10/05/2009 - Packet NI • " City of Tigard
T 1 c A RD Planning Commission — Agenda
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. —
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:08 p.m.
5. URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN WORKSHOP 7:10 p.m.
6. DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS WORKSHOP II (CPA 2009-00003,
DCA2009-00005, ZON2009-00001) 8:10 pm
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:10 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:20p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— October 5, 2009
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
" City of Tigard
T f GARD Memorandum
44siumome 411
To: Planning Commission
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Date: September 17, 2009
ISSUE
Planning Commission review of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) for consistency with the goals
and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Commission pass a motion finding that the UFMP is consistent with
and supportive of the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
In June 2008,Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy
2.2.11 of the Comprehensive Plan states,"The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban
Forestry Management Master Plan."
In October 2008, Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) comprised of the Tree Board
plus additional technical experts. The CAC has met every other month since November 2008,provided
guidance to staff in the development of the UFMP,and achieved consensus on the content of the
UFMP at their final meeting in September 2009.
The content of the UFMP was developed by studying Tigard's past and present urban forest conditions,
conducting scientfic community surveys,reviewing the City's existing natural resource policies and
programs,and interviewing diverse stakeholders such as developers,arborists, natural resource experts,
and landscape architects.
The main goals of the Plan include:
1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790,includes development regulations and mitigation).
2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees,parking lot trees, and other required
landscape trees).
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program.
5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program.
6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
The Plan contains approximately 50 recommended changes to the City's current programs and
regulations that are intended to implement the above goals. The recommended changes are outlined in
the "Implementation Matrix" on pages 3-8 of the UFMP. The items in the Implementation Matrix are
intended to be consitent with and supportive of the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. To
ensure consistency,a detailed review of the Urban Forest subsection policies (listed directly in the
Implementation Matrix), as well as a general review of the other sections of the Comprehensive Plan
was completed (see example below). Planning Commission is being asked to review the Implementation
Matrix and determine whether the Urban Forestry Master Plan is in fact consistent with and sup portive
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Forestry Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Policies— Comprehensive Plan Policies—
Recommendations Urban Forest Subsection Other Applicable Sections
3.1.a—Establish standards and 2.3.1 —The City shall develop 2.1.22—The City shall identify,
procedures for identifying and standards and procedures designed designate,and protect natural
inventorying large groves of native to minimize the reduction of resources as part of its land use
trees. existing tree cover,with priority program.
3.1.b—Develop preservation and given to native trees and non- 5.1.4—The City shall actively
maintenance standards and native varietals that are long lived coordinate and consult with
procedures for tree groves and/or provide a broad canopy landowners,local stakeholders,
identified for protection. spread. and governmental jurisdictions
2.3.9—The City shall require,as and agencies regarding the
appropriate,tree preservation inventory,protection,and
strategies that prioritize the restoration of natural resources.
retention of trees in cohesive and
viable stands and groves instead of
isolated specimens.
Finally,a number of questions and concerns about the UFMP were raised during the public comment
period at the final CAC meeting in September 2009. Although the comments raised did not alter the
CAC's outcome, they requested that staff summarize and respond to the issues that were raised (see
Attachement 1) for consideration by the Planning Commission during their review.
CONCLUSION
The UFMP has been developed through an open, public process involving review of existing conditions,
stakeholder input,goal setting, and implementation planning. A diverse group of citizens has achieved
consensus on the UFMP, and Planning Commission is being asked to review the document for
consistency with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1: Summary and Response to Public Comment
- ' City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Summary and Response to Public Comment
Date: September 18,2009
A number of questions and concerns about the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) were raised during
the public comment period at the final Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting(CAC) meeting on
September 2,2009. Although the comments raised did not alter the outcome,the CAC requested that
staff summarize and respond to the following issues for consideration by the Planning Commission
during their review.
1. Comment: The UFMP should set tree canopy goals for the public right of way.
Staff Response: The UFMP sets tree canopy goals for the entire City. There was not sufficient
time,resources, or interest from the CAC to set canopy goals for specific land uses.
2. Comment: The City should not protect tree groves unless they are willing to purchase them.
Staff Response: The UFMP recommends that the City preserve tree groves through a flexible
and incentive based program. Examples of flexibility and incentives include transfer of
development rights,purchase of development rights, density transfers from treed to non-treed
portions of parcels,negotiating conservations easements,and fee simple purchases. The
language in the UFMP supports Urban Forest subsection policies of the Comprehensive Plan
including 2.2.4,2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.9 (Appendix E) and the community's desire to protect the City's
remaining forested areas as illustrated in the scientific community survey (Appendix A,REG4
and REG6). It is also supportive of other Comprehensive Plan policies including 2.1.4,2.1.7,
2.1.12, 2.1.22, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 5.1.6, 5.1.7,5.1.10, 5.1.11, 5.1.12, 5.1.13, 6.1.6, 6.2.4, 8.1.2, 8.1.6,
8.1.12, 8.1.14, 8.1.19, 8.1.21, 10.2.5, 10.2.7, 10.2.8, and 15.3.1.
3. Comment: The term"tree grove" needs to be defined in the UFMP.
Staff Response: The UFMP broadly defines "tree grove"as a group of trees, often with
contiguous crowns,which form a visual and/or biological unit. This broad definition reflects
the UFMP's non-regulatory purpose and is not intended to be a code definition. The specific
parameters of exactly what constitutes a tree grove will be determined in the future when the
City conducts the necessary ESEE analysis to make them eligible for protection and develops
subsequent code provisions.
4. Comment: The City needs to consider tree species, condition, location,and spacing in its
regulatory requirements.
Staff Response:The UFMP is non-regulatory and is not intended to get into"code level" detail.
However,it does recommend that the City create a tree preservation and landscape design
manual with drawings and specifications for species selection,preservation,planting, and
maintenance to ensure sustainability after construction and compatibility with site conditions
and management objectives. The tree preservation and landscape design manual is intended to
support Urban Forest subsection policies of the Comprehensive Plan including 2.2.1, 2.2.2,
2.2.4, 2.2.5,2.2.6, 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.5,2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,and 2.3.9
(Appendix E). It is also supportive of other Comprehensive Plan policies including 2.1.12,
5.1.3, 5.1.7, 5.1.11, 5.1.12, 6.1.6, 6.2.4, 7.1.13, 10.2.1, 10.2.5, 10.2.8, 12.2.7, 12.2.8, 13.1.3, 15.3.1,
and 15.4.5.
5. Comment: The UFMP should remove all reference to invasive trees,because they do not exist.
Staff Response: The term"invasive"in the UFMP is broadly defined as species that spread at
such a rate that they cause harm to human health, the environment, and/or the economy. This
is consistent with the definition in the Comprehensive Plan and definitions used by other
jusrisdictions in the area that catergorize plants,including tree species,as invasive. For
example, the City of Portland has identified 10 tree species as invasive and,as a result, does not
require a permit for their removal. The UFMP supports identifiying invasive tree species in
Tigard so that they may be exempt from mitigation and permit requirements as well. This
would help to encourage the removal of invasive trees and is consistent with Urban Forest
subsection policies of the Comprehensive Plan including 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.9, and
2.3.8 (Appendix E). It is also supportive of other Comprehensive Plan policies including 5.1.1,
5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.11, 6.1.6, 7.1.10, 7.1.13, 8.1.17,and 15.3.3.
6. Comment: The UFMP opposes pruning trees and clearcutting forests.
Staff Response:There are no recommendations in the UFMP that prohibit or limit the pruning
of trees. There is a recommendation in the UFMP to prevent the pre-development clearing of
lots by requiring permits prior to the removal of a specified number of trees per year (6.3.a).
However, this recomendation does not suggest that the City prohibit removing trees or even
clearcutting. It is instead intended to support the closing of a current loophole that allows for
mitigation and tree protection requirements to be avoided by clearing trees from lots prior to
development. It also supports "leveling the playing field" for those that choose not to exploit
the loophole. This recommendation to prevent pre-development clearing is consistent with
Urban Forest subsection policies of the Comprehensive Plan including 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7,2.3.1,
and 2.3.8 (Appendix E). It is also supportive of other Comprehensive Plan policies including
1.2.5, 1.2.6, 2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.12,2.1.14,2.1.20,2.1.21,2.1.24, 5.1.1, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.1.7, 5.1.12,
6.1.6, 6.2.4, 8.1.2, 8.1.10, 8.1.11, 8.1.12, 8.1.16,8.1.19, 10.2.1, 10.2.3, 10.2.5, 10.2.7, 10.2.8,
10.2.9, and 15.3.1.
7. Comment:The UFMP needs to consider other professionals;not just arborists.
Staff Response: The UFMP reflects the fact that arborists and landscape architects are the most
commonly called upon and readily available professionals to preserve trees and design
landscapes in urban areas. However,the UFMP does not preclude nor recommend against the
use of other professionals when appropriate.
8. Comment: There should be no urban forestry program. There has only been a 1% decrease in
the City's tree canopy from 1996-2007.
Staff Response: Based on historical research of the Tigard Code, there have been tree related
regulations in place since 1967,with signficant additions and revisions to the Code every 5-10
years. In addition, the City has a long history of promoting urban forestry throughout the
community with tree plantings,acquisition and maintenance of park/greenspace property,
employing staff arborists since 1998,and maintaining a Tree Board and Tree City USA status
since 2001 (Appendix F). Eliminating the urban forestry program would not only break a long
standing tradition in Tigard,but would be in conflict with goals and policies in Sections 1, 2, 5,
6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,and 15 of the Comprehenisve Plan identified above.
In addition,Chapter 3 of the UFMP (Tree Grove Protection) illustrates that while there has
only been a net 1%decrease in tree canopy citywide from 1996 to 2007, there has been a 24%
decrease in the number of large sized canopy cluster over 5 acres in size. This demonstrates
that the urban forest is becoming increasing fragmented with large sized groves being replaced
with smaller sized groves and individual trees. This trend is contrary to the community's desire
to protect the City's remaining forested areas as illustrated in the scientific survey (Appendix A,
REG4 and REG6). It also suggests that the City's urban forestry requirements such as
mitigation and street tree planting have been effective at buffering tree loss due to urban
development.
r1
I ic,nan
Cit Urban Plan
y
of
Tigard
•I (r..
I. •
i ' �! r r i.r- .
411!..1'.1 e. '' :
' r .e'
•1146 .•.4",.. :11-.1 ..'. - .
., • '.'." ''r - 140C ,,
• • ..4 41( ,44i, t 0
IF r
• r +i+
•
• r a
'
ti
4144 • .irk -,,, .ir' _
*' '4 �• �' " 5':v tc ( tea..
g„,._______
__ 1 rr
)raft 5 I August 2009
71
TIGARD
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen,Council President
Nick Wilson,Councilor
Gretchen Buehner,Councilor
Marland Henderson,Councilor
Sydney Webb,Councilor
Urban Forestry Matt Clemo Mort Ettelstein
Master Plan Janet Gillis Phil Hickey
Citizen Advisory Committee Morgan Holen Dennis Sizemore
Tony Tycer David Walsh
City of Tigard Craig Prosser,City Manager
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director
Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director
Dick Bewersdorff,Current Planning Manager
Darren Wyss,Senior Planner
Todd Prager Associate Planner/Arborist
Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner
John Floyd,Associate Planner
Nathan Shaub, GIS Analyst
Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant
Sam Tilley, Intern
Stakeholder Participants Chad Burns,Portland General Electric
Alan DeHarpport, Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
Maryann Escriva,Tigard Tualatin School District
Terrance Flanagan,Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture
Peter Guillozet, Clean Water Services
Troy Mears, Oregon Chapter of the American Society of
Landscape Architects
Ernie Platt, Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
Steve Schalk,Oregon Department of Transportation
Tigard Tree Board Members (2009)
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
Phil Wentz,Tigard Tualatin School District
i
1
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Draft 5 City oil igard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
' 1.. L,. Implementation Matrix 2 0.
-1.1 e"---- Ilk f, • `+' ' Basis for Decision Making 9
' - Chapter 1: Development Regulations and Mitigation Requirements 11
• ,:
Chapter 2: Landscaping Requirements 13
. , •' - Chapter 3: Tree Grove Protection 15
Chapter 4: Hazard Trees 19
•
' `�t •nt Chapter 5: Urban Forestry Program Management 21
!,` : ,� t 6 Chapter 6: Stewardship 23
•
'4;• 14;alb%,...:.., ,; Glossary 29
s. '
a .' � •: n, i 6 1k III APPENDICES
• Appendix A: Urban Forestry Survey Results al-,,..„
.. -- ,....:, ,;,, 4 Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16
.. .„,.., Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24
;,
.: � .- t Appendix D: City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a39
k.; t;5s` .' Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a46
,„ ,<,I - Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a55
Appendix G: Review of Current Federal/State/Regional
?.,r t; ' ,:.+ '. Urban Forestry Policy Framework a56
. Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Policy Framework a63
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Executive Summary
°'°= ii, - This Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) sets a course of action for the 1.
City of Tigard's urban forestry program from the time of its acceptance
by Council until the year 2016. The Plan has been developed through a
1111c it 1 public process involving community outreach and surveys,urban forestry
li stakeholder interviews, departmental coordination meetings, and review
of current City policies and programs. Based on the information received
throughout this process, the UFMP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
recommends the following implementation goals:
110 1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790,includes development
regulations and mitigation).
2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees,parking lot
trees, and other required landscape trees).
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program.
5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program.
6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
L It is further recommended that the achievement of the above
implementation goals occur through a series of sub-goals and
action measures which are outlined in the implementation matrix.
Implementation goals, sub-goals, and action measures are intended to
Tigard's urban forest is valued frame future urban forestry code and program development and set a
and protected by City residents timeline for both. Tigard's Tree Board will be charged with overseeing the
implementation of the UFMP as part of their annual work plan.
as a thriving interconnected
ecosystem managed to improve
quality of life, increase community
identity, and maximize aesthetic,
economic, and ecological benefits.
1
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
Implementation Matrix
The following implementation matrix contains all six UFMP implementa-
tion goals (highlighted in orange), their associated sub-goals (e.g. 1.1, 1.2,
1.3...), and a series of action measures with the necessary level of detail
needed to implement the goals and sub-goals. For each action measure
the lead City division, applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, staff and
financial resources required, and implementation schedule are included.
Through implementation of the goals, sub-goals, and action measures
in this Plan, progress will be made towards the adopted vision of the
UFMP CAC:
11441 i
- Urban Forestry
� , Master Plan e
s,
«i Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by City residents
as a thriving interconnected ecosystem managed to improve
quality of life, increase community identity, and maximize ,
aesthetic, economic, and ecological benefits.»
i
2
Draft 5 City o laird I Urban Forestry Master Plan
c
ro c a c
C d H i9 i - a,
o- a
•v 3 « c a£i c ac
Iiiiplenie11tation Goals o o o
_1 t7 Va V t) m _ +, U — +.
1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation).
1.1 Revise tree code to allow for more flexibility and ensure a qualitative approach to tree preservation.
a. Determine the most appropriate placement for Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011
future tree code provisions within the Tigard Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.6,
Development and Municipal Code chapters. 2.3.7,2.3.9,2.3.10,
2.3.11
b. Modify code to focus less on mitigation and Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, High $$ 2010 2011
more on preservation of long-lived evergreen and Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
broad-leaf deciduous tree species,native and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
indigenous trees,and other trees identified as of 2.3.9,2.3.11
high importance.
c. Require private arborists to be involved in the Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.1,2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011
development process from site planning through Planning 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installation. 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, High $$ 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and seeking Planning 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.8,
variances and adjustments to preserve trees 2.3.9,2.3.11
identified as being of high importance.
e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011
diameter trees that have a higher ability to Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
withstand development impacts. 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
2.3.9,2.3.11
f. Ensure invasive trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7,2.3.8,2.3.11
g. Develop standards and procedures for tree code Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011
enforcement. Planning 2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
h. Develop procedures detailing when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
protected trees will be inventoried and permit Planning
activities tracked.
i. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory of Planning
protected trees.
j. Create a tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.8, High $$$ 2010 20118
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.7,
preferred species/tree types for preservation. 2.3.8,2.3.9
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High =over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ = $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,00o
3
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of'figard Draft 5
t13 m ac, , m
c a E d E
a a.°_' v► z 4, c m c o. y c
Implementation Goals d • o = �= E E
o ua u uu m _ _
1.2 Revise tree code so that standards do not solely impact those property owners with trees.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$ 2010 2011
for all lots to be met by either preserving existing Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.1,2.3.2,
trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012
charge for new development in order to Planting 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program.
2. revise 1igard's landscaping code (includes street trees,parking lot trees,and other required landscape trees).
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements.
a. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
incorporate stormwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
b. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish a Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permit system for planting,removal,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.8,
replacement of required trees. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5,
2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11
c. Incentivize the use,retention,and replacement Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
of long lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
tree species,native and indigenous trees,and 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.1,2.3.5,2.3.7,
2.3.8,2.3.11
d. Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.2.8,
standards. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5
e. Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10,2.3.5,2.3.7,
and/or size. 2.3.11
f. Create a design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011
drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
g. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
right-of-ways (Highway 99W,Highway 217,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
Interstate 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5,2.3.8
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ =<$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ = $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
4
Draft 5 City oil agard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Ul ti)
c d ,n ( U N
W
I111�11E'111C'llt�itl()Il Coals '' " Tx.2 £ E o
0 ra, o w o
J � Va U � V V CO— U - +
h. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1,2.2.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing
prohibitive. Planning
2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacements.
a. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning
of tree plantings and permitted removals.
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
a. Establish standards and procedures for identifying Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$$ T 2010 2011
and inventorying large groves of native trees. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.8,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves identified for Planning 2.2.4, 2.2.6,2.2.7,
protection. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.5,
2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
3.2 Develop a flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. Reach out to property owners with identified tree Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Med. $$ 2010 2012
groves early in the process to allow them ample Range
opportunity to participate in the development of
regulations.
^
b. Ensure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.11
4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing
assessment. 2.3.8
b. Develop and implement a formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8
c. Develop and implement a formal emergency Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards in City parks/ 2.3.8
greenspaces.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High =over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ = $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
5
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
to 4'
c a +0 1- - E.00
-0 E•N o. v O ;n c a p a �' o
Implementation Goals �� �
o L.) a. � � uu m _ _ ,�
4.2 Establish a City program to facilitate tree hazard identification and abatement on private property.
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8, High $$ 2010 2011
to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11
property tree hazards.
b. Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1,2.2.2 Med. $$ 2010 2011
constitutes a tree hazard using the Tree Risk Planning
Assessment methodology developed by the
PNWISA.
c. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
abatement and risk mitigation. Planning 2.3.11
d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4,2.3.11 High $$$ 2010 2011
including assigning responsibility. Planning
e. Make information about hazard tree Current 2.3.4,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011
indentification and abatement program available Planning
to the public.
5. Improve management of the Cit)'s urban forestry program.
5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventory.
a. Develop procedures for when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
protected trees,tree groves,street trees, Planning
heritage trees,and required landscape trees will
he inventoried and permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning
of protected trees,tree groves,street trees,
heritage trees,and required landscape trees.
c. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized.
Link sites with the City's accounting system so
detailed analyses of urban forestry expenditures
can be obtained.
5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests,
a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits
can be identified and evaluated.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$lo,000 **$$$ _ $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
6
Draft S City of i,s:uvd I Urban Forestry Master Plan
r d c a,
o a " E y E
a.41 n = v, 4t e a, e a a1 C
Implementation Goals c a E
-.1 Ca Ua U1 VV mV, 3 Eti
b. Create a greenspace coordinator position to Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
manage City owned natural areas and develop a
proactive hazard tree identification and
abatement program for those areas.
c. Develop a written set of urban forestry Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012
standards and specifications for City projects. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.3,2.3.7,2.3.9
d. Identify and secure long term funding sources for Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low $ 2014 2016
urban forestry projects as mitigation funds decline. Planning
e. Designate City Arborist as lead coordinator for Current 2.2.2,2.2.6,2.2.11, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Planning 2.3.4,2.3.7
6. Develop an urban forestry stewardship program.
6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry outreach materials.
a. Provide Tigard citizens with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2012 2013
forestry outreach information such as workshops, Planning
flyers,online tools,"ask the arborist"service,etc.
b. Maintain a list of invasive trees and other plants, Current 2.2.1,2.2.7,2.2.8, Low $ 2012 2013
discourage their sale and propagation,and Planning 2.2.9,2.3.8,2.3.11
promote their removal.
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
a. Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2014
tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public
right-of-way.
b. Present a cost/benefit study fora leaf pickup Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Low $ 2013 2013
program for Council's consideration. Planning
6.3 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
number of trees per year.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000-$1o,000 **$$$ = $10,000-$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
7
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
a d a
c a Vf R6 L y
C .4) v> > ..0 « c as c a y c
Implementation Goals c E E
Jl7 ud Vc2 uu 00 i. u ..
6.4 Regularly update the Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
a. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2015 2015
canopy from 2007-2015. Planning
b. Strive to achieve 32%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027
2027 Planning
c. Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
2047 Planning
d. Update Urban Forestry Master Plan every 5-7 Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.11, High $$$ 2015 2016
years. Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. = 8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ =$10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
8
Draft 5 City oft arc+ I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Basis for Decision Making
The following information was used as the basis for decision making when
formulating goals, sub-goals, and action measures for the UFMP.
Urban Forestry Survey
An independent, scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected
citizens about their attitudes towards existing and potential urban forestry
policies and programs was completed by Steve Johnson and Associates
in December of 2008. The survey was funded in part by a grant from
the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service.
The purpose of the survey was to gain a more detailed understanding
of community attitudes towards urban forestry issues in Tigard. Exact
questions and complete results from the survey are included in Appendix A.
Canopy Analysis
In cooperation with Metro,Tigard's tree canopy from 1996 and 2007 was
a, identified and mapped using aerial photography. This has allowed for
easy identification of where the urban forest is increasing, decreasing,
/ #4) and remaining the same. It will also allow for continual tracking of
canopy change in the future as Metro runs the software that can detect
the presence of tree canopy cover every two years. Using the results,
management decisions were made such as where preservation and planting
efforts should be targeted. Full results of the canopy analysis are in
Appendix B.
Stakeholder Interviews
City staff interviewed major community stakeholder groups and
jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the
management of Tigard's urban forest.The full stakeholder interview notes
are included in Appendix C.
City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meetings
The City of Tigard has multiple departments, divisions,boards,and
committees that administer and implement the City's urban forestry
9
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
program. Key City staff members with roles in coordinating and
implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies, and codes
met to discuss urban forestry coordination needs and to identify
solutions. The purpose of this coordination is to provide for more
effective administration of the urban forestry program and to inform
recommendations made in the UFMP. Full results of the internal
coordination meetings can be found in Appendix D. // //
•`
Review of Current and Historical Urban Forestry
Codes, Polices, and Programs City staff interviewed major
A thorough review and analysis of urban forestry related laws,codes, community stakeholder groups
policies, and programs was undertaken to inform recommendations in the
UFMP. rticular attention was paid to the Urban Forest Section of the and jurisdictions that regularly
P.
Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E)which contains the goals,policies,and contribute to and/or are affected
action measures that guide Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix E
also provides examples of the social,ecological,and economic benefits of by the management of Tigard's
urban trees and forests. urban forest. The full stakeholder
Appendix F contains a historical timeline relative to urban forestry in interview notes are included in
Tigard. Appendix G contains a review and analysis of the major Federal, Appendix C.
State,and Regional policies that provide a framework for Tigard's urban
forestry program. Appendix H is a review and analysis of current urban
forestry related City codes.
UFMP CAC
The UFMP CAC was comprised of the Tree Board plus four additional
residents/business interests at large including two certified arborists,one
homebuilder, and one resident with expertise in public administration.
They met every other month to receive information as it was being
collected and advised staff on Plan development.
10
Draft 5 Ciu o I ,arch I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAFFER 1:
Development Regulations and
Mitigation Requirements
Implementation Goal 1 :
Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes
development regulations and mitigation).
' Revising Tigard's tree code is purposely listed as Goal 1 due to strong
dissatisfaction with the existing code by those both inside and outside of
the development community.
Tigard's existing tree code is located in Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard
Development Code. This Code requires certain types of development
of f projects to prepare a tree plan and identify trees to be preserved and
(111 I 0 removed during construction. Tree replacement, or mitigation,is required
on an"inch for inch"basis. This means that if a tree with a trunk that is
t► 12 inches in diameter is removed,it needs to be replaced with 6,2-inch
, diameter replacement trees. If a developer chooses not to replant trees,
then the City requires a "fee-in-lieu payment" to the Tigard Tree Fund at
i the current rate of $125 per diameter inch (2009).
Some of the criticism of the tree code from stakeholders is that
the mitigation structure promotes overplanting,it does not require
preservation of quality trees,and it encourages the retention of large
diameter trees that are less likely to survive development impacts. The
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) position
is that the fee-in-lieu of mitigation is excessive and that the tree code does
not adequately reward the preservation of high quality trees. The HBAMP
and other stakeholders agree that the tree code unfairly penalizes those
property owners with existing trees more than those owners without trees.
For the City, the tree code is also administratively difficult to implement
because it is challenging to track protected and replacement trees in the
years and decades following development.
The previous tree code that went into effect in 1983 was more
preservationist than today's code because it required a permit prior to the
removal of any tree on all undeveloped land, developed commercial and
industrial land,and public land. In 1997 Tigard's tree code was revised to
— — 11
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
its current form. The code currently allows any or all trees to be removed
as long as they are replaced. Due in part to dissatisfaction with the existing
tree code,the Tigard Tree Board was charged with developing a "City
Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in 2007.
Following over a year of work by the Tree Board,a comprehensive plan for
the urban forest was developed in 2008. The Urban Forest section of the
Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) contains two goals to be implemented
by 22 policies. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan guide the
recommendations made in this Plan.
Would you strongly support, support,
While many are unhappy with the current tree code, the UFMP community oppose, or strongly oppose tree
survey confirmed Tigard residents want the City to require some trees are removal regulations during property
o development, even when they limit the
preserved and new trees planted during development (^-88/o support).
A majority (-57%) of respondents say they support new development or and extent of potential buildings
1 �' (�' ) p Y Y PP P or profits?
regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings
60
or profits. Approximately 32% of respondents oppose tree regulations .Somewhat
limiting development. (See Figure 1 at right). 'Strongly
SO
Protecting Tigard's urban forest on developable must be balanced with
State,Metro, and City planning goals and regulations which favor density °°
in urban areas. Specifically,development regulations must be clear and
objective, and not discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost
or delay according to State law. Only 7% of Tigard's land area and 12% of 2
its citywide tree canopy are on developable property so a comprehensive
urban forestry code and program must address areas outside of 10
development.
° -
Direction received from the community and stakeholders regarding tree Support oWom*
—
code revisions have been folded into several sub-goals and implementation FIGURE 1
measures. Major recommendations include:
• Determining the most appropriate placement for future tree code
provisions to improve administration and address situations outside
development;
• Less focus on mitigation and more on preserving high quality trees;
• Revising tree preservation incentives so that they are more attractive
to developers;and
• Not unfairly penalizing those property owners with trees.
Also included in the recommendations are steps the City should take to
better track protected and replacement trees after development is complete.
12
Draft 5 City o d I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAPTER 2:
Landscaping Requirements
" Implementation Goal 2:
Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees,
parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees).
Stakeholder interviews highlighted
the need for requirements Revising Tigard's landscaping code is the second goal of the UFMP. The
addressing the planting of high intention of the revisions is to improve the quality and protection of the
City's streetscapes and commercial and industrial landscapes.
quality trees and ensuring that
Tigard's existing landscaping codes are scattered throughout the
design and maintenance of areas Development and Municipal Codes. Many of the provisions in
such as parking lots and street the landscaping codes lack specificity,are conflicting, and present
administrative challenges for the City. Also, the City's standards and design
side plantings are sustainable and guidelines do not specify industry accepted installation and maintenance
aesthetically pleasing. requirements for trees.
Stakeholder interviews highlighted the need for requirements addressing
the planting of high quality trees and ensuring that design and maintenance
of areas such as parking lots and street side plantings are sustainable and
aesthetically pleasing. The Oregon Chapter of the American Society
of Landscape Architects (OASLA) suggested Tigard create a tree and
landscape design manual with drawings and specifications so that landscape
architects have a clear idea of the City's overall tree and landscape vision.
Such a tree and landscape design manual could also address the Tree
Board's request to translate Code revisions into something the public can
understand.
Internally, the lack of a comprehensive tree inventory has led to difficulty
tracking street trees and required landscape trees.
Although the UFMP community survey revealed that Tigard citizens are
highly satisfied with the current overall state of Tigard's urban forest, 74%
of respondents believe more street trees will be good for the City. Tigard's
canopy analysis supports this, as street trees currently provide only 9%
canopy in City street right-of-ways. The canopy analysis also found that
the City's parking lot tree standards are not effective due to the relatively
low tree canopy in parking lots. (See Figure 2 on next page.)
Direction for revising Tigard's landscaping code is included in the
sub-goals and implementation of section two of the matrix. Specific
13
Urban Forestry Master Plan I city of Tigard Draft 5
recommendations include developing a landscape design manual with
drawings and specifications,improving parking lot design,establishing
a permit system for the planting, replacement, and removal of required
trees, and improving the tracking and inventorying of street trees and other
required landscape trees.
\ �% 1, i Based on a
• •� ! random sample,
�" Tigard parking
II .ti; . lots(outlined
•_,c i„ in yellow)are
r A - .• .c .�►+' - ' covered by
\ I % . _ approximately
r , �� p' 6%tree canopy
(areas highlighted
cle in green).II „ .....- • AN*
{ if r
• • Perking Loth c�\
' - DsHns tIon
S! , , '.ar11N11. Point 1, '4 olio S 'Loll/
I • - • ,� ) V.
anopy layer 11
1.
, I•ti +, .rte
4 if"!
J I•
4, .
a ..,..;r 1
Y
`R i
I' , .� is i ..- ,. .„- ,. I Iii+l
14
Draft 5 cam o ,K:rd I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAPTER 3:
Tree Grove Protection
Implementation Goal 3:
Develop a tree grove protection program.
The third goal of the UFMP is to develop a tree grove protection program
which creates mechanism for protecting Tigard's remaining groves of
t native trees.
Many tree groves in Tigard are currently afforded some level of protection
due to their location in sensitive lands (stream corridors, steep slopes,
if ! significant habitat areas,wetlands,and floodplains) as defined by the Tigard
Development Code. Tigard's Development Code limits the type and
intensity of development within sensitive lands, and requires permits for
II, tree removal in these areas. However, the Development Code does not
=F ;,r • .`;; explicitly protect tree groves in sensitive lands, and tree removal permits are
automatically issued if an erosion control plan is provided. Also,currently
there are no protections for tree groves located outside of sensitive lands.
Prior to enacting any regulations protecting tree groves, the City must
comply with Federal,State,and Regional regulations (see Appendix G).
Particular attention shall be paid to State laws including the requirements
for an economic, social, environmental,and energy (ESEE) analysis prior
to protecting"Goal 5" (natural) resources.
Some of the stakeholders interviewed for the UFMP such as the Pacific
Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture
(PNWISA),the OASLA, the Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water
Services,support the City's efforts to preserve and maintain native trees
and groves in Tigard. Multiple stakeholders also suggest the City take a
leadership role in tree grove protection by hiring a greenspace coordinator
to provide long term maintenance of City-owned natural areas. The
HBAMP suggested affected property owners be directly notified about
regulations and incentives proposed for incorporation into any City code
calling for the preservation of tree groves.
The UFMP community survey shows that Tigard residents support future
regulations to protect native tree groves. Most residents (-55%) would
like to see regulations focused on larger groves of native trees as opposed
to individual trees of significant size (-28% support). In addition, 37%
of respondents said they prefer to see new tree regulations focused on
15
Urban Forestry Master Plan I city of Tigard Draft 5
natural areas as opposed to ornamental trees (^-3%support). However,
approximately 48%said they would like to see regulations applied to natural If the City were to enact new tree
protection measures, would you like
areas and ornamental trees equally. (See Figure 3 at right.)73%of respondents
to see them focused on natural areas,
said the decision of whether to preserve trees should not be left solely to the ornamental landscape trees, both types
developer,and a majority (57%) said they support tree regulations even if equally, or on something else.
they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. 60 _
While residents prioritize grove protection,the canopy analysis revealed 50
that Tigard's tree groves are disappearing. In 1996,there were 63 canopy
—
clusters greater than 5 acres in size within the City limits. In 2007,there 40
were 48 canopy clusters greater than 5 acres in size. This represents a 24% 30
decline in large sized canopy clusters in eleven years. (See Figure 4 on next 20 iljt
page.)
io
As a result of trends shown in the canopy analysis,community preference,
and stakeholder input,the UFMP developed a number of sub-goals and Natural Ornamental Both
action measures to guide the development of a tree grove protection Areas Trees Equally
program that is compliant with Federal,State,Regional,and Local FIGURE 3
requirements. Included are recommendations to contact all property
owners that would be impacted by a tree grove protection program and
providing grove preservation incentives.
16
Draft 5 city o q,ard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
HART RD
1996 Canopy Clustering 2007
o
MOCKMAN ST I1� o'SD Legend ..opCRMAN ST 1� o"tso
y<yf i Canopy COVE ! ("'<i ��-I
WM NO r e. ':T r i l IITA47...leili
< Acres E --<
RR'e-RD' f � v� Less than.S RRT RD 1 V OC
tGTLO tyFt �� _ yM' 0.5-0.99 S`NO`�a f E * 1 ire .—'T
F a !I -1 ' 'y _AN 10.1.99 y, y_1r{ I r.
At tar .4 — 2O.199 ) 174111:1)4`T
< ii+i y�'*r v`SS t — SO Of more J ��'•°, .' ►.1_ MT N S1 - Mr 5
i , Tgard Gq Limns t i` S GAARD MSOON S ^ _----� T,lr GAARDE ST MCOON:ji w RRUS
BULL NOV�)F Y P`, l1S 111 �? i.� ipiii,
NOVNTA/ a 1' ; 3i E
i l 'yp 1�` . K� �Y R NIT O� ` I.....� I _ • �w R MIT RD 'jOR,..
JI lY a p►r.,.. R 1 , N Isiouts 1 t
. h� + e
G Tf'. ,_ 1 r
REEf E'ENO RDA ti...DiLLI RD S ,'∎J REEF LEND RD i _ ; DUiIAM RD `it � i . ( � s L ti �s
e `_
14
RI
RI X1,4, �� / O
r
s t" s
ry TUALATIN , TUALATIM
J rsrll sw N.Ir.I.I } Y
.... ., - ACNILD
Canopy CILiti(t'riiig Summary
1996 2007
Canopy Cluster Total Acres as a No. No.of Total Acres as a No. No.of
Size Class Acres of %of Total of Clusters Acres of %of Total of Clusters
Canopy Canopy Clusters as a % Canopy Canopy Clusters as a %
Cover Cover of Total Cover Cover of Total
Less than .5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to .99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62%
Total 1952.75 t 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% _ 7704 100%
FIGURE 4
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Draft 5 City o rd I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAFFER 4:
Hazard Trees
Implementation Goal 4:
Develop a hazard tree identification and
abatement program.
The fourth goal in the UFMP is to develop a hazard tree identification and
abatement program that adequately addresses tree hazards on both public
and private property.
Currently Tigard's Municipal Code prohibits hazard trees,but there is a
lack of specificity on what constitutes a hazard and what the mechanism is
for abating hazards in a timely manner.There is also no formal process for
identifying and abating tree hazards on City property.
Currently, if there is a dispute between During the stakeholder interviews the Tree Board suggested that the
neighboring property owners regarding
City increase communications between departments. Interdepartmental
a potentially hazardous tree,the City ty P p
does not get involved, and instead communication is integral to effectively addressing tree hazards in a timely
directs the neighbors to work out a manner. Other stakeholders suggested that the City hire a greenspace
solution through civil means. Would coordinator who could provide proactive management of tree hazards
you strongly support, support, oppose,
or strongly oppose the creation of a in City parks and greenspaces. The HBAMP said the City should allow
program where the City would become private property owners to manage their land as they see fit,which implies
involved in disputes between neighbors the City should have no involvement in private property tree hazard issues.
regarding hazardous trees?
70 As a result of the City's internal coordination meetings, specific methods
II Somewhat for responding to public tree hazards were developed and are detailed in
Strongly Appendix D. The Parks Division echoed the stakeholders by highlighting
the need to hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage tree
50 - hazards on City property.
40 The community survey results indicate public support for a hazard tree
identification and abatement program. Approximately 76%of residents
30 . think more resources should be directed to better maintain and protect
20
--
existing trees. A majority of residents said they would support additional
funding from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a more
10 - - comprehensive tree program in Tigard parks and open spaces (^-56%
support,—39%oppose). A portion of that funding could be used by the
0 -- - - City for a hazard tree program. Finally,a majority of residents said they
Support Oppose
would support the creation of a program where the City would become
FIGURE 5 involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees on private
property(60%support,38%oppose). (See Figure 5 at left.)
19
Urban Forestry Master Plan I city of n...
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP s"L' { .
support the creation of a hazard tree identification and abatement program " ,'Vf
for public and private property. The recommendations include formalizing ;t r
the City's hazard response protocols,hiring a greenspace coordinator ,:_ y -
to help manage tree hazards on City property,and developing a process • ,
whereby the City would have authority to become involved in tree hazards ► " 't r „ ,.'
on private property .
In order to provide consistency in tree hazard • - ; , Ile" 4 ,e
identification and abatement,it is recommended that the City adopt the
PNWISA Tree Risk Assessment methodology as its standard. ,
i'
20
Draft 5 City of i and I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAPTER 5:
Urban Forestry Program
Management
ii Implementation Goal 5:
11 Improve the management of the City's urban
forestry program.
The public showed a preference
for urban forestry efforts to focus Implementation Goal 5 was developed to improve the coordination and
management of the City's urban forestry program.
on streamside trees and other
Tigard's urban forestry program is currently implemented by multiple City
natural forested areas. departments and divisions. In addition,code provisions relating to urban
forestry are scattered throughout the Municipal and Development Codes.
Management of City-owned tree and forest resources has been declining
as more land is acquired without additional funding for maintenance
and proactive management. Improved communication between City
departments and divisions,unifying urban forestry related Code provisions,
and providing adequate staffing is needed for more effective management
• ,. of the City's urban forestry program. Also, securing a sustainable funding
source will be necessary to provide long term support of the urban forestry
program as the Tree Fund declines due to less future development.
Stakeholders such as the PNWISA and Clean Water Services suggested that
the City hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage City tree and
' forest resources. The Tualatin Riverkeepers said the City needs to establish a
•
sustainable source of funding for its urban forestry program to assist in the
long term management of invasive species. The Tree Board suggested that
there needs to be more coordination between City departments and divisions
when administering the urban forestry program. Although a minority view,
"` �, r+ the HBAMP's position is that there should be no urban forestry program
because the costs outweigh the benefits of such a program.
The City's internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for more
communication between departments and divisions. More communication
would improve the management of tree hazards, ensure City development
• projects are adhering to applicable Code requirements,improve the
tracking of trees after development, and provide more transparency as to
how and where the Tree Fund is being utilized. The internal coordination
meetings also highlighted the need for a written set of tree protection
21
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
and replacement standards for City projects so that the City can take a
leadership role in urban forestry. Would you strongly support, support,
oppose, or strongly oppose additional
The community survey results demonstrate public support for increased funding from increased City fees,
funding through fees and taxes for the City's urban forestry program charges or property taxes to fund a
0 o more comprehensive tree planting and
(^'56/o support, ' 39/o oppose). (See Figure 6 at right.) The public showed maintenance program in Tigard parks
a preference for urban forestry efforts to focus on streamside trees and and open spaces?
other natural forested areas. These results indicate that residents would
support the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to directly manage the 60 - -
■Somewhat
nearly 180 acres of City-owned tree canopy in Tigard. ■Strongly
so
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP ,
to support the goal of improved City management include developing 40
methods for inventorying and tracking trees and urban forestry related
expenditures, developing a written set of urban forestry standards for 30
City projects,securing a sustainable funding source for urban forestry,and
hiring a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's natural areas. 20
io I ■ t
0
Support Oppose
FIGURE 6
22
Draft 5 city o ,Irtl I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAPTER 6:
Stewardship
Implementation Goal 6:
Develop an urban forestry stewardship program.
Urban Forest stewardship has been a vital component of life in the area
now known as Tigard for thousands of years. 3,500 years before present,
Kalapuya(Native Americans) began managing the forests of the Willamette
ef Valley using fire (pyroculture). At about the time of European settlement
in 1851, canopy coverage within the current City limits of Tigard was
estimated to be 52.4% (3,966.9 acres). The predominant tree species were
Oregon ash,red alder, bigleaf maple,willow, black cottonwood, Oregon
• r white oak,western red cedar, and Pacific dogwood in the riparian and
•
wetland areas.The upland areas were dominated by Douglas-fir, bigleaf
maple,grand fir,Pacific dogwood,western hemlock, Oregon white oak, red
"�► alder,western red cedar, and ponderosa pine. (See Figure 7 below.)
Forest types/
vegetation
present circa
1851.'
Estimated 1851
canopy cover
within 2008
Tigard city limits
In 2007, Tigard had 24% citywide "`z onrc (outlined in red)
tree canopy which is well below "�' based on forest
PY types is 52.4%.
American Forests'target
recommendation of 40% for 41411'-
FHP9BU 050? FFHC
Pacific Northwest cities. trz 741
rrP � f
FIGURE 7
'Hulse,D.,S.Gregory,and J.Baker,eds.2002.Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas:Trajectories of
Environmental and Ecological Change.The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium.Corvallis,
OR:Oregon State University Press.
2Johnson,S.R.,2008.Personal communication on November 12.Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture,University of Oregon.Eugene,OR.
23
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
1hhry iatiun Forest'11\ 1i'tetatiim 'I\p
FF Closed forest;Upland Douglas fir forest,often with bigleaf maple,grand fir,
dogwood,hazel,yew.No other conifers present.No Oak.
OFZ Woodland Douglas fir woodland or"timber"often with bigleaf maple,
alder or dogwood.No oak,hemlock or cedar.Brushy
undergrowth of hazel,vine maple,young Douglas fir,
bracken etc.
OFOPZ Woodland "Scattering"or"thinly timbered"Douglas fir-white oak-
ponderosa pine woodland,with brushy undergrowth of
hazel,bracken,etc.May include small openings.
FFP Closed forest;Upland Douglas fir-ponderosa pine forest;no oak,includes ash,
red alder,hazel,Oregon grape,vine maple.
FAI.W Closed forest;Riparian Ash-alder-willow swamp,sometimes with bigleaf maple.
&Wetland Often with vine maple,ninebark,hard hack,cattails.Ground
very soft,mirey or muddy,usually with extensive beaver dams.
OFOZ Woodland Scattering or thinly timbered Douglas fir-white oak � ' •`
woodland.May contain bigleaf maple;brushy understory of ; , �•
hazel,young oaks,oak brush,young fir,bracken.No pine.
FFHPP Closed forest;Upland Mixed conifer forest,with ponderosa pine.May include ,..�1
Douglas fir,red cedar,western hemlock,bigleaf maple, `,1
white oak,red alder,dogwood,vine maple. !� _ "
OFHC Woodland Conifer-dominated woodland;various combinations of
Douglas fir,red cedar,hemlock,bigleaf maple,white oak,
red alder,dogwood.No ash present. Logging in Tigard area— 1904
FFHCBu Closed forest;Upland FFHC,but burned,often with scattered trees surviving fire.
FFHC Closed forest;Upland Mesic mixed conifer forest with mostly deciduous under-
story.May include Douglas fir,western hemlock,red cedar,
grand fir,bigleaf maple,yew,dogwood,white oak,red alder. Y~ -
FF0 Closed forest Upland Douglas fir-white oak(bigleaf maple)forest,with brushy '' -t
understory of hazel,young oak,oak brush,oak sprout,
bracken,briars,sometimes willow.
FFA Closed forest; Riparian Ash-mixed deciduous riparian forest with combinations 0 •
&Wetland of red alder,bigleaf maple,black cottonwood,white oak, •dogwood.Conifers may be present in small quantities. ';�4�± !� {` r.
•The Hunziker Dairy Farm near Garden
Home. Mr. Hunziker is in center of
As Tigard became settled, native forests were cleared for agricultural uses picture wearing hat and coat.
and timber to help support development. After Tigard was incorporated in
1961, the City began passing codes to manage the urban forest beginning
in 1967 with street tree planting requirements, and continuing in 1983 and
1997 with the passage of codes that regulated tree removal. The City hired
its first urban forester in 1998 and created the Tree Board in 2001. The City
of Tigard has been named a Tree City USA every year since 2001 and was
awarded the Tree City USA Growth Award in 2009 for its expanded urban
forestry efforts.
In 2007,Tigard had 24% citywide tree canopy which is well below
American Forests' target recommendation of 40% for Pacific Northwest
24
Draft 5 City of igard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
« cities. An analysis of existing tree canopy combined with plantable
locations confirmed that 40% citywide tree canopy cover is achievable in
Tigard. While citywide tree canopy is currently stabilized (1% decrease
The City of Tigard has been from 1996-2007), it is becoming increasingly fragmented (larger groves
are being replaced by individual trees). (See Figure 8, next page.) Because
named a Tree City USA every 78% of Tigard's tree canopy is on private property and only 7% of
year since 2001 and was awarded Tigard's land area is on buildable lands, it is critical to develop an urban
the Tree City USA Growth Award forest stewardship program that includes all residents and property
owners in the City.
in 2009 for its expanded urban
forestry efforts.
TREE CITY USA
25
Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5
Canopy By
Property Ownership I N
—I r.,,�
I
, ,,,
13135 SW Hall 111r4 t7.�.'N.•` -i'r
r 7erd Orton 97223 `�. 1 J' }. ■ 'T
S03.639.1111 - .dL+ ��- 711 , It � V�'I :4'M 15
rrr.tlterd or.ter trC I 4
.Gerd AL../,3 2109 _ r� ;f 1 3' }r .1M.
!` A 1,t. ... ` 4 NI,.-.r.f..t dpi c 1 r
V, ,.;. , 1 it• : • . '.`•• •I ,, ,,,,,, r ..- ,.... ;....U
er ` � � . , Ct
t1 .-
a ' r i'' *" tri� `i� .1�r =r,';t r. ) 4' r� •'t
�, . 41
r
.'„, r,� •1 ` `.x.31. ii
st' 1; / ,1,.4. '* ' .". \ � '
i - . :V" - f — -:_ V .-Por, ' —,41'. 41.,b, ' -%■ –La .l• fi, -,;. .r:-. 0 ...A
,-1 - -- ,. -. .:::0,':( I • • •14 , .r, • -: -,...1,--..1.7... --:,t-; w ?.....,___.-q.-. . . ,,
1`n i�'t�'�f ' ' iits.`lblr i�
/ j��R,,iro` ' 1_ .ifG'. 7 `-� ` f' lit
b1 ,t om .1144^` f. =. ' `' _ \i.
Legend vi' - f • • • ' ', _ I
City of Tigard 1 �' 0' .. r I o Kii`;-- . r.), �`, r
r Public Right-of-way ■ 'a--� i 'f 6 1 Other Public Entities n
Private Land t n r
Canopy Cover 1
r ] Tigard City Limits Vr -
5
•
(;anom/Propert • ownership Suiiiniary
may 13, 2008"I'a‘lots 2007 Canopy Cover
Taxlot Ownership Number of Taxlots Total Acres Acres of Canopy Percent Canopy
Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.1 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
FIGURE 8
Draft S City of . •d I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Most stakeholder groups support the goal of developing and participating
in an urban forest stewardship program. The Tree Board wants future It would benefit the City if more
urban forestry codes to address areas outside development and provisions resources could be directed to better
maintain and protect existing trees.
translated into something the public can understand. They also want
more community education on urban forestry issues,and for the City to 90 •wmewhat
continually measure progress on canopy changes and community attitudes 80 •Strongly
so that policy effectiveness can be easily evaluated in the future.
Portland General Electric and the Tigard-Tualatin School District have
offered to partner with the City on tree planting and maintenance projects. 60
The Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services would like more focus 50
on managing invasives in natural areas and have offered to assist the public 40
on long term resource management.
30
Although there is a high level of satisfaction with the current state of
Tigard's urban forest, survey results show the public would support an 20
urban forest stewardship program with 76%of residents wanting more 10
resources directed towards maintaining and protecting existing trees. (See 0
Figure 9.) Many would be willing to become directly involved with 52% of support o•••••
residents saying they would prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees FIGURE 9
rather paying a fee to the City to do it. Residents also want to protect the
trees in their existing neighborhoods with 75%saying they would support
regulations for developed private property that would protect large,healthy
trees. (See Figure 10.)
The sub-goals and implementation measures in the UFMP that support the Would you strongly support, support,
oppose, or strongly oppose city
goal of developing an urban forest stewardship program include increasing regulations that would provide some
urban forestry outreach materials,utilizing funding for tree planting and level of protection for large, healthy
maintenance on public and private property,and developing regulations trees on developed private property?
to prevent clear cutting. Also,long term objectives include periodically This would apply to all current private
property.
updating the Urban Forestry Master Plan in order to track progress and
set new goals,achieving not net loss of tree canopy between 2007 and 80 -
■Somewhat
2015,and achieving 32% and 40%citywide tree canopy by 2027 and 2047 a Strongly
70
respectively. .
I
30
o ■ ■
Support Oppose
°..s=
FIGURE 10
27
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
f)raft 5 city o , I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Glossary
Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) —The Tigard BLI defines buildable
land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant;or 2) larger privately
w . . owned taxlots that are developed but with '/a acre or greater of the taxlot
vacant.Additionally,publicly owned land, sensitive lands,water quality
tracts, and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions are not
included.Platted,vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable
�.,. until development has occurred.•
Canopy Cluster—A contiguous area of canopy cover created by a
group of trees. Using Feature Analyst software on aerial photos of Tigard,
267• ' f- a canopy layer was created in Tigard's GIS database. This layer was used to
analyze the size and location of canopy clusters in Tigard.
K w
'''{ Canopy Cover—The area above ground which is covered by the trunk,
branches,and foliage of a tree or group of trees' crowns.
GIS (Geographic Information System) —An integrated collection
of computer software, and data used to view and manage information
about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial
processes.A GIS provides a framework for gathering and organizing spatial
data and related information so that it can be displayed and analyzed.
•
Invasive—Species that spread at such a rate that they cause harm to
human health,the environment,and/or the economy.
Ornamental Trees —Trees cultivated primarily for aesthetics and other
direct human benefits.
Sensitive Lands —As defined by the Tigard Development Code,lands
t potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within:
1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line,whichever is
greater;
2. Natural drainageways;
3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or
are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard'Wetland
and Stream Corridors Map";
4. Steep slopes of 25%or greater and unstable ground;and
5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of
Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map."
29
Urban Forestry Master Plan I cite of Tigard Draft 5
Tree Density—The number of trees per unit area.
Tree Fund —A fund created by the City of Tigard for the purpose of
replacing trees that are removed during development activities. It is funded
by development projects that do not plant replacement trees, and is used
by the City to cover its costs of planting an equivalent amount of trees
elsewhere.
Tree Grove —A group of trees, often with contiguous crowns,which
form a visual and/or biological unit.
Tree Hazard Assessment —A systematic process of identifying tree
hazards.
Tree Risk Assessment —A systematic process to determine the level
of risk posed by a tree,tree part, or group of trees.
30
Draft 5 City of Tigard I iT tr, 1 Forestry Master Plan Appendix
Appendix
APPENDICES
t• , : ri f ', 0 Appendix A. Urban Forestry Survey Results al
r '- :r,' . .,' Y \1'
Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16
4.1.
' , if
, ,
pP pY Y
+ , } .. !R)6a 1 I Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24•
,N t Appendix D: City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a39
S i Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a46
` ' ,
} V + 0 ' Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a55
i. i
Appendix G: Review of Current Federal/State/Regional
i Urban Forestry Policy Framework a56
t ._N
'• Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard
�-.' !{: { Urban Forestry Policy Framework a63
a
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
I)r:dt ol'1igaid I 11'U1ill forestry Master Mall Appendix
APPENDIX A
CITY OF TIGARD
2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY
STEVE JOHNSON &ASSOCIATES * P.O. BOX 3708 * EUGENE.OREGON 97403
TOPLINE FREQUENCIES
**Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories, and the number and percent of
responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97), Don't Know(8 or 98)and No
Answer(9 or 99). In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," "I can't think of anything,"and
"no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim. They have
been corrected for spelling but not grammar.
HELLOI Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a
survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes
about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR
SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL
BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL]
PRESS START TO BEGIN —OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK
*INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard
that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)?
SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First, what about
the trees on your street?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees on your street?
1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75%
2 SATISFIED 246 61.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 32 8%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25%
400 100%
SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in your neighborhood?
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 1
al
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard ()raft 5
APPENDIX A
1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26%
2 SATISFIED 242 60.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9NA 6 1.5%
400 100%
SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in the city as a whole?
1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25%
2 SATISFIED 251 62.75%
3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9NA 19 4.75%
400 100%
HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve
its appearance and environmental quality?
1 YES 101 25.25%
2 NO 294 73.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
IMPORT1 Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees.
For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25%
2 AGREE 138 34.5%
3 DISAGREE 10 2.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9NA 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 2
a2
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Usual Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
2 AGREE 148 37%
3 DISAGREE 28 7%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1%
7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50%
2 AGREE 170 42.5%
3 DISAGREE 19 4.75%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 8 2%
400 100%
IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25%
2 AGREE 205 51.25%
3 DISAGREE 45 11.25%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 22 5.5%
400 100%
IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25%
2 AGREE 202 50.5%
3 DISAGREE 62 15.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7REF/ 8DK/9NA 30 7.5%
400 100%
IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain
and protect existing trees.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 3
a3
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
2 AGREE 203 50.75%
3 DISAGREE 50 12.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5%
7 REF/8DK/9NA 35 8.75%
400 100%
IMPORT? The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on
sites that are being developed.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40%
2 AGREE 193 48.25%
3 DISAGREE 30 7.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7REF/ 8DK/9NA 8 2%
400 100%
FOREST! All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in
parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall
quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10
years?
1 INCREASED 73 18.25%
2 DECREASED 166 41.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25%
7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 44 11%
400 100%
FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to
increase, decrease, or stay the same?
1 INCREASED 113 28.25%
2 DECREASED 126 31.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent , how would you rate
the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard?
I ONE 3 0.75%
2 TWO 0 0%
3 THREE 14 3.5%
4 FOUR 11 2.75%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 4
a4
Draft 5 City of'Iitard fl)an I'oi'e5try Vaster Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
5 FIVE 61 15.25%
6 SIX 48 12%
7 SEVEN 96 24%
8 EIGHT (GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75%
9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75%
10 TEN (GO TO TAXI) 24 6%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
Not cut them all. They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require
developers to keep some of the existing trees.
Better maintenance.
More variety.
They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized
trees.
Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that.
Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should.
More maintenance,
1 say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there.
Certain areas. Save certain trees.
Taken care of the trees.
I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees.
Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When
they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done
building.
In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars. It would help with
gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot.
Public awareness.
Developers not remove existing trees as much.
One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid.
Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities.
Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers' money on
trees that can take care of themselves.
High quality maintenance.
Let the trees get older.
You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work.
Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street.
More fir trees or pine green trees.
Plant more, I guess.
I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees.
Plant more trees;take care of them.
They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 5
a5
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I city of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
Maintenance
More maintenance from landowners and the city.
Better protection of the exciting trees in areas.
Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them.
Quit cutting them down I think.
They could be taken care of.
Trimming.
Quit cutting them down.
They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees.
Plant more trees.
Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees.
They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone.
Plant more.
I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the
sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots.
Ones left are well maintained, pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers.
To trim them.
Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road.
Not letting people cut them down.
Grow more.
There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be
everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the
things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to
shield them from their neighbors.
Streets be lined with trees.
Leave them alone.
Basic maintenance.
I think if there is some sort of a plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas
you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the
city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals.
In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on.
Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more
beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area.
Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development.
Maintenance around power lines.
More trees. Nothing else.
Trees aren't taken care of well, trees in vacant lots should become less neglected.
Fertilize.
Find a way to keep away all the leaves.
Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better.
More volunteers to maintain them.
Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees.
I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have
more trees we will have a better community.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey -2008
Topline Frequencies Page 6
a6
Drafts tan of Iig aid I l.r1)an rofeStr1 Hasler flan .1ppcndi�
APPENDIX A
Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown.
They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees. Don't put them there
for no reason.
Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain.
Probably the amount.
There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road.
Plant more trees.
More placed in better locations, not be so messy.
Add more trees, keep the exciting trees.
Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly.
Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way.
Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their
trees probably. If we are going to have trees, they need to be maintained.
Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing.
Don't know, maintain them.
Get the city counsel in the city forest,they should be running the city not the trees.
Maintain damage is done.
Leave them standing, pruning assisting their health.
Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones
after they have built homes or buildings.
Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos.
I wish people would take care of trees better.
They could have more trees where there are no trees.
More street trees.
Don't think anything should be done.
Trim them.
Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious.
Plant more trees, when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be
a law to plant trees.
Provide good maintenance.
Downtown area needs more trees.
Old trees be cut down, plant new ones.
Preserve during development.
Better overall maintenance.
Better maintained.
Pick up more leaves.
I don't have a problem with it, so nothing.
Need more trees in old town.
Cut them all down, too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need
to at least be trimmed.
Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot.
A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees.
More of them along the main streets.
They could be preserved. Planting the right trees. And more of them.
Trimming and landscaping around trees.
Like the downtown, they made it look all cutesie.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey - 2008
Topline Frequencies Page 7
a7
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of
trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit, they cut down beautiful trees for
that.
Improve the city council decisions.
Pruning.
A little bit of pruning.
There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of
death that needs to be maintained a little bit better. More trees on busier streets.
Plant more of them, take care of them, and cut their branches and everything.
First of all plant more trees if there is the space.
Largely, plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones.
Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that
have trees and preserve them.
Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain, they
should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth.
I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks.
Maybe more trimming on trees.
Plant more.
Expert looking at the issue.
Old ones let go. Cleaned up.
By preserving existing trees.
Better maintenance.
Leave them alone.
Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as
a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services.
Downtown could plant trees.
Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I
live there are many trees in the community.
More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and
appearance.
Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth.
Plant more, rip up cement and plant trees.
In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them. And more yard debris pick-up, so
that people are not afraid to have trees. Anything that would make having a tree easier
would be good.
I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker.
If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better. They put up some new dinky
trees. And they just don't look as good. It's too late.
Maybe better maintained and kept trees.
Maintain existing trees.
Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced.
Cut down dying trees, take care of trees next to main roads.
Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down, requires two of three tree in their
place.
Adding variety.
More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 8
a8
Draft ti City of Tigard I Uri all Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas.
Add some along 99.
Better trimming and maintenance.
Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking
about some trees are planted too close to the street, and that causes problems with
leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots.
Maintenance
Maintenance and replanting with trees that die.
Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have. And not
cut them down unnecessarily.
Pruning.
In the greenway, we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees.
Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the
parks.
I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is
going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that. I
don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek.
Stop chopping down trees.
More maintenance and planting more trees.
Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring. More evergreens. The
big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall.
More red maples.
Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of
their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying.
They're in pretty good shape.
Maintain the one we have, and plant more.
Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff.
Replace trees as they are taken out.
Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged
looking.
Better up keep.
Get rid of the old ones that are dying.Just clean up.
Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees.
I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen.
So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge
sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves.Need to be more
proactive.
I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are
important.
Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments.
Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem, they make a
mess.
Nothing I think they are fine.
Take down the trees that drop leaves.
I'm not sure we need more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 9
a9
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees, build where they do not have to remove
trees.
Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees.
More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas.
Plant more trees.
Better maintaining by replanting. More planting.
Plant more.
I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power
lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree.
Stop building houses.
Cutting them back and some pruning them.
More planting.
Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to.
I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees.
More development of downtown,Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping.
Better management by the city and government.
When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been
taken down to build a new house.
Regular maintenance.
I think there should be more, plant more.
I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that.
They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest.
I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved, too many
businesses.
I think they are okay.
I don't have an opinion on it.
Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to
do it.
More trees. Better upkeep.
Not cut them down.
I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location
where they fit size wise.
Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want.
Some of them need to be shaped better. The ones on the road.
I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become
available.
They are properly cared for and planted more of them.
Better maintenance.
Better care and clean up.
Variety and maintenance.
I would presume plant more.
We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park,
we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are
diseased and prune them, or remove them.
Quit cutting them down for new developments.
Planting more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 10
a10
Draft can ut'r1 a1d1 I i r an Forest!) Master Plan :Ippentlix
APPENDIX A
Just constant vigilance.
More and just more.
Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees.
Leave them alone.
Better maintenance.
Plant more.
TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their
property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose a program that
transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25%
2 SUPPORT 128 32%
3 OPPOSE 136 34%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5%
7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 33 8.25%
400 100%
TAX2 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25%
2 SUPPORT 151 37.75%
3 OPPOSE 132 33%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25%
400 100%
TAX3 Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree
planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces?
PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard, not just on streets.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8%
2 SUPPORT 190 47.5%
3 OPPOSE 104 26%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25%
400 100%
TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City
to do this?
PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer?
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page I 1
all
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
1 PLANT 208 52%
2 PAY 106 26.5%
3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant
more trees?
(PROBE FROM LIST)
1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75%
2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5%
3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75%
4 IN PARKS 79 19.75%
5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 32 8%
400 100%
CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about
trees.
1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32%
2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED, REPLACE THEM 129 32.25%
3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15%
4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75%
5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a
potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to
work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or
strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes
between neighbors regarding hazardous trees?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5%
2 SUPPORT 185 46.25%
3 OPPOSE 101 25.25%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2,75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey- 2008
Topline Frequencies Page 12
al 2
I)r.tft l of'Iig.ird If mit Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
REG1 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose
tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits?
I STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75%
2 SUPPORT 168 42%
3 OPPOSE 99 24.75%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8%
7 REF/8 DK/9NA 42 10.5%
400 100%
REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree
regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting
afterwards?
1 YES 264 66%
2 NO 97 24.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer?
1 YES 80 20%
2 NO 293 73.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5%
400 100%
REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures, would you like to see them
focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something
else.
1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25%
2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75%
3 BOTH 192 48%
4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 73 5.75%
400 100%
REG5 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that
would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property?
PROBE: This would apply to all current private property.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey- 2008
Topline Frequencies Page 13
al3
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX A
2 SUPPORT 224 56%
3 OPPOSE 60 15%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5%
7REF/8DK/9NA 18 4.5%
400 100%
REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see
them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size.
1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25%
2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25%
3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75%
4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5%
7 REF/8DK/9NA 17 4.25%
400 100%
AGE In what year were you born?
Coded Categories:
AGE 18-24 3 0.75%
AGE 25-34 23 5.75%
AGE 35-44 59 14.75%
AGE 45-54 106 26.5%
AGE 55-64 91 22.75%
AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
GENDER Are you male or female?
1 MALE 160 40%
2 FEMALE 240 60%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent?
1 OWN 344 86%
2 RENT 49 12.25%
7 REF/8DK/9NA 7 1.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 14
al4
Draft 5 Cit■ of Tigard I Urnan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
STREET What neighborhood do you live in?
PROBE: What is your closest elementary school?
PROBE: What is your closest cross street?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard, we would like to thank
you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye.
NOQAL I'm sorry, we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm
sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice (day/evening).
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 15
a15
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard 1)raft 5
APPENDIX B
Canopy Change
(1996 to 2007) ry' .
•
:,,,, „.t. :II
L
CO 00110 -.. - r n�
rills SW He'll Blvd • wl f_. -� �i ri. 4.
.I ford Oregon 91773 ,y I
503.639 1111 T: Y 1`.'r�/.f..� r L a -
w•-l gc.d or.gor 11"1..11 f err 1 l :/'1f�3;'�� "� '��1 1' 'j'
tilylrie,
_ :j. �� .. _ *• Yom � N f g
47, --:.... .t,„› : -.....--- ...P.: 4. '. 1
• i't i'l•••`f•3179.1rill,,t, ". ''' ' WIC- ' '' ':' -i 4. ••••••4-'lb .C*; ‘.111''..- C, .. * 4;17 • 't
- .,r1-.4 • ,-: ., ,.,..izi. 4,1
bitv,
• 1 I. - .. �. L ?gi i R
i 1," '1 .{ . �_ •'
"' ; • .A.4. " ' .''-' "•. .. ,,.--‘7''0. -f. . • •- ' -. •N. •: '!'" ..--..,.' t -E.,, t ki,
:..- 6 .r ` w '14, '. - . id�.i+. o++ �•;1 Y..iCI...'' ••� L'3?*
j : . X141 ' i I .t'F`�_ ...,..4.-.•. tf9X /y, ., _L:r:'`.
.rte:—J +r-�; f.r. = 6f ra ::a �y t.V
,111i11 2' ,,•` 4•,,7•.4,'., ,;,,.L,.
7 «• • a S A.-,.. . .. 4,,,F ,a F '
n Ar...5PM5 4 fa .,4 ,„,,, ,
..,t, ... ........ . .,,,.. ‘,.._,Legend 4,•�s.1.1 ; '1 Y ; ': 4f ' ` u
Canopy Lost "'� -i r
Canopy Gained .t;
Canopy Preserved
r 7 l igard City Limits 4,1,,,
. 5%
Citywide Canopy Change Summary
1996 2007
Acres Percent * Acres Percent *
Tigard's Total Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
*of June 2008 city limits
CLEM-
!Q HART RD 49 2 O U 7
1996 Canopy Clustering I
O� G or
�S s
PoCKMAN ST -N, Os• Legend m _ac KHAN ST Oti'
B Iii ,B i 4'4 '�
` '44, i� Canopy Cover �
WEIR RD / „� Acres 2 .. •~� ,e cr, n
D`vS�ERRwItD• -i Less than.5 O4`5 FERRY RD 's' — '0 T — I G 6P,"
0.5-0.99
4 ;4 1 At :x •
• - ,4_,.. 1.0- 1.99 }( Z" ; 4 .. or e's
E 1 - '�' �'�,� 2.0-4.99 /1 '��t �++. 94 en
10111.1 F' �' S.Oormo l F bt --s
*` 1 f M �Y� .�'` ~_ 1a var ..,'..;;p-.- ,,..w tw I� D l � I Tigard City Limits I 5 y. /,GAgRDE ST %MGDONAL
GAA0.DE ST MCDON� KRUSE
BULL MQUQrTD, n BULL MOUNT. ^• t.' 'w
> 1�^r L u R MIT MD ; I��►0 1� * �: J w 1 T RD 'rDR
f 1)11 4 41[ Q0. F I 6 ...8 C`
e {yy����11
M �� Y'{ 1 J�tEP 1'� 7 �+
BEEF B MD RD J DUM RD L A.:iii .,:t,.6.E �L_t7711 z o
MAP „" z A TUALATIN!; .125 SW Mall 11,• A Y _
O. SO3.639.4171
CHILD! Y
Canopy Clustering Summary
1996 2007
Canopy Cluster Total Acres of Acres as a Percent of No.of Clusters as Total Acres of Axes as a Pert of No.of Clusters as CJ
No.of Clusters No.of Clusters f
Size Class Ca opy Cover Total Canopy Cover a Percent of Total Canopy Cover Total Canopy Cover a Percent of Total r..
Less than 0.5 axes 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86% `�
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14% `'
1.0 to 1.99 axes 159.25 8.16% 113 236% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
on
on
2.0 to 4.99 axes 190.86 9.77%o 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67% «.c
5.0 or more axes 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62% - 11=
Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% m as
z
("D
0
X
V
Co
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX B
' Canopy Change
Within 1996 BLI
(1996 to 2007) ,�
1 u—
e ttGCiROps A •
...- "")\- erl u, C4L A�
HISS SW Mel/Bled
Mora.Oregon na3 �� \ ® u p '
5 4 3.4 5 9 4 I71
.
.. .Ilford-•r.gov a ` f P
ilP
� i -0 0 �
a - o
Ar-
CI
rill
pq •
tiiI: • �,.�{ 6 •� a fO w• ' ) li %a '13'irfir
. „ . .,,,P
U
t I ! _ —
1
r d ‘ '
11U 6, C� n 1:::\•,,,
� ,i1 J �.o �1 a�
D ^ J c.
1 oy
ED -J o o TTT
/ .13 e .
( Q' A 1 e
Legend 1_J tl o o V PI
Canopy Lost -�
Canopy Gained \ L _
1 Canopy Preserved
! 1996 Buildable Lands Inv
1 Tigard City Limits ` ���---rrr���rrr���••• p
Citywide Canopy Change Within 1996 BLI Area Summary
1996 2007
Acres Percent Aaes Percent Percent Change
Tigard's Canopy Cover within 1996
1311(1423.32 acres) 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79% -10.63%
Citywide Canopy Cover Within BLI Summary
1996 2007
BLI Acres of BLI Acres of
Acres Canopy Cover Percent Acres Canopy Cover Percent
Tigard's Canopy Cover within BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 528.75 226.26 42.79%
Draft 5 City of Tigard I roan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX B
e s
Canopy 8y
Property Ownership N. ■
- •-.
.
'.:-....1
NO:•;i::';
...t..:.--..vqt,-.';I:•
0 T 1 G ARDwo
A -.' .',•Le,''4i4._,.
....0 :r..,.
111SW Hall 111.d .
tel Oreson 97277 .. . 4" ' ,
/i....:*. '1 . \ ii ' '•' 31
nw
... ..- ._
,...,. '--'''..' ,,.... . K`ef-..*::.b.— A,• :IL 3 V • • Al I:' '.4 -"
'..! .-y--•f
,qr.% ', , ,' ..';...-
IF
,...,. ___ .•'s!,,r; ., pl , „, :,... \ . .. -,,a.-..t,„ , . .•,,..-: T.* — ,,
— ' -..l :. .d , ..•Le "F4 4.1 l'.. 1. 'FM, a. J L. 'I- . ..-••'.., -r" ri•iir
illi
e .4.-.2 2.; r„. .-H- .r:„:,.,; ,4~,,, s. ,
:, ••
s,,,
i; . r '
11411001 I I i Ili 1:'1' " : - '
, ) 'f': • .r •- - .. 4,, •..• .- - I- . ".- ; _A J
,.....,:.4 .---
J. #7. _.gst_t. ',,.,:idlioii.ir, . .1-1 .....„.%-,.-.; ' f:i.,.'.; "''frIP• ' :.fr,., ..,,ii,:• ._ v , _,1
• i 1r, - 7:'' ; - : .`,„l " 7 • ' , .. 4,..,a,:*...7,, ''t,..,,,L7 .. •T -a? '" i-
i .ei:.,:'
....411,,k-•*_,1 - , .• ,.',.,e- • ,,,- i ii, ..i. ! , ;...k:' ;,-'' • ,d6'444?---_ kr- , :ii, 4,i, -...' ,
, . el _ -...,...: , --.• . _. ,3, - # - , . y :-..1,,,, J. . ,ti,..-1,0, ,... . ,,•,,) . .,,.. IIPFM_c ' -
- -../ • .. .-.X.:it:- ...' ' P"r '.flk t.2 r'li..C,46 g:...t.' '''.- ,''. .7 , - - Mt.:".
1 -- 4": .1.r-A!,I ..'If in--; t011s —'.. ..', .:‘—''.'-111/7' o
SO 1 ■
.
r4t, ...,._,„ „ ..._..; .„ , ...,.,., . . ... rt • ,,---.
1„? .4.5._.ir:0 0.--.:' _, ..1, , F.
i .
, . ;--. ...,1r 're, ,
.9.,.1r.e ■ ,,Itiiiiv
" i A: ..,t;... .... ,
6-1 ri,
,..., i
1,
Legend •„.r . 4 --' ' . . . i
1--1 -'-c 4 '• '. '',... '• a f,••-".'-.- IL: - • .1t: '--/i
i City of Tigard
' 4 4,. magi -'-•-.
Public Rtight-of-VVay a. ... .•*:•!,Y,'"...-1-. i Ib' ' '''..; 1' •
r-----] Other Public Entities 10111.631Ltsit4tt • '' • r0; f i
- . r _
Private Land
ell
..
Canopy Cover
7 Tigard City Limits ...-,
' r i
5.. i
-- .
Canopy/ Property Ownership Summary
May 13,2008 Taxlots 2007 Canopy Cover
Nuinberof Acres of Canopy Percent Canopy
Taxlot Ownership Total Acres
Taxlots Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other PublicEntity 79 431.65 105.1 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
MEI=
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard - .. , ` .. s
APPENDIX B
e Canopy Change in Sensitive Lands (1996 to 2007)
CWS FEMA 100 1 _ Local Wetland
Year Flood Plain I �� Inventory
_ t r` 1 r
+� n L cro
1..... .filk
-4 ' "1.4.---4,....i0..,
all 5, i /,
1111r
l
III
74 - lir ., it ,,
—7.7.
*2I ,.... L `
. --
CWS Vegetated — Slope>25% -
Corridor T
1::, .''..
, /- '
C\IIIIIIII 11111 I
h t / —r-y 7"6" ,-....- .
PI*A n ( jj(()) .'
/f '� ViliOr
N
. /
a
`W v
Legend J '
(i Canopy lost e_
I I..AMiN /'
MEM �
Canopy Caned ! MIS SW Heil alto ..- 1 ,
7 Canopy Preserved L ,. VY - n."'o,•i.. VIM
,_�Ted Cary limn,
J
Citywide Canopy Change Within Sensitive Lands Summary
1996 2007
Sensitive Canopy Past Past of 1996 Canopy Percent Percent of 1996
Land Acres Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Percent Change
Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 145.98 50.18% 7.48% 116.01 39.88/. 6.26'/. -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 348.16 49.40°/ 17.83% 302.85 42.97°/. 16.35;'. -6.43%
FEMA I00-yr Floodplain 592.6 213.17 35.97°/. 10.92% 188.05 31.73% 10.15% -4.24%
Slopes>25% 195.51 130.28 66.64% 6.67% 129.64 66.31% 7.00% I -0.33%
Total 1783.8 837.59 46.96% 42.89% 736.55 4129°/. 39.76% -5.66%
a20
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Uruan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX B
Canopy Change
by Zoning
(1996 to 2007) r-
3333333,!•
i
e i1G1IRMAP3 11t •,ff 414
'►vim , .'NAIC'
4tJ
j:
e.1))i 15 SW Hell Wed k tI u ® � r1-.d Oregon 13321 M ,�5.i. . '
503 333 .1 t.
1 tj.r A
,
4
+ k R { ✓ '. 4� "• � i {•.H.7„; '",:-::..,14.,..-11 ",;;;•:-,477.3.:14°.
+ t►.yce,' t-'7•3;1 gF f� 441‘. .3 .-� '1._:' y
i yy y •I
di
44 4:: 3 4 - "! t• '--,.: ,tif -s-,
.."-•:6417-t1 i-,-i.k., 2. , ,--..4,. . ,,..,...„.„: .4,.„..,:,.. ,
1 IMO,4 '' ! ` .r t. _,!.. '-,*'''•.0. i• A. S it. 1' •
'''... . 1 .r - ' 4,;';;,. • ,' ,.-.:‘,.:t - -.--',.. -,e . ,... :.r.'-',' '..,,. sV1'.:r. .
titi
4*'1. . .4.-1,--5: : J;:!,.1."7`.. . Tr-',44 "-.4--.---.. .,,,r,,.-, t"--4--...„).
• ,•..Legend ,/ „' `•.' •;4, i�1 ' .fiti�' ',
Canopy Lost b i ,
•
ENE Canopy Gained '7,,•r' ..,� s .. ,34
Canopy Preserved :71i% 1.; :�5 ti
Zoning Type ' :.,` 'x: ,.- ! 0
. .. , _
Commercial 4.4 1 r •
Industrial \ d '�I - ,
Mixed Use
Residential
_ is
7 Tigard City Limits
5
Citywide Canopy Change By Zoning Summary
1996 2007
2008 Percent
Zoning Total Acres Ames Percent Aa+es Percent Change
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26
Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21
Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76
Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -1.32
,121
N
N
m
I Z
sr TRINPIForg. *0 z
`E' - pd 4r
g
BROCKMAN ST ?_._'---/'-- 1^N 0,0 G ° ^
0
rb
Possible Percent "44,8Ek
(I 1 Via-- ,
TAYLORS FERRY RD
`�'� i Cano pY °
V i : R t
16.11.1.3•00 9C
w.. ,Z-. A
.\ G 4
0 01.400
Zr 1-c
i u sw Mali Blvd SpNO' 'III • • . .� r i y f >
.e.Orelen 93133 �. 3 ' It. rI '•� '� ,. < F"r
+03.639 6131 r -
�� `I ` T - 111 �' � y s' rt
‘...,9%:. ..y.�1 =of RffNBURG . - - �' Ir.Nr,
16.. 9 1:�3r r �.l R iz I •
—
...•��iP . .� ' Q ,�\�,^ (f KERB no
.Fll
• O
=3h�� t, -.r 7 ,,,Z7 9.� 5 :
7 I•l1Tfr +■ - ♦ GT::r ', ..,y7 A.l - o G
t _ e 1 � -- . #' ..p4( _ ��- _ MELROSE ST
., ♦ l 1 �. ``. .� i
.or* �{�.E
L , •,r t omTh•
Z��i�� A GAA ••.jF T - 'i�' 4.111-� 9 4 R ♦T O.,,._ ,
A ,. _ - 11 MFDO A SST (..,,i
I., ti .Z y
`..� BULL MOUNTAIN}p ` • ^m a "f •:Y , . -
.
:
• ' !t .AL' • ', a r a: . • -ns
•_. . _ III I* }
l •_��; } ;L, . ;. a `� -`' Legend
BEEF REND RD "� • �.A _ �� .,. '
•L .f . ' !, .,;+rt I- 1 Tigard City Limits
Citywide Possible Percent Canopy -- - Y;' j. -d _ Possible Percent Canopy
Non-Residential Taxlots 44% - r in -20%
Residential Taxlots 39% - / -ao r
40
_ _ _ _ 40-80%
Overall- - -- - -- 41%- - 60-80%
_ 80-100%
Draft 5 City of Tigard I UrDan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX P
— . iiii 1,1 .*- , :,-,11'1' . - ,,, a
I : + 'S.
• • ti ample 1 I `;.
•
J
II f r a, A I '
•1 I Parking Lo s. _
s' . Delineation i
r
I. + ,. Sam le Point, *" Zr afro's 2007
• soapy Layer ,
J,t IV* '
,\.t. . ill
{` `-` , I '+ , - . i ••fir�' a J I•
... • . , 9 ' '1,,N. . ..,,,, ' :1 I'lit ''A. i ....7 , . .*' � _ 1
.. .
1-----;;W A
- X ' 1/4,
. di
+I
, i■ ..------ _ „ 144iik ‘,,,\
A` i 1 1�d
Parking Lot Sample Acreage: 508.77 acres
Parking Lot Sample Acres covered by canopy: 30.72 acres
Percent Parking Lot Sample Canopy Coverage: 6%
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City 01'Iigard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+ members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
(HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It is in the interest of
the membership to develop land and create building sites for new homes. Land
development requires tree removal on sites that have trees and are zoned for
development.
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard Development
Code requirements.
• Under the current code section 18.790,applicants may pay a fee in lieu of mitigation or
are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement trees within the City.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board,Planning Commission, and City Council
meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban Forest section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists when
evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are unreasonable and
punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d) is unreasonable because it is
not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on sites zoned for medium to high
density residential development (5 units per acre or more). There has likely never been
a development in Tigard with 75% or greater retention on property zoned R4.5 or
higher. Heavy equipment,grading, roads,and utilities are very disruptive to trees.
Significant amounts of grading must take place outside the right of way when driveways
are cut in,sidewalks are poured, and building footprints are cleared for structures.
This results in tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will cause potential
future hazards. For example,trees over 12"in diameter have root systems and
canopies that extend at least 10'from the trunk. Larger trees have larger areas around
them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not practicable is high density situations.
a24
Draft> (at■ of rgard I Grnan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
Even if a younger but potentially large tree species such as Doug.-fir is able to be
retained,it often makes sense to remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future.
• The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far exceeds the
actual cost to plant trees. For example, a recent mitigation project to plant trees in
Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the developer$20,000 to complete.
However, the City required the developer to submit a bond for $106,000 or $110 per
caliper inch as assurance and to cover the City's cost of planting should the developer
fail to mitigate.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example, the density
bonus incentive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover retained. This
bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very large. For a site that is
10 lots, it would take 20% retention for a 10%density bonus to add just one unit.
Moreover, by adding another unit and decreasing the amount of land available for
infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots that are significantly smaller than zoning
allows. This creates a direct conflict with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally,it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan requirements
require additional resources adding cost and time to any development project. In
addition, Tigard's current program is divisive and creates legal conflicts in the form of
appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property owners should
be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the establishment of Tigard. This"hands
oft' approach has successfully been done for decades with virtually no loss (and
perhaps even some gain) in tree canopy. Trees are not community property and belong
to the owners of the land.
• Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for
unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over $1,000,000 in the tree mitigation
fund. It is expected to grow to over$2,000,000 within the next year. This fund can only
be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for tree planting was$50,000. There is
little available land within the City where future trees can be planted.
• If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should only be
required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal.
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous trees.
• The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of planting trees.
• Revise incentives to create higher motivation for developers to utilize the incentives.
• The City forestry program should be balanced with the right to subdivide and develop
private property. The cost of an urban forestry program should not outweigh the
benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
a25
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of'Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that their views
are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process that the
HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and one extremely
active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple to achieve "consensus"
when everyone in the room shares the same view. The key to real and balanced
stakeholder participation is to find the people who have concerns about the forestry
program and openly discuss the views of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue.
The HBAMP has received virtually no feedback from City staff,the Tree Board or the
Citizen Advisory Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's
representatives have provided at meetings,public hearings and worksessions. This
needs to be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal,it is the view of the HBA
members who have been involved in this process that the Tree Board and City Staff are
putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of property owners. This is
unacceptable.
• City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners who have
the most potential impact under the current and future tree code. These owners should
be contacted and advised of the financial impact the current tree code could have on
their property values. These are the single most impacted stakeholder group,yet they
have never been invited to any meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a program do
not outweigh the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property,and allow owners to manage their land as they
see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following should be
included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to mitigate
for unnecessary tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to utilize the
incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property owners in
the process.
Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
a26
Drafts City of Tigard I lit n it Forestry■ Master Plan Appertclix
APPENDIX C
• Watershed Management Department manages revegetation projects in Tigard's stream
corridors.
• Partnered with urban forester (currently unfilled) on many acres of tree planting in
Tigard's stream corridors including Englewood Park, Fanno Creek Park, and Cook
Park. These projects were funded by Surface Water Management (SWM) fees which
come from sewer system ratepayers.
• Development Services issues Service Provider Letters (SPL) for development projects
with potential impacts on stream corridors.
• CWS inspectors monitor Vegetated Corridor work of private developers to ensure
compliance with CWS standards.
• Some stream restoration projects require City of Tigard tree removal permits and tree
protection plans.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard Public Works is effective at using volunteers for planting projects.
• In theory, the tree mitigation fund works well (if the money is actually used for tree
planting).
• Tigard has worked well with Clean Water Services on tree planting projects and meeting
"Tree for All" planting goals.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in stream
corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas dominated by non-
native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree planting.
• Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should not be
protected and/or require a tree removal permit. Protecting invasives and non-natives is
a barrier to restoration.
• Vegetated Corridor and other natural area plantings require long term maintenance
beyond the two-year maintenance period typically required of developers.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should be more diligent about taking a proactive approach to inspecting
Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban Forestry Program
includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements.
• Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should be
exempt from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Tigard needs to adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt the removal of
invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from permit requirements.
• There needs to be more focus on long term maintenance of private and public riparian
plantings. This could be addressed through a combination of Code requirements,SWM
a27
l'rhan Forest]) Master Plan Appendix I cit■ of"I it;and Draft 5
APPENDIX C
funds, and tree mitigation funds. The City should secure a stable source of funding for
vegetation maintenance.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Continue stewardship of"Tree for All"sites even after the program ends.
• Coordinate public outreach about invasive plants and the responsibilities of streamside
property owners.
• Ensure City of Tigard and Clean Water Services regulatory requirements are coordinated
in future. Allow Clean Water Services to review/comment on Code changes that affect
stream corridors prior to adoption.
• Continue partnering to co-implement Stormwater Management Permits.
• Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Exempt invasive and non-native tree removal in stream corridors from permit
requirements.
• Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from permit
requirements.
• Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,SWM
funds,and tree mitigation funds.
• Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management.
• Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is provided for
riparian vegetation management.
• Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects continue/expand in
the future.
• Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water Services
standards.
• Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan in cooperation with Clean Water
Services.
Oregon Department of Transportation Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• During development, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviews street
tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with ODOT specifications.
• ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT right of ways
(99W, Hall Boulevard, Highway 217).
a28
I)rdi S ON of'figard I Lily,11 Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Street tree planting under powerlines causes conflicts because traffic lanes are closed
for ongoing maintenance issues.
• Some trees cause damage to infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, streets).
• Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to root
interference.
• Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with ODOT
requirements (root barriers,site distance, clear distance,limb clearance)
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate tree planting
that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General Electric for review.
• Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root barriers and
other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT and
City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top of existing utilities.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans to Portland
General Electric for review.
• Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts with
hard features.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT and
City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in ODOT right of ways:
o ODOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in ODOT right
of way (ODOT permit required).
a29
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23, 2009 meeting.
Portland General Electric (PGE) Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to provide for the
safe, reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the needs of commercial and
residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in terms of
establishing approved street tree lists,encouraging appropriate and responsible
plantings, approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree program and having the
long term vision to develop and maintain an urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• As a whole,Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is very
qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard.
• Several potentially hazardous tree/utility conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment necessary.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works well and
what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
a30
Draft S City u1 Tigard I I'(wcstI1 Master Plant ; )pe11(l1\
APPENDIX C
• Future programs need to recognize the conflict between a static overhead distribution
system of electricity and the dynamic nature of vegetation management around PGE
facilities.
• Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings.
• Route tree plans to PGE for review.
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects.
• Assist private property owners with tree management outside the development process.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal requires
increasing mitigation and associated costs.
• Bi-weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project oversight
and tree plan implementation.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those with un-
treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the effect of
precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard Triangle that are
zoned for dense development.
• Mitigation standards encourage overplanting of trees or planting of small stature trees to
meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a caliper inch basis may
not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to overplanting.
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a stable funding
source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized for tree maintenance,
not just tree planting.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports can be hard for the City to track,especially during the
transition from site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist reports
with false or misleading information.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City of
Vancouver,WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil volumes for lots
of various sizes with trees.
a31
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard I)rtft 5
APPENDIX C
• Allow required trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for mitigation. This
will help alleviate overplanting of mitigation trees.
• Provide incentives for planting of natives and large stature mitigation trees. One
incentive could be to offer more mitigation credit for planting natives and large stature
trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the planting of trees that offer
the most environmental benefits.
• Develop spacing standards based on the mature size of trees to improve long term
growth and health.
• Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such as
stormwater fees,permit fees,transportation fees,etc. This will also allow for the urban
forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The City should
require a copy of the contract for bi-weekly reports and require the project arborist to
send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated. If a different arborist is to provide
bi-weekly reports,then the original project arborist should have to sign off prior to the
new arborist amending the tree preservation plan.
• The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to discourage
false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking business licenses
and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal accountability when providing
false or misleading information.
• An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the City to hire a
third party the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi-weekly inspections.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Require mitigation based on stocking levels,not on a caliper inch basis.
• Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large stature
trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required landscape trees and
street trees to count towards mitigation requirements.
• Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have trees that
are overcrowded and not in good condition.
• Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
• Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long term
maintenance of trees, not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code updates,not
the project engineer.
a32
Draft 5 t:in of'ft.ird I l ru, n Forest') Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Require metal fencing in future code updates.
• Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints, and don't penalize developers for
removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5'-10' or 3 to 5 times the
diameter of the tree. However,site and species characteristics should be considered
when crafting code revisions.
• Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and sidewalks.
• Require utilities to be under the street, not in the planter strip where trees should be.
• Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's greenspaces.
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes
On March 9, 2009, I spoke with Christopher Zoucha,Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber
of Commerce regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Christopher informed me that urban forestry
has not been an issue for the Chamber members,and therefore declined providing input as a
stakeholder group for the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Tree Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its urban forestry
program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due to lack of
communication.
• Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not unified.
• The Tree Code is too focused on development.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• More communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related provisions in Code.
• Focus future Code on areas outside development,and fix the mitigation issue.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest.
a33
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City Igard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
• The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban
forest.
• The Tree Board can help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds can
be used to implement the plan.
• The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Increase communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related Code provisions.
• Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development.
• Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can understand.
• Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland outreach
materials as a model.
• Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community
attitudes.
• Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits.
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances.
• Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape and
mitigation requirements.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not.
• Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and work out solutions.
• The Urban Forestry Master Plan will result in a more comprehensive approach to future
tree and landscape ordinance updates.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Replanting on a caliper inch basis does not work because it incentivizes overplanting.
• Site planning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting.
• Landscape architects do not have enough flexibility in landscape design because
landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated, and many of the species are no longer appropriate or
relevant.
a34
I)iali; ( ut Iigar(l I 11' )all Forestry Master (Plan Appeiu.lIx
APPENDIX C
• Street trees and streetscapes are non-uniform. Different development projects choose
different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street trees.
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague,which creates loopholes and a wide variety
of interpretations. For example,there are no spacing, species, or nursery stock quality
standards with respect to mitigation trees.
• Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If preservation
requirements are increased, then mitigation could occur on a tree for tree basis rather
than inch for inch.
• Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by focusing more
on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into the building design.
Also,landscape architects should be required to collaborate more with project arborists
in order to identify which trees are appropriate for preservation, and how to adjust
grading to preserve trees. Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans
between the landscape architect and project arborist.
• Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates. Require
landscape architects to be part of the design team, and sign off on planting before,
during, and after installations.
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey the street
trees in a 4-5 block radius and choose trees that complement existing plantings.
• The tree/mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem has a
detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and specifications that
are referred to in their development code. This allows for more clarity as to what is
expected of the development.
• When advertising Tree Board vacancies,specify that you are looking for members with
tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local professional organizations.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to ASIA for review and comment.
• Contact ASIA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes and design
handbooks.
• Hire ASIA members to help develop code and design guidelines.
• Share example codes that require maximum preservation of existing trees.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• More focus on preservation through improved grading plans,less focus on mitigation.
The City needs to take a leadership role in this.
a35
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I cit' of'I igard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
• More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees, but trees that are
appropriate for site conditions.
• Need detailed design/preservation manual with illustrations.
• Need to have a warranty period for required landscaping to ensure establishment.
• Need to require powerlines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future overhead
utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
Tigard Tualatin School District Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Somewhat limited.
• Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study.
• Manage trees on School District property.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment.
• City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. It is
important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term maintenance issues
can be addressed prior to planting.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a tree planting
project.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting funds.
• Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation opportunities for
the City.
• Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees and planting
layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District.
• School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are required for tree
removal and/or planting.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
a36
Draft; (its of Tigard I Dan forestry Master Ilan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree planting
projects on School District properties.
• Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low leaf litter.
Tualatin Riverkeepers Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement.
• Work closely with the City and Metro on restoration projects in Tigard.
• Provide comments on municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits.
• Provide comments on City of Tigard Parks plans and occasionally on private
development applications.
• Participated in the development of the Healthy Streams Plan by Clean Water Services.
• Member of Oregon Community Trees, a non-profit organization that promotes urban
and community forestry in Oregon.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Mitigation fee structure provides an adequate budget for tree planting.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Trees could be better utilized for stormwater management in developed areas such as
along street and in parking lots.
• Urban forestry funds could be collected and utilized more strategically. An example
would be to use stormwater management fees to fund restoration programs.
• The City of Tigard could make more of a public commitment to sustainability efforts
such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment features and
more tree canopy.
• Retrofit existing parking lots to improve stormwater treatment and tree canopy using
grant money and other funding sources.
• Encourage/require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and streets so that
the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the winter rainy season.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees, development
fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more
than just tree planting.
a37
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of'r'igard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of environmental
stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help identify potential restoration sites.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can provide training to Planning Commission,City Council,City
staff, and others on low impact development techniques.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment and more
tree canopy.
• Increase stormwater incentives/requirements for development such as the "no runoff'
provisions as in Lacey Washington.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees, development
fees,etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more
than just tree planting.
• More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement.
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private landowners
to remove invasives.
a38
Draft 5 Cit■ of Tigard Il Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX D
City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results
On January 21, 2009, a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that have a role in
coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs, policies, and ordinances. Meeting
attendees included representatives from a range of City departments (Community Development, Public
Works,and Financial and Information Services) and divisions (Capital Construction&Transportation,
Current Planning,Development Review, Information Technology, Public Works Administration, Parks,
Streets,Wastewater/Storm, and Water). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss urban forestry
coordination issues,and identify those areas where coordination could be improved. As a result of the
meeting, the following list was generated that identified areas where urban forestry coordination efforts
could be improved.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning, Engineering,
Public Works, IT/GIS);
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering, Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,
IT/GIS);
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT/GIS);
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after development
(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT/GIS);
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist,IT/GIS);
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning, Engineering, Public Works,IT/GIS);
7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist, Public Works);
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions
(Planning,Building);
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development
(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation, Public Works);
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist, Public
Works/Parks, Risk);
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks);
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is awareness of this
Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist, Engineering).
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Streets).
After the list was generated, a series of meetings was held with representatives from the groups affected by
the coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group meetings was to discuss the coordination issues
a39
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I ci■ of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX D
and formulate possible solutions that could improve coordination efforts. The following list identifies
possible solutions for the coordination issues that were formulated after the group meetings.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning,Engineering,
Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Make note on record drawings that actual street tree locations may vary, see street trees in
GIS for actual locations.
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh),species, date
planted,condition, tree II)code, and any additional information necessary to conduct
resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS street
trees.
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements(Engineering,Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,
IT/GIS);
• Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after planting, and after a defined
maintenance period (usually two years) to ensure compliance with Clean Water Services
(CWS) requirements.
• If the vegetated corridor becomes City property, then the Wastewater/Storm Division of
Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance.
• If the vegetated corridor is privately owned,the City of Tigard does not currently have a
program to inspect/enforce long term vegetation maintenance. The City will clarify with
CWS what agency is responsible for ensuring long term maintenance of vegetated corridors.
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS locations of deed restricted trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Information on deed restricted trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh),
species, date inventoried, condition,tree ID code, and any additional information necessary
to conduct resource analyses in the future.
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after development
(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of required
landscape trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's
GIS system for tracking.
a40
Draft 5 I Fri an Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX D
• Information on required landscape trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),
species, date planted,condition,tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to
conduct resource analyses in the future.
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of mitigation trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species,
date planted,condition,cash assurance/bond release date, tree ID code, and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing street
trees outside development process.
• GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting program.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date
planted, condition, tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to conduct
resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS street
trees.
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist, Public Works);
• Create budget sheet to track personnel,material,and service costs associated with
greenspace acquisition.
• Budget sheet should detail first year costs as well as costs for years two through five.
• A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation, connectivity,and
other potential benefits.
• The budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and divisions for input
before it is finalized.
• There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects that may be
used as a template (contact Carissa).
• If hazard trees are an issue during land acquisition associated with development projects,
require developer's arborist to conduct a hazard assessment for review and inspection by
City Arborist.
a41
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of'ligard Drafts
APPENDIX D
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions
(Planning,Building);
• This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However, for deed restricted trees, the City can require a protection plan for building
additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the development project.
• For trees in sensitive lands, the City can restrict access/building within the driplines of trees
through the use of tree protection fencing. Section 18.790.060 prohibits damage to a
protected tree or its root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development
(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree
protection and planting specifications,or recommend that the City hire a project arborist.
• Work with the Tree Board and Community Development Director on developing a set of
standards for City projects to follow.
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree
protection and planting specifications, or recommend the City hire a project arborist.
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks, Risk);
• Budgeting has eliminated non-emergency management and evaluation of hazards in
parks/greenspaces due to the transfer of the greenspace coordinator (urban forester)
position from Public Works to the associate planner/arborist (city arborist) position to
Community Development.
• Proactive evaluation and management of City owned parks/greenspaces would be best
accomplished through the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to fill the position vacated in
Public Works.
a42
Draft 5 of Tigard I Ut tr i Forestry Master flan Appendix
APPENDIX D
• A greenspace coordinater could develop a program based off of protocols developed by the
USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture.
• Alternatively, the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard evaluation
and management program.
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on a City street,
they should be forwarded to the Public Works front desk (503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the Streets Division manager,who will in
turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard,the Streets Division will contact the citizen and close the
case.
• If the tree is already down or is clearly an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will
coordinate traffic control,contact other impacted agencies (such as PGE if power lines are
involved), and remove the tree from the street and sidewalk right-of-way using the City's
contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not
available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the owner's property, and debris
disposal will occur at the owner's expense.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination whether
the tree should be retained, monitored, removed, or further investigated by the contract
arborist.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time,he will write a
letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific period of time to abate the
hazard. If the deadline is not met, the responsible owner will be cited through Code
Enforcement.
• If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours number
(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either
contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist
is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets
Division for follow up the following business day if the hazard is not immediate. The Streets
Division will then follow the same process outlined above.
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on City property,
they should be forwarded the Public Works front desk (503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division manager,who will
in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
a43
Urban Forest!). Master Plim Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX D
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard,the responsible division will contact the citizen and close
the case.
• If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard,the responsible division will contact
the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is
not available) to abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a determination whether
the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by the contract
arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one "borderline" call per week on average. If
the time commitment is significantly more, the process may need to be reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours number
(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either
contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist
is not available) if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry to the appropriate
division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day. The
responsible division will then follow the same process outlined above.
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is awareness of this
Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section 18.790.050 are
applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands (including
City projects).
• Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works/Capital
Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
• Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
divisions/departments.
• Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from tree
removal permit requirements.
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT/GIS,Finance);and
• GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be loaded into the
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species,
date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date,tree ID code,and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Link mitigation trees (via a GIS point layer) and mitigation areas (via a GIS polygon layer)
with IFIS (accounting system) so that expenditures can be directly related to specific
projects.
a44
Draft 5 Coq,of,I gai.d I L i ball Forestry Master Plan AppendiX
APPENDIX D
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist, Engineering).
• The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in the Tigard
Development Code in all cases, regardless of existing trees.
• However, during the development review process,when a healthy and sustainable tree in
the right of way is identified by the project arborist and/or City Arborist, Development
Engineering will allow adjustments to planter strip and/or sidewalk standards on a case by
case basis.
• The City does not currently have the authority to require private developers to preserve trees
if they choose not to.
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Streets).
• If the street tree is the responsibility of the City, the corresponding division will maintain the
clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal Code.
• If a citizen complaint is received, the Streets Division will investigate.
• If there is an immediate hazard (e.g. blocked stop sign,hanging limb, etc.), the Streets
Division will prune the tree immediately.
• If there is not an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will contact the responsible party
directly and explain the Code requirements, or gather the information and forward to Code
Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
• If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public
Works after-hours number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard
after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist
if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the
inquiry to the Streets Division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following
business day. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined above.
• When tree roots are impacting City streets or utilities, the responsible division will
investigate and,if needed,contact the City Arborist for root pruning advice.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree can be safely root pruned to make the necessary repairs,
the responsible division will absorb the cost of root pruning.
• If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed, the City will
absorb the cost of removal, but the property owner will be responsible for stump removal
and replanting. Prior to removing a street tree, the City Arborist shall be contacted.
a45
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX E
LAND USE PLANNING
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection,management,and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place,but for the social,ecolog-
ical,and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic,economic,and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color,
texture,line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind,providing habitat for birds and wildlife,enhancing
community attractiveness and investment,improving water quality and soil
stability,and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century,and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century.Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy,reed canary grass,and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive.However,remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities,and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries,and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest,Tigard possesses a large number of
2-10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
a46
Draft 5 City of Tigard I [J u•, Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX Ir
A
LAND USE PLANNING
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's,many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources. Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found"the protection of trees and natural resource areas"as rating
the highest of all"livability"characteristics posed to the respondents,scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2),maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8),pedestrian and bike paths(7.7),and compatibility between
existing and new development(7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84%of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees,with only 6%strongly disagreeing and 9%somewhat
disagreeing. In addition,90%of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain,or have begun significant updates to,their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City,USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services,the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality,reduce
erosion,and provide shade,structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects,cooperative efforts with
non-profits,contract services,and the labor of Public Works crews,thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects,the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands,distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Street Tree Program,and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-11
a47
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I city of Tigard Draft s
APPENDIX E
1791
• LAND USE PLANNING
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along trails,riparian
areas,and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees,particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older,the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canopy,and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat,erosion control,
slope stability,water quality,air-quality,and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations,failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983,further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally,the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents,developers,and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property,particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes,wetlands,and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible,to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed,and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands,riparian corridors,and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program.These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas,and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending,or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city,which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally,because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
a48
I)r ft 5 city of Tigard I U tr n Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX E
hl
LAND USE PLANNING III
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system,protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
• A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest,a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
• This urban forest provides social,economic,and ecological services that
create public and private value to residents,businesses,and visitors.
• Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
• The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting,tree main-
tenance,and outreach activities. Additionally,new development is required
to install street trees,landscape trees,and trees for mitigation purposes.
• The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
• Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code;applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner;and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
• The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel-
opment permit review. Furthermore,landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their property.
• Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community,that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources,and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
COAL:
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic,ecological,and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies,regulations
and standards to inventory,manage,preserve,mitigate the loss of,and
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-13
a49
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard ()raft 5
APPENDIX E
LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental,aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes,regulations,standards and programs relating
to landscaping,site development,mitigation,and tree management
shall be consistent with,and supportive of,one another;administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation,including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees,unless demonstrated infeasible,on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects.Trees should be planted within planter strips,or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
•
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience,environmental quality,and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions,such as street trees,
parking lot trees,and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
a50
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Ur an Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX E
hog
LAND USE PLANNING
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive,coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations,standards,programs,and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion required by development approval,with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees,street trees,and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree,parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive,and determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified,and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings,permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
City policies,regulations,and good arboricultural practices for the
general public,developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance,and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-15
a51
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft
APPENDIX E
at LAND USE PLANNING
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant,site appropriate,and require minimal chemical
applications.Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries,landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii.Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous varieties,and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects,such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City,promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover,with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development,the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees,taking into consid-
eration the related financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees,including root systems,selected for preservation during land
2-16 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
a52
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Uri an Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX E
LAND USE PLANNING
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall,in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive,allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
7. The City shall require all development,including City projects,to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan,with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners,businesses,
other jurisdictions,agencies,utilities,and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees,wetlands, stream corridors,riparian
areas,tree groves,specimen and heritage trees,and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require,as appropriate,tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations,standards,and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density,seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 247
a53
Urban Torestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft;
APPENDIX E
lol
u u
LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands,and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys,workshops,and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v. Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property..
2-18 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
a54
r -.: 1,
LIIII, d Urban For Historical T rnel�n
� .4. �
Sketch of ""
Kalapuya .-
man drawn 4 ,.\ 3500 years before present Kalapuya „�
by Alfred �', (Native Americans)began managing •
Agate,a the forests of the Willamette Valley
member of �'' using fire(pyroculture).4 I In 1851,canopy coverage
the Wilkes _ \ within the current city
Expedition „A • limits of Tigard was
in 1841. estimated to be 52.4% y
(3,966.9 acres).
,— n,v 0. ,,, '
i ., 4 `'^. In the early 1850s,Tigard was ^ - ^
- . -}- 4,I, settled by several families of _
I . European descent including the In 1910,the Oregon Electric
Tigard family headed by Wilson .�• if
,,. M.Tigard.Native forests were Railway arrived,triggering • 1
cleared for agricultural uses more rapid development at `,
��; and timber help support the rail stop near Main Street.
t . .,-a c'+r= - p pp •— Fruit and nut packaging and ,..�_
,r., development in the area.' _ • T
_ - canning plants and lumber 1-
"f^"-- mills set up shop at that point R I�-' • '_ =
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I city of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX G
Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal, State, and Regional requirements when managing its
urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities that further progress towards other
jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent major Federal,State,and Regional agencies and programs
that influence or are benefitted by urban forest management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF) is responsible for administering the Forest Practices Act(FPA). The FPA was
designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and ensure that forests remain healthy and productive.
The Oregon Legislature has given cities the authority to regulate forests in place of having ODF administer the FPA as
long as the local options meet the FPA's minimum standard.'
To meet the standards,local forest practice regulations must:
• Protect soil,air,water,fish and wildlife resources;
• Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals;
• Be developed through a public process;
• Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices;and
• Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development.'
Oregon Department of Transportation
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) manages approximately 283 acres of right-of-way in the City of
Tigard including Hall Boulevard, and Highways 217, 5, and 99W. ODOT Bulletin RD06-03(B) provides specifications
for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT right-of-ways. These specifications are intended to balance the
need for safety along State roadways with trees,and supersede Tigard street tree requirements within City limits.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administers Oregon's Statewide Land Use
Planning Program and ensures that the comprehensive plans of Oregon cities comply with Oregon Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals.
' Department of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development.1999.Guidelines for Developing Urban Forest Practice
Ordinances.State of Oregon,Department of Forestry and Department of Land Conservation and Development.16p.
=Oregon Department of Forestry.2008.Forest Facts:Urban Growth Boundaries and the Oregon Forest Practices Act.Accessed via the
World Wide Web:<http://wwworegon.gov/ODF/PUBS/dots/Forest_Facts/Forest_Fac ts_Urban_Growth_Boundaries.pdf>on March 25,2009.
a56
Draft 5 Cit■ of Tigard I lrl,an Forestay Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX G
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with 12 of the 19 Oregon Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals.
The following statewide planning goals directly relate to the urban forestry in Tigard:
Goal 5. "To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces."
This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including fish and wildlife habitats,
stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies can further progress towards achievement of
Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental, and energy(ESEE) analyses are required to protect Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6. "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state."It
is well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality improvement.
Goal 7. "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Trees roots,canopies, and
leaf litter in natural hazard areas help to prevent erosion and flooding(Portland Urban Forest Management Plan).
Goal 10."To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state."This goal requires the City to balance
the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban land.
Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and coordinated with relevant
Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan which is described in more detail below.
DLCD has approved or"acknowledged"the City's Comprehensive Plan(including the Urban Forest section) as being in
compliance with statewide planning goals, and consistent with Metro requirements. 1
Oregon Division of State Lands
The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) establishes criteria and procedures for the identification of wetlands. In
1997, Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory was approved by DSL. Approval by DSL means that the inventory meets State
standards,and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands Inventory and must be used in lieu of the National Wetlands
Inventory.2
Development in these areas is regulated by a variety of federal, state, regional, and local laws. Tigard Development
Code Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands)contains specific provisions to protect wetlands from development and requires
'Oregon Department of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development.1999.Guidelines for Developing Urban Forest Practice
Ordinances.State of Oregon,Department of Forestry and Department of Land Conservation and Development.16p.
2City of'Tigard.2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009).City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range
Planning Division.230p.
a57
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX G
concurrent approvals from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Oregon Division of State Lands,and Clean Water Services.
As a result,trees and native vegetation in Local Wetlands gain a highly protected status.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for protecting Oregon's air quality by issuing
permits, developing programs, and monitoring air pollution to ensure communities meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards(NAAQS),and to protect Oregon's pristine views.Air pollutants identified in the 2005 DEQ Air Quality
Report as the greatest concern in Oregon are:Ground-level ozone,commonly known as smog;Fine particulate matter;
Hazardous air pollutants;and Carbon monoxide.'
Regional efforts have been established to monitor and plan for pollutants. The City of Tigard is part of the Portland
Area Airshed(PAA),which is defined by the Metro service boundary.The DEQ is responsible for ensuring the PAA meets
the national standards, and for developing the necessary plans to continue compliance. Currently, the PM meets all
NAAQS standards. However,DEQ is required to develop maintenance plans for carbon monoxide and ozone to ensure
continued compliance.'
Trees have a natural ability to convert and sequester compounds that contribute to air pollution. Trees also offset power
plant emissions by shading and sheltering buildings from sun and wind.' At the local level,the City can protect existing
natural areas and mature trees,and promote and participate in tree planting efforts to improve air quality and decrease
building energy usage. Within urban areas,air quality is often much worse along major roadways. Trees strategically
planted along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants and improve air quality before exhaust
is released in the atmosphere.'
DEQ is also charged with establishing standards, regulating, and monitoring Oregon's waters for compliance with the
Federal Clean Water Act(CWA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Within Tigard,run-off
from impervious surfaces,pet waste, and erosion/sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution.
Planting and maintaining tree canopy, water quality facility construction and maintenance (vegetated swales and
retention basins),and stream corridor and wetland enhancements are all urban forestry activities that help to improve
water quality and meet State and Federal requirements.'
Oregon Public Utility Commission
The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulates utility industries to ensure that customers receive safe and
reliable services at reasonable rates. In order to ensure safety,the PUC requires Portland General Electric to maintain
'City of'Tigard.2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009).City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range
Planning Division.230p.
:McPherson,E.G.,S.F.Mato,J.R.Simpson,P.J.Peper,Q.Xiao,A.VanDerZanden,and N.Bell.2002.Western Washington and Oregon
Community Tree Guide:Benefits,Costs,and Strategic Planting.International Society of Arboriculture,Pacific Northwest Chapter,Silverton,OR.
a58
Draft cIt\ of Tigard I Ur an Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX G
zones surrounding overhead utility lines clear of trees for safety and in order to help prevent outages. The result is
increased maintenance costs and trees that become eyesores as a result of heavy pruning. Portland General Electric
spends approximately$500,000 annually pruning trees away from the utility lines.' These costs are passed on to utility
ratepayers. The urban forestry program can help to decrease maintenance costs and improve the aesthetic quality of
local trees by aiding in the selection of appropriate trees near overhead lines.2
Metro
Metro helps the region's cities implement Statewide Planning Goals through the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan (functional plan). Metro cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans and implementing regulations that
correspond with the titles and policies in the functional plan. The functional plan contains 13 titles,some of which
directly or indirectly impact urban forest management in Tigard. DLCD has acknowledged Tigard's Comprehensive
Plan as being in compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro's functional plan.3 The following
excerpts from the functional plan have significant impact on urban forestry in Tigard:
'iltle 1 of the functional plan is intended to meet Statewide Planning Goal 10, and focuses on increasing housing
capacity in order to use land within Urban Growth Boundaries (an invisible line that separates rural areas from
suburban) efficiently. To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt
minimum density requirements.Tigard adopted an 80%of minimum density requirement for development in 1998,
which means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation.4 The
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP) and others have cited this requirement as a significant
impediment to preserving trees in urban areas,particularly for those properties that are zoned for high density.
Title 3 protects the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards,controlling soil erosion
and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements Statewide Planning Goals 5,6 and 7 by protecting
streams,rivers,wetlands and floodplains by avoiding,limiting or mitigating development impacts on these areas. The
areas subject to these requirements have been mapped and adopted by the Metro Council,specifically,the FEMA 100-
year floodplain and the area of inundation for the February 1996 flood. Title 3 also protects rivers and streams with
buffers that are typically 50 feet wide, requires erosion and sediment control,planting of native vegetation on stream
banks when new development occurs,and prohibits the storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous material in water
quality areas. Title 3 results in significant protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams
and floodways. Finally, Title 3 establishes performance standards to protect regionally significant fish and wildlife
habitat areas to implement Statewide Goal 5.3
'Burns,C.2008.Personal communication on October 6.Western Forester,Portland General Electric Company.Portland,OR.
'Oregon Public Utility Commission.2009.Oregon Public Utility Commission Homepage.Accessed via the World Wide Web:<http://www
puc.state.or.us/>on March 26,2009.
3Metro.2009.Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.Accessed via the World Wide Web:<http://www.oregonmetragov/files/about/
chap307.pdf>on March 31,2009.
'City of Tigard.2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009).City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range
Planning Division.230p.
a59
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard watt 5
APPENDIX G
Title 12 of the functional plan protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from increasing density in
certain areas and requiring easy access to parks and greenspaces for City residents.'
Title 13 is intended to"(1)conserve,protect,and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system,
from the streams'headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers,and with their floodplains in a manner
that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and (2) to control and
prevent water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality
throughout the region."
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat designated as "highest"
value (i.e.Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor).An
estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat situated outside the Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor are
designated as "moderate" value. In addition, 422 acres of non-Class I and II riparian resources within the City are
designated as "lowest"value,including both upland forests and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest and
moderate value habitat are currently protected through other regulatory processes and agencies such as CWS. The
lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is currently vulnerable to development.Additional ESEE
analyses would be required to protect lower value habitat and additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the
future.' At the time of the writing of this document,the City of Tigard has proposed budgeting funds in FY2009-10 to
protect additional upland tree resources.
Clean Water Services
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services(CWS),the surface water management and sanitary sewer system utility
for urban Washington County,to protect local water resources.Through CWS Design and Construction Standards,local
governments in the Tualatin Basin (including Tigard) developed a unified program to address water quality and flood
management requirements for Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.2
In 2002,the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within,and adjacent to,sensitive water resource
areas,including streams,through standards in the CWS Design and Construction Standards.The CWS standards provide
for vegetated corridor buffers, ranging from 15 to 200 feet wide,and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or
degraded condition. Native trees over 6 inches in diameter in vegetated corridors are protected, and their removal
requires replacement on a tree for tree basis. In addition, land-use applicants proposing development near streams
and wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior to submitting a land use
application to the City.2
'Metro.2009.Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.Accessed via the World Wide Web:<http://wwworegonmetro.gov/files/about/
chap307.pdf>on March 31,2009.
2 City of Tigard.2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009).City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range
Planning Division.230p. 'Oregon Public Utility Commission.2009.Oregon Public Utility Commission Homepage.Accessed via the World
Wide Web:<http://wwwpuc.state.or.us/>on March 26,2009.
a60
APPENDIX G
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS' Healthy Streams Plan (June 2005). The goal of this plan
is to improve watershed and stream health for community benefit by recommending a number of policy and program
refinements, as well as outlining a capital projects program. The capital projects focus on stream preservation and
enhancement,flow restoration,community tree planting,stormwater outfall and culvert replacement. Tigard's Public
Works Department is instrumental is achieving the goals of the Healthy Streams Plan through its Surface Water Quality
program.' Many of goals of the Healthy Streams Plans are met through proper urban forest management activities
such as invasive species control and streamside tree canopy restoration.
Large municipalities typically have NPDES permits for their wastewater treatment facilities and for stormwater runoff,
called a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. In urban Washington County, which includes the
City of Tigard, the permits have been combined and are held by CWS. The combined permit was issued for the entire
Tualatin River watershed to guide a basin-wide effort to improve water quality. It requires CWS to submit a Stormwater
Management Plan and a Wastewater Management Plan to DEQ.These two plans outline the best management practices
that CWS, its member cities, and Washington County commit to employ to reduce pollutant discharges, regulate
temperature, and comply with any Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels that have been established.' Trees and
urban forests are excellent stormwater managers and contribute to the achievement of water quality goals,yet are not
typically addressed in Stormwater Management Plans.
Constitutional Takings Issue
In response to the question of whether a tree preservation ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking, the City Attorney
has provided the following response:
Oregon courts recognize that regulation of real property can go too far and become tantamount to a government
appropriation of property. A regulation which goes too far results in a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, in
violation of Article I,section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. See Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State, 339 Or 136, 117
P3d 990 (2005);Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185, 935 P2d 411 (1996);Dodd v. Hood River
County, 317 Or 172,855 P2d 608(1993).
The approach of courts under the Oregon Constitution "has been to ask whether the regulation leaves the owner with
any economically viable use of the property" Coast Range Conifers. "Additionally, the court has recognized that
regulations that deny an owner the ability to put his or her property to any economically viable use will result in a
taking and entitle the owner to compensation." Id;see also Dodd (phrasing test as whether property retains "some
substantial value").
'City of Tigard.2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009).City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range
Planning Division.230p.
a61
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX G
Whether there remains any economically viable use of property is based on the effect of the regulation as specific to the
characteristics of any property at issue. Therefore,it is imperative that when utilizing the Urban Forest Master Plan as a
tool to guide the drafting of regulations,that the City Attorney be consulted regarding the constitutionality of the specific
regulations in light of any new jurisprudence on the topic.
a62
Draft 5 cite of Tigard I l 11,1 n Forestr Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX H
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's"land use constitution." It is the document that provides
the broad policy basis for Tigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions relating to the use
of land in the City.The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will implement state and regional
requirements,including Oregon's land use planning goals and related laws,state administrative rules, and applicable
Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan contains goals,policies and recommended action measures
that identify the intent of the City to accomplish certain results.The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive
Plan contains two (2) goals,22 policies,and 11 action measures specific to urban forestry in Tigard. The goals and
policies are obligations the City wishes to assume.The City must follow relevant goals and policy statements when
developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. Therefore,the Urban Forestry Master Plan and future
revisions to the tree ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Recommended action
measures support the obligations to achieve a desired end,but do not signify an obligation themselves.The discretion
to what degree Plan policies are implemented belongs primarily to the City Council.
Zoning Map
The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City. Zoning
determines the type and intensity of development,as well as applicable Code provisions such as density requirements.
As a result,zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a given site.
Code Provisions
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and urban forestry
in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code provisions,as well as commentary
on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
Chapter 7.40 (Nuisances) requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight(8) feet
over sidewalks and ten (10) feet over streets(section 7.40.060.A). It also prohibits owners from retaining dead
or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property(section 7.40.060.B). However,there is no procedure
established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that are in imminent danger of falling.
Section 7.40.050 (Noxious Vegetation) requires property owners to maintain vegetation and weeds so that they do not
become unsightly or a hazard. However,it is unclear if invasive species control is required by this Code provision.
a63
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City 01 Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX H
Section 7.40.090 (Greenway Maintenance)establishes standards for greenway maintenance and prohibits the removal
of non-hazardous trees over five (5)feet in height in greenways. However,the term"greenway" is not well defined.
Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property) regulates the planting,maintenance,and removal of trees on City property
including parks and public right-of-ways. It also authorizes Council to adopt by resolution a Tree Manual that
provides detailed tree related standards and the City to create an approved Street Tree List.The Chapter defines a"tree"
as a standing woody plant with a trunk diameter of two (2) inches at 4.5 feet above ground level. Chapter 18.790
(Tree Removal) defines a"tree" at six (6) inches in diameter at four(4) feet above ground level.
Section 9.06.030(Tree Planting) requires written permission from the City prior to planting street trees or trees
on public property. Section 9.06.050 (Tree Protection)requires development projects on City property to protect
trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060(Removal of Hazardous Trees from City
Property) obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City property and prioritize their removal based on
the level of hazard.
Section 9.06.070(Removal of Trees from City Property) requires written permission for tree removal from City
property and right-of-way,and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual.
The Tree Manual,which was adopted in 2002,provides detailed specifications for Chapter 9.06. However,
administering the provisions in the Tree Manual are challenging because there are some conflicts with Code
provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example,street tree planting specifications in section 030 of the Tree
Manual are different than the street tree planting specifications in Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening).
Also,the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in
Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally,referencing the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of
the Manual does not correspond with the sections in the body.
A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual,but there it is unclear what triggers
the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be.
Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains the requirements for the City's Heritage Tree Program. The Chapter
recognizes and protects trees or stands of trees on public or private property that are designated to be of landmark
importance due to age,size,species,horticultural quality or historical importance. Participation in the program is
voluntary and administered by the Tree Board,City Council,and staff.
Title 18(Community Development Code)defines a tree as a standing woody plant with a trunk that is two (2) inches
in diameter at four(4) feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definitions of tree in Chapter
9.06 and 18.790 of the Code.
a64
Draft 5 l;i■ Oi I I r )an Forest') Master Plan Appendi\
APPENDIX H
Chapter 18.330(Conditional Use) authorizes the hearings officer to require conditional use developments to improve
landscaping and increase tree and habitat preservation as a condition of development approval.
Chapter 18.350(Planned Developments) states as one of its purposes"to preserve to the greatest extent possible
the existing landscape features and amenities(trees,water resources,ravines,etc.) through the use of a planning
procedure (site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,conceptual review,then detailed review) that can
relate the type and design of a development to a particular site". Specific provisions in the Chapter require plans
that identify areas of significant natural resources and methods for their maximized protection,preservation,and/or
management. Planned Developments are approved by a Type III process by the Planning Commission. Therefore,
Planning Commissioners have discretionary authority to require that sites are developed in a manner that trees
and other natural features are incorporated into the project design. However,the Home Builders'Association of
Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP) and others have commented that the Planned Development provisions are in need of
revision because they are not conducive to infill development.
The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090,includes many provisions requiring the
preservation of trees and natural areas. For example,approval criteria A.2.a requires buildings to be"...located to
preserve existing trees...where possible based upon existing site conditions". The approval criteria also requires trees
to be preserved to the extent possible (A.2.b) and the use of innovative methods to preserve fish and wildlife habitat
located on the "Significant Habitat Areas Map". Site Development Review applications are reviewed and approved
by staff through a Type II process which limits the amount of staff discretion. Therefore,the non-specific approval
criteria above does not provide the tools needed to implement tree and habitat preservation.
Chapter 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments) allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street trees or to
vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) if there are space constraints.
Section 18.385.040 (Sensitive Land Permits) requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep slopes,
drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these areas. Tree Removal
permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section 18.790.050 of the Code. However,there is no tree
protection plan requirement(section 18.790.030) for development within sensitive lands.
Chapters 18.510, 18.520,and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential,commercial (including
mixed use),and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum landscaping requirements,
minimum and maximum density requirements,minimum building setback requirements,and minimum lot sizes
and dimensions. These standards may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during
development.
Chapters 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards)
and 18.640 (Durham Quarry Design Standards) increase the caliper size of all required landscape and street trees
a65
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I (1v of lgarll Draft 5
APPENDIX H
in those planning areas. Some of the planting provisions in these special planning areas conflict which make
interpretation difficult. For example,the landscaping and screening provisions in section 18.620.070,require tree
spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However, the provisions on page 18 of the Triangle Design Standards
specify one parking lot tree for every seven parking spaces(this creates spacing of more than 28 feet on center). In
addition the definition of tree types on page 18 are overly specific and therefore difficult to apply.
Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and other landscaping
requirements. The Chapter specifies that it is applicable to all development,but it does not detail what types of
permits trigger the standards. The landscaping provisions are administratively applied to those developments that
require a tree plan (section 18.790.030). The General Provisions(Chapter 18.745.030) require trees and landscaping
to be appropriately planted,pruned,maintained,and protected during development. However,there is a lack of
specificity in these requirements that make it challenging to ensure that trees and landscaping are properly installed,
protected,and maintained. Section 18.745.040 (Street Trees) specifies the location and spacing of variously sized
street trees. However,these specifications differ from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also,there is no
minimum spacing requirement for street trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks and streets in
Chapter 18.745.040 are different than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual. Section 18.745.050(Buffering
and Screening) requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer between differing land uses, aesthetics,and to
provide shading for parking lots. The parking lot tree requirements(18.745.050.E) have not resulted in successful
shading of parking lots. This is likely due to the limited soil volumes the provisions allow(minimum parking island
dimensions are three feet by three feet) and the lack of specificity on installation requirements (e.g. irrigation is not
specified for parking lot trees).
The Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 protects sensitive lands for safety,functionality,and fish and wildlife habitat.
It also implements"Clean Water Services(CWS) Design and Construction Standards",the"Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan", "Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources)" and meets the National Flood
Insurance Program requirements. The chapter requires a CWS Stormwater Connection permit when tree removal
occurs in sensitive lands (section 18.775.020.A.9). Lawns and gardens are permitted in sensitive lands except in "CWS
Water Quality Sensitive Areas or Vegetated Corridors" and"the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the
Thalatin River" (18.775.020.B.1). Exemptions from the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair,
stream restoration projects,non-native vegetation removal,and routine maintenance as long as they comply with City
Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management(section 18.775.020.C). Section 18.775.020.D requires
development to obtain permits from regulating jurisdictions such as the Army Corps of Engineers or CWS prior to
development in jurisdictional wetlands. Section 18.775.070 specifies the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits.
Section 18.775.100 allows for adjustments to dimensional standards such as setbacks,building heights,or lot areas to
preserve habitat and vegetation cover such as trees. Section 18.775.110 allows for density transfers in order to better
protect vegetated corridors. While tree removal permits are required for sensitive lands areas by section 18.790.050,
and habitat protection is a stated purpose for the sensitive lands chapter,there are no implementing provisions in
either Code Chapter that explicitly require the protection of trees and forests in sensitive lands.
a66
Draft 5 city of Tigard I U tan Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX H
Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) is what most people think of as the "Tree Code". This portion of the code regulates
tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects,requires tree removal permits for trees in
sensitive lands,and prescribes the penalties for illegal tree removal. It also prohibits commercial forestry within the
City limits. Section 18.790.020 provides definitions for some of the words used in the Chapter. Many have commented
that some of the definitions need revision or clarification. For example,a"tree" is defined as a woody plant with a
diameter of six inches when measured four feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definition
of tree in the Municipal Code and does not account for trees that are less than six inches such as required mitigation
trees. Also,the definition of"hazardous tree" is non-specific and could potentially include trees that are not intended
to be defined as hazardous such as those in a forested area with little potential of striking people or other high value
targets. Finally,the definition of commercial forestry is specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre,
per year. The definition is unclear whether the acreage should measured for the entire property,or for the stand of
trees where the removal is occurring.
Section 18.790.030 (Tree Plan Requirement) requires a tree protection,removal, and replacement plan for
Subdivision, Partition,Site Development Review,Planned Development,and Conditional Use projects. Missing from
the list are Sensitive Lands projects,building additions,demolitions,and other development projects with significant
potential to result in tree damage or removal.
Tree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an "inch for inch"basis. Therefore,developers are required to
replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site with an equivalent amount
of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example, if a 24 inch tree is removed from a development site,the City
may require replacement with up to 12,two inch diameter trees.
Also,as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased,the percentage of replacement trees required for
mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet mitigation requirements as
well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation requirements.
If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees,there is a fee in lieu of planting option (18.790.060.
E) to cover the City's cost of replanting. This fee is currently assessed as$125 per diameter inch removed,and viewed
as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also,the methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not
well defined and has resulted in many questions as to the legitimacy of the$125 per inch figure.
The tree protection requirements of the tree plan are not defined,and are left to the discretion of the project arborist.
This has resulted in wide inconsistencies between protection methods for development projects, and limits the City's
ability to require increased levels of tree protection.
Trees removed within a period of one year before a development application are required to be inventoried and
mitigated as part of the tree plan. This provision has created a loophole that some developers have exploited by
a67
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard mart
APPENDIX H
removing trees from a site,waiting one year and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree
mitigation requirements.
Section 18.790.040(Incentives for Tree Retention)provides developers incentives and flexibility options in order to
preserve trees. However,the incentives are seldom utilized,and often criticized for their impracticality. Many in the
development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so that they are more appealing and practical for
developers.
Section 18.790.040.B requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed restriction. This
requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived and difficult to quickly and easily
assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after development.
Section 18.790.050(Permit Applicability)requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas. However,the
approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by trees. Therefore,if an appropriate
erosion control plan is provided by the applicant,any or all trees may be removed from sensitive lands areas. While
hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements,there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree
and who is qualified to deem a tree hazardous.
Section 18.790.060(Illegal'free Removal)outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the tree replacement
requirements for violations and mitigation. The tree replacement requirements in 18.790.060.D are vague and difficult
to administer. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing requirements,which further contributes to overplanting
and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation trees. There is also little specificity on species requirements,which tend to
lead to the planting of small stature and narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the"inch for
inch"replanting requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the tree illegally
removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous condition of the tree. One
solution may be to set a minimum penalty for cases where there is no evidence of the species or condition of the illegally
removed tree.
Section 18.810(Street and Utility Improvement Standards)specifies the minimum planting strip width for street trees(5
feet per table 18.810.1) and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect trees,habitat areas,and other existing
natural feature(section 18.810.030.7). Section 18.810.070.0 allows adjustments to planting strip widths to protect
existing trees and natural features. Currently the City adheres to standard specifications for street widths from curb to
curb regardless of existing trees and natural features. The City does actively allow adjustments to sidewalk and planter
strip standards in order to preserve trees. Finally,the five foot standard planter strip width limits the selection of large
stature street trees due to the high likelihood of tree root damage to curbs and sidewalks. There are currently no street tree
planting specifications such as the use of root barriers aimed at reducing future tree root conflicts.
a68
Draft 5 Cin (t rig;ird I l r an Forestry Master Plan :lppendix
APPENDIX H
Findings from City of Tigard Policy Framework:
• The Comprehensive Plan complies with State and Regional requirements and contains two (2) goals and
22 policies specific to urban forestry that must be adhered to when developing other urban forestry plans or
ordinances which affect land use.
• The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan,and frames the type and intensity of development for
various areas of the City. Code provisions in Chapter 18.500 provide specification for development based on
development in the various zones. These Development Code provisions may have the greatest impact on the extent
of tree and forest retention during development.
• Tree and forest related Code provisions are scattered throughout the Municipal Code and the Development Code.
Some of the Code provisions in the Municipal Code and Development Code conflict.
• Tree provisions in Chapter 7.40(Nuisances) of the Municipal Code address hazardous trees and vegetation.
There is lack of specificity in the provisions,thus limiting their ability to be enforced. There is also no program
established to abate immediate hazards.
• Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property)of the Municipal regulates public trees. The Chapter contains definitions
and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code. The Chapter and associated Tree Manual also
lack specificity regarding when the Code provisions are applicable and how they can be met.
• Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter.
• Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and habitat preservation,
but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation.
• Chapters 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design
Standards) and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards) contain provisions that increase the type and size of
landscaping in these districts. Some of the provisions within the Chapter conflict.
• Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree, and other
landscaping requirements during development. The Chapter lacks a level of specificity to ensure that trees are
properly installed,protected,and maintained after development. Planting and maintenance provisions differ from
those in the Municipal Code,and parking lot tree requirements have not been successful at providing long term
canopy.
• Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands)protects steep slopes,drainageways, floodplains,and wetlands from development.
Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
• Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development
projects. Some development such as development in sensitive lands and building additions are not subject to the
Chapter's provisions even though there is significant likelihood that trees will be impacted.
• Some of the definitions within Chapter 18.790 are inconsistent with those in the Municipal Code and lack clarity
making them difficult to administer.
a69
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX H
• Mitigation for tree removal on an "inch for inch"basis is required by Chapter 18.790, and seen as excessive by
many in the development community. It also contributes to overplanting of trees.
• The fee in lieu of mitigation tree planting is$125 per caliper inch,which is also seen by developers as excessive.
The methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to its
legitimacy.
• There is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some developers have exploited by removing trees from a site,waiting
one year,and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements.
• Incentives for tree preservation in Chapter 18.790 are not appealing or practical for developers.
• Tree Removal permits are required for trees in sensitive lands by Chapter 18.790,but the approval criteria do not
require preservation as long as erosion is adequately controlled.
• Penalties for illegal tree removal in Chapter 18.790 can be challenging to apply when the condition and species of
the tree removed are not known.
• The tree replacement guidelines in Chapter 18.790 lack specificity and are difficult to administer,especially with
regards to species and spacing requirements.
• Throughout the Code,tracking of protected trees is a continual challenge in the years and decades after
development is complete.
a70
(o
•
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner
RE: Changes to Draft Downtown Code Amendments
DATE: September 28, 2009
As a result of the September 21 workshop and staff research, several revisions are suggested
to the Downtown Code (Revised draft 9/2/09.) These revisions can be discussed at the
October 5 Workshop and, if accepted, will be incorporated into the draft code to be
considered at the October 19 public hearing.
• pp.11-12 (Table 18.520.1) and p. 20 (Table 18.610)
Add a footnote to Table 18.520.1 and add a category to Table 18.610 which
says "New retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area in all
subareas except Hall/99 Corridor sub-area."
Explanation: This limits the size of new retail development in the district except in
the Hall/99 sub-area.
• p.13
18.610.010.C.2
Expansion, modification, and site improvements to existing development:
An addition, expansion, enlargement, modification, and/or site improvements
associated with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed
provided the applicant for such proposed moves toward
compliance with the applicable development code standards. Only those Downtown
Building and Site Design Standards applicable to the proposed expansion,
modification or site improvements to the existing development shall be applicable.
Explanation: This clarifies that modifications to existing buildings must move the
structure closer to compliance rather than full compliance with the new code.
• p.17
18.610.015 Pre-Existing Uses and Development within the Downtown District
2. If a pre-existing structure or use is destroyed by fire, earthquake
1
or other act of God, or otherwise abandoned, then the use will retain its pre-existing
status under this provision so long as it is substantially reestablished within one (1)
year of the date of the loss. The new structure would have to conform to the
code.
Explanation: This clarifies that non-conforming uses can be re-established within
one year, if destroyed, but structures that area re-established would have to be in
compliance with the new code.
• p.32
18.610.030.G. Additional Requirements for Single-Family Attached Dwelling
Units
1. Garage entry garages and carports shall be accessed from alleys, or otherwise
recessed behind the front building elevation (i.e., living area or covered front porch)
by a minimum of 10 fcct. with a distance of 7 feet or less or 18 feet or greater.
Explanation: This range of setback discourages the possibility of parked cars
overhanging driveways and blocking sidewalks.
• p.38
18.610.047.A.3. Main Street-Center Sub-area: Properties New commercial
development up to 20,000 square feet in the Main Street-Center sub-area (shown
on Map 18.610.A) shall have no minimum vehicle parking requirements. Buildings
over this square footage would have to meet the minimum parking requirements for the
square footage over 20,000 sf. Any residential units would have to meet the Downtown
minimum parking requirement. of 1.0/DU.
Explanation: This puts a cap on the size of new development that would not have to
provide parking in the Main Street sub-area.
2
1111 41
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner
RE: Downtown Land Use Regulations and Design Standards Workshop #2
DATE: September 28, 2009
The October 5th workshop will focus on the proposed Design Standards (Chapter 18.610) for
the new MU-CBD zone and proposed code language that marks a significant change from the
existing Development code. This will also be an opportunity for Planning Commission
members to ask for clarifications in the proposed code prior to the Public Hearing on October
19, 2009.
Design Standards
Sub-Areas p. 19-20
Map 18.610.A and Table 18.610.1 (pp.19-20) display how the MU-CBD zone is broken
down into four sub-area with distinct development standards (height, setback requirements,
maximum site coverage, and density.) The sub-areas are centered around streets so that both
sides of the street will have a similar feel. Heights are provided in stories and feet. The
maximum is the story limit, but having a height limit as well allows flexibility in floor heights.
Main Street sub-area has a 3 story height maximum, and allows 100% site coverage and no
required landscaping (except in parking lots.)
99W/Hall Corridor sub-area. Up to 8-story buildings are permitted. Properties that have
frontage on Hwy 99W have a 10 foot minimum front setback.
Scoffins/ Commercial sub-area permits 6-story development and allows 20 foot maximum front
setbacks to provide for residential development.
Fanno/Burnham sub-area allows 5-story development, but has a limit of 3 stories within 200
feet of the boundary of Fanno Creek Park. This is to prevent development that would
overwhelm the Park. It also has an 80% site coverage minimum and 20% minimum
landscaping requirement for a less intense pattern of development. The minimum density in
this sub-area is 15 units an acre (rather than 25 units an acre in the other sub-areas) which
would allow the opportunity for attached single family units.
1
Clear and Objective Building and Site Design Standards p. 24-32
The proposed new chapter contains design regulations for development that are much more
comprehensive than are found in the other areas of the City with design standards (Tigard
Triangle, Washington Square Regional Center, and Durham Quarry (Bridgeport Village))
The standards apply throughout the district, but have different levels of detail depending on
whether the development is a commercial/mixed use development or a residential
development. The highest level of architectural standards is for commercial/mixed use
developments. The standards require storefront features (window coverage, primary entry,
etc.) Residential only development would have less detailed standards, but require buildings
to be oriented to the street.
The use of diagrams to illustrate many of the clear and objective standards will be user-
friendly for developers, staff, and the public.
Discretionary Design Review and Design Review Body p. 34-37
Discretionary design standards will provide a "safety valve" for well-designed projects that
can't meet the clear and objective standards. The review criteria are broad statements that
could be achieved in multiple ways. Photos are provided that show development that
exemplifies the design objective. This process allows a design review body discretion in
deciding whether an application met them.
At the last workshop a brief discussion occurred about the composition of the design review
body. Staff suggested that in the short term, before a Design Review Board is established, a
subcommittee of the Planning Commission could serve as the body. The thought is that
initially there would not be much activity for a Board. This issue does not have to come to a
final decision for the purposes of the code amendment, but here are four potential
approaches the Planning Commission could contemplate.
0.tions for Desi.n Review Bod : Pros Cons
Members do not necessarily have design
background.Additional workload for
Plannin. Commission as 'resent! constituted Alread existin• and staffed Plannin: Commission
Planning Commission 3 member subcommittee
with 1-3 design professionals(architect,landscape Additional work load for subcommittee
architect,desi: .rofessional. Alread existin: and staffed. members
There may not be any applications for the
Specialized board with the Board to review in the short-to medium
Se.arate Desi: Review Board a..ro.riate back: ound term
Design Evaluation Team-Team of professionals Provision for it in current
under contract(architect,landscape architect,civil Development Code.Used as Potentially expensive for either applicant or
engineering) needed City
2
Proposed Code Provisions That Differ Significantly from Existing Development
Code
Multi-Family Development Private and Shared Open Space:
The amount of private and shared open space for multi-family units will be reduced from
what is currently required by the Site Development Review chapter of the Development
Code. This would allow a more urban form of development in the Downtown. See below
table:
Existing Requirements Proposed for Downtown
Multi-family All units provide 48 s.f. of 80% of units provide a
Development Private private open space minimum of 32 s.f. of private
Open Space open space.
Multi-family 200-300 s.f. per unit 10% of site.
Development Shared (depending on unit size) • Up to a 50% credit
Open Space for providing
additional private
open space
• Up to a 50% credit
for properties directly
adjacent to public
park
• Fee in lieu of
providing shared
open space option.
For private open space, only 80% of units would be required to provide, due to the
challenges of providing this kind of space with higher density development (particularly
ground floor units.) For shared open space, rather than providing a set amount per unit,
10% of the site would be set aside. There would be opportunities to reduce this amount as
shown in the above table, with a fee in lieu of option, and providing additional private open
space.
Parki g Lot Landscaping Standards:
In addition to the existing Landscaping and Screening requirements of Chapter 18.745, the
proposed code has additional requirements for trees (minimum island dimensions with soil
volume requirements, and irrigation requirements.) These changes are intended to improve the
viability of trees in parking lots and enable a tree canopy to develop that will mitigate negative
impacts.
3
161■
Minimum Off-street Parkin Re uirements:
Tigard's development code contains some of the higher mit�ume off-street osed parking g parking requirements
requirement in the region. Reduced minimum p g
Downtown for a number of reasons: to encourage a more urban form of development
i velop en and of to
remove a potential barrier to modes of transportation in the Downtown.parking and alternates
Multi-Famil Min. Parkin. Re•uirements Pro•Dos d for Downtown
DU<500 s1.0/DU
1 BR: 1.25/DU
2BR: 1.5/DU
3BR: 1.75/DU
For all other uses the minimum required off-street parking would be reduced 25% from Off-
Street Parking and Loading requirements Table 18.765.2 .
In addition, the Main Street sub-area is proposed to have a further B commercial g over
buildings up to 20,000 s.f. would not have minimum required off-street parking.
this square footage would have a minimum parking orequirement v � the aq�ng reg�urementr
20,000 sf. Residential units would have to meet the
This is based on an existing code provision that allows new buildings dadditional parking.trees with also
same square footage of the building th provide not interrupted by parking lots and
help preserve a continuous
driveways.
An existing code provision 18.370.020C.7 allows adjustments to mi or demonstrate eq parking of a
up to 40% for developments that incorporate applied transit for as aeType II procedure.
need for off-street parking.This could also
The Downtown code also proposes that fractional space requirements ` rounded down"up to
instead of rounded up as now required. Motorcycle/scooter parking m y
5 spaces or 5 percent of required automobile parking,whichever is less. These are relatively
minor provisions, but may have a positive impact.
Staff will monitor parking in the Downtown as development occurs and adjust as needed.
4
g
Tigard Fannin Commission -Roll Call
Updated May 14,2009
Hearing/Workshop Date: (O S-0°1,
Starting Time: gel 'O I
COMMISSIONERS: c/ Jodie Inman (President)
David Walsh ice President)
V- Tom Anderson
Rex Caffall
Margaret Doherty
Karen Fishel
Stuart Hasman
Matthew Muldoon
Jeremy Vermilyea
Timothy Gaschke (Alternate)
STAFF PRESENT:
Dick Bewersdorff Ron Bunch
Gary Pagenstecher Doreen Laughlin
Cheryl Gaines John Floyd
Jerree Lewis Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly
Gus Duenas Darren Wyss
Todd Prager Marissa Daniels
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 5,2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Anderson, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, &
Walsh
Absent: Commissioners Dougherty Doherty, Caffall, Fishel,Vermilyea,
and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke
Staff Present: Community Development Director Ron Bunch
Asst. CD Director Susan Hartnett
Senior Planner Sean Farrelly
Associate Planner Marissa Daniels
Associate Planner/Arborist Todd Prager
Senior Administrative Specialist Doreen Laughlin
3. COMMUNICATIONS - none
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
9-21-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions,
or additions to the minutes; there being none, President Inman declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
5. URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN (UFMP) WORKSHOP
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner/Arborist Todd Prager gave the staff report. His main points follow:
• The Planning Commission has been asked to review the Urban Forestry Master Plan
and determine whether it is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Following discussion and public comments,we are asking that you pass a motion
recommending that Council accept the Urban Forestry Master Plan on the basis that
it is consistent with and supportive of the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 5,2009—Page 1 of 5
• In June 2008, Cou....il adopted the Urban Forest section or the Comprehensive Plan,
which includes a policy for the City to develop and implement an Urban Forestry
Master Plan.
• In October 2008, Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee comprised of the
Tree Board plus additional technical experts to help guide the development of the
Plan. The Committee has been meeting over the past year and reviewing studies of
the past and present urban forest conditions, scientific community survey
information, and City policies, programs, and regulations. This information, which
was presented to Planning Commission last April, was used by the Committee to
craft 51 recommended actions the City should take over the next 7 year time horizon.
The 51 recommendations are listed on pages 3-8 of the Plan, and were carefully
developed to ensure consistency with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Committee achieved consensus on their recommendations for Council at
their final meeting in September.
• Before taking the Plan to Council on October 20th and November 10th for
acceptance,we want to make sure Planning Commission agrees with staff and the
Committee that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Once the Plan is
accepted by Council, staff will begin implementing code revisions and developing
programs based on the timeline laid out in the Plan. The Tree Board will be tasked
with overseeing implementation as part of their annual work plan.
At this point,Associate Planner, Marissa Daniels, described the public involvement effort
that had been made. She went over the highlights of the Public Involvement Plan (Exhibit
A). She noted a quick fact that from the last 6 months from April through September there
had been 568 visits to the website.
COMMENTS FROM FREWING
At this point, President Inman acquiesced to Tigard citizen,John Frewing's, request to
comment out of order (as he said he needed to leave quickly). Frewing came up and
commented regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. He said he understood from the City
Arborist,Todd Prager, that the commissioners had been referred to the website that
contained all the historical comments and that he'd made all these comments before. He
reiterated his concern with regard to three main themes:
• Canopy goal for the streets in Tigard. UFMP exempts those areas from having a
canopy goal even though the City itself has a canopy goal.
• Wording in UFMP is not consistent with the Comp Plan regarding Natural Areas.
• UFMP doesn't deal adequately with hazard and dead trees. There should be explicit
direction that pruning and care of the tree ought to be a first solution rather than
removing the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 5,2009—Page 2 of 5
QUESTIONS OF STA & COMMENTS FROM COMN,_ -SIONERS
Before questioning of staff began, Vice-President Walsh said he wanted to take the time to
compliment Associate Planner, Marissa Daniels, on how quickly the amount of outreach
took place. He said there was a lot of public involvement and public opinion, and the
outreach that took place was impressive. He was very pleased with Daniel's efficient work
and the fact that she adhered to her stated timelines; he wanted to publically acknowledge
and thank her for it.
President Inman suggested modifying 1.2b on the top of page 4 of the Plan. She was
concerned about the wording that said"Create an urban forestry Systems Development
Charge (SDC) for new development in order to administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program." Inman was concerned about making developers pay when it is a
citywide goal. She suggested modifying the language to instead read: "Investigate funding
mechanisms to help support an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement program." The
other commissioners agreed this was a good point.
Walsh noted that there were several references to creating a position called "Greenspace
Coordinator". He wanted to change the language so the City wouldn't necessarily be forced
to "hire" someone to fill that position.The position could be created, but the City shouldn't
necessarily have to hire someone to fill it. Prager: This is in the draft that_you were provided.As
an update, I discussed this with the Parks Division and they are actually working on creating that position
now. Walsh: Very good!
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Ernie Platt, representing the Homebuilders'Association, spoke in opposition. He went
through several sections of the UFMP stating it was not consistent with the Comp Plan.
One was with regard to 1.1a; however,he did not have the most recent version of the
UFMP and, after seeing the most recent version, said that may not be an issue now. He
took issue with 1.1b & 1.2b as well. After a lengthy talk, Platt noted that when/if this gets
adopted, more discussion will follow at the implementation stage.
Ken Gertz, Developer/Property Owner, spoke in opposition to the plan. He said he was an
advocate for the "old people" of Tigard. Among other things, he said the old Tree Code was
totally discriminating against the (mainly elderly) people who owned property with trees on
it. He spoke against protecting groves in the manner this wants to do it. He said it's an
outright taking of property from mainly the senior citizens of the community.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC CLOSED
DELIBERATION
There was discussion with regard to what the public had to say and a few more questions of
staff. They went over some of the points the public had brought up.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 5,2009—Page 3 of 5
Inman summarized:
• There's the possible revision to 1.2B regarding funding mechanisms and removal of
System Development Charge language.
• Canopy cover - existing document is okay.
• Natural areas— Can be handled at the code level.
MOTION
The motion was made by President Inman, seconded by Commissioner Walsh, as follows:
"I move that we recommend that City Council accept the overall Urban Forestry
Master Plan on the basis that it is consistent with, and supportive of, the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan-with one minor modification. [The
modification referring to 1.2B regarding removal of SDC language - changed to read
something to the effect of"Investigate funding mechanisms to help support an
ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement program."]
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Hasman,
Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, and
Commissioner Walsh (5)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, and Vermilyea (4)
6. WORKSHOP II Downtown Code Amendments CPA2009-00003, DCA2009-00005,
ZON2009-00001
Senior Planner, Sean Farrelly, recapped the September 21st workshop and then presented his
Power Point which detailed the Downtown Land Use and Design Standards Code
Amendments (see Exhibit B).
QUESTIONS OF STAFF (Answers in italics)
After his presentation, Farrelly reminded the Commissioners that the public forum will be in
two weeks on October 19th. He then opened the discussion up for questions. He asked if
there were any specific design standards that they'd like to talk about.
Is there anything that would attract the florist and the baker? Well, I think the lower parking
requirements could help that kind of business on Main Street. Especially for a smaller business like that—
perhaps these reduced parking minimums will help. We can't, unfortunately, require that type of business.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 5,2009—Page 4 of 5
The Planning Commissk...discussed the four different options the Design Review Body
as outlined in Farrelly's September 29th memo. They made no decisions but tossed around
various ideas.
7. OTHER BUSINESS—Doreen Laughlin polled the commissioners as to whether they
preferred a hard copy of the Community Development Code or a CD. In either case, all
updates will be sent to the commissioners as needed. Laughlin will have the copies made and
will distribute them as soon as possible. Office services at the City will be doing the copying
and will need a few weeks lead-time. Because of that, the hard copies will take a little while
before they can be distributed. CD versions will be replaced with updated CD's as needed.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Co ssi n Secretary
J.
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 5,2009—Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
.•; '4!..*, 01
- • if 4 it, ,...$
-..• • s. . R1 = • O
•?...::. 0--'. IMI
.. . •Immi
-.-:,1?, . .. - ;,,tY,. jiZ
;1. - f 4'M _ te,,. _ I. .?- .,
_. ...,.., r_ ' *..:4,„:.- ' dt '1,.,'...- .- ' — -- - ,,,:t t iia-r. -i '-'-'5":. E
, , _. ,,,,.,,, ,4--,„ . „:: .,„,-,‘ . .., , ...: ...„-,..,-_,,, -., .....,:,,.64,-,._...,..- ....m.; - ,, ..._ .t.,-.
,:_, ,.._ _„ : r 1113._-. L.....:J.::,&_,,.. •.7.-.--wr, .. sjim4 iii&_z_.-
0
. _ . . ..--"....m. ..wriatwar_ rot emagiaraws annumism■ (110)
for Tigard 's Urban Forestry Master Plan
'ublic Involvement Plan for the Urban Forestry Master Plan
I. Introduction r , _,,,
...._. . goals: -
Background Goal 1.1 Provide Citizens,affected t' , - 4 ��
agencies,and other jurisdictions •: - ■ 'a
I c414
On June 3,2008,Tigard City Council voted to the opportunity to participate in
approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008- all phases of the planning process. 1
00002 adding an Urban Forest section to the
Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A' ' T4 1
Goal 2.2 Policy 11 states,"The City shall develop a. opportunities to communicate g `
and implement a citywide Urban Forestry directly to the City; and hail :
Management Master Plan." b. information on issues in an 0 I, `�'el
Project Purpose understandable form.
3 ' 1,
t
The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master The Communication Plan breaks down each . •
Plan is to implement the goals and policies phase of the process and speaks to the ways in .�� • • '
in the Urban Forestry section of the Tigard which citizens and stakeholders may participate, _,"" '
Comprehensive Plan, and to determine the future communicate,and receive information about the _
Urban Forestry Management Plan. :..'...% ,".►
of Tigard's urban forest by: �' g +� ,�.� ,
a. Documenting past and present
,.......:400k. a«'
g P P Key Players •'"y`� '"''rze
conditions; - _ "
-- � E� :
b. Providing management Urban.Forestry Master Plan citizen Advisory
recommendations and measurable Committee (UFMP CAC)
goals;and The UFMP CAC will be comprised of the Fall Color Kim Brim
c. Coordinating City departments with Tree Board plus four additional community
each other,with other jurisdictions, members with expertise in urban forestry,public
and with the community's vision for administration, community development,and
trees in Tigard. other fields that will be effective at developing an
Urban Forestry Master Plan. All photos submitted as part of the
Communication Plan Components Comprehensive Plan Photo Contest.
Committee for Cititien Involvement
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen The role of the Committee for Citizen
Involvement section is divided between two
Involvement is to review the form and process
2
Public Involvement Plan for the Urban Forestry Master Plan
of City communications with its residents.This b. Get the word out Master Plan addresses a wide array of important
Committee will have the opportunity to review program and operational issues including:
the Communication Plan at the outset of the Phase 2: Define Current Conditions • Development of a mission or vision
project,and will monitor citizen involvement a. Present Findings statement that clearly outlines the
throughout the process. b. Analyze Tree Canopy Results purpose of the Master Plan;
Phase 3: Data Analysis • The history of Tigard's urban forest
Stakeholders a. Present Findings as well as existing conditions and
Stakeholders are community members, b. Develop and Evaluate Findings management programs;
businesses,or agencies who are affected by • A summary of community values and
the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Stakeholder Phase 4: Draft Plan attitudes towards Tigard's urban forest;
interviews will occur in the beginning phases a. Draft Plan Review • Design,planting, and maintenance
of the project.After a draft of the document goals and standards for the City;
is completed by staff,stakeholders will have an Phase 5: Plan Adoption • Coordination of urban forest policies
opportunity to review the document. a. Planning Commission Review and procedures among different City
b. City Council Review departments;
Staff • Direction for future ordinance
The role of staff will be to facilitate the UFMP Phase 6: Implementation and Monitoring revisions;
CAC meetings,conduct stakeholder interviews, • Budgeting practices and policies;and
gather data and present analysis, and draft the III. Project Description • Urban Forest monitoring.
Urban Forestry Master Plan. Staff will also solicit
additional input on the Plan through the internet, At the August 12,2008 meeting,Council authorized The development of an Urban Forest Master
listening posts,and the Cityscape newsletter. staff to begin implementation of Policy 2.2.11 of Plan will allow for a more comprehensive
the Comprehensive Plan which states, "The City approach to future City decisions concerning
Schedule shall develop and implement a citywide Urban trees.
The duration of the project is expected to last Forestry Management Master Plan."The Forestry
one year.
Fall in the Triangle eaves Detail
H. Project Phases Kathy Vincent Kim Brun
Phase 1: Project Launch
Tasks: _ -
a. Approve Communication Plan
"ublic Involvement Plan for the Urban Forest Master Plan
1V. Public Involvement Tools
Phase 1: Project Launch Phase 3:Data Analysis Phase 5: Plan Adoption
Involvement Tools Comp Plan Policies Involvement Tools Comp Plan Policies Involvement Tools Comp Plan Policies
CCI Meeting Participation CAC Meeting#3: Participation CAC Meeting#6: Participation
Citysca.e Article: Sept Information Interview Summ. • _ Final Plan Review —_ _ _—
1_ Press Release: Oct Information Update Project Information Planning Commission Participation
Build Interested Communication Website Meeting:Oct
Parties List Cityscape Artide: Information City Council Meeting: Participation
Tree Board Meeting: Communication I _April Nov —
Oct Send Message to Communication I Update Project Information
CAC Meeting#1: Participation Interested Parties List 1 Website
Purpose/Vision ! Send Message to ! Communication
Setup Project Website ! Information Interested Parties List
Phase 2:Define Current Conditions Phase 4:Draft Plan Phase 6: Implementation and Monitoring
Involvement Tools Comp Plan Policies Involvement Tools Comp Plan Policies I nvolvement Tools Comp Plan Policies
Scientific Community Participation CAC Meeting#4: Participation Tree Board Annual Participation
Survey ! Draft Plan Discussion ; Review
Parallel Internet Participation CAC Meeting#5: Participation When Updates are Information,
Survey Draft Plan Review — A required: Communication,
} Stakeholder Interviews Communication Listening Posts (3) Communication — • Form CAC Participation
CAC Meeting#2: Information Post draft online and Participation •Advertise in
Survey Results _ allow for comments I Cityscape
Cityscape Article:Jan Information Cityscape Article:Aug Information _ • Send message to
Update Project Information Send Message to Communication Interested Parties
Website Interested Parties List 1 List
1
Send Message to Communication
Interested Parties List
4
•
Public Involvement Plan for the Urban Forestry Master Plan
V. Project Schedule
November January March May =MEM Se.tember November
Phase 1:Project Launch
10/15/08: CCI Meeting
11/5/08: CAC Meeting#1
Phase 2:Define Current Conditions)
1/7/09: CAC Meeting#2
Phase 3:Data Analysis
3/4/09: CAC Meeting#3
4/2009: Planning Commission U
Phase 4:Draft Plan
5/6/09: CAC Meeting#4
7/1/09: CAC Meeting#5
Phase 5:Plan Adoption
9/2/2009: CAC Meeting#6
10/2009: Planning Commission
11/2009: City Council
5
-1:11.1---;.,'4 .' EXHIBIT B
(, '},-;Jr ; Downtown land Use
, ..
s.<4,16,9 4 ' � ` OTI, and Design Standards
. .-4:%.-,-,A,-.„.,,,4--..-g)-.,.,4.. ;..0-
-\.., /,-„.,,pgi,lk ..,,,,,•.,,.1'1.1I,\W Ito#t ii.,i44l,::1t.l.4Ii A,.-,Or.-._l_-t:--g-_!k\ Code Amendments
, „/ , . g , Planning Commission
r; .4'+.y \ ' 4 4,N ` ,--
- 1
Workshop II Presentation
. * !
' ; '`-: :1 ! a ,'"'1 N
.k, ‘. ,4_;. \ - ,,", f „
, z � v ‘-' /
, ” s , ; - . �i Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner
r,:i { '"'' A 4*N ' !W October 5, 2009
ilk
‘,11
, t+ i
fir,
40 !ft
r
A T I GARD
Sept . 21 Workshop Recap
• Comp . Plan and Zoning Map
• Use table
• Applicability
• Non-Conforming Uses
• Review procedures
Pro p osed MU -ç B D
_ . j,.. 116 71-4-
7 :.- _. mush, i', 'III I !`^.. •
rig,„i ..... , ..... . . I
1 �
•
.
/
�- .
® ; `' j I.0
.1 \ �` Tualatin Valley �
MU-CBD iii Fa ire \�
(P D) Rescue I-L
R > R-12 `
` * iFLii, Tigard \, r •
w�� �' ,*'r` City `
LLI` * Hall \
r
-5,, % ,, ,>r ._ Center Ti Ja a
f_rtd rk
- .%k..,...4" II i1Li.1 i L r L ; i I
-I- �i > �` 1 �� ��� H
� I
. `
Ea=�., MIN IN�- _, � - Sub-areas
i.g P. : 1 NE I •� • MU-CBD Zone is
f ,
{�--r;all `�' '� �`' . . ,.., broken down into four
�: ,,-,�_ ,, - ■�, sub-areas with
` r distinct development
••••• • / standards.
,. ` ii' �".♦..••,.•`., I� ,jam-� /
N` .►4. ':+04.40.i♦..-A. �.4 �� t ,„ r /
■ � . ��►.ti..\.;. ....1,.. .�, � ■ `}, _ f .Sub-areas will have
�� , �1•444+♦a •.$:.. .,4••4♦�!� ••R 1?•�_
/gr.
•44•••••.1•❖4••' a•4•; ��•4i: 1•4i♦i : / --7: 11#''t fi i
•1.1'41 ' � yy different scales of
'�.:"'' .4.4•,.4.4•,S`•4., •444. . ••4•�'►`.Q•,♦4••4� !�'^...,�� `•`. '.r�+i■
9„•mss+�40�r+.X04. 441►, •,.,�s!i ''�" / ,`^�.
* •�••.7 V .. 1%,,,a 'a./` i
a 4i,'*.O!:44ii0• ��4.4i \ �` ��/ t' �"�:At.4.,:••••.• <..•, �� s ; development
a , //
mu-cBO �\ *Includes both sides
Proposed of street
MU-CBD
Sub-Areas
, ,�= ':` , •Station Area Overlay
'f 'a DIUrban Reneea D�s:rc:
.mot `y'Y..\.;,!Z� ' '.
r//'! n '- n c,M-Hall
�(c-' Y:- , .--y�c
' n Swffins�omnerual
M1,la n-:enfe••`r .._' A. ••� :t: . a !iii;S.ta:iar A-ea Ove•lay
1 I 5 �� - _z-.,.
' .-i -� \,,,::,:!.%``` `1 --,. I' TIGARD OREGON .
�`,��,� _'t'I 5� �;/t ,4, �t1:::,./..-
/\ ` �F+_T __ � OM n14114 a ROM.OR
8l9eAM17 wRfQrtlaryr T ea Jr.
y';i\_'.>1. i`"r�.''�— ( i l f 1 t'.�}-��I1-- t.J t i I i I ! I 'I d —
, .
Main St . -Center St . Sub-Area
, ,,. .., , _...r.„, , , , i _ j D. • . \ :: , • Lower scale pedestrian, ,
. ,
.. .
� .t � . .1 oriented development (3-
I —}, p.1 — L� f 4 story max. )
j
`= s___'� �'f�'',.+ ! r+� Y `ti i<}• 1. \ `is"-t 1 ..,/r t,� i' • 0'
-ti` x !'ti;� jj ., , ,-,-:::'S',t `t5 k, Permits 0 front setback a n d
.� ,�,.,�. __ ,r - 0% landscaping (except in•
/..;"* fr: -�`.� , �./'�-; -. �. f,. = '' parking lots)
.''/; , ,< - ,p-a , , • No off-street parking
.f �'s_ . : < . " . , required for development•
�.'l {; �,••, under 20,000 s.f
f
/ /;� N . . ; � " :• • Commercial mixed use
±. = : till'4\e4'7:4' 64 building standards required•
f' +;,,:o\ *fee, •
_ ..r i.,. ►• '. +�O• . • ! • 15 minimum ground floor•
•.••,•.�*<�!, •, �, height
s.
r` f , •
Hwy 99W- Hall Sub-Area
_„,, h_t_ ___--- ii,„., , \ -\ -,, ,„ -4 • Larger scale development
-
E i I - 1 --1-_---__, ok, , ,,,,,,, -
- up to 8 stories
_
• Can take advantage of
location and potential
, ,
i i (
i,„
.
.1 „-iiii -, High Capacity Transit.
,
.A, -,„
• 10 minimum front
\ \ , setback.
- 1111.1111
• 10% minimum
- \ ,
,
landscaping
liv------ir--- --.----z----
i
4.Ahh. , i • 15' minimum ground
' 4•/,. i
-41,44. . L ---'1 ----- ----- floor height
\ •;:t.1.-.1*.
Scoffins-Commercial Sub-Area
r`' _ - _ f i • Mid-rise development-
- u
1•!f .. ° s
� p to 6 stori e
' '''•! . • 20 maximum setback
•.4.0.44b# ..., L 1
. ••••de.
....
• (to accommodate
.'►•!•! 't•••...-•;•-••••,, '+,,;1#••
St ••••• ‘0•4:•••4a'•,,,;•* •" 40*;,:► «' ' f� development)0.0
#i♦•%, l,,: !!r #�,#"►•\ I ...
Fanno- Burnham sub-Area
.. •..••••,../.....-
, -. •• \ ••• ..•••••■•■■••,' A .
••• ••• •••••••• •• .••■..
ik
•••• ••• •••••••.• ...•••.,• • Less intensive development
•••• ••• •••.:,•••.... •••,•
A 10 ,
il,wo II, • 4 10404,%\ 444644 1 bi NI•4'4,.04:44.•••
N. w ....‘•-•. •••• ••• •••• ••••• •
••. ••• VAIP••••
gra f<4.114 I **••••••;.‘ ..../0• •• 4".*•••••
••• • •••••••
•••••••••
••••••••• \Mk\ •.•••S:"4•••••••\ • 5 story maximum building
• •••••••
••••••• •
-.‘,. •.••••,,.„. •••. • •,...._._._
' - -....7047.•<'-:4:"vs si.1:::•%:.+:13::::-7:...4,1
, .: •••.• , ••• ••.... "
,. ..4,..4.,•A *** •,:.#1,* height- scales down to 3
, , , .- ,.... • .....-..•„ •., •• ••
• „fp ".„ ..s.., ..,.....• .,•• • • • •
e oe••:••••
' •••4•40111,11■• *AS V
'Or t,II>VAS* '4•I 11110
4 1•••
■/ ir,A.4■•• - %,"••
stories within 200 ft. of
,.... , .•
< • • ,..„,
, - t
J MU-CBD 4, Fanno Creek Park
\\\,: boundary or 50 ft. of low
......... ,
--'
iv /medium density residential
, ,,,, ,
...--, .. ..„-..x „...-//2\ ‘,„ ... district.
/ ,-//‘ \„
•
,\-• A , ,,,/\ / , 20% minimum landscaping
„.\
...---- y\\.,,..., 7,6 ..,,N‹ \ g
\\,-,-N •-„,,;,,,,. ..'.. ,
r
• Lower minimum density ( 15
,,,---
1 units/per acre) to allow single
;„.; , -,‘ - ei:'7.--\''I ,.> /\ \) '',.('■.-7 -::}t----0 -1.---111
family attached development
Station Area Overlay
�7" } „ f • Allows higher density
'� - gam;�
�"
f 41 1IPr".:. ( up to 80 units acre * in
• ••••4•i
:�:�:•:❖. close proximity to
,.,. � . ;.*�;;f�,•,. .•.,;.� : ► transit service .
.• `.......� �.* .♦
.• .• • .......�...,f ,.
`� �►�.i.� •iii, '•:�i':•!i�i'.`.�•� .'•!t'�•
�..r \ ♦ ♦• •.•' . 4 .4
,r ,..,� .,•,•,,, •••,... ., ,�,. ,•,•.,•,•,�; Development standards
`•.;:;+•❖%•4y�%'•. `•-, �,,'••;:�:••••;;;;:;ti. same a s the sub-area
•••� •♦ `�..•i' { 4'#•••�•• *.•••
ti/\y//,.,,d: ,
Building and Site Design Standards
• Clear and objective standards with
illustrations should simplify the approval
process .
• Discretionary review as a "safety valve"
Building and Site Design Standards
Organization of Standards
A. Create Vibrant Ground Floors, Streetscapes and Rights-of-Way; Provide
Weather Protection; and Promote Safety and Security.
(entry, window coverage, weather protection)
B. Cohesive architectural facade standards
(architectural bays for corn. and mixed use)
C. Integrated building façade standards.
(tri-partite façade appearance for corn. and mixed use, roof forms)
D. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity
(entry or special feature at corner)
E. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability
(materials)
F. Open Space/Public Plaza
(private and shared open space.)
Clear and Objective Standards
• More comprehensive than Tigard Triangle,
Washington Square design standards .
• Different level of detail depending on
commercial/mixed use or a residential
development.
• Most standards are illustrated
• Used for Type I and II reviews
Commercial/Mixed Use Building
Facade Standards
Q C
Hr1
_I 1___.
� ' '1 A L - A Li
1
_,
b
Or— _____, ..,
r
Aimak_ ,1 - 1
_ .r.-- 1 —.1
� k _ i � _
- r
r
{ i
11
1
Q `Base` e Bett course/string course
0 `Middle' 0 Projecting cornice/parapet
0 'Top"
C.1 integrated Building Facade(Commercial/Mixed-Use Building)
Residential Building Facade Standards
U . _ _____,_ _ .
. __ ,.. ..._ ,,------..•_.• , . :,.._.,, .. l,... . !-- iiiiimi- ii,..,_._.=_.=
,-iiiiiiiiiisiiiii ,
i ,, . ,
....,............ . .. .._______ - - , ,
_.• :,...„._.....__. .„„. _L._.a..... .
. El I WI
., 1. - 14". ER . t====mm_,w.w.
..• • • allemossINI.ama maa a••■■ea.
L___ L •.• _ " . i i! .r. ......■_e"...__■.'--.4 ::illi..-7--1— 1.--1Lw-7‘. .r..7-':':.- '
.I
•1 , l'... --- ilik} ..11== a •— - - — — -
1 7 _ ......._.
-ft-h w . I .. ...___.
Ill: MA
.. al
__.. . . . ` _�--_ i 1� rL Cam=
-.--. - - - -- - ----- i --- 0-----
i -
1 • ,I. tii. f
LI ma :
011 L
A..II. DO ! 1
L .
unit
unit T, unit
-
Q St eetfncmg by window
tj Street-facing porch
O Street-facing balcony
U Trim required on roof lines, porches_windows. and doors
C.2 Integrated Building Facade(Residential Only Building)
Parkin g location
----,- -> -) ; ---7r-°-;� ,_ _— � �-y, -^--- ---——
._j
C-
1-,; 0 0
11 I k��
{-
I 1
C
I I 0
i B uikkin j � aid ih,� r ' . .
cri ,
• I I i,-j
.
. I I _
r, —L---------- -- ----- C --
0 ,
Q Parking on the side or rear of buildings 0 L-1 landscape standard
0 Max.50%of site frontage 0 Landscape riot required along shared prop.line
0 Mir'. 10'setback 0 See Ch_18.745 for screening and landscaping requirements
B.2 Parking Location
Discretionary Design Objectives
• Type III review
• Discretionary design objectives provide a "safety
valve" for well-designed projects that can't meet
the clear and objective standards .
• Review criteria are broad statements that could
be achieved in multiple ways.
• Photos show development that exemplifies the
design objective .
• Process allows a design review body discretion in
approval of applications
Discretionary Design �Objectives
4.000Pri-dr:i oil ek
kid 10 ., i _
, _ :
ii li 1. ,,, . ' e
- . , i 1
- P 1 1 h , i41`1,
L. I '
iJI I , ' .
i
utoll ili i, ,�.
+ i, ; t1( 11111 111 Sr ; , - k
I
lir_ . 1 - - tilt I i }
, , . ,L. t .:,...„ -- . IPIL -
3. Design Buildings with Integrated Facades
Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's
architecture by creating an attractive and unified
building facade that encourages ground floor activities
and creates visually interesting facades and roofs.
Options f
r Desi n Review B
Pros Cons
Option 1
Planning Commission as presently Already existing and Members do not necessarily
constituted staffed have design background.
Additional workload for
Planning Commission
Option 2
Planning Commission 3 member Already existing and Additional work load for
subcommittee with 1-3 design staffed. subcommittee members
professionals (architect, landscape
architect, design professional.)
Ostion3
Separate Design Review Board Specialized board with There may not be any
the appropriate applications for the Board to
background review in the short- to medium
term
Option 4
Design Evaluation Team- Team of Provision for it in Potentially expensive for either
professionals under contract current Development applicant or City
(architect, landscape architect, civil Code. Used as needed
engineering)
Proposed Code Provisions That Differ
Significantly from Existing Development Code
• Multi- Family Private and Shared Open Space
• Parking Lot Landscaping
• Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
1
Multi - Family Private and Shared Open
Space
Existing Requirements Proposed for Downtown
Multi-family All units provide 48 s.f. of 80% of units provide a
Development private open space minimum of 32 s.f. of
Private Open Space private open space.
Multi-family 200-300 s.f. per unit 10% of site.
Development (depending on unit size) • Up to a 50% credit
Shared Open Space for providing
additional private
open space
• Uptoa 50% credit
for properties
directly adjacent to
public park
• Fee in lieu of
providing shared
open space option.
Parking lot Landscaping
_ Innovative language intended
Alr .e "' l� )11 Icy•�� - ^, - v- ;., to imp rove the viability of Illt di IF
aiii tr. trees i n parking o
_ : t Its.•
9 :t PLC—mar + --_
; � � _ � � ;- Oft. minimum dimension of
. ..;� _ .
o
landscape islands
m
T • Landscape islands provide a
i
-' ar minimum of 1000 cubic feet
of soil volume per tree.
• Automatic irrigation
required .
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
• Most Cities have lower parking requirements
for Centers/Downtown areas
• Encourage a more urban form
• Availability of on-street parking and transit
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
• Residential :
Existing Multi-Family Min. Proposed for Downtown
DU<500 sf:1.0/DU 1 .0/DU
1 BR: 1.25/DU
2BR: 1.5/DU
3BR: 1.75/DU
• All other uses :
25% reduction from existing Off-Street Parking and
Loading requirements
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirements
Other provisions
• Main Street
• Fractional space requirements be "rounded
down" instead of rounded up .
• Motorcycle/scooter parking may substitute for
up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required
automobile parking, whichever is less .
Street Connectivity
• Standards being developed as part of
Circulation plan
• Location of new streets, functional
classification, and street sections
• Evaluated as part of TSP
U
n
Ql c
c--I v) •_
s_. O v)
•___ v)
O 4U u
U •v)
0 Cf o
r t f ''''':.
-/,- ,--- -s. -...-__ - ___-(s7 i • 'Is'—"'Z'
�,� ', it _1r� .::�..�� °.., j.
, . -., >,,,so, ,,,," _..... • • k ffli
d 4
1
F+ '
' t
i�= l . yy � ¢�
rba+mi J+ �.�. r.^ R '',. 1 - / f�l rR
-N(44 7/1 4i. ' ' - -
.. ,.