Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 05/06/2009 a City of Tigard
C
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee —Agenda
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER..................................................................................................................6:30-6:35
2. Introduction and Opening Remarks.......................................................................................6:35-6:40
3. Approve Minutes.......................................................................................................................6:40-6:45
4. Results of Stakeholder Interviews...........................................................................................6:45-7:00
5. Draft Plan Discussion...............................................................................................................7:00-7:15
6. Implementation Goals Discussion..........................................................................................7:15-7:45
7. Public Comment........................................................................................................................7:45-8:00
Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee AGENDA— May 6, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
MCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Current Planning Division
Re: Regular Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
of May 6,2009
Date: April 22, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes topics proposed for discussion at the May 6, 2009 meeting of the Urban
Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee.
CANOPY ANAYLSIS UPDATE
In response to questions/comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee and public,staff is
performing additional canopy analyses including parking lot coverage and potential future canopy. This
agenda item will be briefly discussed during the introduction/opening remarks section of the meeting.
REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 4,2009 URBAN FORESTRY
MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee held a meeting on March 4, 2009. The
minutes of the meeting have been summarized in Attachment 1 by Todd Prager for the Committee's
review and approval.
RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Over the past several months, staff has been coordinating with key community stakeholder groups and
jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban
forest. A summary of the stakeholder interview results has been provided in Attachment 2. Please
consider the input of community stakeholders when formulating implementation goals and action items
so that their needs can be better addressed in the future management of Tigard's urban forest.
DRAFT PLAN DISCUSSION
A rough, first draft of the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been completed by staff and provided for the
Committee's review and comment in Attachment 3. The draft Plan incorporates the urban forestry
vision and purpose statements,community survey data,canopy analysis data,City of Tigard
departmental coordination results,and stakeholder interview results. Also included in the draft Plan is
research by staff on urban forestry program benefits and costs,historical forest and urban forestry
Page 1 of 2
program history, existing policy framework,and analysis of current Tigard Municipal and Development
Code provisions.
Not yet included in the Plan are the canopy analyses of parking lots and potential future canopy which
are still being completed.
This draft Plan will likely be significantly edited and reformatted over the coming months until it is
presented to Planning Commission and City Council in October and November respectively.
It is important for Committee members to read and understand the draft Plan so there is comprehensive
understanding of past and present urban forestry issues prior to setting implementation goals for the
future. The sections of the Plan that will be new for the Committee include sections (in the outline
coversheet):
I.E
II.A-C
III.A,B, and D
IV. B
IMPLEMENTATION GOALS DISCUSSION
Based on the urban forestry information collected and assembled in the draft Urban Forestry Master
Plan, the Citizen Advisory Committee will be asked to begin formulating implementation goals which
will provide a general framework for implementation action items. Implementation goals and action
items will be presented for acceptance by Planning Commission and Council. These implementation
goals and action items will provide clear direction to City staff and the Tree Board over the next 5-7
years as tree ordinances are revised and urban forestry programs are improved and/or created. It will
also prioritize the various items and hold the City accountable to a timeline for implementation. A draft
implementation matrix has been provided in Attachment 4. The implementation goals are highlighted
in black.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been provided in Attachment 5 for the
Committee's review. There will also be an opportunity at the end of the May 6,2009 meeting for
additional public comment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Minutes From The March 4, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee Meeting
Attachment 2: Stakeholder Interview Results
Attachment 3: Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Attachment 4: Example Implementation Matrix
Attachment 5: Public Comments
Page 2of2
Attachment 1
a
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Tony Tycer,David Walsh, Matt Clemo,Mort Ettelstein, Phil Hickey
Members Absent—Morgan Holen,Dennis Sizemore,Alan DeHarpport,Janet Gillis
Staff Present—Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels
Visitors—Harry Reid,John Frewing, Karen Estrada,Tom Butterfield
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:31 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
' communicate the results of internal City of Tigard coordination meetings, receive input from the CAC on
the draft plan outline and implementation matrix, and discuss upcoming steps in the UFMP process.
Prager also explained the follow up research items for the canopy analysis (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC
March 4, 2009 meeting packet).
When explaining staff analysis for the canopy decrease in the mixed use zone/Tigard Triangle, Mort
Ettelstein asked for clarification on where the Tigard Triangle is.
Marissa Daniels explained that the Tigard Triangle is the area bound by Highway 217, 1-5, and 99W.
Tony Tycer commented that he thinks there has been more tree loss than just 7%.
Prager said that it is important to remember that canopy loss in some areas is buffered by canopy gain in
other areas.
John Frewing and Phil Hickey both commented that in the mixed use zone, the trees are still young
enough that they are not being captured as tree canopy in the 2007 maps.
Phil Hickey also added that the mixed use/Tigard Triangle has many planting opportunities.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of
Attachment 1
Prager communicated to the CAC that due to workload and funding issues, the only additional canopy
mapping being pursued for inclusion in the UFMP is the plantable areas study. Prager said that study
offers the most value for the time investment.
Tony Tycer asked if Portland Community College landscape architecture students might be able to provide
assistance in completing additional studies. Prager said he would ask the GIS analyst if this was an option.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the January 7, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
The CAC then approved the January 7, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 2, UFMP CAC March 4, 2009
meeting packet).
3. Results of City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meetings
Prager then briefly summarized the highlights of the City of Tigard internal coordination meetings that
were held over the past two months (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC March 4, 2009 meeting packet).
Prager said that the internal coordination meetings have already had the effect of changing City operations.
For example,Prager said that an emergency response system for dealing with public tree'hazards was
developed, and an arborist review process was instituted for all City projects.
Prager also said that many other coordination challenges could be easily resolved when time allows and/or
if the CAC chose to make recommendations as part of the UFMP.
Some of the changes,Prager explained,would require code amendments or additional staffing to be
implemented. An example would be hiring a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage the City's 200
acres of unmanaged greenspace.
Prager said the internal coordination meeting process demonstrated to him that the City of Tigard is
relatively coordinated and adaptable to change. He said that at his previous employment with the City of
San Francisco, those types of coordination meetings and operational changes would have been extremely
difficult achieve.
4. Progress on Stakeholder Meetings
At 6:54,Prager updated the CAC on the progress of the stakeholder meetings (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC
March 4, 2009 meeting packet). Prager explained that he has already met with several of the stakeholders,
and will complete the remaining stakeholder interviews by the next CAC meeting in May. He said he will
provide the CAC with all of the meeting notes for their review and comment.
5. Draft Plan Outline
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of5
Attachment 1
At 6:55 p.m., Marissa Daniels led a discussion on the draft UFMP outline and implementation matrix
(Attachment 5,UFMP CAC March 4, 2009 meeting packet). She explained that the drafts are a work in
progress and will be revised. She asked the CAC for their comments on the drafts.
Mort Ettelstein said that he liked the matrix, but that there is too much information in the body of the
outline. He said that much of it could be moved to an appendix.
Tony Tycer expressed concern about the private property hazard tree program in the implementation
matrix. Marissa Daniels explained that it was only an example, but Mr. Tycer said that it should not even
be used as an example because the City should not become involved in private hazards.
Mort Ettelstein said that it is important to identify who will be responsible for future code development in
the implementation matrix.
John Frewing asked if the implementation matrix will provide a legislative basis for future code
amendments. Marissa Daniels responded that it will provide a legislative basis as well as identify which
code amendments will be prioritized and timelines for implementation.
Mort Ettelstein said that the tide should be changed from implementation goals to program goals. The
CAC generally disagreed, and felt that program goals had already been identified through the
Comprehensive Plan process,and that now those goals needed to be implemented.
Tony Tycer said that the "funding source" column should be next to the"cost" column. Mr. Tycer said
that there needs to be specific dates in the matrix that identify when the programs will be implemented.
Marissa Daniels responded that historically, Council has been hesitant to adopt plans with specific dates,
and that they prefer flexibility.
Dave Walsh said that because the Tree Board will be working to implement the programs in the UFMP,
that there needs to be specific dates that let the Tree Board know what their work tasks will be in the
coming months/years.
Dave Walsh also suggested that the matrix should be color coded to make it easier to search through the
document.
Mort Ettelstein reiterated that the body of the UFMP should be brief, and the appendix could be more
detailed.
Dave Walsh said that if definitions are necessary, they should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
definitions.
In response to a question by Dave Walsh, Prager explained that the UFMP needs to be approved by the
Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Walsh said that means that the plan will not be a living document.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of5
Attachment 1
Prager explained that the Tree Board will be implementing the UFMP over the next five to seven years
until it is updated. Marissa Daniels said that the Tree Board may use their annual joint meetings with
Council to update them on the progress of UFMP implementation and their work program for the
upcoming year.
In response to a question by Tony Tycer, Prager explained that the Long Range Planning Division has
already budgeted for a consultant to assist in an inventory and protection program for upland tree groves.
He said that using an incentive approach to protect these groves will be investigated as part of the study.
6. Planning Commission and City Council Update
Prager then explained that staff will be providing a mid-Plan update to both the Planning Commission and
Council in April. The purpose will be to describe the progress on the UFMP thus far, explain the next
steps, answer questions, and receive input from both bodies. Prager asked the CAC if they had any
information that they wanted him to communicate to Planning Commission and Council.
Dave Walsh said that Prager should explain that the Tree Board is frustrated that the UFMP is blocking
progress towards implementation of code changes. Tony Tycer and Matt Clemo agreed that the Tree
Board is getting bogged down in process, and unable to complete any real code changes.
Marissa Daniels asked if UFMP meetings should occur every month or if meetings should be extended to
speed progress towards completion of the UFMP. The members generally agreed that they did not have
time for more or longer meetings.
7. Public Comment
At 7:52 p.m., the meeting was opened for public comment.
Karen Estrada,began by clarifying her understanding that the CAC's role is to develop a program
implementation schedule for Council approval,which will necessitate future code changes and program
developments by the Tree Board. The CAC generally agreed that she was correct in her understanding.
Ms. Estrada then went on to explain her desire for protecting trees during infill development projects in
existing neighborhoods. She described a situation in her neighborhood off of SW North Dakota (Schenk
Partition) where a developer let their land-use expire and cut down all the previously protected trees. She
said the developer is now waiting a year so that the trees will be exempt from mitigation requirements,
before reapplying for a development permit. Ms. Estrada said while this process is technically legal, it is not
the intent of the tree ordinance. She said that she is not against developers, but she does not appreciate
her neighborhood being blighted by the removal of trees without any accountability. She recommended
that the CAC and Tree Board work in the future to protect existing neighborhoods from this type of
activity.
Dave Walsh said that Ms. Estrada was correct in that no protections exist against clear cutting, and that
mitigation can be avoided by not developing for a year.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—March 4,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of5
Attachment 1
Mr. Walsh said that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted Council said that they wanted code
changes to follow, but the UFMP is a detour to accomplishing this.
At 8:05 p.m.John Frewing described a 22 unit development at 92°d Avenue and Hall Boulevard that has
been recently annexed into the City. He said that the trees were cut and the land use was approved by the
County, so the City cannot require mitigation per City standards.
Mr. Frewing suggested that the City should look at protecting trees in Urban Growth Boundaries by
requiring trees cut within two years of annexation to be inventoried and mitigated per City standards.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of5
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
.,
To: Alan DeHarpport and Ernie Platt, Home Builder's Association of
Metropolitan Portland
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: April 9, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+ members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It
is in the interest of the membership to develop land and create building sites
for new homes. Land development requires tree removal on sites that have
trees and are zoned for development.
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard
Development Code requirements.
• Under the current code section 18.790, applicants may pay a fee in lieu of
mitigation or are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement
trees within the City.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board,Planning Commission, and City
Council meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban
Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
Attachment 2
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists
when evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site
development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are
unreasonable and punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.03aB.2(a-d) is unreasonable
because it is not practicable to retain even 51/o 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 Tird with 75% or greater
retention on property zoned R45 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 per meftr 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 apd.canopies that extend:at least W firom the trunk. Larger trees
have lard"` around them that meed to remain'undisturbed. This is not
pracdCWe is high density situations. Even**,younger but potentially large
tree specs such as:Doug.-fir is able to be retained,it often makes sense to
remove it to avoidtential hazards in the future.
•
00,&e strucOOO 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 these in Cock Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the
developer$20;000 to complete. However, the City required the developer to
submit a bond fair$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 be us i&tntive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover
retained. This bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very
large. For a site that is 10 lots,it would take 20% retention for a 10% density
bonus to add just one unit. Moreover,by adding another unit and decreasing
the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots
that are significantly smaller than zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict
with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally,it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan
requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any
development project. In addition,Tigard's current program is divisive and
creates legal conflicts in the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of
Appeals for tree related issues.
Attachment 2
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property
owners should be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the
establishment of Tigard. This "hands 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.
• Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for
unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over$1,000,000 in the tree
mitigation fund. It is expected to grow to over$2,000,000 within the next
year. This fund can only be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for
tree planting was $50,000. There is little available land within the City where
future trees can be planted.
• If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should
only be required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal.
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous
trees.
• The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of
planting trees.
• Revise incentives to create higher motivation for developers to utilize the
incentives.
• The City forestry program should be balanced with the right to subdivide and
develop private property. The cost of an urban forestry program should not
outweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that
their views are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the mew of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process
that the HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and
one extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple
to achieve "consensus" when everyone in the room shares the same view.
The key to real and balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people
who have concerns about the forestry program and openly discuss the views
of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue. The HBAMP has received
virtually no feedback from City staff, the Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory
Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's representatives
have provided at meetings,public hearings and worksessions. This needs to
be addressed.
Attachment 2
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal,it is the view
of the HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree
Board and City Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of
property owners. This is unacceptable.
• City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners
who have the most potential impact under the current and future tree code.
These owners should be contacted and advised of the financial impact the
current tree code could have on their property values. These are the single
most impacted stakeholder group,yet they have never been invited to any
meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a
program do not outweigh the costs,.
• Do not regulate trees on private property,and allow owners to manage their
land as they see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following
should be included/excluded from the programs:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to
mi*te,for unnecessary tree removal.
o, Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree
replacement:
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous
trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to
utilize the incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property
owners in the process.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Peter Guillozet,Water Resources Project Manager, Clean Water Services
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 23, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
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?
• 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?
Attachment 2
• 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.
• 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.
Attachment 2
• 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.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Steve Schalk, District 2A Engineering/Access Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Transportation
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 26, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
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?
Attachment 2
• 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
MOT and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top
of existing utilities.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans
to Portland General Electric for review.
• Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize
conflicts with hard features.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to
ODOT and City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in MOT right of ways:
o ODOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in
MOT right of way (ODOT permit required).
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: April 24, 2009
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23, 2009 meeting.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Chad Burns,Portland General Electric Western Forester
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 13, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you both for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to
provide for the safe,reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the
needs of commercial and residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in
terms of establishing approved street tree lists, encouraging appropriate and
responsible plantings, approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree
program and having the long term vision to develop and maintain an urban
forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• As a whole,Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is
very qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard.
• Several potentially hazardous tree/utility conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment
necessary.
Attachment 2
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a
factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works
well and what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• 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.
Attachment 2
- " City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Terry Flanagan, ISA Director, Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 3, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
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 overpla.nting 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.
Attachment 2
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a
stable funding source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized
for tree maintenance, not just tree planting.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports can be hard for the City to track, especially during
the transition from site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist
reports with false or misleading information.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City
of Vancouver,WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil
volumes for lots of various sizes with trees.
• 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?
9 ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
Attachment 2
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Require mitigation based on stocking levels,not on a caliper inch basis.
• Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large
stature trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required
landscape trees and street trees to count towards mitigation requirements.
• Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have
trees that are overcrowded and not in good condition.
• Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
• Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long
term maintenance of trees, not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as
possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code
updates, not the project engineer.
• 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.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Christopher Zoucha, Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber
of Commerce
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 9, 2009
On March 9, 2009, I spoke with Christopher Zoucha, Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area
Chamber of Commerce regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Christopher informed me that
urban forestry has not been an issue for the Chamber members, and therefore declined providing
input as a stakeholder group for the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Attachment 2
- " City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Tree Board
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arb
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination s
Date: April 10, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder inte uestions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this imports oject.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its
urban forestry program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due
to lack of communication.
• Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not
unified.
• The Tree Code is too focused on development.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• More communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related provisions in Code.
• Focus future Code on areas outside development, and fix the mitigation issue.
t
i4
Attachment 2
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.
• 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.
N
Attachment 2
- " City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Troy Mears,Urban Forestry Stakeholder
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 18, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
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.
Attachment 2
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague,which creates loopholes and a
wide variety of interpretations. For example, there are no spacing, species, or
nursery stock quality standards with respect to mitigation trees.
• Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If
preservation requirements are increased, then mitigation could occur on a tree
for tree basis rather than inch for inch.
• Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by
focusing more on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into
the building design. Also,landscape architects should be required to
collaborate more with project arborists in order to identify which trees are
appropriate for preservation, and how to adjust grading to preserve trees.
Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans between the
landscape architect and project arborist.
• Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates.
Require landscape architects to be part of the design team,and sign off on
planting before, during, and after installations.
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey
the street trees in a 4-5 block radius and choose trees that complement
existing plantings.
• The tree/mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem
has a detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and
specifications that are referred to in their development code. This allows for
more clarity as to what is expected of the development.
• When advertising Tree Board vacancies, specify that you are looking for
members with tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local
professional organizations.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to 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?
Attachment 2
• 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.
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Phil Wentz, Facilities Manager,and Maryann Escriva, Custodial Manager,
for Tigard-Tualatin School District
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 23,2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you both for your participation in this important project.
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?
Attachment 2
• 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 3
- " City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 24,2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
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.
Attachment 3
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?
• 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.
Attachment 3
sCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Draft Plan Outline
Date: April 27, 2009
The following revised, draft outline for the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been prepared by staff.
It details the organization of the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan.
I. Background (pg. 1)
A. Executive Summary(pg. 1)
B. Vision (pg. 1)
C. Purpose (pg-1)
D. Introduction (pg.1)
1. What is Urban Forestry? (pg. 1)
2. Why is Planning Necessary? (pg.1)
3. Urban Forest Benefits (pg. 1)
4. Urban Forest Costs (pg. 3)
5. Urban Forest Costs vs. Benefits (pg. 4)
II. History (pg. 5)
A. History of People and Forests (pg. 5)
B. Urban Forestry Program History (pg. 7)
C. Summary Timeline? (pg. 11)
III.Current Conditions (pg. 11)
A. Geography and Environment (pg. 11)
B. Population and Growth (pg. 11)
C. Canopy (pg. 12)
D. Policy Framework (pg. 13)
1. Fed/State/Regional (pg. 13)
2. Tigard (pg. 19)
E. Community Attitudes/ Values (pg. 26)
1. Past Community Surveys (pg. 26)
2. Current Urban Forestry Survey (pg. 27)
Attachment 3
IV. Coordination (pg. 28)
A. Internal (City) Coordination (pg. 28)
1. Identify/Describe City Departments/Groups (pg. 28)
2. Identify Coordination Challenges (pg. 31)
3. Identify Possible Solutions (pg. 32)
B. External Coordination (pg. 38)
1. Summarize Challenges/Opportunities Expressed During Stakeholder Interviews
(pg. 38)
V. Recommendation/Implementation Matrix (to be determined) (pg. 40)
VII. Literature Cited (pg. 40)
VIII. Appendix (to be determined) (pg. 43)
Attachment 3
Urban Forestry Master Plan
Executive Summary
To be completed last. The executive summary will summarize the main points in the document.
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
d. Providing a legislative resource for future plans,policies,and ordinances.
Introduction
What is urban forestry?
Urban forestry is defined as the management of naturally occurring and planted trees in urban areas
(Harris et al., 1999). By definition the urban forest encompasses trees that are owned and managed by
public entities such as the City of Tigard,as well as trees that are owned and managed by private
landowners. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan defines the urban forest as"all the trees located within the
city limits,including both remnants of native forests and planted landscapes".
Why is planning necessary?
Urban trees and forests provide significant economic,environmental, and social benefits if properly
managed. They can also result in significant costs when improperly managed. Effective urban forest
management seeks to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Clark et al., 1997). Planning is necessary
so that programs and policies that maximize benefits and minimize-cost can be identified and prioritized
during a given timeline. The following provides examples of a variety of urban forest benefits and costs:
Urban Forestry Benefits
Page 1 of 43
Attachment 3
Aesthetic
In 2008, research found that Portland street trees with a canopy spread of 18 feet add an average of
$7,020 to the sales price of homes within 100 feet. The resulting increase in assessed value of these
houses provides the City of Portland with an additional$13 million-in annual tax revenues (Donovan,
2008).
Research has also demonstrated that consumers are willing to travel longer distances,spend more time
traveling, pay more for parking,shop longer,and more frequently in business districts with mature
trees. Shoppers will pay 9%-12%more for the same merchandise in business districts with mature trees
(Wolf,2005).
Environmental
It is well documented that trees improve air quality. Research in Bismark, North Dakota determined
that the City's street trees directly sequestered 952 tons,of greenhouse gases and offset an additional
866 tons annually by shading structures and decreasing air conditioning usage. The total annual savings
from these greenhouse gas reductions was valued at$27,269. The same study also found that Bismark
street trees removed 2.2 tons of air pollution annually, representing a benefit of$3,022(Peper et al,
2004).
In Portland, building shading by street trees was found to save property owners a total of$750,650
annually(City of Portland,2007).
Trees help to reduce stormwater management costs by intercepting and retaining precipitation thereby
decreasing dependence on stormwater conveyance and treatment systems. In 2007 Portland's urban
forest canopy intercepted approximately 1.3 billion gallons of stormwater thereby eliminating$36
million in processing costs(City of Portland,2007).
Social/Psychological
It is well documented that trees have beneficial effects on human health. People in urban areas with
views of vegetation have slower heartbeats, lower blood pressure,and more relaxed brain patterns than
those without natural views(Ulrich, 1981). In addition, hospital patients with views of trees require
fewer strong pain relievers, have less complications,and shorter hospital stays than those without tree
views(Ulrich, 1984).
Another way trees benefit human health is by improving roadway safety. Accident records reveal that
wide roadways without trees cause motorists to speed, resulting in more crashes. Alternatively,tree
lined roadways cause motorists to slow down and avoid accidents because trees help motorists gauge
their speeds and become more aware of roadside hazards(Dumbaugh,2005).
Page 2 of 43
Attachment 3
Urban Forestry Costs
Maintenance
Trees cost money to plant, maintain,and remove when they die. In 1994 it was determined that Pacific
Northwest cities spend an average of$3.25 annually per tree on park and street tree management.
While data for expenditures on private tree management is not well documented, it is estimated that
Pacific Northwest households spend$5-$10 per tree annually for pruning and pest control(McPherson
et al.,2002).
Even in the rainy Pacific Northwest, newly planted trees require supplemental water during the
establishment period which lasts approximately three years. If supplemental drip or bubbler irrigation is
provided, planting costs can increase by$100 or more per tree. Once planted,one to two inch caliper
trees typically require 100-200 gallons of water per year during the establishment period or
approximately$1 in irrigation water cost per tree per year(McPherson et al.,2002).
infrastructure Related Costs
When trees are planted in inappropriate locations,the cost of maintaining them can increase
dramatically. Tree roots are capable of damaging sidewalks,curbs, roads,and other infrastructure. In
2000,California cities spent a total of$70.7 million statewide for costs associated with root damage
caused by street trees. This represents an annual cost of$11/street tree(McPherson and Peper,2000).
In 2006, Portland property owners spent a total of$333,445 repairing infrastructure damaged by tree
roots (City of Portland,2007). One of the most common reasons for tree damage to infrastructure is
lack of adequate space for root growth(Costello and Jones,2003).
Inappropriate tree planting can also increase costs for public utility companies. Portland General
Electric(PGE)spends approximately$500,000 annually in Tigard pruning trees and branches away from
their utility lines(Burns,2008). These costs are then passed on to PGE ratepayers.
Hazards
Hazard trees that fall and injure people or damage property represent significant urban forestry costs.
The City of Tigard Public Works Department spends$15,000-$20,000 annually for hazard tree removal
and abatement. Funding for hazard tree abatement has been insufficient as the backlog of hazard trees
increases each year(Martin,2008).
Program Administration
Urban Forestry programs require administration and implementation by City staff. In Tigard,the Public
Works Department administers and implements tree planting, maintenance, and removals in City parks
Page 3 of 43
Attachment 3
and other City facilities. This includes activities such as the annual leaf drop off program, clearing roots
from City sewer lines,streamside tree planting,and responding to citizen inquiries. In 2008,Tigard
Public Works had and estimated$82,370 in urban forestry related costs.
Tigard's Community Development Department administers and implements Tigard's tree ordinances,
development regulations,the Comprehensive Plan,and the Urban Forestry Master Plan. This includes
activities such as enforcing tree protection during land development,facilitating Tree Board projects,
updating the Comprehensive Plan,and developing the Urban Forestry Master Plan. In 2008,Tigard
Community Development had$113,299 in urban forestry related costs.
Total urban forestry related expenditures for the City of Tigard in 2008 was estimated to be$195,669.
Urban Forestry Benefits,vs.Costs
While the City of Tigard has not completed a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis of its urban forest,
studies of other cities' programs indicate that quantifiable urban forest benefits are typically
outweighed by costs. Benefit/Cost analyses are useful tools for cities to evaluate their programs and
identify ways to increase benefit/cost ratios.
Following are the results of recent studies:
City of Portland, Oregon
• Total annual benefit provided by street and park trees-$27 million
• Total annual cost to manage street and park trees-$6.5 million
• For every dollar invested in park and street trees in Portland,$3.80 in benefits is returned (City
of Portland, 2007).
City of Bismark, North Dakota
• Total annual benefit provided by streets trees is$979,877
• Total annual cost to manage street trees is$320,778
• For every dollar invested in street trees in Bismark,$3.09 in benefits is returned (Peper et al.,
2004).
City of Cheyenne,Wyoming
• Total annual benefit provided by street trees is$686,000
• Total annual cost to manage street trees is$327,897
• For every dollar invested in street trees in Cheyenne,$2.09 in benefits is returned (Peper et al.,
Cheyenne,2004).
Tree Size
Page 4 of 43
Attachment 3
It is important to note that benefits increase as tree size increases. The following table shows the total
annual costs, benefits,and net benefits for small, medium,and large trees opposite a west facing wall
20 years after planting in the Pacific Northwest:
COSTS SMALL TREE MEDIUM TREE LARGE TREE
($/yr/tree) 28 ft tall,25 ft spread 38 ft tall,31 ft spread 46 ft tall,41 ft spread
Private Public Private Public Private Public
Total Costs $6.23 $12.90 $6.87 $13.94 $13.72 $22.10
Total $17.96 $18.12 $36.04 $37.24 $65.18 $68.92
Benefits
Total Net $11.73 $5.22 $29.16 $23.30 $51.46 $46.82
Benefits
Source: McPherson et al.,2002
History:People and Forests
The forests and people of area now known as Tigard have a long and intimate history dating back
thousands of years. The Kalapuya(Native Americans)began managing the forests of the Willamette
Valley as early as 3,500 years before present. In order to provide better habitat for game animals,
harvest acorns from Oregon white oaks,and improve the production of hazelnut, berries,and camas,
the Kalapuya practiced pyroculture,the use of fire to manage plant and animal populations. As a result
of management by the Kalapuya people,the Willamette Valley evolved from a heavily forested area
with dense tree canopy,to a mosaic of praries,oak savannas, and forests that were observed by early
European-Americans(Gray, 2008).
The University of Oregon recently conducted a study of"Pre-European"settlement vegetation that
existed in the Willamette Valley using information from surveyors for the General Land Office between
1851 and 1909, historic air photos, modern soil maps,and professional judgment. The maps generated
from this study where imported into Tigard's Geographic Information Systems(GIS)database,so that
the pre-settlement vegetation in what is now known as the City of Tigard,could be determined. The
results indicate that there were approximately 12 different forest types in the area,the majority of
which were closed canopy(refer to U of O Forest Map). There was also a significant portion that had
relatively low canopy coverage due to burning. The predominant tree species were Oregon ash,red
alder, bigleaf maple,willow, black cottonwood,Oregon white oak,western red cedar,and Pacific
dogwood in the riparian and wetland areas. The upland areas were dominated by Douglas-fir, bigleaf
maple,grand fir, Pacific dogwood,western hemlock,Oregon white oak, red alder,western red cedar,
and ponderosa pine(Hulse et al.,2002). Areas designated as"forest" in the study were estimated to
have canopy coverage of 60%-100%. Burned areas were estimated to have canopy coverage of 10%
(Johnson,2008). Based on this historical information,the 1851 canopy coverage within the current city
limits of Tigard was calculated to be 52.4%(3,966.9 acres). Today,canopy coverage is estimated to be
24.5%(1,852.7 acres).
Page 5 of 43
Attachment 3
By the early 1850s,Tigard was settled by several families of European decent including the Tigard family
headed by Wilson M.Tigard. The Tigard's staked out a 320 acre claim near Bull Mountain and cleared
two acres for their homesite. More settlers to the area followed because of abundant game,timber,
rich soil and excellent growing conditions of the Tualatin Valley. Native forests were cleared for
agricultural uses and timber help support development in the area. Farming focused on fruits, berries,
and poultry.A general store,a farm tool store,a blacksmith,and other businesses were established to
support the farming economy(City of Tigard, 2009).At this early point in Tigard history,the Kalapuya
people were largely decimated by up to 95%from disease brought by the settlers(Gray,2008).
In 1910,the Oregon Electric Railway arrived,triggering more rapid development at the rail stop near
Main Street. Fruit and nut packaging and canning plants and lumber mills set up shop at that point to
capitalize on the agriculture and logging activity(City of Tigard,2009). By the late 1920s,only 328
residents lived in the area.The population of Tigard remained at about 300 people through the early
30s,and remained relatively stable through the 40s even after the arrival of the Capitol Highway(99W)
(Burrows,2009).
Development continued,transforming the small farming community of 300, into a residential
community which was eventually incorporated into a City in 1961. According to the Oregon State Board
of the Census there were 1,749 residents and 572 occupied residences at the time of incorporation. By
1970,the population had reached 6,300,and by 1980, it was at 18,000. The following two decades
added 10,000 people each,and the by December of 2007,the population was at 46,715 people
(Burrows,2009).
The biggest boom period took place in the 1960s,averaging 26%population growth,followed by the
1970s,(8.6%), 1980s(6.7%),and 1990s(3.4%). In the current decade,the average population growth is
approximately 4.4%. Today,the City of Tigard includes a diversity of land uses,including commercial,
residential,and industrial.,Tigard is primarily residential,with almost 70%of the land area zoned for
residential use(City of Tigard, 2008).
While there has not been a detailed study of the forest changes in Tigard between 1851 and today,
historical photos and regional forest studies provide some clues. First, historical aerial photos
demonstrate that the area centered around downtown Tigard was cleared of trees for residences,
businesses,and agricultural production. After about the time of incorporation in 1961,the area became
increasingly developed and planted with individual trees. Photos indicate that tree canopy in central
Tigard is likely greater today than at the time of incorporation. However, it is difficult to track the net
historical change in canopy in other areas such as Bull Mountain because historical photos tend to focus
on central Tigard. The historical trend of increasing tree canopy in central Tigard appears have ended. A
recent study of canopy change between 1996 and 2007(detailed below)shows a slight decrease in
central Tigard tree canopy from 1996 to 2007.
Historical photos also depict a trend of fragmentation from larger groves of trees to individual trees as
development has progressed. This historical trend appears to be continuing in recent times. Between
Page 6 of 43
Attachment 3
1996 and 2007 there was greater than 50%decline in the number of groves that were five acres or more
in size.
A regional study estimated that canopy cover in the Willamette/Lower Columbia region decreased from
46%to 24%from 1972 to 2000. During that same time period,areas with heavy tree canopy(over 50%
canopy)decreased by 56%,further indicating that the regional forests are becoming increasingly
fragmented (American Forests,2001). However,this regional data is not necessarily reflective of
changes in Tigard during that time period.
Details regarding the changes and conditions of Tigard's tree canopy since 1996 can be found in the
canopy study section of this document.
History:Urban Forestry Program
The City of Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961 and its urban forestry program has been
continually evolving to meet the needs of a developing City since that time. In 1967,Tigard adopted its
first zoning ordinance. There was no mention of trees in the zoning ordinance except in Section 180-7,
which required trees in industrial developments to provide a buffer for streets and residential zones.
As the community further developed,trees became a bigger issue. In 1972,Section 7.40 of the
Municipal Code contained provisions to protect the public from dangerous trees and branches blocking
streets and sidewalks. Section 18.20 required planned residential development to produce a plan
demonstrating"landscaping and forestry features." Planned developments were also required "to the
maximum extent possible...to assure that natural features of the land are preserved" (Section
18.56.100). In addition planned developments had to provide"a preliminary tree planting plan
(with)...all existing trees over six inches in diameter and groves of trees. Trees to be removed by
development(were required to) be marked" (Section 18.56.030).
In 1982,Tigard's adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plans provide the broad policy
basis for land use planning programs and ultimately guide all actions relating to the use of land in the
City. Policy 3.4.2 of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan stated—The City shall:
a. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and
controlling erosion,and by requiring areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural
drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible;
b. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through
the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed;
C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated
on the"Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map"on file at the City;and
d. Address Goal 5 rule requirements pertaining to the preservation of wetlands once adequate
information on the location,quality,and quantity of wetland sites is obtained. This Goal 5 review will
include determining which wetland sites are ecologically and scientifically significant. Citizens will
Page 7 of 43
Attachment 3
participate in making policy recommendation for the protection and preservation of those wetland
areas designated as significant. The City shall complete its Goal 5 review of wetland areas before the
City's next periodic review, but no later than December 23, 1996.
Following adoption,the Community Development Code was revised in order to meet the policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. In 1983,the Community Development Code defined a tree as"any living,standing
woody plant having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter,4 feet about ground level". The Development
Code definition of a tree has not changed substantially since that time.
In 1983,the Planned Developments Section (18.80)stated as one of its purposes"to preserve to the
greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning
procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site". Approval
standards for Planned Development required that"...streets, buildings and other site elements shall be
designed and located to preserve the existing trees,topography,and natural drainage to the greatest
degree possible" and "trees with a 6 inch caliper measured at 4 feet in height from ground level,shall be
saved,where possible". Planned developments were required to provide a site plan with "the location
of trees having a 6"caliper at 4 feet(or)where the site is heavily wooded, an aerial photograph at the
same scale as the site analysis(with)only those trees that will be affected by the proposed
development...sited accurately".
The Sensitive Lands Chapter(18.84)was established in 1983 to protect sensitive lands(100 year flood
plain, natural drainageways,and steep slopes)from development activities and to protect the public
from natural hazards. Uses such as landscaping,agriculture,and recreation were permitted in sensitive
lands, but land form alterations required permits. As a result of sensitive lands protections,trees and
forests in these areas gained a protected status.
The Landscaping and Screening Chapter(18.106)was also established in 1983,and required street tree
planting, protection,and replacement during development. It also required trees to be used as a buffer
between differing land uses and for shading of parking lots(1 tree per 10 parking spaces).
In 1983,the Tree Removal Chapter(18.142)was established. It recognized the benefits of trees and
stated its purpose as"to prohibit the unnecessary removal of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior
to...development". The Tree Removal Chapter required a City permit prior to tree removal for all
undeveloped land,developed commercial and industrial land,and public land. The approval criteria for
permit issuance/denial included hazardous trees, necessity for construction,erosion,windthrow,
balance between shade and open space,aesthetics,and replanting plans. Emergency permits were
available through the police department for after hours emergencies.
Finally in 1983,Section 18.156 of the Code established a five foot planter strip width between the
sidewalk and curb on arterial and collector streets.
Page 8 of 43
Attachment 3
In 1985,Section 18.84(Sensitive Lands)of the Development Code prohibited development in or in close
proximity to significant wetlands. This provision resulted in the protection of trees within significant
wetlands.
In 1987,the Tigard Municipal Code was expanded to prohibit dead or hazardous trees that pose a threat
to the public and private property owners(Section 7.40.060). Section 7.40.090 prohibited the removal
of trees over 5 feet in height in greenways unless hazardous.
The Landscaping and Screening Chapter(18.100)was revised in 1987 and increased the number of
required parking lot trees from one tree for every ten parking spaces to one tree for every seven parking
spaces.
In 1997,Chapter 18.150(Tree Removal)was significantly revised. A tree plan by a certified arborist was
required"for the planting,removal and protection of trees"for a partition,subdivision,site
development review, planned development,and conditional use permit. Mitigation standards were
established in proportion to the number of trees and caliper inches removed and tree removal permits
were required for trees in sensitive lands. Incentives for tree retention were established,and guidelines
for mitigation and penalties were created. The 1997 Tree Removal Chapter is substantially similar to the
Chapter at the time of the writing of this document.
In 2001,the Tigard Triangle Design Standards(Chapter 18.620)established additional landscaping and
screening requirements for the Tigard Triangle(the area bound by Highways 5,99,and 217). The
requirements increased the caliper size for all required landscape and street trees, required a 5 foot tree
buffer between parking lots and major and minor arterials and specified tree spacing at 28 feet on
center. Additional drawings and specifications for street and landscape trees were included at the end
of the Chapter.
In 2002,Chaper 9.06(Trees on City Property)was created. The purposes of the Chapter were to guide
the planting, removal,maintenance,and protection of trees on City property. The Chapter also
authorized the adoption of a Street Tree List and Tree Manual in 2002,which provided further
specifications to implement the Code.
Chapters 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry
Design Standards)were established in 2002,and increased the caliper size of all required landscape and
street trees in the Washington Square and Bridgeport areas respectively.
In 2002,the Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 (previously 18.84)was significantly revised in order to
implement"Clean Water Services(CWS)Design and Construction Standards",the "Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan",and "Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources)". The revised
chapter required a CWS Stormwater Connection permit when tree removal occurs in sensitive lands.
Exemptions from these provisions included emergency repair,stream restoration projects, non-native
vegetation removal,and routine maintenance. The revised Chapter no longer required existing trees to
Page 9 of 43
Attachment 3
be identified on the site plan. The Sensitive Lands Chapter addressed Statewide Planning Goal 5 by
establishing development setbacks for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek,and the South Fork of
Ash Creek. It allowed for adjustments to dimensional standards such as setbacks, building heights,or lot
areas to preserve habitat and vegetation cover such as trees. It also allowed for density transfers in
order to better protect vegetated corridors.
In 2006,Chapter 9.08 (Heritage Trees)was established so that trees of landmark importance could be
officially recognized and protected. At the time of the writing of this document,two trees have been
officially designated as Heritage Trees.
In 2007,"Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard"Significant Habitat
Areas Map"was defined as sensitive lands in Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands). This expanded the
acreage where tree removal permits were required by roughly 450 acres. The Chapter was also revised
to allow for adjustments to development standards and reductions below minimum density
requirements to protect certain habitat areas.
While the City of Tigard has been involved in urban forestry activities for many years through Code
requirements and City tree planting and maintenance projects,an important milestone in its urban
forestry program came in 1998 with the hiring of its first urban forester.The urban forester position was
a member of the Public Works Department and was responsible for the management of all trees in City
parks,greenspaces,and right-of-ways. The urban forester also provided assistance to the Community
Development Department in reviewing development related tree plans,and enforcing mitigation and
other City requirements. When the Tigard Tree Board was established in 2001,the urban forester
became the staff liaison for the Tree Board.
In 2007,the position was transferred from the Public Works Department to the Community
Development Department and reclassified as Associate Planner/Arborist. The reason for the transfer
was the increased focus on development regulations,tree code revisions,and urban forestry planning
warranted a full time position with the responsible department. The urban forester position in Public
Works was not filled, resulting in a lack of coordinated management of the City's trees and greenspaces.
The Public Works Department is proposing to hire a greenspace coordinator in FY2010-2011 so that the
City-owned portion of the urban forest can once again receive comprehensive management.
The Tree Board,was established on January 23,2001 to develop and administer a comprehensive tree
management program for the maintenance, removal,replacement and protection of trees on public
property.On May 22,2007 the mission of the board was expanded to develop a "City Tree Stewardship
and Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in part to ensure tree code revisions occurred in a
comprehensive manner. The Board is comprised of local volunteers,and is instrumental in developing
and administering Tigard's tree policies.
Following over a year of work by the Tree Board and multiple public workshops and hearings,City
Council approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002 on June 3,2008 adding an Urban Forest
Page 10 of 43
Attachment 3
section to the Comprehensive Plan. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two
goals to be implemented by 22 policies that the City will implement over the following 25 years until the
Comprehensive Plan is revised. Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City shall
develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan." This Plan is intended to
meet this policy requirement. Other policies will be met through improved operational procedures,
urban forestry program establishment,and Code amendments. -
Tigard has been named a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation every year since 2001.
The four standards for Tree City USA designation are:a tree board or department;a tree care ordinance;
a comprehensive community forestry program;and an Arbor Day observance. For the first time in 2009,
Tigard received a Tree City USA growth award for its expanded urban forestry efforts.
This historical data could be summarized into a timeline.
Current Conditions:Geography and the Environment
The City of Tigard is located in Washington County in northwestern Oregon.The City has grown steadily
since its incorporation in 1961,and has an area today of 11.71 square miles or 7,556 acres. It is centrally
located in the Portland metropolitan region, located 10 miles southwest of downtown Portland and
adjacent to Portland's southwestern border and the cities of Beaverton,Tualatin, King City, Lake
Oswego,and Durham (City of Tigard,2008).
Tigard has an abundance of natural resources within the City limits including many creeks and wetlands,
Fanno Creek,the Tualatin River,tree groves,specimen trees,and fish and wildlife species that find
habitat in the City. In 2007,Tigard had 1,853 acres of tree canopy with 3%of that canopy in groves of
one acre or larger in size. There are also 291 acres of local wetlands and 705 acres of stream corridors
within the City. More tree canopy data can be found below.
The native soils in Tigard are predominately Class I-IV,which is considered relatively high value soil for
agricultural production (including trees)(Hulse et al., 2002). The primary soil type in the Tigard area is
"Aloha silt loam"which is categorized as"somewhat poorly drained" (USDA,2009). However, it is
important to note that native soils in Tigard have been significantly disrupted by agricultural and
subsequent urban development. These activities alter soil structure,soil type (when soils are imported
and exported), lead to heavy compaction and contamination,and can generally impact a site's ability to
support healthy trees(Urban, 2008).
Current Conditions:Population and Growth
In the City of Tigard,transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. From the first
railroad tracks that established Tigardville,to the development of Highway 99W straight through its
center,Tigard's commercial areas developed along primary routes,and residential development
followed nearby.
Page 11 of 43
Attachment 3
In 2006,the City of Tigard had 46,715 residents. In the current decade,the average population growth is
approximately 4.4%. Tigard's population continues to grow incrementally(City of Tigard,2008).
Tigard businesses provide 37,861 full and part time jobs.Considering that 70%of Tigard residents work
outside the City,thousands of workers from throughout the region are regularly commuting to Tigard
jobs(City of Tigard, 2008).
Almost 70%of Tigard is zoned residential,with remaining lands evenly divided between commercial,
industrial,and mixed used. There is approximately 528 acres or 7%of the land area remaining in the
City that is developable. However,there is redevelopment potential that will allow residences and
businesses to expand upwards and/or outwards. The bulk of redevelopment is likely to occur in Tigard's
downtown urban renewal zone which is 191 acres.
Current Conditions:Canopy
A canopy approach has been used to document and define current urban forest conditions. This allows
for the tracking of urban forest extent and change on both public and private property on a Citywide
scale. The City partnered with Metro in conducting this analysis.
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 the City to do a comparative analysis of tree cover
change in the community spanning a ten year period. 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. Full
results on the study can be found in the appendix.
Highlights of the canopy data collected include:
• 25%(1996)vs.24%(2007)Citywide Canopy.
• 63 canopy clusters>5 acres(1996)vs.48 canopy clusters>5 acres(2007). This represents over
50%decline in large sized canopy clusters since 1996.
• 4,356 canopy clusters<.5 acres(1996)vs. 7,231 canopy clusters<.5 acres(2007). This represents a
66%increase in small sized clusters since 1996.
• 1,423 acres of buildable lands(1996)vs.529 acres of buildable lands(2007). This represents a 63%
decrease in buildable lands since 1996 and demonstrates that 7%of Tigard consists of buildable
lands.
• Canopy coverage on remaining buildable lands is 42%.
• If all canopy was removed from remaining buildable lands,citywide tree canopy would decline from
24%to 21%(12.5%decrease).
• City of Tigard Land Area is 7,556 acres with 5,448 acres that are private and 2,108 acres that are
public.
• City of Tigard property(388 acres) has 46%canopy.
• Public Right-of-Way(1,288 acres) has 9%canopy.
Page 12 of 43
Attachment 3
• Other Public Entities(432 acres) have 24%canopy.
• Private Property(5,448) 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).
• Sensitive lands(100 year flood plain, natural drainageways,steep slopes,and significant habitat
areas)are approximately 2,230 acres or 30%of Tigard's land area. Canopy coverage on sensitive
lands is approximately 43%.
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 provisions 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%).
• 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.
• Sensitive lands areas are mostly protected from development and other human activities.
Increasing and improving canopy in these areas will have long term impact in addition to
environmental benefits.
Current Conditions:Policy Framework
Federal/State/Regional Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal,State,and Regional requirements when
managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities that
further progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent major
Federal,State,and Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban forest
management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF) is responsible for administering the Forest Practices Act
(FPA). The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and ensure that
forests remain healthy and productive.The Oregon Legislature has given cities the authority to regulate
Page 13 of 43
Attachment 3
forests in place of having ON administer the FPA as long as the local options meet the FPA's minimum
standard (Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development, 1999).
To meet the standards, local forest practice regulations must:
• Protect soil,air,water,fish and wildlife resources;
• Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals;
• Be developed through a public process;
• Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices;and
• Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development(Oregon Department of Forestry,2008).
Oregon Department of Transportation
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) manages approximately 283 acres of right-of-way in
the City of Tigard including Hall Boulevard,and Highways 217,5,and 99W. ODOT Bulletin RD06-03(B)
provides specifications for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT right-of-ways. These
specifications are intended to balance the need for safety along State roadways with trees,and
supersede Tigard street tree requirements within City limits.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD)administers Oregon's Statewide
Land Use Planning Program and ensures that the comprehensive plans of Oregon cities comply with
Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with 12 of the 19 Oregon Statewide
Land Use Planning Goals.
The following statewide planning goals directly relate to the urban forestry in Tigard:
Goal S."To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces."This
goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including fish and wildlife
habitats,stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies can further progress
towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental,and energy(ESEE)analyses are
required to protect Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6."To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state." It is
well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality improvement.
Goal 7.'To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards."Trees roots,canopies,and
leaf litter in natural hazard areas help to prevent erosion and flooding(Portland Urban Forest
Management Plan).
Page 14 of 43
Attachment 3
Goal 10."To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state."This goal requires the City to
balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban
land.
Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and
coordinated with relevant Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
which is described in more detail below.
DLCD has approved or"acknowledged"the City's Comprehensive Plan (including the Urban Forest
section)as being in compliance with statewide planning goals, and consistent with Metro requirements
(Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development,2009).
Oregon Division of State Lands
The Oregon Division of State Lands(DSL)establishes criteria and procedures for the identification of
wetlands. In 1997,Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory was approved by DSL.Approval by DSL means that
the inventory meets State standards,and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands Inventory and
must be used in lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009).
Development in these areas is regulated by a variety of federal,state, regional,and local laws. Tigard
Development Code Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands)contains specific provisions to protect wetlands
from development and requires concurrent approvals from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Oregon
Division of State Lands,and Clean Water Services.As a result,trees and native vegetation in Local
Wetlands gain a highly protected status.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)is responsible for protecting Oregon's air
quality by issuing permits,developing programs,and monitoring air pollution to ensure communities
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to protect Oregon's pristine views.Air
pollutants identified in the 2005 DEQ Air Quality Report as the greatest concern in Oregon are:Ground-
level ozone,commonly known as smog; Fine particulate matter; Hazardous air pollutants;and Carbon
monoxide(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009).
Regional efforts have been established to monitor and plan for pollutants.The City of Tigard is part of
the Portland Area Airshed (PAA),which is defined by the Metro service boundary.The DEQ is
responsible for ensuring the PAA meets the national standards,and for developing the necessary plans
to continue compliance.Currently,the PAA meets all NAAQS standards. However, DEQ is required to
develop maintenance plans for carbon monoxide and ozone to ensure continued compliance (City of
Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009).
Trees have a natural ability to convert and sequester compounds that contribute to air pollution. Trees
also offset power plant emissions by shading and sheltering buildings from sun and wind (McPherson et
Page 15 of 43
Attachment 3
al.,2002). At the local level,the City can protect existing natural areas and mature trees,and promote
and participate in tree planting efforts to improve air quality and decrease building energy usage.
Within urban areas,air quality is often much worse along major roadways. Trees strategically planted
along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants and improve air quality before
exhaust is released in the atmosphere(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
DEQ is also charged with establishing standards, regulating,and monitoring Oregon's waters for
compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA)and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)(COMP PLAN). Within Tigard, run-off from impervious surfaces, pet waste,and erosion/
sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution. Planting and maintaining tree
canopy,water quality facility construction and maintenance (vegetated swales and retention basins),
and stream corridor and wetland enhancements are all urban forestry activities that help to improve
water quality and meet State and Federal requirements(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Oregon Public Utility Commission
The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulates utility industries to ensure that customers receive
safe and reliable services at reasonable rates. In order to ensure safety,the PUC requires Portland
General Electric to maintain zones surrounding overhead utility lines clear of trees for safety and in
order to help prevent outages. The result is increased maintenance costs and trees that become
eyesores as a result of heavy pruning. Portland General Electric spends approximately$500,000
annually pruning trees away from the utility lines(Chad Burns, PGE, personal communication 10/6/08).
These costs are passed on to utility ratepayers. The urban forestry-program can help to decrease
maintenance costs and improve the aesthetic quality of local trees by aiding in the selection of
appropriate trees near overhead lines(Oregon Public Utility Commission,2009).
Metro
Metro helps the region's cities implement Statewide Planning Goals through the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan (functional plan). Metro cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans
and implementing regulations that correspond with the titles and policies in the functional plan. The
functional plan contains 13 titles,some of which directly or indirectly impact urban forest management
in Tigard. DLCD has acknowledged Tigard's Comprehensive Plan as_being in compliance with statewide
planning goals,and consistent with Metro's functional plan (Metro, 2009). The following excerpts from
the functional plan have significant impact on urban forestry in Tigard:
Title 1 of the functional plan is intended to meet Statewide Planning Goal 10, and focuses on increasing
housing capacity in order to use land within Urban Growth Boundaries(an invisible line that separates
rural areas from suburban)efficiently. To meet Title 1,each jurisdiction was required to determine its
housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements.Tigard adopted an 80%of minimum density
requirement for development in 1998,which means that a development must build 80%of the
maximum units allowed by the zoning designation (City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009). The
Page 16 of 43
Attachment 3
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP)and others have cited this requirement
as a significant impediment to preserving trees in urban areas, particularly for those properties that are
zoned for high density.
Title 3 protects the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards,controlling
soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements Statewide Planning
Goals 5,6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers,wetlands and floodplains by avoiding, limiting or
mitigating development impacts on these areas. The areas subject to these requirements have been
mapped and adopted by the Metro Council,specifically,the FEMA 100-year floodplain and the area of
inundation for the February 1996 flood. Title 3 also protects rivers and streams with buffers that are
typically 50 feet wide, requires erosion and sediment control, planting of native vegetation on stream
banks when new development occurs,and prohibits the storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous
material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in significant protection and enhancement of that portion
of the urban forest in streams and floodways. Finally,Title 3 establishes performance standards to
protect regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas to implement Statewide Goal 5(Metro,
2009).
Title 12 of the functional plan protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from increasing
density in certain areas and requiring easy access to parks and greenspaces for City residents(Metro,
2009).
Title 13 is intended to"(1)conserve, protect,and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside
corridor system,from the streams'headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers,and
with their floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the
surrounding urban landscape;and (2)to control and prevent water pollution for the protection of the
public health and safety,and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region" (Metro,
2009).
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat designated as
"highest"value(i.e.Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean Water Services
Vegetated Corridor).An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat situated outside the Clean
Water Services'vegetated corridor are designated as"moderate"value. In addition,422 acres of non-
Class I and II riparian resources within the City are designated as"lowest"value,including both upland
forests and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest and moderate value habitat are currently
protected through other regulatory processes and agencies such as CWS. The lowest value habitat
consists of primarily upland forests and is currently vulnerable.Additional ESEE analyses would be
required to protect lower value habitat and additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the future
(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). At the time of the writing of this document,the City of
Tigard has proposed budgeting funds in FY2009-10 to protect additional upland tree resources.
Clean Water Services
Page 17 of 43
Attachment 3
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services(CWS),the surface water management and sanitary
sewer system utility for urban Washington County,to protect local water resources.Through CWS
Design and Construction Standards, local governments in the Tualatin Basin (including Tigard)developed
a unified program to address water quality and flood management-requirements for Title 3 of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
In 2002,the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within,and adjacent to,sensitive
water resource areas,including streams,through standards in the CWS Design and Construction
Standards.The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers, ranging from 15 to 200 feet wide,
and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition. Native trees over 6 inches in
diameter in vegetated corridors are protected,and their removal requires replacement on a tree for
tree basis. In addition, land-use applicants proposing development near streams and wetlands are
required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior to submitting a land use
application to the City(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS' Healthy Streams Plan (June 2005).The goal of
this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for community benefit by recommending a number
of policy and program refinements,as well as outlining a capital projects program.The capital projects
focus on stream preservation and enhancement,flow restoration,community tree planting,stormwater
outfall and culvert replacement. Tigard's Public Works Department is instrumental is achieving the goals
of the Healthy Streams Plan through its Surface Water Quality program(City of Tigard,Comprehensive
Plan, 2009). Many of goals of the Healthy Streams Plans are met through proper urban forest
management activities such as invasive species control and streamside tree canopy restoration.
Large municipalities typically have NPDES permits for their wastewater treatment facilities and for
stormwater runoff,called a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4) permit. In urban Washington
County,which includes the City of Tigard,the permits have been combined and are held by CWS.The
combined permit was issued for the entire Tualatin River watershed to guide a basin-wide effort to
improve water quality. It requires CWS to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and a Wastewater
Management Plan to DEQ.These two plans outline the best management practices that CWS, its
member cities,and Washington County commit to employ to reduce pollutant discharges, regulate
temperature,and comply with any Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels that have been established
(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). Trees and urban forests are excellent stormwater managers
and contribute to the achievement of water quality goals,yet are not typically addressed in Stormwater
Management Plans.
Findings from Federal/State/Regional Policy Framework:
• A significant portion of Tigard's urban forest is mandated for protection by a variety of Federal,
State,and Regional regulations due to its location on sensitive lands (40%of 2007 citywide tree
canopy was on sensitive lands).
Page 18 of 43
Attachment 3
• Protecting the portion of the urban forest on buildable lands(12%of 2007 citywide tree canopy was
on buildable lands) must be balanced with State, Metro,and City planning goals and regulations that
favor density within urban areas.
• Any future revisions to regulations impacting trees and forests within Tigard must be compatible
with Federal,State,and Regional requirements.
• Sound urban forestry practices have positive externalities which further progress towards other
jurisdictional goals such as clean air and water. Future urban forest programming may be eligible
for receiving credits for urban forest benefits.
• Other jurisdictions such as the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission control the management of significant portions of Tigard's urban forest. Urban forest
programs and policies need to be coordinated with other managing jurisdictions.
City of Tigard Policy Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's"land use constitution." It is the document that
provides the broad policy basis for Tigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions
relating to the use of land in the City.The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will
implement state and regional requirements, including Oregon's land use planning goals and related
laws,state administrative rules,and applicable Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan
contains goals, policies and recommended action measures that identify the intent of the City to
accomplish certain results.The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two(2)goals,
22 policies,and 11 action measures specific to urban forestry in Tigard(include in appendix). The goals
and policies are obligations the City wishes to assume.The City must follow relevant goals and policy
statements when developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. Therefore,the Urban
Forestry Master Plan and future revisions to the tree ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired
end, but do not signify an obligation themselves.The discretion to what degree Plan policies are
implemented belongs primarily to the City Council(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009).
Zoning Map
The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of development,as well as applicable Code provisions such as
density requirements. As a result, zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a
given site.
Code Provisions
Page 19 of 43
Attachment 3
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and
urban forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code
provisions,as well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight(8)
feet over sidewalks and ten (10)feet over streets(section 7.40.060:A). It also prohibits owners from
retaining dead or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property(section 7.40.060.6).
However,there is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that
are in imminent danger of falling.
Section 7.40.050(Noxious Vegetation) requires property owners to maintain vegetation and weeds so
that they do not become unsightly or a hazard. However, it is unclear if invasive species control is
required by this Code provision.
Section 7.40.090(Greenway Maintenance)establishes standards for greenway maintenance and
prohibits the removal of non-hazardous trees over five(5)feet in height in greenways. However,the
term"greenway" is not well defined.
Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property) regulates the planting, maintenance,and removal of trees on City
property including parks and public right-of-ways. It also authorizes Council to adopt by resolution a
Tree Manual that provides detailed tree related standards and the City to create an approved Street
Tree List.The Chapter defines a "tree"as a standing woody plant with a trunk diameter of two(2) inches
at 4.5 feet above ground level. Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)defines a "tree"at six(6)inches in
diameter at four(4)feet above ground level.
Section 9.06.030(Tree Planting)requires written permission from the City prior to planting street trees
or trees on public property. Section 9.06.050(Tree Protection) requires development projects on City
property to protect trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060(Removal
of Hazardous Trees from City Property)obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City
property and prioritize their removal based on the level of hazard.
Section 9.06.070(Removal of Trees from City Property) requires written permission for tree removal
from City property and right-of-way,and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual.
The Tree Manual,which was adopted in 2002, provides detailed specifications for Chapter 9.06.
However,administering the provisions in the Tree Manual are challenging because there are some
conflicts with Code provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example,street tree planting
specifications in section 030 of the Tree Manual are different than the street tree planting specifications
in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening). Also,the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks
and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally, referencing
the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of the Manual does not correspond
with the sections in the body.
Page 20 of 43
Attachment 3
A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual,but there it is unclear
what triggers the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be.
Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains the requirements for the City's Heritage Tree Program. The
Chapter recognizes and protects trees or stands of trees on public or private property that are
designated to be of landmark importance due to age,size,species, horticultural quality or historical
importance. Participation in the program is voluntary and administered by the Tree Board,City Council,
and staff.
Title 18(Community Development Code)defines a tree as a standing woody plant with a trunk that is
two(2)inches in diameter at four(4)feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the
definitions of tree in Chapter 9.06 and 18.790 of the Code.
Chapter 18.330(Conditional Use)authorizes the hearings officer to require conditional use
developments to improve landscaping and increase tree and habitat preservation as a condition of
development approval.
Chapter 18.350(Planned Developments)states as one of its purposes"to preserve to the greatest
extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities(trees,water resources, ravines,etc.)
through the use of a planning procedure(site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives,
conceptual review,then detailed review)that can relate the type and design of a development to a
particular site". Specific provisions in the Chapter require plans that identify areas of significant natural
resources and methods for their maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. Planned
Developments are approved by a Type III process by the Planning Commission. Therefore, Planning
Commissioners have discretionary authority to require that sites are developed in a manner that trees
and other natural features are incorporated into the project design. However,the Home Builders'
Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP)and others have commented that the Planned
Development provisions are in need of revision because they are not conducive to infill development.
The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090, includes many provisions
requiring the preservation of trees and natural areas. For example,approval criteria A.2.a requires
buildings to be"...located to preserve existing trees...where possible based upon existing site
conditions". The approval criteria also requires trees to be preserve_ d to the extent possible(A.2.b)and
the use of innovative methods to preserve fish and wildlife habitat located on the"Significant Habitat
Areas Map". Site Development Review applications are reviewed and approved by staff through a Type
II process which limits the amount of staff discretion. Therefore,the non-specific approval criteria
above does not provide the tools needed to implement tree and habitat preservation.
Chapter 18.370(Variances and Adjustments)allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street
trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening) if
there are space constraints.
Page 21 of 43
Attachment 3
Section 18.385.040(Sensitive Land Permits)requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep
slopes,drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these
areas. Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section
18.790.050 of the Code. However,there is no tree protection plan requirement(section 18.790.030)for
development within sensitive lands.
Chapters 18.510, 18.520,and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential,commercial
(including mixed use),and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum
landscaping requirements, minimum and maximum density requirements, minimum building setback
requirements,and minimum lot sizes and dimensions. These standards may have the greatest impact
on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center Design
Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards) increase the caliper size of all required
landscape and street trees in those planning areas. Some of the planting provisions in these special
planning areas conflict which make interpretation difficult. For example,the landscaping and screening
provisions in section 18.620.070, require tree spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However,the
provisions on page 18 of the Triangle Design Standards specify one parking lot tree for every seven
parking spaces(this creates spacing of more than 28 feet on center). In addition the definition of tree
types on page 18 are overly specific and therefore difficult to apply.
Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree, parking lot tree, buffer tree,and other
landscaping requirements. The Chapter specifies that it is applicable to all development,but it does not
detail what types of permits trigger the standards. The landscaping provisions are administratively
applied to those developments that require a tree plan (section 18.790.030). The General Provisions
(Chapter 18.745.030) require trees and landscaping to be appropriately planted, pruned, maintained,
and protected during development. However,there is a lack of specificity in these requirements that
make it challenging to ensure that trees and landscaping are properly installed, protected,and
maintained. Section 18.745.040(Street Trees)specifies the location and spacing of variously sized street
trees. However,these specifications differ from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also,there is
no minimum spacing requirement for street trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks
and streets in Chapter 18.745.040 are different than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual.
Section 18.745.050(Buffering and Screening) requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer
between differing land uses, aesthetics,and to provide shading for parking lots. The parking lot tree
requirements(18.745.050.E) have not resulted in successful shading of parking lots. This is likely due to
the limited soil volumes the provisions allow(minimum parking island dimensions are three feet by
three feet)and the lack of specificity on installation requirements(e.g. irrigation is not specified for
parking lot trees).
The Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 protects sensitive lands for safety,functionality,and fish and wildlife
habitat. It also implements"Clean Water Services(CWS) Design and Construction Standards",the
Page 22 of 43
Attachment 3
"Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan","Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)"
and meets the National Flood Insurance Program requirements. The chapter requires a CWS
Stormwater Connection permit when tree removal occurs in sensitive lands(section 18.775.020.A.9).
Lawns and gardens are permitted in sensitive lands except in"CWS Water Quality Sensitive Areas or
Vegetated Corridors"and"the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River"
(18.775.020.6.1). Exemptions from the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair,
stream restoration projects, non-native vegetation removal,and routine maintenance as long as they
comply with City Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management(section 18.775.020.C).
Section 18.775.020.D requires development to obtain permits from regulating jurisdictions such as the
Army Corps of Engineers or CWS prior to development in jurisdictional wetlands. Section 18.775.070
specifies the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits.Section 18.775.100 allows for adjustments to
dimensional standards such as setbacks, building heights,or lot areas to preserve habitat and vegetation
cover such as trees. Section 18.775.110 allows for density transfers in order to better protect vegetated
corridors. While tree removal permits are required for sensitive lands areas by section 18.790.050,and
habitat protection is a stated purpose for the sensitive lands chapter,there are no implementing
provisions in either Code Chapter that explicitly require the protection of trees and forests in sensitive
lands.
Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal) is what most people think of as the"Tree Code". This portion of the
code regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects, requires
tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands,and prescribes the penalties for illegal tree removal. It
also prohibits commercial forestry within the City limits. Section 18.790.020 provides definitions for
some of the words used in.the Chapter. Many have commented that some of the definitions need
revision or clarification. For example,a "tree" is defined as a woody plant with a diameter of six inches
when measured four feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definition of tree in
the Municipal Code and does not account for trees that are less than six inches such as required
mitigation trees. Also,the definition of"hazardous tree" is non-specific and could potentially include
trees that are not intended to be defined as hazardous such as those in a forested area with little
potential of striking people or other high value targets. Finally,the definition of commercial forestry is
specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre, per year. The definition is unclear whether
the acreage should measured for the entire property,or for the stand of trees where the removal is
occurring.
Section 18.790.030(Tree Plan Requirement)requires a tree protection, removal,and replacement plan
for Subdivision,Partition,Site Development Review,Planned Development,and Conditional Use
projects. Missing from the list are Sensitive Lands projects, building additions,demolitions,and other
development projects with significant potential to result in tree damage or removal.
Tree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an "inch for inch" basis. Therefore,developers are
required to replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site
with an equivalent amount of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example, if a 24 inch tree is
Page 23 of 43
Attachment 3
removed from a development site,the City may require replacement with up to 12,two inch diameter
trees.
Also,as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased,the percentage of replacement trees
required for mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet
mitigation requirements as well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation
requirements.
If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees,there is a fee in lieu of planting option
(18.790.060.E)to cover the City's cost of replanting. This fee is currently assessed as$125 per diameter
inch removed, and viewed as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also,the
methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to
the legitimacy of the$125 per inch figure.
The tree protection requirements of the tree plan are not defined,and are left to the discretion of the
project arborist. This has resulted in wide inconsistencies between protection methods for
development projects,and limits the City's ability to require increased levels of tree protection.
Trees removed within a period of one year before a development application are required to be
inventoried and mitigated as part of the tree plan. This provision has created a loophole that some
developers have exploited by removing trees from a site,waiting one year, and then submitting a
development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements.
Section 18.790.040(Incentives for Tree Retention) provides developers incentives and flexibility options
in order to preserve trees. However,the incentives are seldom utilized, and often criticized for their
impracticality. Many in the development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so
that they are more appealing and practical for developers.
Section 18.790.040.6 requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed
restriction. This requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived
and difficult to quickly and easily assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after
development.
Section 18.790.050(Permit Applicability) requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas.
However,the approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by
trees. Therefore, if an appropriate erosion control plan is provided by the applicant,any or all trees may
be removed from sensitive lands areas. While hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements,
there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree and who is qualified to deem a tree
hazardous.
Section 18.790.060(Illegal Tree Removal)outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the
tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation. The tree replacement requirements in
Page 24 of 43
Attachment 3
18.790.060.D are vague and difficult to administer. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing
requirements,which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation
trees. There is also little specificity on species requirements,which tend to lead to the planting of small
stature and narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the"inch for inch"
replanting requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the
tree illegally removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous
condition of the tree. One solution may be to set a minimum penalty for cases where there is no
evidence of the species or condition of the illegally removed tree.
Section 18.810(Street and Utility Improvement Standards)specifies the minimum planting strip width
for street trees(5 feet per table 18.810.1)and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect
trees, habitat areas,and other existing natural feature(section 18.810.030.7). Section 18.810.070.0
allows adjustments to planting strip widths to protect existing trees and natural features. Currently the
City adheres to standard specifications for street widths from curb to curb regardless of existing trees
and natural features. The City does actively allow adjustments to sidewalk and planter strip standards in
order to preserve trees. Finally,the five foot standard planter strip width limits the selection of large
stature street trees due to the high likelihood of tree root damage to curbs and sidewalks. There are
currently no street tree planting specifications such as the use of root barriers aimed at reducing future
tree root conflicts.
Findings from City of Tigard Policy Framework:
• The Comprehensive Plan complies with State and Regional requirements and contains two (2)goals
and 22 policies specific to urban forestry that must be adhered to when developing other urban
forestry plans or ordinances which affect land use.
• The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan,and frames the type and intensity of
development for various areas of the City. Code provisions in Chapter 18.500 provide specification
for development based on development in the various zones. These Development Code provisions
may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
• Tree and forest related Code provisions are scattered throughout the Municipal Code and the
Development Code. Some of the Code provisions in the Municipal Code and Development Code
conflict.
• Tree provisions in Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)of the Municipal Code address hazardous trees and
vegetation. There is lack of specificity in the provisions,thus limiting their ability to be enforced.
There is also no program established to abate immediate hazards.
• Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)of the Municipal regulates public trees. The Chapter contains
definitions and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code. The Chapter and
associated Tree Manual also lack specificity regarding when the Code provisions are applicable and
how they can be met.
• Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter.
• Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and
habitat preservation,but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation.
Page 25 of 43
Attachment 3
• Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center
Design Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards)contain provisions that increase
the type and size of landscaping in these districts. Some of the provisions within the Chapter
conflict.
• Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree, parking lot tree, buffer tree,and
other landscaping requirements during development. The Chapter lacks a level of specificity to
ensure that trees are properly installed, protected,and maintained after development. Planting and
maintenance provisions differ from those in the Municipal Code,and parking lot tree.requirements
have not been successful at providing long term canopy.
• Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands) protects steep slopes,drainageways,floodplains,and wetlands
from development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
• Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal) regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of
development projects. Some development such as development in sensitive lands and building
additions are not subject to the Chapter's provisions even though there is significant likelihood that
trees will be impacted.
• Some of the definitions within Chapter 18.790 are inconsistent with those in the Municipal Code and
lack clarity making them difficult to administer.
• Mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch" basis is required by Chapter 18.790,and seen as
excessive by many in the development community. It also contributes to overplanting of trees.
• The fee in lieu of mitigation tree planting is$125 per caliper inch,which is also seen by developers
as excessive. The methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in
many questions as to its legitimacy.
• There is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some developers have exploited by removing trees from
a site,waiting one year,and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree
mitigation requirements.
• Incentives for tree preservation in Chapter 18.790 are not appealing or practical for developers.
• Tree Removal permits are required for trees in sensitive lands by Chapter 18.790, but the approval
criteria do not require preservation as long as erosion is adequately controlled.
• Penalties for illegal tree removal in Chapter 18.790 can be challenging to apply when the condition
and species of the tree removed are not known.
• The tree replacement guidelines in Chapter 18.790 lack specificity and are difficult to administer,
especially with regards to species and spacing requirements.
• Throughout the Code,tracking of protected trees is a continual challenge in the years and decades
after development is complete.
Current Conditions:Community Values
Over the past several years,community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard citizens place high value on
trees and the urban forest.Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show that residents value
their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows for views of trees and other natural areas.
The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey found "the protection of trees and natural resource areas"as
Page 26 of 43
Attachment 3
rating the highest of all"livability"characteristics posed to the respondents,scoring 8.4 out of 10 points.
Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored higher on resident's livability index than
neighborhood traffic(8.2), maintaining existing lot sizes(7.8), pedestrian and bike paths (7.7),and
compatibility between existing and new development(7.6).A follow-up question contained in the 2007
survey revealed that 84%of Tigard residents supported regulations to protect existing trees,with only
6%strongly disagreeing and 9%somewhat disagreeing. In addition,90%of Tigard residents thought the
City should take the lead in preserving open space(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan, 2009).
An independent,scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected citizens about their attitudes
towards existing and potential urban forestry policies and programs was completed by Steve Johnson
and Associates in December of 2008. The survey was funded in part by a grant from the Oregon
Department of Forestry and USDA Forest Service. The survey was conducted in order to allow for a
more detailed understanding of community attitudes to urban forestry issues in Tigard. The exact
questions and complete results from the survey are included in the appendix.
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.
• 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).
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 quality of the urban forest,
and expanding it in the future.
• 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.
Page 27 of 43
Attachment 3
Coordination:City of Tigard Internal Coordination
The City of Tigard has multiple departments,divisions,boards,and commissions that administer and
implement the urban forestry program. Below are the major groups and their roles.
Community Development Department
Current Planning
The Current Planning Division is responsible for applying and enforcing the tree ordinance and landscape
requirements for private development projects. They also review City projects for conformance to
applicable City codes and standards.
Long Range Planning
The Long Range,Planning Division helps guide City policy,by analyzing global and local urban forestry
trends and making recommendations specific to Tigard through community involvement. Among Long
Range projects are developing Comprehensive Plan policies specific to trees and ensuring Tigard's tree
policies and regulations comply with regional,state,and federal standards.
Development Engineering
Development Engineering is responsible for ensuring all private development projects meet the
provisions of the Development Code,the City's Public Improvement Design Standards and other local
and state regulations. Development Engineering coordinates the protection of trees in right-of-ways
and planting of street trees during private development. Development engineering also inspects new
plantings in water quality facilities and vegetated corridors for compliance with CWS requirements.
Capital Construction and Transportation
The Capital Construction&Transportation Division designs and constructs capital improvement projects
in accordance with City standards. The Capital Improvement Program within the Division manages the
capital improvement projects for public streets and utilities and prepares facilities plans for future
improvement needs. The Division ensures that existing trees are protected and new trees are planted in
conformance with City standards wherever possible.
Building
The Building Division responsibilities focus on reviewing residential and commercial building plans,
issuing permits,and inspection of construction projects to ascertain compliance with the State Building
Page 28 of 43
Attachment 3
Codes. The Division routes building plans to ensure compliance with tree preservation and planting
requirements.
Public Works Department
Parks
The Parks Division provides a variety of options for recreation,while protecting the area's natural
beauty and providing valuable wildlife habitat. The Division manages trees and habitat areas in 181.25
acres of developed parks and 202.4 acres in undeveloped parks(greenways,wetlands,etc.).
Streets
The Street Maintenance Division is responsible for the maintenance of 139 miles of streets as well as off-
street bicycle paths. The Street Maintenance Division coordinates with the City Arborist when they
notice a potential tree hazard that may impact a public street and if root pruning is required during
street maintenance. The Street Maintenance Division also clears fallen trees and branches that fall in
public streets and prunes tree limbs away from street lights.
Wastewater/Storms
The Wastewater/Storm staff is responsible for the maintenance of the sewer and storm water systems.
In partnership with Clean Water Services,the wastewater staff completes stream restoration and
enhancement projects intended to improve water quality, reduce erosion,and provide shade,structure
and food sources to fish and other wildlife. Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and
riparian areas will result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Wastewater staff also manages trees and other vegetation in water quality
facilities that treat stormwater prior to entering the stormwater system.
City Administration
City Council
Tigard City Council ensures that city services provided to citizens are cost effective and are delivered
without interruption. Council represents Tigard's interests in regional and statewide issues and
coordinates with other agencies and jurisdictions. Council is responsible for providing policy direction to
City staff,and adopting urban forestry plans,ordinances, and resolutions that meet the needs of the
community.
Risk Management
Page 29 of 43
Attachment 3
The Risk Management Division anticipates what could happen to hurt people,assets,finances,and
service capabilities and looks for ways to limit the chance of damage. Risk Management provides
assistance regarding hazard tree programming and other urban forestry programs that expose the City
to liability.
Financial and Information Services
Information Technology
Information Technology(IT)is responsible for all technical aspects of the City including GIS technologies.
IT provides assistance for the tracking of tree plans,tree inventories,and linking tree mitigation fund
expenditures to mitigation locations on City maps.
Finance
Finance coordinates the annual financial planning and budget processes, maintains all City accounts and
financial records, bills for water and sewer services,manages central purchasing and collects Tigard's
Business License fees. Finance helps coordinate tree fund expenditures and deposits, park bonds,and
urban forestry related capital improvement programs.
Boards and Committees
Tree Board
The Tigard Tree Board develops and administers Tigard's tree policies,plans,and ordinances.The Board
was established in 2001 to develop and administer a comprehensive tree management program for the
maintenance, removal, replacement and protection of trees on public property. In 2007,the mission of
the board was expanded to develop a comprehensive City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest
Enhancement Program throughout the city.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is to advise and advocate for park and
recreation opportunities for Tigard.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission's responsibilities include assisting the City Council to develop, maintain,
update and implement Tigard's Comprehensive Plan,to formulate Tigard's Capital Improvements
Program,and to review and take action on development projects and development code provisions
delegated to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the
Page 30 of 43
Attachment 3
Urban Forestry Master Plan,the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan,and revisions to the
Tree Code.
Budget Committee
The Budget Committee is responsible for deliberating on the Proposed Budget submitted by the City
Manager and for sending the Approved Budget to the City Council for adoption.The Committee also
approves tax levies.
In order to provide for more effective administration of the urban forestry program, key City staff
members that have a role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs, policies,
and ordinances held a meeting to discuss urban forestry coordination issues, and identify those areas
where coordination could be improved. 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).
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);
Page 31 of 43
Attachment 3
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital
Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces(Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks, Risk);
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets);
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks);
14.Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is
awareness of this Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation, Public Works);
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and
planting(Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT/GIS, Finance);
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7)(Planning/Arborist, Engineering); and
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 further 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 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.
Page 32 of 43
Attachment 3
• 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);
• 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.
Page 33 of 43
Attachment 3
6. No inventory of street trees(Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees prior to
final approval.The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing street trees
outside development process.
• GPS actual locations of street trees planted 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.
• For deed restricted trees,the City can require a protection plan for building additions that complies
with the original tree protection plan for the development project.
• For trees in sensitive lands,the City can restrict access/building within the driplines of trees through
the use of tree protection fencing.Section 18.790.060 prohibits damage to a protected tree or its
root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development
(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works);_
• City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable City rules and
regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion.
Page 34 of 43
Attachment 3
• 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.
• 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.
Page 35 of 43
Attachment 3
• 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 afterhours number(503-639-
1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract
arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an
immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division for follow up the following business
day if the hazard is not immediate.The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined
above.
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on City property,they
should be forwarded the Public Works front desk(503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division manager,who will in turn
assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard,the responsible division will contact the citizen and close the case.
• if the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard,the responsible division will contact the City's
contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available)to
abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination whether the tree
should be retained, monitored, removed,or further investigated by the contract arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one"borderline"call per week on average. If the time
commitment is significantly more,the process may need to be reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works afterhours 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.
Page 36 of 43
Attachment 3
• Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from tree removal
permit requirements.
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT/GIS, Finance);
• 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);and
• The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in the Tigard Development
Code in all cases, regardless of existing trees.
• However,during the development review process,when a healthy and sustainable tree in the right-
of-way is identified by the project arborist and/or City Arborist, Development Engineering will allow
adjustments to planter strip and/or sidewalk standards on a case by case basis.
• The City does not currently have the authority to require private developers to preserve trees if they
choose not to.
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets).
• If the street tree is the responsibility of the City,the corresponding division will maintain the
clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal Code.
• If a citizen complaint is received,the Streets Division will investigate.
• If there is an immediate hazard (e.g. blocked stop sign, hanging limb,etc.),the Streets Division will
prune the tree immediately.
• If there is not an immediate hazard,the Streets Division will contact the responsible party directly
and explain the Code requirements,or gather the information and forward to Code Enforcement if
the owner is nonresponsive.
• If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works
after-hours number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and
either contact the contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is
not available) if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division if the
hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day.The Streets Division will then
follow the same process outlined above.
Page 37 of 43
Attachment 3
• 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.
Coordination:City of Tigard with Maior Community Stakeholder Groups
In addition to City coordination, key community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions that regularly
contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest were interviewed so that
coordination with the community can be improved. The full interview notes can be found in the
appendix.
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.
• Make project arborists a more integral member of the development team.
• Increase planting strip size and/or require root barriers.
• Hire greenspace coordinator.
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
Page 38 of 43
Attachment 3
• 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.
Tisard 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.
• 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 of Metropolitan Portland (Draft)
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a program do not outweigh
the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property,and allow owners to manage their land as they see fit.
Page 39 of 43
Attachment 3
• However, if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following should be
included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to mitigate for unnecessary
tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to utilize the incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property owners in the process.
Tree Board (Draft)
• 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.
Tigard Homeowners
• Although Tigard homeowners have been "interviewed"via the Urban Forestry Survey,the Citizen
Advisory Committee represented the following homeowner views on future urban forestry
policy/program recommendations:
o Clean fallen leaves from City streets for homeowners.
o Remove fallen trees and stumps,and assist in street tree pruning for citizens with limited
finances and physical disabilities.
o . Provide guidance and mediation for tree related disputes between property owners.
o Provide tree care training materials(possibly through neighborhood networks program).
Recommendation/Implementation Matrix
Literature Cited
American Forests.2001. Regional Ecosystem Analysis for the Willamette/Lower Columbia Region of
Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington State.Washington, D.C.:American
Forests.
Burrows,T.2009.A Short History of Tigard,Oregon.Accessed via the World Wide Web
< http://tom.mipaca.com/Oregon/TigardHistory.php>on March 25, 2009.
Burns,C. 2008. Personal communication on October 6.Western Forester, Portland General Electric
Company. Portland,OR.
Page 40 of 43
Attachment 3
City of Portland. 2007. Portland's Urban Forest Canopy:Assessment and Public Tree Evaluation. City of
Portland,OR, Parks and Recreation Department,City Nature Urban Forestry. 79p.
City of Tigard. 2009.Comprehensive Plan(as of April 22,2009). City of Tigard,OR,Community
Development Department, Long Range Planning Division. 230p.
City of Tigard.2008. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.City of Tigard,OR,Community Development
Department, Long Range Planning Division. 60p.
City of Tigard.2009.Tigard Downtown Future Vision.City of Tigard,OR,Community Development
Department, Long Range Planning Division. 29p.
Clark,J.R., N.P Matheny,G.Cross,and V. Wake. 1997.A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability.Journal
of Arboriculture: 23(1): 17-30.
Costello, L.,and K.Jones.2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots:A Compendium of
Strategies.Cohasset,CA:Western Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture. 119p.
Donovan,G. 2008.The Value of Street Trees in Portland,Oregon. Portland,OR: USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station;2p.
Dumbaugh, E. 2005.Safe Streets,Livable Streets.Journal of the American Planning Association:71(3):
283-300.
Gray,S.2008.The Kalapuya People:Stewards of a Rich Land and Culture.Accessed via the World Wide
Web:<http://www.washingtoncountymuseum.org/localhistory/index.php>on November 5,
2008.
Harris, R.W.,J.R.Clark,and N.P. Matheny. 1999.Arboriculture:Integrated Management of Landscape
'Trees,Shrubs,and Vines.3`d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 687p.
Hulse, D.,S.Gregory, and J. Baker,eds. 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas:Trajectories of
Environmental and Ecological Change.The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research
Consortium.Corvallis,OR:Oregon State University Press.
Johnson, B.R., 2008. Personal communication on November 12.Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture, University of Oregon. Eugene, OR.
Martin,S.2008. Personal communication on September 29. Parks and Facilities Manager,City of Tigard.
Tigard,OR.
McPherson, E.G and P.Peper. 2000.Costs Due to Conflicts between Street Tree Root Growth and
Hardscape. In L.R.Costello et al.,eds.,Strategies to Reduce Infrastructure Damage by Tree
Roots: Proceedings from a Symposium for Researchers and Practitioners. Cohasset,CA:Western
Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture. 15-18.
Page 41 of 43
Attachment 3
McPherson, E.G.,S.E. Maco,J.R.Simpson,P.J. Peper,Q.Xiao,A.VanDerZanden,and N. Bell. 2002.
Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide:Benefits,Costs,and Strategic
Planting. International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter,Silverton,OR.
Metro.2009.Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.Accessed via the World Wide Web:
<http://www.oregonmetro.gov/files/about/chap307.pdf>on March 31, 2009.
Oregon Department of Forestry.2008. Forest Facts:Urban Growth Boundaries and the Oregon Forest
Practices Act.Accessed via the World Wide Web:
<http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/PUBS/docs/Forest_Facts/Forest_Facts_U rban_Growth_Bounda ri
es.pdf>on March 25,2009.
Oregon Department of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development. 1999. Guidelines for
Developing Urban Forest Practice Ordinances. State of Oregon, Department of Forestry and
Department of Land Conservation and Development. 16p.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.2009.Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development Homepage.Accessed via the World Wide Web:
< http://www.lcd.state.or.us/>on March 26,2009.
Oregon Public Utility Commission.2009.Oregon Public Utility Commission Homepage.Accessed via the
World Wide Web:<http://www.puc.state.or.us/>on March 26,2009.
Peper, P.J., E.G., McPherson,J.R.Simpson,S.E. Maco,and Q.Xiao. 2004. City of Bismarck,North Dakota
Street Tree Resource Analysis. Internal Report CUFR-5. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research,Center for Urban Forest Research.5: 1-64.
Peper, P.J. E.G. McPherson,J.R.Simpson,S.E. Maco,and Q.Xiao.2004.City of Cheyenne,Wyoming
Municipal Tree Resource Analysis. Internal Report CUFR-4. USDA Forest Service,Pacific
Southwest Research,Center for Urban Forest Research.4: 1-62.
Ulrich, R.H. 1981: Natural vs. Urban Scenes:Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and
Behavior: 13:523-556.
Ulrich, R.H. 1984. View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science: 224:420-
421.
Urban,J.2008. Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment.Champaign, IL: International Society of
Arboriculture.479p.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.2009.Web Soil Survey.Accessed via the World Wide
Web:< http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/>on April 24,2009.
Wolf, K.L. 2005. Business District Streetscapes,Trees,and Consumer Response.Journal of Forestry:
103(8):396-400.
Page 42 of 43
Attachment 3
Appendix .
To be determined.
' Page 43 of 43
Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan Attachment 4
Implementation Matrix - Draft
5 e �5
o cee oso a'`�o �e oe
aa��J 5� �a`opo Q\e�ehre ole�Q
Implementation GoalsZ ',e Lo Q 4aLo �o �� Qc
Develop Hazard Tree Program.
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 coordinater to manage Tigard natural areas and Public Works 2.2.5 H $$ Time/General 2015 TRK
develop a proactive hazard abatement program Fund
C. Staff
Develop and implement formal emergency response system for Planning 2.3.8,2.2.3 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
tree hazards on City streets Fund
d. 2.2.3,2.3.8,2.3.9, Staff
Develop and implement formal emergency response system for Public Works 23.10,2.3.11 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
tree hazards in City parks/greenspaces 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 to Planning 2.3.8 H $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
become involved in private property tree hazards. Fund
Ordinances.2. Revise Street Tree and Landscaping and Screening
2.1 Revise street tree 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. I I I I I Fund
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: mettel@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:56 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Homeowner Rlationships
Hi Todd
It looks like you are making great progress. An issue I didn't see covered concerns the roles and
relationship of the individual home ownet.Below are some thoughts concerning this. It is based on my
experience as a homeowner and Landscape Chairmam of a Townhouse association plus what I learned
from my committee psrticipation.
Problem/Issue-What support should the city provide the homeowner for his/her contribution to
development and maintenance of the Urban Forest.
i
Homeowner Activities
Plant,maintain trees/shrubs
- Remove diseased, dead plants
Remove storm damage
Clean up leaves and other debris
i -
Homeowner Problems/Constraints
- Limited/no knowledge or interest in tree selection,planting or culture i
- Limited knowledge of Arborist services and costs t
- Limited money available
Physical handicaps
Neighbor problems—overhangs,shade, blocked views
- Limited/no knowledge of city policies and procedures covering trees
- Scams
City Support Options
- Clean fallen leafs from all streets
- For persons with limited finances and physical handicaps
o Remove fallen trees and stumps
o Repair street trees
- Provide guiddance and mediation services for neighbor disputes
- Provide training, learning materials and arborist assistance(might be done through
Neighborhood Network Program)
Mort Ettelstein
3/2/09
i
f
F
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:40 PM
To: Todd Prager; John Floyd
Subject: Trees in Tigard
Todd and John,
I recently saw notice of a Tigard annexation which caught my eye because of tree issues.
The annexation is called'Montage Townhomes'and is at 92nd and Hall Blvd. Gary Pagenstecher tells me that it is being annexed
because a bit of the site actually is in Tigard,and County will not record unless it is annexed.
But my observation is the sequence of events. This developer got his permits from the county,which has no tree ordinance. He
removed a number of large fir trees(conslult Google or your canopy map),put in streets and utilities and now annexes to Tigard.
Tigard gets a tract stripped of big trees.
I don't think the rules address this issue. However,at Lake Oswego back a couple years,this issue was addressed by including in their
tree code some provision that if trees are removed less than one or two years before annexation,the development must mitigate as if
the trees were removed for the development under city rules.
Please consider adding this'Lake Oswego'provision to the Tigard tree code.
Sincerely,
John Frewing
t
i
1 �
i
t
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ofrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Todd Prager; Marissa Daniels
Subject: Tigard UFMP
Todd,Marissa,
Here's my thoughts on last night's discussion. I WOULD appreciate receiving the handout from last night. John Frewing
The gist of the discussion was that staff must not push to later dates the statement of proposed policies for Tigard's urban forest. 1
agree. if the City Council or Planning Commission wants to change things,fine. But we need some red meat to start with.
I
Frewing Thoughts on Urban Forestry Master Plan 3/5/09
Without seeing the proposed outline for the UFMP presented to the CAC last evening, I would like to offer
some thoughts on what Tigard might include in its forthcoming UFMP. Tony Tycer expressed frustration at
getting to the substance of the plan; these are my ideas.
Start with the question: 'What is the public interest in an urban forestT We don't need a plan without
actionable purpose, but the plan that does emerge should not intrude on private land activities beyond that
appropriate to serving a public purpose. There is a wealth of literature and information on the public value of
an urban forest—not only the aesthetic elements, but property value,functioning of natural systems,
f
temperature control, etc. My idea of an UFMP would summarize these values and highlight things that are
particularly important to Tigard.
Then a plan, as suggested by Marissa,would include sections on history and current status of our urban forest.
Not only trees, but all the other elements of a forest. Start with the Tigard-specific geology and soils,the
water systems of Tigard and the early use of our land. The plan should include or provide as appendices the
actual data which will be archived as part of the UFMP and which therefore serves as a baseline for future
studies and changes (photos, state or federal reports, etc). It would be appropriate to include here the
context in which Tigard prepares its UFMP, ie the national interest in forests,the state interest in forests,the i
METRO interest in forests, the county interest in forests, etc. Such discussion would include not only the
positive things, but negative things as well- ie invasives. Reference to existing sustainable forests would be
appropriate—not only wilderness, but more urban forests as well, eg the THPRD Nature Center in Beaverton.
The substance of the plan could well be organized around issues important to Tigard today; later versions
might add additional issues. Those things which come to mind immediately include:
Tigard—specific values,threats and opportunities
Protecting what elements still exist
Creating a sustainable urban forest for Tigard—not only trees but other vegetation
Measuring and documenting Tigard's accomplishment toward a sustainable urban forest
Responsibilities for a sustainable Tigard urban forest (public and private responsibilities)
1,
f
Attachment 5
Relation of Tigard forest planning to outside influences and resources: eg other comp plan provisions,
other jurisdiction plans, climate change, available professional tools (techniques for forest
development).
Coordination of urban forest initiatives and regulation within Tigard government
Financing—it's no fun to create an unaffordable plan.
Each of these 'issue' sections should play off of comp plan policies and action items, and provide more detail
to a recommended action plan than included in the comp plan. These sections should not be 'neutral' in the
sense of letting someone later make a decision on individual actions—this is the place where Tigard states its
intent on the public role in urban forest protection, development and measurement. The result would be the
advertised 'legislative basis'for writing of code provisions in the near future, as well as budgeting for public
programs for the forest—eg education, plantings, etc.
Finally,the idea presented by staff for a matrix of future actions is fine, but such future actions should not be
the development of policies(that is the role of the UFMP itself).
1
l
f
f
1
2
f
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:09 PM
To: Todd Prager; Marissa Daniels
Subject: Comment on Outline for UFMP
Todd,Marissa,
I think the major comment I would offer on the UFMP outline is that you don't show a section which analyzes a variety of'issues',
some of which I listed on my note this morning--you appear to leave all of that to the matrix which defines future action. Lets get
some proposed answers into the UFMP,even if they are later changed. You have done the survey,interview,research,mapping,etc,
so why wait for another process to state Tigard policy at this level of detail?
Frewing
I
I
� k
i
1
Attachment 5
March 11, 2009
To: Tigard Planning Commission
As I am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing.
I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard
community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger
developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is
not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property,
whether for immediate construction or not. I am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one
to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes.
1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that"trees
removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be
inventttoried as part of the tree plan Above." This provision has been used to avoid complying
with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. I would
recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid
complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner.
2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property.
They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a
devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10
or 20 trees have been cut down.
Both of these "gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but
only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to
tirleair,Y of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment.
I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only
making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In !
the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is
taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood---the
surrounding residents----see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease.
Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously
sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally
difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who.
to c!l cf have put in the effort and money to own and improve our
homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected.
My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
k
Karen Estrada
9269 SW North Dakota
Tigard, OR 97223
�a � •r'�?1 r' § �/a.��m y•FJ � kl sw rn � . .i✓'
"! •,.,,. �d��:.�"h�'r"C^odSjq,�t4�� � ��S��A��{^t�-h�„,aSf .�}1:'�'`�� "��:" xjJ._.' _ �' r.
Nv
�yy� V +r ,ras •� y y s r r
svtM; q rnyy .�hhY'' r
fr !
-
r
'"A xi
;y,'
;r} ,, a✓LFrh.. ^t ��.✓'`0 y� �,
f [{ �, >k�sra.���•44�C:C�.xS+� .1 .«1�� NgQ
rC a t f } ? a r
r s r�') 7 FJ �. r ti.< ��V S i•. .1�l�., s�.�„'h+: :��1°.•i+{9�i��,.5, T C. ,.., !'M3 � "'�'
-�f^3 _ y,.✓ T f \.r f �,• M'e I; _r 4.�f t,:, fS
-
''
e¢
r
.1�.�'+.t ,�w�t ,•”` ,'t° � v "Y v,>N �•-4 .?�`< 'S15�ki.� 1�Vs$� 3 � +'"'f '� e� r; r _
i �r � 1`'��•�s t`�g`)-'.s��;w`�i��i . �xf;A_' ="a="' k:, '-,, ka�N`''F.�. +�� �t a- _ � �5. -j"•� +
,� R
Olt 1^ s 4` ti yL ei�. 4•
� Yr"F -.y. s v�k.r s L'.. q S �` f�� ir.� �2'- i, ��� .. ♦ v�
F�� � �'� r _•+ �J � k5 � ti Vis` � tir h L .Fn rr +A �'z.� a ,.-ti's^ � c'3� ria, y , ,�.: �A s<5`l;+•
? �+."t �y �'� � � } sl o r >�+ ,�'. r,aq 2 ",' e r rs q J.?�ttry a' •
• ss a ,L 1 d� wk l' r di -`" C td{'jx T'r : � rl��)4�yr ,e 3,1 F ';C
,,,,.�.•• dx,, 5 'y µf-,L,vCe 4 lqs '!x .�v[„ 'S �b � 4 A - 'a� k �`�',
f�' r r �'°' �� `°° 5 e ,r ,v a� �i �'✓ �. f�1 a t � 9d' r"�i1
..r ( 9 "• '\ F.s� v�v Y,y,`'��.,��.•�p.4� 4�.kf^�c�+i'r✓'f af.5.5 �•r {f „;, ,�f
VIVA
X� i @�,�r�tr 3'���1-��A#j•`rYk�a ��3`Y��3 `Aa�, {r iWy,.�'��9'�;py�, y 4�
' r i f 7 ! SS:. r?�;u+ •`'"XY '�
• , r a 7 �' a Vis,¢ "5 �! '
rfi .yT t
t•F .. ���f ' 4 t^' �6� .�'y��_�� �'�"�,�M.. Ff`+� "�����+�b,'y�ynSphy,�yrr*„ f a�J,?z u' TM ,f�•3-� ��"!Ji
.,S}r e� :k � 7��s''aviLl•�'n'L..-'n"F�f'+$'�S:i,^�1C.7..�tl�.1`� u�c'cAil`�+�s
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: Marissa Daniels
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:48 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: FW: tree concern
Marissa Daniels,Assistant Planner
Long Range Planning
City of Tigard,Oregon
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard,OR 97223
(503)639-4171,ext.2428
marissa@tieard-or.eov
_.._.._--_-.-----------
From: DANIEL KELLEHER [mailto:dkcskelleher@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:19 AM
To: Marissa Daniels
Cc: dkcskelleher@verizon.net
Subject: Fw: tree concern
E
-----Original Message
From: DANIEL`KELLEHER
To: marissa(aD-tigard.or.gov
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:09 PM
Subject: Fw: tree concern
-----Original Message
From: DANIEL KELLEHER
To:marissao_tigard.or.gov
Cc:dkcskelleher(rD-verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: tree concern
Hi Marissa,
I saw the article in Cityscape regarding Urban Forestry Master Plan. I am not sure you are the correct person for me to be
emailing- here is my concern.
We live on Johnson Court,just past Woodard Park off Johnson St. There is a huge cottonwood-dead snag that is really
tall. I know it is not on our property, could be our neighbors or the easement space, but it looks like an accident waiting to
happen.
As I walk around Tigard-I don't see any other dead trees in residential areas that look like this one.
Can someone from the City come out and look at it? Are you the correct person to email with this concern? Let me know
if you are not...could you tell me who?
Thanks for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
i
1 �
i
Attachment 5
Kate Kelleher
503.639.1243
i
� f
it
' F '
i I
1
I
' Z
1.
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ofrewing@teleport.coml
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: David Walsh; Tony Tycer; Janet Gillis; John Floyd
Subject: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd,
1 had to leave the tree board meeting last night before they gave you their take on the'stakeholder'questions for the UFMP,but 1
thought I should offer a couple of my own 'stakeholder'views as you approach the Planning Commission on Monday night and start to
draft the actual words of the plan.
1. The plan should have actionable policies and measurable goals,so we can see if we ever make progress.
2. The plan will obviously have a mix of program actions and regulatory actions. On the regulatory actions,there should be more
honest effort at enforcement of things like restoration and mitigation,which the city does only on a catch as catch can basis at present.
3. My level of interaction(Question 1)is that of reading the forest provisions of a number of development applications in Tigard and
commenting on them,as well as observing the status of post-development forestry commitments,often stated as'Conditions of
E
Approval'.
4. What portions of the Tigard forestry program work well now? I think the tree planting effort works,but there is no public
accountability for how these plantings work out over time--let's have some documentation of these areas and tree success.
5.What portions of the Tigard forestry program do not work well now? I would say regulation,as noted above. Look at the Blue
Heron site for one example of poor enforcement;Ash Creek Estates is another. Another area of hurt is the'fragmentation'of what
forest remains and the use of decorative trees like holly which are quite invasive. The'forest'that is regulated is split in the code
between trees and landscaping,and those two code sections should be integrated to ensure that any Tigard'forest'has both the crown
species as well as the understory species which make a forest work in a technical sense. Size and continuity matter,and the forest plan
must be integrated with transportation,parks and public works(including CWS)to achieve meaningful sizes and connections between i
forest patches. As we have discussed,canopy protection is lacking historically for larger parking spaces--this requires code changes
i not only to the tree section,but also to the section on street design requirements(Gus Duenas responsibility). I think the Tree Board
could be much more proactive,both with regard to direction to staff and in outreach to the community. Within the tree code,there
sshould be a requirement to disclose to the city and citzens all trenching plans for a development,so as to be able to judge whether trees
will be impacted.
6 What could be done to improve things?(Question 4). 1 think that the METRO green streets guidelines would be one improvement,
if some are required in Tigard. I have noted above other items for improvement. `
7 How can we work together to improve Tigard's forest?(Question 5). For me,the opportunity to raise forest issues with a developer
(or city department planning development actions,eg streets,parks,water lines,etc)at an earlier stage in design would be useful--ie
attendance at the preapplication meeting. A checkoff of each department for forestry considerations during application review would
be useful. On-site posting of real information on forest changes(both tree removal and tree planting)would help inform the local
residents.
i
8 What should be in/out of the UFMP?(Question 6). 1 would be remiss if I didn't say that non-development regulation of forest
changes should be a part of the UFMP and Tigard code. Obviously there should be size and species limits on regulation of change,
but it would not only technically help the forest,but also provide more citizen interaction,which is the basis for knowledge and care
of our forest. The UFMP should be about more than some standard trees-it should include everything from ground cover to dead
trees,since all parts of a forest are connected to the health of the forest. I urge you to consult with the ongoing City of Portland effort
to integrate their city efforts to improve their forests--they are ahead of us and they are right next to us. This would be a good
presentation for the Tree Board in the near future; 1 feel there are issues and actions which Tigard could easily adopt.
Sincerely,
John Frewing
i
1 i
I
Attachment 5
Todd Prager
From: aland@roundstoneproperties.com
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Ernie Platt;John Floyd
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Attachments: Stakeholder Interview Notes, HBA formatted.doc
Todd, John, and and Ernie,
Here are my DRAFT edits. Ernie, you and Dave make the call on what the official HBAMP
wording will be.
Todd and John, I'm going to resign from the Citizen Advisory Committee. I should have
stepped down earlier and apologize for missing the last two meetings. I resign disappointed
with the lack of attention focused on the common ground those of us who live in homes all
share. I feel that my continued involvement will be as fruitless as it would be divisive
since it is evident the City's forestry plan is not considering proposing changes to balance
tree preservation with the land development requirements. It is clear that the intent of
this forestry plan is to continue penalizing property owners for removing trees if they
choose to subdivide and develop their developable, treed property.
I've tried repeatedly to explain how difficult it is to save trees and meet other sections
the code such as streets and density, what developers are faced with when they lay out a site
plan, why trees must be removed, why roads and building pads should be exempt, to shine the
light on the bloated tree fund, and to explain why mitigation fees are counter-productive all
in an effort to bring balance to the forestry plan update. I feel my efforts have not been
taken seriously and have been largely dismissed by staff and the pro-tree/anti-development
sentiment felt at all meetings, worksessions, and hearings I have attended. It's evident
that staff has taken the anti-development view as the overall philosophy for Tigard's
forestry plan update and text amendment. We had a great opportunity for real dialogue where
staff, Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City Council could truly make an effort grasp the
soils, grading, engineering, utilities, and planning issues, but the situation has instead
been reduced to a simple-minded, black and white battle between good (trees) and evil
(development) with no acknowledgement in the proposed text of the potential economic impacts, 1
financial impacts, compliance with the engineering design manual, or a level of
reasonableness that anyone in the development community can support. Based on my experience
at Clean Water Services Advisory and Finance Committees and the City of Beaverton Planning
Commission, alienating stakeholders to the point where they no longer feel welcome to
participate in the process is not the way consensus is intended to be built.
I expect the end result of this lengthy exercise will be even more frustration from both
sides of the issue that will result in more legal battles, more attorneys, more appeals, and
more LUBA cases. The City attorney will be a busy man. If trees were simply removed at the
discretion of the private property owners (or at least be removed without significant
financial impacts) none of this controversy would even exist. But those days are gone. I
would still like to remain on the email lists and you are always welcome to contact me if you
have any questions about what actually happens in the real world. I might be able to attend
a meeting or two and would like to stay apprised of the text amendment process.
Good luck getting through all this to all of you.
- Alan
1
r
I
f
MIEETING
MINUTES
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Dennis Sizemore,Janet Gillis,Morgan Holen,Tony Tycer,David Walsh,Matt Clemo,
Mort Ettelstein,Phil Hickey
Members Absent—
Staff Present—Councilor Marland Henderson,Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels,John Floyd
Visitors John Frewing, Karen Estrada,Ken Gertz
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:32 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
review stakeholder input, receive input from the CAC on the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan, and begin
forming implementation objectives.
Prager also explained that due to input from the CAC at the March 4, 2009 meeting, the City's GIS group
is conducting a study of parking lot tree canopy. In addition, Prager said that the potential canopy study is
ongoing and that it will be completed in time for the July 1,2009 CAC meeting.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the March 4, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
At 6:35 p.m. the CAC approved the March 4,2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC May 6,
2009 meeting packet).
3. Results of Stakeholder Interviews
Prager then briefly summarized the highlights of the urban forestry stakeholder meetings that were held
over the past months (Attachment 2,UFMP CAC May 6,2009 meeting packet).
Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP):
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 7
• HBAMP members think the City should take a hands-off approach to tree management on private
property.
• HBAMP members want the City's current mitigation fee structure eliminated and replaced with a
more incentive based approach.
Clean Water Services (CWS):
• CWS wants barriers to habitat restoration eliminated from the Code.
• CWS wants more focus on long term maintenance of streamside vegetation.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT):
• ODOT wants more coordination between the ODOT street tree requirements and the City's street
tree requirements.
Tony Tycer commented that the City needs to stand up to ODOT with regards to their tree management
practices.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
• No comment.
Portland General Electric (PGE):
• PGE wants to review development plans so that tree conficts with overhead utilities can be
avoided.
• PGE also has offered to partner with the City in removing problem trees that have been repeatedly
topped and replace them with more appropriate trees for beneath utility lines.
Tony Tycer commented that much of this could be avoided if utility lines were undergrounded as a
condition of development approval.
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (PNWISA):
• PNWISA wants arborists involved in tree preservation process earlier in the development process.
• PNWISA want future Code to not unfairly penalize owners with trees, and to shift to a more
incentive based approach.
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce:
• No comment.
Tree Board:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 7
• Tree Board wants future Code and programs to be focused on areas outside of development.
• Tree Board wants future Code to be more user friendly.
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA):
• ASLA wants more focus on preserving high quality trees and less on mitigation.
• ASLA wants a design manual with drawings that demonstrate what the City wants streetscapes and
parking lots to look like.
Tigard Tualatin School District (TTSD):
• Want to partner with City more on planting trees on school grounds.
Janet Gillis commented that there will need to be assurances that the trees will be maintained.
Tualatin Riverkeepers:
• Tualatin Riverkeepers want parking lot landscape standards to be improved with more focus on
water quality.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers want more focus on managing invasive plants in stream corridors.
Tony Tycer commented that he noticed Metro was not on stakeholder list. Prager responded that staff
decided that Metro as well as State and Federal agencies were regulatory groups rather than stakeholders.
Therefore,Metro was addressed in the policy framework section of the Master Plan rather than as a
stakeholder.
4. Draft Plan Discussion
Prager then shifted the discussion to the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC
May 6, 2009 meeting packet). Prager explained that the draft Plan has been provided so that the CAC
would have all of the information available to begin formulating implementation goals later in the meeting.
He added that the draft Plan followed outlines of other urban forestry plans as well as ISA guidelines. He
said the draft will be extensively reorganized and edited over the coming months to make it more user
friendly.
Prager asked Mort Ettelstein to share some of his ideas and expertise with the group on how the draft Plan
could be reorganized.
Mort Ettelstein said that the Plan could be reorganized so that each section was specific to the overall
implementation objectives. Mr. Ettelstein said this will focus the document and make it more user friendly.
Dave Walsh added that it would be useful to separate out the sections so that it is in more manageable
chunks.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 7
Tony Tycer said that when the document is posted on-line it would make it more useable if it could be
searched by key words.
The CAC generally agreed that flow charts,timelines,graphs, and images could be used to shorten the
document and make it more user friendly.
Morgan Holen suggested that a definitions section should be added to the appendix.
Dennis Sizemore said he thought it would be good to have the implementation matrix in the front of the
document after the executive summary.
Morgan Holen said that the terminology in the background section should be consistent with the
terminology in the vision.
Dave Walsh said that it will be important to boil the information down for Planning Commission and
Council into a 10-15 minute presentation.
Prager said he would work on revising the document with their comments and present them with a second
draft at the July 1,2009 CAC meeting.
5. Implementation Goals Discussion
Marissa Daniels then led a discussion on implementation goals for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. She
asked Todd Prager to present to the CAC the draft goals that he discussed with Council the previous week.
Prager explained to the CAC that he had discussed organizing the Master Plan into the following six
themes based on direction he has received from Council and all of the background information in the draft
Urban Forestry Master Plan:
-Develop hazard tree program
-Revise landscaping ordinance (18.745, includes street trees and parlang lot trees)
-Revise tree ordinance (18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation)
-Develop tree grove protection program (may involve a Goal 5 process)
-Develop urban forest stewardship program (involves education/outreach and some protection for
trees on private property)
-Improve management of City's urban forestry program
Mort Ettelstein asked if private property owners should be included as a stakeholder group. Prager
responded that private property owners were essentially interviewed through the community survey and
provided open ended responses in the survey that were recorded and documented. They have also been
invited to participate in the Urban Forest Master Plan through the Cityscape and will be invited to attend
three listening posts over the coming months.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 7
Dennis Sizemore commented that the themes identified by Prager could form the basis of the executive
summary.
Dave Walsh added that the action measures that were developed during the Comprehensive Plan process
could be used to fill in the action items for the implementation goals.
The CAC supported using the implementation goals identified above to form basic structure for the Plan.
Marissa Daniels then solicited input from the CAC regarding how those goals could/should be
implemented. The results of the discussion are as follows:
Develop hazard tree program
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Develop and maintain criteria for what constitutes a hazard (define terms per ISA standards)
Develop and maintain criteria for mitigating risks (not necessarily always removal)
Develop procedures for hazard abatement
Develop procedures for mediating disputes
Assign financial responsibilities to the various parties
Make information about hazard program available to the public
Revise landscaping ordinance (18.745,includes street trees and parldng lot trees)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms (per industry standards)
Create a manual (with design guidelines, species selection criteria,installation guidelines, and maintenance
requirements)
Perform cost/benefits analysis prior to requiring new technologies
Provide incentives for compliance
Develop a permit system to administer the ordinance
Revise tree ordinance (18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms (per industry standards)
Ensure arborist is involved in the process from site planning to landscape installation
Ensure City review of tree plans
Less focus on mitigation and more focus on preserving quality trees
Provide incentives for preserving smaller diameter trees that are able to withstand development impacts
Limit pre-development clearing of sites
Ensure consequences for noncompliance
Involve public in process of Code development
Develop tree grove protection program (may involve a Goal 5 process)
Review current practices
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.*rd-or.gov I Page 5 of 7
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
Focus on preserving larger groves
Develop incentives for preservation
Build flexibility into the process
Involve public in the process of Code development
Develop urban forest stewardship program (involves education/outreach and some protection for
trees on private property)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
Provide public pertinent education/outreach information (workshops, flyers, online tools, "ask the
arborist" service, etc.)
Tree Board assistance in reaching out to the community
Improve management of City's urban forestry program
The CAC agreed to have City staff fill in this goal. However, the following principles were suggested by
the CAC:
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
City should lead by example
Create written standards for City projects to be adhered to by all departments
6. Public Comment
At 8:00 p.m., the meeting was opened for public comment.
Karen Estrada began by suggesting mitigation funds could be used for tree planting and stewardship on
private property.
John Frewing commented that he thought there should be more focus on tree preservation after
development.
He also thought the Plan should focus on more than just trees, and include other types of vegetation.
Mr. Frewing added that the Plan should identify financing mechanisms to implement and expand urban
forestry programs in the future.
He also thought that the Plan should focus more on accountability such as tracking canopy changes over
time and enforcing long term urban forest management.
r
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 7
Mr. Frewing suggested that the City protect resources through overlay zones as in the City of Portland
rather than through a Goal 5 process.
Ken Gertz said that education/outreach could be achieved through scout groups and in schools.
Mr. Gertz said that future Code should be more equitable with regards to mitigation, so that people with
trees are not unfairly penalized during development. He also said that future Code should have less
ambiguity, and that Code provisions should be answerable in a yes/no manner.
Mr. Gertz suggested that staff notice all Tigard property owners that would be affected by tree regulations.
Councilor Marland Henderson said that his vision was to create a sustainability division within the City,
and put that division on equal footing with other divisions. He said it was important to act now before too
much environmental damage is done. Councilor Henderson said that pursuing a sustainability department
would be a major goal during his tenure.
7. Closing_Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 7