Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 09/02/2009 City of Tigard
a
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee — Agenda
MEETING DATE: September 2, 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..................................................................................................................6:30-6:31
2. Introduction and Opening Remarks.......................................................................................6:31-6:33
3. Approve Minutes.......................................................................................................................6:33-6:35
4. Update on Additional Tree Canopy Study.............................................................................6:35-6:40
5. Draft Plan Discussion...............................................................................................................6:40-7:10
6. Public Comment on Draft Plan..............................................................................................7:10-7:25
7. Consideration of Public Comment on Draft Plan................................................................7:25-7:55
8. Formal Recommendation on Draft Plan...............................................................................7:55-7:58
9. Closing Remarks and Adjournment...................................................................
Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee AGENDA— September 2, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
o . City 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 September 2,2009
Date: August 24,2009
INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes topics proposed for discussion at the September 2,2009 meeting of the
Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee.
REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 1,2009 URBAN FORESTRY
MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee held a meeting on July 1,2009. The
minutes of the meeting have been summarized in Attachment 1 by Todd Prager for the Committee's
review and approval.
UPDATE ON ADDITIONAL TREE CANOPY STUDY
In response to a request by the Citizen Advisory Committee,staff completed one more additional tree
canopy study for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The study involved identifying the
existing percent canopy in a sample of Tigard's parking lots. This information will be used to analyze
the effectiveness of Tigard's current parking lot requirements and will allow for the tracking of parking
lot canopy in the future. The results methodology used to complete the study is described in
Attachment 2.
DRAFT PLAN DISCUSSION
A third 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 has been revised based on
comments received during the comment period (May 26 through August 21). It has also been
redesigned to make it more visually appealing by the City's Office Services division.
Page 1 of 3
Significant changes to the draft Plan from the version presented to the CAC at their July 1,2009
meeting include:
1. Revision of recommendation 1.1.b as follows (additions in bold, deletions struck through):
FBetrs Modify code to focus less on mitigation and more onp�esei»�preservation of long-lived evergreert�
bmadspreafl q and broad-leaf deciduous twie tree species, native and indigenous#Wiff trees, and other
trees identified as of high importance.
2. Revision of recommendation 3.2.a as follows (additions in bold):
Reach out to property owners with identified tree groves early in the process to allow them ample opportunity to participate
in the development of regulations.
3. Specifying in recommendation 4.2.b and narrative Chapter 4 that the Tree Risk Assessment
methodology developed by the PNWISA will be the standard for evaluating hazard trees in the future.
4. Revision of Goal 4 throughout the document as follows (additions in bold):
Develop a hazard tree identification and abatementprogram.
5. Combining two previous recommendations (4.1.d and 5.2.b) into one recommendation (5.2.b)
because both recommended hiring a greenspace coordinator.
6.Addition of recommendation 5.2.e designating the City Arborist as lead coordinator for implementing
the Urban Forestry Master Plan (includes urban forest management activities and hazard tree program).
7. Revision of recommendation 6.1.b as follows (additions in bold):
Maintain a list of invasive trees and otherplants, discourage their sale and propagation, and promote their removal.
S.Addition of recommendation 6.2.b to present a cost/benefit study for a leaf pick-up program for
Council's consideration.
9. Reordering the recommendations under each goal so that the ordinances,programs,projects,and
features are in groups rather than scattered throughout.
10. Reference within the`Basis for Decision Making" section of the Urban Forestry Master Plan to the
urban forest benefits discussion within the Appendix.
11. Within Chapter 3,specified that the term"sensitive lands"refers to the definition in the Tigard
Development Code. The term has been further defined in the glossary.
12. Revised the following sentence in paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 as follows (additions in bold,deletions
struck through):
The HBfIMP said the City should allow private properly owners to manage their land as they see f t, which implies the
City should have meted no involvement in private property tree hazard issues:
13.Addition of a glossary section.
14.Appendix B (Canopy Data) has been converted from tables to maps that visually depict canopy
information.
15. Incorporated results of parking lot canopy study into Appendix B.
16. Inclusion of a discussion by the City Attorney in Appendix G of whether a tree preservation
ordinance constitutes of"regulatory taking" of property.
The draft Plan discussion will consist of three parts:
1. Discussion of the overall structure of the Plan.
2.Discussion of any specific items/recommendations in the Plan that should be removed or revised.
3.Discussion of any specific items/recommendations that are not in the Plan that should be included.
Major changes to the overall structure or specific recommendations in the Plan will be subject to a
majority vote as well as staffing and financial resources. Please keep in mind that the role of the
Committee is to reflect the values of the overall community and balance the potential economic, social,
and environmental impacts that will result from the Plan.
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN
The draft Urban Forestry Master Plan has been open for public comment from May 26,2009 through
August 21, 2009. Staff has advertised the comment period through many avenues including the
Cityscape newsletter,the City website, the Tigard Times Newspaper, the Neighborhood Network
websites,and by emailing copies to City staff,community stakeholders,public agencies,and professional
organizations.
All of the comments received have been included in Attachment 4. There will also be an opportunity at
the September 2,2009 meeting for up to five minutes of public comment per visitor.
CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN
After receiving written and oral public comment on the draft Plan,the Committee will be given time to
consider incorporating those comments into the draft Plan.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION ON DRAFT PLAN
Because the Urban Forestry Master Plan will be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council,an
official motion is requested.
Committee member: I move that...
a) we recommend approval of the Urban Forestry Master Plan as
presented.
b) (If emendations are suggested)we recommend approval of the Urban
Forestry Master Plan as amended.
c We recommend denial of the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Committee member: Seconds the motion
Staff: It has been moved and seconded that...
a) we recommend approval of the Urban Forestry Master Plan as
presented.
b) (If emendations are suggested)we recommend approval of the Urban
Forestry Master Plan as amended.
c) We recommend denial of the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Is there any discussion?
All those in favor,say Aye.
All those opposed, say No.
All those abstaining,say Yes.
Committee: Votes
Staff: The motion is carried/lost.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Minutes From The July 1,2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee Meeting
Attachment 2: Tigard Parking Lot Tree Canopy Results
Attachment 3: Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Attachment 4: Public Comment
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 1
jq
City of Tigard
j Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: July 1, 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,David Walsh,Matt Clemo,
Mort Ettelstein, Phil Hickey
Members Absent—Tony Tycer
Staff Present—Councilor Marland Henderson,Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels,John Floyd
Visitors—Karen Estrada
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:30 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to form
consensus on the implementation recommendations in the UFMP.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the May 6, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Comniittee meeting
At 6:31 p.m. the CAC approved the May 6, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009
meeting packet).
3. Update on Additional Tree Canopy Studies
Prager then provided an update on the additional tree canopy studies that the CAC requested. First, he
explained that staff completed the "possible percent citywide canopy" study and determined that Tigard
does have the potential to reach American Forest's recommended 40% canopy cover for Pacific
Northwest cities. Prager briefly explained the methodology used by staff detailed in Attachment 2 (UFMP
CAC July 1, 2009 meeting packet).
David Walsh asked what baseline was used for percent canopy. Prager responded that staff used the 2007
canopy layer provided by Metro and the citywide baseline was roughly 24%. He said the study informed
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 6
Attachment 1
the goals in the UFMP of no net loss of canopy by 2015, 32% citywide canopy by 2027, and 40% citywide
canopy by 2047.
Morgan Holen commented that canopy is not the most important aspect of urban forestry, and instead the
City should be focusing on maximizing net benefits. Ms. Holen highlighted the importance of canopy
cover over roads and parking lots, and suggested the City focus its efforts on areas where trees provide the
highest benefit to cost ratio. She also noted the importance of species and age diversity and said that
canopy cover does not take these factors into account.
David Walsh responded that canopy cover is the most cost effective method for creating a baseline at this
time.
Prager acknowledged the importance of diversity and maximizing benefits in urban forestry and that
canopy studies do not take that into account. He said that in the future that type of detailed analysis
should be done, but for the City's first UFMP a more cost effective and time efficient method for
measuring the urban forest is needed.
Ms. Holen agreed that a more detailed study should be conducted in the future.
Prager mentioned that the parking lot canopy study is ongoing and should be completed by the next
meeting. He explained that the purpose of the parking lot study is to set a baseline for parking lot canopy
so that it can be tracked in the future as planting efforts increase and parking lot designs are improved.
4. Draft Plan Discussion
Prager then shifted the discussion to the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC
July 1, 2009 meeting packet). He said that he would first like to talk about the overall content of the plan,
and then work on achieving consensus on the recommendations. He reminded the CAC that Council is
the primary target audience because they will ultimately need to accept the proposed work plan regarding
code updates and program implementation.
Phil Hickey said the UFMP was nicely organized and presented although an appendix and glossary are
necessary additions.
Morgan Holen said that an urban forest benefits section should be added and that it could be in the
appendix. Prager responded that he removed the benefit/cost section in response to the CAC's desire to
reduce the size of the previous draft. He added that there is a discussion of urban forest benefits and costs
in the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan which is currently in the appendix.
David Walsh and Dennis Sizemore supported referencing the Comprehensive Plan rather than adding a
separate discussion of urban forest benefits and costs. Morgan Holen and the rest of the CAC agreed that
the Comprehensive Plan should be referenced in the narrative.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 6
Attachment 1
Prager then shifted the discussion to the implementation recommendations. He said that substantial
additions, deletions, or revisions to the recommendations by CAC members will only be made if a majority
of CAC members approve.
In response to a question from Morgan Holen, Prager confirmed that the implementation goals are listed
in order of importance and revising the tree code is the top priority.
Morgan Holen responded that before the tree code is revised, there should be more evaluation of the
current code and its impact on the existing urban forest.
David Walsh said that Council has been asking the Tree Board to evaluate and revise the code for years
and now is the appropriate time for implementation.
Prager added that the UFMP is intended to evaluate the existing urban forest and code so that future
decisions could be more informed.
The Tree Board members of the CAC agreed that it is necessary to begin code revisions first.
Morgan Holen asked the group if recommendation 1.1.g (create a tree preservation manual) is necessary.
Her experience with cities that have a tree preservation manual has been that they limit the flexibility and
professional judgments of project arborists. She said in her opinion, a tree preservation manual would
make the future code more complicated.
Phil Hickey disagreed and thought a tree preservation manual could be a good thing so that minimum
standards could be enforced. Mr. Hickey commented that some arborists are not skilled at tree
preservation so a minimum standard is appropriate.
Dennis Sizemore supported a tree preservation manual so the public can understand what the standard
requirements are.
Morgan Holen said that the implementation recommendations under goal 4 (Develop a hazard tree
program) should specify that the tree risk assessment methodology established by the Pacific Northwest
Chapter of the ISA is to be used when performing hazard inspections and abatement.
Janet Gillis suggested that recommendations 4.1.d and 5.2.b be combined because they both cover hiring a
greenspace coordinator.
In addition to the changes suggested at the meeting, the substantial changes to the recommendations in
Mort Ettelstein's email dated June 19, 2009 (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009 meeting packet)
where discussed.
Mort Ettelstein's email suggested moving the following recommendations into the narrative section of the
document:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of6
Attachment 1
1.1.b Focus code less on mitigation and more on preserving long lived evergreens, broad-spreading
deciduous varieties, native species, and other trees identified as being of high importance.
1.1.c Require private arborists to be involved in the development process from site planning through
landscape installation.
1.1.e Provide incentives for preserving smaller diameter trees which have a higher ability to withstand
development impacts.
1.1.f Ensure invasive trees are exempt from preservation requirements through the adoption of an
inclusive invasive species list.
2.1.e Incentivize the use, retention, and replacement of long lived evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous
varieties, native species, and other trees identified as of high importance.
2.1.f Allow required landscape trees to count towards mitigation, canopy cover, and/or tree density
standards.
2.1.g Require landscape architects to develop landscape plans for projects of a certain type and/or size.
2.1.h Do not require new technologies that are cost prohibitive.
3.2.a Reach out to property owners with identified tree groves early in the process to allow them ample
opportunity to participate.
3.2.b Ensure any future tree grove regulations have flexibility and incentives built in.
In addition, Mr. Ettelstein suggested adding the following recommendations:
-Conduct a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup program from all City streets.
-Designate a lead division to provide leadership and coordination for the hazard tree program.
-Designate a lead individual to coordinate all urban forest related activities.
Marissa Daniels displayed all of the CAC member's suggested changes on a poster and asked the CAC as a
group to decide whether to accept them.
Karen Estrada asked if items are removed from the matrix would they be less likely to be followed up on.
Prager responded that the items in the matrix have a specific timeline for implementation, so removing
items from the matrix will make them less enforceable.
Dennis Sizemore said that he objects to removing any recommendations because they implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 6
Attachment 1
Janet Gillis added that removing recommendations related to mitigation would be counterproductive
because it is a central issue that needs to be resolved.
Marissa Daniels suggested combining some of the recommendations to cut down on the total. David
Walsh objected to this because if Council ends up rejecting a recommendation, then it would eliminate
multiple items all at once.
Prager suggested reordering the recommendations within each goal so that the ordinances, programs,
projects, and features are in groups rather than scattered throughout.
Mort Ettelstein said that he thought that approach would work, and that the important thing is for the
document to be useable in the future.
At Prager's request,Marissa Daniels took a vote on the substantial changes to the recommendations. The
results were as follows:
-The CAC voted unanimously not to remove any of the existing implementation recommendations.
-The CAC voted unanimously to include the following recommendations:
-Conduct a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup program from all City streets.
-Designate a lead division to provide leadership and coordination for the hazard tree program.
-Designate a lead individual to coordinate all urban forest related activities.
-The CAC voted unanimously to substantially revise the recommendations as follows:
- Specify that the tree risk assessment methodology established by the Pacific Northwest
Chapter of the ISA is to be used when performing hazard inspections and abatement.
-Combine recommendations 4.1.d and 5.2.b because they both cover hiring a greenspace
coordinator.
5. Public Comment on Draft Plan
Prager told the CAC to consider all of the public comments (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009
meeting packet) as well as those forwarded via email in recent days. Prager said that staff would be making
additional edits to wording, etc. over the coming months, but if the CAC would like to put forward any
substantial revisions to the UFMP in response to public comment, they were welcome to do so after
testimony is received from the public.
At 7:21 p.m., Karen Estrada commented that she was happy with the direction the UFMP was moving.
Ms. Estrada added that coordination of the UFMP among City departments will be important in the future
and that any new regulations should pertain to all Tigard citizens.
Ms. Estrada added that all Tigard citizens are impacted by the actions of their neighbors, especially during
infill development projects. She then passed around a photo (Exhibit A) of a development project
adjacent to her residence with tall weeds that she says resulted from trees being cut down and left in place.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of6
Attachment 1
Ms. Estrada also claimed that the lack of trees is causing drainage issues on the site and that the City codes
do not adequately address this type of situation.
Ms. Estrada added that the blight caused by the development project in this and other areas of town is
reducing property values and the City's overall tax base.
She said that she likes the recommendation to prohibit clear cutting because it protects existing
neighborhoods. Ms. Estrada stressed the importance of not removing items from the recommendation list
because if they are not in writing, they will not be enforced.
6. Consideration of Public Comment
After considering all of the written and verbal public comments received, the CAC unanimously voted to
not substantially alter the UFMP aside from the revisions previously approved.
7. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Prager reminded the CAC that the final meeting will be September 2, 2009. He also told the CAC that
staff will be meeting with Council on August 11, 2009 to update them on the UFMP, as well as receive
direction on implementing code revisions. John Floyd added that Council will be considering interim code
revisions on July 14, 2009 and further direction on code revisions may be received at that time. Todd
Prager adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—july 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of6
Attachment 2
s
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst and Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Notes on Parking Lot Canopy Calculations
Date: August 17,2009
Methodology
The following approach was used to estimate the percent of parking lot acreage in the city of
Tigard that is covered by tree canopy. The first step was to identify parking lots within the
Tigard city limits. Clean Water Services (CWS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have data layers pertaining to "imperviousness" that are available to the public,but both
generalized the data to a level that made them inappropriate for this estimate. No other GIS
layer of parking lot polygons could be found, so it was decided that parking lots should be
digitized manually using aerial photography.
To reduce the amount of time required digitizing, a sample of parking lots was identified within
Tigard. The area was first stratified using the "2001 National Land Cover" available from the
EPA (htg://www.cpa.My/mrlc/nlcd-2001.htmi), then by zoning category (Residential,
Industrial, Commercial and Mixed Use) based on Tigard's zoning map. Next,ten to fifteen
random points were placed in each zoning category to include all unique combinations of strata
and zoning category. Once sample points were placed, quarter mile buffer circles were drawn
around these points. Finally, all parking lots within these quarter mile circles were delineated
using leaf-off aerial photography (flown in February 2005). These parking lots were considered
to be a representative sample of Tigard parking lots. The elements in this process are illustrated
in the image below.
Attachment 2
VT
10
". t
a hds �.
r
Y`
` 1 X
K 11afkmq tot
De 1, eanon
pn r
� - Metro'>21)111
k iI'anopy I.ayar
a "
The last step in estimating the percent of parking lot acreage covered by tree canopy was to
intersect the parking lots delineated as described above with the existing canopy area (as
outlined by Metro's 2007 existing canopy analysis). The acreage of the resulting shapes (sample
parking lots with canopy)was then divided by the total sample parking lot acreage to arrive at a
final percentage.
Results
Parking Lot Sample Acreage: 508.77 acres
Parking Lot Sample Acres covered by canopy: 30.72 acres
Percent Parking Lot Sample Canopy Coverage: 6%
ran Forestrv, Master P an
—City
V
Of
Tigard
Iv
i
v .
• u �,.Jr
��',� ..:* I" ♦ � F' f V} +rte 'Z
t c,
o--
f
" t
.• , 4 ;, �}
V 'k y
yivp, t
14
s
Draft 5 1 August 2009
M
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen,Council President
Nick Wilson, Councilor
Gretchen Buehner,Councilor
Marland Henderson, Councilor
Sydney Webb,Councilor
Urban Forestry Matt Clemo Mort Ettelstein
Master Plan Janet Gillis Phil Hickey
Citizen Advisory Committee Morgan Holen Dennis Sizemore
Tony Tycer David Walsh
City of Tigard Craig Prosser,City Manager
Ron Bunch,Community Development Director
Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director
Dick Bewersdorff,Current Planning Manager
Darren Wyss,Senior Planner
Todd Prager Associate Planner/Arborist
Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner
John Floyd,Associate Planner
Nathan Shaub,GIS Analyst
Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant
Sam Tilley,Intern
Stakeholder Participants Chad Burns,Portland General Electric
Alan DeHarpport,Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
Maryann Escriva,Tigard Tualatin School District
Terrance Flanagan,Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture
Peter Guillozet,Clean Water Services
Troy Mears,Oregon Chapter of the American Society of
Landscape Architects
Ernie Platt,Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
Steve Schalk,Oregon Department of Transportation
Tigard Tree Board Members (2009)
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
Phil Wentz,Tigard Tualatin School District
[THIS ,PAQE`, INTENTIONALLY .,LEFT,, BLANK]
Draft 5 atv of rigard I Urban Forestry Master Plaii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Implementation Matrix 2
Basis for Decision Making 9
Chapter 1: Development Regulations and Mitigation Requirements 11
Chapter 2: Landscaping Requirements 13
Chapter 3: Tree Grove Protection 15
Chapter 4: Hazard Trees 19
Chapter 5: Urban Forestry Program Management 21
Chapter 6: Stewardship 23
Glossary 29
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Urban Forestry Survey Results a1
Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16
Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24
,,dAppendix D: City of Tigard,Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a45
k Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a52
Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a61
AppendixG: Review of Current Federal/State/Regional
Urban Forestry Policy Framework a62
Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Policy Framework a69
[THIS -PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Gly of"11,gard I Urban Forestry Master Plan
Executive Summary
This Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) sets a course of action for the
City of Tigard's urban forestry program from the time of its acceptance
by Council until the year 2016. The Plan has been developed through a
public process involving community outreach and surveys,urban forestry
stakeholder interviews,departmental coordination meetings,and review
of current City policies and programs. Based on the information received
throughout this process,the UFMP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
recommends the following implementation goals:
1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790,includes development
regulations and mitigation).
2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees,parking lot
trees,and other required landscape trees).
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program.
5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program.
6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
It is further recommended that the achievement of the above
implementation goals occur through a series of sub-goals and
action measures which are outlined in the implementation matrix.
Implementation goals, sub-goals,and action measures are intended to
Tigard's urban forest is valued frame future urban forestry code and program development and set a
and protected by City residents timeline for both. Tigard's Tree Board will be charged with overseeing the
implementation of the UFMP as part of their annual work plan.
as a thriving interconnected
ecosystem managed to improve
quality of life, increase community
identity, and maximize aesthetic,
economic, and ecological benefits.
Urban 1 Draft
Implementali on Matrix
The following implementation matrix contains all six UFMP implementa-
tion goals (highlighted in orange),their associated sub-goals (e g. 1.1, 1.2,
1.3...),and a series of action measures with the necessary level of detail
needed to implement the goals and sub-goals. For each action measure
the lead City division,applicable Comprehensive Plan policies,staff and
financial resources required,and implementation schedule are included.
Through implementation of the goals,sub-goals,and action measures
m this Plan,progress will be made towards the adopted vision of the
UFMP CAC:
Urban Forestry
Master Plan `
b
« 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
aestbetic, economic, and ecological benefits. �'
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban 1
CL
Implementation
• , Goals '
..
1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes developinent regulations and mitigation).
1.1 Revise tree code to allow for more flexibility and ensure a qualitative approach to tree preservation.
a. Move tree code from Tigard Development Code Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011
to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow for Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.6,
discretionary review, 2.3.7,2-3.9,23-10,
2.3.11
b. Modify code to focus less on mitigation and Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, High $$ 2010 2011
more on preservation of long-lived evergreen and Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
broad-leaf deciduous tree species,native and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
indigenous trees,and other trees identified as of 2.3.9,2.3.11
high importance.
c. Require private arborists to be involved in the Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.1,2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011
development process from site planning through Planning 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installation. 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, High $$ 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and seeking Planning 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.8,
variances and adjustments to preserve trees 2.3.9,2.3.11
identified as being of high importance.
e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011
diameter trees that have a higher ability to Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
withstand development impacts. 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
2.3.9,2.3.11
f. Ensure invasive trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7,2.3.8,2.3.11
g. Develop standards and procedures for tree code Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011
enforcement. Planning 2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
h. Develop procedures detailing when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
protected trees will be inventoried and permit Planning
activities tracked.
L Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIs and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory of Planning
protected trees.
j. Create a tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.8, High $$$ 2010 2011
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.7,
preferred speciesitree types for preservation. 2.3.8,2.3.9
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med.=8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ _ <$1,000 **$$_$1,000—$10,000 **$$$ _ $10,000450,000 **$$$$ _ >$50,000
Urban 1 1 Draft
IA
CL
1.2 Revise tree code so that standards do not solely impact those property owners with trees.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$ 2010 2011
for all lots to be met by either preserving existing Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.1,2.3.2,
trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012
charge for new development in order to Planning 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program.
landscaping2.Revise'rigard's parking lot trees. and other required landscape
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements.
a. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
incorporate stormwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
b. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish a Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permit system for planting,removal,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.8,
replacement of required trees. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5,
2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11
c.; Incentivize the use,retention,and replacement Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med $$ 2010 2011
of long lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
tree species,native and indigenous trees,and 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.1,2.3.5,2.3.7,
2.3.8,2.3.11
d. Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2;2.8,
standards. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5
e. Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Law $ 2010 2011
landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10,2.3.5,2.3.7,
and/or size. 2.3.11
f. Create a design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011
drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
g. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
right-of-ways(Highway 99W,Highway 217,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
Interstate 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5,2.3.8
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ _ <$1,000 **$$_$1,000410,000 **$$$_$10,000450,000 **$$$$_ >$50,000
DrAt 5 city of Tigard I Urban Forestry
implementation Goals
..
h. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1,2.2.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010FOngoingprohibitive. Planning
2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacemea. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011
be inventoried and permit activities trached. Planning
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning
of tree plantings and permitted removals.
Develop
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
a. Establish standards and procedures for identifying Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$$ 2010 2011
and inventorying large groves of native trees. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.8,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves identified for Planning 2.2.4, 2.2.6,2.2.7,
protection. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1;
2.3.2,2-3-3,236,
2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2-3.9,2.3.11
3.2 Develop a flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. Reach out to property owners with identified tree Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Med. $$ 2010 2012
groves early in the process to allow them ample Range
opportunity to participate in the development of
regulations.
b. IEnsure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.11
4.,Develop a ha7ard tree identification and abatement prograni.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing
assessment. 09�- 2.3.8
b. Develop and implement a formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8
c. Develop and implement a formal emergency Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards in City parks/ 2.3.8
greenspaces.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ = $10,000450,000 **$$$$= >$50,000
Urban 1 Draft,
Implementation Goals
4.2 Establish a City program to facilitate tree hazard identification and abatement on private property.
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8, High $$ 2010 2011
to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11
property tree hazards.
b. Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1,2.2.2 Med. $$ 2010 2011
■' constitutes a tree hazard using the Tree Risk Planning
Assessment methodology developed by the
PNWISA.
c. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
abatement and risk mitigation. Planning 2.3.11
d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4,2.3.11 High $$$ 2010 2011
including assigning responsibility. Planning
e. Make information about hazard tree Current 2.3.4,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011
indentification and abatement program available Planning
to the public.
5.1 Begirt developing a tree and urban forest inventory.
a. Develop procedures for when and how Current 2.2,1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
protected trees,tree groves,street trees, Planning
heritage trees,and required landscape trees will
be inventoried and permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GTS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning
of protected trees,tree groves,street trees,
heritage trees,and required landscape trees.
c. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIs Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized.
Link sites with the City's accounting system so
detailed analyses of urban forestry expenditures
can be obtained.
5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests.
a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits
can be identified and evaluated.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $= <$1,000 **$$= $1,000—$10,000 **$$$= $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
Draft 5 city of Tigard I Urban 1
CL tA
LA 0 . .
Implementation
..
b. Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage City Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
owned natural areas and develop a proactive
hazard tree identification and abatement
program for those areas. 3
c. Develop a written set of urban forestry Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012
standards and specifications for City projects. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.3,2.3.7,2.3.9
Identify and secure long term funding sources for; Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low $ 2014
urban forestry projects as mitigation funds decline. Planning
e. Designate City Arborist as lead coordinator for Current 2.2.2,2.2.6,2.2.11, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Planning 2.3.4,2.3.7
6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry outreach materials.
a. Provide Tigard citizens with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2012 2013
forestry outreach information such as workshops, Planning
flyers,online tools,"ask the arborist"service,etc.
b. Maintain a list of invasive trees and other plants, Current 2.2.1,2.2.7,2.2.8, Low $ 2012 2013
discourage their sale and propagation,and Planning 2.2.9,2.3.8,2.3.11
promote their removal.
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
a. Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2014
tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public
right-of-way.
b. Present a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Low $ 2013 2013
program for Council's consideration. Planning
6.3 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1,2,2.2,2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
number of trees per year.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$=$1,000—$10,000 **$$$=$10,000450,000 **$$$$= >$50,000
Urban 1 Draft
Implementation
—j ix U ..
6.4 Regularly update the Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
a. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2015 2015
canopy from 2007-2015. Planning
b. Strive to achieve 32%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027
2027 Planning
c. Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
2047 Planning
d. Update Urban Forestry Master Plan every 5-7 Current 2.2.1,2.2.21 2.2.11, High $$$ 2015 2016
years. Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ _ $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
Urban Plan
Basis for Decision Making
The following information was used as the basis for decision making when
formulating goals,sub-goals,and action measures for the UFMP.
Urban Forestry Survey
An independent, scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected
citizens about their attitudes towards existing and potential urban forestry
policies and programs was completed by Steve Johnson and Associates
in December of 2008. The survey was funded in part by a grant from
the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service.
The purpose of the survey was to gain a more detailed understanding
of community attitudes towards urban forestry issues in Tigard. Exact
questions and complete results from the survey are included in Appendix A.
Canopy Analysis
In cooperation with Metro,Tigard's tree canopy from 1996 and 2007 was
identified and mapped using aerial photography. This has allowed for
easy identification of where the urban forest is increasing, decreasing,
and remaining the same. It will also allow for continual tracking of
canopy change in the future as Metro runs the software that can detect
the presence of tree canopy cover every two years. Using the results,
management decisions were made such as where preservation and planting
efforts should be targeted. Full results of the canopy analysis are in
Appendix B.
Stakeholder Interviews
City staff interviewed major community stakeholder groups and
jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the
management of Tigard's urban forest.The full stakeholder interview notes
are included in Appendix C.
City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meetings
The City of Tigard has multiple departments,divisions,boards,and
Urban Plan I city of rigard Draft 5
committees that administer and implement the City's urban forestry
program. Key City staff members with roles in coordinating and
implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies,and codes
met to discuss urban forestry coordination needs and to identify
solutions. The purpose of this coordination is to provide for more
effective administration of the urban forestry program and to inform
recommendations made in the UFMP. Full results of the internal
coordination meetings can be found in Appendix D.
Review of Current and Historical Urban Forestry City staff interviewed major
Codes, Polices, and Programs
community stakeholder groups
A thorough review and analysis of urban forestry related laws,codes,
policies,and programs was undertaken to inform recommendations in the and jurisdictions that regularly
UFMR Particular attention was paid to the Urban Forest Section of the contribute to andlor are affected
Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) which contains the goals,policies,and
action measures that guide Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix E by the management of Tigard's
also provides examples of the social,ecological,and economic benefits of urban forest. The full stakeholder
urban trees and forests. interview notes are included in
Appendix F contains a historical timeline relative to urban forestry in Appendix C.
Tigard. Appendix G contains a review and analysis of the major Federal,
State,and Regional policies that provide a framework for Tigard's urban
forestry program. Appendix H is a review and analysis of current urban
forestry related City codes.
UFMP CAC
The UFMP CAC was comprised of the Tree Board plus four additional
residents/business interests at large including two certified arborists,one
homebuilder,and one resident with expertise in public administration.
They met every other month to receive information as it was being
collected and advised staff on Plan development.
Urban 1
CHAPTER 1:
Development Regulations and
Mitigation Requirements
Implementation Goal 1 :
Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes
development regulations and mitigation).
Revising Tigard's tree code is purposely listed as Goal 1 due to strong
dissatisfaction with the existing code by those both inside and outside of
the development community.
Tigard's existing tree code is located in Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard
Development Code. This Code requires certain types of development
Projects to prepare a tree plan and identify trees to be preserved and
removed during construction. Tree replacement,or mitigation,is required
on an"inch for inch"basis. This means that if a tree with a trunk that is
91'
12 inches in diameter is removed,it needs to be replaced with 6,2-inch
diameter replacement trees. If a developer chooses not to replant trees,
x then the City requires a"fee-in-lieu payment"to the Tigard Tree Fund at
the current rate of$125 per diameter inch (2009).
Some of the criticism of the tree code from stakeholders is that
the mitigation structure promotes overplanting,it does not require
preservation of quality trees,and it encourages the retention of large
diameter trees that are less likely to survive development impacts. The
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP)position
is that the fee-in-lieu of mitigation is excessive and that the tree code does
not adequately reward the preservation of high quality trees. The HBAMP
and other stakeholders agree that the tree code unfairly penalizes those
property owners with existing trees more than those owners without trees.
For the City,the tree code is also administratively difficult to implement
because it is challenging to track protected and replacement trees in the
years and decades following development.
The previous tree code that went into effect in 1983 was more
preservationist than today's code because it required a permit prior to the
removal of any tree on all undeveloped land,developed commercial and
industrial land,and public land. In 1997 Tigard's tree code was revised to
Urban
its current form. The code currently allows any or all trees to be removed
as long as they are replaced. Due in part to dissatisfaction with the existing
tree code,the Tigard Tree Board was charged with developing a"City
Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in 2007.
Following over a year of work by the Tree Board,a comprehensive plan for
the urban forest was developed in 2008. The Urban Forest section of the
Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) contains two goals to be implemented
by 22 policies. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan guide the
recommendations made in this Plan.
Would you strongly support,support,
While many are unhappy with the current tree code,the UFMP community oppose,or strongly oppose tree
survey confirmed Tigard residents want the City to require some trees are removal regulations during property
preserved and new trees planted during development (-88% support). development,even when they limit the
A majority 57% of respondents say the support new development size and extent of potential buildings
1 t5'(�' ) p Y Y PP P or profits?
regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings
or profits. Approximately 32%of respondents oppose tree regulations 60 .Somewhat
limiting development.(See Figure 1 at right). so 'Stta m
Protecting Tigard's urban forest on developable must be balanced with
State,Metro,and City planning goals and regulations which favor density 40
in urban areas. Specifically,development regulations must be clear and 30
objective,and not discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost
or delay according to State law. Only 7%of Tigard's land area and 12%of 20
its citywide tree canopy are on developable property so a comprehensive
urban forestry code and program must address areas outside of 10
development.
0
Direction received from the community and stakeholders regarding tree supnm oovo#
code revisions have been folded into several sub-goals and implementation 6 "� FIGURE 1
measures. Major recommendations include:
■ Moving the tree code from the development code into the municipal
code to allow for more qualitative review of tree plans and to address
areas outside development;
■ Less focus on mitigation and more on preserving high quality trees;
■ Revising tree preservation incentives so that they are more attractive
to developers;and
■ Not unfairly penalizing those property owners with trees.
Also included in the recommendations are steps the City should take to
better track protected and replacement trees after development is complete.
GtA,of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plaii
CHAPTER 2:
Landscaping Requirements
" Implementation Goal 2:
Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees,
parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees).
Stakeholder interviews highlighted
the need for requirements Revising Tigard's landscaping code is the second goal of the UFMP. The
addressing the planting of high intention of the revisions is to improve the quality and protection of the
City's streetscapes and commercial and industrial landscapes.
quality trees and ensuring that
Tigard's existing landscaping codes are scattered throughout the
design and maintenance of areas Development and Municipal Codes. Many of the provisions in
such as parking lots and street the landscaping codes lack specificity,are conflicting,and present
administrative challenges for the City. Also,the City's standards and design
side plantings are sustainable and guidelines do not specify industry accepted installation and maintenance
aesthetically pleasing. requirements for trees.
Stakeholder interviews highlighted the need for requirements addressing
the planting of high quality trees and ensuring that design and maintenance
of areas such as parking lots and street side plantings are sustainable and
aesthetically pleasing. The Oregon Chapter of the American Society
of Landscape Architects (OASLA) suggested Tigard create a tree and
landscape design manual with drawings and specifications so that landscape
architects have a clear idea of the City's overall tree and landscape vision.
Such a tree and landscape design manual could also address the Tree
Board's request to translate Code revisions into something the public can
understand.
Internally,the lack of a comprehensive tree inventory has led to difficulty
tracking street trees and required landscape trees.
Although the UFMP community survey revealed that Tigard citizens are
highly satisfied with the current overall state of Tigard's urban forest,74%
of respondents believe more street trees will be good for the City.Tigard's
canopy analysis supports this,as street trees currently provide only 9%
canopy in City street right-of-ways. The canopy analysis also found that
the City's parking lot tree standards are not effective due to the relatively
low tree canopy in parking lots. (See Figure 2 on next page.)
Direction for revising Tigard's landscaping code is included in the
sub-goals and implementation of section two of the matrix. Specific
Urban / Draft
recommendations include developing a landscape design manual with
drawings and specifications,improving parking lot design,establishing
a permit system for the planting,replacement, and removal of required
trees,and improving the tracking and inventorying of street trees and other
required landscape trees.
Based on a
• "' , ►
random sample,
Tigard parking
y + # v.. ' ' lots(outlined
I in yellow)are
covered by
approximately
-� 16 0" 6%tree canopy
amp" _ # (areas highlighted
��tIfit . in green).
- * 2r _• ab
O T.
y
r ` 1e
1
41
As
. .1 .i..J"MIpft P*JrA 1'11 t �'1 11i
�. .♦ .JII' ICY J'.I'1
P
a
p ,
"
SW y�
} FIGURE 2
Cit"ol Vi-�trd I Urban Forestry Master Plan
CHAPTER 3:
Tree Grove Protection
Implementation Goal 3:
Develop a tree grove protection program.
The third goal of the UFMP is to develop a tree grove protection program
which creates mechanism for protecting Tigard's remaining groves of
1 native trees.
Many tree groves in Tigard are currently afforded some level of protection
due to their location in sensitive lands (stream corridors, steep slopes,
significant habitat areas,wetlands,and floodplains) as defined by the Tigard
Development Code. Tigard's Development Code limits the type and
intensity of development within sensitive lands,and requires permits for
tree removal in these areas. However,the Development Code does not
explicitly protect tree groves in sensitive lands,and tree removal permits are
automatically issued if an erosion control plan is provided. Also, currently
there are no protections for tree groves located outside of sensitive lands.
Prior to enacting any regulations protecting tree groves,the City must
comply with Federal,State,and Regional regulations (see Appendix G).
Particular attention shall be paid to State laws including the requirements
for an economic,social,environmental,and energy(ESEE) analysis prior
to protecting"Goal 5" (natural) resources.
Some of the stakeholders interviewed for the UFMP such as the Pacific
Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture
(PNWISA),the OASLA,the Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water
Services, support the City's efforts to preserve and maintain native trees
and groves in Tigard. Multiple stakeholders also suggest the City take a
leadership role in tree grove protection by hiring a greenspace coordinator
to provide long term maintenance of City-owned natural areas. The
HBAMP suggested affected property owners be directly notified about
regulations and incentives proposed for incorporation into any City code
calling for the preservation of tree groves.
The UFMP community survey shows that Tigard residents support future
regulations to protect native tree groves. Most residents (-55%) would
like to see regulations focused on larger groves of native trees as opposed
to individual trees of significant size (-28% support). In addition,37%
of respondents said they prefer to see new tree regulations focused on
Urban 1 i Draft
natural areas as opposed to ornamental trees (-3%support). However,
approximately 48% said they would like to see regulations applied to natural If the City were to enact new tree
areas and ornamental trees equally. (See Figure 3 at right.)73%of respondents protection measures,would you like
to see them focused on natural areas,
said the decision of whether to preserve trees should not be left solely to the ornamental landscape trees,both types
developer,and a majority(57%) said they support tree regulations even if equally,or on something else.
they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. 60
While residents prioritize grove protection,the canopy analysis revealed so
that Tigard's tree groves are disappearing. In 1996,there were 63 canopy 40
clusters greater than 5 acres in size within the City limits. In 2007,there
were 48 canopy clusters greater than 5 acres in size. This represents a 24% 30
decline in large sized canopy clusters in eleven years. (See Figure 4 on next
zo
page.)
10
As a result of trends shown in the canopy analysis,community preference,
and stakeholder input,the UFMP developed a number of sub-goals and -_
P � P g Natural Ornamental Both
action measures to guide the development of a tree grove protection Areas Trees Equally
program that is compliant with Federal,State,Regional,and Local FIGURE a
requirements. Included are recommendations to contact all property
owners that would be impacted by a tree grove protection program and
providing grove preservation incentives.
Urban 1
HART RD
1996 Canopy Clustering 2007
o a
y SOF�P m ESO?P
BPOCKMAN ST D Legend BPOCKMAN ST _ Off'
4% Canopy Cover
WEIR 0.D .. 1 Acres x ,. ° *, o
L
S FERRY RD' - 7D Le—h-S ` FERKY RD D `[ gPpeJ
0 5 G.99
I.0 1.99 ' _ -• ji �. wa
2,0 4.99
.�e
{ w �k Q Tig�[d Cary Llmi[., i i
w •J p. ''� D q
z z
GAARDES MCDONAL _ k A GAARDE ST 'MCDONAL� KRVSE
VV BULL NOUN _ ^ BULL MOUNT
q '- ~� r •'1
I,N RO y rL ` BO NITA D �V A i_ i + - • BONIT RD ,,0R
I:., u =F► 1iy = �,�4iL....�F4F�T ,1 PppP
` G
I _ A
OA
BEEF BEND RD _ DUVAM RD 4 BEEF BEND RD DU AM RD
0 3°" ff
A
TUALATIN Y O TUALATIN Y
O
— — CHILD
1
Canopy Cluster Total Acres as a No. No.of Total Acres as a No. No.of
Size Class Acres of %of Total of Clusters Acres of %of Total of Clusters
Canopy Canopy Clusters as a% Canopy Canopy Clusters as a%
Cover Cover of Total Cover Cover of Total
Less than .5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62%
Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100%
FIGURE 4
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT.B,LAN K]
Urban 1
CHAPTER 4:
Hazard Trees
Implementation Goal 4:
Develop a hazard tree identification and
abatement program.
The fourth goal in the UFMP is to develop a hazard tree identification and
abatement program that adequately addresses tree hazards on both public
and private property.
Currently Tigard's Municipal Code prohibits hazard trees, but there is a
lack of specificity on what constitutes a hazard and what the mechanism is
for abating hazards in a timely manner.There is also no formal process for
identifying and abating tree hazards on City property.
Currently, if there is a dispute between During the stakeholder interviews the Tree Board suggested that the
neighboring property owners regarding City increase communications between departments. Interdepartmental
a potentially hazardous tree,the City
does not get involved,and instead communication is integral to effectively addressing tree hazards in a timely
directs the neighbors to work out a manner. Other stakeholders suggested that the City hire a greenspace
solution through civil means.Would coordinator who could provide proactive management of tree hazards
you strongly support,support,oppose,
or strongly oppose the creation of a in City parks and greenspaces. The HBAMP said the City should allow
program where the City would become private property owners to manage their land as they see fit,which implies
involved in disputes between neighbors the City should have no involvement in private property tree hazard issues.
regarding hazardous trees?
As a result of the City's internal coordination meetings, specific methods
70 ■Somewhat for responding to public tree hazards were developed and are detailed in
'Str°"g'Y60 Appendix D. The Parks Division echoed the stakeholders by highlighting
the need to hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage tree
50 hazards on City property.
ao - The community survey results indicate public support for a hazard tree
identification and abatement program. Approximately 76%of residents
30 think more resources should be directed to better maintain and protect
zo
existing trees. A majority of residents said they would support additional
_—
funding from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a more
10 __ comprehensive tree program in Tigard parks and open spaces (-56%
support, —39%oppose). A portion of that funding could be used by the
0 City for a hazard tree program. Finally,a majority of residents said they
$UDDOrt Oppose
tff would support the creation of a program where the City would become
FIGURE s involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees on private
property(60% support,38%oppose). (See Figure 5 at left.)
l
Urban 1 Draft
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP
support the creation of a hazard tree identification and abatement program
for public and private property. The recommendations include formalizing
the City's hazard response protocols,hiring a greenspace coordinator s,a,
to help manage tree hazards on City property,and developing a process
whereby the City would have authority to become involved in tree hazards
on private property. In order to provide consistency in tree hazard
identification and abatement,it is recommended that the City adopt the f ,
PNWISA Tree Risk Assessment methodology as its standard.
_
f
Urban
CxAiyrER 5:
Urban Forestry Program
Management
Implementation Goal 5:
Improve the management of the City's urban
forestry program.
The public showed a preference
for urban forestry efforts to focus Implementation Goal 5 was developed to improve the coordination and
management of the City's urban forestry program.
on streamside trees and other
Tigard's urban forestry program is currently implemented by multiple City
natural forested areas. departments and divisions. In addition,code provisions relating to urban
forestry are scattered throughout the Municipal and Development Codes.
a Management of City-owned tree and forest resources has been declining
? as more land is acquired without additional funding for maintenance
and proactive management. Improved communication between City
departments and divisions,unifying urban forestry related Code provisions,
and providing adequate staffing is needed for more effective management
of the City's urban forestry program. Also, securing a sustainable funding
source will be necessary to provide long term support of the urban forestry
program as the Tree Fund declines due to less future development.
Stakeholders such as the PNWISA and Clean Water Services suggested that
the City hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage City tree and
forest resources. The Tualatin Riverkeepers said the City needs to establish a
sustainable source of funding for its urban forestry program to assist in the
long term management of invasive species. The Tree Board suggested that
there needs to be more coordination between City departments and divisions
when administering the urban forestry program. Although a minority view,
" the HBAMP's position is that there should be no urban forestry program
because the costs outweigh the benefits of such a program.
The City's internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for more
communication between departments and divisions. More communication
would improve the management of tree hazards,ensure City development
projects are adhering to applicable Code requirements,improve the
tracking of trees after development,and provide more transparency as to
how and where the Tree Fund is being utilized. The internal coordination
meetings also highlighted the need for a written set of tree protection
Urban Forestry
and replacement standards for City projects so that the City can take a
leadership role in urban forestry. Would you strongly support,support,
oppose,or strongly oppose additional
The community survey results demonstrate public support for increased funding from increased City fees,
funding through fees and taxes for the City's urban forestry program
charges or property taxes to fund a
support, —39%oppose). (See re at right.) The public showed more comprehensive tree planting and
�"v56% pP � pp �• �SFigure 6 i g � P maintenance program in Tigard parks
a preference for urban forestry efforts to focus on streamside trees and and open spaces?
other natural forested areas. These results indicate that residents would
support the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to directly manage the 60
■Somewhat �
nearly 180 acres of City-owned tree canopy in Tigard. ■Stroney s
� j
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP
to support the goal of improved City management include developing 40 —
methods for inventorying and tracking trees and urban forestry related
expenditures,developing a written set of urban forestry standards for 30-
City
0-City projects,securing a sustainable funding source for urban forestry,and
hiring a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's natural areas. 20
10 f
0
Support Oppose
FIGURE b
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plaii
CHAPTER 6:
stewardship
Implementation Goal 6:
Develop an urban forestry stewardship program.
Urban Forest stewardship has been a vital component of life in the area
now known as Tigard for thousands of years. 3,500 years before present,
Kalapuya (Native Americans) began managing the forests of the Willamette
Valley using fire (pyroculture).At about the time of European settlement
in 1851,canopy coverage within the current City limits of Tigard was
estimated to be 52.4% (3,966.9 acres). The predominant tree species were
Oregon ash,red alder,bigleaf maple,willow,black cottonwood,Oregon
white oak,western red cedar, and Pacific dogwood in the riparian and
wetland areas.The upland areas were dominated by Douglas-fir,bigleaf
maple,grand fir,Pacific dogwood,western hemlock, Oregon white oak,red
alder,western red cedar,and ponderosa pine. (See Figure 7 below)
Forest types/
vegetation
.'" present circa
1851 (Hulse
et al.,2002).
« Estimated 1851
canopy cover
within 2008
ut
'"" Tigard city limits
In 2007, Tigard had 24% citywide " ' 1 1 (outlined in red)
tree canopywhich is well below " « ' + mor based on forest
�Y { I types is 52.4%
American Forests'target �} �� , (Johnson,2008)
recommendation of 40% for
,,,.
Pacific Northwest cities.
FIGURE 7
" FF Closed forest;Upland Douglas fir forest,often with bigleaf maple,grand fir,
dogwood,hazel,yew.No other conifers present.No Oak.
OR Woodland Douglas fir woodland or-timber"often with bigleaf maple,
alder or dogwood.No oak,hemlock or cedar.Brushy
undergrowth of hazel,vine maple,young Douglas fir,
bracken etc.
Urban i
OFOPZ Woodland "Scattering"or"thinly timbered"Douglas fir-white oak-
ponderosa pine woodland,with brushy undergrowth of
hazel,bracken,etc.May include small openings.
FFP Closed forest;Upland Douglas fir-ponderosa pine forest;no oak,includes ash,
red alder,hazel,Oregon grape,vine maple.
FAUN Closed forest;Riparian Ash-alder-willow swamp,sometimes with bigleaf maple.
&Wetland Often with vine maple,ninebark,hardhack,cattails.Ground
very soft,mirey or muddy,usually with extensive beaver dams.
OFOZ Woodland Scattering or thinly timbered Douglas fir-white oak
woodland.May contain bigleaf maple;brushy understory of
hazel,young oaks,oak brush,young fir,bracken.No pine.
FFHPP Closed forest;Upland Mixed conifer forest,with ponderosa pine.May include
Douglas fir,red cedar,western hemlock,bigleaf maple,
white oak,red alder,dogwood,vine maple.
OFHC Woodland Conifer-dominated woodland;various combinations of
Douglas fir,red cedar,hemlock,bigleaf maple,white oak,
red alder,dogwood.No ash present.
YFFHCBu Closed forest;Upland FFHC,but burned,often with scattered trees surviving fire.
FFHC Closed forest;Upland Mesic mixed conifer forest with mostly deciduous under-
story.May include Douglas fir,western hemlock,red cedar,
grand fir,bigleaf maple,yew,dogwood,white oak,red alder.
FFO Closed forest;Upland Douglas fir-white oak(bigleaf maple)forest,with brushy
understory of hazel,young oak,oak brush,oak sprout,
bracken,briars,sometimes willow.
FFA Closed forest;Riparian Ash-mixed deciduous riparian forest with combinations 1
&Wetland of red alder,bigleaf maple,black cottonwood,white oak,
dogwood.Conifers may be present in small quantities.
1 Iulsc,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.
As Tigard became settled,native forests were cleared for agricultural uses Logging in Tigard area—1904
and timber to help support development.After Tigard was incorporated in
1961,the City began passing codes to manage the urban forest beginning
in 1967 with street tree planting requirements,and continuing in 1983 and
1997 with the passage of codes that regulated tree removal.The City hired
its first urban forester in 1998 and created the Tree Board in 2001.The City
of Tigard has been named a Tree City USA every year since 2001 and was _
awarded the Tree City USA Growth Award in 2009 for its expanded urban
forestry efforts.
In 2007,Tigard had 24%citywide tree canopy which is well below
American Forests'target recommendation of 40% for Pacific Northwest The Hunziker Dairy Farm near Garden
Home, Mr. Hunziker is in center of
cities.An analysis of existing tree canopy combined with plantable picture wearing hat and coat.
Urban Forestry '
G• locations confirmed that 40% citywide tree canopy cover is achievable in
Tigard. While citywide tree canopy is currently stabilized (1% decrease
from 1996-2007),it is becoming increasingly fragmented (larger groves are
The City of Tigard has been being replaced by individual trees). (See Figure 8 below) Because 78% of
Tigard's tree canopy is on private property and only 7% of Tigard's land area
named a Tree City USA every is on buildable lands,it is critical to develop an urban forest stewardship
year since 2001 and was awarded program that includes all residents and property owners in the City.
the Tree City USA Growth Award
in 2009 for its expanded urban
forestry efforts.
7M CM UM
UrbanForestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft
[pe
py By
Ownership ' i� _
j 3.1
r
A It
[Legend 44 ��J, ' --- '%
of Tigard L �.
blic Right-of-Way
er Public Entities
ate Land
1
nopy Cover
ard City Limits
Taxlot Ownership Number of Taxlots Total Acres Acres of Canopy Percent Canopy
Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.1 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 71556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
FIGURE 8
city of Tiprd I Urban Plan
Most stakeholder groups support the goal of developing and participating
in an urban forest stewardship program. The Tree Board wants future It would benefit the City if more
urban forestry codes to address areas outside development and provisions resources could be directed to better
maintain and protect existing trees.
translated into something the public can understand. They also want
more community education on urban forestry issues,and for the City to 90 .Somewhat
continually measure progress on canopy changes and community attitudes 80 .Sttopg�y
so that policy effectiveness can be easily evaluated in the future.
70
Portland General Electric and the Tigard-Tualatin School District have
offered to partner with the City on tree planting and maintenance projects. so
The Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services would like more focus so-
on managing invasives in natural areas and have offered to assist the public 4o
on long term resource management.
30
Although there is a high level of satisfaction with the current state of
Tigard's urban forest, survey results show the public would support an 20
urban forest stewardship program with 76%of residents wanting more 10
resources directed towards maintaining and protecting existing trees. (See 0
1.
Figure 9.)Many would be willing to become directly involved with 52%of Suppott Oppose
residents saying they would prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees FIGURE 9
rather paying a fee to the City to do it. Residents also want to protect the
trees in their existing neighborhoods with 75%saying they would support
regulations for developed private property that would protect large,healthy
trees. (See Figure 10.)
The sub-goals and implementation measures in the UFMP that support the Would you strongly support,support,
oppose,or strongly oppose city
goal of developing an urban forest stewardship program include increasing regulations that would provide some
urban forestry outreach materials,utilizing funding for tree planting and level of protection for large, healthy
maintenance on public and private property,and developing regulations trees on developed private property?
to prevent clear cutting. Also,long term objectives include periodically This would apply to all current private
updating the Urban Forestry Master Plan in order to track progress and property.
set new goals,achieving not net loss of tree canopy between 2007 and so--
0 Somewhat
2015,and achieving 32%and 40%citywide tree canopy by 2027 and 2047 70 ■Stmgly
respectively.
so
so
a0
30
20
10
0
Support Oppose
FIGURE 10
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY :LEFT -BLANK] _
c4 of Tigard I Urban 1
Glossary
Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) —The Tigard BLI defines buildable
<r land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant;or 2) larger privately
owned taxlots that are developed but with '/4 acre or greater of the taxlot
vacant.Additionally,publicly owned land,sensitive lands,water quality
tracts,and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions are not
included. Platted,vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable
until development has occurred.
Canopy Cluster—A contiguous area of canopy cover created by a
group of trees. Using Feature Analyst software on aerial photos of Tigard,
a canopy layer was created in Tigard's GIS database. This layer was used to
TP_.M ' analyze the size and location of canopy clusters in Tigard.
s S Canopy Cover—The area above ground which is covered by the trunk,
branches,and foliage of a tree or group of trees' crowns.
GIS (Geographic Information System)—An integrated collection
r of computer software,and data used to view and manage information
about geographic places,analyze spatial relationships,and model spatial
processes.A GIS provides a framework for gathering and organizing spatial
data and related information so that it can be displayed and analyzed.
ti Invasive—Species that spread at such a rate that they cause harm to
i human health,the environment,and/or the economy.
Ornamental Trees—Trees cultivated primarily for aesthetics and other
direct human benefits.
` Sensitive Lands—As defined by the Tigard Development Code,lands
potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within:
1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line,whichever is
greater;
2. Natural drainageways;
3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands,or
are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard"Wetland
and Stream Corridors Map";
4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground;and
5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of
Tigard"Significant Habitat Areas Map."
Tree Density—The number of trees per unit area.
Tree Fund —A fund created by the City of Tigard for the purpose of
replacing trees that are removed during development activities. It is funded
by development projects that do not plant replacement trees,and is used
by the City to cover its costs of planting an equivalent amount of trees
elsewhere.
Tree Grove—A group of trees,often with contiguous crowns,which
form a visual and/or biological unit.
Tree Hazard Assessment—A systematic process of identifying tree
hazards.
Tree Risk Assessment—A systematic process to determine the level
of risk posed by a tree,tree part,or group of trees.
UrbanDraft 5 City of Tigard I 1 Appendix
Appendix
i k r,. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Urban Forestry Survey Results a1
,i
r1 '' Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16
Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24
Appendix D: City of Tigard,Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a39
Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a46
Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a55
Appendix G: Review of Current Federal/State/Regional
Urban Forestry Policy Framework a56
Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Policy Framework a63
y i
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT` BLANK]
Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
CITY OF TIGARD
2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY
STEVE JOHNSON&ASSOCIATES * P. O. BOX 3708 * EUGENE,OREGON 97403
TOPLINE FREQUENCIES
**Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories, and the number and percent of
responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97),Don't Know(8 or 98)and No
Answer(9 or 99).In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," "I can't think of anything,"and
no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim. They have
been corrected for spelling but not grammar.
HELL01 Hello,I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a
survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes
about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR
SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL
BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL]
PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK
*INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi,I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard
that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)?
SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First,what about
the trees on your street?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees on your street?
1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75%
2 SATISFIED 246 61.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 32 8%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25%
400 100%
SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied,satisfied,dissatisfied,or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in your neighborhood?
Cit}of Tigard Urban Forestry Surrey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page l
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26%
2 SATISFIED 242 60.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5%
400 100%
SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in the city as a whole?
1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25%
2 SATISFIED 251 62.75%
3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75%
400 100%
HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve
its appearance and environmental quality?
1 YES 101 25.25%
2 NO 294 73.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
IMPORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees.
For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25%
2 AGREE 138 34.5%
3 DISAGREE 10 2.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 2
city of Tigud I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
2 AGREE 148 37%
3 DISAGREE 28 7%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50%
2 AGREE 170 42.5%
3 DISAGREE 19 4.75%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25%
2 AGREE 205 51.25%
3 DISAGREE 45 11.25%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5%
400 100%
IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25%
2 AGREE 202 50.5%
3 DISAGREE 62 15.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5%
400 100%
IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain
and protect existing trees.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5%
City of1'igard Urban Forestry Survey—?008
Topline Frequencies Page 3
Urban ( Appendix
APPENDIX A
2 AGREE 203 50.75%
3 DISAGREE 50 12.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75%
400 100%
IMPORT? The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on
sites that are being developed.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree,disagree,or strongly disagree?
I STRONGLY AGREE 160 40%
2 AGREE 193 48.25%
3 DISAGREE 30 7.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
FOREST( All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in
parks, along streets, in yards,on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall
quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10
years?
1 INCREASED 73 18.25%
2 DECREASED 166 41.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 44 11%
400 100%
FOREST2 In the future,do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to
increase,decrease, or stay the same?
1INCREASED 113 28.25%
2 DECREASED 126 31.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10,where one is poor and 10 is excellent,how would you rate
the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard?
IONE 3 0.75%
2 TWO 0 0%
3 THREE 14 3.5%
4 FOUR 11 2.75%
City oi'Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencifs Page 4
Cit�,of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
5 FIVE 61 15.25%
6 SIX 48 12%
7 SEVEN 96 24%
8 EIGHT(GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75%
9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75%
10 TEN(GO TO TAXI) 24 6%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
Not cut them all. They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require
developers to keep some of the existing trees.
Better maintenance.
More variety.
They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized
trees.
Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that.
Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should.
More maintenance,
I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there.
Certain areas. Save certain trees.
Taken care of the trees.
I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees.
Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be,planted. When
they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done
building.
In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars.It would help with
gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot.
Public awareness.
Developers not remove existing trees as much.
One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid.
Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities.
Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers'money on
trees that can take care of themselves.
High quality maintenance.
Let the trees get older.
You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work.
Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street.
More fir trees or pine green trees.
Plant more,I guess.
I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees.
Plant more trees;take care of them.
They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 5
Urban Forestry11• Draft
APPENDIX A
Maintenance
More maintenance from landowners and the city.
Better protection of the exciting trees in areas.
Keeping them clean,away from street signs and pruning them.
Quit cutting them down I think.
They could be taken care of.
Trimming.
Quit cutting them down.
They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees.
Plant more trees.
Prevent cut down of existing ones,plant more trees.
They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone.
Plant more.
I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the
sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots.
Ones left are well maintained,pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers.
To trim them.
Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road.
Not letting people cut them down.
Grow more.
There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be
everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the
things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to
shield them from their neighbors.
Streets be lined with trees.
Leave them alone.
Basic maintenance.
I think if there is some sort of a plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas
you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the
city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals.
In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on.
Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more
beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area.
Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development.
Maintenance around power lines.
More trees.Nothing else.
Trees aren't taken care of well,trees in vacant lots should become less neglected.
Fertilize.
Find a way to keep away all the leaves.
Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better.
More volunteers to maintain them.
Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees.
I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have
more trees we will have a better community.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 6
City of Tigard I Urban 1 Appendix
APPENDIX A
Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown.
They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees.Don't put them there
for no reason.
Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain.
Probably the amount.
There could be more of them on major highways.Highway 99 has none on that road.
Plant more trees.
More placed in better locations,not be so messy.
Add more trees,keep the exciting trees.
Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly.
Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way.
Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their
trees probably. If we are going to have trees,they need to be maintained.
Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing.
Don't know,maintain them.
Get the city counsel in the city forest,they should be running the city not the trees.
Maintain damage is done.
Leave them standing,pruning assisting their health.
Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones
after they have built homes or buildings.
Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos.
I wish people would take care of trees better.
They could have more trees where there are no trees.
More street trees.
Don't think anything should be done.
Trim them.
Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious.
Plant more trees,when you remove trees,plant trees where the space is available. It should be
a law to plant trees.
Provide good maintenance.
Downtown area needs more trees.
Old trees be cut down,plant new ones.
Preserve during development.
Better overall maintenance.
Better maintained.
Pick up more leaves.
I don't have a problem with it, so nothing.
Need more trees in old town.
Cut them all down,too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need
to at least be trimmed.
Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot.
A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees.
More of them along the main streets.
They could be preserved. Planting the right trees. And more of them.
Trimming and landscaping around trees.
Like the downtown,they made it look all cutesie.
City cif Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 7
Urban / Appendix Draft
APPENDIX A
Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of
trees planted,99 west. They put ugly storage unit,they cut down beautiful trees for
that.
Improve the city council decisions.
Pruning.
A little bit of pruning.
There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of
death that needs to be maintained a little bit better.More trees on busier streets.
Plant more of them,take care of them, and cut their branches and everything.
First of all plant more trees if there is the space.
Largely,plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones.
Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that
have trees and preserve them.
Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain,they
should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth.
I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks.
Maybe more trimming on trees.
Plant more.
Expert looking at the issue.
Old ones let go. Cleaned up.
By preserving existing trees.
Better maintenance.
Leave them alone.
Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as
a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services.
Downtown could plant trees.
Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I
live there are many trees in the community.
More trees,as far as the existing trees,I'm not sure what to say about their quality and
appearance.
Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth.
Plant more,rip up cement and plant trees.
In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them. And more yard debris pick-up, so
that people are not afraid to have trees. Anything that would make having a tree easier
would be good.
I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker.
If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better. They put up some new dinky
trees.And they just don't look as good. It's too late.
Maybe better maintained and kept trees.
Maintain existing trees.
Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced.
Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads.
Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down,requires two of three tree in their
place.
Adding variety.
More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 8
OIN of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas.
Add some along 99.
Better trimming and maintenance.
Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking
about some trees are planted too close to the street,and that causes problems with
leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots.
Maintenance
Maintenance and replanting with trees that die.
Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have. And not
cut them down unnecessarily.
Pruning.
In the greenway,we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees.
Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the
parks.
I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is
going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that.I
don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek.
Stop chopping down trees.
More maintenance and planting more trees.
Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring. More evergreens. The
big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall.
More red maples.
Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of
their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying.
They're in pretty good shape.
Maintain the one we have, and plant more.
Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff.
Replace trees as they are taken out.
Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged
looking.
Better up keep.
Get rid of the old ones that are dying. Just clean up.
Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees.
I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen.
So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge
sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves.Need to be more
proactive.
I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are
important.
Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments.
Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem,they make a
mess.
Nothing I think they are fine.
Take down the trees that drop leaves.
I'm not sure we need more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline FrLquencies Page 9
Urban Forestry Master Plan 11. of Draft
APPENDIX A
I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees,build where they do not have to remove
trees.
Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees.
More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas.
Plant more trees.
Better maintaining by replanting. More planting.
Plant more.
I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power
lines.It really distorts the shape of the tree.
Stop building houses.
Cutting them back and some pruning them.
More planting.
Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to.
I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees.
More development of downtown,Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping.
Better management by the city and government.
When developing,keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been
taken down to build a new house.
Regular maintenance.
I think there should be more,plant more.
I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that.
They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest.
I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved,too many
businesses.
I think they are okay.
I don't have an opinion on it.
Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to
do it.
More trees. Better upkeep.
Not cut them down.
I would think that they could be better shaped,and trimmed when needed. I fit the location
where they fit size wise.
Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want.
Some of them need to be shaped better. The ones on the road.
I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become
available.
They are properly cared for and planted more of them.
Better maintenance.
Better care and clean up.
Variety and maintenance.
I would presume plant more.
We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park,
we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are
diseased and prune them, or remove them.
Quit cutting them down for new developments.
Planting more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 10
Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
Just constant vigilance.
More and just more.
Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees.
Leave them alone.
Better maintenance.
Plant more.
TAX1 Currently,property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their
property. Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose a program that
transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25%
2 SUPPORT 128 32%
3 OPPOSE 136 34%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25%
400 100%
TAX2 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a City street tree program?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25%
2 SUPPORT 151 37.75%
3 OPPOSE 132 33%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25%
400 100%
TAX3 Would you strongly support,support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees,charges,or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree
planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces?
PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard,not just on streets.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8%
2 SUPPORT 190 47.5%
3 OPPOSE 104 26%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25%
400 100%
TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City
to do this?
PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner,which would you prefer?
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page I I
Urban-Forestty Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
1 PLANT 208 52%
2 PAY 106 26.5%
3I VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
CHOICE1 Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant
more trees?
(PROBE FROM LIST)
1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75%
2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5%
3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75%
4 IN PARKS 79 19.75%
5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 32 8%
400 100%
CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about
trees.
1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32%
2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED,REPLACE THEM 129 32.25%
3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15%
4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75%
5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a
potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to
work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or
strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes
between neighbors regarding hazardous trees?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5%
2 SUPPORT 185 46.25%
3 OPPOSE 101 25.25%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 12
Urban 1 Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
REGI Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose
tree removal regulations during property development,even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75%
2 SUPPORT 168 42%
3 OPPOSE 99 24.75%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5%
400 100%
REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property,would you be in favor of city tree
regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting
afterwards?
1 YES 264 66%
2 NO 97 24.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer?
1 YES 80 20%
2 NO 293 73.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5%
400 100%
REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures,would you like to see them
focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees,both types equally,or on something
else.
1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25%
2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75%
3 BOTH 192 48%
4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
REGS Would you strongly support,support,oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that
would provide some level of protection for large,healthy trees on developed private property?
PROBE: This would apply to all current private property.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 13
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I city of Tigard Draft
APPENDIX A
2 SUPPORT 224 56%
3 OPPOSE 60 15%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 18 4.5%
400 100%
REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures,where would you prefer to see
them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size.
1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25%
2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25%
3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75%
4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25%
400 100%
AGE In what year were you born?
Coded Categories:
AGE 18-24 3 0.75%
AGE 25-34 23 5.75%
AGE 35-44 59 14.75%
AGE 45-54 106 26.5%
AGE 55-64 91 22.75%
AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
GENDER Are you male or female?
1 MALE 160 40%
2 FEMALE 240 60%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent?
1 OWN 344 86%
2 RENT 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75%
400 100%
City of"Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 14
Drdt 5 city of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX A
STREET What neighborhood do you live in?
PROBE: What is your closest elementary school?
PROBE: What is your closest cross street?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard,we would like to thank
you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye.
NOQAL I'm sorry,we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm
sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice(day/evening).
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 15
Urban / Appendix Draft
APPENDIX !'
Canopy Change
(1996 to 2007) — •`
w
217
3w1 .tWHa 11 81,d
7lgd,O g 97223 223
503 4111
lg-d - >F
' .r=
3�
g r
Y 1
'ti y� 1
�-,Wt 7
Ta
Legend - _ -
- Canopy Lost `1 �'
!-Canopy Gained
Canopy Preserved @s
Tigard City Limits -
f/ i
Citywide Canopy Change Summary
1996 2007
Acres Percent * Ames Percent
Tigard's Total Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
*of June 2008 city limits
HART RD
1996 : . Canopy Clustering 2 0 07
BppCKMAN ST Off' Legend mBQ,OG KMAN ST O -
�tc Canopy Cover
WEIR RD Acres x `^
e E z1
p
Less than.5 `S:FEAAXIRRD
r
0.5-0.99 SLNps'�
sr", # �.
rte- m4`
2.0-4.99 W
J F._ 5.0 or more
{� Tigard City Limits -P 'k
.ST MCDONAL ST ^ KRUSE
BULL MOL—` • ULL MOU if -
GA
D B `IV IT D.- lu ! b�NIT D �,DR.
> +�
o e�n OA. 1.
• F1'
IL
E DUgPAM RD !
^s..D AM D ND RD..... ` 1 -
BEEF BEND RD - ,..�wM''- BEEF 9 � B
s m
p
a
Z '9 Z
o
goo
D -yWW _
Z
TUALATIN TUALATIN
— - Y O 13125 SW Man sme T m
d 0315 0.M AQ J Tigard.Oregon 91223
G
M'131.4131
ww-w. go, :� '- CHILD
Cargo Guster'in Summary
t 2007
CanOpyCluster
t� o o as-a est of No. No.of Clusters of usters Total Acres of Acres as a Percent of No.of Clusters as
No.of Clusters
Size Class -Canopy Cover Total Canopy Cover a Percent of Total, Canopy Cover Total Canopy Cover' a Percent of Total
Less ttt =`Mores 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159,25 8.160/0 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60`Yo 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62%
Total 1952.7= 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% M
M
Z
v
X
W
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard
�!!!.
APPENDIX B
Canopy Change f
Within 1996 BLI
(1996 to 2007)
I
e
�. 21
3115 SW Mall Bhd
Orayon 71l ja - w •
M503'j39d
4,71 l t
4
pr
• A .«
-
C
'r 1
Legend �� •
Canopy Lost
Canopy Gained S�
_M Canopy Preserved
1996 Buildable Lands Inv
I_
Tigard City Limier
Citywide Canopy Change Within 1996 BLI Area Summary
1996 2007
Acres Percent Acres Percent Percent Change
Tigard's Canopy Cover within 1996
BLI(1423.32 acres) 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79-/.
Citywide Canopy Cover Within BLI Summary
1996 2007
BLI Acres of BLI Acres of
Acres Canopy Cover Percent Acres CanopyCover Percent
Tigard's Canopy Cover within BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 528.75 226.26 42.79%
City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix..
APPENDIX B
Canopy By
Property Ownership ti
13115 SW Holl 91vd - 7
Tiger 3 1 g n 97313 211
503.639.0111 -
i
t :f_ l\ I .
4.
PL
Legend
O City of Tigard
39►.
Public Right-of-Way
Other Public Entities Y
Private Land
- Canopy Cover '
Tigard City Limits
Canopy/ Property Own ershi Summar
May 13,2008 Tax lots 2007 Canopy Cover
Taxlot Ownership Number of Total Acres Acres of Canopy Peroant Canopy
Taxlots Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007
Cit of Ti and 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Ri ht-of-Wa n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entit 79 1 431.65 105.1 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
Urban 11' 1 Draft
APPENDIX B
Canopy Change in Sensitive Lands(1996 to 2007)
CWS FEMA 100 _ Local Wetland
Year Flood Plain Inventory I
S21
7.If
i
fj
CWC�yr�' ttrted f # Slope>25%
t ji r
Af ,
^t "rte
Legend
_ Campy Lost
Carropy Gained +
13115swMoly
carropy Preserved Tlgae41"2:]
03.Or0'gon :
503 639
�-�rirard cry rimrt
Citywide Canopy Change Within Sensitive Lands Summary
19% 2007
Sensitive Canopy Percent Percent of 1996 Canopy Percent Percent of 1996
Land Ave; Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Percent Change
Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 145.98 50,18% 7.48% 116.01 39.88% 6.26% -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 348.16 49.40% 17.83% 302.85 42.97% 16.35% -6.43%
FEMA 100-yr Floodplain 592.6 213.17 35.97% 10.92% 188.05 31.73°% 10.15% -4.24%
Slopes>25°% 195.51 130.28 66.64% 6.67% 129.64 66.31°% 7.001/. -0.33%
Total 1783.8 837.59 46.96% 42.89% 736.55 41.29% 39.76% -5.66%
Draft r I Urban1Appendix
APPENDIX B
Canopy Change 1
by Zoning
(1996 to 2007) {
��� �(Y4 �ymi •tri{ � ..-� + K�. �'��
1j
S w
-. _ e •r� ��:s � ��� i dam'�G`
e
t y
t!
A {. ,
x, -t .. '
x .
Legend # & Y
_ Canopy Lost y.
_ Canopy Gaineda ,• , � ;_ r
Canopy Preserved * "s ,
Zonln Type
i r
; Commercial
r
Industrial -
_ Mixed Use
Residential
Tigard Ciry L,n,
Citywide Canopy Change By Zoning Summary
1996 2007
2008 Percent
Zoning Total Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Change
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95%
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26%
Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21%
Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76%
Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24,52% -1.32%
D
V
-o
Z
r pO Asn°bf!'
RROCKMAN ST � O1050N e
Possible Percent m. NAEL.BI yA ; TAYLORS FERRY RD x
Canopy a sifta .
L 117 -
S
/ O 5 FERRY PD _a, _i, r ^i - BppOVa B`,O 9 C•,
!f!!SW WNI Oirf CN Ll !�'!`r*=fE"r�L •' 1 �^.
rya.f,o.ve^ sFFla .: �
SU.ul.aTl �` o
�a
A�t�,rar Mra...,tyros __ '. ��� ��� � s�•�.� �� ��5�a
"i RD
��•es4� ART a ,
WNUT S S
T O ER
Lift 41
f ry
•�,✓ � 1 �ywit
�- MEIROSE ST
'•: 'f�j AA w • ' aP �
GAARDE ST ` ¢�f MCDONAD ST r„
r '
BULL MOUNTAIN
/• n�ery.is •• BONITA R
Sim
ww E
►Y ,, 1 Legend
BEEF BEND RO w s U NAM RDi
w
04 Tigard City Limits
Citywide Possible Percent Canopy " r r � r y��e W Possible Percent Canopy
Non-Residential Taxlots 44% g g o
°-20%
Residential Taxlots 39% "" °° 20
`
60-80%
Overall 41% 90-10 i00%
OR 1
APPENDIX B
�r
4 4e
sarnplu � �► �
•
Uel int,il
it Is Pont =7
LWJW
Aw 1-4-
M
Parking Lot Sample Acreage: 508.77 acres
Parking Lot Sample Acres covered by canopy: 30.72 acres
Percent Parking Lot Sample Canopy Coverage: 6%
L rban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I city of i Draft 5
APPENDIX C
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
(HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It is in the interest of
the membership to develop land and create building sites for new homes. Land
development requires tree removal on sites that have trees and are zoned for
development.
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard Development
Code requirements.
• Under the current code section 18.790,applicants may pay a fee in lieu of mitigation or
are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement trees within the City.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board,Planning Commission,and City Council
meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban Forest section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent,certified arborists when
evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are unreasonable and
punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d) is unreasonable because it is
not practicable to retain even 25%of the trees on sites zoned for medium to high
density residential development(5 units per acre or more). There has likely never been
a development in Tigard with 75%or greater retention on property zoned R4.5 or
higher. Heavy equipment,grading,roads,and utilities are very disruptive to trees.
Significant amounts of grading must take place outside the right of way when driveways
are cut in,sidewalks are poured,and building footprints are cleared for structures.
This results in tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will cause potential
future hazards. For example,trees over 12"in diameter have root systems and
canopies that extend at least 10'from the trunk Larger trees have larger areas around
them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not practicable is high density situations.
City of Tigard I
Urban
APPENDIX C
Even if a younger but potentially large tree species such as Doug.-fir is able to be
retained,it often makes sense to remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future.
• The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far exceeds the
actual cost to plant trees. For example,a recent mitigation project to plant trees in
Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the developer$20,000 to complete.
However,the City required the developer to submit a bond for$106,000 or$110 per
caliper inch as assurance and to cover the City's cost of planting should the developer
U to mitigate.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example,the density
bonus incentive allows for a 1%density bonus for 2%canopy cover retained. This
bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very large. For a site that is
10 lots,it would take 20%retention for a 10%density bonus to add just one unit.
Moreover,by adding another unit and decreasing the amount of land available for
infrastructure and buildings,the result is lots that are significantly smaller than zoning
allows. This creates a direct conflict with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally,it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan requirements
require additional resources adding cost and time to any development project. In
addition,Tigard's current program is divisive and creates legal conflicts in the form of
appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property owners should
be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the establishment of Tigard. This"hands
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?
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City olligard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that their views
are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process that the
HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and one extremely
active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple to achieve"consensus"
when everyone in the room shares the same view. The key to real and balanced
stakeholder participation is to find the people who have concerns about the forestry
program and openly discuss the views of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue.
The HBAMP has received virtually no feedback from City staff, the Tree Board or the
Citizen Advisory Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's
representatives have provided at meetings,public hearings and worksessions. This
needs to be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal,it is the view of the HBA
members who have been involved in this process that the Tree Board and City Staff are
putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of property owners. This is
unacceptable.
• City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners who have
the most potential impact under the current and future tree code. These owners should
be contacted and advised of the financial impact the current tree code could have on
their property values. These are the single most impacted stakeholder group,yet they
have never been invited to any meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a program do
not outweigh the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property,and allow owners to manage their land as they
see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following should be
included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to mitigate
for unnecessary tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to utilize the
incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property owners in
the process.
Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
I Forestry Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Watershed Management Department manages revegetation projects in Tigard's stream
corridors.
• Partnered with urban forester (currently unfilled) on many acres of tree planting in
Tigard's stream corridors including Englewood Park,Fanno Creek Park, and Cook
Park. These projects were funded by Surface Water Management (SWM) fees which
come from sewer system ratepayers.
• Development Services issues Service Provider Letters (SPL) for development projects
with potential impacts on stream corridors.
• CWS inspectors monitor Vegetated Corridor work of private developers to ensure
compliance with CWS standards.
• Some stream restoration projects require City of Tigard tree removal permits and tree
protection plans.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard Public Works is effective at using volunteers for planting projects.
• In theory,the tree mitigation fund works well (if the money is actually used for tree
planting).
• Tigard has worked well with Clean Water Services on tree planting projects and meeting
"Tree for All"planting goals.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in stream
corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas dominated by non-
native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree planting.
• Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should not be
protected and/or require a tree removal permit. Protecting invasives and non-natives is
a barrier to restoration.
• Vegetated Corridor and other natural area plantings require long term maintenance
beyond the two-year maintenance period typically required of developers.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should be more diligent about taking a proactive approach to inspecting
Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban Forestry Program
includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements.
• Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should be
exempt from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Tigard needs to adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt the removal of
invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from permit requirements.
• There needs to be more focus on long term maintenance of private and public riparian
plantings. This could be addressed through a combination of Code requirements,SWM
APPENDIX C
funds,and tree mitigation funds. The City should secure a stable source of funding for
vegetation maintenance.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Continue stewardship of"Tree for All"sites even after the program ends.
• Coordinate public outreach about invasive plants and the responsibilities of streamside
property owners.
• Ensure City of Tigard and Clean Water Services regulatory requirements are coordinated
in future. Allow Clean Water Services to review/comment on Code changes that affect
stream corridors prior to adoption.
• Continue partnering to co-implement Stormwater Management Permits.
• Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Exempt invasive and non-native tree removal in stream corridors from permit
requirements.
• Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from permit
requirements.
• Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,SWM
funds,and tree mitigation funds.
• Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management.
• Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is provided for
riparian vegetation management.
• Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects continue/expand in
the future.
• Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water Services
standards.
• Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan in cooperation with Clean Water
Services.
Oregon Department of Transportation Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• During development,the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviews street
tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with ODOT specifications.
• ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT right of ways
(99W,Hall Boulevard,Highway 217).
DrA 5 Citv ot'holu'd I I.Than Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Street tree planting under powerlines causes conflicts because traffic lanes are closed
for ongoing maintenance issues.
• Some trees cause damage to infrastructure (sidewalks,curbs,streets).
• Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to root
interference.
• Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with MOT
requirements (root barriers,site distance,clear distance,limb clearance)
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate tree planting
that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General Electric for review.
• Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root barriers and
other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to 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 MOT and
City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in MOT right of ways:
o MOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in MOT right
of way(ODOT permit required).
Urban Forestry Master Han Appendix I City ofTi-Ard Draft i
APPENDIX C
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23, 2009 meeting.
Portland General Electric (PGE) Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to provide for the
safe,reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the needs of commercial and
residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in terms of
establishing approved street tree lists,encouraging appropriate and responsible
plantings,approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree program and having the
long term vision to develop and maintain an urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• As a whole,Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is very
qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard.
• Several potentially hazardous tree/utility conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment necessary.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works well and
what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
city of i,igard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Future programs need to recognize the conflict between a static overhead distribution
system of electricity and the dynamic nature of vegetation management around PGE
facilities.
• Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings.
• Route tree plans to PGE for review.
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects.
• Assist private property owners with tree management outside the development process.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal requires
increasing mitigation and associated costs.
• Bi-weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project oversight
and tree plan implementation.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those with un-
treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the effect of
precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard Triangle that are
zoned for dense development.
• Mitigation standards encourage overplanting of trees or planting of small stature trees to
meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a caliper inch basis may
not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to overplanting.
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a stable funding
source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized for tree maintenance,
not just tree planting.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports can be hard for the City to track, especially during the
transition from site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist reports
with false or misleading information.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City of
Vancouver,WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil volumes for lots
of various sizes with trees.
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I CityofTigard Dmft 5
APPENDIX C
• Allow required trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for mitigation. This
will help alleviate overplanting of mitigation trees.
• Provide incentives for planting of natives and large stature mitigation trees. One
incentive could be to offer more mitigation credit for planting natives and large stature
trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the planting of trees that offer
the most environmental benefits.
• Develop spacing standards based on the mature size of trees to improve long term
growth and health.
• Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such as
stormwater fees,permit fees,transportation fees,etc. This will also allow for the urban
forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The City should
require a copy of the contract for bi-weekly reports and require the project arborist to
send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated. If a different arborist is to provide
bi-weekly reports,then the original project arborist should have to sign off prior to the
new arborist amending the tree preservation plan.
• The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to discourage
false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking business licenses
and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal accountability when providing
false or misleading information.
• An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the City to hire a
third party the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi-weekly inspections.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Require mitigation based on stocking levels,not on a caliper inch basis.
• Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large stature
trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required landscape trees and
street trees to count towards mitigation requirements.
• Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have trees that
are overcrowded and not in good condition.
• Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
• Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long term
maintenance of trees,not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code updates,not
the project engineer.
cit�of i'igard I Urban Foresm;, Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Require metal fencing in future code updates.
• Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints, and don't penalize developers for
removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5'-10'or 3 to 5 times the
diameter of the tree. However, site and species characteristics should be considered
when crafting code revisions.
• Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and sidewalks.
• Require utilities to be under the street,not in the planter strip where trees should be.
• Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's greenspaces.
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes
On March 9, 2009,1 spoke with Christopher Zoucha,Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber
of Commerce regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Christopher informed me that urban forestry
has not been an issue for the Chamber members,and therefore declined providing input as a
stakeholder group for the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Tree Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its urban forestry
program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due to lack of
communication.
• Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not unified.
• The Tree Code is too focused on development.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• More communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related provisions in Code.
• Focus future Code on areas outside development,and fix the mitigation issue.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest.
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I ON offigard Draft 5
APPENDIX C
• The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban
forest.
• The Tree Board can help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds can
be used to implement the plan.
• The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Increase communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related Code provisions.
• Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development.
• Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can understand.
• Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland outreach
materials as a model.
• Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community
attitudes.
• Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits.
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances.
• Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape and
mitigation requirements.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not.
• Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and work out solutions.
• The Urban Forestry Master Plan will result in a more comprehensive approach to future
tree and landscape ordinance updates.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Replanting on a caliper inch basis does not work because it incentivizes overplanting.
• Site planning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting.
• Landscape architects do not have enough flexibility in landscape design because
landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated,and many of the species are no longer appropriate or
relevant.
Draft 5 0(� oll'i"ard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX C
• Street trees and streetscapes are non-uniform. Different development projects choose
different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street trees.
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague,which creates loopholes and a wide variety
of interpretations. For example,there are no spacing,species,or nursery stock quality
standards with respect to mitigation trees.
• Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If preservation
requirements are increased,then mitigation could occur on a tree for tree basis rather
than inch for inch.
• Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by focusing more
on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into the building design.
Also,landscape architects should be required to collaborate more with project arborists
in order to identify which trees are appropriate for preservation,and how to adjust
grading to preserve trees. Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans
between the landscape architect and project arborist.
• Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates. Require
landscape architects to be part of the design team,and sign off on planting before,
during, and after installations.
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey the street
trees in a 4-5 block radius and choose trees that complement existing plantings.
• The tree/mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem has a
detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and specifications that
are referred to in their development code. This allows for more clarity as to what is
expected of the development.
• When advertising Tree Board vacancies,specify that you are looking for members with
tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local professional organizations.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to ASLA for review and comment.
• Contact ASLA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes and design
handbooks.
• Hire ASLA members to help develop code and design guidelines.
• Share example codes that require maximum preservation of existing trees.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• More focus on preservation through improved grading plans,less focus on mitigation.
The City needs to take a leadership role in this.
Urban Forestry Master Han Appendix I City ol-figard D raft 5
APPENDIX C
• More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees, but trees that are
appropriate for site conditions.
• Need detailed design/preservation manual with illustrations.
• Need to have a warranty period for required landscaping to ensure establishment.
• Need to require powerlines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future overhead
utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
Tigard Tualatin School District Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Somewhat limited.
• Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study.
• Manage trees on School District property.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment.
• City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. It is
important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term maintenance issues
can be addressed prior to planting.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a tree planting
project.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting funds.
• Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation opportunities for
the City.
• Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees and planting
layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District.
• School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are required for tree
removal and/or planting.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
Draft
APPENDIX C
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree planting
projects on School District properties.
• Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low leaf litter.
Tualatin Riverkeepers Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement.
• Work closely with the City and Metro on restoration projects in Tigard.
• Provide comments on municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits.
• Provide comments on City of Tigard Parks plans and occasionally on private
development applications.
• Participated in the development of the Healthy Streams Plan by Clean Water Services.
• Member of Oregon Community Trees,a non-profit organization that promotes urban
and community forestry in Oregon.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Mitigation fee structure provides an adequate budget for tree planting.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Trees could be better utilized for stormwater management in developed areas such as
along street and in parking lots.
• Urban forestry funds could be collected and utilized more strategically. An example
would be to use stormwater management fees to fund restoration programs.
• The City of Tigard could make more of a public commitment to sustainability efforts
such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment features and
more tree canopy.
• Retrofit existing parking lots to improve stormwater treatment and tree canopy using
grant money and other funding sources.
• Encourage/require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and streets so that
the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the winter rainy season.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,development
fees,etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more
than just tree planting.
Urban Foresm-Master Plan Appendix I cit,of'rigard I
APPENDIX C
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of environmental
stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help identify potential restoration sites.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can provide training to Planning Commission,City Council,City
staff,and others on low impact development techniques.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment and more
tree canopy.
• Increase stormwater incentives/requirements for development such as the"no runoff'
provisions as in Lacey Washington.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,development
fees,etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more
than just tree planting.
• More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement.
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private landowners
to remove invasives.
APPENDIX D
City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results
On January 21, 2009,a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that have a role in
coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies, and ordinances. Meeting
attendees included representatives from a range of City departments (Community Development,Public
Works,and Financial and Information Services) and divisions (Capital Construction&Transportation,
Current Planning,Development Review,Information Technology, Public Works Administration,Parks,
Streets,Wastewater/Storm,and Water). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss urban forestry
coordination issues,and identify those areas where coordination could be improved. As a result of the
meeting,the following list was generated that identified areas where urban forestry coordination efforts
could be improved.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning,Engineering,
Public Works,IT/GIS);
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development,but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering,Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,
IT/GIS);
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT/GIS);
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees,buffer trees, etc.) after development
(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist,IT/GIS);
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions
(Planning,Building);
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development
(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation,Public Works);
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks,Risk);
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks);
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits,not sure if there is awareness of this
Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Streets).
After the list was generated,a series of meetings was held with representatives from the groups affected by
the coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group meetings was to discuss the coordination issues
Urban Forestry Master 111an Appendix I CA\of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX D
and formulate possible solutions that could improve coordination efforts. The following list identifies
possible solutions for the coordination issues that were formulated after the group meetings.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning,Engineering,
Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Make note on record drawings that actual street tree locations may vary, see street trees in
GIS for actual locations.
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),species,date
planted,condition,tree 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.
Draft 5 City of r1gard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX D
• Information on required landscape trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),
species,date planted, condition,tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to
conduct resource analyses in the future.
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of mitigation trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh), species,
date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date,tree ID code,and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees
prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for
tracking.
• Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing street
trees outside development process.
• GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting program.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),species,date
planted, condition,tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to conduct
resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS street
trees.
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist, Public Works);
• Create budget sheet to track personnel,material,and service costs associated with
greenspace acquisition.
• Budget sheet should detail first year costs as well as costs for years two through five.
• A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation,connectivity,and
other potential benefits.
• The budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and divisions for input
before it is finalized.
• There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects that may be
used as a template (contact Carissa).
• If hazard trees are an issue during land acquisition associated with development projects,
require developer's arborist to conduct a hazard assessment for review and inspection by
City Arborist.
-Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I Cit�ofTigard Draft 5
APPENDIX D
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions
(Planning,Building);
• This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However,for deed restricted trees,the City can require a protection plan for building
additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the development project.
• For trees in sensitive lands,the City can restrict access/building within the driplines of trees
through the use of tree protection fencing. Section 18.790.060 prohibits damage to a
protected tree or its root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development
(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion.
• Depending on the size of the project,the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree
protection and planting specifications,or recommend that the City hire a project arborist.
• Work with the Tree Board and Community Development Director on developing a set of
standards for City projects to follow.
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion.
• Depending on the size of the project,the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree
protection and planting specifications,or recommend the City hire a project arborist.
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks, Risk);
• Budgeting has eliminated non-emergency management and evaluation of hazards in
parks/greenspaces due to the transfer of the greenspace coordinator (urban forester)
position from Public Works to the associate planner/arborist (city arborist) position to
Community Development.
• Proactive evaluation and management of City owned parks/greenspaces would be best
accomplished through the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to fill the position vacated in
Public Works.
City of Tigard I Urban iAppendLx
APPENDIX D
• A greenspace coordinater could develop a program based off of protocols developed by the
USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture.
• Alternatively,the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard evaluation
and management program.
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on a City street,
they should be forwarded to the Public Works front desk(503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the Streets Division manager,who will in
turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• if the tree clearly is not a hazard,the Streets Division will contact the citizen and close the
case.
• if the tree is already down or is clearly an immediate hazard,the Streets Division will
coordinate traffic control,contact other impacted agencies (such as PGE if power lines are
involved),and remove the tree from the street and sidewalk right-of-way using the City's
contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not
available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the owner's property,and debris
disposal will occur at the owner's expense.
• if the tree hazard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination whether
the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by the contract
arborist.
• if the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time,he will write a
letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific period of time to abate the
hazard. if the deadline is not met,the responsible owner will be cited through Code
Enforcement.
• If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours number
(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either
contact the contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist
is not available)if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry to the Streets
Division for follow up the following business day if the hazard is not immediate. The Streets
Division will then follow the same process outlined above.
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on City property,
they should be forwarded the Public Works front desk(503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division manager,who will
in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
UrbanPlan Appen(fixDraft
APPENDIX D
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard,the responsible division will contact the citizen and close
the case.
• If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard,the responsible division will contact
the City's contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is
not available) to abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination whether
the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by the contract
arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one"borderline"call per week on average. If
the time commitment is significantly more,the process may need to be reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours number
(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either
contact the contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist
is not available) if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry to the appropriate
division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day. The
responsible division will then follow the same process outlined above.
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits,not sure if there is awareness of this
Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable City rules
and regulations.
• Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section 18.790.050 are
applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands (including
City projects).
• Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works/Capital
Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
• Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
divisions/departments.
• Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from tree
removal permit requirements.
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
• GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be loaded into the
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),species,
date planted,condition,cash assurance/bond release date,tree ID code,and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Link mitigation trees (via a GIS point layer) and mitigation areas (via a GIS polygon layer)
with IFIS (accounting system) so that expenditures can be directly related to specific
projects.
City of'rigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX D
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
• The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in the Tigard
Development Code in all cases, regardless of existing trees.
• However,during the development review process,when a healthy and sustainable tree in
the right of way is identified by the project arborist and/or City Arborist,Development
Engineering will allow adjustments to planter strip and/or sidewalk standards on a case by
case basis.
• The City does not currently have the authority to LQWre private developers to preserve trees
if they choose not to.
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Streets).
• If the street tree is the responsibility of the City,the corresponding division will maintain the
clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal Code.
• If a citizen complaint is received,the Streets Division will investigate.
• If there is an immediate hazard (e.g.blocked stop sign,hanging limb,etc.),the Streets
Division will prune the tree immediately.
• If there is not an immediate hazard,the Streets Division will contact the responsible party
directly and explain the Code requirements,or gather the information and forward to Code
Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
• If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public
Works after-hours number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard
after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist
if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the
inquiry to the Streets Division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following
business day. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined above.
• When tree roots are impacting City streets or utilities,the responsible division will
investigate and,if needed,contact the City Arborist for root pruning advice.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree can be safely root pruned to make the necessary repairs,
the responsible division will absorb the cost of root pruning.
• If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed,the City will
absorb the cost of removal,but the property owner will be responsible for stump removal
and replanting. Prior to removing a street tree,the City Arborist shall be contacted.
Urban Draft
APPENDIX E
O�% LAND USE PLANNING
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection,management,and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense-of place,but for the social,ecolog-
ical,and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic,economic,and natural environments.Plants provide variation in color,
texture,line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind,providing habitat for birds and wildlife,enhancing
community attractiveness and investment,improving water quality and soil
stability,and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement,first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century,and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century.Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy,reed canary grass,and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive.However,remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities,and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries,and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest,Tigard possesses a large number of
2-10 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
city of rigard I Urban 1Appendix
APPENDIX E
0.114
LAND USE PLANNING
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's,many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources.Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found"the protection of trees and natural resource areas"as rating
the highest of all"livability"characteristics posed to the respondents,scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic(8.2),maintaining
existing lot sizes(7.8),pedestrian and bike paths(7.7),and compatibility between
existing and new development(7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84%of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees,with only 6%strongly disagreeing and 9%somewhat
disagreeing. In addition,90%of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain,or have begun significant updates to,their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City,USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services,the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality,reduce
erosion,and provide shade,structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects,cooperative efforts with
non-profits,contract services,and the labor of Public Works crews,thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects,the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands,distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Street Tree Program,and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
/ Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-11
-Urbani DrAft
APPENDIX E
04% LAND USE PLANNING
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along trails,riparian
areas,and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees,particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older,the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983.Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canopy,and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat,erosion control,
slope stability,water quality,air-quality,and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations,failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983,further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally,the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents,developers,and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property,particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes,wetlands,and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible,to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed,and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands,riparian corridors,and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program.These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas,and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending,or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s)for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city,which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally,because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban 1restry Master Plan AppendLx
APPENDIX E
%
LAND USE PLANNING 0;
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system,protected trees(such as
street trees)have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest,a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
■ This urban forest provides social,economic,and ecological services that
create public and private value to residents,businesses,and visitors.
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting,tree main-
tenance,and outreach activities. Additionally,new development is required
to install street trees,landscape trees,and trees for mitigation purposes.
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code;applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner;and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel-
opment permit review. Furthermore,landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their property.
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community,that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources,and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
GOAL:
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic,ecological,and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies,regulations
and standards to inventory,manage,preserve,mitigate the loss of,and
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-13
Urban 1 Appendix
APPENDIX E
0 a
4 ' LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental,aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes,regulations,standards and programs relating
to landscaping,site development,mitigation,and tree management
shall be consistent with,and supportive of,one another;administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation,including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees,unless demonstrated infeasible,on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects.Trees should be planted within planter strips,or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience,environmental quality,and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions,such as street trees,
parking lot trees,and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
city of Tigard I Urban 1 Appendix
APPENDIX E
LAND USE PLANNING
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive,coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations,standards,programs,and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion required by development approval,with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees,street trees,and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree,parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive,and determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified,and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings,permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
City policies,regulations,and good arboricultural practices for the
general public,developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance,and protection.Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-15
Urban i Appendix
APPENDIX E
0%0 LAND USE PLANNING
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant,site appropriate,and require minimal chemical
applications.Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries,landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous varieties,and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects,such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City,promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimises the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover,with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development,the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees,taking into consid-
eration the related financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees,including root systems,selected for preservation during land
2-16 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
city of Tigard I Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX E
LAND USE PLANNING 0;%
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall,in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive,allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
7. The City shall require all development,including City projects,to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan,with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners,businesses,
other jurisdictions,agencies,utilities,and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees,wetlands,stream corridors,riparian
areas,tree groves,specimen and heritage trees,and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require,as appropriate,tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations,standards,and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density,seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-17
Urban 1restry Master Plan Appen(fix I city of rigard Draft
APPENDIX E
04% LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands,and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys,workshops,and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property..
2-18 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
I r AERWOMMUSL! ` . .t. a IFS■
3' t�_
Urban Forestry Historical Timeline
rt
>r NI
Kalapuye owls,`�3(10years betarepreftent ltaNPuva r
drawn by,
Alfred Agaty (Native Amernane} n managing •
a
—beralli the forests of the Willamette Valley
the
xp� musing fire(pyroculture),(Gray,2008). In 1851,r fl€Atllttrege
within the euirift!n(ty
Nti t.. IHAitsofTg ovine
(3,966:9 acres).
10 eady tg5ift i,pard w m;
settled by several rami
'*European descent including .1910,the Oregon Elect.
Tigard famity,headed by away arrived,triggering)
M.Tigard.Native Id development at the
cleared for agricultural u4i p near Main Street.Frult acrd
timber help support development not packaging and canning
LRthe etea(Chy of Tigard,2009). and lumber mills setup '
point to p
ree and and 1
ht:Mrs.RL La4F'Dry Goods Store,Bolens(later Schubring
i. n's)Grogi thou y Krue"es Pool Hall and Barber Shop
PtsM%e 1940y (JOJ I l:on
1911.
Was about a .paved ftrretid+iaNra Mrs ffearMn buildings.Circa
ev
Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961,`(dere were 1,749 residents and
572 occupied residences at the time of incorporation(City of Tigard,2008).
The biggest boom period took place in the 1960s,averaging 26%population
growth(City of Tigard,2008).
>
--In 19B7,Tigard adopted its first zoning ordin mention of In 1972,the Municipal Code contained previsions to protect the public from
Mees In the zoning adinange was in Section 180-7 - quved trees in dangerous trees 6` es blocking sheets and sidewalks.Planned m
Industrial developments to provide a buffer for str d residential zones Z
developments w to the maximum extent possible...to
' assure that natu if the land are preserved'and to provide"a
preliminary tree, ""ghrl,tyNih)...all existing trees over six Inches in X
3r 1982,Tilled adapted its first Comprehen' with several policies diameter and g T
that call for the preservation of stream comd. fish and wildlife habitat,
free and Sobered areas,and wetlands. I
In 1983,the Co ant Code was revised to comply with the
Comprehensive 7f*' moval section of the new Code required
In 1983,the Landscaping and Screening Chapter was also established a City permit prior 'ee`removal for all undeveloped land,developed
and required stre0tres planting,protection,and replacement during commercial and industrial land,and public land.
abvabPmerrL it 01as required bft to be d as a buffer between differing ,
Aerd uses and for shading of parking Iota
Ia 1985,the Sensitive La 4>FlhaCarnmunffy f�fbde
' ' •±In 1987,the Tigard Municipal was expanded to prohibit dead or i�mhihlecl development in or In does pihxt i*tD significant wetlands.
hazardous trees that pose a1%in to hlic and private property owners +
(Section 7.40.060).
Ir I In 1997,the Tree Removal Chapter was significantly revised,Tree pons
® were required for development,mitigation standards were established,and
H tree removal permits were requlr fortress insensitive lands.
9Y1 the City hired its first Urban Forester.
e `71 In 2001,the Tigard Triangle D NI the tiommunlly Develop-
. merit Cade established addltio and screening requirements
In
r e ' Hi ft"5,9%and2t7).
11,the Tref established to develop and administer
-;writgzehensive tree, - eat program for trees on public propert
y. •- '
z Tigard has been named a Tree City USAL
{ x ® the National Arbor Day Foundation ev _ r
vr,� r ®
M al Code was revised to increase protections 01.
fa20
r
year since
� , -1a' fir. trees on City properry�
uare Regional Center Design StanRn
dards and[he _
f?v�{ Urham Ouarry, ndartls established additional landscaping and In 2002.the Sensitive Lands Chapter was sl .ravisadtA efdd
Crearrun3 in the Washington Square and Bridgeport areas to implement"Clean Water Services(CWS)D _ COrgtruuitat
'- respectively. Standards',the"Metro Urban Growth Mane notional Plan;'and
"Statewide Planning Gaal 5(Natural Resourc
Heritage Tree program was established so that trees of
mportance could be officially r¢cognized antl protected.
2007 the Tree Board's mission was expanded to d" a•-CSyTree
code
and Urban Forest Enhancement Program OM
attiDetaee
}r code revisions occurred in a comprehensive manner. -
A ted a"Significant Habitat Areas Map"which expanded
the lands wheretree removal permits were r¢qulred� '
��ffff In 2008,an Urban Forest section was added to the Compre Pion
following over a year of work by the Tree Board.The Urban so tf6n
of the Comprehensive Plan contains two goals to be imple 21
_ In 2009.Tigard received a policies.Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the Comprehensive Plan stat
Tree City USA growth award for its shall develop and Implement a cdywide Urban FOf utry Man 1sT ter
- expanded urban oresiry efforts. Plan."This Plan is Intended to meet this policy req uiremen x
r
Burrows,12009.A Shat History of Tigard,Oregon.Accessed via the World Wide Web<http:/Rom.mipaca.conVOregon/TigardHistory.php>on March 25,2009.
City of Tigard.2008.Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range Planning Division.60p.
City of Tigard.2009.T1gard Downtown Future Vision.City of Tigard,OR,Community Development Department,Long Range Planning Division.29p.
Gray,S.2008.The Kslapuya People:Stewards of a Rich Land and Culture.Accessed via the World Wide Web:<http://www.washingtoncountymuseum.org/localhistDry/index.php>
on November 5,2008.
Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX G
Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal,State,and Regional requirements when
managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities that further
progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent major Federal,State,and
Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban forest management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF)is responsible for administering the Forest Practices Act (FPA).
The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and ensure that forests
remain healthy and productive.The Oregon Legislature has given cities the authority to regulate forests in
place of having ODF administer the FPA as long as the local options meet the FPA's minimum standard
(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:
citv onigaat I Urban Forestry Master Plan Nppendix
APPENDIX G
spaces." This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including fish and
wildlife habitats,stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies can further
progress towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental,and energy(ESEE) analyses are
required to protect Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6. "To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state."
It is well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality improvement.
Goal 7. "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards."Trees roots,canopies,
and leaf litter in natural hazard areas help to prevent erosion and flooding (Portland Urban Forest
Management Plan).
Goal 10. "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state."This goal requires the City to
balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban land.
Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and coordinated
with relevant Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan which is described
in more detail below.
DLCD has approved or"acknowledged"the City's Comprehensive Plan (including the Urban Forest section)
as being in compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro requirements (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
Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX G
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 d.,
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).
Draft i city of Tigard I I Forestry Plan Appen(fix
APPENDIX G
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 tides,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 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.
Tide 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).
Tide 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 floodplain 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).
Urban 1 1
APPENDIX G
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat designated as
"highest"value (i.e.Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean Water Services
Vegetated Corridor).An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat situated outside the Clean
Water Services'vegetated corridor are designated as"moderate"value.In addition,422 acres of non-Class I
and II riparian resources within the City are designated as`lowest"value,including both upland forests and
lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest and moderate value habitat are currently protected through
other regulatory processes and agencies such as CWS. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland
forests and is currently vulnerable to development.Additional ESEE analyses would be required to protect
lower value habitat and additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the future (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
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
Draft Cm(11 fi-ard I Lilian Forestry Master Plan Append'
Ix
APPENDIX G
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.
Constitutional Takings Issue
In response to the question of whether a tree preservation ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking,the City
Attorney has provided the following response:
Oregon courts recognize that regulation of real property can go too far and become tantamount to a
government appropriation of property. A regulation which goes too far results in a regulatory taking or
inverse condemnation,in violation of Article 1,section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. See Coast Range
Conifers,LLC v. State, 339 Or 136, 117 Pad 990 (2005);Boise Cascade Corp. v.Board of Forestry, 325
Or 185,935 Ptd 411 (1996);Dodd v.Hood River County, 317 Or 172,855 Ptd 608 (1993).
The approach of courts under the Oregon Constitution"has been to ask whether the regulation leaves the
owner with any economically viable use of the property." Coast Range Conifers. "Additionally,the court
has recognized that regulations that deny an owner the ability to put his or her property to any economically
viable use will result in a taking and entitle the owner to compensation." Id;see also Dodd(phrasing test as
whether property retains"some substantial value").
Whether there remains any economically viable use of property is based on the effect of the regulation as
specific to the characteristics of any property at issue. Therefore,it is imperative that when utilizing the
Urban Forest Master Plan as a tool to guide the drafting of regulations,that the City Attorney be consulted
regarding the constitutionality of the specific regulations in light of any new jurisprudence on the topic.
Burns,C. 2008.Personal communication on October 6.Western Forester,Portland General Electric
Company.Portland, OR.
City of Tigard. 2009.Comprehensive Plan (as of April 22, 2009)•city of Tigard,OR,Community
Development Department,Long Range Planning Division. 230p.
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_Urban_Growth_Boundaries.p
df> on March 25,2009.
Urban Forestry Master Phtn Appendix I city of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX G
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:
< hup://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.
APPENDIX H
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's "land use constitution." It is the document that
provides the broad policy basis for Tigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions
relating to the use of land in the City.The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will
implement state and regional requirements,including Oregon's land use planning goals and related laws,
state administrative rules, and applicable Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan contains
goals,policies and recommended action measures that identify the intent of the City to accomplish certain
results. The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two (2) goals, 22 policies,and 11
action measures specific to urban forestry in Tigard. The goals and policies are obligations the City wishes
to assume.The City must follow relevant goals and policy statements when developing other plans or
ordinances which affect land use. Therefore,the Urban Forestry Master Plan and future revisions to the tree
ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Recommended action measures
support the obligations to achieve a desired end,but do not signify an obligation themselves.The discretion
to what degree Plan policies are implemented belongs primarily to the City Council.
Zoning Map
The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City. Zoning
determines the type and intensity of development,as well as applicable Code provisions such as density
requirements. As a result, zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a given site.
Code Provisions
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and urban
forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code provisions,as
well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
Chapter 7.40 (Nuisances) requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight (8)
feet over sidewalks and ten (10) feet over streets (section 7.40.060.A). It also prohibits owners from
retaining dead or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property (section 7.40.060.B). However,
there is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that are in imminent
danger of falling.
Urban Plan Appendix
APPENDIX H
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.
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.
hull City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appen&
APPENDIX H
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 preserved to the extent possible (A.2.b) and the use of innovative methods
to preserve fish and wildlife habitat located on the"Significant Habitat Areas Map". Site Development
Review applications are reviewed and approved by staff through a Type H process which limits the amount of
staff discretion. Therefore,the non-specific approval criteria above does not provide the tools needed to
implement tree and habitat preservation.
Chapter 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments) allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street
trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) if there
are space constraints.
Section 18.385.040 (Sensitive Land Permits) requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep
slopes,drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these areas.
Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section 18.790.050 of the
Code. However,there is no tree protection plan requirement(section 18.790.030)for development within
sensitive lands.
Chapters 18-510, 18.520,and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential,commercial
(including mixed use),and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum landscaping
Urban 11' 1
APPENDIX H
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"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.B.1). Exemptions from
the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair,stream restoration projects,non-native
vegetation removal,and routine maintenance as long as they comply with City Standards and Specifications
for Riparian Area Management(section 18.775.020.C). Section 18.775.020.D requires development to
Plan Appendix
APPENDIX H
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 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
Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix
APPENDIX H
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.B requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed restriction.
This requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived and difficult to
quickly and easily assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after development.
Section 18.790.050 (Permit Applicability) requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas.
However,the approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by trees.
Therefore,if an appropriate erosion control plan is provided by the applicant,any or all trees may be
removed from sensitive lands areas. While hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements,there is
not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree and who is qualified to deem a tree hazardous.
Section 18.790.060 (Illegal Tree Removal) outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the
tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation. The tree replacement requirements in
18.790.060.D are vague and difficult to administer. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing
requirements,which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation trees.
There is also little specificity on species requirements,which tend to lead to the planting of small stature and
narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the"inch for inch"replanting
requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the tree illegally
removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous condition of the
tree. One solution may be to set a minimum penalty for cases where there is no evidence of the species or
condition of the illegally removed tree.
Section 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) specifies the minimum planting strip width for
street trees (5 feet per table 18.810.1) and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect trees,
Draft city of Tigard I Urban 1Appendix
APPENDIX H
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.
• 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,floodplain,and wetlands from
development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
Urban Forestry V111ster Plan Appendix I Cit�of Tigard Draft 5
APPENDIX H
• 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.
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: mettel@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 25,2009 8:58 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Comments on Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd,
Here are my comments and suggestions on the Implementation Matrix part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan
Report. I found the narrative part well written and cannot offer any changes. However I do suggest that the
following comments and suggestions be considered for revision of the narrative.
1. Implementation Matrix Format. Suggest the sequence and content of action measures be more
consistent. Also do not include descriptive items. A sequence might be
a. Ordinance/law/code
b. Program—An operation/activity/program to be continued or established. Also the item might
indicate if the activity is new or continuing.
c. Project—a one time activity—develop manual, develop procedure
d. Descriptive items/features can be better covered in the narrative. Examples: "provide incentives
for small diameter trees","ensure invasive trees are exempt". This will simplify understanding
and reduce the size of the matrix
e. Hour and Dollar Estimates. Will the reader know if these are annual or one time costs?If
task/activity will not require a staff increase, should a cost be assigned to it? .
2. Revise Tree Ordinance - 1
a. 1.1 Features that could be covered in narrative—b, c,e, f,
b. 1.2.b should be covered in another section devoted to charges for tree services?
3. Revise Landscaping Ordinance - 2
a. Move 2.1 Features to narrative—e, f, g,h
b. Suggest adding a cost-benefit study for leaf pickup from all city streets
4. Tree Grove protection program- 3
a. Combine 3.1 and 3.2. Isn't it one program? Descriptive info in titles can be covered in
narrative\- 3.2 a, b
5. Hazard Tree Program-4
a. Combine 4.1,4.2—together they describe all Hazard Tree Program actions
b. Green Space coordinator(4.Ld)also covered in 5.2.b
c. 4 divisions involved. Suggest one be designated lead division to provide leadership, coordination
for this program
6. Improve management of Urban Forestry Program—5
a. For 5.1 title, suggest use data base/information system or other up to date term. Then list tasks
needed to develop and operate it.
b. Suggest that one division or position be designated to provide leadership/coordination for urban
forest related activities. This to include budgeting, standards and specifications, securing long
term funding,update urban forestry. Might use the Green Space Coordinator position for this.
c. Green Space Coordinator also covered in(4.1.d).
7. Develop Urban Forest Stewardship Program
a. Revise title to"develop and conduct ....."On the other hand,don't the items in the sections 1 to
4 come under the stewardship?
b. 6.4 Update Plan should be task of program management(goal 5
I
I
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: July 1 UFMP CAC Meeting -Citizen Input
Todd,
I find that I cannot attend the July 1 UFMP CAC meeting,but want to provide citizen input,as I have attended all other meetings of
the CAC.
ATTACHMENT
1.The defmition of'canopy'is not in this memo,and it should be clarified up front. Does canopy include blackberries? Does canopy
include grass? Does canopy include bushes and gardens? Is canopy limited to perrenial plants growing more than 8 feet above
ground level,excluding invasive species? Or? I think this latter definition seems suitable,but the CAC may have other opinions.
Please clarify'canopy'in the text. A parallel concern regards the definition of'landscape'or'landscaping'.The code requirements for
landscaping are vague at best(the Planned Dev section does have one requirement for 20%gross area landscaping). Chapter 18.745
does have requirements for buffering between adjacent uses and these should be considered as potential canopy cover areas between
different zones.
2. The most amazing thing that concerns me regarding a canopy goal is that the city would give up before starting on trying to
provide canopy on public right of way(a text note says that this is the case!). The values of the city citizens want more canopy cover
along streets and it is possible. Why should the city get a free ride on canopy cover when all others have to provide canopy cover?
The city code requires street trees,which,when grown,will provide canopy cover for a significant part of public right of way. Maybe
one solution would be to give up on providing canopy cover for portions of streets more than 40 feet from the edge of right of
way where 1)the right of way is more than 80 feet wide AND 2)there is no median planting strip. As an example of what can be
done for right of way canopy cover,just drive down State Street,Lake Oswego's main street,and see what great cover is provided
there. When defining the location of public right of way,the full width of right of way,as shown on the TSP should be considered,
notwithstanding that some widening of a street will happen in some cases when development occurs. Please add back public right of
way when computing what is a good goal for canopy cover in Tigard.
3. I believe that the CAC should consider the recent study by Audubon for METRO regarding tree policies(see Oregonian of June 29
article)and would bring my copy if I were able to attend,but believe an electronic copy can be obtained for the CAC.
THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN
4. The concept of sustainability has not been incorporated adequately. I have earlier suggested the creation of overlay zones for
particular areas,including tree groves. Tigard will not develop a strong urban forest if each case has to be reviewed one at a time.
Such overlay zones or other mechanism can be the basis for strong rules on maintenance of both planted and natural trees at times
beyond specific development review,and should be developed.
5. The plan gives almost no consideration to inclusion of open space,ie areas not developed by mankind,in the Tigard urban forest.
There do exist limited such areas(on both public and private lands)in the city and they should be highlighted and protected. The
CAC has previously discussed protection strategies such as zoning,purchase of easement,etc.which should also be considered here.
These open space areas are important as refuge areas for wildlife which then often moves to other parts of the city(ie birds fly from
nests in natural areas)and adds to the livability of the city. The comp plan policies on parks and open spaces calls for their
consideration. Such areas would normally be covered with canopy,but there may also be meadows and wetlands included. The
concept of landscaping has sometimes been applied to these areas(ie saying that they are landscaped areas),but they should NOT be
considered landscaped areas.
6.The UFMP should have an independent section on UNDERSTORY and GROUND COVER elements of an urban forest. Vine
maple and such species which grow beneath conifer stands are important for wildlife as well as protection from erosion and
contribution to soil nutrients. Oxalis,ferns,wild ginger and other groundcover plants help to hold water and soil and thus sustain the
larger,more dramatic conifer and oak species. These elements are part of the urban forest and provisions for their protection,both
during and after development exist(but are not enforced)in the present code;such protection and enhancement should be detailed and
i
1 i
r
Attachment 4
promoted in the UFMP. Some will say that CWS standards provide for these elements,but CWS is a'clean water'agency,and does
not write its regulations for habitat,but for erosion protection only.
7. The UFMP has a clear discussion of how METRO density codes operate to reduce Tigard's urban forest;it should have a
corresponding discussion of how new home building technology(ie roof materials and design,longer spans over tree roots,use of
non-toxic coatings,etc)can push our city in the other direction,providing for protection of more urban forest area.
8. Some will talk about regulations and zoning as'taking'. The UFMP provides a fine place to talk about the limits and boundary of
such legal matters. It seems to me that as long as some reasonable amount of development is permitted by city code,the city
limitations on further development are not'takings'. By providing such discussion of legal matters,the UFMP will provide a basis for
development of good city regulations. Please include or include reference to appropriate material on this subject.
John Frewing ifrewing{a)teleport.com June 29,2009
•
I
I
z
I
I
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: ph@halsteadsarbor.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:29 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: UFMP Comments
Hello Todd,
I have reviewed the draft UFMP and attached Appendices and found everything well written and organized. The only
comments I have are the following:
Comments UFMP DRAFT
1) Page 1, Item 4—For clarification purposes, I would recommend changing the title"hazard tree program"to read
"Tree Hazard Identification and Mitigation (or abatement) Program"throughout the entire UFMP.
2) Page 2, Item 1.1b—Re-word goal to"Modify Code to focus lesson mitigation and more on preservation of long
lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous tree species, native and indigenous trees, and other trees identified of
high importance."
3) Page 2, Item 1.1g—recommend changing wording from "create"to"re-create"or"update"tree manual. I think
Tigard already has a tree manual...although it may not be readily available.
4) Page 3, Item 1.2a—Very nice to see this goal, as it can help to move the emphasis from mitigation more toward
preservation of trees.
5) Page 3, Item 2.1e—I don't think we should use the term"incentivize"...I'm not sure it's even a word.
Recommend the use of"Create an incentive based program for the use, retention, ..." Also, recommend the
wording use from my comment above(#2)for description of tree species, etc.
6) Page 4, Item 4 Title—Same as#1 above.
7) Page 5, Item 4.2—Question...Why does the City want to get involved with private property tree hazards or
property disputes between neighbors? I understand there is 60%community support for this from the survey, but
I think it would be prudent to consult with the City Attorney regarding implications of liability and potential lawsuits
for the City before going down this path. Trees on private property are typically a legal issue and decisions are
made in the courts...even when local tree ordinances govern trees i.e. prohibit the removal and/or require pruning
permits etc. I think the City Attorney's input would be of great help here just to make sure their office is
comfortable with the change.
8) Page 6 Vision Statement—Well written, but needs to be highlighted or emphasized more so it is more prominent
and visible within the document.
9) Page 8, Paragraph 5, 1st and 2"d Sentence—"incentivizes" might be changed to"promotes" in the first sentence
and"reward"in the second sentence.
10) Page 11 —Recommend changing to"Tree Hazard Identification and Mitigation Program"
11) Page 12, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence—Property Dispute Issues as described above(#7).
12) Definite need of an Index at the beginning of the document and Glossary of Terms/Definitions at end of
document.
Comments APPENDICES
1) Page 64-1 think creating an historical(visual)timeline with photos is a great idea.
2) Page 76, Last Paragraph—Just to note—I believe the$125 per caliper inch amount is a reasonable, albeit low-
end mitigation cost. If I have a client and they want to plant a 2"caliper Big-leaf maple, I would typically charge
approximately$400.00 for the service. According to the Code,the City's mitigation would only be$250.00 (again,
sounds very reasonable to me)
Attachment 4
Hope you.are enjoying the beautiful weather this week. I'll see you tomorrow night at the meeting.
Thank you,
Phil Hickey
Project Consulting Arborist
ISA Board Certified Master.Arborist PN-1604B
2
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Phil Hickey [pchconnect@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday,July 10, 2009 1:44 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Glossary List
Hi Todd,
I have reviewed the UFMP Draft and have come up with a few words/phrases that may need defining in a
glossary. Please review and let me know what you think.
Pg 2- "Invasive Trees"
Pg 2, 1.1G- "Tree Manual" or perhaps Tree Care and Preservation Manual
Pg 2, 1.1J- "GIS"
Pg 3, 1.2A- "Tree Canopy/Canopy Cover/Tree Density"
Pg 4, 3.1 A- "Tree Grove"
Pg 4,4.1 A- "Tree Hazard Assessment"
Pg 9, 3rd Paragraph- "Buildable Lands"
Pg 10, 2nd Paragraph under Chapter 3 - "Sensitive Lands"
Pg 11, 1st Paragraph- "Ornamental Trees"
Pg 11, 2nd Paragraph- "Canopy Clusters"
Pg 12, 2nd Paragraph under Chapter 5 - "Tree Fund"
Thank you,
Phil Hickey
i
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss; Dick Bewersdorff; Susan Hartnett
Subject: Re: Packet for Tree Board Meeting
Todd,
Thank you for the response.
The people with trees need to be IN the loop, not just treated as a normal uninvolved
citizen, as it is they that will be impacted most.
I submit that a newsletter, gives little weight as to the gravity of the situation. Tree
owners need to be noticed specifically with regular updates, not just subversively, or as
seems to be the case, after all the decisions have been made and it is too late for them to
add input and opinions. They need to be part of the process and be sent specifics as to what
is being put forth. Since these types of proposals can evolve into what could be seen as a
"Taking", all steps should be taken to notify the affected parties specifically with regular
updates as to how these proposed changes will affect them personally. As most are Seniors
and long retired, you should not automatically assume they are in the main stream or internet
savvy. In my experience, for most, their land is all they have. You should afford them the
same respect you would give your own Grandmother, and go directly to them.
John Floyd,
I just received your E-mail and am glad to see you folks are considerate of the situation.
As a note, my comments are not from the HBA but are my own, as someone who values,
appreciates and respects the rights of what our hard working Seniors have done and what their
expectations are for their property. I believe in fairness to all parties, and feel the
landowners with trees are being discriminated against. It is all of our duty, to see that
doesn't happen.
Thank you for your consideration
Ken Gertz
Todd Prager wrote:
> Thank you Ken,
> John Floyd will be leading the Tree Code update process as the details of the Tree Code get
worked out. I will discuss your comments and concerns with John. However, I do know that
part of the process outlined in workplan involves notifying those property owners with tree
groves identified on their property.
> Also, throughout the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, we have been updating property
owners and inviting comments through the "Cityscape" newsletter. This letter is sent to all
Tigard residents. As the Code process unfolds, Tigard residents will continue to be updated
through the newsletter and other forms of communication including email, websites, press
releases and live events.
>
> Todd Prager
> Associate Planner/Arborist
> City of Tigard
> 503.718.2700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com]
1
Attachment 4
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:18 PM
> To: Todd Prager; John Floyd; Ron Bunch
> Subject: Re: Packet for Tree Board Meeting
> Todd,
> I suggest for stake holders, you add all land owners with a
> significant tree canopy, as they are the ones that will inevitably be
> affected the most. By now, you have had enough studies to clearly
> identify these properties, and may have a list already. I feel that they have been
> mostly neglected, in favor of those with little or nothing at stake.
> As most of these land owners are senior citizens, it is important that
> the impact on their property be clearly laid out so they know how
> changes will affect them personally. To leave them out would be
> depriving them of due process.
> In my experience, the land owners know nothing about your efforts.
>
> Sincerely
> Ken Gertz
>
> Todd Prager wrote:
Dear Members of the Public,
>> You are receiving this email because of an expressed interest in
>> Tigard urban forestry.
>> Please find the attached packet for the Tree Board meeting scheduled
>> for Wednesday, August 5th at 6:30-8:00 p.m. in the 2^nd floor
>> conference room of the Tigard Public Library.
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>> Thank you for your interest in Tigard urban forestry.
Sincerely,
>> Todd Prager
>> City of Tigard
>> Associate Planner/Arborist
>> 503.718.2700
2
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Monday,August 17, 2009 8:13 AM
To: Brian Rager
Cc: Steve Martin
Subject: RE: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Yes, I will be the steward. I am currently tracking trees via an excel spreadsheet with X/Y coordinates and linking the
data to Accella(our permit tracking system). However,the current tracking updates only occur when I receive a request
for removal or planting outside the development process. My goal is to have"required trees" (trees to be protected,
heritage trees, landscape trees,etc)inputted during the development process by either the developer or City. This will
allow for easier tracking 5, 10,or 15 years down the road when I inevitably get the question, "Do I need a permit to cut
down my tree?" Currently,to answer that question I must review the land use file to see which trees were required to
be planted and/or preserved. It would be much more efficient for me to pull up the information on Tigard Maps and
update it on an as needed basis.
I hope this answers your question,and thank you for your review.
-Todd
From: Brian Rager
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:05 PM
To:Todd Prager
Cc: Steve Martin
Subject: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd,
I finally had a chance to read through your draft UFMP and only have one question. With regard to the recommendations
for tracking various categories of trees in the GIS (trees to be protected, heritage trees, landscape trees, etc), are you
planning to be the data steward for this?
Thanks,
Brian D. Rager
Assistant Public Works Director
Public Works Department
Direct: 503-718-2471
E-mail: brianrO,)tigard-or.gov
Public Works: Taking Care of Our Community
1
Attachment 4
Urban Forestry Master Plan Comments
1. Please indicate any questions, comments, or concerns that you have on the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
below. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you!
Response
Count
1
answered question 1
skipped question 0
Response Text
1 The plan is very comprehensive. Your process seems to have allowed you the Jul 6, 2009 6:41 PM
ability to discuss and investigate topics on several levels in order to develop the
Master Plan, which should be of great benefit as you move forward.
A few goals stand out in so far as they either deal with issues that the City of
Beaverton struggles with or they are ideas that the City of Beaverton has not yet
investigated. These goals are (some goals may also be contained in other
sections of Tigard's UFMP):
1.1.c requiring an arborist from site planning (will this mean that the arborist is
involved in the site planning in order to respect existing trees rather than just
inventorying the trees?),
1.1.e preservation of smaller diameter trees,
1.1.g tree manual development,
1.1.i inventorying and tracking protected trees (will the inventory be Goal 5,
regularly updated, how will approved removal and mitigation be tracked?),
1.2.a canopy cover and tree density standards,
1.2.b SDC,
2.1.b revised parking lot design standards,
2.1.c clarification of jurisdictional requirements (how will this differ from others?
will parks and CWS be treated differently, as well?),
2.1.g threshold for landscape architect requirement,
6.1.b discouraging the sale of invasive plants, and
6.4.b-d canopy goals
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Leigh M. Crabtree,Associate Planner, City of Beaverton, 503-526-2458
1 of 1
Attachment 4
The following are summarized comments made by Robert Alverts,Tigard Resident,on August 3,2009.
Mr.Alverts met with Todd Prager and Marissa Daniels to provide feedback on the draft Urban Forestry
Master Plan (UFMP)that was made available to the public on May 26,2009. A copy of Mr.Alvert's
written "red-line"comments are attached.
General Comments:
• Mr.Alverts is a certified forester and reviewed the UFMP after receiving a request for comments
in the Tigard Cityscape.
• In his opinion,good public policy minimizes the burden on private property owners and costs to
local governments.
• He sees the opportunity to eliminate jurisdictional overlap and conflicts among existing laws.
• He thinks the UFMP has a bias against non-natives. He highlighted the benefits and usefulness
of non-natives in the urban forest.
• He suggested the City partner with the University of Washington (his alma mater) in conducting
urban forest inventories, research,and management options.
• Although the UFMP refers to"invasive trees",he nor his colleagues know of any invasive trees in
the local area.
• He thinks there should be more focus on the human health hazards of trees including allergens
and molds and mildews resulting from dense canopies(this applies to natives and non-natives).
• He sees a strong influence of environmental groups in the UFMP,especially those lacking
rigorous scientific backgrounds.
• He sees too much focus on arborists,which he views as the"lab techs"that carry out the work
of other resources professionals such as foresters,soil scientists,etc.
Specific Comments:
• Recommendation 1.1.c—Why should only arborists be involved in the development process?
• Recommendation 1.1.e—The ability to withstand development impacts depends on species,
form,crown condition, location,etc.
• Recommendation 1.1.f—Does this mean only invasive trees,or does it include other plants?
• Recommendation 2.1.g—Why should only landscape architects be involved in developing
landscape plans?
• Sub-goal 3.1—A grove should refer to a small stand of trees in a forest,typically under five
acres.
• Recommendation 3.1.b—Maintenance standards for protected tree groves should allow
flexibility for natural disturbance. It should also acknowledge that in native fir forests there is an
average of 4-8 large trees per acre and 20-40 mature trees per acre.
• Recommendation 3.2.a—The City should not have the authority to dictate what happens with
trees on private property. Also,what should the public have ample opportunity to participate
in?
Attachment 4
• Recommendation 6.1.a—Outreach should include reference to other resource professionals
other than just arborists.
• Recommendation 6.1.b—Will the invasive species list include more than just trees? If so,
specify. Again,there are no invasive trees,a more appropriate term would be nuisance trees.
• Page 8 of 14, Paragraph 5-The ability to withstand development impacts depends on species,
form,crown condition, location,etc.
• Page 8 of 14,Paragraph 5—How is it challenging to track protected and replacement trees with
aerial photos every two years and GIS locations of individual trees?
• Page 8 of 14, Paragraph 6—Allowing any or all trees to be removed as long as they are replaced
is a reasonable policy.
• Page 9 of 14, Paragraph 3—Retention of tree canopy in areas outside of development offers the
greatest hope for preservation.
• Page 9 of 14, Paragraph 4—It is a positive goal to focus less on mitigation and more on
preserving high quality trees, revising preservation incentives so they are more attractive to
developers,and not unfairly penalizing property owners with treed lots.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 1—Include other resource professionals such as foresters and plant
ecologists in addition to landscape architects.
• Page 10 of 14,Paragraph 2-How is it challenging to track protected and replacement trees with
aerial photos every two years and GIS locations of individual trees?
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 3—Do residents really know if more street trees would be good for the
City? Consider sap, resins,etc.that could damage vehicles.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 3—Consider species, density,growth characteristics,autumn leaves,
pitch/sap,vulnerability to ice/snow damage, insects,disease,etc.when choosing parking lot
species.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 5—Determine if we are talking about groves or stands. Also,why
would we want to protect a grove like the one at the corner of McDonald and Hall(old
Christmas tree farm)? Why not protect groves of old orchard trees or non-natives?
• Page 10 of 14,Paragraph 6—Need to define sensitive lands.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 7—It will need to be determined exactly how and to what extent the
greenspace coordinator will manage the City's natural areas.
• Page 11 of 14, Paragraph 1—What does protecting tree groves mean, how much will it cost,and
how will property rights be affected?
• Page it of 14,Paragraph 1—What is the difference between natural areas and ornamental
trees?
• Page 11 of 14, Paragraph 1—People support development regulations when there is no
apparent economic impact to themselves.
• Page 11 of 14, Paragraph 6—Based on the HBAMP interview,the City should have no authority
over private property tree issues.
• Page 12 of 14,Paragraph 3—It is good to focus on management as the previous focus has been
on preservation.
• Page 12 of 14,Paragraph 4—Describe what proactive management is.
1
Attachment 4
• Page 12 of 14, Paragraph 5—The greenspace coordinator will have an excessive workload if they
have to undertake all of the tasks listed in the UFMP.
• Page 12 of 14,Paragraph 5—There are no local invasive trees. Term should be revised to
nuisance.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—Streamside vegetation involves a number of non-tree plant species.
• Page 13 of 14,Paragraph 2—What is a natural forested area? One that has naturally
regenerated or one with only native species?
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—For the first time it was mentioned that the City owns 180 acres of
tree canopy in Tigard.
• Page 13 of 14,Paragraph 2—A section should be created that shows the current status of the
city-owned urban forest using the data in Appendix B.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 4—In addition to the Kalapuya,a number of other tribes were active in
the Tigard area.
• Page 13 of 14,Paragraph 4—The species list is not complete. See attached list.
• Page 13 of 14,Paragraph 4—Climate change,species shift,fire and other disturbance events are
the norm.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 5—The data in this section is inconsistent with the data on pages 9 and
11.
• Page 14 of 14, Paragraph 2—Does managing invasives refer to both tree and non-tree species?
• Page 14 of 14,Paragraph 3—What is a "large, healthy tree",and how can they be protected
while protecting private property rights as well?
• Page 14 of 14, Paragraph 4—Why is there an aversion to clear cutting? Clear cutting is a
scientifically valid regeneration harvest system commonly used in the Douglas-fir region. Nearly
every subdivision,shopping mall,golf course,etc. in the Pacific Northwest area requires a clear
cut and conversion of land use.
Written Comments:
In addition to his verbal comments noted above,Mr.Alverts provided additional written "red-line"
comments on the draft UFMP and appendices. See attached.
Robert L.Alverts D R� Attachment 4
Science and Management Consulting . Eno!onm_ a Sgfut+on$
OF t?s4W F--1- #2222 Robert L. Alverts
Associate Research Scientist
Adjunct Faculty
14569 SW 130"Ave
Tigard,OR 97224
phone:503-639-0405 Drvtspn q1 Earth 8 Ecosystem Sciences Teti 15031639.0x06
14569 SW 130"Avenue Celt 1503)577.0202
cell:503.577-0202 Tigard,OR 97224 e-mail balvertsiPteltoort.com
email:pallens;a te*e .
Nevada SvSferr,at Highw Educahon
i
r I
• J� ` fri,11. • rt
. tl
•' Gln :.
• .r
LL�
tr ,t�4�
14
AOL
41 C4L14w'.0
i
�;.tip. 1wi `jrYA.' ;.►7Lvin t'a.•+i•x..� �J A.,f...w .P.+w-r V( �.
4ILi AM�
I r l
J'w`i�E✓ t,, � lt�,,i�,t;,,�,�
r ry� 11
�`�1h'Vi r'1•♦
Attachment 4
L-rtaan Foresm- 1Ntister flan
FXCCII im Sllilliltam
I hm OWn I iYi' qg Ninter Man I I \IP mac;, .! C:,n;l('tel r'1 ;Il"h)Il r"!- Ill. ('IIC ,tl l iti.l1'11'` l;l'b,tii
1f1f'C�ii'1 l71'i)��r.11ll 1TC
t)Ill the thli +)f ih :ICCt'p1.U1ct' bt ( 'tuiwil l;lli _'
-li ilii tc.lr i0iOl. he PL11 ha, hvctl
A-vcl))ped diniu�_-h a pOdw pin w"' In"Ong 0-I11111011nl'''411'l;iC11 And 111n Vt`, i'1)all I')r�"iit
`!.I kch(ildcr!ilivn ic%v,, ticpai-iI11CIliat o)')r}I 111;11 , n mccIlilL`. •tn,I re\iCU ,)I' (,I1\ pt4 w lr` .Itlll
pr,)Lf:1!71�. 13:14'(1 nl1 i1e inl,)rt17.1umi ret:(:ivv,l !.101'''01 11":il this pnic•C div { I \117( Ilt/i:n \J%'I`t)ri
(Anninhice f_.\(.. -1111\CiiiQ In1p1l'llll'lliall!'ti
1. RC'1•r`c�I I'�ard�? ire(:I-,'dIn,InCr nallILT 11,-0111, II1("111111` dl"trl',pi]1C111 t'C.tlldlt 'r1• :11101 111111�.1i1 'a .
Rig lac Tigard" land`c,tpul'_1,,7rdirlmlcc inclutlr, <Ircc! 'rcc,. parkmn_ 1,): Irrt'. .111d (aper re.lu:rrtl
landscape iron .
i, DCrc111p:t u•CC tir,rVe pr(nccrlt)ll pri)Lrant-
:, DCvult'p :l har.lyd tree IlD!'QI%In1.
I ltllpn we rhe .,lana};Cnlinl 4111C the Cln-'� urb:ul f0l`C>II�
ti. l)Crcl')p.111 urban h)ry o 'lo%ard'hip p1%,granl.
it is further rcc,)nirriended than the achievenlerll )'f the 'fl)(wC irnpivillcolari,)n;" als !'ccur Ihr mgll a
surlc< if a!17lL'Y,ll+ and :1C1. ,n tllCoures which are"llilinCt', ill the inlhlcincritai1'il'i inntri\. l hV
Ilnplci11eilultio)n "tiak pub-t;(r.11�, and aCii')rl nlr.t,urc!� are intended It) fr:inic the fuiurc urban
i-))re:,la ,utlinttnt:c anti llr'7granl dc\'cl1!11Mrnl. :lnd et a linicline for their c!unple6k)n. `hhc Ti_ard
TrcC N):ird U•iII bi chargetI with (wersccnti itnhlenlcnrati'!n t'f tltc ITNIP a, Hart of Ihilr annual
tri Irk plan.
Implen1enration i\latrix
The iniplenlcnl:l mn ntatl•lx O MI:1tn, all `ix CFNI P hithligilml is blur., then.
a�ct)CI:!Ied cull^tit)al`
in bold ,and ;t scrics e anon nwoures wnh the ltece,ary I1:Tcl (01 dct:lll
nccdicl to inlplcrnum the g!lals and Nuh ; s . \W- intIuc ! to the nt,lirm arc the 010:1! 17.'ill
be IcAdin;!nll7liintenl.!ti,in. the G'Inprnccn•n e Pi.ut p')licit• 01.11 Are .Iddi-c"ud .sic .\ppelidis 1" for
CICUIlk', l'?ililtaiC> t1t sClf ac.d lnioncial rest uri:c> rvijUlred. and Ille schedulc fir i11111 i1111'Iti1ni111.
1 �
Gly oll'is;:lizl I'rban F.)rc';rrr NI:ISIor PLIn Drali P:l tc 1 ,f 14
Attachment 4
Implementation Goals p ; - -
ce u Z
t
,.1 Revise trc, ,:dinancv i flit% . . ,I a ai, ,trrr,. _
a. \hne tree„rdtnancv ti„m Tigard Ucer1„patrrtt I oit Ra:',�
r„n.ar'd \lunictpal(.,,dc it-,,,rdcr b,:Ili„1l Plawl;:tk! ,�..+. �. i,�•4,H.
t,ardl-eretnotwn rcctctt 2 i.'• �.i.'t.�.3,1tr,
23.11
h f, ( ,.:c is „ n:l: .,ts, n.rr:,i .a„r� 1 ,t:. N... _2.1.'._ ' 2
i�rc�rn u:�f .•r� r�4l:C4 CftitC�:t�.i,r+'.Eli I';.u:r,•._ � � i. � �',' ; ;,
'.
c• , . i,:...i:�•+:,1+aEtStt En Ix tn•.+,iceic :., :F; ,.
eltapmcnt prc.w&%fr,,n: -
.artaiscapc -
d. Uc�rinp ar..i;tttplrct.nt rc�u:.r.nm.. •t.ut.i.tr,; . t ,i. }�.:
and utcccrn e= t*,•r tramicrrm.�,ia:lt�t:t .alai P;,,nnntL
�ccl lei t.trt.latiC .1111.idiu-micnt,r„prc,a ri l
:rt-. iJ,ri-a'-,J., .'i•... .n:r•+r:.i ni c
c. !'ttalxtw ytaa t�µtia t tare prct+aatvulg srnAun-.4 1•,tig Rarwc 2.3.1.?,?_'.2?.1l,
,Lirnctcr trite;due ret their a?•il t, Ecnh r:anei Pl.lmmtIq 2.3.1.2.1,2.23.i. -
ietrcicapmenr impacrs. ?;,d,3,3,ft,2..i.-
f. Fn.urc that :rn•,•n l troiorllarr cxa:mpt from +n,� R. : :' '.'._2.2.
prescn.au.m ra ¢ttmenlr.rhr, Ugh the acl,trn nt 'I:uintn 3.?.s.?._'.'t,
o an tticlu,tx c•Int^a,n l �PegCi lust. ` ..21..i.>, 1,
g. Create trca:manual-with drawtng�and (.urrcnt 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2.t(. 1Itc;h sap 'uitI 2t'1I
spectticanons ti)rdevelt,pmcnt relatod ir:e Planning ?3.'f.2.1.1,_'.
;', ”
tnvcnutr% arta pnttection stardanis.and 2.3.3,2"V1,2.1,-,
preferred jwcic, rrcc t'Tw' f,:rprv%croaann. 3.3.S.2.3.9
h. 1),:%O"r•r;n.izrd•.iriki nn.cc•durr, f„r II,AL tree L"111:R.t:i-'L 2 2 1,_'2-12-2,
miln:11117;W11 i,c rnr ,recd Plann:t;c =_'.r., '.;,!•= ;,++, -
i. Develatp prnccaiurv,for when and h„m-prutectcd ( urrcnt
trees will he inventoried and permit acre itte, Pl.tnnlnL: - y
tracked.
j. 1)ccrl+,r.trui ntatntu:t,.t, p.'r.'t rile(-,r,',(,Is (.ttnrra __
And permrt-E�rcnu,a puhhch .ti(c"tl t. P).tfill ith
uttctit',n trt rn'tct•tcci rrcc•
(:itt %LTi•.gond I'rhan faire•>tn- \lases Plan Draft - Pa,-r 2 if 14
Attachment 4
Implementation Goal,
1.2 Revise tree ordinance so that standard%do not.olel% impact owners of treed lots.
a. lh't�i.,r..'.ttl ,p. c„tc..,•r r�, ac!t n. ..r,,;l ;l- k. ... -
;r.tl: •I' t.t., 'tw .Ile! Ir
..'r:%!:.'.. iii.,.�.. � .. rr: _ •.
b. (,rt'ate at; 2.' .222 ' '-
chargc h,rn,-,a
!um,..,,rc•..7, .
1. Re%isc Tigard's landscaping ordinance(includes street trees,parking lot trees,and(other required land-wape trees).
2,1 Rc%ise street tree planting,maintenance,and rcmoiial requirenken!-
a, t rc.t% sic :fin.wJ:...,.ve:;.ex tt1.,11Ua:ter.is
GrAN It,' _.2
b, Rm-c:parking lir:tit-wi:rcimrcmcnn n (:urrc•n: :. -'.2.2.4,
ine,,rpirttc i-lmmcr in-m.tt,nmrnt tMituyur• plannutr• 2_2.-,2.2.s. )_2 1!!,
asci meth„d:•that.upl.,,rt ttlCrcawrd trrc cam,pt'. 2 i 2. 2.
C. ( :amts itun,ihc'I,,ral rc�lutrcmcnt�Moog(1D()'t t urrcrt 2.2 1.2.1. 2 1a.
mul.t •.t N:n• 1)1)\\. I Lill 13,it.Juvard.I Its hN at' P!.I;:,InI4 2. ;,2 2.6,2?.',
'.x.2 + t.ti
d. Rcviw Tigard Nlutucipal(:t+ctr tt,cstablt*h permit Lobs:R,tllc;c' _"'.I.2.2.2.2.2,4. \1c6. S5 211111 340 1
system for plannn.g.rrm+.cal.atld rcplaccment,,f 13l:ulninzt 2.2.3,2.2.(1,2.2:8,
rcquircd trcrs. _';.'�.:.�•In,2.3,1+,
2.3.',2.3.1 it.2..3.1 I
e. lncrnttctzc thc•u-c.rcrctut,tn,mid rcrplacrmctu,.f ( timw — 22-2.22.41. \Ic,i, >> 2 ! ""I 1
limy Ittcci c•u'rizrrem,hri,:ui preadmit clrekiu„u, PLuut:r•; 2.2(4,
tiamenc�,n.uar pcetc•,an.i„thcr tree,kicntttic,i 2 2.r,2.2.'1.2.2-Ito,
.1•,.f loch In:p,,rt.lncc. ? : 1,i.\.;,2.,
f. Allt)%v rc•ywrvd land�capc tars ri,count toward, L,Ine Ran„c 2 2.1,2.2,2,2?.a, L„N 2!1111 21011
minyran„n,can- pc et-% and ur tree den mk planning 2...G,2,2.-.
Standard” 2.2
g,. iand',"Pt a milltrct+tt,UCvClw* R.1 I1L!c 22 i
, f1.v ft{T pfn1CCY",f:I CC"min t>rPl' pl.ialltth �,�..�,.2 �.^,:,i-
h. Di,n„t require nr« tccluutl„este,that are ow (`urrc•nt ''.I,2.14.2.2.- I."a • 21011, (tng„tnc;
pr,}tibun r. Planning;
Cin• q Tigard Urban [l iresrr- \Lister Plan Draft -- Pag 4 14
Attachment 4
C
Implementation Goals ,=� — •r. _ �+ ZL c
.. r
2.2 Develop an inventory of true plantings,removals,and replaccml !,:.
I,t I!I'.k; ,f'cJ .Chi',L ri I iti .,ti IP„i lu, 'r icr.,.:. !a +flt.i'Dti
a. I)e%ei•tp and mart in..i-purr,tf the t In til% t urrcat
and permit<rarms.a pubIicic,icce,mh4: I'ian;i r�
invcnton�Of tree•plantings and permitted
r�nr•%'alp,
3.Develop a truc grove protection pro�
i.l Focus on prover inn large grove,of iiatnc tree..
itlenn invvi-ittstving carer i
e save
2.3 11
b. '? 1.2''.'2.i. I11IL�11 ;;%: 'I1; 1 21112
arui Micedures(„r tree Krovry that aro kwo&d 111.11111m;.: 2.2-4. 2.2.6.2.2
for ornrc a-n 2 2 ?.2.1).2,.i,1.
i'9.2.i,i 1
3.2 Develop flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meet%the needle of affected propc"% owners.
a. 4uc44W4w pr.-gran +wtncrt,%14i,jdvnnticd Iarnv R.tngv 3'1+''3A I \IV:i. �5 21,!1+ 21,12
rr"t etn s carte in rhe nroccs.4ihey have I'lannnt;; _
ample c unit% t.. partici 7 ,
14'f'r'R I 1 .,tk�.. 1 r,.lr” !►� t 1 1 ,;t.'>!
h. Fn,urc.tr% funire rrce-n,tc h.tt; !.at4 K..rge '._' 1.2.17.2'.
tic sthilin and mccnm e,built in. 1'i.ltin;nc 2.
program.4.Dcvchj�p a hazard free
4.1 Establish Cite storm and hazard tree response protoeols.
A. Pnnr at lana icqui,ition conduct a true hazard Pari., 2?.1,2.2.2.2.S.4, \I4:6. a$1 2111 t)ng,-int:
assc%sinent. 2 3's
b. De%c•I,1p.w6%Hipp,.-nwn- f-rni.li cincruLix% A L '_'.i.12-1.2 I „1 • 2.,!11
re,n,msr,t,tcm ti-r trc. ha/ar!,-,n l nv
C. DC%C1.tpaneiimplement mmmalrnrr>~ j ln; iP . 2 . ng
response sPtem f tr we h.liard,to Ori 2.i.s
parks'grrrnepacc,.
d. Ihrc grccn,n.Ice c-..•r,hn.ti„r t„rn.in.tgc Ttt,.trd 11,I61, 2.2 1.2.i . +s lIILih 1„11 21111
naturd:ir'a,mid dv%6-1,q, ipr.•,lcr,%e hazard
abatc•nicr.t ;-irtttzr atit.
Cin- +#'Tigard Urban 1:,,restn Mastcr Plan Orali Pagc 4 4 14
Attachment 4
M S _
Implementation Goals C- r U ec c
W L _
4.2 Establish Cit% program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property.
a. Rci t+. 11_,.mi \lur,sct••'t .,ur t, ran'.t:rn, r.r I N..,.,
b. lktacl-,p.inti tnasntaui.runt.,`,.r:ghat t tenor
nts'rnucs.i 11.1/ard Joint term.r,rr ISA Planr:ine
.tandani+
c. i)t,tk.:,.,n.; ....;1.1,;u:i;,..,.... ,r h.,..tr,i
h,r elite:r. pr. ir,i:trc- -,;:i tr.u; .ten;, rr1.- ;+tr I'',n
1s\ -t.ut,Ltro-
d. 1)evOop pr,tcedurc-f,,r ntctilam%:dt+putts 1,,tlL!R.ittL:t
Including a+,icnutu:rc,p,m+ihtlttt Nalitim'!
C. MAI. tttEurMX:,In All-ILII '.t.i;ar.i:irk
S. Improve the management of the CiWs urban forestry program.
5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban furca imcnior%.
a. Develop prucrdurt•s 6 r a hen and hint pr;,rected ( urrrnt .i 1 Med, >
trcr,,tree ttrovc s,+trcct trees,heritage•trier,and Planning
rcyuired landscape trees will be Inventoried and
permit activities tracked.
b. arlutt.un,e•part„f the( in',(lis t .irrcnt 2.2
and pernut+r+rent st pul,itcit acct•+,iblC Pl.ur.un
rn+rot,.n „f pr,ttt•cicti tree-.trcc.Yr,ne.,street
irCt,.Itt'r1ta�-,C tree+,and required land,c,t1'u trrc+.
C. [)et rlop anti maintain,as pan t,f the(an'+GIS < ttrrent 12 1.2.22.2.2.- \ted S- 2111 1 t 1nt;„ing
scstcm,a puitiicic acct+siblc im•cnttav of site- Pluton;
where urban f,irisin fres art:lxing utilized. lanl%
<ttc,with the Gin's acc,tunting s-y,tCm sl,detailed
:tn:tlV+cs of urban t-,rc,tn cxpc ndirures can be
t tht.uard.
5.2 Improve management of City o,cned trees and forests.
a. (urate anti route a Isuticet+hco I,,appriq+rials: Park+ 2.2J.?2', 1.,,,t 210111 21111
diel ions prft,r to part, tndt grccn,pacc 2.7-4
acyuisiton,;s„.ir:ncipait;J c ,st,and bcnrtit+can
be iduitAcd and ccaluatcd.
b. I Itrt . ,,,r:iu;.,, 'r tILMA C 1 it� I lith _-:. 1,
,tt,nctl il.+rural arca,.
C. Develop elop a wrimn set of urban f, rcmry smndard+ ( urwit 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.25. 1 imll SS 21,11 21112
and specitieat,xr fire(.tn•prr,jrets to follow. Plinnut4 2.2.6,2.2.-,2.3.1,
d. identify and secure long terra funding Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 1.0% 5 201; 2016
sources for urban forestry projects as Planning
mitigation funds decline.
On,gTi.%�ard Vrban FI)rv,try Masrcr Plan Draft, -- Pagv 3 4 14
Attachment 4
Ira
Implerneniatiun Canal. �-, �.
r
0.1 Del clop and prootic urban forc�tn ,nnreach nl.ntr .,i..
;,11,11 :z cl:;x rr:nt: : cr'"an f t,rr n•
i!ir-n,rt.ut'•n tc„r .;t„h�•tib. Itl.tr,r.s;r: -'
tete arkiompt-,ct•t ICC,etc.
MtuwAa,d bpi of,mvasnv 7 t u'Tc:n• , '.1.�.,� ' 1 .
h. 'At•tttd prilm1ptiem,and prw 1tv
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owner,,
I :it:: smts3;a:b,t7.it7,3 , .ter t�ua..iuL ,oyer` !,,. < ,,r ,n: _'-._ �� I hta• .. _ _ , i
a. 'r.t tA1x"tIr:C ant. ur^t.t:' !.,r.•, •43
l,ul.lic .u:ri rm-+rt rr•,1,e-rr• .utci h,liehr r:r~i;t ��f
6.3 Present pre-developtnem clearing of lots.
a. 1)ecR.tnet �._' i•_12.2.2.2-. \lri: ' '1•' ',,1
p
itcrm:r, ri, . 'its rtt3, t,sl•,(.. pvci6v,; c -
r:lsr*,l,cr..f trcc� her t<•.tr,
6.4 Regularly update Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continualiv monitor progress;.
I t,.iart: I rim;-, I,.r,.tn kla,tc•r Man I.%,-n - t ;3rrt tat 1` ;,2.2 2,2.2.1 1. I h,:i•
a. }c.tr. I'le:..utt ;.1•'.;.k
b. Strive I„;ichirvv no net 1,1--in cit--wide true t t:rn nt 2?7,2.2.11, ;t y c
c.i nopy;m ini 1111 t".21 t1?. Pianntsi� -
!+trite I•,,tchscvc 32' cactti.ic true camlrt h: ( urr,:7t 2 -' 11._'
5tntc tu.tchrctc.tor'E,cItV%%I I:true cant,py b+ f urrolt 1 2.11,2..i.es L,ra
d. 211.1" Plannu7t _ «
Inst � i7uu.',••r•:.t(t tmu .; ,un•
1:111C
iII_h tt• i„17r.;3r” . .r,7tt;17771' ti X11)•1N,11 ,,•, ,t,11.
Through nnplcnicntati,m tut tht;goal'. 'Lit) Vg1;11'.and .1cttttn nic,mirc, in illt, Plan. linwgrc•st ;Gill lot' made I,-wardN tllt:
adopted victim of tht: UFNIP CAC;
• T
r 1
1'(rll' i urban 1w-, J l.r 1'aho-d and
Jrl'!i v"I'!t hl (:,r? n;mb 11/.i -11; Nll,P'tY llh l'ir ii r,-'lYd:'s,NJii;/'✓•14 rf/nibrl 4!Ilr.
im-rtw.i,t-ovi1/1iuM CdiJ1111). and,wa.viINh 11,"lit?/it. IC1,11"H11C. ,111(/,t'h/riti/(,;i 11,11tl!/i,
C'itn 1v Tigard t•rhan F,trc%tn \ia,tcr Plan Draft Pa;;r 6 r,f 14
Attachment 4
Basi. for Decision N{aking
'HIC 111111 m,111,-, llllr lrnlailt lil U,vkI !hc t+11,l, h rr dC(N1'r1} xlleil I'I rl'i17U1,t111S1 l' '•fI ,U11-
121111l'". .11ld .11.11+111 ML-11111 1-1:1 1(11' 1111. I'I'VP_
( t)111111L'nl'S �l1nC\
All MJL:1j1Ci1dC!1!. +C:IC11116t: ICIcIIhIrnC -,14011 rdnC{[lull\' ,CIUCTCd C111A11, .Il) WI fltC'lr AIUIL'1IC,
t,.\\:LrCI, CV,II IIl:and I'I1tt[,u ul ovb.:n f++:'c`1r% I),1liciv- .illd 11-1)L�rall;• M." Cr ll?1j,IC'IC1I tLA V
Ii 11U1� )n .11ld _e„1)1.1;11 C` HI D xvi11llcr 1 110 ,l:r\'CC \CJ- 1"0ndl'd Itl 11.,1'1 I .1 •_1'.1111 trtrnl tI1C
Ork:Q.Ill DCI1:11'ilnell I II1 ('rwv,IIA. IIId t':,DA I rrrC`I �,Cr1It: . he ,ttnc\ \\.I�, C,'IIdCCtCd Ili , rdurto
.11111\. iltr.1111,wedCi.i11CLI UMICI',1.111CI111L, rlt C11n1111L1',M .OIIIULIC� Ir+\v.!Fdz ur11.111 rI)I'C,In I„UC, In
C1UC,t111t1, and C+rinpicic rC,tll', [r+ 111 OIL'SUrA V :sl'C IIICILILICII Ill A.
('ant Ij„” 1n;tlr,1>
.1,111111111.4 I 111L' (.If•.'1. I I\cr.11l tree C.t.i+r11\ C+I\'Cr \1.:U 1110; 111:1 Ill Id UIL-11 if 11.ocullivill .l lilt dcl111L' Urliall
I',WC�l Ct)IlLli1111n,. Till, h.u. :1lit)wed f,Ir the tracking IIf urNill f.Irc,I CNlrnl and C11a11L!1. . 11 iitltII
public and 11rivat ' 111'[1per1i, 1111 .l CII\'\\'fele '<.110 1 1 11?!')1'111 111.11.11} 111rC,1 Ill I I \\•111
:l{{))\t'�I�I�:ITCI 111 C+111111 7 1.1:1111,' tnick cart, ch ii-L' 111 the fUtUri .11 ` uir,I 1•[1111 >--I 1\\.1'c that Cat?
CICCCCf the ilrc,ciicv I if it-cc Clltlt ll,\ Ct r\'C'r I ill Tignrd .ill.phi Ill IS C\'CrV lwl) \'Ca1•,. I't:ll rc,�Ult♦I'll dic
c.u1111n•.,11.[1,:1, .u•e in _11,1,Cnch� Li.
-�takeht)ldcr Inlrn•ira',
(..IiC �[If4 ll7fl'I\"Ic\fell 111{lIt)r 1.t 1171 111 41 11 1 11' Smkehl)Idcr 111'1Illjh :Intl jUrl1;dICU1111.�, 111aI :-ct,lllarll'
CI lilt rIbUIe t1):1111.1, 1)1':li'C :1ffecu:d by Ilie manngt.1llclV (11 ngnrk > u imn I" i. 'ri1C [till -t:lkeh111der
inlen'IC\\• notes are jneludrd ill .ljlpendix C.
Cit\' t1f Ti11ar1.1. lntcrilttl COOrdln:uinn \1Cc111111,
Tlic City ufTiprd hrs• nlulupic dCp1II•ullents.divkll)n�.btlards.and Conlnlittccs that .,Intim>icr and
1111111enient rhe llrhan tilre,tI-\- prr)L;rnnl. Iffier ( ity staff munilm-, with r,)IL-1 111 cc)i11'dlna;lllg .roil
inll,Ierlerlll1I;,, urb;lli ii)restn' 11rr)!•rnm z. 1,I11icic�.. and i lydj.n:lllccMCI If) di,Cu” Urim.n
flwv' Iry CVtirdiruiion Il"(k .,111.1 idcnll�v ,oluullr. TlIv ponp++se uI Il1C i11CCt7ng'; :\"as it, pr1)\'1dc f1)1•
more el-l-Ccf!vc :!dinn1.1nitilm of Ihc: urllan lim-ir j,r()�_,ran1 anti iniimii nladc In
Ilse LTNIP. lull result:of ille rllicrn.11 rr,1lydin.uilln ll1VCilil ? L-All 111.' fIrund in .lj)j'IC1l lix 11
(:it\-w Tigird Urlmn Fr resn-v Nln! to 111an Draft. - Page - of 14
Attachment 4
lZt']_tt'\1 trt ( JI'rw'nt :Intl' I Il�t'7Y+1'II I Own I toc,;!1 ( W III Y�rtilt',,_„Intl
t
.� t 7rlYt ll1r;T 1'Y\"Ir11 .L•itl ,Itlal\'�Iti t 1i lt!'Ilatl f!lt'cstri• t'rLtlr't1
\\'.1, Undertaken In 1111''1.171 rL'GtifllntClltl.!11ii1?� Ill lilt' I 1 .\II', 11,tI';((`:liar;?Ilt'(lllirll \\,: !!.Intl I'I IhL-
I. rban 1'tlrc'?1 SCCiIf i11 I1t LI1C (.f tnlill'tJ11C?1�I\'t' 111.111 1ppCildix 1. witi,11 '.."nl.iln, the 11t sill lt:`,
.Incl .ICH(Ill IllC.11!:I-C, illai ur11.1?1 ilr. LraI'll.
\i111CI1Cil,; 1 Collfaln, .1 hl,hrnc'.!: I1nwfine iCl.11l\(' !.i t:rh.ni 1*'tI',-tr` In 111:.;rd, \hilCii{1!\ t.t t''i17:,!Ill�
i'1 Ihl' Ill.11tit' 11(Icl'.1l, 1t.!IC. 411d RV'—'I011.:111.r11cle, :1'L:! Illi s\idt.- ,l t'',✓1.C'.\'.rte. 1..;
li,;artl ul'Imil t,srvslr\' I1r"'�'t:111"i. \hllenlll\ 11 c''iillaln� rc\it!,,% .i:ld tlrb,in
jf{1'e�(ll 1'el.tletl �.It\' i rl'ciln.lnl:C�.
Chapter 1: Develrlpnlent Re;atilatittnc :Incl Mitigatitln Requirement,
Iinplc•inuniamin (Am I I' 17C• he lIfrard I wC r tt-(Ii+' aru '( It tr\m r IS_Ql In('1'1 " ,.I•'t cit r!1!li m!
re1rL11:111tr111 :Vilil !Illi!!°.li It ill .
Rvvi>Ing Tit4artl', imc or1I111;lIlCC Is hLIIII(MAYA and as (ALiI I due littirlill'� iIi'S;l,tl?LICItill %\i III dIC
esi�ti:l,_'ir(llnancL hr illl):C hrlth In lIdC:llld tluilidt! Ihr cic\'ult/I)lllrttl GIInlIII unil\.
•I Av c11 Gnu Ime 11 inancu Is in (;banter Ih.-9!i 4 dIV•1•'14-1111 DC\-Cit)l1n1c11I C.ILie. The IrCC
-cdinanec reyuim-> ecrla ul types tiftlevAtillment pnOccas us i1rgmrc a tier pLm Mai uleniihes P"e
u hC prr.cnQ and rrnun'cd. Tree rclllaccirlcm, t,r 1-nitiga6m, is requircd nn .u1 "inch I,Ir inch..
SO. This Inc=4 that if a n-ul whh n ii-unk Ilya 1s 12 inches in chnnitner i< rc'mt-reel. 11 noel, Ii• hC
rrlllacrtl with G, ?-Inch dinmuler rrlllacentent trues. Ii-.1 devvl'-per chil>e nit! Itl I-Clliant Trees. Ihc
Cilr I-CLlttirC. :I "fee-in-hru pa\me171" to the:!it;ai•ti 'l mV I"und It the c'u1'rcnt rate'-- S I'-� ilc•r
dOnlcicr inch.
St in1C of the cril.lci,ni 1t die tmv ordinance trrgtl `1:!kl'll(ihll't'` arc th.11 the niiii,-ailiin II•tic lure
+nCC11L1\•I%CS IAT 1-1-1Ia11L+llL�, it title'; n-,t requirr prc>ervaiion tit L111.11111' Ircc>. and II elle' Thu
retenkm elf lame diameter rrces that are less likdy to sun•!rc develf splilenl imllacii, i hc 111 i[-,IV
13LIi1LlLr'� .1��nriatiiln of\ICtrilllr;litan i'tlriland .I 113.\NIP I ,inulin i-, chat thu fce-in l+Ct: iii
1111ligailtNl is C.NCCs>I\'C and thm the ime tiIOna11CU SiC< Ili-( ,li.leLlLLlltZlr I17CC1t1I\'tZt' ihr 111'��C1'\.1111''1
.)f high tiu:llilr irtes. The 14li.\\ihund tilherul:tkeh ddvr,agree than the act;tinlinance uni;llrl\'
Ilcn:111zr� tllttl'L! Ilr;+11111'1' ti\Cart's \\11.11 Cxisli '1! Ircvz nl'lrc Illan IhusC tl\\'iic•r, willillut Tree?. The trot:
y
t irL1111ancc !�:!I�n:I t11111nI�triIIICC'I\'t111I1Clill It tr the ( IC)' hCCaUIr IL 1? challenging +rl rack protected-- c, and replacement rrees in the vears anti dCC-.I les fl1110-Win�,1 dCv1+Ij)nI alt. i
lntcrestin�l\', the tree(w,:Hnanlr that was In v3% byinning In 1983 ,'ulnar% us have leer no cc
ilrescrvaiii wi?i than If ula\' becau,c it m4uircd :1 licrinii pri.it it) IIIc 1'cilo will .it .111\ ti-cc s ill all
LIndCrcliillCLl !:Intl• dc\'eltlllCd C(rt11117erCI;11 anti itldu<16.11 I,llid. .Intl public lanLl. in 1997 the tree I
ilydinanc1 \\-il5 revised to It,current Kori and shows an\•or:111 imr, u/ be rem o\%c.Ll as long as rhe:i-
are re11L3eeei l7uc in r:n't it)tlissat.isfacliint with the Cxlqi+1L' Irrt' iwdinance, ilie 'I'it;,lrtl 1 rce 13ti;utl
was charged with devcltlllintt a "City T•rce Sic\\;!rtichill and t'rh:in i'tiresi I.nhanccntrnt i n w1 ,rLln" in
(:in' %q-Tigard !Than Fort:sir\' Master Plan "Draft 13;1,1;e 8 1il' 1.1
Attachment 4
. �tlli I'I'11.7\CIl1;',1•\`Cr,i lf'.lr'11 \1411'k 111 ?11e I1't'c I+•?.:r(1, .1 C11!]lI1I'tiS�:d•;1� 17:.!11 till° Ih( I;r�Y.;II f+rr('�I
\C.1' tic\"clopct1 In 201"8" 11.- l-rball I +Irc,t vcif'Ill ,rt :ilL ( .tdl]I1;•t••1"!"11\,: 171.111 o Int.1111� 1'\\•I• L!,).11, h'
be i llllllci11ei7Ccd 11\ 22 IN locc Tim "ai, and i1I IlLvic, Ili rhe La:lele i ht'
reCt?illill("fltl,li'1+)17i I11,1(IC Irl ill:, 131-In
\\ 1111e 111:;:11' h' Lnlll:tl)Il\' MIA the cur1•ttrli imu •ll•t11rivico Mc o n ilii nw,X1:1'\:_I rC\C',;L'41 Illdr I lk.:arli
ru-.i( ew-Mill \\';Illi the ( Il\ t�' rCkILInT 111,11 -I lrllc ZIICA+ .ire prcwr' v.-1 :1nst lie\\ ;rte(" p!arli'-d Jari11-+
(le\'elI'1)IliCr11 "'tib' Supp.11.1 . \ Il],III II'ttl" )1 rL-id nt, -.i t '11C\ \\'..uld .L pp.Mrd tlrw
+
tir\'r111l1n,rlll ir4uLul .11s c\cl". :I rht'\ llnill the vi( and emcn' I)f •ltenttal hL+illlul- IIr i•r+1i;;••,
\hhl'I IXIwate1\ 2- 1i resident, yl\' thC\ \\'.IL11t1 I?III1„+(' lrec 170411,.lt l l Ill` Ill.dl IIll III tie\el, I.
r)rI IICCIInL, !hai d71Ir1II Iii id the Sun Ow"I I II1 M "",r 31111 acm, -4:11:1;(IAst: Lind, my" tic
i1:1LuIccd \Cilli liatc. MvIrr:. .lnd (.11\' i1i:111111I1f; �11..Ill and rcgulatitms Ill-.ir t.l\f rr Joi,ldt Ill Url?A;1
>ht ritic:al\.tit\"CII?1)1)1CIli reo!I:111inl' Illlai lit' CiVar.trill I Ihlt-'CiI\'C, alld 11�11 dlI-C' LI;.11CC ;.LCLIc11
llllll}kill thrllugll Ullrc:o-ini,L):c C(!•r trr dcla acc(irdin♦; if Stale 1.f\\•. I It,\\"c\cr,a1)1 n).Xllllalcl\ 1)
t?f Tipird's Lind .irea and tis' 'I ui uc citywide tree:cantly are trot<tdc the buildable lands in\•enil lry--,o
a cornprchcdl;d\•c urban t4lruar\',irdilt mcc anti prograin nlu;t.atItires+ ,irc.t, \1uisidc:I If dc\clyment.
.\, a result of iiput recd\cd fn 1111 file C+11n111WHI\• .1116 Irakehnlder,, the l.'r \Il'c„nraiw, sc\er.:i •ill,
goals .111Cl i117hlCI]]CI1L'1i11111 nlea>UrC` Thar llrt)\'d Cllrt'Corn Sir 1111\\" IhCgI1.il 111 rt'\'IIWU rl)e IrcC
Irdillance difildd be tice! lliplishc(i. The 1110i-Ir reelnr.mcn(Llrinll, InCIULIC 111116ntt lilt: IrCL-in-din.:nce
fruill rhe f1c\elt>1lmcnt code Inttl the il11I111Cip:ll C-,JC 11)a1I11\\" for 1111+re tlualita;i\'e re\iC\\ +If tl'ee
illans and to areas,IJulside r.lc\•C1111-1n7enl. icSIZ tOcus 11th nlit k, atioil:nld more on presen'in�,,
high (jullin trees, rc\-ising rrce preservaiitln iltcenLires tit) 0121 the are more:1liract.ire tit deveielpen,
and Hitt.unfaidy pennhhg prupert\'1 rias wAh um d i'1rs, .\1 11 inclutictl in rhe rec nnnlendatil ins
are dells the Cii\•S11-411d take t1\ better track pn netted and rcll ievnicnd true, after do-c11'11n civ i,
CI1r1]I11cic.
Chapter 2: Landscaping Requirements
II]]ot.'I11cn;m6n W1 2: Jtt•\'AC Tir'aM4 I:lnthca11111)' unlinanCt' include, irua ircr, pirl:in 1111
free.. anti --lrllt'r required lantkv—,ipe ircv,._
Rc\-IsintzTigard! lamIsmpin;oWinnncc is the an,nd pnd cif the 1-111P. •r'he intenkin of the
revisiurts v.-ill be It- Improve rile IlLlaiil\• and I1rlrlecul?n Iri-lhe Cil\•': arae:r.r:dh,�. atld C.•nlnlcivi'd
anal iIldW-trial lanclscalYe,.
r.sl,ztlrng, 1:1nd,c:111i11p wWinnnce, arc >,cmicrcd 111rI twhirut iliv I)c\-t:l.) lllcnt and \iunivilla; G'tic'.
.Nint1C I11 111e hrrwlsilrtls in Llle 1.111J�c.iping IlrilRl:lncv, lack >i-ICCIfICHY. CI177tliCl, And 1-11't:ICllt
1dillini,traU\c cludllcni(e, 11)r the Ov. There I, :II?11 IU i vi tit (,ICC wi:ntlnr'(h in-Wign UiLlellnC�-
diar,het:IfV indu1111':ICCelltcd Illst:111aruln and in:ni11e17:1nce requid'crrwni,� or irce-�.
The stakehi ildcr, \\:ani the CIW to I'c(Iuire the pl-inin1L 11t hiy111 tlu:dlnl tt'ees.:lnd enalrc 111.11 tit: igil
anti illainrenanec of areal, such as pricing 1111, alit! succi ,Idc pl:fl nit.:, are zusiiiinnblc and
ncsthclicnll\"Illcawnrs. The (lrwn (:11nllter IIf the .Wencan illciery Id'Iandscape -\rcllitecm
On 6/11gri t1 l•rh:u] 01rr 1, \lister Phn .`!?rail: -- P.1;'r N 11f 14
Attachment 4
HAI,A ugzuc,ICLI 111.11 lilt: Cin i-rc,ay .i 7i"vc ;md. Emd,c.jI3L WNII
'o 111,11 I'a n"I S c.p., -..rc III tcc I," ll;tvc .1 CIC.1r ldca i)1,v'h;,.i 71-x Viver.111 Ili-vu 'Ind
!!Uld>CAPV NiIIIIii 11. \ ITCL Alli} rVe
jr, tra!hldie(A)dc rcll-111"ll` III[() c-AII Whicr'l-111LI.
Infuln'lliv. lilt: I 1..\ lu, 1%.cll Illit Ing dicillcoh Irackinu 'irvvf 11'ev, .11111d ri"Yllik:d LIlId'C:ij_1C ft-cu, JUL
I,11110 i;wl, i If.1 omily'l-chvil'ivc trek: 1,11VC111,W\
\111I-1:;;11 1 IT PUI)i I C i? 111,1411IN I,iU�I_JVL1 W I d It I iv current w._j%jij In,I rLI', Urbjll fi)rL7:'1.74' 1.
4
rc It I cili, `alit 11.11 metre irrccr ircc,;WOUid beix;d f'or tu ( ty. ri,c
M1.11\111 1++::1111
'I,L!:mi*- ';I I_L'V I i I-CC' -ill it Ill'-A'idt: It I tI ( 11%- 1iR-Ut 1- ,%1 Il c'.I opp, rl!- 1111' pu b I!C*`
nccd for mon:sirtm 7lic c.mi ql\ ;mA% i,. A-) I'l im-id Ov,,i the jmrkii-g iili_ Ukx
CC
are Wit eff1fC1iN'U LIUC 11, T11C rVI.III%_Vk Ili\\ II. C.11,1pv Ili p.tri.illul 6 1!
--he
1 "()AII Jild l(lc till-ccil'in I ir the "ilal '11c
1.lndbc;%pIni_, t irdm.mcv. rtxl linnicild.16.w., Includc dvv,hPlilt!;I I:md,c,111v Il.i.1111"Mi
with drowing, :uld imprt,vin-L! pni-kinu ]-,I U11,31111shin5!I permit mstenn for the
pla 11 Lf 11g,ircillaccilic lit, Ind rcm,ixai idreqUircti Lrt;,c,, Jild 11111-11.11\i112 Ole inickin-, ;md imcno)nill,_
)I >Ycct I rev:. wd i'I 111CI_ -Mltlirk d LlildICA)IL: Ire(".
Chapter 3: TrccGrove Protection
1117111'IIIC'171.Iip IW G, ij I: Dvveki,.1 IlTv I)rlOcclitill 1111'"ll"Aill.
The third giml - 17 the LTMP is it--dc\.Cl,ip a IrcC gn wc pi-filccri,ill pr(?gr;im -which creno mccimnil sill
t.orprinecring Ti�ard's rcmaininggrovc� i)f-mitive treet—
N Litiv I rcc,Awes Ili Tigard orie cim-cilily MY,wdcd >,mic level I if pr,ilvclil ill duc I,,, divir 1,waLlfill ill
sensitive fand-Csucarn ci orridOrs.stcq-)'shipics,Significant 11,11wnt areas, WC11,1111LIS.MId Ill 1,)dfliftill",0.1
Tigard'� Dctcltlrnunl code Iimlls the typc and Illicil"lly!it dvvch q)IIIcII1 -'rthill "Cil'ifivc hilikk, and
:(
rvquia'S perniii, fm- tree rerrinval ill SCIISiLIVC 1:11M.I. I 10WO-Cr. [Ile DO'CII)IMIL-111 (;lute Ll1l v� Will
L-.,;pficitIv pmicci n-ce gnwcs Ill SUll�11i'l-C hIlIkk lilt] tree rcm(A".11 JIL'I'Mill, art' kUcd if
:111 Cris,uw cimirfil plan i, prilvidud, 'ilk,-. illerc nru curroulY ill) proicci1,m,4 ,i(sr I rvc L,I--wc, i Im i :,;-c
:1,+1 I"c-lied v,-1111111 sew-itivc I-allds. 1-11.111(' it,Cil.1cillw, Ili\: I-cguhn't)m. ;Imi I-)r-itcci tree t'n,vv-, ihw (JIN
1111.1�1 c.)IIII-fly "-till Fcdcral,Statc.and Rcgit,tul rcgUIAlli-ns. Ramicular aticniii)n .hall he i-mid to Si:uv
LM" IUCII J�- JW ITLIMI-cmvill Fur all Co'11,'1111c. `+icctl.clivil"millull.t.d. .111d Cilur.gy I%SI-A
prior m pir,ncci mu (wal 3- nnit:r.fl,' rc�-ILJI-CV>.
Sonne of the siallehiALIms sLICh i,, the Pacific Nordiwcu Ch'apter tit-the I incrivall,Ill-al Society iii
A rhoriculture t'PNWISA_ the CIASI A the Tualatin Rill et-kcepers nrid Cle-in WC itcr Scrx-icc, uppt,rl
[Ile(:ir\.,s cfforls to prcsCrvv and maintain nativc trees and groveN Ili Tig-.irki. Mulupie siakvholdcr,;,
tlk-) rLlt�xstcd timi the City rake a leadership role in grin-c protection by hiring,a grccn�pacc,
ci),w(firmter I,) provide.knig term maintenance f%FC.M*-fM'IICd 111111,iral qrc,'1-S.-,, The I Ili MP w-.111t,
c�
�Iifvcicd pr,)I-jvrt%- iiwncr,� ii) be directly omitted that w,lvid Ile ItT1Cd by and incentive,-
it) be incoiponiwd illLO.111V CitV Ordill,111CC i1mi calk t7lir ibc -n i if grovc�'.
Gty ioa'TI_ard Urlyin NII<Icr Pinn 'Draft) Ritte Itt t,f I
Attachment 4
`1 h C,,177171 t i[I I W �LII'tTV<ht l\yl'd I1,.111 igird rC,,tdvnib \Cam tilt lire mgU I.Iti(1t!S rtl I?Ct 11 CCI 11:111\'C Irce
urovc,, rc,idcm, -- \\',,uld lil,c . `t'L• rc�.:t:1xD1Ilw K:••l'il r,n ki up 4'I',il'L•` „! :l.I'lyl• irl'C` J
,I,. nhh,i`cll Ii, Illdl\'Itillal Irc,C� ,i1
'IL:11111C,1:11 �1/L' ^�1' .lftlh+irl . IIl adllltl"i!, 1 it r�`Idt lil` I.LId
thel \\',ulld prefer I„ .ct: Ilc\v tree: regulations li)CUSed nn�1.uurai .u'uu is i,pp ),�cd n•,Ilrnanlent.ly
Cr CCv, 3"..•'•I:I,I,,,:1 . iIt i\ye\cI% ;illlll•„ximale!l' -I•ti' r• .lid ihc\ \V 1,;l Ie1 IiKC !I.',CC i'L.c,ladt!�111> .i C+hllUil
til Ilarural arc:is ;11111 k)r:l:nlwIli.11 ctlu.111y. -; -.,Of WlidCI :• -.lid 11h dl;: i`i„n ,11 \\ht•l!WI-
1_11T>CryL' IIYiS 'h-Ii11LI litli hC Ieii i)lei% if dic dc'l't:luhcr..ind A ill:dllirili 3 ,',t S:lld they N•V,UI.i c
Supp,at true yguLi pmN cycn li iht'\ hMU 1hr S!/L' .tlld l\ICIII •I: h+,ILMS11 Baby, ,7t•pn li,.
% 111Ie re,ldcrll` hrl'lrill/c gi-Ae L7r,+il=6,Ill, the 1;111+1ht `1` !v\calvd :h.fi I Ic.IhI i1Tl' cI'r,•,C� .11'C J
y h
t.11�;lllhc.lrlill!.. in 11/1)(1• ihCl'C \\ii'C' [,i C.in,1l''\ Ill•in ? .'l rt•4 ill i/c Wlihw. illy Lill
iinlit+. Ill 2141-. iilerl W, rc-'Ih citlll,I11 clu.lt•r` grc,uvr, Man 5 .fere' in swo Ito rcltl'lnnn a o
dl'hlllltin i3CL'c 1/rCl l'.111,IIt1 L'lu+lei'` in Cir\L'il
( 4 '
�> .l 1'e,01, +,1 ircii(k tiho wn it,, Ihr can„i,L ,111;11\<1`. C,II111711111!!1'prblt`rellit. And t.ik,-h,ddcr inpui.
the I IP drycl,)llcll d nunAwr ui 1u 1g11al` .10 ueti,xl n1c.l1UYL' t„Lnlide :11.tIt'\'cl++t1111e:11 „r :l irrc
ative Pr„rcctitm hr,ogv,.:nl th.n 1-� c,itllhll'ai'.1 \y!ill FCCIL'r.1L Rr�.lI,lnal.;Illd l:ic.11 rruLllrrintnt'. „
111CILI11:Ll .la• rcr,nlmcntl:!brills if,conlacl .111 11r,lhern• ,rancr that \yt,uid l,t i1np.lcic+l In .1 I,Lx
;;n me-” pre lreClD M pn;grim .Intl providing gr,1\'c• ill illccllliYc,. '
Chapter 4: Hazard Tries
Inlpylunl.tli,oil (;vial 4: Develop j ha/ard ircc ilrnelanl.
The A urth p„al in the U \IP I In de\•cl„p a h:lrarLl Ircc• ylrli„1Jill ih.,t AdCo,Iuatri\'adLIIV"Zc tl,ec
hazards iln h1)th Ixlhlic:Inc] private property.
Currently Tigard's \lunicihal C11de 1whihits Wird irccs. but there is a lack „r 4prclrlelly(111 what
cunghutes a hazard and \yhai ncc rnech:nli<nl is kt,r almdn'_ Wards in thn0y manner. Them k
awl Il„ ftlrMA pnocos f,)r idelltlll'ing and :Ibmill;' true haviird, VIP. City propped.
Durin;: the i.ikeht)Idcr inrr[-viu\1'.•. the Trrr li,i:ird '`LIQL'c',ted ilia; 1111' ( Ity Illcrca`L' t,1111nl1I11ICallV 1n<
hr1\\' ell deh:lrnllenLs. Interdcpartme:nlal c,,ntmunic ui++n is intcLfnil !„ :ftcctlrriy addre< irl,, iml:
ilazard< ill rinleh• rllannc•r. (Mier Ih:lt the Cir\ hirC .1 grccllsl.ace•
CU,iI'dlmi,or"I” could prfwK 11h1dcil\'C n7.11la,cnicrii 11i it'l'L' lux;i'd, in (Ji\' it.trk,,:Intl
greenspaccs. The I.lBANIP std the Cin' Ouu.11d cliil w private properly(',\\•ners to manage their lana
aS the\'SC fit, which imillic< the Cin'Should h-.weliilliied Involvement bn hri\'aic property tree
Mud isms.
�?:1 1'C�IIII 111 Illi' (•1l'\"< I:1CCi'll.li �,1,1t'LI1I7'.lil,ltl nicciing-. pectic nicth,id` 1'1!1`iL'?h'lllllliit 4" hli1711�
Lrcr h-u;irtis wery developed and tire• drtailyd in .\hptndix 1). The Parks Diyisi,,n et:h„L'd the
sr.Ikch+Ilders by higli ie;hung. the nerd I(, hire :1 ,green>pao:c ct),irdlmIt„r i„ pro.:Iciiycl� nlall:hc i.rce
hazards (,n City hrt,hcrn'.
Citl't,/Tigtrd L'rban 1 1,rrs1ll \L•Isicr Plan 'Draii' o. Page 11 4 14
Attachment 4
The C(will III Lill I'%'I UlAk'I' ZVOUII- IIldlcalk. Jill It: `Upp'ul f')I•,1 itai.3rd !rcc prigrail'i. .\pilrtt�un.u�l,
-,)' , .,i rt�ulent• dull'., [lairs~ rexrnlrr(.-% IJPWitl lir t!lrceWd 1,) i)r:1L r of„iniaun .utd pnitect evoung
rrees, iv,idCIIi` �.j Id [ht•, \\'')Clld `t:p U) rl Add IIH):1:11 ',-1 U-1111'Z fr'+nt Intrre,ticll (-I I%
+,r pr+'pCrl\ wo vi i•:ind ,! Il -a C":'.lhr:'ht•[1`[\C iive i n,Lj_nn in 1 I.;;;rd I x”, .inn ,'hk':1
,l,.lcc, iu , ,lpp,)rt. -;V' 1)ppna' 1 p,wit,1n '11. I h.,l fondin-, r,WId he t.1cd 1)\ the (.Ir. f, .,
hazard IIT(prim atll. I Ill.,llt'. .t 111.11')1'lIP if 1'e11t11,71111 IN Ii % \!'Add rUl,p'111 Illi' rre.111!Ill nI •!
pl'"�r,9;7i lClicn., the C.11\ Minn! Ronne I11\',)1,Cd 111 dllp1IIV- "ilrl\'Ceti ne1'gnb1'rI. rie.lrt111 tl..!l,IrLl•,:21
IR't� .in prl,,t;r pr(1t,r1.11. tits 111)11111"1, ;- 1,1,1„I1t
I hr tub Q,11` .11ld rtiO1111ilenll•:1i in -lit- I I Nil' ML Crl:,['1111: '+i .l
I1a7,13'tl i1'rC p1't1Lr iii i+1r p'.ibiic and pnvalc pr,)perl,. •I•hc rer,)I11111e11t1:1"1111'` II11_Ibltic IIa:'It1.lUiln� Shc'
i 11,'1 h.tl.lyd t crtl,titre pre)It)cull, hlrlllt;.1 LYI%Xn>ll::rr i+>„I'Lll:7,ut)r t,1 1t::p n1an.1::L H'CL I1.)�.!rti` •)>t
( n, I,:,11)crtr, anti cli:\•chTMU a pnwecs. \t•ilcreht• rhe(:it\'\tnWd havu aulhtlrit\ 1(I hurt mic invt)h"eti
m Irce n,lz.lt•d> 1)n pn atr pr,iperii.
Chapter 5: Urban Forestry Prs)gmi—ii Management
IniWellk•IltmuIt1 US „ ll,pptCC 1114° nl`nato111cni 111 Ilio Cin', uri,.11l 1"1'(`11',' P1'1IZI'.lii7.
llllplelllelltaltl)tl (.i,)al 5 \\•:1, t1 rItged w h-nio "o illi' 1)1,rllltlt1111)I1 .hill Ilia naccinent 111 the 10
urhan f,lrc,lrr pl,,Lr.,11i1.
his�ard'� Ul'b:ul tI)res[t�' ptrhram is currcnllt_ inll)Icr1tel7tc'd by nnlltiI)IC 011 deparinlcnt` and
(Iiviri,ins. In Iddlulm, CI)tle pr,n i�i1ln� rciamig io urban fr,re�tn'are ,C.IItvIVd iilnnight'ul the
Municipal anti l�c\'rlry,n7rnl (:rules. \+lanaecmentnf(1111-,nvncd tt°cr :ntd fllre�l rc"!urccs h1s l�cen
i i6 '
(relining Int Ire land is ;tctlwrcd \rithl tilt additional funding for manircnance and proacti\r.
t11a11ilLelilenr. I111Pf1)\LlI L'UIilI11U111catlt)11 het\CCCn Cii'y dcp:irinivni` and clivi>i''ns. sn1i;'t til} urban
r f+)rnin- related (. A prt)\'ib11111s,and pnwidln-,�adeyuacr �, affing is necdrtl fs+r n'lon: effeetivv
4•' `
i 1 nlanageinerW 1,111ic Oty'�, urban ti,rc•str• pru;tranl. Al. Net:uring a owminahlc Qmhne wume "ill
1' be nrcc•;ary u) pr1widc Inns! Lct ll sUPPnt•r I)f the urb:ul rtirc,�tr� pnigranl as rhe'1'rer 171:nd (lecline�.
Lille I' f[ttllrr d0'A)I,nlent.
1
�,tukch,IWvw such as the P\\\ WA :inti Clean \C iter nuwicc�. 1ta�ec,ted that lilt: Girt I?lrr :1
yveEnIzpace c,, lydinart,r rolprrlacti\elita adage City rree and forest res,lurceti.- Thc'llla ..tin
Riverkcc'pers ;a!d the City needs I()CS[.lbIISh a IC11-Llill:kbIC ?1,tlt•Ct'Of 1Undillt; try'ill 11t'11:111 6,rc-�ir'%
177-rerun anatjelnEllt of 1nCa1WIVC
1)rt,,;rarn [1t aal>t 111 ihU}(Tn species. Tlit `I vee l31)arti 1U:`�t'�il'CI Illat
there nCCLk 1t) IW 11101c 0u()rtlin.111nn hcm-Ccn (:itt de1).u'ultLnt• anti Lii\1111n71 \\•Itcn aL'.rluu�Icrin
Lilt: .n•l1.111 fi)re>tr\ pi-ogninl, Ahlll)u�_.h .1 n11111,rr1t• vlev•, lilt I IBA\IP'� p+1>int)n Is til:n thcrc -h,nlld
be tit) urban ri)rc�,tr Prt>,tr,inl bCL:3LIcc the r(,st1 IAII\velg1l lite hCH011` IIf `uch a pn?granl.
Thr Ot-Cs Internal cow-din:nlini hl"'hlighled the need f+/r nitn'c Co 1111111U111C.111+)n bci\t'e•cll
dcpartnictlis and divisions, Nltlrl' l•"1171771111!1""all,>il \\',11.1(1 llllprt,\c [11C''illaila:;cmcni tit irc`e ltaza.rds.
ensure Cite development Prt,jccts arc 'allying I,)applicable ('(Ide ret{uircnwills. inlpr(n•e• the
tr:tchn.41)firrrs af"slrveh,pinent, and pn)vklc nitre Iransp:n-cnc} a1 t() h,)w and «•here the Mater
City�,tTt�:ud I'rban Fiwesn•v Mitsicr I'Lln 'Draii,' Page 12 1)f 14
Attachment 4
Fund 1� bQII1L! 1,V1111Cd. TiIL mtvni.il jjI_1j-NIQi1tVd the ',IUCd 611. A
\\rinen mel
Thc COMMUlliO rUltlit'JC:1111-III'll'Ale 11,11111()rl 6W IM"I't.iNcd I'L.111dill, thl",UL.1.11 "CL-1 .![Ili
-11),�'C . TilC J)LIWIC III-A%Cd t
,,I, the ltrh.,.n 6,rc,iny pr.),_,rani - ;')'- I,)j
ft)r 1`orc,Lr% cft`ortr I,) focus owstrea in We vego am in qnd WCAPPIULt I A mmud
Thc-zc result- Intlicou ih.,- nonkno \\',,1,11(1 ,upp,in 1110 i1!II1Q 1 01'J -rthn.o,
irvC 11\'nwringv the neirl-1811 acre((dOw-o-wried tree catiol-tv Ili 11card,
Thc Jild IIIII)ILInCtlidilOill ITCi)II111Iv;IdcJ m die I-T\11' ,I upp(w: ihL L!(k.ii I,;*
illdLide Lie\elf t1_1111.e inuth,'J, At-,'InVelli,)T!!,-12,'MJ ;rockinu Ire,- miki
urban f,tFU1tr\_ 1-ClOICLI Of uoun 6 WOCA "ambul, A a Q%
prOICCIS. <UCLZI 3 ';LI1;T.liII.1bIC iUnLiln1, --MY AV UHMI 1"1IT"1", -1nL'
111'ImIL!v 111e Cil\', 11.11til'A ore.1'.
Chapter 6: Steward, �
oi 6-- D 311 L!'bl'til flWl"I -ItAkOrdSh
Forc�t sluwankhip has licull ,,. %,i1.11 c,111polient hi*c in the trua known TiL!ard 6,1.
l
To
I-vl'orc prcseni. KilnpLl�'a" IdVe AIIICriCaW�' bei In llnna.L�illl the
dt U11.111(11 ,it'yv. yeal
I.orvsu rif Me CUnmeue WHey usIng fire lyrtwulrureS At aN nu Me Imu "f Eur"Man w"lumcill
can,ipy o vurage within the current (.111' litnit, (tifTigard \x ,tini lied t,- 1)e 5 2.•l'• _').966.9
-cr 14 m ah, red alder. bWod Maple, willow. black
acres). The predominant tree species \\ e (ire'g
-white oak.western red Cedar.and Pacific dl)gwood in flit: riparian and wc&nd
Ort�gon
areas. The upland arraswcrc dominated by DiAlgl-IS-fir. J)'J.1,11eaf Inal')IC,gl'!IlILI Fir. Pacific df,LtN%,(W"I.
\western hctillock. Oregon whitc oak, red 11dcr.wegrern red cedar.and Ivindvrosa rine. V<Tignrd
Lie"Cinne 5el ded, narivc forest s were c1cired f,w agricultUril W;cS and I n0wr iU help supe,wi
�01gard etas ijIC0j-j)11r-.ItCd ill 1961. IIIC Clv�- Ile"'an pa,��illg(Irdillu ncc- i:1) Illatiagc
0� devd(,pnient. After Tig g
the urban f,irczi beginnin.g in 196- -,vidi ircvt tree 111'4, Alld In Pati;
anti 199- "It h the I-invagc ,d i wdonman W ryindmed tree rent wal. I'lic C.nv hired in. Wi udian
j-4)r(:_NIC7* in 1998 AIIJ created dic Tree Bi ;trd in _'(1111. The (:,,\, )iri�nr(i I,-,, 'LICCII llaInCd :1 Tl_UC
-ury\car <Itice 21101 :IIILI \A_1!- '.PW;IrdVd [Ile TI.Cv CIIN L ;rioxih Axard in 211119 6,r ll�
expanded UrIxin 6,rcoiry L-IT-I-,<.
In 20 1-,Tigard ll.id 2? -wrymfb iwv cam TY Which I,well kvi„w \111eric-all I'll-gui
recinnineit,11111):1 ilf 40"'. for Ricific N,trihwc�t cities. While Citywide tree clilopy k ctlrrcntl\
smhWzcd 0%tocw"e Wr NW 10n, A A beonning increasim-,ly fragot.nircd Oqrgcrgrovc� are
being, replaced b�- individtral tree!;,. Bec:111SC tree canopy is on privare properi:t-and
4)III1• -"4,ofTi.o. rd's 12-nd area is tm huTbUc VA. It a cnowl w t1mby an Wan Rwal
�icward�hip pr(),Ltrain that includes:111 i• anti pr,)pen y i iwncrc in the GE(-:
01v ofilgani 10no 3 ircyry Nbsier Wn ,Drah, Page 13 i d 14
Attachment 4
Nh.si. smkcholdvrgroi..,p} Supp m 11IL: ullal (if-do-cl-ping •ill,1 orl)"Ill f'.r..t
IOU I me Hqn, "Sm- AMC urkin lltliv-mry ordinancc
IMISICIC dVvelt oplicill -Ind Ilr1w!Si1w' lran4I;Ilcd ull;7 >toltAlill°4 lile JILIhIiC Cjjjj 1111LICINMIl(I. J11-
I rkill -.1111] 1")!'
X.11M Inkirc Cg)IIIIIIVnil� oll I.:,
(ill Con"ily chnllgc`; and oullillunkv :-.i%IILILICI 111 (-11,11 1)(11it-Y Vi1L-CliVi1117S-C;Iil I)C
R?rllaild GcllcralI:Itccric nild the P.11111VI, %%Hil rift
OiN i-n ircc 1,11-ani-inn und nwirlicnancc pnqvo`. ThL.-*1 uAmin ind Clc;w \\.1iv:.
SUMICUS Y,"Mid WKV Ill()IT fQCLISAIII n1flillging in And ll;ik L' -'I*I-vt'cd I,. j.!,I>.i Oic
[lL:I)I iC I AI It)1114 t V I'll I I'V;r lU I-CL: Ill L_:I I.
AhII1:L:II "all the current mnw tdl`jadvilon 6 wovE -wvk..%
shmv flic public w-ml(I all UHMII 16 ll_C?l !oLAt,%11'd-:.hip pl.':lqraill with -N -
wnrii mg int)rc I'L'S I OUI'CCS di ucI C(I ;/ward' I I u I I-.I;I:[I I ng:in,I pr,IieCiingt cxi:;unz lrccs. 11::1,1'W,-1,ild I lk-
I!I Iu to hco-Ills directly illvolvcd wilh 32"..i'I-csidCjlIS S-jn'ijjg tjCy III-UTVI- Io
1?lard :lilt- ni;iiniain irccs rm.1wr lonfing n Or u, Me Chy W Ll" K ReAdwils ols"moni 01 pi "co IN
trcu� in ilicir uxisl.ing, ncighkorlif iods \i'il 11 ;lyilli, dwy w.wld,�Ilppot rcguIndolls For duvel"Ixed.
privnic j-.)roperi.y diaL WOUld pp-jrcu kl%e, IIC'Adl\' 1.1-C1,J 1 Q
The sub- "als and iniplenienindim nie;i�urcs in rhe (.1-MP III;It :Llj)l*url the p):Il 1)fdCvCI,?pi11g 1111
siv-,%%)rdship llrZ"gr-Ini 1111CI-LICIL: iIICTC3>11111 LITINAn f0l'(7>IrY 01111'C'lCh 111:11CI.6k• ultilzin.u.
hinding plaining III(.], tnainicnancc )n PL:bIi rid privniv pri)jlcrfii ancutc-i-clelping
'CIILCIC;3r cuiting. A6i), Ilam icrin ohiLTIk'es include PCriodic'.-Ily upkkll.ill� rile
-ill." 11
L-rigin F!)rcszrx Ni:;N[Cr plall"111ordf
cr , Vack pi -I-,)(] ,ci not 'o.al,Z. achic\ , ''I licl It
rrec cmiopy bcm-ccil DIF and MUM ichievin,-, 32"--.wd 410"o circ\vidu irec c;iililpy by 202- -and
204� respectively.
KA
lip
iu,I
q'Tig:11'd L'I'l-1211 1.1311 (Dralir, Parc 14 4 14
Attachment 4
Appendix A
1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26%
2 SATISFIED 242 60.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5%
400 100%
SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in the city as a whole?
1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25%
2 SATISFIED 251 62.75%
3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75%
400 100%
HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve
its appearance and environmental quality?
1 YES 101 25.25%
2 NO 294 73.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
i
IMPORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees.
For each one,would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree,disagree, or strongly disagree.
First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25%
2 AGREE 138 34.5%
3 DISAGREE 10 2.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5%
i
City of Tigard.Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 2
i
I�
Attachment 4
Appendix A
CITY OF TIGARD
2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY
STEVE JOHNSON&ASSOCIATES * P.O.BOX 3708 * EUGENE.OREGON 97403
TOPLINE FREQUENCIES
*'`Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories,and the number and percent of
responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97),Don't Know(8 or 98)and No
Answer(9 or 99).In the interest of space,responses such as `I don't know," 'I can't think of anything"and
"no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim They have
been corrected for spelling but not grammar.
BELL01 Hello,I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a
survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes
about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd lice to start now.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR
SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL
BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL]
PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK
*INTRO FOR PARTIALS:Hi,I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard
that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)?
SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First,what about
the trees on your street?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees on your street?
1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75%
2 SATISFIED 246 61.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 32 8%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25%
400 100%
SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood? i
i
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in your neighborhood?
l
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 1
i
f
I�
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 AGREE 148 37%
3 DISAGREE 28 7%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
MPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50%
2 AGREE 170 42.5%
3 DISAGREE 19 4.75%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property.
i PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25%
2 AGREE 205 51.25%
3 DISAGREE 45 11.25%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5%
400 100%
IMPORT5 More street trees would be good for the City.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
s
1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25%
2 AGREE 202 50.5%
3 DISAGREE 62 15.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5%
400 100%
IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain
and protect existing trees.
F PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 3
E
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 AGREE 203 50.75%
3 DISAGREE 50 12.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75%
400 100%
IMPORT7 The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on
sites that are being developed.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40%
2 AGREE 193 48.25%
3 DISAGREE 30 7.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
FORESTI All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in
parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas.Do you think the overall
quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10
years?
1 INCREASED 73 18.25%
2 DECREASED 166 41.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 44 11%
400 100%
FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to
increase, decrease,or stay the same?
IINCREASED 113 28.25%
2 DECREASED 126 31.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
w
FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10,where one is poor and 10 is excellent, how would you rate
the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard?
i
IONE 3 0.75%
2 TWO 0 0%
3 THREE 14 3.5%
4 FOUR 11 2.75%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 4
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
5 FIVE 61 15.25%
6 SIX 48 12%
7 SEVEN 96 24%
8 EIGHT(GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75%
9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75%
10 TEN(GO TO TAXI) 24 6%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
Not cut them all.They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require
developers to keep some of the existing trees.
Better maintenance.
More variety.
They need to plant more trees when they remove them.Do not just plant commercialized
trees.
Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that.
Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should.
More maintenance,
I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there.
Certain areas. Save certain trees.
Taken care of the trees.
I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees.
Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When
they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done
building.
In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars.It would help with f
gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot.
Public awareness.
Developers not remove existing trees as much.
One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid.
Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities.
Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers'money on
trees that can take care of themselves.
High quality maintenance.
Let the trees get older.
You know you do a good job.Keep up the good work.
Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street.
More fir trees or pine green trees.
Plant more,I guess.
I think more of them.And better maintenance of the area around the trees.
Plant more trees;take care of them.
They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks.
� k
f
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 5
i
i
i'
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Maintenance
More maintenance from landowners and the city.
Better protection of the exciting trees in areas.
Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them.
Quit cutting them down I think.
They could be taken care of.
Trimming.
Quit cutting them down.
They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees.
Plant more trees.
Prevent cut down of existing ones,plant more trees.
They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone.
Plant more.
I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the
sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots.
Ones left are well maintained,pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers.
To trim them.
Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road.
Not letting people cut them down.
Grow more.
There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be
everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the
things people don't want to see,especially industrial areas.Trees should be used to
shield them from their neighbors.
Streets be lined with trees.
Leave them alone.
Basic maintenance.
I think if there is some sort of a plan.When you build new housing areas and existing areas
you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the
city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals.
In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on.
Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more
beneficial to have more parks.Percentage of parks in a residential area.
Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development.
Maintenance around power lines.
More trees.Nothing else.
Trees aren't taken care of well,trees in vacant lots should become less neglected.
Fertilize.
Find a way to keep away all the leaves.
Pruning and maintained health,be maintained better.
More volunteers to maintain them.
Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees.
I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have
more trees we will have a better community.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
1 Topline.Frequencies Page 6
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown.
They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees.Don't put them there
for no reason.
Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain.
Probably the amount.
There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road.
Plant more trees.
More placed in better locations,not be so messy.
Add more trees, keep the exciting trees.
Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly.
Better maintenance.I think that some of the street trees get in the way.
Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their
trees probably.If we are going to have trees,they need to be maintained.
Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing.
Don't know,maintain them.
Get the city counsel in the city forest,they should be running the city not the trees.
Maintain damage is done.
Leave them standing,pruning assisting their health.
Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones
after they have built homes or buildings.
Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos.
I wish people would take care of trees better.
They could have more trees where there are no trees.
More street trees.
Don't think anything should be done.
Trim them.
Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious.
Plant more trees,when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be
a law to plant trees.
Provide good maintenance.
Downtown area needs more trees.
Old trees be cut down,plant new ones.
Preserve during development.
Better overall maintenance.
Better maintained.
Pick up more leaves.
I don't have a problem with it, so nothing.
Need more trees in old town.
Cut them all down,too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need
I
to at least be trimmed.
Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot.
A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees.
More of them along the main streets.
They could be preserved. Planting the right trees.And more of them.
Trimming and landscaping around trees.
Like the downtown,they made it look all cutesie.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 7
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees.Less shopping malls,have an area of
trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit,they cut down beautiful trees for
that.
Improve the city council decisions.
Pruning.
A little bit of pruning.
There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of
death that needs to be maintained a little bit better.More trees on busier streets.
Plant more of them,take care of them,and cut their branches and everything.
First of all plant more trees if there is the space.
Largely, plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones.
Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that
have trees and preserve them.
Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain, they
should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth.
I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks.
Maybe more trimming on trees.
Plant more.
Expert looking at the issue.
Old ones let go.Cleaned up.
By preserving existing trees.
Better maintenance.
Leave them alone.
Remove many of them.Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as
a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services.
Downtown could plant trees.
Lining the streets and putting them in parks,but I think they're doing that right now. Where I
live there are many trees in the community.
More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and
appearance.
( Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth.
Plant more,rip up cement and plant trees.
In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them.And more yard debris pick-up, so
that people are not afraid to have trees.Anything that would make having a tree easier
would be good.
j I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker.
If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better.They put up some new dinky
trees.And they just don't look as good.It's too late.
Maybe better maintained and kept trees.
Maintain existing trees.
Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced.
Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads.
Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down,requires two of three tree in their
place.
Adding variety.
More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard.
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 8
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas.
Add some along 99.
Better trimming and maintenance.
Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted.I guess I'm thinking
about some trees are planted too close to the street,and that causes problems with
leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots.
Maintenance
Maintenance and replanting with trees that die.
Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have.And not
cut them down unnecessarily.
Pruning.
In the greenway, we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees.
Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas.Plants more trees along the
parks.
I don't know what could be done to make them better.I noticed when new development is
going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that.I
don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek.
Stop chopping down trees.
More maintenance and planting more trees.
Plant more decorative trees.Some of the ones that flower in the spring.More evergreens.The
big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall.
More red maples.
Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of
their life.Taking down and replacing trees that are dying.
They're in pretty good shape.
Maintain the one we have, and plant more.
Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff.
Replace trees as they are taken out.
Medians planted with trees.Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged
looking.
Better up keep. j
Get rid of the old ones that are dying.Just clean up.
Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees.
I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen.
So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs.It's a huge f
sign.If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves.Need to be more
proactive.
I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are
important.
Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments.
Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem,they make a
mess.
Nothing I think they are fine.
Take down the trees that drop leaves.
I'm not sure we need more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 9
i,
Attachment 4
Appendix A
I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees,build where they do not have to remove
trees.
Just prune and thin out the trees.Increase the health of trees.
More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas.
Plant more trees.
Better maintaining by replanting.More planting.
Plant more.
I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power
lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree.
Stop building houses.
Cutting them back and some pruning them.
More planting.
Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to.
I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees.
More development of downtown,Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping.
Better management by the city and government.
When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been
taken down to build a new house.
Regular maintenance.
I think there should be more,plant more.
I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that.
They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest.
I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved,too many
businesses.
I think they are okay.
I don't have an opinion on it.
Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to
do it.
More trees. Better upkeep.
Not cut them down.
1 I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location
where they fit size wise.
Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want.
Some of them need to be shaped better.The ones on the road.
I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become
available.
They are properly cared for and planted more of them.
Better maintenance.
Better care and clean up.
Variety and maintenance.
i I would presume plant more.
We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them.To improve our park,
we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are
diseased and prune them, or remove them.
Quit cutting them down for new developments.
Planting more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 10
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Just constant vigilance.
More and just more.
Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees.
Leave them alone.
Better maintenance.
Plant more.
TAXI Currently,property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their
property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose a program that
transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25%
2 SUPPORT 128 32%
3 OPPOSE 136 34%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25%
400 100%
TAX2 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25%
2 SUPPORT 151 37.75%
3 OPPOSE 132 33%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25%
400 100%
i
TAX3 Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees,charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree
planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces? i
PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard,not just on streets.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8%
2 SUPPORT 190 47.5%
3 OPPOSE 104 26%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25%
400 100%
TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City
to do this?
PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer?
i f
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page I I
f
i
4
i i
Attachment 4
Appendix A
1 PLANT 208 52%
2 PAY 106 26.5%
3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant
more trees?
(PROBE FROM LIST)
1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75%
2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5%
3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75%
4 IN PARKS 79 19.75%
5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 32 8%
400 100%
CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about
trees.
1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32%
2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED,REPLACE THEM 129 32.25%
3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15%
4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75%
5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a
potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to
work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose,or
strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes
between neighbors regarding hazardous trees?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5%
2 SUPPORT 185 46.25%
3 OPPOSE 101 25.25%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 12
i;
i
Attachment 4
Appendix A
REGI Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose
tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75%
2 SUPPORT 168 42%
3 OPPOSE 99 24.75%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5%
400 100%
REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree
regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting
afterwards?
1 YES 264 66%
2 NO 97 24.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer?
1 YES 80 20%
2 NO 293 73.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5%
400 100%
REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures,would you like to see them
focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees,both types equally, or on something
else.
1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25%
2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75%
3 BOTH 192 48%
4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
BEGS Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that
would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property?
PROBE: This would apply to all current private property.
i
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5%
City orrigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 1.3
i
I
i
E
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 SUPPORT 224 56%
3 OPPOSE 60 15%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 18 4.5%
400 100%
REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see
them focused:on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size.
1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25%
2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25%
3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75%
4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25%
400 100%
AGE In what year were you bom?
Coded Categories:
AGE 18-24 3 0.75%
AGE 25-34 23 5.75%
AGE 35-44 59 14.75%
AGE 45-54 106 26.5%
AGE 55-64 91 22.75%
AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
GENDER Are you male or female?
1 MALE 160 40%
2 FEMALE 240 60%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent?
1 OWN 344 86%
2 RENT 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 14
Attachment 4
Appendix A
STREET What neighborhood do you live in?
PROBE: What is your closest elementary school?
PROBE: What is your closest cross street?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard, we would like to thank
you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye.
NOQAL I'm sorry,we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm
sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice(day/evening).
E
i
f
4
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 15
r
i
i
Appendix B
Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 200 located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of
June 2008 June 2008
Acres City Limits Acres City Limits
Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
1996 Canopy 1996 Canopy 2007 Canopy 2007 Canopy
Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters Cover
Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.30 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62%
Total 1952.75 100% 4790 1 100% 1 1852.69 1 100% 1 7704 1 100%
A
fD
Appendix B
Urban,Renetval'Lone, = 191 acres
1996 :2007
Acres Percent. Acres Percent
Eno Lover of Urban Renewal Zone. 19:67 10.30% 18.41 9.64%
r�
r�
A:'
Appendix B
Within June 2008 City Limits
Jan 1,2008 Buildable Lands Invento (BLI) 528.75 acres
BLI 1996 1423.32 acres
Canop,y Cover
Year BLI Acres Acres Percent
1996 1423.32 646.52 45.42%
2007 528.75 226.26 42.79%
1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change
1996 Canopy Cover within 2007 Canopy Cover within
1996 BLI 1996 BLI
Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent
1996 BLI 1 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79%
r�
A
fD
i
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
May 13,2008 Taxlots 2007 Cano y Cover
Percent
Ownership
Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.10 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1 1,852.69 24.52%
r+
A
�D
r+
Appendix B
Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres
Acres in 2007 Cano y Coverage Percent of 2007 Citywide
Habitat Class Tigard Acres Percent Canopy Cover
Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46%
Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43%
Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68%
Total 1413.23 1 696.08 49.25% 37.57%
e-�
A�
A
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopyoverage 1852.69 lacres
1996 Canopy overage 1952.75 ages
Acres in 2007 Cano 'Coverage 1996 Cano v Covera Percent Change 1996 to
Tti e Tigard Acres Percent Ci vide Percent Acres Perccnt Cit wide Percent 2007
Local XVcdand Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.40% 17.83% -6.43%
FEMA 100-yr Flood lain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.15% 213.17 35.97% 10.92"/ -4.24%
Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 66.64% 6.67% -0.33%
Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 46.96% 4289% -5.66%
e�
A
fD
Appendix B
Subdivisions Approved in 1996/97
Canopyoverage
1996 2007
Number Total Acres Acres I Percent Acres Percent Chane 1996-2007
18 72.76 18.32 1 25.18% 12.49 17.17% 1 31.82%
A
f�
r-r
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556
1996 Can o y Cover 2007 Can o y Cover Percent Change 1996 to
Zoning 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 2007
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95%
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26%
Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21%
Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76%
Total 7556 1 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% 1 -1.32%
A�
A
�D
Attachment 4
Appendix B
June 2008 Canopy Cover Analysis Protocol
Ciywide Canopy Cover
i
1. Calculate area of June 2008 City Limits in acres(7556)
2. Clip tool on 1996 Canopy Cover widt June 2008 City Limits
(CanopyCover_l996_Tig_June2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1952.75)
3. Clip tool on 2007 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits
(CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1852.69)
4. Quern CanopyCover_1996_Tig,June2008 for acres:
a. Less than 0.5(366.55)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(135.76)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(159.25)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(190.86)
e. 5.0 or more(1100.33)
5. Query CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008
a. Less than 0.5(584.30)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(167.25)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(177.88)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(157.00)
e. 5.0 or more(766.26)
Buildable Lands Inventon
1. Clip tool on BLI_2008janl with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(BLI_2008jan1_TIG)
a. Calculate area in acres(.528.75)
2. Clip tool on BLI1996 mith Junc 2008 Tigard City Timits(BLI1996_TIG)
a. Calculate area in acres(1423.32)
I 3. Intersect tool with BLI_2006janl_TIG and CanopyCover_1996_Tig June2008
(BLI_1996_i n tc is c ct)
a. Calculate area in acres(646.52)
I 4. Intersect tool with BLI_2008janl_TIG and CanopyCover_2007_Tigaune2008
a. Calculate area in acres(226.26)
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Turd Urban Renewal District
1. Calculate area of Tigard Urban Renewal District in acres(191)
2. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
Canop3Cover_l996_Tig_Junc2008(TURD-1996-intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(19.67)
3. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008(TURD_2007_intetsect)
a. Calculate area in acres(18.41)
Turd Zoning Districts
1. Dissolve tool on Zoning_Tig-june2008 based on"Type"Field
(Z.oning_Tig_June2008_dissolve)
a. Calculate area of Tigard Zoning Districts
i. Commercial(799.9 acres)
ii. Industrial(862.55 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(700.24 acres)
iv. Residential(5191.71 acres)
2. Intersect tool with 7_otvng_Tigaune2008_dissolvc and
CanopyCover_1996_Tig-June2008(Zoningl996_intersect)
a. Calculate area of Zoning1996_intersect
j i. Commercial(88.13 acres)
ii. Industrial(139.81 acres)
w. Mixed Use(150.3 acres)
iv. Residential(1574.42 acres)
3. Intersect tool with Zoaing_Ttg_june2008_dissolve and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008(Zoning2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area of 7_oning2007_intersect
i. Commercial(80.52 acres)
ii. Industrial(137.58 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(99.79 acres)
iv. Residential(1534.72 acres)
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
s
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Pronea Ownership
r
1. Query Washington County taXIOt data(play 13,2008)for publicly owned property
within city limits(PublicPropexry_May2008_Tig)and calculate area
a. City Ownership(235 properties,388.41 acres)
b. Other Public Ownerslup(79 properties,431.65 acres)
2. Calculate area of remaining taxlots to derive private ownership
a. Private Ownership(15,880 properties,5,447.64 acres)
3. Intersect tool with PublicPropem,_May2008_Tig and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008(PublicProperty2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area of PublicProperty2007_inrersecr canopy cover in acres
i. City Ownership(179.18)
ii. Other Public Ownership(105.1)
4. Subtract PubhcProperry2007_intetsect acres from
CanopyCover_2007_711g_June2008 acres to calculate canopy cover in private
ownership(1568.41)
Significant Habitat Areas
1. Clip tool on sig_hab_areas with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(Habitat-11G)
a. Calculate area of Habitat TIG in acres
i. Highest value habitat(590.51)
ii. Moderate value habitat(374.88)
iii. Lower value habitat(447.84)
Intersett tool with Habitat TIG and CanopyCover_2007_rig_june2008
(Habitat_intersecr2007)
a. Calculate area of Habitat_intersect2007 in acres
i. Highest value habitat(267.84)
�\ ii. Moderate value habitat(193.28)
iii. Lower value habitat(234.96)
0-1ex
� r
• t
1
}
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands
1. Clip tool on Tigard Local Wetland Inventory with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(LWj—T19)
a. Calculate area of LWI_Tig in acres(290.91)
2. Clip tool on CWS Vegetated Corridor Buffer with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(CWS—Tip)
a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig in acres(704.78)
3. Clip tool on FEMA 100-yr Floodplain with June 200B Tigard City Limits
(FIi?,4A_Tip
a. Calculate area of FEMA
_Tig in acres(592.6)
4. Clip tool on Metro 25%or Greater Slopes with June 2008 Tigard City Lirttits
(Slope_Tig)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig in acres(195.51)
5. Intersect tool with LWI_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008
(LWI_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of LVII_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(116.01)
6. Intersect tool with CWS_Tig and Canop}'Cover-2007_Tig,]une2o08
(C WS_Tig_intcrsec t2007)
a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(302.85)
7. Intersect tool with FEMA_Tig and CanopyCover-2007_Tig lune2008
(FEMA_Tig_in tersect2OO7)
a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(188.05)
8. Intersect tool with Slope_Tig and CanoplCover_2007_Tig_June2008
(Slope_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(129.64)
Random Subdivision
1. Queried Subdivisions approved in 1996/97](Subdiv1996_97(18 total)]
a. Calculate area of Subdiv1996_97 in acres(72.76)
2. Intersect tool with Subdivl996_97 and Cattop}Cover_2007:rig—Jttne2008
(Subd iv—i n tersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersect2007 in acres(12.49)
3. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and CanopyCover_7996_Tig_Junc2008
(Subdiv_in tern ectl 996)
a. Calculate area of Subdiv_inrersectl996 in acres(18.32)
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Portland General Electric(PGE)Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to provide for
the safe,reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the needs of commercial
and residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in terms of
establishing approved street tree fists,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 probaam.
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/utifity conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment necessary.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works well and
what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
i
• 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.
i
r
f
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Stakeholder Interview
Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects.
• Assist private property owners with tree management outside the development
process.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal requires
increasing mitigation and associated costs.
• Bi-weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project
oversight and tree plan implementation.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those with
un-treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the effect of
1� precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard Triangle that are
�e zoned for dense development.
"' • Mitigation standards encourage overplandng of trees or planting of small stature
trees to meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a caliper inch
basis may not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to overplanting.
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a stable
funding source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized for tree
maintenance,not just tree planting.
1 ,t 7 • Bi-weekly ar ist reports can be hard for the City to track,especially during the
transtn om site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist reports
wt fa se or ng information.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? Yi
e- 4,40 iT
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City of
+ Vancouver,WA. This could be accomn is Ph by �rrh nFwailable soil volumes for 4'-
i lots of various sizes with ire'
-es.
Ct, •-Allow required trees such a parking lot and street trees to count for mitigation. This _l
will help alleviate overp anung o ugauon trees.
• Provide incentives for planting o natives and large statute to b tion trees.One ave
incentive could be to offer more fTnugauon credit or planting natives an arge 1 QX.J
stature trees. This will help alleviate overphanting and encourage the planting of trees
j that offer the most environmental benefits. I
• Develo s acing standards baat
sed on the mature size of trees to improve long term r 1 ✓�
growth and ealth.
i
f
le-
Y,
s s
�S
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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 or bi-weekly reports and require the project
arborist to send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated. If a different
�ri s 4' 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.
1 The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to
SI discourage false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking
l/V�
business licenses and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal y�S accountability when providing false or misleading information.
• An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the City to
VAff� hire a third party the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi-weekly
inspections.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
G. 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.
t • Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
�eS • Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long term
i1 maintenance of trees,not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto die project team as early as possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code updates,
t not the project engineer.
'p • Require metal fencing in future code updates.
• Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints,and don't penalize developers 5 VP
i
� for removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5'-10'or 3 to 5 times the l S
diameter of the tree. However,(si a ecies c a.ct.:.., should be consi
when crafting code revisions. Ojq
• Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and sidewalks. v j� J k4ff
• 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.
I
i
I
j
k
I
f
I
Attachment 4
Appendix C
f
I
i
i
i
i
e —
i
i
I
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes
On March 9,2009,I spoke with Christopher 7oucha,Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber
of Commerce regarding die 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.
I
I
r
E
I
{
j
1
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tree Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater,20 munityin developing its urban
forestry program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for ti4planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• The City's departments are not w�R:eoordinated on urban fozestry issues due to lack
of communication. `' '', >•k
• Tree management prolMions are scatteted'41iroOghout the Code aiidnot unified.
• The Tree Code is too focbspdbo development,
4. What could be done in the future ti>impm, t g'gxobnams..,j at do nor work well?
• MoretommumcAtlph between City departments
�� • U.i tree related provisions m 6de't
• Focus futurC'Code bri'Way outside ddvelopmenr,and fix the mitigation issue.
5. IoW,can we wtirli together tn,the futuretko Improve Tigard's urban forest.
t,,The Tree BoaM, n help reate a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban
forest.
•
The-Tree Hoard can'.shelp execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds
jcan lie:iised to irpplement the plan.
. f
• The Tree,B'oaid cah continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the
plan.
r
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
i
j • 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
i
understand.
i
I
I
i
r
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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 Citv limits.
S
A
d
41,
♦ 5-
'N
,?Vy i,,+,$�
i
I
f
c
I
i
,_l
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Stakeholder Interview Notes
s 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 ortlinance 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. � S'
• Site.plartning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site d
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting.
• Landscape architects o not ave en ewi y u n scape design because
landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated,and many of the species are no longer appropriate or
relevant.
• Street trees and streetscapes are non-uniform. Different development projects
choose different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street trees.
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague,which creates loopholes and a wide 1
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 o es,-adon nd less on mitigation. If preservation
requirements are increased,th n 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 is should be required to collaborate more with
project arborists in order to identify Which trees are appropriate for preservation,and
I / 7 ow 02,a lust grading to preserve trees. Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on
preservation plans between the landscape architect and project arborist.
i E J
lFv y 0 • Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates. Require
_ nl�Q sof landscape architects to be part of the design team,and sign off on planting before,
Y t+ during,and after installations.
i
i
b
i
I
t
i
i
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes,the developers should have to survey the
street trees in a 45 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.
G. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• More focus on preservation through improved grading plans,less focus on
mitigation. The City needs to take a leadership role in this.
• More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees,but trees that are
Cappropriate 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 powerfines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future overhead
utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
�v
j
i
i
i,
I
i
i
f
I
l
1
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tigard Tualatin School District Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Somewhat limited.
• Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study.
• Manage trees on School District property.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment.
• City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District.
.3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. Itis
important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term maintenance issues
can be addressed prior to planting.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a tree
planting project.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting funds.
• Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation opportunities
for the City.
• Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees and
planting layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District.
• School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are requited for tree
removal and/or planting.
6. %YVhat should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
I 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
Utter.
� ou) J eaf IiRev, pj vs 1ka:4 S ka
d-e-.
4— Av, 2
KuAWOII� kv�r C,ofE
i
I
i
2
P
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tualatin Riverkeepers Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
e 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 sustainabiliefforts
such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. 7
6
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. ' (A
• Encourage/require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and streets so V"
that the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the winter rainy season. L /
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees, 4�1 e
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 forestn
projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of environmental
stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
i
i
i
i
l
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• Tualaun Riverkeepets 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.
G. 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 1\\ L
used for more than just tree planting. r
• More public commitment to sustainab1ty efforts such as signing the MM ayor's AS t UJe r tOQqL CO,,
Chin-ate Protection Agreement t 1 C_p v�¢ 1
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incenuvize and/or require private f �f
1✓� t w�
landowners to remove invasives. e�S 7 0l/
i
r
i
i
1
i
I
1
I
I
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+members of the Home Builders 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 �rCt S
development. r;:"D
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree ^,,,OVQ 1
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard >N" p Q
Development Code requirements. k� 1
t • Under the current code section 18.790,applicants may pay a fee in lieu of mitigation 19
06 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. I ��
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen 5
Advisory Committee. f
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is lanced in the right place.
• The City's overall goal o reserving trees
" • Requiring developers to uze a expertise of independent,certified arbori. w
uhen
evaluating die conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site
(�,t l J t.WW
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 miu' a reyuiremenrs are unreasonable
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d)is unreasonable because it is r�YV O
not practicable to retain even 2Wxe�
ites zoned for medium to high
`en1q rest end evelo menmore There has Gkel}never
been a ev on.,or to Tig trd retention on property zoned R4.5 `1
or higher. cavy ui men radin ,roads and utilities are very disruptive to trees. �(
I Significant amounts of grading must rake place outsi e c o way w en
driveways are cut in,sidewalks are poured,and building footprints are cleared for
structures. This results in tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed 1' 3
1 1I
sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will cause
potential future hazards. For example,trees over 12"in diameter have root systems
and canopies that extend at least 10'from the trunk. Larger trees have larger areas
1 around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not practicable is high density
�Q
r r
t
i
1
1
1
i
i
i
II
i
i
f
f
t
Attachment 4
Appenn x CC
situations. Even if a younger but potentially large tree species such as Doug.-fir is I/ It Jp �f l r e
able to be retained,it often makes sense to remove it to avoid potential hazards in
the future
• I�ie Fee stmcture associated with fee in Lieu of planting for mitigation far exceeds the
X-00
actual cost to plant trees. For example,a recent mitigation project to plant trees in ` L
Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the developer$20,000 to S p Q
complete. However,the City required the developer to submit a bond for$106,000 Q S
and to cover the City's cost of planting should
or$110 per caliper inch as assuranceAv
the developer fail to mitigate. � S Iv.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example,the density LJIv.G �I
bonus incentive allows for a 1%density bonus for 2%canopy cover retained. This S
bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very large. For a site that y
is 10 lots,itwould take 20%retention for a 10%density bonus to add just one unit.
\JP,� 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 1
zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict with lot size requirements in section (J �
18.510. �✓
• Finally,it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan
requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any development
project. In addition,Tigard's current program is divisive and creates legal conflicts in
the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The Ci should not re late trees o pn'vate roe Private property owners /
should be allowed to cut Rees as they have done since the establishment of Tigard. Ve S
rs an s o approac huccessfully been done for decades with virtually no t
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
lI only be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for nee 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 nee removal. es
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous trees, j ry�Q
• 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 yds
outweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
I
i
i
i
I
r
i
1
i
i
i
1
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that their
views are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process that
the HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and one
extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple to achieve
"consensus"when everyone in the room shares the same view. The key to real and
balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people who have concerns about the
forestry program and openly discuss the views of the stakeholders'concerns and
have dialogue. The HBAMP has received virtually no feedback from City staff,the
Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory Committee about the information and testimony
HBAMP's representatives have provided at meetings,public hearings and
worksessions. This needs to be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal,it is the view of the
HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree Board and City
Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of property o� wners.TFis
is
•
City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact_rhose try owners who
have a most potential im as un ent and forum tree co e.
owners s ou a contacted and advised of the financt tmpaci 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.
G. 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.
h • 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.
1
!
i
1
i
i
1
!
1
I
I
i
ii
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes
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(SWNn 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"free for All"planting goals.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well,and why?
• Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in stream
corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas dominated by
non-native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree planting.
^ • Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corr dors should not
'J J be protected and/or requirea tree removal pemut. 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
j Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban Forestry Program
j 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
` 77—> invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from permit
j _ requirements.
i
i
f
I
i
II
I
I
i
4
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• There needs to be more focus on long terra 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 plarimand 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.
J �G 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
Vj,o
1 a�t+t • Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated
NW t Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements.
• it
,Exempt invasive and non-native tree removal in stream corridors from perm
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,S\VNf Y� 1
i. funds,and tree mitigation funds. CJW t
�e J • Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management
��lL �� • Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is provided for { 1�.GQAti
'1 riparian vegetation management.
Re • Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects
fS 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
1 Water Services.
8
1
E
s
fj
C
I
{
s
fi
1
i
}
1
I
�3
i
t
`s
1
1
I
I
1
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Oregon Department of Transportation Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• During development,the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT)reviews
street tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with ODOT
specifications.
• ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT right of
ways(99W,Hall Boulevard,Highway 217).
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. Vlliat 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).
�1 • Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to root
interference.
• Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with
ODOT requirements(root barriers,site distance,clear distance,limb clearance)
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate tree
planting that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General Electric
for review.
• Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root barriers and
�l) other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
eaS • Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT
and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top of existing
lk el eLl CS • Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
C,� I
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
W
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
G. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans to
lM Portland General Electric for review.
>ti 1
• Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts
with hard features.
a�►s
c�� a ��FV
Attachment.4
Appendix C
Require development projects to locate utilities,-on planting plans prior to ODOT
'and City review.
e Clarify jurisdictional requirements in ODOT right of ways:
o'ODOT•site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements,
o MOT dear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
"o MOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted oi'removed in
1 , ODOT right of way(ODOT permit required).
. j
. I
j
i
r
Attachment 4
Appendix :C
The: rks'and Recreation`, m AdvisoBoard Stakeholder Interdi
Pa &Motes '
The Patks and Recreatgon Advisory Board declined to'commencat their_February23',2009 meeting.
i
t
Attachment 4
Appendix D
City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results
On January 21,2009,a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that have a
role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry,programs,policies,and ordinances.
Meeting attendees included representatives from a range of City departments(Community
Development,Public Works,and Financial and Information Services)and divisions(Capital
Construction&Transportation,Current Planning,Development Review,Information Technology,
Public Works Administration,Parks,Streets,Wastewater/Storm,and Water). The purpose of the
meeting was to discuss urban forestry coordination issues,and identify those areas where
coordination could be improved. As a result of die 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,TT/GTS);
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs(especially
regarding hazard trees)(Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
B. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building
additions(Planning,Building);
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
10.No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning,Capital
Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
11.No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces(Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks,Risk);
12.No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets(Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
13.No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(P)anning/Arborist,Public Works/Parks);
14.Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits,not sure if there is awareness
of this Code provision(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
15.No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
16.No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7)(Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
17.No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
I
i
After the Est was generated,a series of meetings was held with representatives from the
groups affected by die coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group meetings was
j
i
i
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix D
to discuss the coordination issues and formulate possible solutions that could improve
coordination efforts. The following list identifies possible solutions for the coordination
issues that were formulated after the group meetings.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted(Planning,
Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
• 'fake note on record drawings that actual street dee locapon jmay vary,see street
Jt G IM1u
trees in GIS for actual locations. c3e t° S 4
• Require developers to GPS or pay a Cee to the City to GPS actual locations of street � ``
trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City GIS Wy1G}�
system for tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location(x/y coordinates),size(dbh),species,
date planted,condition,tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to C*-pwv d t1k
conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS 7
No of
street uses. '
2. g ment engineering In'neerin 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. 19 VL(..V-" C• If the vegetated corridor becomes City property,then the Wastewater/Storm J
Division of Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance. (.1/�9
• 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 ul L)
r restricted trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the I
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on deed restricted tees 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 .v,
development(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
C pS
U
Attachment 4
Appendix D
• 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 Ill code,and any additional information
necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
5. Difficult to track rnitigation trees after development(Planning/Arborist,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
if mitigation trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location(x/y coordinates),size(dbh),
species,date planted,condition,cash assurance/bond release date,tree ID code,and
any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
6. No inventory of sweet 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
`G� n system for tracking.
` t • Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing
k �f^ (t o street trees outside development process.
�V�S GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting
�e S0 k� • program.
�S ' Sl • 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.
W �{ • Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS
street trees.
S
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.
Cj tA� l • A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation,
VoM I • connectivity,and other potential benefits.
SThe budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and divisions
6 Y VGC� for input before it is finalized.
:� _� 1' • There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects that
may be used as a template(contact Carissa).
`t
r
I
f
i
i�
j
f
h �,�, n s� Attachment 4
Appendix D
C�� • If hazard trees are at , nd acquisition associated with development
projects,reyuir evelopei s arborist to conduct a hazard assessment for review and
b inspection by City ATboris.
8. No policy for protectingeed restricted tree.and ignificant habitat trees during building
additions(Planning,Buil ddW-1 �1 0 hs
• This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However,for deed restricted trees,the City can require a protection plan for building
additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the development
project.
• For trees in sensitive lands,the City can restrict access/building within the driplines
of trees through the use of tree protection fencing. Section 18.790.060 prohibits
damage to a protected tree or its root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development(Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings"for City projects to identify applicable
�`� rty rues an regulations.
t- • Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to
completion.
�t0- • 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
aarborist.
5 • ork 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
J 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);
i
i
l
1
Attachment 4
Appendix D
• Budgeting has eliminated non-emergency management and evaluation of hazards in
parks/greenspaces due to die 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.
` 1 p./J • T91--pace coordinator could develop a program based off of protocols developed
by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculmre.
VVt t 1 by 0 S • Alternatively,the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard
evaluation and management program.
12.No formal emergent}'response system for tree hazards on sweets(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 die Streets Division manager,who
will in tum 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
r' coordinate traffic control,contact other impacted agencies(such as PGI;if power
\L lines are involved),and remove rhe tree from the street and sidewalk right-of-way
y d using the City's contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the
>Jt contract arborist is not available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the 1
h1ri1/]� owner's property,and debris dposal willocctrr aist the owner expense. V 5
Pj� S S • If the tree azar its a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination
CQ whether the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by V i J �W Q
the contract arborist.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time,he will
write a letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific period of time
to abate the hazard. If the deadline is not met,the responsible owner will be cited
through Code Enforcement.
E • If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours
number(503639-1554). Public Works will then investigate die 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
i
above.
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix D
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 die case.
• If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard,the responsible division will
contact the City's contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available)to abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination
whether the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by
the contract arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one"borderline"call per week on
average. If the time commitment is significantly more,the process may need to be
reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours
number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours
and either contact the contract arborist(or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available)if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the
inquiry to the appropriate division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the
following business day. The responsible division will then follow dine 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.
j �� • Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section 18.790.050 are
,ee applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands
�Ce Y (including City projects).
m • Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works/Capital
Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
I— 5 t N" • Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
! 67 CX divisions/departments.
Crti� , > t • Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from
! N
! yjA4" tree removal permit requirements.
15.No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GS,Finance);and
E • GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be loaded
into the City's GIS system for tracking.
i
teS
S
tom.
��ts �e(S
y
� 01 � G
Attachment 4
Appendix D
• Information on mitigation trees to include location(x/y coordinates),sire(dblm),
species,date planted,condition,cash assurance/bond release date,tree Ill code,and
any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Link mitigation trees(via a GIS point layer)and mitigation areas(via a GIS polygon
layer)with IFIS(accounting system)so that expenditures can be directly related to
specific projects.
16.No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7)(planning/Arborist,Engineering).
• The Ciry'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.
d • The City=does not currently have the authority to> private developers to
0� \ preserve trees if they choose not to.
w
��n 17.No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/coot clearance and removal
V/`J (Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
/ • If the street tree is the responsibility of the City,the corresponding division will
maintain the clearance requirements oudined 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 scop 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
parry directly and explain the Code requirements,or gather the information and
1 forward to Code Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
2 • If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the
1 f Public Works after-hours number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then
Cyl \ investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist(or any
\�' 7 other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available)if there is an
immediate hazard,or forward the inquiry-to the Streets Division if the hazard is not
immediate for follow up the following business day. The Streets Division will then
follow the same process outlined above.
• When tree routs 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.
r
• If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed,the Cir,
will absorb the cost of removal,but the property owner will be responsible for_
stum removal and re Ing. Prior to removing a street tree, e tyr onst
shall be contacts \
i
I
i
i
f
I
i
I
I
i
l
i
t
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
c
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection,management,and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place,but for the social,ecolog-
ical,and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic,economic,and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color,
texture,line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built en,,ironment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind,providing habitat for birds and wildlife,enhancing
community attractiveness and investment,improving water quality and soil
stability,and promoting human health and well-being. klosll ✓
�r oci!wc.G oil-�j�-ew
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century,and
I
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
[introduced invasive species such as English ivy,r angry gr ,and Himalayan
blackberries has mad t for remaining native p ant comm ' es to J
thrive. However, mnant stand of native tree and associated plant commu-
O� ,S nities still remain wi n the City Limits. Trees are important members and
I
contributors to na ral resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities,and nctioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek an its tributaries,and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
�11 /d/
•pun /
�(� In addition to emnants of the native forest,Tigard possesses a large number of
�..o �es
2_10 kt ' I �/✓[7Uf e Ui Yt t ear(,i�ty of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
�tz� kpr
L
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING 04
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial ,!i a �o
]�
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public ` h DDu
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop- -
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's, many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources.Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found"the protection of trees and natural resource areas"as rating
the highest of all"livability"characteristics posed to the respondents,scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2),maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8),pedestrian and bike paths (7.7),and compatibility between
existing and new development(7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84% of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees,with only 6%strongly disagreeing and 9% somewhat
disagreeing. In addition,90%of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain,or have begun significant updates to,their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City,USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services, the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality,reduce
erosion,and provide shade,structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects,cooperative efforts with
non-profits,contract services,and the labor of Public Works crews, thousands
i of young trees are annually planted on public property.
i
Not including restoration projects,the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands,distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year t rivat roperty owners through the
Street Tree Program,and plant addition 25 tre in celebration of arbor day.
------------I
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-11
i
r
Attachment 4
Appendix E
® LAND USE PLANNING
V?
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along-rails,riparian G viol.
areas,and in new park and green space areas. The objective is-4o increase the
total number of trees,particularly in areas where summnpr shade is desired such W
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is bu €ted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove haz trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older,the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
l Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a generalerce�p_ti that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
kcano and other ve etation essential for wildlife habitat erosion control,
aov�S Q�r�t� s ope stability,water quality,air-quality,and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations,failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983,further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
),4 " cover while accommodating new development. Additionally,the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
0� ;1✓ program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents,developers,and other stakeholders that
--- --
�� the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
n�} protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City. --
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property,particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes,wetlands,and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible,to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed,and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands,riparian corridors,and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program.These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas,and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending,or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city,which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally,because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
i
1
Attachment 4
Appendix E
0
LAND USE PLANNING
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system,protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest,a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
■ This urban forest provides social,economic,and ecological services that L �' l°r
create public and private value to residents,busine s,ams s.
c (f
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefit Cj��G� C
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources o g,tree main- 6-Y S
tenance,and outreach activities. Additionally,new development is required 6 a dV
to install street trees,landscape trees,and trees for mitigation purposes. Y° `^f�L��-
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and 1/
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code;applied by
J
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner;and sometimes 1
conflicting between different code sections. `I Ak Wbe�nn
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
\'O
_0
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel- W
opment permit review. Furthermore,landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their property.
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources,and are strongly in O
i Q�
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees. p
�t
GOA.r_:
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the ��L� `
economic,ecological,and social benefits of trees. ii VVV
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies,regulations
and standards to inventory,manage,preserve,mitigate the loss of,and
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-13
i
Attachment 4
i
Appendix E
® LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental,aesthetic and economic benefits.
i 2. The City's various codes,regulations, standards and programs relating
to landscaping,site development,mitigation,and tree management
shall be consistent with,and supportive of, one another;administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards. iVc
l; �4 4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
0°P'""" �(� I ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation,including the
�}J�
,tee i �C use of flexible and incentive based development standards.`S ,
Ok OL
�" 5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees,unless demonstrated infeasible,on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects.Trees should be planted within planter strips,or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience,environmental quality,and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
SIlS
) 8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions,such as street trees,
��1/` parking lot trees,and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
JV-) r3 �
�Q 4 9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
CW
t plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and scre ning between incompatible
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
Management Master Plan.
RECO)ti MEND.1✓'D ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive,coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations,standards,programs,and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement programs
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees an o er vegaa'-
tion required by development approval,with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
Pro erties._ � �
j iii. Develop and implement an iqon and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development rely anagement and
removal complies with the City's tree protection or manes such as
heritage trees,street trees,and trees on sensitive lands.
C,1 �)f
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree,parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive,and determine if site conditions J
I or management practices can be modified,and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GISAnd permit systems,
Ia publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings,permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
b \
City policies,regulations,and good arboricultural practices for the l�^J
general public,developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance,and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan Cityof Tigard 2-15
I
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
- A �
■
® LAND USE PLANNING
Sow, and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
S^} ey(A drought tolerant,site appropriate,and require minimal chemical
`+ applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries,landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii.Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous varieties,and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
' S e V��v�`
z
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
Gc plant trees and undertake other projects,such as restoration of
�j wetlands and stream corridors.
e�ovd w�
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the CLty.promote their removal, Fc
Cj/INl �---- --------and prevent their reestabGs_hment or expanses_
P S, rIke-
GOAL: t �✓roof w e-e-
1 �
+, V.uIIOcj( VViSQV_ 00LIC
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
V.0� it",���
POI.ICIE S: "S� aweas
o czl e i4
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures 5 11 Fu��d S
C Dl� rem designed to minimize the reduction of e 'sting tree cover,with priority D �uw3-¢i Y
To 0- rr pp+ h given to native trees and non-nativ varietalsy'that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread. _
is
(A) I civ e�1s
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development,the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees,taking i to con d- tAq44
eration the related financial impact of mitigation. rtnd�
{li (e
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees,including root systems,selected for preservation during land
a a�AlI-e s 9s ewe. snq �,e"! s,e_
T"`f 4.vtT ►'e (�V�iO fD a lCec
2_16 y V Ciitty of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING a
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall,in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive,allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review
7. The City shall require all development,including City projects,to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan;with the chosen 6
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners,businesses,
other jurisdictions,agencies,utilities,and non-governmental entities to e-
manage and rr/gerve street trees,wetlands,stream corridors,riparian C�' d11(
areas,tree rove , specimen and heritage trees,and other vegetation.
9. The City shallrequire,as appropriate,tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and vi le stan s and groves l
instead of isolated specimens. . '56AR Vol Sole GYM
Stt/tlf� �a�'f"filrt�.� a ►/LMS el/
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall ber,1
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City. Ov-
\1�S 11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi- �S S
Idential landscapes. cd o [,'cis►
`b4ECOMM.ENBED ACTION MEA.SUKES: � Ae4A �
i. Develop and implement regulations,standards,and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density,seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
117
1A( eel
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-17
i
1
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
�pe I in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
�lV'-� opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands,and the maintenance of a publicly
►VNO v� accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
V e SS iii. Conduct surveys,workshops,and/or other public outreach strategies
Qto identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
u Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property.
2_1$ City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Attachment 4
Appendix F
Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline
Grate a ritual timeline nilh dales,pictures,and beef text that deanbes major laude kr. I dude the Jol aning of/ s e
the timeline.' A�p(/( o \b(3 1„�bss
�n • 3500 years before present Kalapuya(Native Americans)began managing the forests of the
Willamette Valley using fire(pyroculture)(Gray,2008). Use Kalapuya photo
• In 1851,canopy coverage within the current city limits of Tigard was estimated to be 52.4%
`V(� (3,966.9 acres).Refer to U of O map
�( • In the early y 1850x,Tigard was settled by several families of European decent including the
V D Q S
Tigard family headed by Wilson M.Tigard. Native forests were cleared for agricultural uses
and timber help support development in the area(City of Tigard,2009).Use photo from
ell \ historic Tigard photo album
rt,t�,(` • In 1910,the Oregon Electric Railway arrived,triggering more rapid development at die rail
/ �r1 W stop near Main Street. Fruit and nut packaging and canning plants and lumber mills set up
shop at that point to capitalize on die agriculture and logging activity(City of Tigard,2009).
!
001, Use photo from historic Tigard photo album
• In the 1940s,the population was about 300 people even after the arrival of the Capitol
Highway(99W)(Burrows,2009). Show 1950s photo of Tigard between the 40s and 60s
,(e info.
y • Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961. There were 1,749 residents and 572 occupied
residences at the time of incorporation(City of Tigard,2008).
1Z, \\ / • T1he biggest boom period took place in the 1960s,averaging 26%population growth(City
/ of Tigard,2008).
• In 1967,Tigard adopted its first zoning ordinance. The only mention of trees in the zoning
ordinance was in Section 180-7,which required trees in industrial developments to provide
a buffer for streets and residential zones.
• In 1972,die Municipal Code contained provisions to protect the public from dangerous
trees and branches blocking streets and sidewalks. Planned developments were required to
the maximum extent possible...to assure that natural features of the land are preserved"
and to provide"a prelinunary tree planting plan(with)...all existing trees over six inches in
diameter and groves of trees".
• In 1982,Tigard adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with several policies that call for the
1
j preservation of stream corridors,fish and wildlife habitat,tree and timbered areas,and
wetlands.
• In 1983,the Community Development Code was revised to comply with the
iComprehensive Plan.The Tree Removal section of the new Code required a City petmit
prior to tree removal for all undeveloped land,developed commercial and industrial land,
and public land.
I
I
r
I
i
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
T
1
1
i
Attachment 4
Appendix F
• In 1983,the Landscaping and Screening Chapter was also established 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.
• In 1985,the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Community Development Code prohibited
development in or in close proximity to 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).
• In 1997,the Tree Removal Chapter was significantly revised. Tree plans were required for
development,mitigation standards were established,and tree removal permits were required
for trees in sensitive lands.
• In 1998,the City hired its first Urban Forester.
• In 2001,the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the Community Development Code
established additional landscaping and screening requirements for the Tigard Triangle(the
area bound by Highways 5,99,and 217).
• In 2001,the Tree Board was established to develop and administer a comprehensive tree
management program for trees on public property.
• Tigard has been named a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation every year
since 2001.Show Tree City USA logo
• In 2002,the Tigard Municipal Code was revised to increase protections for trees on City
property.
• In 2002,the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards and the Durham Quarry
Design Standards established additional landscaping and screening requirements in the
Washington Square and Bridgeport areas respectively.
• In 2002,the Sensitive Lands Chapter 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)".
• In 2006,the Heritage Tree program was established so that trees of landmark importance
could be officially recognized and protected.
• In 2007 the Tree Board's mission was expanded to develop a"City Tree Stewardship and
Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in pant to ensure tree code revisions occurred in a
comprehensive maturer.
• In 2007,the City adopted a"Significant Habitat Areas Mali'which expanded the lands
where tree removal permits were required.
i • In 2008,an Urban Forest section was added to the Comprehensive Plan following over a
year of work by the Tree Board. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan
contains two goals to be implemented by 22 policies. 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.
• In 2009,Tigard received a Tree City USA growth award for its expanded urban forestry
efforts.Show growth award logo
1
I
i
I
1
I
I
1
i
I
i i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal,State,and Regional requirements
when managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities
that further progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent
major Federal,State,and Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban
forest management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF)is responsible for administering the Forest Practices
Act(FPA). The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and
11 ensure that forests remain healthy and productive.The Oregon Legislature has given cities the
authority to regulate forests in place of having ODF administer the FPA as long as the local options
meet the FPA's minimum standard(Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and
` Development,1999).
To meet the standards,local forest practice regulations must:
Q �Q� x`r� • Protect soil,air,water,fish and wildlife resources;
Q �\ • Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals;
S \ , • Be developed through a public process;
(� 1� • Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices;and
y �� • Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the
�U Department of Land Conservation and Development(Oregon Department of Forestry,2008).
vk�v Oregon Department of Transportation
v` �V� 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,S,and 991x✓. ODOT Bulletin
v " 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
f
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD)administers Oregon's
j 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:
I
i
I
i
I
i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
Goal 5."To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces."This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including
fish and wildlife habitats,stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies
can further progress towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental,and energy
(CSCE)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. I
Goal 7."To protect life and property from natural di rets and hazards."Trees mous,
canopies,and leaf litter in natural hazard areas help treveg erosion and oodi (Portland Urban 6
Forest Management Plan).
Goal 10."To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state"This goal re uires the City
Go p g g 9
to balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of
urbanland.
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.
DI,CD 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 Iand 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 R/edand 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 Geu of the National Wetlands Inventory(City of Tigard,
Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Development in these areas is regulated by a vaxiety 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.Amly Corps of
Engineers,Oregon Division of S and-('1 Water Services.As a result,trees and native
vegetation in Local Wetlands a highly protected sta
Oregon Department of Environment \ }".Q(A J ve
n� Pr°
�i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
The Oregon Depamnent 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(0of Tigard,ComprehensiPlan,2009).
<PJb a ur 1��,, 5 p �a�,�t QVaP,w` a�
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 f [(pr C
(McPherson et u/.,2002). At the local level,the City can protect existing natural areas and mature o 1`
—� trees,and promote and participate in tree planting efforrs to improve air quality and decrease SQ
b hu ding energy usage. Within urban areas,ait quality is often much worse along major roadways. y0�V� V'%
e Trees strategically planted along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants an C* 1
Q improve air quality,before exhaust is released in the atmosphere(City of Tigard,Com/�rehensive
Plan,2009). , 1 10� i S )S r� S'7Tf,. L r�! V QCJI �UYI t
DEQ is also charged with establishing standards,regulating,and monitoring Oregon's waters for Iwo V
compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act(EWA)and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination � �
J System(NPDF.S)(CO'MP PLAN). Within Tigard,run-off from impervious surfaces,pet waste,andtA
erosion/sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution. Planting and
rI f►N maintaining tree canopy,water quality facility construction and maintenance(vegetated swales and
retention basins),and stream corridor and wedand enhancements are all urban forestry activities that
help to improve water quality and meet State and Federal requirements(City of Tigard,
VAr 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 fines 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 fines(Chad Burns,PGE,personal
j communication 10/6/08). These costs arc passed on to utility ratepayers. The urban forestm
i /-
i 9�
j
V
` eQ, S<
Xk L �
VV �S i
�VZ,
}
Attachment 4
Appendix G
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 fine
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 1996,which means rhat a development must
build 80%of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation(City of Tigard,Comprehensive
Plan,2009). The Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP)and others have
cited this requirement as a significant impediment to preserving trees in urban areas,particularly for
those properties that are zoned for high density.
j Title 3 protects die region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards,
controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Tide 3 implements
Statewide Planning Goals 5,6 and 7 by protecting streams,rivers,wetlands and floodplains by
avoiding,limiting or midgadng 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. Tide 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. Tide 3 results in
significant protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams and
floodways. Finally,Tide 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 requiting easy access to parks and greenspaces for City
residents(Metro,2009).
Attachment 4
Appendix G
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(.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 11 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 CAVS. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is curren
rvulnerable.Additional CS) analyses woul a required to protect lower value habitat and
1 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 budeeting )► I
funds in FY2009-10 to protect additional upland tree resources. _ , e—Vr t t )()w v
Clean Water Services R I
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 y
15 to 200 feet wide,and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.Native W u
trees over 6 inches in diameter in vegetated corridors are protected,and their removal requires
j S P 9
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).
I
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS'Healthy Streams Plan Qune 2005).The
kgoal 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
v
f
I
I
I
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
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 Stre h its Surface
Water Quality program(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
7m/-Anyf goals o the Healthy �� 'WOStreams Plans are met through proper urban forest management actiEvasive species
control and streamside tree canopy restoration.
i
j Large municipalities typically have NPDFS 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 subm t a Stormwater Management
Plan and a Wastewater Management Plan to DF,Q.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 Maumum Daily Load
(J7MDL)levels that have been established(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). Trees and / V _,
urban forests are excellent stormwater managers and contribute to the achievement of water quality U �/
goals,yet are not typically addressed in Stormwmcr Management Plans.
Attachment 4
Appendix H
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's"land use constitution."It is the document that
provides the broad policy basis forTigard'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).
I
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.
i
i
Code Provisions
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and
urban forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code
provisions,as well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
i
i
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 7.40.060.8).
However,there Is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that
are in imminent danger of falling.
I �
i
f
i
i
i
4
F
1
I
I
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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 ! f O
prohibits the removal of non-hazardous trees over five(5)feet in height in greenways. However,th 1 �I�'"",•-�tt�
term"greenway"is not well defined.
J �
! 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 L
at 4.5 feet above ground,level. Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)d@fines a"tree"at six(¢1)inc
-hes in y
diameter at four(4)feet above ground level. 1 'V`,Re-P S VA 0)L-V �
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 e-
S
property to protect trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060(Removal r 1
of Hazardous Trees from City Property)obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City C", ^ Ih l�✓@
property and prioritize their removal based on the level of hazard. t•, 4
6/
Section 9.06.070(Removal of Trees from City Property)requires written permission for tree removal W p l
from City property and right-of-way,and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual. ,, IJ
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 Aconflicts with Code provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example,street tree planting (�. S 0 r_�Je4el
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 J`"_(� 7 v. �/� vY
and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally,referencing I
1 the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of the Manual does not correspond
with the sections in the body.
A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual,but there it is unclear
what triggers the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be. ' 1
1. Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains requirements for the City's Heritage Tree Program.The
Chapter recognizes and protects trees o stand eof trees on public or private property that are
j designated to be of landmark importance ue to age,size,species,horticultural quality or historical
importance. Participation In the program is voluntary and administered by the Tree Board,City Council, N
and staff.
i
i
j�
� u e'
0
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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. AJ ( r
W✓�`� t
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
i
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.
QW 1r The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090,includes many provisions
lLoi 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
0 conditions".The approval criteria also requires trees to be preserved to the extent possible(A.2.b)and
Y4 �1 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
Ql1" a� 0
trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)if
there are space constraints.
Section 18.385.040(Sensitive Land Permits)requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep
slopes,drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these
r
\ � 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
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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 C V I�r/✓t
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 _I pf/fS r
provisions in section 18.620.070,require tree spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However,the i )
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.
1 bil- J
Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and other C� I
;pecifies that it is applicable to all development,but it does not
tandards. The landscaping provisions are administratively
J �; � ire a tree plan(section 18.790.030). The General Provisions
S�
mdscapingto be appropriately planted,pruned,maintained,
ever,there is a lack of specificity in these requirements that
nd landscaping are properly installed,protected,and
Z 9
6-Y1 0 4S Z f/ rees)specifies the location and spacing of variously sized street
p!r from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also,there is
f !et trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks �� .ts�
erent than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual.
ing)requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer
id to provide shading for parking lots.The parking lot tree
57 ���,O I V` ulted in successful shading of parking lots. This is likely due to ��
aw(minimum parking island dimensions are three feet by („f
�f)U stallation requirements(e.g.irrigation is not specified for w t e
OY\� Q�
:ts sensitive lands for safety,functionality,and fish and wildlife a�'S �vi
”
iervices(CWS)Design and Construction Standards",the � 6 f t�
conal Plan","Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)"
ogram requirements.The chapter requires a CWS `�{ S V-1
permn wnen 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" n 0 )
(18.775.020.8.1). 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 (p,'
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
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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
e 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� 1 1 t r S
\^n� �1 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 ��/1
o rS�
o
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 forestryis
specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre,per year.The definition is unclear whether U`
(W ` 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.
XTree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch"basis. Therefore,developers are
\0 required to replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site Z 6
with an equivalent amount of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example,if a 24 inch tree is 1 p
removed from a development site,the City may require replacement with up to 12,two inch diameter e_
trees.
5�
N��v 0�
jAlso,as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased,the percentage of replacement trees r
j required for mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet �L �s A VA Q S
mitigation requirements as well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation
requirements.
J�
i
i
If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees,there Is a fee In lieu of planting option
I (18.790.060.E)to cover the City's cost of replanting.This fee is currently assessed as$125 per diameter
I inch removed,and viewed as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also,the
I
I
i
t
i
w
i
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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. j�
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 l�� Pp I G 1
developers have exploited by removing trees from a site,waiting one year,and then submitting a ,
WPAC
development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements. yt — vw�
V- �..
Section 18.790.040(Incentives for Tree Retention)provides developers incentives and flexibility options �/Q
in order toPreserve trees. However,the incentives are seldom utilized,anen criticized for their I v e
,) { rl V.
practicality. Many in the development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so
im
that they are more appealing and practical for developers.
I Section 18.790.040.B requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed
yy� 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
1 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.
Y �� is `��cS I
FJ Z [�Q J Section 18.790.060(Illegal Tree Removal)outlines the penalties for Illegal tree removal and specifics the f1
��, 7 t/ tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation.The tree reola,__ e�,ment r?gs ir.Pmt.in
18.790.060.1.are vague andx ff u Ic +*o 4imN9ter. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing (SCC
requirements,which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation
trees.There is also little specificity an 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" �6 i r
replanting requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the n to l�J
tree illegally removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous t
condition of the tree. One solution may be to sgi_ap4n12um penalty for cases where there is noQl f `
evidence of the species or condition of the illegally removed tree.
Section 18.810(Street and Utility Improvement Standards)specifie>the min'Ium planting strip width
for street trees(5 feet per table 18.810.1)and allows for adjustments to street s ndards to protect
�} 1
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
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
\8/ for development based on development in the various zones. These Development Cade provisions
6 may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
STree 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.
V� • 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.
1 (+U,,,rrr"' _ • Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)of the Municipal regulates public trees. The Chapter contains
3 iy 51 definitions and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code.The Chapter and
f� V' associated Tree Manual also lack specificity regarding when the Code provisions are applicable and
�vtr V how they can be met.
• Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter.
k, Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and
habitat preservation,but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation.
• Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards),18.630(Washington Square Regional Center
r"N S 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.
e 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,dralnageways,floodplains,and wetlands
j from development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
I
I
i
i
I
I
j
i
I
,I
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
' . Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of
E development projects. Some development such as development in sensitive lands and building
additions are not subject to the Chapters 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.
developers have exploited by removing trees from
There is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some
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.
i
i
i
s
i
i
t
I
i
JOPMAN SRAMIS11C Attachment 4
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
Two C,entcrpointe Dr Ste 600 Phone: (503)598-7070
Lake Oswego OR 97035 Toll Tree: (888)598.7070
www.jordanschrader.com Tax: (503)598-7373
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Damien R. Hall_
DATE: August 13, 2009
RC: Tree-cutting Ordinance
File No. 50014-36803
PRIVILEGED AND.C"FIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
'Phis responds to your request for an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of including a
recommendation in the Urban Forest Master Plan that future tree protection regulations be
contained within the general municipal code as opposed to the development code.
The City already has a tree cutting ordinance contained within its development code and those
sections which pertain to regulating tree cutting during the development process should stay
within the development code. TDC 18.790.060 provides that removal of a tree not in compliance
with any condition of a City permit or a development approval can expose one to revocation of
the permit or development approval, a stop work order, a municipal court citation or any other
action allowed by law. A court would likely find provisions relating to tree cutting as a part of a
development process to be a"land use regulation." The term "land use regulation"refers to code
provisions which effectuate a city's comprehensive plan and zoning code. See ORS 197.025. If a
provision is held to be a land use regulation, the provision, and any decisions made pursuant to
the provision, will be challengeable as land use decisions. Appeals of final local decisions
relating to land use decisions go to the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA").
I would recommend that the City separate the provisions which relate to tree cutting as a function
of development of a parcel from tree cutting on already developed land or land for which Lhere is
no current development application. Many cities address tree-cutting in their municipal code for
non-development purposes, such as clearing away nuisances, trees on public property, and dealing
with "heritage trees." If the City were to separate the portions of the tree cutting ordinance which
pertain to regulating tree cutting during the development process from those which merely protect
trees in general on parcels not currently being developed, the City could enforce regulations
pertaining to parcels not currently being developed, by citing violators into the Municipal Court,
.50014-36803 177.R7.5_.i.du(V)Rh%Vl.f/200'J
Attachment 4
JORDAN SCHRADER RAMISK
.,,q,.,,,,<—
August 13, 2009
Page 2
with appeal therefrom being to the Circuit Court of Washington County. Also, there are
differences in adoption or modification procedures for the two types of ordinances. Any adoption
or substantive modification of a land use regulation would require, pursuant to ORS 197.610 and
197.615, forty-five (45)days advance notice to DLCD prior to the legislative hearing procedures
set forth in the Tigard Development Code and must be consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan. An ordinance declaring tree cutting without a permit to be a nuisance would be passed
through the relatively simple procedure for a general ordinance. In addition,land use regulations
would require standards and notice and hearing components so as to make it comply with the
Metro Code and other land use requirements.
While the issue is not free from doubt, a tree cutting ordinance where the penalty for violating the
ordinance is a fine to be imposed by the Municipal Court or other common law nuisance remedies
such as injunction, with or without abatement, would likely be held to be a nuisance ordinance, as
opposed to a land use regulation. Adoption of a nuisance ordinance does not require notice to
DLCD, it is adopted just like any other general city ordinance. Violation of a nuisance ordinance
would be addressed either by citation to municipal court or by other general nuisance remedies,
like an action brought in Circuit Court to abate the nuisance accompanied by a request for a
judgment prohibiting the tree cutter from cutting more trees in the future and possibly dictating
steps the wrongdoer needs to do to abate the removal of the tree. None of these actions would be
appealable to LUBA. The regulations would still have to set forth permit application procedures
and objective criteria for use in determining whether to approve or deny the permit, if you were to
exempt the cutting of some trees from the nuisance ordinance.
In reviewing the municipal code sections governing tree removal in Lake Oswego, Durham and
West Linn, we found that cities apply various criteria, including health of the tree,hazards caused
by the tree, location of the tree and root structure, neighborhood aesthetics, and the size of tree.
The permit is often conditioned on some form of mitigation as well. Various city staff can be
involved in deciding whether to grant the permit if and to what extent mitigation should be
required, including the City Manager, or a city arborist. Most cities also have provisions for
granting permits in emergency situations. Most of these decisions are appealable to City Council.
CONCLUSION
The content of an ordinance, not whether it is located in the development or general municipal
code, is determinative of whether the ordinance is a land use regulation. Therefore, any
recommendation that future tree protection ordinances be included in the municipal code should
include the warning that the ordinance could be held to be a land use regulation and subject to
DLCD notice and LUBA appeal, depending on its context. I have attached to this memorandum a
chart, labeled Exhibit A,comparing and contrasting the two types of regulations, to wit:
development based and nuisance based, and the goals, the methods of enforcement, the decision
makers and the methods of appeal of those decisions. I have also attached a comparison of
50014-36M.t nzs7c__±.<�„wkrmn.tiznoi
Attachment 4
JORDAN SCHRADER J�AMIS,_
August 13, 2009
Page 3
municipal code tree regulations from the cities of Lake Oswego, Durham and West Linn,
comparing and contrasting tree regulation in those cities. That document is labeled Exhibit B. A
review of already-enacted ordinances might be instructive as to what works and what doesn't
work as well. After reviewing this memo, if you have additional questions, we would be glad to
discuss these issues with you further.
.500/.1•30803 172875_3.401 V)RfW'I_?/1o09
Comparison of Development Based and Nuisance Based
Tree Removal Ordinances
Type of Goal Method of Who Makes Appeals of
Regulation Enforcement Decision Decision
r Implementation of
Comp Plan or Zoning
Ordinance Revoke
City Council
Development
Approval and then
Development
Balance development PlanningStaff/
Based with preservation of tor
I
trees tor
Modify
Development LUBA
Provide mitigation if Approval to provide
trees cut in violation mitigation
of tree plan
Code Compliance
Citation to or Police and Washington County
Municipal Court Municipal Court Circuit Court
Punish tree Judge
! cutter for felling
tree wlo a permit Injunction,TRO,
Nuisance Based Order to Mitigate Circuit Court Judge Court of Appeals
Provide mitigation
for loss of tree
Abatement by City Council and
City Manager then Circuit Court on
City Officials
Writ of Review
A
Exhibit A
r+
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPARISON
TREE REMOVAL
Permits Lake Oswego Durham West Linn
Permits 55.02.03 Section 2(3). A permit is required to remove any tree in
Required Tree permit required for tree removal or tree No tree may be removed without a the City unless such permit is waived by the
topping. person receiving two permits: 1) a City manager. Tree is defined. Code
permit to cut the tree; and 2) permit Section 8.610.
setting the terms and conditions for
cutting.
Types of 55.02.042 Types of Permits: Only one kind.
Permits • Type I permit: allows removal of up to two 8.610.8.620
trees, 10 inch or less at DBH within a calendar
year so long as trees are not located within
specific areas within the city.
■ Type II permit: allows removal of trees that do
not qualify for a Type I permit. Subject to
specific approval criteria and notice
requirements.
• Dead Tree Removal Permit:
■ Emergency Permit: Allowed if a tree presents
an immediate danger of collapse and
represents a clear and present hazard to
persons or property.
■ Topping Permit: Permit issued to utility,
public agency or other person who routinely
tops trees in furtherance of public safety, upon
establishment of methodology for topping in
compliance with this subsections.
• Verification Permit: Permit issued for tree r
removal pursuant to a development permit. A
fD
EXHIBIT B —Page lof 5 50014-36794.021 172547.doc1DRF/8/13/2009
Approval 55.02.080 Section 4 8.620 (3), 8.630
Criteria ■ Tree is proposed for removal for landscaping Permit approval criteria to be Tree Removal Permit Criteria(guidelines—
purposes or to construct development considered: decision must include finding that cite each
approved or allowed pursuant to the code or criteria)(permit required to be decided
development regulations; ■ Applicant must show that permit is within 20 days or deemed approved):
■ Removal of tree will not have a significant consistent with the stated purpose of
negative impact on erosion, soil stability . . .; the ordinance; 1. Aspects likely to warrant approval:
■ Removal of tree will not have a significant ■ Condition of the trees with respect
negative impact on character, aesthetics or to danger of falling,proximity to ■ Tree is determined to be dead, dying and
property values of neighborhood (subject to existing or proposed structures, not recoverable;
some exceptions); interference with utility services or ■ Tree is determined to have a significantly
■ Removal of tree is not for the sole purpose of traffic safety, and hazards to life or damaged root structure that will adversely
providing orenhancing views; property; impact the health and stability of the tree;
■ Necessity to remove trees to ■ Tree is determined to exhibit a hazardous
construct proposed improvements or growth habit;
to otherwise utilize the applicant's ■ Tree is interfering with utility service in
property in an economically such a manner that full restoration or
beneficial manner; maintenance of service requires removal
■ The topography of the land and the of the tree;
effect of tree removal on erosion, ■ Tree encroaches in the public right-of-
soil retention, stability of earth; flow way so as to cause damage to
of surface water, protection of improvements within the public right-of-
nearby trees, windbreaks and a way;
desirable balance between shade and ■ Tree is causing structural damage;
open space; ■ Basal flare of the tree is within 10 feet of
■ The number of trees existing in the an existing building footprint;
neighborhood, the character and ■ Existing building footprint lies within the
property uses in the neighborhood, drip line of the tree;
and the effect of tree removal on ■ Trees that have been maintained in the
neighborhood characteristics, beauty applicant's property for the purpose of
and property values; growing fruit which are no longer beari�
■ The adequacy of the applicant's fruit or bearing significantly reduced frRtt;
proposals to plant new trees as a ■ Removal of trees is being done for A
substitute for the trees to be cut; thinning purposes to enhance the healt f
�D
EXHIBIT B —Page 2of 5 50014-36794.021 172547.doc1DRF/8/I V2009 .P
Approval ■ The tree is diseased; other trees;
Criteria Cont. • The tree is dead. ■ Removal is for the owner's landscape
improvement but does not jeopardize the
aesthetics of the neighborhood;
• The removal would allow solar access for
an otherwise extremely shaded property.
2. The following are considered as aspects
likely to warrant denial:
• The tree is visually prominent;
• The tree is generally healthy and of sound
structure;
■ The tree is of significant size;
■ The tree is part of a larger grove or
grouping of trees, and its removal will
adversely affect the health and safety of
the remaining trees within the grove or
grouping;
■ The tree is on land that is sloped, and
removal of the tree may exacerbate
erosion or soil slumping in the vicinity of
the tree;
• The tree acts as a privacy barrier for
adjacent properties;
■ Tree removal is solely to improve a view.
Development 55.02.035 Section 7 Trees within the otherwise approved
Exception Specific section for tree removal in conjunction Specific section setting forth permit footprint of a project requiring a building
with major or minor development permit. criteria for tree permitting and permit will not need additional permit for
preservation for land use permit. removal, although modification to building
plan may be required. Failure to comply
with CDC governed trees are enforced
under the municipal code tree removal A
enforcement conditions. 8.570(2).
�D
EXHIBIT B —Page 3of 5 50014-36794.021 172547.doc\DRF/3/13/2009
Emergency 55.02.042(5) Section 2 Emergency Permits available? 8.730
Exception Specific section for tree removal in conjunction Specific section for Emergency governs the process to obtain an emergency
with major or minor development permit. conditions,even allowing cutting permit.
without a permit, if no city official is
available to issue a permit.
Mitigation Mitigation conditions required as a condition of Section 5 -Governs Developed
Requirements approval of the permit. Property.
Mitigation Requirements:
■ If tree removal has a significant
impact or substantially reduces the
tree canopy; mitigation shall be
required;
■ If tree is dead,dying,diseased or
dangerous, mitigation shall be
encouraged;
• If tree removal is for landscaping
only, and does not relate to the
condition of the tree or tree's
adverse impact on a surrounding
grove, mitigation shall be judged
based on uniqueness of tree and
number of trees on the property.
Section 7 -Governs Tree Preservation
and Replacement as a condition for
issuance of a Land Use Permit.
Who Makes City Manager Who issues Tree cutting or removal Who makes the decision? The City
Decision permit? Arborist. 8.620 (but see ambiguity–8.620
■ If tree is diseased, dead or dangerous also provides for City Manager to review
–City Administrator may issue. application). Emergency Permits are
• If emergency–City Administrator, decided in 8.620 by the City Manager or�—O
Mayor. President of Council, the designee. 8.730(A). p�
Planning Commission Chair or
Vice-Chair.
!D
Z
EXHIBIT B –Page 4of 5 50014.36794.021 172547.doc\DRF/8/13C_>009
L
Who Makes ■ All other permits are approved or
Decision Cont. denied by the Planning Commission.
■ If Planning Commission cannot
reach a decision within 45 days, and
property owner demonstrates that
further delay would cause undue
hardship and delay, the City
Administrator renders a decision.
Appeal 55.02.085 Section 4 (3).. (4), Section 5. 8.640
If removal is for landscaping, appeals go to the Decision of City Administrator is • Appealed to the city manager within 10
Community Forestry Commission; appealed to the Planning Commission days of the date of decision.
If removal is for development, appeals go to the Decision of Planning Commission ■ Decision of the city manager is appealed
Development Review Commission; may be appealed to the City Council. to the City Council and must be decided
Appeals from these Commissions go to the City within 30 days or permit is deemed
Council. The decision of the Council shall be approved. City Council decision is final.
final. ■ Emergency Permits may not be appealed
8.730(c).
Enforcement Enforcement: 50.02.125 and 55.02.130. Section 8. 8.740.
Enforcement action goes to municipal court and ■ City may deny permit or stop work Violation is treated a s a civil infraction,
is subject to civil violation,nuisance abatement, under a permit, subject to mitigation opportunities through
enforcement fee, restoration requirements, • City may file a civil action to get an voluntary compliance. Municipal court has
injunction,loss of city privilege, and any other injunction and recover costs to authority to issue fines and penalties.
right authorized by law. replace trees destroyed and the value Abatement provisions covered by 8.750.
of the timber removed
• City may revoke the right of a
provider to do business in the City
for two years
■ City may recover attorney and
professional fees in bring the
enforcement action.
r+
A�
A
�D
EXHIBIT B—Page 5of 5 50014-36794.02/172547.docXDREl8/13/2009 .p
ADDITION
com dill E N1YT
Todd Prager
From: ph@halsteadsarbor.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Re: Packet for Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting - Part 2 of 3
Hello Todd,
I will not be able to attend Wednesday's CAC meeting, but I did want to commend you and everyone who worked on this
Final Draft Plan for completing such a nicely organized, well written, and aesthetically pleasing document. I very much
like the content, photographs and formatting layout. The index works very well and I am pleased to see the glossary
included.
Please accept this email as my vote of support for moving forward with the Final Draft Plan to City Council for approval.
Thank you,
Phil Hickey
Project Consulting Arborist
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist RCA#466
PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager
To: Todd Prager; ianet.gillisC&-beechercarlson.com' ; Walsh. David ; 'clemosCcD-verizon.net ; 'tonvtree(&-easystreet.net' ;
morqan holenCcDpbsenv.com ; ph cahalsteadsarbor.com ; mettel()-comcast.net; 'sizemore dennisCcD.msn.com'
Cc: Marissa Daniels ; John Floyd ; Darren Wyss ; Dick Bewersdorff; Ron Bunch ; Susan Hartnett
Sent:Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: Packet for Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting - Part 2 of 3
Dear Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee,
Please find the attached packet(Part 2 of 3)for the final Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee meeting scheduled for
Wednesday,September 2nd at 6:30-8:00 p.m. in the 2"d floor conference room of the Tigard Public Library.
If you have any questions or would like me to deliver a hard copy before the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
1
Todd Prager
From: Angela Johnson [angela.johnson@jordanschrader.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:39 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Tim Ramis; Cindy Phillips; Damien Hall
Subject: RE: Tigard: Tree Removal Ordinance
Todd,
Cindy and Damien reviewed the Committee's language and find it acceptable. Please let us know if you have any further
questions. Thank you.
ANGELA JOHNSON,JD Paralegal
Jordan Schrader Ramis PC Attorneys at Law
Oregon: (503) 598-7070
Direct: (503) 598-5555
Fax: (503) 598-7373
www.iordanschrader.com
One of Portland Monthly's Best 20 Places to Work
One of Oregon Business Magazine's 100 Best Companies to Work For
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Angela Johnson
Cc: Tim Ramis; Cindy Phillips; Damien Hall
Subject: RE: Tigard: Tree Removal Ordinance
Angela,
The Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee met last night and agreed with your memo. However, rather than
completely removing recommendation 1.1.a,they would prefer to revise it. Below is the language developed by
the Committee. Could you please review and let me know if this is acceptable. If not, could you present
alternative language that would be?
Page 3, Item 1.La- Move tree eedo from Tigard Peyeiapme„+ rode to rr;gafd Munieipal Code ; ^,.do,
to llf r diser-e i^ Determine the most appropriate placement for future tree code
provisions within the Tigard Development and Municipal Code Chapters.
I have attached the full Urban Forestry Master Plan if you need it for reference.
Thanks,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: Angela Johnson [mailto:angela.johnson@jordanschrader.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Tim Ramis; Cindy Phillips; Damien Hall
Subject: Tigard: Tree Removal Ordinance
1
Todd:
Attached please find a memo of today's date discussing the advantages and disadvantages of including a tree
removal provision in the general municipal code. Please review it and let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
«1585_001.pdf>>
ANGELA JOHNSON,JD I Paralegal
Jordan Schrader Ramis PC I Attorneys at Law
Oregon: (503) 598-7070
Direct: (503) 598-5555
Fax: (503) 598-7373
www.'ordanschrader.com
One of Portland Monthly's Best 20 Places to Work
One of Oregon Business Magazine's 100 Best Companies to Work For
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Please do not read, copy, or disseminate this communication unless
you are the intended addressee. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information
intended only for the addressee. If you have received this in error,please notify me via return e-mail.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that if this communication or any
attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of(i) avoiding tax-related penalties or(ii)promoting,marketing, or recommending any
transaction,plan, or arrangement. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid tax-related
penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent
requirements. Please contact us if you have any questions about this requirement, or would like to
discuss preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules.
i
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:21 AM
To: Todd Prager; Aland@roundstoneproperties.com; Ernie Platt; Legend Homes Craig Brown;
Dick Bewersdorff
Subject: Urban Forestry Plan: Reforestation throughout the city
Todd,
I submit as a goal, the city concentrate on reforestation throughout the city, not just on
currently treed property. Stop discriminating against only the tree owner and spread the
load across the whole city.
FACT 1:
Over the last 10 years we have experienced the largest building boom in history adding more
roof tops to Tigard than ever before, yet there has been an insignificant 1% decrease in tree
canopy. This 1% does not include all the trees that were planted by the Builders and
Developers during that period that are so far, too small to be included in the canopy, but
soon will be adding significant area to the canopy, thereby moving the canopy well into
positive numbers.
FACT 2:
Current Tree Canopy is 25%. Therefore the Tree Code only required tree planting on 25% of
the land that was to be built on. This is discriminatory.
FACT 3:
If Tigard had focused on a balanced plan of reforestation including the land with no trees
(75%) rather than it's discriminatory protection theory penalizing only the land with trees
(25%), there would have been 75% more trees planted during the 10 year period and the tree
canopy would have grown significantly.
SUMMARY:
The life expectancy of the City of Tigard is much longer than that of a tree. With respect
to tree canopy, looking to the future is far more important than looking at the past.
Policy's should be made that are long term oriented and balanced, not short term and
discriminatory.
Sincerely
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
1
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:32 AM
To: Todd Prager; Aland@roundstoneproperties.com; Ernie Platt; Legend Homes Craig Brown;
Dick Bewersdorff
Subject: Urban Forestry Plan: Street Canopy
Todd
I wish to object to the idea of adding a tree canopy goal for streets.
As discussed in the meeting 9/2/09, the City already has a Street Tree requirement, and there
are too many problems with street trees as it is, without adding a requirement that will
eventually come back to cost the City dearly.
Sincerely
Ken Gertz
Tax Payer
1
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Urban Forestry Plan
Todd,
I had to leave the Tree meeting early the other night, if there are any questions anyone has
of me, feel free to call.
I wanted to reiterate my feelings about Tree Grove Protection.
I do not think the Groves section should be included in the plan.
The current tree code has one main problem. The owners of property with trees are
discriminated against simply because they have trees on their property. I see no way of
protecting Groves without what will end up being a discriminative taking of property and hard
earned money from these citizens. To protect Grooves, you will have to reduce lot density
thereby drastically lowering the value of the landowner's property. I wish to drive home the
fact that the majority of the landowners we purchase land from are senior citizens and the
loss of even one lot, to them, is of great impact. This is a case of those with nothing to
loose stealing from those that have worked hard for what they have.
I can think of no other city that has such a discriminative tree protection policy. Cities I
can think of have their groves in parks or drainage ways and street right of ways and I
believe Tigard should follow the same policy and purchase any large treed areas they want and
turn them into parks for public use, not steal it from their senior citizens.
The idea of making up for the area lost to Grove protection by adding a density bonus is in
my professional opinion, preposterous. The community is resistant to development at the zoned
lot sizes; they will be outraged at having a cluster density project in the middle of their
normal lot neighborhood. It may be achievable in some instances, but not as a rule.
Your figures show 94% of the groves are less than 1/2 acre in size. Does it make any sense at
all to regulate such small areas of trees? They can hardly be considered groves at all.
Sincerely
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
503-692-3390
1
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.comj
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Messed up E-mail
Todd,
I would like to replace my previous e-mail titled "Urban Forestry Plan"
with the one I will send next.
I had not proof read it and found some errors. Please trash that one.
Thanks
Ken Gertz
1
MEETING
vi I N UTES
a
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: September 2, 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,Morgan Holen,David Walsh, Matt Clemo,
Mort Ettelstein,
Members Absent—Tony Tycer,Janet Gillis, Phil Hickey
Staff Present—Todd Prager, Marissa Daniels
Visitors—Karen Estrada, Ken Gertz,Harry Reid, Bob Alverts,John Frewing
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 explaining that it was the final meeting of the CAC.
David Walsh then requested that the Tree Board stay to discuss the recent resignation of Janet Gillis after
the meeting.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the July 1, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee meeting
At 6:31 p.m. the CAC approved the July 1, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC September
2, 2009 meeting packet).
3. Update on Additional Tree Canopy Study
Prager then provided a brief update on the additional tree canopy study (Attachment 2, UFMP CAC
September 2, 2009 meeting packet) that the CAC requested. He said the City used a volunteer intern to
delineate a random sample of Tigard parking lots and intersect the parking lots with the 2007 canopy layer
provided by Metro. The results of the study are that Tigard's parking lots currently have 6% tree canopy,
which is relatively low as expected. Prager said he incorporated the findings into the UFMP which will
allow for future changes to parking lot tree canopy to be tracked.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—September 2,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 5
4. Draft Plan Discussion
At 6:36, Prager then shifted the discussion to the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan (Attachment 3,UFMP
CAC September 2, 2009 meeting packet). He asked the CAC if they had any additional substantial changes
to the format and/or recommendations in the draft Plan.
David Walsh asked why the Plan was revised as follows:
Revised the following sentence in paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 as follows (additions in bold, deletions
struck through):
The HB,4MP said the City should allow private properly owners to manage their land as they see fit, which implies the
City should have no involvement in private proper y tree hazard issues.
Prager responded that based on public comment by Bob Alverts, the sentence was revised to better reflect
HBAMP views expressed during stakeholder interviews.
David Walsh then expressed concern about the statements throughout the document recommending the
"hiring of greenspace coordinator". He said that in these economic times,it would be more reasonable to
"create a greenspace coordinator position". The other CAC members generally agreed that modifying the
language from"hire" to "create a position"would allow for more flexibility and be more attractive to
Council.
f Prager then suggested that based on consultation with the City Attorney and City Council, that the CAC
consider eliminating recommendation 1.1.a (Move tree code from the Tigard Development Code to Tigard
Municipal Code in order to allow for discretionary review). Prager said the City Attorney and Council are
not comfortable with the language because it would limit their flexibility in the future when deciding the
most appropriate place for tree code provisions.
Dennis Sizemore said that he would support removing it.
David Walsh said that he would not support removing it,but instead would like to see it amended. Mr.
Walsh's reasoning was that it is important to stress the necessity of placing tree provisions in the most
appropriate location in the Code.
Prager said that perhaps staff could revise recommendation 1.1.a to the effect that, "When revising the tree
code, determine the most appropriate location for provisions in the development and municipal codes."
John Frewing said he agreed that in the future, the most appropriate location of code provisions would
need to be determined.
The CAC was generally supportive of the revision.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—September 2,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 2 of 5
David Walsh confirmed that the next steps in the process would be presenting the UFMP to Planning
Commission in early October in a workshop setting, to Council in late October in a workshop, and again
to Council in early November for adoption. Mr. Walsh suggested that staff mail out the UFMP to
Planning Commission early, and provide a description of the public involvement effort that went into
developing the UFMP.
5. Public Comment on Draft Plan
Prager then asked the CAC to consider all of the public comments (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC September
2, 2009 meeting packet) as well as those forwarded via email in recent days. Prager said that if the CAC
would like to put forward any substantial revisions to the UFMP in response to public comment, they were
welcome to do so after testimony is received from the public.
At 6:56 p.m.,John Frewing commented that the UFMP should contain public right of way canopy goals.
Marissa Daniels commented that Council is considering increasing the street maintenance fee to include
funds for street tree maintenance. She said the City currently does not fund street tree and right of way
maintenance.
Prager added that the UFMP only sets goals for citywide tree canopy based on existing and projected
development, setback requirements, sensitive lands areas, etc. The canopy goals were not specific to
zoning, location, or public right of way. He said that right of way was excluded from the methodology
used to project future canopy due to time constraints. He stressed that this should not be interpreted as
the City not being interested in street tree planting or right of way canopy, and pointed to a number of
recommendations in the UFMP and Comprehensive Plan policies that are specific to planting and
maintenance of street trees.
At 7:02 p.m., Ken Gertz commented that he is not an HBAMP representative but he is a home builder.
He said the UFMP provides a good foundation for the future. He also said that the he agreed that no
urban forestry program is necessary because there has only been a 1% decrease in tree canopy from 1996
to 2007. He added that he is fearful of protecting tree groves because it impacts elderly landowners
financially if they cannot develop their land. He said a more appropriate course of action would be for the
City to purchase tree groves if they want to protect them. He concluded by saying he thinks it is good that
the UFMP is taking a close look at mitigation.
At 7:06 p.m.,Bob Alverts,professional forester, said that in the Appendix there was reference to spacing
of trees 28' on center. Based on this spacing,Mr. Alverts said the City would have 57% canopy cover. He
said the City needs to consider species requirements and management objectives before developing specific
requirements. He said that there is too much emphasis on native trees in the UFMP, and that non-natives
are important as well. He added that there are no invasive trees in the Pacific Northwest, and that language
referencing invasive trees should be removed from the UFMP. He concluded that while the efforts are
well intentioned, the City needs to avoid getting itself into a trap with the UFMP.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—September 2,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of S
At 7:11 p.m., Karen Estrada commented that she was glad to see recommendations in the UFMP to
prevent pre-development land clearing, but she is not sure what constitutes a grove. She said she
appreciated the work of the CAC in developing the UFMP.
Both Mr. Alverts and Ms. Estrada agreed that definitions are very important. Mr. Alverts said that clear
cuts are a necessary part of urban development, and often trees that remain after a clear cut are a liability.
He added that he sees arborists as lab technicians to carry out the work of other professionals such as
foresters. He said other professionals in addition to arborists need to be involved in managing the urban
forest.
Ken Gertz seconded all of Mr. Alverts comments and said developers are often better off to clear cut
properties and look at long term growth after planting trees.
Morgan Holen agreed that there needs to be a balance between tree preservation and public safety. Ms.
Holen said she uses her experience as a forester in urban settings often.
Bob Alverts said there was a statement against pruning trees in the UFMP, but that damaged trees provide
good wildlife habitat. He offered to take the CAC on a field trip around Tigard to view examples of the
urban forest.
At 7:22 p.m., Ken Gertz commented that the less language there is the development code, the better. He
said the HBAMP feels the code should be answerable in yes or no phrases.
At 7:23 p.m.,Bob Alverts mentioned that the University of Washington would be available to assist the
City with urban forestry projects in the future.
Mort Ettelstein said the report does not give specific answers to the comments raised,but instead provides
a general framework for answering questions in the future.
6. Consideration of Public Comment
Marissa Daniels said the CAC could respond to the specific comments raised by the public one by one.
The first comment discussed was the idea of setting a canopy goal for the right of way. Morgan Holen and
David Walsh agreed that a more detailed study would be needed before setting a specific canopy goal for
right of way. Morgan Holen said the City should do a street tree inventory first before setting goals. Mort
Ettelstein said he felt there were enough recommendations in the UFMP that would ensure street trees are
appropriately planted and maintained. Morgan Holen said that in Lake Oswego it took an AmeriCorps
member a year to complete a street tree study. Prager responded that he did not dispute the importance of
a street tree study and thinks the City should complete one in the future,but he said completing one now
would delay the UFMP by a year and that would not meet Council's expectations on completing the
UFMP.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—September 2,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 5
In response to the comments about grove protections,David Walsh said the Planning Commission will be
looking for flexibility on this item. He said the City should incentivize developers to protect groves.
Karen Estrada commented that the City needs to take a different approach than it is taking currently. Ken
Gertz said that incentives for grove protection don't work because it is not financially feasible for
developers.
Marissa Daniels then asked the CAC if they would like to extend the meeting past 8:00 p.m. to consider the
remaining comments. Dennis Sizemore said that there was not enough time to fully consider the
comments,and he would prefer that staff summarize and respond to the comments in a memo to Planning
Commission. The rest of the CAC agreed.
7. Formal Recommendation on Draft Plan
Marissa Daniels asked if the CAC would like to make a formal recommendation to forward to Planning
Commission to approve the UFMP subject to the following changes:
-Revise recommendation 5.2.b and accompanying text in the UFMP to the effect that instead of"Hire a
greenspace coordinator..." the language should be amended to "Create a greenspace coordinator
position..."
-Revise recommendation 1.1.a and accompanying text in the UFMP to the effect that instead of"Move
tree code from Tigard Development Code to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow for discretionary
review" the language should be amended to "Determine the most appropriate placement for future tree
code provisions within the Tigard Development and Municipal Code Chapters".
Dennis Sizemore made a motion to approve the UFMP as amended and David Walsh seconded the
motion. The CAC then voted unanimously to carry the motion.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Marissa Daniels and Todd Prager closed the meeting by thanking the CAC members for their participation
and handing out certificates of appreciation signed by Mayor Craig Dirksen. The meeting was adjourned at
8:00 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—September 2,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 5 of 5