Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 09/08/2010 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
. 0
MEETING #3 - (9/8/2010)
Table of Contents
9/8/2010 Meeting Agenda............................................................................................................................................2
CAC Meeting Summary (6/9/2010)............................................................................................................................3
CAC Meeting Summary (7/7/2010)............................................................................................................................ 8
Comments.....................................................................................................................................................................17
UFCRPublic Involvement Plan.................................................................................................................................28
Hazard Trees,Preliminary Draft Code Amendments ............................................................................................38
Street Trees (Non-Development) Background and Options Memo....................................................................70
TAC Meeting Summary (7/13/10)............................................................................................................................75
TACMeeting Summary (8/17/2010)........................................................................................................................78
Timeline for Tree Grove Inventory&Protection Program..................................................................................81
TreeGrove Inventory Methods.................................................................................................................................82
-1-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC — Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: TVF&R Fire Station 50, Community Room
12617 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223
MEETING GoALs: Review and recommend draft Hazard Tree Code
Brainstorm options for Street Tree Code
1. (Info) Welcome,introductions and agenda overview 6.•30-6:40 PM
• Review Meeting packet materials
• Recap Meeting #1
• Approve Meeting#1 and Meeting#2 Summaries
/Adrienne DeDona/
2. (Info) Public Comment 6:40-6:50 PM
3. (Info) Public Involvement Plan 6:50-6:55 PM
/Marissa Daniels/
4. (Action) Draft Hazard Tree Code 6:55-7:30 PM
/Gary Pagenstecher/
BREAK
5. (Discussion) Street Tree Code Options 7.•35-8:25 PM
/Todd Prager/
6. (Info) Wrap up/Next Steps 8:25-8.•30 PM
9. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 8:30 PM
Next meeting: October 13, 2010
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— September 8, 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 #1
June 9, 2010
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance:
Scott Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory Committee; John Frewing, Citizen at-large; Ken Gertz,
Portland Metro Homebuilders; Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers;John Wyland, developer;Tony
Tycer,Tree Board; Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board; Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist; Dave Walsh, Planning
Commission and Don Schmidt, Planning Commission.
Committee members absent:
Jason Rogers, Parks& Recreation Advisory Committee.
Consultant staff present:
Adrienne DeDona and Eryn Kehe,JLA Public Involvement.
Staff present:
Todd Prager and Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard..
Members of the public present:
None
Introductions and meeting agenda overview
Adrienne DeDona opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. by introducing herself and her co-facilitator Eryn
Kehe from JLA Public Involvement. Eryn explained that JLA is under contract with the City of Tigard to
provide facilitation services for this process.
Adrienne asked City staff to introduce themselves. Todd Prager introduced himself as the City's arborist
and coordinator for the project. Marissa Daniels introduced herself next as a staff person from Long
Range Planning. She will assist Todd and be the City's lead for public involvement. Adrienne asked the
committee members to introduce themselves by explaining their interest in participating in the process.
Bret Lieuallen from the Tigard Tree Board said that it was"his time"to be part of a project like this one.
Tony Tycer said that he was participating because he wanted to see this process move forward. Morgan
Holen shared that she worked on the Master Plan process and looked forward to seeing this process
through to the end. Ken Gertz explained his involvement around his interest in parks and greenways.
John Wyland said he wants the code to be more user friendly in the future. John Frewing shared his
interest in trees and wanting to make sure that the code will protect urban forests. Don Schmidt said
that he was there to represent the Planning Commission and shared that he is generally interested in
tress and the urban forest.
Adrienne reviewed the agenda and went over the goals for the evening.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting#1 Summary Notes
Page 1
-3-
Review of project background, committee purpose and goals
Adrienne asked Todd to share a little background on the process. Todd provided a brief historical
background going back to work conducted by the Tigard Tree Board from 2004 through to 2007. He said
that the City's Comprehensive Plan review process began toward the end of that work and as a result,
the City Council suggested that the two processes be combined. Under the direction of Ron Bunch,the
Tree Board's work was folded into this larger planning effort in 2007. The Comprehensive Plan included
a broad framework of goals and a vision for urban forestry, including the creation of an Urban Forestry
Master Plan. This process included a collaborative effort between the community and the Tree Board to
conduct a comprehensive review the existing tree codes to document what was working and what was
not working. In February of this year, City Council asked staff implement the next step in the process by
implementing the policies contained within the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Council directed staff to
review and revise the urban forestry code through a comprehensive public involvement process that
included broad stakeholder representation. Todd shared a project schedule that explained activities for
the committee and staff efforts from June 2010 to November 2011. This process will include:
• A Technical Advisory Team
• A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) IV
• Public Outreach
• Peer review of the code revisions
Marissa Daniels said that the City Council has a strong commitment to this process and has invested
resources, despite recent budget cuts, due to the importance of the Urban Forestry Code revisions.
Marissa reviewed the City Council Resolution No. 10-12 to establish the Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC)for the Urban Forestry Code Revision. The resolution includes the following:
CAC Mission statement:
• Create an environment conducive to multiple and diverse opinions and ideas.
• Review and comment on draft code language prepared by staff; and
• Ensure the urban forestry code is consistent with and supportive of the applicable goals, policies
and action measures in the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations in the Urban
Forestry Master Plan; and
• Promote public understanding of the proposed urban forestry code.
CAC expectations: ` Y
• Convene at least six meetings conducted by a third party facilitator. Marissa noted that the CAC
was slated to meet 10 to 13 times.
• Convene at least one facilitated workshop to promote public understanding and receive
meaningful public input;
• Consider all written and oral input received by the public;
• Seek to achieve general consensus on code previsions, if consensus cannot be reached then
decisions will be made by a majority vote;
• Assure respect and consideration of the viewpoints of others; and
• Recommend to Council removal and replacement of members unwilling or unable to adhere to
the protocol described above.
John Frewing inquired about the status of the City's Comprehensive Plan since an appeal had been filed
on the Urban Forestry section. Marissa said that the City will file a voluntary remand of that section this
week to address any procedural questions.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting#1 Summary Notes
Page 2
-4-
Ken Gertz asked if this was considered a complete overhaul of the existing codes. Todd responded that
in order to make the codes consistent with the new Urban Forestry Master Plan that an extensive
rework will be necessary.
John Frewing asked if the changes would include new municipal and community development code and
Marissa responded that it would.
Committee protocols
Eryn conducted a group brainstorming session regarding the preferred environment for committee
meetings. The following are the results of the discussion: ®�
• Provide the opportunity for a fair comparison of the alternatives
• Include breaks or recesses during the meeting for small group discussions.
• Be committed to the group's mission.
• Have respect for other people's position.
• Remain open-minded.
• Work together as a team.
• Have a pragmatic approach.
• Listen and pay attention to others in order to understand their viewpoints.
• Maintain and develop individual relationships.
Following the brainstorming session, Eryn reviewed the proposed protocols with the group. The
majority of items were approved without changes, however,the following additions were
recommended (additions are marked in underlined text):
During meetings,committee members will:
• Put aside personal agendas. Raise issues honestly, clearly and early in the process. Bring
information to the group about simultaneous processes or any other information relevant to the
process. This will help the group make recommendations about how to move forward.
o Question: John F. asked how information about other code revision processes from
other communities would be collected and distributed to the group. This was put in the
parking lot to be addressed at the next meeting.
Other meeting protocols,committee members will:
• Read materials in advance.
o A comment was made about getting materials in a timely fashion. Eryn pointed out that
this is addressed in the 'Communication Between Meetings' section of the protocols.
o Provide opportunities for public comments at the er4 beginning of each meeting. The
facilitator will gauge the number of members of the public present at meetings and may
allow for brief comment during the course of the meeting on specific agenda topics
dependent upon time and agenda constraints.
Communication between meetings:
• Meeting materials will be distributed by e-mail,generally one week in advance of meetings, or
mail by request(time permitting).
o A number of committee members requested to receive hard copies of lengthy
information either by regular mail or to pick up at City Hall. Those members will notify
Marissa directly to request hard copies of information.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting#1 Summary Notes
Page 3
-5-
The protocols were approved unanimously with the above revisions. Eryn explained that a revised copy
of the protocols will be provided at the next meeting. The committee members will be asked to sign the
protocols in order to confirm their commitment to abide by them.
Discussion of desired outcomes
Adrienne asked the group to individually reflect on the outcomes they hoped to see addressed as a part
of this process. Each member was instructed to write their ideas down on a sheet of paper. Afterwards
committee members grouped into pairs and shared their lists with each other. One member of each
pair reported out on their preferred outcomes. After the report out, each committee member was
given 6 dots to place on the items they most wanted to see accomplished through this process.
Adrienne explained that this was in no way eliminating items. It was a way to gauge a sense of priority
for some topics. The following is a result of the group discussion and prioritization:
• Updated Tree Code,to include:
o Clear, simple and objective standards (5 dots)
o View toward the future (2 dots)
• Canopy Enhancement,to include (2 dots):
o Street trees and parking lots (3 dots)
o North/South direction streets,especially
o Private mitigation (1 dot)
• Review mitigation (6 dots)
• Incentives for tree retention (6 dots)
• Balance between development and standing trees (5 dots)
• Multi-level permits (5 dots)
• Conservation Easements paid for through mitigation (4 dots)
• Lot standard size flexibility and street variation to support retention of trees (4 dots)
• Hazard Trees (3 dots)
• Solar access/view corridors(2 dots)
• Compare with other municipal codes (2 dots)
• Groves (2 dots)
• Consider forest function (soil, root volume, understory) (2 dots)
• Nuisance versus desired species (1 dot)
• Standards for soil volumes for street trees (1 dot)
• Baseline data—existing species street tree inventory(1 dot)
• Protection of heritage trees (1 dot)
• Identify problems within the existing code
• Enforcement
• Tracking results over time
Wrap-up and Next Steps
Adrienne asked the group to reflect on the results of the brainstorming exercise regarding outcomes.
Some noted that there were some surprises, such as the idea regarding conservation easements. Other
comments were that there a lot of the popular ideas came out first. A few other committee members
noted that some items could likely be lumped together or consolidated.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting#1 Summary Notes
Page 4
-6-
Adrienne asked the group about their preference for the next meeting date and location. The group
indicated they preferred to meet on Wednesday,July 7t"at the same time and location. Adrienne
explained that there would be a break following the second meeting to allow time for staff to work on
information to present to the committee and to allow for summer vacations. The committee will
reconvene in September with a set schedule. Marissa requested that the committee members return
their meeting preference worksheets to her as soon as possible. The worksheets will be used to
determine the regular meeting schedule beginning in September.
Dave Walsh inquired about the timing and format for a full day workshop mentioned in the City Council
resolution. His indicated that he would prefer to have a full day public workshop with the CAC
facilitated by JLA in order to maintain project momentum. Eryn responded that staff could consider
that as an option and bring it back to the committee at a future meeting.
Public Comment
None.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:35 p.m.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting#1 Summary Notes
Page S
—7—
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting# 2
July 7, 2010
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance:
Dave Walsh, Planning Commission Scott Bernhard, Parks& Recreation Advisory
Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Committee
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers Don Schmidt, Planning Commission
Tony Tycer,Tree Board John Wyland, Developer
Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist John Frewing, Citizen at-large
Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders
Committee members absent:
Jason Rogers, Parks& Recreation Advisory Committee
Consultant staff present:
Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement
Sylvia Ciborowski,JLA Public Involvement
Staff present:
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Susan Hartnett, City of Tigard
Todd Prager, City of Tigard Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard
Members of the public present
Bob Ludlum Terry Flanagan
Information Requests from this meeting:
• Information on Pacific Northwest Hazard Activities(PNWISA Hazard Assessment)
• Urban Forestry Code—Staff will not print hard copies of the Code, but members are
encouraged to email Marissa if they would like hard copies of any sections. Members will
receive copies of relevant sections at each meeting.
Introductions and agenda overview
Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda. Staff and committee
members introduced themselves.
Adrienne distributed meeting summaries from the June 9 CAC meeting and asked members to review
and bring up any comments or revisions at the next meeting.
-g-
Public Comment
Bob Ludlum made a public comment.
Bob Ludlum said that he lives in unincorporated Washington County. He owns 5 acres of land in Tigard
which is forested. He cut the big timber off selectively and replanted.The land is currently a mixed
forest. He noted that he could have clear cut the property like neighbors did, but prefers to have a forest
to leave for his children. It is his hope that the Code revisions will not trample any further on the
property rights of land owners. He explained that if the Code revisions reduce the rights of property
owners to cut their trees, they should be compensated accordingly. He requested that this committee
not to lose sight of the rights of individual land owners, since they do pay taxes.
Committee Questions and Discussion:
• Brian Wegener asked if Bob Ludlum pays taxes. Bob Ludlum responded that he is on deferral,
but that he does pay taxes.
• Dave Walsh asked if there is anything now on the books that would stop him from cutting out
every tree. Bob Ludlum responded that he can easily get State approval, but that he would need
to also get approval from Clean Water Services and the City of Tigard. He noted that there are
subdivisions on all four sides of his property so it would not be appropriate to clear cut it. He
said that he has some problems with the way"tree grove" Code is currently written.
• Susan Hartnett added that Bob Ludlum's points are valid.The issue of compensation for tree
grove protection is a major issue for the City Council and this group.
Review and Approve CAC protocols
Adrienne directed members to the Draft Protocols document and listed the main revisions made to the
document based on members' suggestions from the last meeting.These changes include:
• Added the protocol to put aside personal agendas.
• Public comment will be at beginning of meeting, not end. Also added the flexibility to allow
interjection on specific agenda topics.
• Provide breaks during meetings.
• Added language about requests for information. Responses will be determined by staff on case-
by-case basis depending on availability of information and relevance to scope of work.
Adrienne asked members if they agreed with the revised protocols. Members approved the document
by consensus and each signed a copy of the protocols.
Legislative Planning 101
Susan Hartnett gave a presentation on the land use portion of the code revision process. She noted that
this group would be dealing with both land use decisions and non-land use decisions. Land use decisions
have higher requirements at the local and state level.
Susan passed out handouts of PowerPoint slides and additional notes on the topic.The main points from
Susan's presentation follow:
-9-
Policy Framework for land use decisions in Oregon:
• There are many requirements for local government decision-making that flow down from the
federal, state and regional level. Some of the things that flow down to local level have very
specific requirements, and others allow lots of latitude for local decision making.
• In Oregon,there is a process that must be followed in land use decision making.Anything done
at local level must be consistent with federal,state and regional policies and rules.
• All land use decisions of a legislative nature made at the local level need to specifically address
how they are consistent with specific regulations in Oregon, such as the Statewide Planning
Goals and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. In Tigard, all land use decisions
must also demonstrate how they are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
• Non-land use decisions: Non-land use decisions are not subject to Oregon land use law, and do
not need to show how they comply with land use policy and rules. However they may need to
comply with other law. Some decisions might affect land, but are not considered land use
decisions. For example, mowing grass regularly is a nuisance regulation.
• Local decision making is guided by the following tools and documents:
o Tigard Comprehensive Plan: Provides a vision for the community and goals and actions
for the City. Includes a Comprehensive Plan map
o Development Code:One of the major tools the City uses to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. Private and public land is subject to Development Code rules.
o Zoning Districts: Include specific uses and development standards.
• Legislative v. Quasi-legislative land use decisions at the local level:
o Legislative decisions usually apply to large pieces of land in long range planning.The
Urban Forestry Code Revisions is a legislative decision in that it will apply to multiple
properties.
o Quasi-legislative decisions are those that apply existing regulations to a specific piece or
pieces of property.These decisions simply apply existing rules;they do not create or
change rules.
Urban Forestry Planning
• The Comprehensive plan is a high level policy document, while City codes dictate day to day
issues.The Urban Forestry Master Plan is somewhere in the middle. It provides a link between
the Comprehensive Plan and City codes, and includes the Comprehensive Plan language that
addresses urban forestry policies and measures.
Decision-making Process: Relationship between various bodies and information flow
• The Code revisions process includes a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC). Both are intended to provide advice to staff. Staff will also report information,
concerns and meeting notes between the two groups.
• TAC is made up of city staff and other stakeholders including ODOT and Clean Water Services.
• City Staff is in charge of creating a proposal to revise the Code and will solicit advice from the
TAC and CAC. The Staff's proposal will be submitted to the Planning Commission.
• The Planning Commission is responsible for making a recommendation to City Council and
holding public hearings on the process.
• City Council makes the final decision, which is appealable to LUBA.
• Tigard has 4 types of decision making processes. Only Type IV—Legislative Matters applies to
this process.
-10-
Committee Questions and Discussion:
• John Frewing noted that in the spheres of influence flowchart,there should there be two-way
arrows between CAC/TAC and Staff communication.
• Brian asked for a clarification about the distinction between discretionary versus clear and
objective for Type I and Type II decisions. Susan replied that this group might write discretionary
and/or clear and objective standards. Clear and objective standards would dictate exactly how
the code should be followed, while a discretionary standard would be less definitive.
• Dave asked for information about how the municipal code is developed, since the CAC might
make recommendations to City Council municipal code revisions. Susan responded that the
municipal code is far less formalized than the land use process.The decision making process for
amending the municipal code is pretty straight forward.
Overview of Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP)
Todd Prager gave a presentation on the UFMP.The main points from his presentation follow:
• One of the Comprehensive Plan policies was to develop the UFMP.
• CAC members should read through the non-appendixed portion of the UFMP to become familiar
with it.
• The UFMP took existing data on city codes and practices (including survey of communities,
canopy data, stakeholder interview data, etc.) and worked with citizen groups to create a set of
recommendations.These are summarized on pages 3 to 8 in the UFMP and indicate possible
changes that could be made in the short term through 2016 to improve urban forestry in Tigard.
Some recommendations are broad while others are very specific. Some of these
recommendations were prioritized to be implemented in the near term.
• This committee is charged with figuring out how to implement the UFMP to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
• The major focus of the Code revisions is structured in the same way the UFMP is organized.The
issue areas covered include: hazard trees, street trees, mitigation, development code,tree grove
preservation program, and creating permit system for tree removal that is outside the
development process.
Scope of Work:Todd laid out the scope of work and CAC process for this project.
• A chart in the meeting packet summarizes the scope of the CAC.
• The Chart on pages 10-13 lists CAC meetings and the main topics and discussion items for each
meeting, along with the CAC's desired outcomes that will be addressed. The chart also indicates
which UFMP goals and Code Sections are relevant in each meeting. Susan added that Title 18
sections listed are subject to land use rules and regulations.
• CAC Process:
o The UFMP includes clear policy on some topic areas but not all. When there is not clear
UFMP policy on an issue, the CAC will address the issue by having more of a policy level
discussion.
o CAC members will discuss one or more Code topics per meeting, as indicated in the
chart.
o After each CAC meeting, staff will write Code on the relevant topic(s).This Code will be
consistent with CAC priorities,the Comprehensive Plan and recommendations of the
UFMP.
-11-
o At the following meeting, Staff will present suggested Code amendments and CAC
members will discuss these suggestions and try to come to consensus.
o At the end of the process after reviewing all topics, several meetings have been
reserved for a comprehensive review of the entire packet of code revisions.
Committee Questions and Discussion:
• John F. asked if the group could get information on Pacific Northwest Hazard Activities(PNWISA
Hazard Assessment)which is referenced in Goal 42B in the UFMP.Todd responded that he
would get information on that.
• John F. also asked if staff could create a check off list of all ideas that CAC members had at the
last meeting and whether or not those would be in the scope of work.Adrienne responded that
pages 7 to 9 of the packet identify topics raised at the last meeting and how they will relate to
the particular scope of work.
• Tony Tycer asked for a hard copy of the current Urban Forestry Code. Marissa Daniels
responded that the Code is available on the Resources Page of the project Web site. She noted
that staff would like to avoid printing hard copies of the entire Code, but that members can
email her if they would like specific sections printed out. Marissa added that, as staff and
committee members work to revise specific Code sections, all members will receive a document
that contains the original Code language, suggested revised language, and explanations for the
revision.
• Adrienne noted that staff will likely look to other municipalities for examples of how to revise
the Tigard Code. Staff will indicate which municipalities' Codes were consulted, but time will not
be dedicated at meetings to review other jurisdictions' codes. However some references can be
provided on the Resources Page of the Web site if committee members would like to review
other jurisdictions' codes on their own time.
• Todd added that the Resources Page also includes a regional analysis of Codes in the metro
area. It summarizes approaches taken by each different jurisdiction and compares their Codes.
Hazard Trees
Todd Prager gave a short presentation on Hazard Trees, noting that neither the Comprehensive Plan nor
the UFMP treat the topic in any specific detail. He asked for CAC input on policy level questions about
hazard trees.
He noted that this issue is a major concern for Tigard City Council,which feels that Tigard citizens do not
have enough viable options to address hazard trees on private property. City Council has directed staff
to develop code that better addresses this issue and helps get people to a resolution.Todd added that
he receives about two calls per week from citizens concerned about hazardous trees on neighboring
properties.
Todd reviewed three approaches taken by other cities to address neighbor-to-neighbor hazardous tree
disputes:
• No City Program: Some cities do not have any programs in place to address neighbor-to-
neighbor disputes on hazardous trees. It is a civil issue between property owners.
• City Lead Program: In this approach, citizens can call the City about hazardous trees on
neighboring properties. The City staff will evaluate the tree, and if it considers the tree a hazard,
-12-
will require the citizen to take care of it.This is the current process in Tigard, but is somewhat
hampered by the fact that Tigard Code does not clearly define "hazard" or"target."
• Process for Private Settlement and Self Enforcement: In this approach,the City is not the
decider on the hazard.The City sets up a process where neighbors dispute the issue themselves
which might include a voluntary mediation program. Mediation decisions become binding or
citizens could opt to litigate through the court system if self-enforcement fails.
Todd reviewed two approaches taken by other cities to address emergency hazardous tree issues:
• No City Program: In this approach, even emergencies would be treated as a civil issue.The City
would not cut down trees on private property, but would just try to keep the public away from
the hazard.
• City Evaluation,Abatement and Partnering with 9-1-1: In this approach,the City evaluates the
tree and if necessary enters the property and abates the hazard itself.The City may not even
need a warrant to cut down the tree if there is a life threatening situation. This is the current
process in Tigard.
Todd asked committee members to consider these approaches.The City of Tigard could adopt a hybrid
of these approaches.Adrienne asked the group to brainstorm various options tonight and staff will
propose code language at the next meeting based on their input. Consensus from the committee will be
sought on the proposed code language.
Committee Questions and Discussion:
• Tony asked for a definition of"target."Todd replied that they would circle back to that.
• John F. asked where the Tigard program is documented.Todd responded that it is documented
in Sec. 7.40.060
• John F. asked if there is an objective definition of"hazard," and to what extent one must abate a
hazard. He also asked if the City assumes liability if it recommends one way to abate a hazard,
but that recommendation ends up being not enough.Todd responded that the ISA Tree Risk
Assessment methodology is probably the most objective,though it can be subjective at times.
The liability question depends on how the City program is structured. In a City led program,the
City would incur the most liability, but could gain some distance by hiring third parties to
evaluate trees and recommend abatement.
• Morgan Holen said that she is a certified tree risk assessor. If a party has done due diligence to
assess risk,then it is pretty well protected and would not incur full liability.The ISA standard
methodology is very standardized. Risk is measured and put on scale of 1-12. It is up to a
property owner to decide how much risk he or she is willing to accept.
• Ken Gertz asked about Tigard's hazard tree law.Todd responded that Tigard Code says, "No
owner shall allow a dead or hazardous tree on his property." Ken expressed concern that a high
level of City involvement would lead to more court time.Todd responded that some cities give
incentives for citizens to work out disputes themselves at an informal level. If they want to
involve the City,then they have to pay a fee.
• Susan provided examples of recent cases in Tigard. In one incident, a citizen called about a
hazard tree on a neighbor's property.The City evaluated the tree,found it clearly dead, sent a
notice of violation and ordered the tree removed within 30 days by the property owner. An ISA
form was used for the violation. This was a clear case with an obviously hazardous tree. If the
City had not stepped in, it would have incurred liability if the tree fell. In another case, a citizen
-13-
called about a cottonwood, which is a species that tends to drop branches.The City determined
that this was not a hazardous tree, and recommended getting an arborist involved and going
through the Beaverton Dispute Resolution Center.
• Bret Lieuallen asked how often people or property are damaged by trees.Todd responded that
there is probably one case per year where a tree completely destroys a house.
• Ken commented that the City should back out of responsibility whenever possible to avoid
litigation, and encourage citizens to choose mediation or litigation themselves.
• Brian asked what is not working with Tigard's program.Todd replied that the City needs a better
definition of"hazard." Brian agreed.
• Dave asked how homeowner's insurance plays into the process. Susan replied that most policies
require the insured party to follow all laws. If a homeowner fails to remove a tree after being
told to remove it, he or she would have an issue with the insurance company. Scott Bernhard
added that insurance companies tend to bail whenever they can.
• Susan commented that if the City chooses not to address a hazardous tree complaint, it might
actually have more protection through discretionary immunity.The City of Tigard cut its Code
Compliance Officer in recent budget cuts.The City's insurance rates will depend on how well the
City is able to implement a program to follow through on regulations, and how well it spreads
liability.
• Todd summarized the group's main points:
o Staff should look at the existing Code and see what tools there are, and improve the
definition of"hazard."
o Could also include consultations with third party arborists to spread liability.
o Should consider modifying the Code rather than writing whole new program.
• Ken suggested the Code include ISA standards for risk ratings. Morgan added that in the current
system, if a hazard is rated "9" or higher and the ISA form is complete,then the City usually
sends someone out.Todd suggested that the Code indicate that if two third party arborists
agree that the tree is hazardous, it should be removed or abated.
• John F. recommended that the City focus on more community education. Ken showed some
examples of educational brochures Tigard has produced on hazardous trees.
• Dave said that his preference is pushing citizens towards mediation and no City involvement
unless there is an emergency, along with a heavy education component. He is concerned about
keeping City liability as low as possible.
• John F. read the City of Portland's definition of"dangerous tree." (See attached)
• Tony said that having a clear definition is important.The definition should also define
negligence.
• Ken asked if emergency situations are a big issue in Tigard.Todd responded that neighbor-to-
neighbor issues are much more prevalent.
Next Steps and Meeting Schedule
The group set September S, 2010 as the next meeting date. Meetings will continue as the second
Wednesday of every month starting in September at the Tigard Fire Station.
-14-
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Decision Log
July 7, 2010— Members approved Meeting Protocols by consensus.
-15-
MEN,
111
r,i
ri
Tree es:
l�
City'free—means a tree within. Portland's municipal incorporated boundary
that is on property owned by the City or on other public property under the
City's management. For the purposes of this Title, a,tree that straddles a
property line between private property and city property will be considered a
Private Tree, shared by the City and adjacent property owner.
,-. .
Dangerous Tree deans the condition of the tree presents a foreseeable; danger
of inflicting damage -iat cannot be ale 4_b tr a P ent osjRr gni - There are
two types of Dangerous Free conditions referred to in this Title.
Damaging t cture . A tree is dangerous if, due to its size, growth, or
location, its roots or trunk threatens the integrity of structures or vital
infrastructure, including but not limited to engineered retaining galls,
buildings, underground utilities or sidewalks.
Tree Fiffure. A tree may also be considered dangerous if due to its
condition, poses a threat to structures or people from substantial trunk or
limb failure, or complete falling. in these cases the tree possesses a
structural defect which poses an imminent risk if the tree or part of the tree
would fall on someone or something of value (target) if it failed. A Structural
defect means any structural weakness or deformity of a tree or its parts. A
tree with a structural defect can be verified by an arborist and confirmed as
such by the City Forester. A `target'may mean people, vehicles, structures or
other property. A tree is not considered dangerous if a `target'is absent
within the falling distance of the tree or it's parts (e.g., a tree with defects
that is located in a non-populated area,away from pedestrian pathways may
not be considered,a danger).
Dead Tree means a tree that is dead or one that has been damaged beyond
repair or is in an advanced state of decline (where an insufficient amount of lure
tissue, green leaves, limbs or branches, exists to sustain life) and has been
determined to be such by an arborist.
Diseased Tree means a tree that is affected by a pathogen or insect i.nfestati€rn
that cannot.be treated and either threatens ether nearby trees or is imminently
likely to become a.danger or die.
c.
AIN
Grove A group of six or more native trees 12 inches and larger in diameter, or C
inch or larger Oregon white oak trees or Pack rnadrone trees, that form a
generally continuous canopy over a non-linear area, or where tree spacing is l
generally characteristic of that species or species assemblage. Trees: other than.
native trees located within the grove and considered part of the groove are
counted as part of the canopy area. A different configuration of trees may be
identified by a qualified professional, such as an arborist or environmental �
scientist based on the types configuration, or functions of a grouping of trees.
Functions can include structural support and wired protection for the trees
within the grove, rnicrochmate and shade, and habitat such as nesting foraging,
and cover for birds and other wildlife. Groves can also contribute substantially
to the identity and aesthetic value of neighborhoods. Native trees comrn€anl
found in groves include Douglas fir, Big Leaf maple, Oregon white oak and �
Pacific madrone. E
W
Heritage Tree means trees designated as Historic Landmark'frees, Historic
Trees, and Heritage Trees by the City of Portland. }3
-16-
Lora Garland
From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Hazard Trees
Todd,
I think the discussion proposed on Wednesday for hazard trees is fine,but we need to define hazard trees before going too far. My
experience is that in some cases,a tree has been called'hazard'which could be made'safe'with some pruning or other arboricultural
care which would not kill the tree. The impact on development is that when a tree is called'hazard',it can be removed without permit
or mitigation--leading to loss of more trees than necessary.
John Frewing
1
-17-
Lora Garland
From: Adrienne DeDona [Adrienne@jla.us.com]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:25 PM
To: jfrewing; Todd Prager
Cc: Sylvia Ciborowski
Subject: RE: Urban Forest Code Revision
John—
Thank you for your thoughtful input and inquiries. In the future,we plan to include all correspondence we
receive from the committee and the public in the CAC meeting packets along with our responses. We'll review
comments collected at the beginning of our meetings starting in September. We thought this would be useful
since there is often information included in the correspondence we send and receive that is a benefit to the entire
group.
Please see the responses that staff have provided to your inquiries below:
1. How do I find the 'resources'page for the CAC? I looked at the long range planning dept section of the
Tigard website and didn't find anything. Did you tell us this earlier?
The resources can be found online at:
http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision resources.asp
2. I looked up the code sections referenced on page 10 of last evening's handout related to hazard trees and they
all relate to trees on City of Tigard property, nothing about private situations or the most problematical situation
- development of new subdivisions, where as Ken Gertz said' if there's any question at all, we take it down'. a)
we need something that is best management practices for private properties -I've suggested the recent OSU
Best Management Practices book. b)we need code words which tell a developer what is a prudent thing to do
(ie maybe prune per ISA standards)rather than always cut the tree down.
Section 7.40.060.13 was the primary focus of the discussion at the recent CAC meeting, and applies to both
public and private property.
Section 9.06.060 only addresses hazard trees on City property.
For how trees (including hazard trees) are addressed during the development and permitting processes, we
plan to discuss that beginning in November and beyond. I (Todd) agree that it will be important to clarify how
hazard trees are evaluated and abated in the context of development and permitting situations.
3. I was disappointed that we didn't see 'options/alternatives' for consideration of hazard trees in the code last
evening. We had your three phrases to work from, but they hardly represented'options/alternatives' for the
code -at most they were concepts. I hope at our September meeting we will see real 'options/alternatives' in
code words so we can discuss and reach consensus on something. I offer Section 11.500 of the City of Portland
draft code entitled'Private Trees' as one example of material which addresses hazard trees in a comprehensive
way. The Portland draft code addresses hazard trees more completely and specifically addresses things like a
hazard tree 'target'. For example, what different classes of hazard trees exist? What kind of permit is necessary
for removal of a hazard tree? What mitigation is necessary for removal of a hazard tree? Do you have this
section, or can I bring by my copy so you can copy it? (I suspect it is online if you know how to find it).
1
-18-
The process staff proposed at the recent CAC meeting was to have a conceptual discussion of various policy
level alternatives. Then staff will take information and input from the group discussion and bring back code
language that is consistent with the group's input, the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Forestry Master
Plan. Staff does not anticipate bringing code level alternatives back to the group due to time/staffing
constraints, and the overall input from the CAC that they don't want to be involved in the details of the code.
I (Todd) have reviewed section 11.500 of the draft code and spoke with Portland staff regarding the hazard
tree issue. This informed the conceptual options that were presented at the CAC meeting, and will continue
to inform future discussions of hazard trees when staff brings back code language in September.
4. I was disappointed that we didn't discuss the treatment of hazard trees in development situations -- it is my
belief that more trees are lost (which might be saved, at least in part) in the development process than trees lost
in disputes between neighbors. The discussion last night seemed aimed at protecting the City interests and
making City employee jobs easier rather than enhancing the urban forest. As city employees, you folks have
the resources and knowledge to give the CAC some context for proposed changes,but it doesn't look like that
will come out except by a game of'20 questions' or individual homework. It is hard to believe that one person's
homework can translate into 'consensus' in a single meeting on a subject like hazard trees.
Please see the comments above regarding hazard trees during development (Hazard Trees in development
situations will be discussed at future meetings— likely in November as part of the development code).
Staff intends on providing more context related to Hazard Trees via a staff report on proposed code revisions
at our next meeting in September.
We will continue to do our best to provide information to the committee in the advance of meetings so that
the group can be prepared for a robust discussion.
5. I was disappointed that there was no discussion last evening of the VALUE of dead and diseased trees for
the urban forest and how,under the right circumstances and even on upland tracts, they should be saved for bird
perches, feeding, nests, etc. In the Comp Plan, the urban forest is seen as a holistic and living thing, and we
need enforcable words in the code to implement this element of the plan.
The value of wildlife snags are understood by staff as long as they do not pose an undue hazard to people. We
plan to address this as part of our discussion at the next meeting. This subject will very likely come up again in
future discussions as it relates to other topics within the code.
6. I see that the PNWISA instructions and hazard evaluation form are perhaps a key part of new code. Can
you send me a copy or may I come by your office to view this material on hazard trees?
Here is a link to a version of PNWISA evaluation form.
http://www.pnwisa.org/media/pdfs/TRACEBulletin.pdf
7. The METRO sponsored comparison of tree regulations for cities across our urban region is a good
document,but it doesn't compare how the different cities treat hazard trees. Is there such a comparison
available?
Staff were unable to find a comparison of hazard trees in a summary document and had to research codes of
various jurisdictions individually in order to present the alternative approaches at this week's CAC meeting.
8. You cited a couple examples of how the (municipal) code is currently working when neighbors have
disagreements on hazard trees. Can you send the CAC a memo doing the same example/comparison of how the
2
-19-
code is currently working under development situations (ie Title 18), along with possible improvements for the
urban forest?
Information about the development code will be presented later in the process. We anticipate addressing this
topic beginning in November when we discuss development/permitting in detail.
Thanks for your continuing work on this important code effort.
Thank you as well.
Thanks again for your participation in the committee and for your comments and inquiries. We look forward to
seeing you again in September.
Best regards,
Adrienne
From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:59 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Adrienne DeDona
Subject: Urban Forest Code Revision
Todd,
Just a short note as I am putting away the handouts and stuff from last evening.
1. How do I find the'resources'page for the CAC? I looked at the long range planning dept section of the Tigard website and didn't
find anything. Did you tell us this earlier?
2. I looked up the code sections referenced on page 10 of last evening's handout related to hazard trees and they all relate to trees on
City of Tigard property,nothing about private situations or the most problematical situation-development of new subdivisions,where
as Ken Gertz said'if there's any question at all,we take it down'. a)we need something that is best management practices for private
properties-I've suggested the recent OSU Best Management Practices book. b)we need code words which tell a developer what is a
prudent thing to do(ie maybe prune per ISA standards)rather than always cut the tree down.
3. I was disappointed that we didn't see'options/alternatives'for consideration of hazard trees in the code last evening. We had your
three phrases to work from,but they hardly represented'options/alternatives'for the code -at most they were concepts. I hope at our
September meeting we will see real'options/alternatives'in code words so we can discuss and reach consensus on something. I offer
Section 11.500 of the City of Portland draft code entitled'Private Trees'as one example of material which addresses hazard trees in a
comprehensive way. The Portland draft code addresses hazard trees more completely and specifically addresses things like a hazard
tree'target'. For example,what different classes of hazard trees exist? What kind of permit is necessary for removal of a hazard tree?
What mitigation is necessary for removal of a hazard tree? Do you have this section,or can I bring by my copy so you can copy it?(I
suspect it is online if you know how to find it).
4. 1 was disappointed that we didn't discuss the treatment of hazard trees in development situations--it is my belief that more trees
are lost(which might be saved,at least in part)in the development process than trees lost in disputes between neighbors. The
discussion last night seemed aimed at protecting the City interests and making City employee jobs easier rather than enhancing the
urban forest. As city employees,you folks have the resources and knowledge to give the CAC some context for proposed changes,
but it doesn't look like that will come out except by a game of'20 questions'or individual homework. It is hard to believe that one
person's homework can translate into'consensus'in a single meeting on a subject like hazard trees.
3
-20-
5. I was disappointed that there was no discussion last evening of the VALUE of dead and diseased trees for the urban forest and
how,under the right circumstances and even on upland tracts,they should be saved for bird perches,feeding,nests,etc. In the Comp
Plan,the urban forest is seen as a holistic and living thing,and we need enforcable words in the code to implement this element of the
plan.
6. I see that the PNWISA instructions and hazard evaluation form are perhaps a key part of new code. Can you send me a copy or
may I come by your office to view this material on hazard trees?
7. The METRO sponsored comparison of tree regulations for cities across our urban region is a good document,but it doesn't
compare how the different cities treat hazard trees. Is there such a comparison available?
8. You cited a couple examples of how the(municipal)code is currently working when neighbors have disagreements on hazard
trees. Can you send the CAC a memo doing the same example/comparison of how the code is currently working under development
situations(ie Title 18),along with possible improvements for the urban forest?
Thanks for your continuing work on this important code effort.
John Frewing
4
-21-
Lora Garland
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:31 AM
To: 'KEst1128@aol.com'
Cc: Marissa Daniels; 'Adrienne DeDona'
Subject: RE: Tree permits
Thank you for your comments Karen. I will share them with the Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) at their next meeting on September Stn
I just want to point out that the previous process you participated in was the Urban Forestry Master Plan. That was a
planning process to set the stage for revising the code and implementing various other urban forestry programs. Now
the UFCR CAC is advising staff on implementing code revisions that are consistent with the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
More details are available at the UFCR website:
http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision.asp
Thanks,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: KEst1128@aol.com [mailto:KEst1128@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:16 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Tree permits
Hello, Todd.
After the forestry program plan for the City of Tigard was completed, I felt I had done all that I could to bring the removal of
trees on owner's land to the attention of the board. It appears that it was really for nothing because I see no change to
protect neighborhoods from the wholesale removal of trees on a person's private property. Not even a requirement to
clean them up, although other surrounding municipalities have permit requirements in order to protect the quality of the
existing neighborhoods. It also appears that nothing changed with the amount of time necessary for the mitigation of
removed trees for new developments....still one year.
As I tried to bring to the attention of those who have control on what can be done with property that affects other people,
as well as sensitive lands, wholesale tree removal can make a major impact on more than shade. It affects the water
table, the increase in growth of wild grasses and the value of the surrounding properties.
I understand the need for development, but as established homeowners next to developing properties, there seems to
be very little protection in the rules. We get to see the plans, but it's really between the city and the developer, and the
impact on the quality of the existing neighborhood is very secondary.
It was the first time that I ever got involved in trying to do something with city ordinances to make something that I felt
strongly enough about to feel should have some attention. Like most people, until it actually affects you, you don't even
know what the rules are for where you live. From what I've seen in almost all developing areas, whether Tigard or
elsewhere, people who are already committed to the areas where they live really have very little affect on anything. There
is a general bias in favor of development and increasing the tax base, which is understandable.
All that was done from my standpoint was that I had an opportunity to try for which I thank you. However, I don't believe
that city ordinances or government or change is something I will ever try to participate again, except to vote.
-22-
I do, however, thank you for your courtesies throughout this process, Todd.
Sincerely,
Karen Estrada
z
-23-
Lora Garland
From: Susan Hartnett
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:11 PM
To: John Frewing
Cc: 'Adrienne DeDona'; Todd Prager; John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Craig Dirksen
Subject: RE: CPA 2008-00002 Urban Forest
Mr. Frewing,
I am responding to your email to John Floyd concerning the recent Council action on the above captioned matter.
I believe the City Attorney clarified at the hearing that all of the stipulated agreements were in writing, and dealt only
with extending the timeline to file the record.These agreements are public record and available through a public
records request if you wish to review them. Please visit our web site at http://www.tigard-
or.gov/city hall/services/public records/default.asp for information on submitting a public records request.
Both staff reports remain available on the City website (June 3, 2008 and August 10,2010), should you wish to compare
the findings. The statewide planning goals added to the second set of findings include numbers 4, 7, 9, and 10.
In response to your question about Councilor Buehner's statement and staff's response, there may be some confusion
regarding what was stated and what was asked during that portion of the hearing. Unfortunately, our limited staff
resources and work program demands do not allow the time necessary to review the un-transcribed meeting tapes and
research of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan necessitated by your request. I also feel that little would be gained by
undertaking this work even if we had the resources to do so and we should look at the outcomes of the August 10
meeting to see what was achieved. The Comprehensive Plan language that makes up the Urban Forestry goals and
policies has not changed as a result of Ordinance 10-11, it is the same as what was adopted in 2008. The Council still
retains their full legislative discretion in implementing the Urban Forestry policies through future land use decisions.
The City's ability to defend the Council's action should another LUBA appeal of this decision be filed, has been
significantly improved through the adoption of new findings. Finally,the range of options available to the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions CAC for the next steps in the implementation process remains unaffected. It is important to
remember that prior to the Council's action on August 101h,this Comp Plan language was on appeal to LUBA and did not
provide a firm policy basis for future decision making. Hopefully the Council's action will not be appealed to LUBA, but if
it is, we can proceed with the hearing with a much higher level of confidence that the local decision will be affirmed.
Thank you for your interest in Tigard's Urban Forest and for your ongoing participation in the public discussions on the
topic.
SwawG. }fawtytett, A.TCP
Asst.Community Development Director,City of Tigard,Oregon
13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard,OR 97223
Phone:503.718.2427/Fax:503.718.2748
Email:susanh@tigard-or.gov
From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:56 AM
To: John Floyd
Cc: Todd Prager; Adrienne DeDona; Ron Bunch; Craig Dirksen
Subject: CPA 2008-00002 Urban Forest
Good Morning John,
i
-24-
Last evening,the City Council REapproved the portion of the Tigard comp plan dealing with our urban forest(it fits in under Goal 2,
Land Use). It had been earlier approved by City Council but has been in mediation with the homebuilders for a couple years as they
threatened to take this material to LUBA for some unspecified reasons. You indicated that the wording of the goals and policy have
not changed,but the findings(facts which support the approved goals and policies)have been changed. The staff report stated that the
changes were associated with a series of'stipulated agreements',which I complained I had never seen and the City Council indicated
that they had never seen.
Last evening,you and City Attorney Ramis said that the'stipulated agreements'on the subject matter dealt only with deferral of filing
dates;were all the stipulated agreements in writing and in the record,or were there some verbal/oral stipulations not otherwise
documented?
In your staff report,you indicated that the earlier Urban Forest material had included findings against several Statewide Goals,but that
this proposed material added findings on several additional Statewide Goals. What were the earlier goals and what are the addtional
goals added now?
Also last evening,Councilor Bueher and you indicated that the additional findings recently added for Statewide Goals 9 and 10 were
simply'housekeeping'matters,transporting material already in other parts of the approved Tigard comp plan to this Goal 2
discussion. I've looked,but cannot find such material elsewhere in the approved Tigard comp plan. Can you point out to me where
such material already is in the approved Tigard comp plan? I have to rely on you telling me the truth in this matter,so am not
planning on an appeal of this comp plan material. I am particularly concerned about the statement in findings for Statewide Goal 9
that"This(proposed amendment)includes policies calling for flexibility in development standards and appropriate tree planting
requirements to ensure that the urban forest is sustained and IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DISCOURAGE INVESTMENT OR
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY" (my concern is with the full cap wording noted)and the statement in findings for Statedwide Goal 10 that
"The proposed goals . . .DO NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE LANDS AVAILABLE,NOR REQUIRE A
LOWERING OF ALLOWABLE DENSITIES."(my concern is with the full cap wording noted).
As I opined,I believe Tigard has given away the store by including these absolute statements in the material approved last night,with
no qualifications whatsoever. Unless you can show me otherwise,it appears that the Urban Forestry Code CAC and subsequent
adoption of development rules by the city have just been cut off at the knees,unable to propose any regulatory wording which will
effectively protect trees at any time whatsoever when a developer wants to remove trees. I believe that the Tigard code should provide
for some situations where there may be some economic impact associated with saving trees and some buildable area may be reserved
for trees,reducing housing density.
I hope that you can show me the specific wording in the approved Tigard comp plan which disproves my current concerns.
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."
2
-25-
Lora Garland
From: Adrienne DeDona [Adrienne@jla.us.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: FW: Tigard Comp Plan: Urban Forest REAdoption of August 10, 2010
This is all I have. Is there another e-mail you are looking for?
From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Adrienne DeDona; John Floyd; Brian Wegener; Tony Tycer; Ron Bunch
Subject: Fw: Tigard Comp Plan: Urban Forest REAdoption of August 10, 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: 'frewin
To: Susan Hartnett
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:56 PM
Subject: Tigard Comp Plan: Urban Forest REAdoption of August 10, 2010
Susan,
Just to close out the issues surrounding the City Council readoption of this material,I visited City Hall this afternoon and reviewed
both the DVD of the August 10 City Council meeting(I found out that at www.tvctv.com you can see this material on your home
computer)and the hard copy file for this amendment to our comp plan.
1 John Floyd stated in his staff preparation that a copy of the proposed material was provided to the HBA for review;I saw such
transmittal in the hard copy file. Sothis material was'vetted'by the HBA.
2 Councilor Wilson opined that the HBA interest in this matter was whether or not adoption of this comp plan section would impose
more regulation on them,or was just aspirational. The HBA Notice of Intent to Appeal(to LUBA)did NOT indicate the basis for
possible appeal,but in the file are earlier letters from DeHarpport,Gretz and Platt that states this concern pretty clearly.
3 John Floyd stated that the changes to the Findings in this matter were'housekeeping',with the intent of the comp plan not
changing. The new material is simply added to avert litigation. Nowhere in the record does it appear that HBA was going to appeal
over'housekeeping'.
4 Attorney Ramis spoke up,saying that Councilor Wilson's opinion is correct,that the HBA was concerned about the potential for
regulation with this change as opposed to aspirational statements.
5 Frewing expressed his concerns,noted in my earlier email,that this comp plan states as Findings(facts which support the policies)
some absolute guarantees for homebuilders--no discouragement of investment or economic activity and no reduction of buildable
lands or lowering of allowable densities.
6 Councilor Wilson stated that the proposed changes were not vetted with the HBA(contrary to item 1 above).
7 Councilor Buehner stated that the issues of Frewing concern were already included in other chapters of the Comp Plan and that this
material is simply repeating language in more than one place in the Comp Plan. (My email of this morning stated that this is not the
case at all. When talking with John Floyd this afternoon,he said this material was addressed in the Comp Plan Chapter 4,Forestry--
it is definitely not there as this chapter addresses commercial forest lands.)
8 Frewing asked if staff(John Floyd)agreed with Councilor Buehner's representation;he said'basically',but when pushed,said'yes'.
As noted above,this is not true.
i
-26-
By copy of this closeout to the Urban Forestry Code Revision CAC,I want to ask its consideration of a motion to City Council to re-
visit the Comp Plan findings adopted on August 10,2010 to provide the ability to require balancing homebuilding needs with Tigard's
needs for an urban forest.
Thanks, John Frewing
2
-27-
l
� f
� � �
�. � � _ �
.� �
" q � _ �+
��� ''
_ - `�'
:�, '�
� _ � V
��
_ .�
I. Introduction
Purpose Communication Plan Components
Our Tree Code will be revised to deliver on the The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen In-
Comprehensive Plan as recommended in the volvement section is divided between two goals:
Urban Forestry Master Plan: Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agen-
• FOCUS on large groves and important cies, and other jurisdictions the
trees opportunity to participate in all
• INVITE extensive participation from most phases of the planning process.
affected property owners Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: � Y
• EMPHASIZE and incentivize preservation a. opportunities to communicate
before mitigation directly to the City; and
• SHARE responsibility for urban forestry b. information on issues in an '
across the city understandable form.
• PROTECT the public with new standards
for hazard trees The Communication Plan breaks down each
• INCORPORATE methods for increas- phase of the process and speaks to the ways in
ing tree canopy and improving stormwater which citizens and stakeholders may participate,
management communicate, and receive information about the
• INVOLVE private arborists and/or land- Urban Forestry Code Revisions.
scape architects throughout development
process Guiding Principles/Priorities
• CREATE resources for effective Project communication will be guided by the
implementation following principles and priorities:
• Tree manual • Employ multiple communications channels
• Permit activity tracking to ensure we are able to reach a broad
• Publicly accessible inventory of
protected trees audience.
• CLARIFY jurisdictional requirements • Keep city policymakers up-to-speed on the ;
including along ODOT right-of-ways project.
• The task is to manage conflict, 'not @ Dreamstime
• DETERMINE appropriate code placement resolve it. Tigard Tree Board b'
• ENFORCE new standards and procedures
2
-29-
Messaging/Branding —_ —_� the CAC); and implementation of the draft amendments prior to consideration by
Key messages will contribute F
- Communication Plan. the Planning Commission and City Council.
Master�lan The function of the PRP will be to provide a
to initial and ongoing projecturban ' ' Citi.Zen Advisory Committee (CACI professional evaluation of the package of code
communications. The project a A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), amendments and program recommendations to
management team will refine ;aFa composed of Citizen Stakeholders ensure they are technically sound and are likely
messaging and also explore will advise staff and seek consensus to perform as intended. The PRP would include
options for"branding" solutions. The CAC may be led private and public sector professionals and
the Urban Forestry Code by an independent and neutral stakeholders with experience in urban forestry,
Revisions in the context of the
previous tree-related efforts. project facilitator in order to focus development, and natural resources.
h
and manage the meetings, ensure
Theme: Progress results from
' meaningful input by all participants, Stakeholders
improvements rather than -----------------------
and deal with differing views and Impacted
ideas. At a minimum, the CAC • Tigard Development Community
solutions. will be composed of representatives • Urban Forestry Professionals
Initial Messages: from existing Tigard committees such as the • Directly Impacted Property Owners
• Urban forestry is generational in time Tree Board,Planning Commission,Tigard• Issues surrounding urban forestry can Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC), Highly Interested
be polarizing, the City seeks to create a and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • City Council
balanced code (DRAB). These members are uniquely qualified • Planning Commission
•
The urban forest is more than what any one to advise staff due to their technical knowledge • Tree Board interest sees it as and familiarity with urban forestry issues unique • Portland Metropolitan Home Builder's Assn.• The City prefers a comprehensive look at to Tigard. & Interested Parties—Trees
urban forestry to address the many broad TecbnicalAdvisory Committee TAC) Interested
functions of trees The Purpose of the Technical Advisory Team 0 CPO 4B and 4M
is to foster information sharing and to review • Tualatin Riverkeepers
Key Players technical issues brought to it by the Project • Interested Parties–CD
ProjectManagement Team (PMT) Management Team, Citizen Advisory Committee, • Parks Board
The Project Management Team (PMT) Peer Review Panel, and other City staff. • TTAC
will consist of City staff from Community • CCI
Development. The PMT will be responsible for Peer Review Panel(PRP)
project management and oversight; developing A Peer Review Panel will provide a General Public
draft documents; facilitating meetings (except for comprehensive technical evaluation of the Tigard Residents and Businesses
3
-30-
II. Project Phases
Phase 1: Project Kickoff ti
• Approve Communication Plan
• Get the word out
• Launch Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Citizens Advisory Committee Urban Forestry
• Launch Urban Forestry Code Revisions Master Plan
web materials
Phase 2: Assessment and Collaboration
• Field inventories
• Receive input from CAC,Tree Board,
consultants, citizens
Phase 3: Draft Code Revisions
• Develop manual for tree regulations and Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by
design standards
• Staff review
• Tree Board, CAC, and consultant review City residents as a thriving interconnected ecosystem
• Peer Review
• Notify significantly affected property managed to improve quality of life, increase
owners
• community identity, and maximize aesthetic
Phase 4: Adoption Process � � ,
• Planning Commission
• City Council economic, and ecological benefits.
4
-31-
IV. Public Involvement/Communications Activities
Phase
Deliverable/Description PK AS DC PR AP Target Audience(s) Delivery Method Who Responsible?
Opportunities for Participation:
1. UFCR CAC meetings: The UFCR Q Q Q Q Q Highly Interested Meetings scheduled Facilitator
CAC will be a fifteen-member Stakeholders throughout the process
committee that may include
representatives of the Planning
Commission,Tree Board, Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board,
Transportation Advisory Committee,
development interests, environmental
interests,landscape/arborist
professionals, and three citizens at
large with a preference for those with
technical knowledge in urban forestry
issues.
2. Events: The City of Tigard will host Q All stakeholders Events scheduled Communications
events including workshops, an open throughout the process Team
house, or public forum, for example.
The series of events will be organized
to inform/involve target participants,
disseminate/reinforce project
messages, and promote connections
between project team members and
stakeholders.
3. Comment period: The Q Q Q Q Q Impacted Time allowed at Project Manager
opportunities for public comment Stakeholders scheduled meetings
will be advertised in advance. Such Highly Interested
opportunities include meetings of the stakeholders
CAC, Planning Commission, and
City Council.
5
-32-
IV. Public Involvement/Communications Activites
y 4. Community briefings: City staff Q Highly Interested Meetings scheduled Project
will offer presentations on the project stakeholders throughout Draft Code Management Team
to interested community groups and Interested Revisions phase
key stakeholders at their regular Stakeholders
meetings.
5. City Council/Planning Q Q Q Q Highly Interested Presentations at Project Management
Commission briefings: Tigard City Stakeholders Planning Commission Team
Council and Planning Commission Interested and City Council
will be briefed on project progress in Stakeholders
work sessions at key intervals. General Public
Members will also be invited to
participate in events, and will receive
project materials including the
newsletter.
6. Outside events: Informational Q Q Q General Public Events scheduled in Communications
booths at community events first three phases Team
Opportunities for Information:
7. Website/webpage: Timely Q Q Q Q Q Highly Interested City of Tigard website Communications
information on the Urban Forestry Stakeholders UFCR project page Team
Code Revisions project will be Interested
posted/updated on the City of Stakeholders
Tigard's website.Website updates General Public
may be announced to interested
stakeholders through email
communications.
8. Information materials/display(s): Q Q Q Q Q General Public Hand out to those that Communications
Project information will be made attend meetings and Team
available in multiple formats: maps, events.
flyers, factsheets, mail distribution,
posters, customer counter handouts,
project displays, and other.
6
-33-
IV. Public Involvement/Communications Activities
9. Project newsletter: A newsletter will Q Q Q Q Q Highly Interested Email and hand out to Communications
be created and distributed Stakeholders those that attend Team
periodically to interested parties and Interested meetings and events.
other subscribers through email or Stakeholders
hard copy. Frequency and content of General Public
newsletter will be adapted to project
activities.
10. Arbor Month 2011 Q General Public
11. Expanded resource list: To provide Q Interested Project Web page Project Management
the community with educational Stakeholders Team
resources an expanded resource list General Public
will be developed and posted online.
The list will include links and
information about books available
from Tigard Public Library.
12. Neighborhood Networks: Provide Q Q Q Q Q General Public Press Releases Communications
updates to the Neighborhood Team
Network web administrators
13. Listsery messages: The Community Q Q Q Q Q Highly Interested Email Communications
Development Listsery will be used to Stakeholders Team
send out messages and updates about Interested
the project and process. Stakeholders
14. News media outreach: The Q Q Q Q Q General Public Press releases and Communications
Communications Team will groom City cape Newsletter Team
stories about the program in The articles
Tunes, Oregonian, Cityscape Newsletter,
and other local media, to announce
the project, extend event invitations,
provide timely information, and
signal project milestones/
accomplishments.
7
-34-
IV. Public Involvement/Communications Activities
15. Communications team: A Q Q Q Q Q All Meetings scheduled Project Manager
"communications team"will be throughout the process
designated for the project including
the project manager, and others as
may be needed. This group will
meet/coordinate to ensure successful
implementation of the
Communications/Public
Involvement Plan.
8
-35-
V. Project Schedule
t "
Project Kickoff
• Assessment and Collaboration
Draft Code Revisions
•
0 0°o° 0
Hazard Trees Hazard Trees Street Trees Use of Current Development Code I Development Code II
(Non-development) Mitigation Fund
Street Trees Development Code II Non-development
(Non-development) Use of Current Development Code I Tree Plan Incentives Permits
Mitigation Fund Tree Plan Requirements Tree Grove Preservation (Besides Street Trees)
Incentives/
Requirements
Exisitng Grove,GIS Review
• Tree Grove Inventory
ESEE Analysis Report
Draft Program
Project Kickoff
Assessment and Collaboration
IF
Draft Code Revisions
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Commission or Council Meeting `H' Tentative Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
®*Dates for Planning Commission and City Council meetings are subject to change.Please check the City's website for updates.
9
-36-
V. Project Schedule
9 �7 September '11 1 • 1
Peer Review
Draft Code Revisions
•
Adoption Process
Non-development Comprehensive Comprehensive Planning Commission Planning Commission City Council City Council Hearing*
Permits Review of Review of Workshop* Hearing* Workshop*
(Besides Street Trees) Code Changes Code Changes
Comprehensive
Review of
Code Changes
•
•
Draft Code Revisions
Adoption Process
Technical).-visory Committee Meeting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Commission or Council Meeting Tentative Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
*Dates for Planning Commission and City Council meetings are subject to change.Please check the City's website for updates.
10
-37-
CITY OF TIGARD
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:
HAZARD TREES (AUG 2010)
STREET TREE-NON-DEVELOPMENT (SEPT 2010)
USE OF CURRENT MITIGATION FUND (OCT 2010)
DEVELOPMENT CODE I (NOV 2010)
DEVELOPMENT CODE II (JAN 2011)
NON-DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, BESIDES STREET TREES (FEB 2011)
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
September 1, 2010
-38-
Thi page left intentionally blank
-39-
Acknowledgements
Tigard City Council
Mayor Craig Dirksen
Council President Nick Wilson
Councilor Gretchen Buehner
Councilor Sydney Webb
Councilor Marland Henderson
Tigard Planning Commission
Dave Walsh, President
Jeremy Vermilyea,Vice President
Tom Anderson
Margaret Doherty
Karen Ryan
Timothy L. Gaschke
Stuart Hasman
Donald Schmidt,Alternate
Richard Shavey,Alternate
Citizen Advisory Committee
Jason Rogers,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Scott Bernhard,DC,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Dave Walsh,Planning Commission
Don Schmidt,Planning Commission
Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board
Tony Tycer,Tree Board
Ken Gertz, Portland Metropolitan Home Builders
John Wyland,Developer
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers and Board Member of Oregon Community Trees
Morgan E. Holen,ISA Certified Arborist
John Frewing, Citizen at Large
Technical Advisory Committee
Susan Harnett,Assistant Community Development Director
Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director
Gus Duenas,Development Engineer
Ted Kyle, City Engineer
Steve Martin,Parks and Facilities Manager
Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager
Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner
Todd Prager,Associate Planner& City Arborist
Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst
Albert Shields,Permit Coordinator
Carla Staedter, Surface Water Quality Coordinator
Mark Van Domelen,Building Official
Vance Walker, Streets Supervisor
Damon Reische, Clean Water Services
Ron Kroop, ODOT District 2A Manager
Mark Buffington, ODOT Region 1 Landscape Manager
-40-
Additional Tigard Staff Contributors (Not on Technical Advisory Committee)
Craig Prosser, City Manager
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director
Dennis Koellermeier,Public Works Director
Darren Wyss,Senior Planner
Cheryl Caines,Associate Planner& Code Editor
Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner
John Floyd,Associate Planner
Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist
Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant
-41-
Table of Contents
Background.........................................................................................................................1
ProjectSummary..................................................................................................................1
Development Code Amendments and Commentary..........................................................4
-42-
BACKGROUND
Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and
accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) in 2009 to help guide and inform an update
of the City's tree and urban forestry related code provisions. The Urban Forestry Code
Revisions project implements four goals of the UFMP including: 1) Revise Tigard's tree code
(Chapter 18.790); 2) Revise Tigard's landscaping code (Chapter 18.745); 3) Develop a tree grove
protection program; and 4) Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will address the UFMP goals through a series of six
thematic code packages including 1) Hazard Trees; 2) Street Trees-Non-Development; 3) Use of
Current Mitigation Funds; 4) Development Code I; 5) Development Code II; and 6) Non-
Development Permits, Besides Street Trees. These packages will be developed sequentially by
staff under Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee (TAC and CAC) review through June
2011. On consensus by the Advisory Committees, the proposed code amendments will be
forwarded as a single package to the Planning Commission after review by a panel of
development and urban forestry experts. Commission hearings will be scheduled for the second
half of 2011 with City Council hearings and adoption by year's end.
Hazard Trees
At the July 7, 2010 meeting of the CAC, the group prioritized building off the framework that
exists in the current code; more clearly defining what constitutes a "hazard tree" and "target";
developing a resolution process that limits false claims and incentivizes people to work out
issues informally; use third party arborists when independent decisions are warranted; and
recover City costs if parties cannot work out issues informally and rely on City staff and
resources for settlement.
These CAC priorities are proposed to be implemented through a series of code revisions to
Chapters 7.40 (Nuisances) and 9.06 (Trees on City Property) as detailed on pages 4 through 21
of this document. The highlights of the revisions include more clearly defining a hazard tree
using the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture (2010). This methodology factors in the probability of
tree failure, the target area, and the size of defective part in order to assign an overall risk rating.
The proposed code would require hazard tree abatement if the risk rating is high.
The proposed code also requires property owners to attempt to resolve hazard tree issues
informally before relying on City staff and resources. If City staff and resources are utilized to
settle issues, the proposed code would require reimbursement.
Finally, the proposed code specifies that the City does have a right to gain access to private
property for hazard tree abatement to enforce code provisions or in case of emergency.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 1
-43-
Thi page left intentionally blank
-44-
Code Amendments
CODE AMENDMENTS
How to Read This Section
This section is organized by Development Code chapter number.
Odd-numbered pages show the existing language with (proposed/recommended/adopted)
amendments. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be added to the code is shown with
double underlines. Text that is (proposed/recommended) to be deleted is shown with
stfilethfatTh. (New chapters,where all the text is new, are not shown in double underlined text
for ease of reading.)
Even-numbered pages contain commentary on the amendments, which establish, in part, the
legislative intent in adopting these amendments.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 3
-45-
Commentary
Hazard Trees are addressed in several sections of the Nuisances chapter of the Tigard Municipal
Code including: Noxious Vegetation (7.40.050),Trees (7.40.060), and Greenway Maintenance
(7.40.090). Hazardous Trees on City property are addressed in the Trees on City Property
Chapter of the Municipal Code (9.06.060). All of the section headings are shown here to provide
context for the sections subject to the proposed code amendments,which follow in their
entirety.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 4
-46-
Code Amendments
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 7.40 NUISANCES.
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.40.010 Short Title.
7.40.020 Definitions.
7.40.030 Nuisances Designated--Class 1 Infraction.
ARTICLE II. PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCES
7.40.040 Nuisances Affecting The Public Health.
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.
7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation.
7.40.060 Trees.
7.40.070 Streets And Sidewalks.
7.40.080 Vehicles Not To Drop Material On Streets.
7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance.
7.40.100 Open Storage Of Junk.
7.40.110 Attractive Nuisances.
7.40.120 Scattering Rubbish.
7.40.125 Graffiti.
ARTICLE IV. NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE
7.40.130 Prohibition On Excessive Noises.
7.40.140 Sound Measurement.
7.40.150 Definitions.
7.40.160 Noise Limits.
7.40.170 Prohibited Noises.
7.40.180 Exceptions.
7.40.190 Maximum Limit For Certain Activities.
7.40.200 Evidence.
ARTICLE VI.VIOLATION--PENALTY
7.40.210 Penalty For Chapter Violations.
Chapter 9.06 TREES ON CITY PROPERTY.
Sections:
9.06.010 Purpose.
9.06.020 Definitions.
9.06.030 Tree Planting on City property.
9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance on City property.
9.06.050 Tree Protection.
9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City property.
9.06.070 Tree Removal and Replanting.
9.06.080 Enforcement.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 5
-47-
Commentary
7.40.050.B.4 Noxious Vegetation.
The proposed amendment is designed to replace a list of items with an inclusive term to avoid
identification of trees and stumps that might otherwise be beneficial for wildlife habitat and/or
erosion control and are not"likely to cause fire".
7.40.060.A.1/2/3/4 Trees
Definitions have been added to this section to include four new definitions for Ha.Zard Tree,
Ha.Zard Tree Owner or Responsible Party, Hazard Tree Abatement, and Certified Tree Risk Assessor. These
proposed definitions are necessary to more clearly define the threshold for what constitutes a
hazard tree (using tree care industry standards which factors in probability of failure,target, and
size of defective part),who is responsible for hazard trees (the property from where the hazard
originates), the requirements for hazard tree abatement (which can include reducing or
eliminating the hazard), and professionals that are qualified to assign risk ratings to trees
(Certified Tree Risk Assessors). The definitions are also necessary to support the proposed
abatement process.
*Note: Please see the attached Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Manual containing the
Preliminary Draft Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure and Tree Risk Assessment
Form.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 6
-48-
Code Amendments
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.
7.40.050 Noxious Vegetation.
A. The term "noxious vegetation" does not include vegetation that constitutes an
agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it
is vegetation within the meaning of Subsection B of this section.
B. The term "noxious vegetation" includes:
1. Weeds more than ten inches high;
2. Grass more than ten inches high and not within the exception stated in
Subsection A of this section;
3. Poison oak,poison ivy,or similar vegetation;
4. Vegetation that is
likely to cause fire;
5. Blackberry bushes that extend into a public thoroughfare or across a
property line;
6. Vegetation that is a health hazard;
7. Vegetation that is a health hazard because it impairs the view of a public
thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare hazardous.
C. No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious vegetation to be on the
property or in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or
responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other
noxious vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from becoming unsightly or, in the case
of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20
§4(Exhibit C(5)(1)), 1986).
7.40.060 Trees.
A. Definitions
As used in this section:
1."Hazard Tree" means any tree or tree part that has been or could be
determined by an independent certified tree risk assessor to constitute a high level hazard
reduiring hazard tree abatement with an overall minimum risk rating of 9 using the mat current
mo
version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of
the International Society of Arboriculture.
2. "Hazard Tree Owner or Responsible Party" means the property owner or
responsible party with the large percentage of a hazard tree trunk immediately above the trunk
flare or root buttresses. In cases where the hazard tree consists of a branch instead of an entire
tree, the hazard tree owner or responsible party is the person who owns or is responsible for the
property from where the branch origin
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 7
-49-
Commentary
7.40.060.3/4 Trees.
Definitions Continued
7.40.060.13 Trees.
The proposed amendment makes the clearance requirements in this section consistent with
other clearance requirements in section 18.745.040 and the Tree Manual. Higher clearance
requirements (minimum 13 feet instead of 10 feet) were identified as necessary by the City's
Streets Divisions.
7.40.060.0 Trees.
The proposed amendment clearly states hazard trees are prohibited and requires hazard tree
abatement.
7.40.060.D Trees.
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.
7.40.060.E Trees.
The Emergency Abatement Procedure allows the City to take immediate remedial action when
there is not enough time for the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure due to
emergency conditions.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 8
-50-
Code Amendments
3."Hazard Tree Abatement" means the process of reducing or eliminating a
hazard to an overall risk rating of less than 9 using the most current version of the tree risk
assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International
Society of Arboriculture through pruning, tree removal_ or other means in a manner that
complies with all applicable rules and regulations.
4."Certified Tree Risk Assessor" is an individual certified by the Pacific
Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture to conduct tree risk
assessments.
A7,B. No owner or responsible party shall permit tree branches or bushes on the
property to extend into a public street or public sidewalk in a manner which interferes with
street or sidewalk traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or responsible party to keep all tree
branches or bushes on the premises which adjoin the public street or public sidewalk, including
the adjoining parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than eight feet above the sidewalk
and not less than 13 te-n feet above the street.
B C. Hazard trees are prohibited within the City of Ti a� rd. No Any hazard tree
owner or responsible party to stand any shall be required to
complete hazard tree abatement.
(Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(2)(a)
and (b)), 1986).
D. Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure:
Any person (claimantl that believes in good faith there is a hazard tree on a property
(respondent), may seek resolution through the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement
Procedure specified in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual.
E. Emergency Abatement Procedure:
If the City has reason to believe a hazard tree poses an immediate danger and there is not
enough time to complete the above hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure. the Citv
may choose to take emergency remedial action as outlined in Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard
Municipal Code.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 9
-51-
Commentary
7.40.090.A.2 Greenway Maintenance.
Delete this provision as it conflicts with other standards in the existing Code that allow for tree
removal in"greenways" and will likely conflict with standards in the future Code.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 10
-52-
Code Amendments
7.40.090 Greenway Maintenance.
A. The owner or responsible party shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
property, subject to an easement to the City or to the public for greenway purposes. Except as
otherwise provided by this section and Sections 7.40.050 through 7.40.120, the standards for
maintenance shall be as follows:
1. The land shall remain in its natural topographic condition. No private
structures, culverts, excavations or fills shall be constructed within the easement area unless
authorized by the City Engineer based on a finding of need in order to protect the property or
the public health, safety or welfare.
2. No tfee over five feet 41 height shall be removed uvAess attthori2!ed by the
Plann�in.g Direetor based on a finding that the tfee eonstitutes — .—tee ar a hazard.
32. Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceeding ten inches, except when
some natural condition prevents cutting.
B. In situations where the approval authority establishes different standards or
additional standards, the standards shall be in writing and shall be recorded. No person shall be
found in violation of this section of the code unless the person has been given actual or
constructive notice of the standards prior to the time the violation occurred. (Ord. 86-20
§4(Exhibit C(5)(3)), 1986).
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 11
-53-
Commentary
Chapter 9.06 TREES ON CITY PROPERTY.
Delete this section title (9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City property) as redundant
to Section 7.40.060.B; hazard trees on public property are proposed to be treated the same as on
private property. The procedures in 7.40.060 would apply in lieu of the procedures in 9.06.060.
9.06.020.4 Definitions.
Delete this definition in favor of the proposed new definition in 7.40.060.A.1.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 12
-54-
Code Amendments
Chapter 9.06 TREES ON CITY PROPERTY.
Sections:
9.06.010 Purpose.
9.06.020 Definitions.
9.06.030 Tree Planting on City property.
9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance on City property.
9.06.050 Tree Protection.
9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City property-.
9.06.070 Tree Removal and Replanting.
9.06.080 Enforcement.
9.06.010 Purpose.
(1) Value of Trees. The City of Tigard recognizes that trees are vital components of the
urban forest environment. Trees reduce air, water, soil and noise pollution, provide energy-
reducing shade, control erosion, supply oxygen to breathe, provide habitat for wildlife, enhance
quality of life and property values in every community, and are sources of pride for the entire
city.
(2) Purposes.
(A) To provide guidance for the planting, maintenance and protection of trees on
City property; and
(B) To provide a priority system for removal of hazardous trees from City property;
(C) To ensure the protection of trees during the development of properties on City
property.
(3) Authority to Adopt a Tree Manual. The City Council may adopt by resolution a Tree
Manual implementing the provisions of this Chapter and providing detailed standards for tree
planting,maintenance,protection and removal on City property.
9.06.020 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this chapter:
(1) City Forester. Under the direction of the Public Works Director is responsible for
planning, developing and implementing a comprehensive urban forestry program, and providing
community education and advice in support of urban forestry activities.
(2) City Property. "City property" includes all land owned by the City and all lands
dedicated to the public and administered by the City, including but not limited to City right of
way and City parks.
(3) City-owned Property. City property other than the right of way.
(4) Hatardatts Tree. A tree wliieh by reason of diseffse, �tge ar- other- eaftditiaft
presents a kna-*n and iffiffiediate hazard to per-sons or to publie or pfivate property.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 13
-55-
Commentary
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 14
-56-
Code Amendments
(5) Mitigation. Methods of tree replacement, direct costs, and/or retention used to lessen
the environmental impact of development.
(6) Removal. The cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk, or
root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological
viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling.
(7) Street Tree. Any tree that is growing along a street within the public right of way.
(8) Street Tree List. A list of approved tree species that may be planted within the public
right of way.
(9) Tree. A standing woody plant having a trunk(s) two inches or more in diameter when
measured four and a half feet from the ground. If the tree is on a slope, the measure is taken
on the uphill side.
(10) Tree Manual. The manual governing tree planting, care, maintenance and removal
adopted by the City by resolution pursuant to section 9.06.010.
9.06.030 Tree Planting
(1) Tree Planting:
(A) No person other than the City shall plant a tree on City property without the
written approval of the Public Works Director or designee. In approving tree plantings, the
Public Works Director or designee may impose conditions of approval;
(B) Any City department responsible for City property shall consult with the Public
Works Director or designee before planting trees on City property;
(C) The Public Works Director or designee may grant approval of tree-planting on
City property under subsection a of this section only if the applicant has submitted a tree plan
showing compliance with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual, and has signed a
maintenance agreement consistent with the standards set forth in the Tree Manual. The
requirement for a maintenance agreement may be waived if the tree-planting is voluntary and not
required by any City code provision or condition of approval;
(D) All tree plantings on City property shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with
the approval of the Public Works Director or designee and the standards set forth in the Tree
Manual;
(E) Only trees listed in the Street Tree List or those specifically approved by the Public
Works
Director or designee may be planted as street trees.
9.06.040 Tree Care and Maintenance
(1) General Provisions
(A) All trees planted pursuant to the written approval of the Public Works
Director or designee under Section 9.06.040 shall be cared for and maintained according to the
standards set forth in the City Tree Care Manual.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 15
-57-
Commentary
9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City Property.
Delete this section as redundant to Section 7.40.060.B; hazard trees on private property are
proposed to be treated the same as on public property. In addition, the language is operational in
nature and may be more appropriately included as an administrative procedure.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 16
-58-
Code Amendments
9.06.050 Tree Protection
(1) Care of Trees on City Property. The City shall follow the Tree Manual in caring for and
protecting trees on City property.
(2) These requirements shall provide for the proper protection of tree roots, trunk(s) (or
stem(s)), branches, and foliage within a tree's critical root zone for any tree on City property
during any type of construction activity or project (excavation, demolition or any other type of
disturbance);
9.06.060 Removal of Hazardous Trees from City Proper
�ZCGZiiyvclT1 ilyrirP
(-A) When ftny persen fepafts to the Publie Vler-ks Dir-eeter- or- designee thftt ft tree eft
> the Publie Works Direetof, or appointed designee,
shall e-ealuate the
trees from City property aceording to the pfiofity established by the Publie Works Director or
designee, subject to the a-vaj:lability of financial and other-resources.
(2) Removal of Hazardeus-�
Tigard employees of eane-.aeted eornmereial tree eare eoimpai-Aes with experieflee ` �e
blie Works Dir-eeter or designee shFtH provide guidaftee as tE) the disposition E)
any wead er debris from ftny tree refneval an City property.-
9.06.070 Removal of Trees from City Property
(1) Removal of Trees from City Property other than Right of Way Prohibited. No person
other than the City or a person acting under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any
City park or any City-owned property without written approval of the Public Works Director or
designee. Any person removing a tree from City property other than right of way shall provide
mitigation as specified in the Tree Manual.
(2) Removal of Trees from Right of Way. No person other than the City or a person acting
under contract with the City shall remove a tree from any City right of way without written
approval of the Public Works Director or designee. As part of the written approval for tree
removal from right of way, the Public Works Director or designee shall require mitigation as
specified in the Tree Manual.
(3) Removal of Wood or Tree Debris from City Property. No person shall remove wood or
tree debris from City property without written approval of the Public Works Director or
designee, provided however that the Public Works Director or designee may retroactively
approve removal of wood or tree debris from City property if the removal was under emergency
circumstances. This section does not prohibit clearing of paths or other clean-up that leaves
wood or tree debris on City property.
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES (August 6,2010) Page 17
-59-
Commentary
URBAN FOREST CODE REVISIONS PROJECT
DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS:HAZARD TREES(August 6,2010) Page 18
-60-
Inside Back Cover
-61-
Outside Back Cover
-62-
TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL
Preliminary Draft
CONTENTS
Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure
Preliminary Draft
September 1, 2010
Tree Risk Assessment Form
Preliminary Draft
September 1, 2010
-63-
TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL
Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement Procedure
Preliminary Draft
September 1,2010
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 property, and offer to negotiate a solution that is in
compliance with all applicable rules and regulations either directly or through a third party mediator.
The claimant is encouraged to support their claim with documentation by a certified tree risk
assessor. The respondent shall have 7 days or less from receipt of the certified letter or 14 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.
2. Formal Reconciliation:
If the results of informal reconciliation are not acceptable to the claimant or there has been no
response for 21 days or more since the claimant sent the concurrent regular and certified letters, the
claimant may seek resolution through formal reconciliation by completing a hazard tree dispute
resolution application, paying a deposit for all applicable hazard tree dispute resolution fees, and
providing the City all documentation of informal reconciliation including but not limited to any
letters to and from the respondent, proof of certified mail delivery, and proof of certified mail
receipt (if available).
The City shall use all readily available tools and technology when assigning the hazard tree owner or
responsible party as defined in Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060. If the City determines that
the claimant's previous correspondence was with the incorrect respondent, then the claimant shall
be required to complete the previous steps of the hazard tree evaluation and abatement procedure
with the correct respondent before proceeding with formal reconciliation. If the claimant or
respondent disagrees with the City's assignment of the hazard tree owner or responsible party, the
City shall be presented a land survey by a professional land surveyor that demonstrates the location
of the tree in question in relation to property lines within all listed deadlines in order for the City to
consider a reassignment of the hazard tree owner or responsible party.
Within 7 days of receipt of all the required application materials, the City shall gain access to the
respondent's property either voluntarily or with a warrant pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard
Municipal Code, conduct a tree risk assessment by a certified tree risk assessor using the most
current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest
Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, determine if the definition of hazard tree in
Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060 has been met and, if necessary, prescribe hazard tree
abatement as defined in Tigard Municipal Code section 7.40.060.
-64-
If the City determines the definition of hazard tree has been met, the City shall send a concurrent
regular and certified letter to the respondent, explain that the definition of hazard tree has been met,
explain the required hazard tree abatement procedures, and require that hazard tree abatement be
completed in 7 days or less from receipt of the certified letter or 14 days or less from the mailing
date of the regular letter (whichever is less). The City shall also bill the respondent for all applicable
hazard tree dispute resolution fees, and refund the claimant previously deposited hazard tree dispute
resolution fees.
If the respondent fails to complete the hazard tree abatement within the required timeframe, the
City shall gain access to the property either voluntarily or with a warrant, abate the hazard, bill the
respondent for the cost of abatement including administrative costs, or place alien on the property
for the cost of abatement including administrative costs pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard
Municipal Code.
If the City determines the definition of hazard tree has not been met, the City shall send a
concurrent regular and certified letter to both the claimant and respondent explaining that the
definition of hazard tree has not been met and close the case.
The City of Tigard City Manager, or an assignee of the City Manager, is authori.Zed to adopt rules consistent with
this section, so as to enact a more comprehensive reconciliation procedure.
-65-
City of Tigard
Tree Risk Assessment Form
Hazard Rating:
Probability + The Target + Size of = Overall Risk
of Failure Area Defective Part Rating
Recommended Hazard Tree Abatement Procedures (If overall risk rating is 9 or above):
Property Address:
Location: ❑ Public ❑ Private ❑ Right-of-way
Protected Tree: ❑ Yes ❑ No
Tree Species:
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH):
Tree Height:
Crown Spread:
Tree part subject of evaluation:
Diameter of subject tree part:
Distance to target of subject tree part:
Length of subject tree part:
Target:
Occupancy of Target: ❑ Occasional Use ❑ Intermittent Use ❑ Frequent Use ❑ Constant Use
Date of Evaluation:
Certified Tree Risk Assessor:
Certificate Number:
ISA Number:
Certified Tree Risk Assessor Signature:
*Fill out this and supplemental rating form completely and attach:1)photos of the tree;2) an aerial photo showing the location
of the tree on the subject property;and 3)a supplemental tree risk assessment report more fully describing whether the
definition of hazard tree has been met and,if necessary,recommended hazard tree abatement procedures.
-66-
Probability of Failure(1-5 points)
Low Defect is not likely to lead to imminent Minor branch or crown dieback,small wounds,minor defects.
1 point failure,and no further action is required. In
many cases,defects might not be recorded.
Moderate One or more defects areas well-established Several defects present.
2 points but typically do not lead to failure for several - Shell wall exceeds minimum requirement
years. Corrective action might be useful to - Cracks initiated but no extensive decay
prevent future problems but only if time and - Cavity opening or other stem damage less than 30%of circumference
money are available. Not the highest priority - Crown damage or breakage less than 50%of canopy(30%in pines)
for action,these are retain and monitor - Dead crown limbs with fine twigs attached and bark intact
situations used to inform budget and work - Weak branch union such as major branch or codominant stem with included
schedules for subsequent years. bark
- Stem girdling roots with less than 40%of circumference compressed
- Root damage or root decay affects less than 33%of roots within the critical
zone
- Standing dead tree that is recently dead(still has fine twigs)and no
other si 'ficant defects
i
Moderately One or more defects areas well-established, Areas of decay that may be expanding;trees that have developed a recent but not
High but not yet deemed to be a high priority issue. yet critical lean;cracks noted but may be stable;edge trees that may adapt and
3 points Additional testing may be required or,the become more stable.
assessor may feel the problems are not
serious enough to warrant immediate action,
but do warrant placing the tree on a list of
trees to be inspected more regularly. These
are Retain and Monitor trees.
High The defect is serious and imminent failure is One or more major defects present.
4 points likely and corrective action is required - Insufficient shell wall thickness
immediately. These cases require treatment - Large cracks,possibly associated with other defects
within the next few days or weeks. - Cavity opening greater than 30%of circumference
- Crown damage or breakage more than 50%of canopy(>30%in pines)
- Dead crown limbs with no fine twigs and bark peeling away. May be some
saprophytic fungal evidence
- Weak branch union has crack(s)or decay
- Stem girdling root affects 40%or more of trunk circumference
- More than 33%of roots are damaged within the critical zone
- Tree is leaning. Recent root breakage,or soil mounding,or cracks,
or extensive decay evident
- Standing dead tree,has very few fine twigs,and no other significant defects
The tree or component part is already failing. Multiple high or extreme risk defects present.
rExtreme
points An emergency situation where treatment is - Shell wall is already cracked and failing
required today. - Major cracks already open,such as hazard beams or split trunks
- More than 30%of circumference defective and cracks or decay obvious
- Dead crown limbs,no fine twigs,no bark,decay present
- Weak branch union has crack(s)and decay
- Leaning tree with recent root failure,soil mounding,and cracks
or extensive decay
- Dead branches hung up or partly failed
- Visual obstruction of traffic signs/lights at intersections
- Any partly failed component or whole tree
- Standing dead trees that have been dead for more than one season with
multiple defects such as cracks,decay,damaged roots,shedding bark
-67-
points)The Target Area(1-4
Low Sites rated at one point are very rarely used for any long period of time,and people passing through the area(regardless of how
1 point they travel)do not spend a lot of time within the striking range of the tree. There are no valuable buildings or other facilities
within striking range. Examples are seldom used back country roads or trails,seldom used overflow or long-term parking,
industrial areas where workers drive machines(trucks,forklifts,tractors)with substantial cab protection;natural or wilderness
areas;transition areas with limited access;remote areas of yards,parks,or private lands open for public use within set hours. All of
these sites have relatively low occupancy within any one day.
Moderate Valuable buildings are at the edge off the striking distance,so they would not be seriously damaged even if the tree did fall down.
2 points The site has people within striking range occasionally,meaning less than 50%of the time span in any one day,week,or month,and
do not stay within striking range very long. Examples include areas that are used seasonally;more remote areas of camping areas
or parks;minor rural roads;picnic areas;low to moderate use trails;most park and school playgrounds.** Moderate to low use
parks,parking lots with daily use;secondary roads and intersections,dispersed camping sites,moderate to high use trails,works
and/or storage yards.
Moderately The site has valuable buildings within striking range. People are within striking range more than 50%of the time span in any one
High day,week,or month,and their exposure time can be more than just passing by. Examples include secondary roads,trails,and
3 points access points;less commonly used parking areas and trails within parks;trails alongside fairways,bus stops.
High The highest rated targets have a)a building within striking range frequently accessed by people,often for longer periods of time,or
4 points high volumes of people coming and going within striking range. Valuable buildings or other structures within striking range that
would suffer major structural damage in the event of tree failure or;b)people within striking distance of the tree,or both,seven
days a week,all year long,and at all times of the day. Examples include main roads,the busiest streets or highways;high volume
intersections power lines;*paths through busy open space areas and parks;short-term parking constantly in use;institutional
buildings such as police stations,hospitals,fire stations;shopping areas;highly used walking trails;pick up and drop off points for
commuters;golf tees and greens;emergency access routes and/or marshalling areas;handicap access areas;high use camping areas,
visitor centers or shelters;residential buildings;industrial areas where workers take outside breaks;development sites where work
activitywithin striking range lasts more than a few hours at a time.
*There are very specific safe work practices required when working close to Power Lines. These vary depending on location,but all employ similar principles.
**It is recognized that there is a tendency to rate playgrounds higher simply because children are involved. Most playgrounds are occupied for short periods of
time in daylight hours. Overall,their use is infrequent when compared to other locations such as busy streets.
points)Size of Defective Part(1-3
1 point Branches or stems up to 10 centimeters(4 inches)in diameter
2 points Branches or stems between 10 to 50 centimeters(4 to 20 inches)in diameter.
3 points Branches or stems greater than 50 centimeters(20 inches)in diameter.
*In some cases,there may be large areas of sloughing back bark,dwarf mistletoe brooms,branch stubs,or large bird nests in cavities that pose a risk. The assessor
must use his or her judgment to assign a number to these components. In general,the lowest rating(1 point)is reserved for component parts that would not
create much impact on a person or property if it were to fail. The highest rating is used for parts that have the potential to kill people or seriously damage
property.
-68-
Overall _ and Action Thresholds
Risk Rating Risk Category Interpretation and Implications
3 Low 1 Insignificant—no concern at all.
4 Low 2 Insignificant—very minor issues.
5 Low 3 Insignificant—minor issues not of concern for many years yet.
6 Moderate 1 Some issues but nothing that is likely to cause any problems for another 10 years or more.
7 Moderate 2 Well defined issues—retain and monitor. Not expected to be a problem for at least another 5-10
years.
8 Moderate 3 Well defined issues—retain and monitor. Not expected to be a problem for at least another 1-5 years.
9 High 1 The assessed issues have now become very clear. The tree can still reasonably be retained as it is not
likely to fall apart right away,but it must now be monitored annually. At this stage,it may be
reasonable for the risk manager/owner to hold public education sessions to inform people of the
issues and prepare them for the reality that part or the entire tree has to be removed.
10 High 2 The assessed issues have now become very clear. The probability of failure is now getting serious,or
the target rating and/or site context have changed such that mitigation measures should now be on a
schedule with a clearly defined timeline for action. There may still be time to inform the public of the
work being planned,but there is not enough time to protracted discussion about whether or not there
are alternative options available.
11 High 3 The tree,or a part of it has reached a stage where it could fail at any time. Action to mitigate the
risk is required within weeks rather than months. By this stage there is not time to hold public
meetings to discuss the issue. Risk reduction is a clearly defined issue and although the owner may
wish to inform the public of the planned work,he/she should get on with it to avoid clearly
foreseeable liabilities.
12 Extreme This tree,or part of it,is in the process of failing. Immediate action is required. All other,less
significant tree work should be suspended,and roads or work areas should be closed off,until the risk
issues have been mitigated. This might be as simple as removing the critical part,drastically reducing
overall tree height,or taking the tree down and cordoning off the area until final clean up,or complete
removal can be accomplished. The immediate action required is to ensure that the clearly identified
risk of harm is eliminated. For areas hit by severe storms,where many extreme risk trees can occur,
drastic pruning and/or partial tree removals,followed by barriers to contain traffic,would be an
acceptable first stage of risk reduction. There is no time to inform people or worry about public
concerns. Clearly defined safety issues preclude further discussion.
The Table shown above outlines the interpretation and implications of the risk ratings and associated risk categories. This table is provided to inform the reader
about these risk categories so that they can better understand any risk abatement recommendations made in the risk assessment report.
Notes:
-69-
City of Tigard
all
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Street Tree Background and Options
Date: August 18, 2010
Introduction
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be providing
staff with input on the topic of street trees during non-development scenarios at the September 8,
2010 meeting. This memo is intended to provide the CAC with background on the topic,
commentary on CAC priority issues related to the topic, and discussion items for potential options
when revising this portion of the code. The table below summarizes the code topic, relates it to
CAC priority issues and Urban Forestry Master Plan goals, and lists the main code sections that will
likely be impacted by the revisions.
Code Topic CAC Priority Issues Urban Forestry Primary Tigard Code Sections
Master Plan Goals
Street Trees, -Tree Code (clear standards) 2.1,2.2,4.1,5.1, 6.4 Development Code Section 18.745.040
Non-Development -Incentives for Tree Retention Municipal Code Chapter 9.06
-Multi-level Permits Tree Manual
-Canopy Enhancement(street trees)
-Soil Volume Standards
-Nuisance vs.Desired Species
-Solar Access/View Corridors
Background
A street tree is defined in Chapter 9.06 as "any tree growing along a street within the public right-of-
way". Routine maintenance of street trees (and planting strips and sidewalks) is the responsibility of
the property owner that is adjacent to the right-of-way. The City exercises its authority over the
right-of-way in cases of emergencies or when public access is required.
Currently,in non-development scenarios,if someone wants to plant or remove a street tree, Chapter
9.06 requires them to receive written permission from the City. The Tigard Tree Manual has
specifications for planting and maintaining street trees in order to limit conflicts with infrastructure
and traffic safety and to ensure adequate soil volumes. The City also maintains a list of
recommended street trees to ensure desired species and not nuisance species are planted. There are
-70-
no clear approval criteria for removing street trees and replacement of street trees is not explicitly
required in the code. However, administratively, the City does require replanting of street trees
when granting permission for removal. Most people choose to replant through the City's free street
tree program. The most common reasons for requesting street tree removal include tree
health/safety and root damage to sidewalks/curbs. All activities for tree planting and removal are
assigned a permit number, and recorded in the City's tree inventory database which is part of the
City's GIS system.
It is important to note that section 18.745.040 of the Development Code requires planting of street
trees during development actions either in the right-of-way, or in front or side yards if there is not
room in the right-of-way. Also, the planting specifications in section 18.745.040 differ slightly from
the planting specifications in the Tree Manual, so it will be important to ensure consistency as both
sections are revised. In addition, branch clearance requirements in section 7.40.060.A are different
than the requirements in sections 18.745.040 and the Tree Manual so these sections will need to be
revised for consistency as well. These items will be addressed during the Development Code
revisions portion of the project in the Fall/Winter.
The City accepts responsibility for trees in median strips (in the center of roadways). However, this
is not explicitly stated in the code.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has said that their standards (listed in the
ODOT Highway Design Manual) supersede local standards along ODOT right-of-ways in Tigard
(Hall, Pacific Highway, Highway 217, Interstate 5). In general, ODOT standards are more
restrictive for planting street trees than City standards. There are a number of roads under County
jurisdiction in Tigard (Bull Mountain Road, Scholls Ferry Road, and Greenburg Road) and the
relationship between County and City street tree standards is not yet clear.
Enforcement of violations of existing street tree regulations are carried out through section 9.06.080
and 18.790.060. Both sections allow discretion on how violations are remedied, although section
18.790.060 requires a minimum penalty (non-discretionary) for illegal tree removal that consists of
the appraised value of the tree removed and replanting of a number of trees equivalent to the
diameter of the tree removed. Fines for illegal tree removal typically range from $1,000 to $10,000.
Assessing the appraised value of an illegally removed tree can be problematic when there is little
information on the species or previous condition of the tree.
The discretionary and non-discretionary processes have different advantages and disadvantages.
The discretionary process, for example, gives the City flexibility to be more or less lenient with a
person based on the nature of the violation and/or if there is willful disregard of the rules.
However, this can raise equity issues if there is a perception that the City is treating the people
differently. A non-discretionary process removes the personal touch and requires everyone to be
treated the same, regardless of their circumstances.
Overview of CAC Priority Issues/Outcomes Related to Street Trees (Non-Development)
Tree Code (clear standards)-Staff will strive to write code standards for street trees in plain language
so they can be understood by the end user. Illustrations will also be utilized when necessary to
compliment the new standards. Staff will revise street tree specifications so they are consistent
-71-
across various portions of the code. Staff will also seek to clarify jurisdictional requirements in the
revised code.
Incentives for Tree Retention- Incentives for tree retention are typically associated with
development activities, and utilize tools such as decreased mitigation requirements/costs, granting
density bonuses,etc. Unless the CAC has specific ideas for incentivizing the retention of street trees
during non-development scenarios, staff's proposal is for tree retention incentives to be
incorporated into the development code.
Multi-level Permits- Multi-level permits are typically used to apply different permit standards and
processes to proportionally address different tree planting and removal scenarios. For example, the
City of Lake Oswego has seven different permit types based on tree size, number of trees removed,
tree condition, circumstances surrounding tree removal (e.g. type of development action), and a
topping permit for specific circumstances.
Staff is proposing to address the CAC's request for multi-level permits by developing permit
standards and processes that are tailored to each code topic as the CAC moves through the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions process. The net result will be a multi-level permit system.
Canopy Enhancement (street trees)-The Urban Forestry Master Plan demonstrated that tree canopy
in Tigard right-of-way is relatively low (9.12%). The approval criteria for street tree removal and
replacement could,in the future,prioritize trees with large and beneficial canopies.
Soil Volume Standards-Soil volumes for street trees are more difficult to manipulate in non-
development scenarios because sidewalk, curb, and street locations are already set, and soil profiles
are more costly to retrofit. Infill planting standards for street trees in non-development scenarios
could focus on locations where there is sufficient soil volume for healthy growth and less likelihood
of roots damaging the built environment.
Nuisance vs. Desired Species- Street tree planting and removal standards could include provisions
that prohibit planting of nuisance species. In addition, approval criteria for removal could apply
different standards for the removal of nuisance vs. desired species. The recommended street tree
list will be reviewed to ensure nuisance species are not included. A nuisance tree list could be
developed or referenced that specifies the types of trees the City does not want to preserve.
Solar Access/View Corridors- The CAC has expressed interest in preserving solar access and view
corridors. This could be incorporated into the approval criteria for planting and removing street
trees.
Discussion Items
Staff would like the CAC to provide guidance on the following options for consideration when
developing the draft street tree code language:
1. Which of the following would better implement the City's urban forestry goals:
a) establish approval criteria for the removal of street trees; or
b) continue current practices that allow the removal of a street tree as long as there is room
for a replacement tree to be planted.
-72-
2. If approval criteria for the removal of street trees are established, what types of criteria would
help implement the City's urban forestry goals (select all that apply and rank):
a) size (including canopy);
b) species (including nuisance vs. desired);
c) solar access;
d) view corridors;
e) tree health/safety;
f) roots causing damage;
g) spacing (stocking levels);
h) previously approved development permit (that required street trees);and
i) other (explain).
3. If a request to remove a street tree was denied based on the approval criteria, would it be
appropriate for the applicant to have the opportunity to appeal the decision and receive a
discretionary review from the Tree Board or other body?
4. If replacement street trees are required, what criteria for replacement would help implement the
City's urban forestry goals (select all that apply and rank):
a) equivalent size at maturity;
b) equivalent species;
C) exempt replacement if conflicts with solar access;
d) exempt replacement if conflicts with view corridors;
e) ensure adequate soil volume;
f) ensure adequate spacing (stocking levels);
g) ensure consistency with previously approved development permits; and
h) other (explain).
5. If replacement street trees are required and an individual does not want to replant or there are
conflicts with things such as solar access and view corridors,would it be appropriate for there to be
an option to pay a fee to replant a tree elsewhere?
6. In order to clarify jurisdictional requirements (an Urban Forestry Master Plan goal) would it be
preferable to:
a) make it clear that ODOT/County standards apply to street trees in ODOT/County right-
of-way; or
b) seek an alternative option that allows for more local control such as applying City
standards to ODOT/County right-of-way.
7. When enforcing the street tree code,which of following would be most appropriate:
a) rely on a discretionary process to achieve substantial compliance (as in section 9.06.080);
b) rely on minimum penalties in addition to a discretionary process that seeks to achieve
substantial compliance (as in section 18.790.060);
C) rely on minimum penalties only; or
d) other (explain).
8. If minimum penalties are relied upon,which of the following would be most appropriate:
a) make the minimum penalty a strict dollar amount;
-73-
b) make the minimum penalty equal to the appraised tree value;
c) make the minimum penalty equal to a formula (e.g. $125 per inch diameter of the street
tree illegally removed);
d) make the minimum penalty a requirement to plant a certain number of replacement street
trees;
e) a combination of the above (explain which ones); or
� other (explain).
9. Would it be valuable to investigate establishing standards that allow enforcement of penalties
against businesses such as tree companies that violate the code? The current code is unclear about
the City's ability to enforce violations against anyone other property owners.
10. Other issues for group discussion (explain).
-74-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC —
Meeting Summary
MEETING DATE: July 13,2010, 1:30-3:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Susan Hartnett (Assistant Community Development Director),Brian Rager (Assistant Public
Works Director), Gus Duenas (Development Engineer),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist),Ted
Kyle (City Engineer),Steve Martin (Parks and Facilities Manager),Mark Van Domelen (Building Official),
Albert Shields (Permit Coordinator), Gary Pagenstecher (Associate Planner),Nate Shaub (GIS Analyst),
Damon Reische (CWS),Mark Buffington (ODOT), Greg Stout (Grounds and Open Space Coordinator)
1. Welcome to the Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC
Susan Hartnett welcomed the TAC members and noted that their participation is crucial in the Urban Forestry
Code Revisions (UFCR) process to help develop a workable code. She added that she appreciated everybody's
attendance at this meeting. For subsequent meetings, optional members of the TAC could be pulled in by their
supervisors as topics relative to their expertise arise and need not necessarily attend every meeting. All TAC
members introduced themselves.
2. Major Work Components/Project Timeline
Susan Hartnett gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting. Todd Prager described the genesis of the UFCR
process and related the highlights of this background to the goals of the TAC. The Tree Board has been looking
into changing aspects of the Urban Forestry Code since at least 2004,and City Council has since followed with their
own request for a comprehensive look into the code. Prager pointed out the reticence of many in Tigard to address
trees at the political level,but said that goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan (2008) and Urban Forestry
Master Plan (2009) have provided direction for this process. The goal of the UFCR process is to implement code
changes following a workscope received from City Council. City staff, the TAC,the Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC), consultants, and the public are responsible for collaborating to deliver a set of code revisions to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Todd Prager then described the timeline of subjects to be addressed by the TAC. The first subject is hazard trees
on public and private property. Council has called for the City to take an increased role in responding to these
hazards. The second subject is clarifying jurisdiction and formalizing the approval process for street trees. The
third subject is to clarify how to use funds collected from mitigation. The fourth subject is to review and revise the
Development Code's Urban Forestry provisions. Improvements to the Development Code will address
requirements for tree preservation, codifying tree groves, and clarifying the distinctions between public and private
trees and their associated requirements. A final subject is addressing non-development trees. Following these
subjects,a comprehensive review of all UFCR work will ensure consensus and consistency across all City of Tigard
plan and with other jurisdictions.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—June 15, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of3
-75-
3. Role of the TAC
Susan Hartnett explained that the role of the TAC during the process was to provide input on the effective
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Goals,Policies,and Action Measures as recommended and detailed in
the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The TAC will also be reviewing and commenting on the work of the CAC,which
is likewise to be informed by the TAC. She emphasized general imperatives for TAC discussions and work: think
about the implications of any ideas shared;make sure fixing identified problems does not create new problems;
consider the variety of ways trees impact the community;pay attention to political aspects of all subjects. She then
explained the process whereby the UFCR would be proposed and implemented,both within the Development
Code and within the Municipal Code.
Susan Hartnett proposed adoption of the TAC Meeting, Communication,and Decision Making Protocols,
removing one sentence from the draft inherited from the CAC. With no objections,the protocol were adopted.
4. Review CAC Priorities
Susan Hartnett explained that the CAC was comprised of a broad range of backgrounds including representatives
from existing boards (Planning Commission,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Tree Board), the
development community (in particular the Home Builders Association),environmental interests,professional
landscaping, and a citizen at large. She reviewed the following top priorities identified by the CAC at their first
meeting:
-Create a clear and objective code with a view to the future.
-Enhance canopy especially over impervious surfaces such as streets and parking lots.
-Address mitigation.
-Build incentives into the process.
-Balance development and preservation.
-Create multi level permits.
-Preserve tree groves through easement purchases.
-Provide flexibility in development standards for preservation.
-Address hazard trees.
5. Identify TAC Priorities
Susan Hartnett noted that her own role on the TAC is facilitation and that Todd Prager represents Community
Development on the committee. She called for a discussion of specific priorities for the TAC and began by sharing
the priorities identified by Gus Duenas,Todd Prager, and Brian Rager in the June 15 preliminary TAC staff
meeting:
1. Clarifying exactly what the rules are for City projects.
2. Clarifying exactly what mitigation funds can and cannot be used for.
3. Ensuring the hazard tree program does not open up the City to lawsuits.
Susan Hartnett explained the urgency of satisfactorily responding to the second priority. The development
community is concerned that the City is not moving quickly enough to spend mitigation funds and is worried that
the funds will not be spent entirely on trees. The group then identified the following priorities for the TAC:
-Consider the positive and negative impacts of trees on all varieties of infrastructure.
-Examine incentives with respect to tree valuation and ecosystem services.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—June 15, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of3
-76-
-Revisit tree mitigation fee to respond to concerns that it is too high.
-Consider acquisitions to address ownership issues when the City plants a tree on private land.
-Take into account other agency regulations and requirements (including Metro density requirements).
-Be aware of staffing and financial implications of decisions made in UFCR process on Tigard and other agencies.
-Consider topography.
-Identify when tree cutting is appropriate for safety and health of people and other trees,including in restoration
and maintenance projects.
-Ensure that mitigation promotes native,non-invasive species.
-Put City projects and private development on equal footing with respect to tree requirements and regulations.
-Use GIS technology to track different types of trees in Tigard (e.g. preserved,mitigated,not mitigated,heritage).
-Distinguish between trees by present and future conditions,paying special attention to land use, sensitive lands and
ROW.
Susan Hartnett explained the process for communication and materials distribution between meetings and reminded
the group that the next meeting would address hazard trees.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—June 15, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of3
-77-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC —
Meeting Summary
MEETING DATE: August 17, 2010, 3:00-4:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Permit Center,Conference Room 4
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Susan Hartnett (Assistant Community Development Director),Brian Rager (Assistant Public
Works Director), Gus Duenas (Development Engineer),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist),Ted
Kyle (City Engineer), Gary Pagenstecher (Associate Planner), Greg Stout (Grounds and Open Space
Coordinator),Vance Walker (Streets Supervisor)
Visitors Present—Loreen Mills (Assistant to the City Manager/Risk Management)
1. Call to Order/Review and Approve my 13,2010 Meeting Summary
Susan Hartnett called the meeting to order and noted that the agenda had been slightly revised so there could be a
15 minute overview of the issues relating to street trees (non-development).
Ms. Hartnett asked the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) if there were any changes needed to the July 13, 2010
meeting summary or the revised meeting protocols and TAC member roster in the August 17,2010 TAC meeting
packet. No changes were requested, so all three documents were approved by the TAC.
Ms. Hartnett then noted that the Urban Forestry Code revisions timeline was provided on pages 9 and 10 of the
August 17,2010 TAC meeting packet. The timeline allows TAC members to plan to attend meetings that will be
most relevant to their areas of expertise. Ms. Hartnett noted that staff will make every effort to stick to the timeline.
2. Presentation and Discussion of Hazard Tree Code Revisions
Gary Pagenstecher then walked the TAC through the first set of Urban Forestry Code Revisions related to the issue
of Hazard Trees on pages 11 through 41 of the August 17,2010 TAC meeting packet, He first explained the
format of the revisions and said the TAC and CAC will work off a preliminary draft (initial staff proposal),revised
draft (based on TAC and CAC input), and final draft (after comprehensive TAC and CAC input). The final draft
set of code revisions would then represent staff's proposal to Planning Commission at the end of the process. Mr.
Pagenstecher took questions as they arose as he moved through the Hazard Tree revisions. The following items
were discussed by the TAC:
• The TAC asked if there are enough certified tree risk assessors locally to support the requirement in the
revised code. Todd Prager said there are at least 500 in the Pacific Northwest,and he thinks that is more
than enough to support the City's future needs. He said he would try to determine how many certified
tree risk assessors there are locally.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—August 17, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of3
-78-
• The TAC said the asterisk (*) in revised code section 7.40.020.4 should be removed because it is a typo. It
was also suggested that the year "2010" should be taken out of the definition to allow more flexibility in
the future if the tree risk assessment methodology changes.
• The TAC said to add the word "a" in revised code section 7.40.020.5 to the definition of"Hazard Tree
Abatement". The revised language (bold and underlined) should read"...pruning,tree removal, or other
means in a manner that complies..."
• The TAC suggested revising the revised language in 7.40.050.A and 7.40.050.B.4 to provide more
specificity as to where people can preserve wildlife snags (dead trees and stumps). The TAC wanted to
ensure a higher level of consistency with other sections of the Nuisance Code.
• The TAC suggested that the existing branch clearance requirements in section 7.40.060.A should be
revised to be consistent with the branch clearance requirement in the Tigard Tree Manual.
• The TAC said the revised code language in 7.40.060.C.1-2 should be taken out of the code and included in
the Tree Manual and approved as an administrative rule.
• The TAC said the word "policy" should be changed to the word "procedure" at the end of revised code
section 7.40.060.C.2.
• The TAC said the procedures in revised code section 7.40.060.C.2 should explain what happens if the City
determines the definition of Hazard Tree has not been met.
• The TAC said the procedures in revised code section 7.40.060.C.1-2 should describe what happens if the
respondent does not accept the certified letter. The suggestion was made in addition to sending notice by
certified mail,notice should be sent by regular mail. If the regular mail letter is not returned, then the City
could assume the respondent received the notice.
• The TAC said staff should determine if there is an ability to enter a property if there is no response from
the respondent and no one to serve a warrant to. The question was asked if posting a warrant on the
property would be enough to enter.
• The TAC asked staff to determine whether the revised code language in 7.40.060.0 would allow for an
individual walking in a park or street to file a Hazard Tree claim.
• The TAC said to change the word "voluntary" to "voluntarily"in revised code section 7.40.060.C.2 (2nd
paragraph).
• The TAC said to change the numbering in existing code section 7.40.090.3 to 7.40.090.2 to be consistent
with previous changes.
• The TAC said the commentary on page 24 of the August 17,2010 TAC meeting packet should specify
that the procedures in 7.40.060 would apply in lieu of the procedures in 9.06.060.
• The TAC agreed that the revised code language in section 7.40.060 does not require an assessment by a
certified tree risk assessor prior to removal of every hazard tree in the City. The revised code language in
section 7.40.060 only requires a certified tree risk assessor when there is a dispute as to whether or not a
specific tree is a hazard. It was noted that there could be increased permitting requirements as other code
sections are revised that require the employment of certified arborists or certified tree risk assessors in
additional situations.
• Todd Prager explained to the TAC that just because a tree is dead,it is not necessarily a hazard. He
explained that the tree risk assessment methodology on pages 41 through 44 of the August 17, 2010 TAC
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—August 17, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of3
-79-
meeting packet takes into account the probability of failure (how likely is the tree to fail), the target area
(how often are people in the area where the tree will fail), and the size of defective part (how much
damage would be caused by the failure).
3. Overview of Street Tree (Non-Development) Issues
Todd Prager briefly explained to the TAC that the CAC will be discussing the issue of street trees (non-
development) at their next meeting on September 8, 2010. He gave a brief overview of the existing street tree code
provisions and issues, and noted that the upcoming discussion items for the TAC and CAC will include:
• Establishment and refinement of approval criteria and processes for street tree planting, removal, and
maintenance.
• Clarification of City vs. adjacent property owner requirements for maintenance (including for
access/emergencies,medians, and collectors/arterials).
• Clarification of standards/jurisdictional requirements in Oregon Department of Transportation (C)DOT)
right-of-way.
• Refinement of enforcement standards and procedures.
The TAC noted that there are discrepancies between the definition of street trees in Chapter 18.745 and 9.06 and
that issue should be part of the upcoming discussions. The TAC also said that the upcoming code should specify
that street tree maintenance should be in accordance with industry standards,and it should also clearly delineate
between property owner responsibility and City responsibility. The TAC agreed that it would be good for the City
to be responsible for all trees in medians,but continue to allow the City to partner with Homeowner's Associations.
The TAC noted that the City should also seek to clarify with the City Attorney its options for administering the
street tree program in County right-of-way such as Bull Mountain Road, Greenburg Road,and Scholls Ferry Road,
in addition to ODOT right-of-way.
4. Scheduling, Closing Remarks, and Adjournment
Susan Hartnett said the next meeting of the TAC would be September 21,2010 and would address the issue of
street trees. She anticipated there would be at least some code language developed by that time for the TAC to
review.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary—August 17, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of3
-80-
Tigard Tree Grove Consultant Schedule
2010 2011
Task Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Task 1: Project Management*
Task 2: Existing Grove/GIS Review
Task 3: Tree Grove Inventory
Task 4: ESEE Analysis/Report
Task 5: Draft Program
Task 6: Public Involvement
Legend
❑= Draft Products = Milestones
Tree Grove Inventory Project Work Plan
ESEE Report Technical Memo
Goal 5 Program Tree Grove Inventory
ESEE Analysis
= Open House Goal 5 Program
*Timeline does not reflect bi-weekly progress reports and other routine activities.
-81-
WINTrK MEMORANDUM
To: Darren Wyss,Project Manager
!i�� lNi From: Greg Winterowd and Tim Brooks
C O M M U N I T Y Date: August 18,2010
R E S O U R C E
P L A N N I N G Re: Tree Grove Inventory Methods
Purpose
Tree groves provide scenic, aesthetic, environmental or other functional values to the
community. The City Council has a commitment to the community to inventory
remaining tree groves in Tigard and to protect significant groves through an incentive-
based program.
The purpose of the Tree Grove Assessment,therefore,is to document the location,quantity
and quality of potentially significant and at-risk tree groves in Tigard. This inventory will be
used to determine which trees are"significant"from a Goal 5 perspective and therefore should
continue through the Goal 5 conflict resolution process.
Preliminary Inventory Process and Preparation of Base Maps
City planning staff worked with Winterbrook to select potentially significant tree groves for
initial Goal 5 review. The City used Metro tree canopy maps and GIS technology to identify
tree groves with a canopy cover of two acres or greater. Using this criterion alone,City staff
determined that there are as many as 100 tree groves in Tigard, covering approximately
930 acres—or about 12.3% of the City's land area.
Winterbrook used aerial photographs and boundaries of the initial 100 tree groves to
eliminate linear and/or developed groves. This was based on the direction of the City
Council to concentrate on larger, cohesive tree groves that could take advantage of
incentives during a development proposal.'
After removing linear and developed tree groves, Winterbrook performed field inventory
work. Recognizing that funding was limited for field inventory work, Winterbrook
concentrated their initial efforts on tree groves that were located outside of publicly
owned property and/or already included in Goal 5 inventories(natural resources)or protected
by Goal 6(water quality)regulations. Thus,the preliminary inventory process was to focus
' The City Council approved this general approach at a July 20,2010 work session.
Winter6rook Planning
5 10 5W Pourtk Avenue,Suite 1 100
Portland,OR 97204
505.827.4422■505.827.4550(fax)
greg@winter6rooLplanning.com
-82-
on tree groves on private land that are not already part of Metro Title 3 and Title 13 functional
plans.
Tree Grove Field Inventory Methods
Winterbrook will use the following methods to determine the precise location and the
relative quantity and quality of potentially significant tree groves in Tigard.
Initial Survey
We will first conduct a windshield survey to determine which tree groves require physical
access to determine the location,quantity and quality of the resource.
• If the tree grove can be readily and adequately viewed from public viewing areas(e.g.,
parks, streets,schools)Winterbrook will complete the detailed inventory forms as part
of this initial site visit.
• If the tree grove clearly has predominantly non-native species or is a monoculture
(e.g., open space in a development with exclusively exotic species or an overgrown
Christmas tree plantation),this fact will be noted and the grove removed from the list
of potentially significant tree groves.
On-Site Survey
If on-site analysis is important to determine tree grove quality,Winterbrook will work with
City planning staff to contact property owners and coordinate permission to enter the site.
Winterbrook field staff will retain copies of the permission slips and comply with special
access requests,such as calling prior to entry.Where on-site access is not granted,the groves
will be viewed from adjacent public lands,adjacent rights-of-way,and from properties where
access was granted.
Location and Quantity
Using base maps prepared by City GIS staff,Winterbrook will adjust tree grove edges based
on the field observations and aerial photo-interpretation.
Quality
The bulk of the field inventory work will focus on the quality of the tree grove.
The fieldwork for the tree grove survey will be undertaken on-site wherever grove
characteristics cannot be adequately assessed from public land and access permission is
granted. Inventory data will be collected on field sheets; see Survey Data below for a
discussion of the data to be collected.
Once the field data are collected,information will be transferred to electronic data sheets and
the functional assessment rankings completed.
Winterbrook Planning Page 2
-83-
Survey Data
Tree Grove Assessment(TGA)survey forms contain information on the general
characteristics of the grove(size,location,relationship to habitat sites)and other pertinent
information. Stand type, and dominant and secondary species are also recorded for each grove.
The following survey data is recorded on TGA forms in the field(except as noted below).
Grove Site#—City's grove numbering system.
Date—Date of the field survey.
Field Staff—Initials of field observers.
Size—Site acreage, as amended in the field;this calculation is provided by GIS.
Location—Site identifiers, such as street intersections,parks or schools,or other characteristic
to enable easy identification of the grove to which the TGA form pertains.
Goal 5 Site?—Is the site part of a Goal 5 site,and if so,what portion of it is Goal 5.
Score—The score is the cumulative total of points for the ten evaluation categories(see
discussion below). Scoring was automated using Excel-based TGA forms. The range of
potential scores for a given grove is 10 to 50 points. Those sites with the highest scores
provide the best or highest quality functions.
Map—Identifies on which map the grove may be found.
Photos—Numbers of photographs of site.
Description—General classification of forest or woodland community using National
Vegetation Classification System(NVCS)or similar method,Dominant,co-dominant and
secondary tree species are typically noted here,as well as general understory characteristics or
species.
Field Assessments
The assessment section of the survey focuses on the functional characteristics of the tree
grove. Ten functional categories are evaluated and each receives a score of low(1),medium
(3),or high(5)based on threshold factors established in each category as described below.
The range of potential scores for a given grove is 10 to 50 points.Following is a summary of
the ten functional categories and their assessment factors.
Grove Maturity/Tree size
Scenic values tend to be a function of tree size or age.Also,mature trees are difficult or take a
long time to replace. The primary assessment factor in this category is the percent of large
Winterbrook Planning Page 3
-84-
trees(greater than 14"diameter at breast height(dbh))in the grove. Multi-stem trees are
evaluated by the size of the individual trunk at breast height.
Grove Size
The vitality and resilience of a grove generally increases with size. Scenic,natural and other
values may also increase with size.Based on local grove conditions,groves of greater than
five acres are large(high),groves of less than two acres are small(low), and those between
two and five acres are medium in size.
Health
This category assesses the general health and condition of a grove,including signs of dieback,
threats,and disturbance. Threats may include infestations of plants that tend to degrade forest
habitat functions and values or that are invasive, such as English ivy. It may also include
natural processes, such as beaver activity,that change the hydrologic regime to preclude the
existing tree grove composition.
Visibility
Groves that are clearly visible from major streets or public open space have greater value to
the community.Assessment factors include visibility from an arterial or local street and/or
public or private open space.
Screen ing/Buffering
Groves may serve as land use buffers. The value of buffering or screening is a function of the
grove size, location and nearby uses. The greatest value to the community is when the tree
grove provides a buffer between different types of uses,primarily between
industrial/commercial use and residential/open space uses.
Accessibility
Public access provides more opportunity for public use and enjoyment.Accessibility is a
function of ownership(public or private)and physical features(topography,trail access,etc.).
Rarity
Unusual features, such as large size,rare species,or historic/landmark values, add to
community value. This category considers whether such features are present, and whether
they are uncommon or unique within the City.
Educational/Recreational Potential
Groves with public access and noteworthy features offer increased educational values. Groves
with public or semi-public access and trail networks offer passive recreation values. Important
factors include public versus private ownership and whether developed access exists. This
category is a function of accessibility and rarity values: if either ranks low,this function is
low; if both rank medium,this function is medium; otherwise,this function is high.
Winterbrook Planning Page 4
-85-
Wildlife Habitat Value and Connectivity
Upland tree groves can provide important habitat for terrestrial wildlife species. The size,
location and composition of a grove are all factors influencing the quality of habitat. Larger
groves located near or connected to other habitat areas generally provide greater habitat value
than smaller,isolated groves. Groves with a diverse mix of species and structure(such as mid-
canopy trees, shrubs,groundcover,and standing or downed logs)generally provide higher
valued forage,cover and nesting habitat than groves with few species or with no understory.
Level of Existing Development
Groves located on undeveloped or partially developed sites offer the opportunity to protect
groves through site planning. Groves surrounded by development tend to be more at risk.
Comments
The Comment section is used to make additional notes relevant to assessment, such as
statements of overall quality,invasive species presence,land use context,unusual
characteristics and clarifications on assessment rankings.
Winterbrook Planning Page 5
-86-