Grove Grove after partial removal incorporated into the draft proposal. As
Preservation requested by the CAC,considerations for
Incentives preserving the health of Significant Tree
Groves have been added to Section 10,
Part 5 of the Urban Forestry Manual and
cross referenced in the code. The
considerations are intended to guide the
project arborist and the city when
determining what portion of the Significant
Tree Grove to preserve. The
considerations requiring balancing on a
case by case basis since each development
project will have unique circumstances that
will drive preservation based on site
conditions and development constraints.
2.Tree Option for transfer of excess This has not been incorporated into the N/A
Grove tree canopy credit draft proposal. Staff was asked to further
Preservation investigate developing such a program. In
Incentives addition to the previously discussed legal
and financial hurdles of such a program,an
equity issue exists. While it is a goal of the
urban forestry program to preserve
significant tree groves,it is also a goal of
the program to preserve high quality trees,
regardless of whether located in a
significant tree grove. The allowance of
transferring excess tree canopy credit,while
benefitting the significant tree grove,could
result in a neighborhood nowhere near the
significant tree grove losing canopy
coverage.Many neighborhood residents
already dislike the loss of trees during the
development process,allowing an
exemption from tree requirements because
of transfer credits from another part of the
city could be viewed as inequitable. After
considering these factors, staff is
recommending not including a transfer of
excess canopy credit option in the draft
proposal.
-25-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Canopy Standard
Date: June 27, 2011
Introduction
When describing the draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development, staff has emphasized the
canopy standard because it is an easy concept for people to grasp regardless of their expertise in
urban forestry. However, emphasizing canopy may have resulted in a perception that the city is
focused solely on the achievement of canopy, and is ignoring other standards for urban forest
health. Staff would like to provide some background as to why the canopy standard was drafted
and highlight additional standards in the draft code beyond the canopy standard.
Background
During the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Forestry Master Plan processes, there was general
consensus that the existing development code unfairly penalizes property owners with existing trees
and encourages the overplanting of replacement trees. The reasoning was that mitigation
requirements apply only to property owners with existing trees over 12-inch trunk diameter, and
replacement trees or fees are required based on the diameter of trees removed. For example, if a
12-inch diameter tree is removed, replacement with 6, 2-inch diameter trees or a $1,500 fee in lieu
of replacement ($125/inch fee) is required.
Urban Forestry Master Plan goal 1.2.a recommends the city address this equity issue as part of the
development code revisions by "(d)evelop(ing) canopy cover or tree density standards for all lots to
be met by either preserving existing trees or planting new trees". The Urban Forestry Code
Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee affirmed Urban Forestry Master Plan goal 1.2.a by general
consensus through surveys and group discussions, and staff has worked to draft corresponding
development code revisions.
When drafting the development code revisions, staff studied a tree density standard (requiring X
number of trees per square feet of development area) and compared it with a canopy standard
-26-
(requiring X square feet of canopy per square feet of development area). The canopy standard was
selected as the preferred alternative for the following reasons:
• The canopy standard allows more flexibility for the project designer to meet code
requirements due to the wide variation of canopy shapes by species. A tree density standard
has more limited options for the project designer to meet numerical tree planting
requirements.
• The canopy standard is more consistent with urban forest science and the city's long term
urban forestry goals. The benefits of trees (economic, environmental, and social) are derived
primarily from their canopies rather than number of trees. The canopy standard encourages
large stature, appropriately spaced trees which have the highest benefit/cost ratios. A tree
density standard allows small stature, closely spaced trees to meet numerical requirements.
• The canopy standard requires the project designer to consider future canopy growth which
helps ensure trees are properly placed within a site to become long term amenities. The
canopy standard encourages appropriate tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by
highlighting mature canopy growth, whereas a density standard focuses on planting a certain
number of trees and does not take mature growth into account.
• The canopy standard provides more consistency in development outcomes. For example, a
parking lot planted to meet a numerical tree density standard can look very different after
future growth depending on whether small ornamental trees or large shade trees are selected.
The canopy standard helps normalize outcomes.
• Planting trees to meet either a canopy standard or a tree density standard both rely on
successful establishment and long term maintenance by property owners. However, the
canopy standard focuses more on long term growth during the initial design phase so that
trees are more likely to become long term site amenities.
Additional Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Staff is aware that focusing solely on a tree canopy standard would not result in a healthy urban
forest and achievement of the city's long term urban forestry goal. This is why the canopy standard
is only one among many of the draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development.
The following is a summary of the draft urban forestry plan requirements for development:
Submittal Requirements for Plan/Arborist Report
• Species, location, trunk diameter, and canopy size of existing and proposed trees;
• Condition and suitability for preservation rating for existing trees;
• Location and type of development impacts that could affect existing trees;
• Location and type of tree protection fencing;
• Analysis of soils for proposed trees including chemical and physical properties, required
amendments, and soil volumes; and
-27-
• Supplemental specifications by the project arborist for the continued viability of existing and
proposed trees.
Approval/Implementation Requirements
• Existing and proposed trees are required to be appropriate species depending on their
application (street trees, parking lot trees, reforestation trees, etc.) and not nuisance species;
• Existing trees are required to meet minimum condition and suitability for preservation
thresholds;
• Proposed trees are required to meet minimum spacing, building setback, pavement setback,
and other locational standards;
• Proposed trees are required to meet minimum species diversity standards;
• Proposed trees are required to meet minimum soil standards including soil volume standards
for street and parking lot trees;
• Individual lots, parking lots, and the overall development site are required to meet minimum
canopy standards;
• During site development and construction, the project arborist is required to regularly report
on implementation of the urban forestry plan including tree protection and planting
requirements;
• A two year establishment period for newly planted trees is required; and
• All trees in the urban forestry plan become protected and are required to be included in a
publicly accessible urban forest inventory.
Conclusion
The canopy standard is an important element of the draft urban forestry standards for
development. It is consistent with urban forest science and the city's long term urban forestry
goals. However, the canopy standard is not intended or appropriate as a stand-alone requirement.
Additional standards such as appropriate species, planting techniques, and preservation methods are
incorporated in the draft requirements because all are essential for successful development
outcomes and a healthy urban forest.
-28-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Draft Guiding Principles for Urban Forestry Standards for Development
and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Date: July 12, 2011
Introduction c
During the comprehensive review phase, the Citizen Advisory Committee will develop a set of
guiding principles for each of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions topic areas. The intent of the
guiding principles is to concisely convey the consensus view of the Citizen Advisory Committee to
Planning Commission,and City Council during the adoption process. The guiding principles will
also serve staff during the technical review phase to ensure technical edits of the code remain
consistent with the Citizen Advisory Committee's consensus view. A brief introduction page will
be included to describe the purpose of the guiding principles and communicate the Citizen
Advisory Committee's overarching recommendation that the provisions be periodically evaluated
after adoption. Periodic evaluation will allow the code to be adapted as needed to address
unintended consequences and emerging science.
Following are a set of draft guiding principles for the topics of Urban Forestry Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives. The draft guiding principles are intended as
a starting point for the Citizen Advisory Committee's discussion at the August 10, 2011 meeting.
-29-
Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Major development projects build, improve, and maintain public and private infrastructure
including streets and utilities in accordance with city standards. Major development projects shall
also contribute to the urban forest component of the city's green infrastructure regardless of
existing site conditions as follows:
• Provide an urban forestry plan by a certified arborist outlining methods for preserving,
planting, and maintaining trees in accordance with industry accepted standards;
• Meet tiered canopy targets tailored by zone with:
o New trees that have adequate soil resources, appropriate species, a diverse mix, and
are well placed; or
o Existing trees in good condition, suitable for preservation, appropriate species, and
are well protected during development;
• Grant bonus credits towards tiered canopy targets for preserving existing trees to reward
tree stewardship in the years before development;
• Encourage planting of new trees that will be large stature at maturity to meet tiered canopy
targets. Well placed, large stature trees are proven to have high benefit to cost ratios;
• Allow a fee in lieu of meeting tiered canopy requirements to be used for a full range of
activities that support the urban forest infrastructure;
• Provide flexibility in sidewalk, parking, landscape, and lot standards to facilitate preservation
and planting;
• Require street trees and parking lot trees to meet more detailed soil volume standards.
These trees often have limited access to soil needed to support their function of providing
canopy over impervious surfaces;
• Allow modifications of an urban forestry plan during the course of development through a
Type I review process so that planting and preservation strategies can be easily adapted;
• Require regular monitoring and reporting of an urban forestry plan during the course of
development by a certified arborist to ensure successful implementation;
• Record spatial and species specific data for inclusion in a publicly accessible inventory of
trees. Readily accessible information on trees benefits citizens and the city when making
future decisions in the years following development; and
• Provide a discretionary review track in lieu of meeting tiered canopy requirements or fees
for innovative, alternate development proposals that provide equivalent environmental
benefits as trees (energy, hydrology,wildlife, etc.).
-30-
Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Within the city limits, 70 native tree groves covering 544 acres have been identified as significant
through the state Goal 5 rule requirements. Major development projects with a mapped Significant
Tree Grove shall be eligible for flexible standards and incentives to aid in preserving the grove as
follows:
• Allow reduction of minimum residential density requirements based on the amount of grove
preserved. As more grove is preserved, require fewer units;
• Allow transfer of residential density from the grove to the non-grove portion of a site. As
more grove is preserved, allow a reduction in required lot and unit dimensions;
• Ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood when transferring density for
grove preservation;
• Allow additional building height and reduced setbacks for commercial and industrial
development that preserves a grove;
• Maintain adequate buffering and screening from surrounding development when adding
height and reducing setbacks for commercial and industrial development that preserves a
grove;
• Waive any lot by lot canopy standard in favor of preserving cohesive canopy from a grove;
• Establish authority to adjust street and utility standards in favor of preserving a grove as
long as it does not create an unreasonable risk to the public;
• Require the applicant to work with a certified arborist to maximize the connectivity and
viability= of the preserved portion of a grove in accordance with industry accepted standards;
and
• Require permanent protection and management of a grove within a development that
utilizes any of the flexible standards and incentives for grove preservation.
-31-