Loading...
Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 06/01/2009 6/1/2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Mid-plan Update Background • On June 3, 2008, Council approved Comprehensive Plan • Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan." 1 6/1/2009 5n' 1hny What is an Urban Forestry Master Plan? F 1. What do we have? e e d b 2. What do we want? a c k 3. How do we get what we want? 2 6/1/2009 Mhat is an Urban Forestry Master, Plan? Comprehensive Plan f Urban Forestry Ma�Plan A /\/A, F— Tree Code and Urban Forestry Programs Phase I Results (Project Launch) Vision: 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." Purpose: The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and policies in the Urban Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,and to guide the future of Tigard's urban forest by: a. Documenting past and present conditions of the urban forest, b. Providing recommendations and measurable goals that will improve urban forest management; C. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions,and with the community's vision for trees in Tigard;and of. Providing a legislative resource for future plans,policies,and ordinances. 3 6/1/2009 Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Major Tasks: 1. Tree Canopy Analysis 2. Community Attitudes/Values Survey Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Tree Canopy Results: rw i� 4 6/1/2009 Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Tree Canopy Results: 50 45 40 35 Canopy 30 Coverage 25v M 20 a%Canopy(2007) 15 10 5 0 . Cityof Tigard Public Right- Other Public Private(5,448 (388acres) of-way(1,288 Entities(432 acres) *Tigard's total land area is acres) acres) 7556 acres(5448 private+ Ownership* 2,108 public) Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Tree Canopy Results: 35 30 Canopy 25 _ Coverage 20 (%) 15 10 L_ _ %Canopy(2007) 0 Zoning Classification 5 6/1/2009 Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Survey Results: Satisfaction With Tree Quantity and Quality 100 90 - 80 ------- 70 --—70 ---- -- 60 50 ■Very Satisfied 40 a Satisfied 30 20 10 0 Trees on Your Trees in Your Trees in the City Street Neighborhood Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Survey Results: Tree Regulations That Limit Development Potential 60 50 40 30 0 Somewhat 20 =Strongly 10 0 Support Oppose 6 6/1/2009 Phase II Results (Define Current Conditions) Survey Results: Should City Repaulations Provide Some Level Of Protection For Large,Healthy Trees On All Current Developed Private Property? 80 70 60 50 40 N Somewhat 30 z Strongly 20 10 0 Support Oppose Phase III Results (Data Analysis) Internal Coordination Meetings were held between a range of City divisions: • Capital Construction &Transportation • Current Planning, • Development Review • Information Technology • Public Works Administration • Parks • Streets • Wastewater/Storm • Water 7 6/1/2009 rig ;aV Phase III Results (Data Analysis) Internal Coordination • 1St meeting: Entire group identified major coordination issues • Follow-up meetings: Smaller groups met to identify potential solutions Phase III Results (Data Analysis) Stakeholders Meetings were with community stakeholders: • Pac.NW Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture • Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects • Tualatin Riverkeepers • Tigard-Tualatin School District • Portland General Electric • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Home Builder's Association • Clean Water Services • Oregon Department of Transportation • Tree Board 8 6/1/2009 Implementation Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan u Implementation Matrix-Draft D" o p FqQ c �p os�z bC�ie� ell Z' Im lementat on Gor a (° S`' `ys F �,Tx`, 1 1.16tebllsh Clry storm and hcerd tree response p-1, Public Works 2.3.8 l $ Time/GeStaff neral 2010 ISA,ODF .�; Pdorto I—a u contlu,a tree hazard assessmen¢ Fund b Aston Staff htS 1 Hire greenspace mord'natertom-rTgard natural areas Public Works 2.2.5 N $$ Tlme/General 2015 TNN moi; andtlevelo a roae've hazaA abrtement ro ram Funtl < Staff t Develop antl mplement formalemetgenry response Planning 2.18,2.23 1 $ Time/General 2010 ISA,00F m for tree hazads on C[streets Funtl �p.P P Y ` d e 8,2.39, Stallne Ovelopand-mplemen[formalemergency response Publ2.2'[Works l $ Tlme/Geral 20102, ISA,ODF .1023,2.3.11 "�. tem for tree hazards n Ct arks reens acesFund }-.126 blish City prog—fad[[ hwz ab—t-pdvate property Staff R--Tigard Municipal Code to grant horityto the Clty Planning 2.3.8 H $ Tl me/Ge eral 01 A,OOF to become nvolved In r ee M1azards. and 2.3 Redu slreH tree plantlng,maintenance,and rertavd requircrr�nU Staff Create des gn antl mantenanre manual with drawings and Planning 2.3.8 H $ me/General 2010 ISA,ASIA,TNN e�fcat'ons for lento and ma ntenance. Fund b. eTgard Muncipal Code to establish permit system for planning 2.2.5 M ISA,ASIA AS Implementation • The Tree Board will be overseeing the implementation of code and programs changes identified in the implementation matrix as part of their annual work program. • Every two years, Metro will update canopy maps so canopy changes can be tracked over time. • The Urban Forestry Master Plan will be updated every 5-7 years so that it can be reevaluated and updated. 9 6/1/2009 Questions? 10 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Honorable Council From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Current Planning Division Re: Urban Forestry Master Plan Progress Report Date: April 10,2009 INTRODUCTION On June 3, 2008,Tigard City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002 adding an Urban Forest section to the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan." On October 28,2008,Tigard City Council adopted Resolution 08-64 appointing members to the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC is comprised of the Tree Board plus four additional stakeholders including two certified arborists,one Home Builder's Association (HBA) representative,and one community member with expertise in public administration. The CAC represents a broad range of interests and is currently overseeing the Plan's development. On November 19, 2008, the Committee for Citizen Involvement approved the Communication Plan for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The Communication Plan breaks down each of the six phases of the process and speaks to the ways in which citizens and stakeholders may participate, communicate, and receive information about the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Staff and the CAC have completed the first half of the Urban Forestry Master Plan,and are updating Planning Commission and Council prior to embarking on the second half of the process. The Urban Forestry Master Plan will be drafted by staff over the next several months using the information collected thus far and input from the CAC during the three remaining meetings. The Urban Forestry Master Plan will be presented for acceptance by Planning Commission and Council in October and November respectively. A website has been developed and is available to the community for more information and to track progress and activities of the Urban Forestry Master Plan at: www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/master 121an.asp '*taw Page 1 of 9 BACKGROUND The following excerpt from the International Society of Arboriculture website (Attachement 1) provides an excellent overview of the purpose and importance of an Urban Forestry Master Plan: `[`Many community tree ordinances have been developed in response to public outcry over specific perceived problems. Unfortunately, a "band-aid"approach to developing tree ordinances often leads to ordinances that are not consistent with sound managementpractices, and which can actually thwartgood management. We believe that communities need to develop or review their overall urban forest management strategy before considering a new or revised tree ordinance. Policy makers must recognise that the primary goal is effective management of local tree resources, not simply regulation. Tree ordinances provide the legal framework for successful urban forest management by enabling and authorising management activities. However, methods for managing the urban forest ecosystem are continually evolving, and the input of trained professionals to the management process if critical. Therefore, we believe that ordinances should facilitate rather than prescribe management. Successful tree ordinances follow this guiding principle. If the role of a tree ordinance is to facilitate resource management, the tree ordinance must be part of a larger community forest management strategy. Most of the shortcomings attributed to tree ordinances can usually be traced to the lack of a clearly thought-out management strategy. Poorplanning leads to poor ordinances, and even the best-written ordinance is unlikely to succeed in the absence of an overall urban forest management strategy. lle have found that few existing tree ordinances have been developed as part of a comprehensive management strategy." (htW://www.isa-arbor.com/12ubhcations/tree-ord/ordi2rtlb.asDx) In developing Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan, staff and the CAC have been following Miller's (1988) model of urban forest planning. F 1. What do we have? e e d 2. What do we want? b a C k 3. How do we get what we want? The remainder of this document describes how the above questions have been and will be answered, and what feedback processes will occur to ensure the Urban Forestry Master Plan is successfully implemented. ''err Page 2 of 9 *40W WHAT DO WE HAVE? The question of"What do we have?"is being answered by: • Analysis of tree canopy changes over time. • Historical and current community profile. • Review of federal, state,and local policy framework. • Review of City department/divisions with urban forest management roles. Metro completed the classification of 1996 and 2007 Tigard air photos using software that can detect the presence of tree canopy cover. This has allowed City staff to do a comparative analysis of tree cover change in the community spanning the past ten years (Attachment 2). It will also allow Tigard to continually track canopy change in the future as Metro runs the software on Tigard air photos every two years. Some highlights of the canopy data collected to date include: • 25% (1996) vs. 24% (2007) Citywide Canopy. • 63 canopy clusters > 5 acres (1996) vs. 48 canopy clusters > 5 acres (2007). • 4,356 canopy clusters < .5 acres (1996) vs. 7,231 canopy clusters < .5 acres (2007). • 1,423 acres of buildable lands (1996) vs. 529 acres of buildable lands (2007). • Canopy coverage on remaining buildable lands is 42%. • If all canopy was removed from remaining buildable lands, citywide tree canopy would decline *4W from 24% to 21%. • City of Tigard Land Area is 7,556 acres. • 5,448 acres are private and 2,108 acres are public. • City of Tigard property (388 acres) has 46% canopy. • Public Right-of-Way (1,288 acres) has 9% canopy. • Other Public Entities (432 acres) have 24% canopy. • Private Property (5,447) has 27% canopy. • Commercial Zone Canopy is 10% (2007). • Industrial Zone Canopy is 16% (2007). • Mixed Use Zone Canopy is 14% (2007). • Residential Zone Canopy is 30% (2007). Preliminary findings from the canopy study include: • Tigard canopy coverage (24%) is below the target recommendation of 40% for Pacific Northwest cities. • While Tigard canopy coverage is currently stabilized (1% decrease in 10 years),it is becoming increasingly fragmented (larger groves are replaced by individual trees). • The remaining amount of buildable lands is relatively small (529 acres), so focusing management activities solely on development code revisions will have a limited impact. • Right-of-way canopy is relatively low (9%). This is an opportunity area where canopy could be increased (e.g. Lake Oswego right-of-way canopy is 34%). lkaw Page 3 of 9 • Citywide residential canopy (30%) is much higher than commercial,industrial, and mixed use canopy (avg. 13.6%). Improving parking lot landscape standards may allow for a significant canopy increase in non-residential zones. Ongoing studies that will be completed over the upcoming months include: • An analysis of potential plantable areas in Tigard so that realistic canopy goals can be set and planting sites can be identified. • An estimation of historical canopy coverage in Tigard (pre 1996) so that a comparison can be made between current and historical tree canopy. • An estimation of current parking lot canopy coverage so that the effectiveness of current parking lot standards can be evaluated and parking lot canopy changes can be tracked over time. • Documentation of historical and current community profile. • Documentation of federal, state, and local policy framework. • Description of City department/divisions with urban forest management roles. WHAT DO WE WANT? The question of"What do we want?"is being answered by: • Review of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. • Community surveys. VOW • Needs assessments with City departments/divisions. • Interviews of major community stakeholder groups. • Listening posts for community members to express their opinions directly to City staff. 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 (Attachment 3). The survey was funded in part by a grant from the Oregon Department of Forestry and USDA Forest Service. Some highlights of the community survey are: • Residents are satisfied with the amount and quality of trees/forests in Tigard (-86% satisfaction). However, —74% agreed that more street trees would be good for the City. • Residents feel strongly that trees contribute to quality of life (-96% agree) and residential property values (-92%agree). • Residents want the City to direct more resources to maintain/protect trees and forests in Tigard (-74% agree),and a majority support increasing funding for tree and forest management (-55% support). • Residents support tree preservation and replacement during development (-88% support). In addition a majority (-56%) support development regulations even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. Approximately 32% of residents oppose tree regulations that limit development. • Residents consistently prioritize planting,protection, and maintenance of natural forested areas over other resources such as street trees and ornamental landscape trees. Page 4 of 9 • Approximately 55% of residents would like to see new protection measures focused on larger groves of native trees as opposed to individual trees of significant size. • Residents are supportive of tree regulations for developed private property that would protect large,healthy trees (-"75% support). • A majority of residents support the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees (-59% support). Preliminary findings from the community survey include: • The community values the urban forest and is satisfied with its quality. • Residents want more funding directed to protecting and maintaining the urban forest. • Residents support development regulations that protect trees even if the result is reduced development. • Residents prioritize grove protection and maintenance. • Residents support the creation of a hazard tree abatement program. A series of meetings were held with 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) to discuss urban forestry coordination issues, and identify those areas where coordination could be improved (Attachment 4). The following City needs were identified during the meetings: �wrr • Better tracking of street trees and protected private property trees needed via GIS database. • Better tracking and enforcement of required stream corridor enhancements needed. • Prior to City property acquisition,need more detailed evaluation of resource management requirements. • Need to clarify tree protection standards for building additions. • Need to create tree protection standards for City projects. • Need to formalize hazard tree response system. • Need to publicize requirements for trees in sensitive lands. • Need better tracking of tree mitigation fund expenditures. In addition to needs assessment of the City, staff is in the process of coordinating with key community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest(Attachment 5). The stakeholder groups identified the following policies and programs that they think should be revised or created in the future: Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture • Do not penalize property owners with trees more than those without trees during development. • Do not continue to incentivize overplanting of trees via mitigation standards. • Prioritize natives and large stature trees. �rrr✓ Page 5 of 9 • Make project arborists a more integral member of the development team. • Increase planting strip size and/or require root barriers. • Hire greenspace manager. Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects • More focus on preservation,less focus on mitigation. • More focus on sustainable landscape standards (not necessarily natives). • Create detailed tree and landscape design manual with planting and preservation standards. • Require warranty period to ensure landscape establishment. • Require landscape architects to be a member of the development project team. Tualatin Riverkeepers • 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. • Establish a sustainable funding source for urban forestry. • Increase efforts to remove invasives. Tigard-Tualatin School District • Partner to plant trees on school grounds. • Focus on low maintenance and sustainable plantings. Portland General Electric • Tree plans should be routed to PGE for comment to avoid tree/utility conflicts on new developments. • PGE can partner with the City to abate existing and potential tree/utility hazards. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce • No comment. Trees and urban forestry has not been an issue for the Chamber members. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • No comment. Clean Water Services • Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements. • Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from permit requirements. '%.w Page 6 of 9 `u. • Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,Surface Water Management (SWM) funds, and tree mitigation funds. • Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management. • Fill the greenspace manager position so that riparian re-vegetation 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 • 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. Home Builder's Association (Draft) • There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a program do not outweigh the costs. Nftw • Do not regulate trees on private property, and allows 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. Tree Board • 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. • Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community attitudes. • Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits. `%NW Page 7of9 The needs identified by citizens, the City, and community stakeholders will help guide future policy and program goals. The goals set will need to be measurable so that the City can evaluate whether or not goals are being met in the future. For example,a goal of"No net loss of tree canopy between 2007 and 2015"is preferable to a goal of"Maximize tree canopy". Finally,it will be important to ensure that the goals in the Urban Forestry Master Plan are coordinated with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. HOW DO WE GET WHAT WE WANT? After goals are identified, the question of"How do we get what we want?"will be answered through the creation of an implementation matrix. The implementation matrix will be the most important part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan because it will prioritize urban forestry program,policy, and code direction by setting a timetable for implementation. It will also allow for the Tree Board to monitor progress of the Urban Forestry Master Plan as part of their annual work program. A draft example of the implementation matrix is provided below: 5 �e 2d c°Q a�� y` oS Im lementation Goals (�° 9` C.° 1.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols. a. Staff Public Works 2.3.8 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard assessments Fund b. Staff Hire greenspace coordinaterto manage Tigard natural areas Public Works 2.2.5 H $$ Time/General 2015 TRK and develop a proactive hazard abatement program Fund C. Staff Develop and implement formal emergency response Planning 2.3.8,2.2.3 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF system Portree hazards on City streets I I Fund d. Staff Developand im lementformal emergency response Public Works 2'2'3,2.3.8,2.3.9, L p g y res p 2.3.10,2.3.11 $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF system for tree hazards in Cit parks/greens aces Fund 1.2 Establish City program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property. a. Staff Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority to the City Planning 2.3.8 H $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF to become involved in private propertv tree hazards. Fund 2.1 Revise streettree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements a. Staff Create design and maintenance manual with drawings and Planning 2.3.8 H $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ASLA,TRK specifications for planting and maintenance. Fund b. Staff Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit system for Planning 2.2.5 M $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ASLA street tree planting,removal,and replacement. Fund 1111low Page 8 of 9 FEEDBACK(ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU WANT?) The implementation matrix will allow for the Tree Board to monitor progress of the Urban Forestry Master Plan as part of their annual work program. During the Tree Board's annual joint meetings with Council,progress on the Urban Forestry Master Plan can be communicated. In addition,canopy mapping will be occurring every two years by Metro so that the impact of City programs and policies on Tigard tree canopy can be continually tracked. Finally,the Urban Forestry Master Plan will be updated every five to seven years so that citizen, City, and community stakeholder needs can be reassessed and City programs and policies can be readjusted accordingly. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: "Developing a Community Forest Management Strategy"By the International Society of Arboriculture Attachment 2: Canopy Analysis Results Attachment 3: Urban Forestry Phone Survey Results and Analysis by Steve Johnson and Associates Attachment 4: Internal City Coordination Meeting Results Attachment 5: Stakeholder Interview Results LITERATURE CITED "Developing a community forest management strategy." International Society of Arboriculture. 18 March 2009 < http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/tree-ord/ordprtlb.aspx> Miller,R.W. 1988. Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspaces. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ. 404 p. ANow Page 9 of 9 Attachment 1 3 ss� Abou t ISA Member Resources Tree Clim services a a • as championship ISA Home Page Education&Research=Tree Ordinance Guidelines ee C>rh r wn;e P,,t lb Tree Ordinance Guidelines CONSUMER <Previous I Next> INFORMATION Developing a community forest management strategy • - ISA HISPANA Many community tree ordinances have been developed in response to public outcry over specific perceived problems. Unfortunately, a"band-aid" approach to developing tree ordinances often leads to ordinances that are not consistent with sound management practices, and which can actually thwart good management.We believe that communities need to develop or review their overall urban forest management strategy before considering a new or revised tree ordinance. Policy makers must recognize that the primary goal is effective management of local tree resources, not simply regulation. Tree ordinances provide the legal framework for successful urban forest management by enabling and authorizing management activities. However, methods for managing the urban forest ecosystem are continually evolving,and the input of trained professionals to the management process is critical.Therefore,we believe that ordinances should facilitate rather than prescribe management.Successful tree ordinances follow this guiding principle. If the role of a tree ordinance is to facilitate resource management,the tree ordinance must be part of a larger community forest management strategy. Most of the shortcomings attributed to tree ordinances can usually be traced to the lack of a clearly thought-out management strategy. Poor planning leads to poor ordinances, and even the best-written ordinance is unlikely to succeed in the absence of an overall urban forest Attachment 1 management strategy.We have found that few existing tree ordinances have been developed as part of a comprehensive management strategy. How to develop a management strategy We have generally followed Miller's(1988)model of the management planning process. More recently,the descriptive term adaptive management has been applied to this process. Miller(1988)presents the management planning process in terms of three basic questions: • What do you have? • What do you want? • How do you get what you want? Developing an appropriate tree ordinance may be a partial answer to the third question, i.e., it is one way of trying to get what you want. However, it should be clear that the first two questions need to be answered before the third can be addressed.Thus,assessment(determining what you have)and goal-setting(determining what you want)should precede any consideration of an ordinance. In practice, answering the first two questions is often an iterative process. Communities may have ideas about what they want before they fully assess what they have. However, an assessment of existing tree resources can help point out needs that might not be obvious,and will help the community to establish appropriate goals. Since the urban forest resource and the external factors that affect it are continually changing, developing a management strategy must be an ongoing process.Asking a fourth question helps to bring the process full circle: • Are You getting what you want? Miller(1988)represents this phase as a feedback step which connects the third question back to the first. If the planning process is to be effective, it is necessary to determine whether you actually achieve what you want. If not, methods for getting what you want may need to be changed.Alternatively, it is possible that what you get is no longer what you want, and goals will need to be revised as well. We can define a number of specific steps that address each of these four basic questions.These steps have been defined in similar ways by various authors(Lobel 1983, Miller 1988,Jennings 1978, McPherson and Johnson 1988,World Forestry Center and Morgan 1989). For the purposes of our discussion,we recognize seven distinct steps which are discussed below. Working through these steps need not be overly complicated or arduous.The entire process is driven by the specific resources and goals of the individual community. By following the process outlined below,a small community with very modest tree management goals can develop a simple ordinance that addresses its limited goals. On the other hand, communities seeking to develop a comprehensive tree management program or expand their existing programs can do so following the same process.Ordinances developed through this process will be uniquely suited to the Attachment 1 needs of each community. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? Step A.Assess the tree resource. An assessment of tree resources provides the basic information necessary for making management decisions. It also provides a baseline against which change can be measured. Ideally,this assessment should include all tree resources within the planning area of the municipality. However, in communities that are just starting to consider municipal tree management, an incremental approach may be more practical. In this case,the assessment may be focused on a certain portion of the urban forest,such as street trees or trees in a particular geographic area. Tree resource assessments are based on various inventory methods,most of which require some type of survey. Complete tree inventories of all public trees are relatively common,and play a central role in many tree management programs. However,for the purposes of setting goals and initiating a management strategy, information from a representative sample of the urban forest will often suffice. Information that may be useful for management planning includes: • total number of trees classified by species,condition, age,size, and location; • problem situations, such as sidewalk damage,disease and pest problems,or hazardous trees, preferably linked to the basic tree data listed above; • amount of canopy cover by location. Inventories vary in complexity depending on the size of the community and the nature of the data collected.They can be made by city staff, consultants,or trained volunteers. In one small community, an inventory of street trees was conducted as an Eagle Scout project. However, it is important to ensure that the data collected is valid and reliable,since this information provides a basis for decisions made in later steps in the process. Several simple sampling and evaluation techniques applicable to urban forestry are described in the Evaluation pages. Step B. Review tree management practices. An important part of understanding the status of the urban forest is knowing how it has been managed.This requires information on both past and current management methods and actions, such as: • municipal tree care practices, including planting, maintenance, and removal; • existing ordinances, and the level of enforcement practiced(numbers of violations, permits and citations issued, penalties and fines Attachment 1 collected); • planning regulations and guidelines that pertain to trees, and numbers of tree-related permits granted,modified, or denied; • activities of municipal departments and public utilities that impact trees. The specific types of information involved will vary by jurisdiction,depending on the level of past and current tree management. Municipal records are the most reliable source of this information. However, records on maintenance or ordinance enforcement may not exist in some cases, and the information may have to be obtained by interviewing local government staff involved with these activities. The point of this step is to identify all of the activities that affect trees in the community, especially those that are under municipal control of one form or other. For instance,various ordinances and planning regulations seemingly unrelated to the tree program may impinge on tree resources and their impact must be taken into account. Before trying to change community forest management,we need to consider both current and historical management practices and identify all of the players involved. WHAT DO YOU WANT? Step C.Identify needs. With information on the status of their tree resources and tree management in hand, a community is in a good position to assess its urban forestry needs. Urban forestry needs can be grouped into three broad categories, although many needs may actually fall into more than one category. Biological needs are those that are related to the tree resource itself.Typical needs in this category include the need to: • increase species and age diversity to provide long-term forest stability; • provide sufficient tree planting to keep pace with urban growth and offset tree removal; • increase the proportion of large-statured trees in the forest for greater canopy effects; • ensure proper compatibility between trees and planting sites to reduce sidewalk damage and conflicts with overhead utilities that lead to premature tree removal. Management needs refer to the needs of those involved with the short-and long-term care and maintenance of the urban forest. Some common management needs include: • develop adequate long-term planning to ensure the sustainability of the urban forest; • optimize the use of limited financial and personnel resources; • increase training and education for tree program employees to ensure high quality tree care; • coordinate tree-related activities of municipal departments. Community needs are those that relate to how the public perceives and interacts with the urban forest and the local urban forest management Attachment 1 program. Examples of community needs include: • increase public awareness of the values and benefits associated with trees; • promote better private tree care through better public understanding of the biological needs of trees; • foster community support for the urban forest management program; • promote conservation of the urban forest by focusing public attention on all tree age classes, not just large heritage trees. The needs listed above are common to many communities. However,the specific needs of each community will vary, and may include others not noted here. Step D. Establish goals. Now that we know what we have and what we need,we are ready to set goals to address local urban forestry needs and to guide the formation of the management strategy.To establish realistic goals, it's important to consider limitations posed by the level of community support, economic realities,and environmental constraints. Because of limited resources, communities may be unable to immediately address all of the needs identified. If this is the case, it will be necessary to prioritize goals. In setting priorities, it is important not to neglect goals that require a long-term approach in favor of those that can be achieved quickly. At this point in the process, it is absolutely critical to get community involvement and support. Most tree ordinances rely heavily on voluntary compliance by the public.Such compliance is only likely to be achieved if members of the community support the goals which have been set. Management goals reached through public involvement are likely to reflect community values and therefore enjoy public support. Public participation in the goal-setting process also serves an educational function,providing an opportunity for citizens to see how urban forest management affects their community. Goals are the tangible ends that the management strategy seeks to achieve. It is therefore important to set goals which are quantifiable in some way, so that progress toward the goals can be monitored. For example,while it is admirable to seek to"improve the quality of life"or"protect the health and welfare of the community",such goals are generally too diffuse to be measured in any meaningful way. However a goal such as "establish maximum tree cover"can be made quantifiable by setting canopy cover or tree density standards.Typical tree program goals which are consistent with good urban forest management are discussed in more detail on the Ordinance Goals page. HOW DO YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT? Step E. Select tools and formulate the management strategy. The objective of this step is to develop a management strategy that addresses your specific goals.There are many approaches that can be used to address each goal, and the pros and cons of each approach should be considered. Feasibility, practicality, legality, and economics should be Attachment 1 considered in selecting the appropriate management tools. Some typical tools include: • public education programs; • assistance and incentive programs; • voluntary planting programs; • mitigation guidelines; • planning regulations and guidelines, including the general plan and specific plans; • ordinances. Community involvement and support continues to be important in this phase of the process. Management approaches and tools that are unacceptable to the community are unlikely to succeed. If a local government intends to push for more progressive tree management than local citizens are ready to accept, it should choose tools that will build community awareness and support, including educational and incentive programs.Your assessment of current and past management practices,should provide ideas about the effectiveness of various methods that have been used in your community. Public input and comment should be sought for any new approaches that may be contemplated or developed. In analyzing the approaches or tools that may be used,the role of the tree ordinance in the overall strategy should become clear. In some cases, ordinance provisions will be necessary to authorize various management approaches,such as establishing the position of municipal arborist, requiring the development and implementation of a community forest master plan,or mandating a program of public education. In other cases, ordinance provisions may directly provide necessary parts of the strategy,for example by outlawing destructive practices. The provisions placed in the tree ordinance should be directly related to the goals your community has established for its community forest.As noted earlier,these provisions should designate responsibility,grant authority, and specify enforcement methods.They should set basic performance standards, yet allow for flexibility in determining how these standards can be met.You can follow this link to see our-goal-driven Guide to Drafting a Tree Ordinance,but be sure to read about the last two critical steps in the management process below. Step F.Implement the management strategy. Although a plan may appear ideal on paper, it clearly cannot achieve anything unless implemented.This requires the commitment of resources necessary to hire personnel,enforce ordinances, run educational programs, and carry out other components of the management strategy.The number of steps involved in implementing the management strategy may differ between communities.Steps typically involved in implementation may include: • passing an ordinance, • budgeting necessary funds, • hiring a municipal forester or arborist, • appointing a citizen tree advisory board, • formulating a master tree management plan, Attachment 1 • developing public education programs. Since a number of steps are usually involved in implementing the management strategy, it is useful to map out an implementation schedule.This time/action schedule should show the steps that are involved and the time frame within which they should be completed. Progress checks should be built into the schedule to ensure that delays or problems are detected and dealt with.These progress checks could be in the form of required progress reports to the city council or county board of supervisors. It is important to maintain a high profile for the management program during implementation to foster public interest and maintain the commitment of the local government. If interest and support dissipate before the strategy is implemented,the efforts spent to get to this point may be for naught. ARE YOU GETTING WHAT YOU WANT? Step G.Evaluate and revise. Even a successfully implemented management strategy must be monitored to ensure that progress is being made and standards are being met. Evaluation provides the feedback necessary to determine whether the management strategy is working. Periodic evaluation also provides an opportunity to reassess the needs and goals of the community.The management strategy may need to be adjusted to reflect new or altered goals. By providing for regular evaluation as part of the management process,the need for change can be identified before a crisis develops. If you have set quantifiable goals,evaluating progress will be a relatively straightforward process.The types of evaluation techniques you will use will vary with the goal being evaluated.The Evaluation Methods page describes a number of simple techniques that can be used to monitor ordinance effectiveness. <Previous I Tree ordinance web site map I Next> ISA home page I Submit comments or suggestions ©International Society of Arboriculture 2008 P.O.Box 3129,Champaign,IL 61826 (217)355-9411 Email comments&questions to isaOisa-arbor.com Friday,March 27,2009 11:43:36 AM(CST/ISA Headquarters Time) Please click here to view our privacy policy. Attachment 2 Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 2007)located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits City Limits, June 2008 7556 acres 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of June 2008 June 2008 Acres City Limits Acres City Limits Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52% 1996 2007 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of 1996 1996 2007 2007 Canopy Canopy Canopy Canopy Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters Cover Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.30 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% 157.00 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 1 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1 1852.69 100% 7704 100% Attachment 2 Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres 1996 2007 Acres Percent Acres Percent iCanopy Cover of Urban Renewal Zone 19.67 10.30% 18.41 9.64% Attachment 2 Within June 2008 City Limits _ Jan 1,2008 Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) 528.75 acres BLI 1996 1423.32 acres Canopy Cover Year BLI Acres Acres Percent 1996 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 2007 528.75 226.26 42.79% 1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover within 1996 BLI within 1996 BLI Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 1996 BLI 1423.32 1 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79% Attachment 2 City Limits, June 2008 7556 acres May 13, 2008 Taxlots 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Ownership Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover 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 79 431.65 105.10 24.35% Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63% Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52% Attachment 2 Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 'acres Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage Percent of 2007 Citywide Habitat Class Tigard Acres Percent Canopy Cover Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46% Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43% Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68% Total 1413.23 696.08 1 49.25% 37.57% Attachment 2 Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres 1996 Canopy Coverage 1952.75 acres Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage 1996 Canopy Coverage Percent Change 1996 Type Tigard Acres Percent Citywide Percent Acres Percent Citywide Percent to 2007 Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30% CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.40% 17.83% -6.43% FEMA 100-yr Floodplain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.15% 213.17 35.97% 10.92% -4.24% Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 66.64% 6.67% -0.33% Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 46.96% 42.89% -5.66% Attachment 2 Subdivisions Approved in 1996/97 Canopy Coverage 1996 2007 Number Total Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Change 1996-2007 18 72.76 18.32 25.18% 12.49 17.17% 31.82% Attachment 2 City Limits,June 2008 7556 1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Change 1996 Zoning 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent to 2007 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% Attachment 3 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 `7 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)? SATISI 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? I 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? Cite of 1 i_rard t rb m I-orestry Sur�ev 2008 I opline 1 requen:iQS Pztge I Attachment 3 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/9 NA 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? I 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/9 NA 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% IMPORTI 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/9 NA 2 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% Cite of I i,-,ard t Jihan Forestr% SurVeX - 2008 Iodine t requeneies Page-2 Attachment 3 2 AGREE 148 37% 3 DISAGREE 28 7% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 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/ 8 DK/9 NA 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/8 DK/9 NA 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% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 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% Cite of T ivard 1 rban Forestr. Surgey 2008 I opline Frequencies Pa+oc 3 Attachment 3 2 AGREE 203 50.75% 3 DISAGREE 50 12.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5% 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 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% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 8 2% 400 100% FORESTI 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/ 8 DK/9 NA 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? IINCREASED 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? ] ONE 3 0.75% 2 TWO 0 0% 3 THREE 14 3.5% 4 FOUR 11 2.75% t its of [i,-,and l i ban 1 of estre Sui Xey 2003 1 opline Frequcneies Pa,-,c 4 Attachment 3 **Mol, 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 TAX 1) 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, I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there. Certain areas. Save certain trees. wr 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. Cit% oft i yard t roan Foi�strSur�e�- '003 I opline I rcquencies PaL-)e�J Attachment 3 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. r, - ----— --------- -- - - -- --- - t it} off i Yard l i ban I-oi estry "'All-Vey -2-008 I opline 1 requencies Pale 0 Attachment 3 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 l i and l;rban Foi'65II-\- SUrAe� —2003 topline Frequencies Pa e 7 Attachment 3 1*2W 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 *40W, 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. Citv or I i,_,ard urban I orestry SurNev 2004 - — I opline I requeneies f'atc 8 Attachment 3 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. ('ity of Ii-,1rd l 0),111 101CSti'% SMAC) —2008 1 topline Frequencies Page 4 Attachment 3 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. 'Now 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. -------------- Citv of I i and l.rban Ioestry SLII'1,Cv 2008 I o1?line frequencies Pale 10 Attachment 3 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. TAX1 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/ 8 DK/9 NA 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% Aftw 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? NNW (-it% (A-1 i Bard h-ban I orestrx SurVe� Topline I requencies Pa11e I I Attachment 3 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) I 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 l 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% Cite of T i yard l,iban Foicstrti Sur�r� 2008 I oplinc I requencies PaLre I Attachment 3 146W 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? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75% 2 SUPPORT 168 42% 3 OPPOSE 99 24.75% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 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 23 5.75% 400 100% REGS 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 I i11a1-d Ethan 101-e5tr% 2008 1 ohlinc 1 requencies Pate I3 Attachment 3 vowe 2 SUPPORT 224 56% 3 OPPOSE 60 15% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 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/ 8 DK/9 NA 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/ 8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75% 400 100% City of I i,—,ard t;rban f ores1ry Surrey _'004 Topline Frequencies page 14 Attachment 3 *Aw,; 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). (`ith of[ivard t 1b.111-Forcgr� 2004 �plinc Freyucilcies Patin I Attachment 4 °%. ® ` City of Tigard Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Honorable Council From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Urban Forestry, City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results Date: April 10, 2009 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); Attachment 4 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 and formulate possible solutions that could improve coordination efforts. The following list identifies the coordination issues (in black) and possible solutions (in red) 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 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. 2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no long term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering, Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT/GIS); Attachment 4 • 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. • 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); Attachment 4 • 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. 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. *MW Attachment 4 'err • 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. Attachment 4 '+air • 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); Attachment 4 • 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. • 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" can 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. *4W Attachment 4 *,*Awl 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. 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 can 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 Attachment 4 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. Attachment 5 City of Tigard s Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and Honorable Council From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Urban Forestry, Stakeholder Interview Results Date: April 10, 2009 In addition to internal coordination of City Departments,is coordinating with key community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest. The following list of groups and organizations were identified as key community stakeholders relative to urban forestry: • American Society of Landscape Architects, Oregon Chapter • Clean Water Services • Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland ,,. • Oregon Department of Transportation • Pacific Northwest Chapter of the ISA • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Portland General Electric • Tigard Chamber of Commerce • Tigard-Tualatin School District • Tualatin River Keepers • Tree Board The following list of questions have been asked of all stakeholder groups: 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well? 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? The following lists the summarized stakeholder responses (in red) to the above questions: Attachment 5 American Society of Landscape Architects,Oregon ChapterASLAI 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. • 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 Attachment 5 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 ASLA for review and comment. • Contact ASLA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes and design handbooks. • Hire ASLA 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. • 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. Oregon Department of Transportation ODOT) Attachment 5 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). 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? Attachment 5 • 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 MOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements. o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in MOT right of way (ODOT permit required). Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (PNWISA) 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. Attachment 5 - • 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. • 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? Attachment 5 • 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. • 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. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB� • No comments. Portland General Electric (PGE) 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. **.. Attachment 5 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. `'ftw • 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? • 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. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce • Christopher Zoucha, Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 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. err►. Attachment 5 Tigard Tualatin School District XISD) 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? • 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. Attachment 5 Tualatin River Keepers 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. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? �.r Attachment 5 • 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. Clean Water Services 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • 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? Attachment 5 • 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 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. Attachment 5 • 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. Home Builder's Association (Draft) 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • The Home Builder's Association (HBA) 1000+ members develop treed residential lands and build homes on treed lots in the City of Tigard. This process often involves clearing trees from properties. • HBA members must develop tree preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard Development Code requirements. • HBA members also mitigate tree removal by planting replacement trees in the City. Some of the mitigation trees are planted on City property such as Cook Park. • HBA members attend 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 HBA has a reprensentative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. Attachment 5 ,*NW 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 HBA'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. 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. Attachment 5 • Finally, it is the consensus of the HBA 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? • Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for unavoidable tree removal and only serve to drive up the cost of the homes constructed and the price the buyer will ultimately have to pay. • 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 for tree preservation so that developers are able to utilize the incentives. • However, the HBA's position is that 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 off' 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. • There should be no City forestry program because there is nothing that works well with the current program. The cost of an urban forestry program does not outweigh the benefits. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • The HBA and its members can continue to participate in the public process so that their views are understood by the City's decision makers. 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 allows 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: Attachment 5 VAW 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. Tree Board (,Draft) 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. I%W 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. • The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban forest. Attachment 5 • 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. *r.✓