Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 09/14/2011 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
MEETING #11 - (9/14/2011)
Table of Contents
9/14/2011 Meeting Agenda..............................................................................................................................2
CACMeeting Summary (8/10/2011).............................................................................................................3
Comments.........................................................................................................................................................12
Additional Revisions Incorporated into the Comprehensive Draft........................................................27
Parking Lot Items for Hazard Trees and Tree Permit Requirements.....................................................29
Response to John Frewing and Ken Gertz Comments on the Comprehensive Draft........................36
Draft Guiding Principles for Hazard Trees and Tree Permit Requirements.........................................52
TAC Meeting Summary (8/16/2011)...........................................................................................................55
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 6:00-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223
MEETING GOALS: Review additional revisions and parking lot items for CAC
Review and approve guiding principles for Hazard Trees and Tree Permits
1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6.00-6.20 PM
• Recap Meeting #10
• Approve Meeting #10 Summary
/Adrienne DeDona/
• Review Meeting #11 packet materials
✓ Summary of additional revisions
✓ Summary of Parking Lot Items for Hazard Trees and Tree Permits
✓ Memo re: response to comments received
2. (Info) Public Comment 6:20-6:30 PM
3. (Discussion) Clarifying questions related to code document 6:30-6:50 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
4. (Action) Hazard Trees Guiding Principles 6:50-7:30 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
BREAK
5. (Action) Tree Permits Guiding Principles 7.-35-8:15 PM
/Adrienne DeDona/Todd Prager
6. (Info) Meeting Wrap up/Committee Recognition 8:95-8:30 PM
7. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 8:30 PM
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— September 14, 2011
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
-2-
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting #10
August 10, 2011
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance
Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders John Frewing, Citizen at-large
Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Dave Walsh, Planning Commission
Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Don Schmidt, Planning Commission
Scot Bernhard, Parks & Recreation Advisory Tony Tycer,Tree Board
Committee
Committee members absent
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
John Wyland, Developer
Consultant staff present
Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement
Kelly Skelton,JLA Public Involvement
Staff present
Todd Prager, City of Tigard
Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Information requests from this meeting:
• Darren Wyss will follow up with Jim Hamstra (member of the public) regarding a tree grove
boundary change.
• Todd will provide a response memo to comments received by Ken Gertz and John Frewing
related to the comprehensive code revisions.
Parking lot items and items for further discussion:
• None.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 1
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-3-
Overview Summary
The following is an overview of the main outcomes of the committee's discussion at this meeting:
Standards for Development Guiding Principles:
• The group unanimously approved the draft guiding principles with changes.A complete
version of the guiding principles with suggested changes is attached.
Tree Grove Preservation Guiding Principles:
• The group unanimously approved the draft guiding principles with changes.A complete
version of the guiding principles with suggested changes is attached.
Introductions and Agenda Overview
Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda.The primary purpose of
this meeting is to review and approve the guiding principles developed for the Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation code sections.These principles will be used as a
communication piece to convey the CAC's work to the Planning Commission and City Council when
reviewing and adopting the revised code.
Overview of Last Meeting
Adrienne reviewed the outcomes of the June meeting. The committee wrapped up their conversation
on the draft Tree Grove Preservation Code, and the group seemed satisfied with a few changes related
to a checklist for assessing tree groves and their health and transfer of credit to developers.They also
reviewed the first draft of the tree permit code. The group requested better education for homeowners
about permit requirements for removal, and agreed that there should be a replacement provision for
heritage trees. The group also agreed there should be a requirement for dead tree removal in sensitive
lands.
A good portion of the last meeting was spent discussing what the comprehensive review process would
be like.
Approval of Meeting#9 Summary
Morgan pointed out that her name was misspelled, that was the only change requested. The group
approved the meeting summary with this change.
Review of Meeting Packet Materials
Todd reviewed a few items of interest in the meeting packet.
• On Page 19 is a memo summarizing minor housekeeping revisions made since the last meeting.
• On page 22 is a memo summarizing the remaining parking lot items from previous meetings.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-4-
• On Page 26 is a memo which addresses concerns with canopy standards, it is one of many
standards, and staff agrees that canopy should not be the sole standard by which to measure,
but also soil volume, species, location etc.
• A complete copy of the draft code was sent to the committee, it has an introduction, summary,
and table of contents. The document includes a commentary on the left, code changes on the
right.
o John Frewing said the summary in the code differs from the draft guiding principles and
that they should be consistent.
Public Comment
Jim Hamstra introduced himself. He lives at 13381 SW Essex,Tigard 97223. He explained there is a
ravine on Bull Mountain behind his house that is a significant habitat. He is concerned because the
boundary has recently been changed and identified as a tree grove. He has tried to get the boundary
corrected. Darren Wyss from the City of Tigard asked Jim to send the information to him directly and he
will assist him with getting the boundary changed.Todd clarified for him that the tree inventory is a
general boundary, not at a survey level. If a property owner wanted to take advantage of these
incentives a more detailed analysis would have to be done. Jim went on to say that he is worried about
code changes, and the effect it will have on what homeowners can do to their own trees, he is
concerned that this code revision focuses on developers, not homeowners and is worried that his
neighbors are not aware of these changes. Adrienne mentioned that open houses will be held in
December, and a mailed notification of the open house will be sent to all residences in Tigard. Todd
mentioned that there will also be a legislative process with the City Council to adopt the code that will
include opportunities for public participation and comment. Notification for the open houses will likely
occur in late November and will go to everyone in Tigard.
Clarifying questions related to draft code document
Adrienne asked the committee if they had any clarifying questions related to the draft code revisions.
She reiterated that we would not be going through the code line by line and if members had specific
changes or edits, they should submit those directly to Todd. She explained we are doing this so that we
have enough time to discuss and approve the draft guiding principles since that was the focus of the
meeting.
Ken Gertz had several items for clarification:
• Page 103: 'Tree height of 16 feet...:" He feels a tree is more substantial than 16 feet.Tony said
he agreed.
• Page 123 a1: "Greatest degree possible"... wording is too vague; the language should be more
cut and dry. Developers are looking for a yes or no answer;the code should be clear and
concise. Anything too vague is subject to appeal which will cost the City money.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-5-
• Page 129 A2a1: "Where possible"is too vague.Todd explained that this language is used within
the existing code, only the text with double-underlines is new language.
• Page 131: Ken asked if this section is only for planned developments, or any kind of
development? Todd said a lot of this code is existing code and there is a separate regulatory
improvement project underway to review and edit these parts of the code and that this was not
within the scope of work for this project.
• Page 197a: Regarding buffer trees on flag lots.This new code requires a fence, retaining wall,
and a tree with a soil vault; he doesn't think this is possible. It is his understanding that a buffer
with a tree was never required before, he recommended Todd look into it.
• Page 217: Ken said that the code should provide flexibility to have two separate certified
arborists to work on a project (one to do the assessment, one to do the tree plan). Morgan
replied that it was likely that most certified arborists would be certified to do both parts of the
work. Ken felt that based on tight schedules and timing it would be nice to have the flexibility to
have two different arborists work on a project if arborists are in short supply.
• Page 217c: Ken asked for clarification on this item.Todd clarified for standard development
there is an overall canopy requirement, but there also a minimum canopy per lot of 20%.The
goal is to ensure an even distribution of trees throughout a subdivision. If there is a tree grove
on your property,the lot by lot canopy requirement could be waived to ensure preservation of
the grove. Ken said he does not support this idea, he wants to save trees but he wants credit for
it because its costs him a lot of money to do so. Many of his clients do not want trees on their
lots. He feels if you meet the overall canopy requirement you shouldn't be penalized if one lot
doesn't meet the minimum requirement.
• Page 218: Concerned about the mitigation calculation.The new language means he will be
responsible for mitigating a lot more trees and he thinks this issue needs further discussion
which will happen offline between Ken and Todd.
• Page 234d:The fee must be reasonable.
• Page 247: What does exempt really mean?Todd clarified you wouldn't even need a type 1
permit to do the things listed under#1; it would be an administrative process with staff.
John Frewing commented that he is concerned that except for two small exceptions, no approval criteria
verbiage is used is Section 790.Todd said the City Attorney has reviewed the entire code and all their
edits have been incorporated. He further explained that the reason there are no approval criteria for the
tree plan is because the tree plan is listed as an approval criteria for the overall development. John
argued that this is submittal criteria, not approval criteria.Todd explained that all these issues can be
brought up during the legislative adoption process,which is when the attorney will be heavily involved.
Todd said in the existing code, the chapter doesn't say approval criteria, and no one has ever contested
it.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-6-
Standards for Development Guiding Principles
Todd said the purpose of the guiding principles is to concisely convey the group's sentiments related to
each section of the code to the Planning Commission and the City Council when deliberating the
approval of the code and for staff to use in the future. He said that he recently gave presentations on
the code revisions process to the Planning Commission and the City Council and both seemed
comfortable and supportive of the CAC's work to date. Todd asked both groups to give direction to this
committee during these presentations; no significant changes of direction were requested.
The City Council requested:
• Flexibility in building setback requirements in downtown Tigard because it's a denser space.
• Consider parking lots and tree/lighting conflicts.
• Making sure a homeowners association (not just an individual) can bring a hazard tree claim.
• Try to avoid unclear standards.
Overall both groups were very complimentary and supportive.
Adrienne reviewed the definition of consensus: Consensus does not mean that everyone at the table
agrees with the decision, but does mean everyone has participated, understands, and is committed to
supporting the outcome. She explained that we are not revisiting any decisions that have been made
and that when making suggestions for changes to the guiding principles, members should speak on
behalf of the group to communicate their recollection of what has been done thus far.
Adrienne asked the group to read each section within the Guiding Principles individually and reflect on
the following questions:
1. Are these an accurate reflection of the CAC's work?
2. If not, what is your memory and how is this different?
3. Is anything missing?
The following is a summary of the group's discussion:
• Dave suggested removing the word "major' from the first and second sentences. The group
agreed.
• John said#2 should have "effective canopy" in quotes so that it is highlighted as important.The
group agreed.
• Don Schmidt asked what "more detailed soil volume standards" means. Todd said that is in
comparison to soil descriptions for trees other than street and parking lot trees. The group
agreed to remove the word "more"from that sentence.
• John Frewing also suggested adding the specific canopy target percentages as indicated in the
code summary. The group agreed to add "25-40%" in parenthesis after"effective canopy
targets"
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-7-
• Tony suggested adding the word "protected"to the sentence, "Readily accessible information
on trees benefits citizens...". The group agreed.
• Morgan suggested the change, "grant bonus credits towards tiered canopy targets as an
incentive for tree preservation.John asked to add "grove" but group felt it was unnecessary.
0 Morgan suggested changing "infrastructure" to "Urban Forestry Master Plan". The group
agreed. Bret doesn't like the term "full range", and suggested changing it to "designated range".
The group agreed.
• Morgan suggested adding "To provide greater flexibility in meeting tree canopy requirements,
allow"...Tony asked to add "solar" to "(energy, hydrology, wildlife, etc). The group agreed.
For a complete version of the guiding principles with suggested changes, see the attachment.
Tree Grove Preservation Guiding Principles
Adrienne asked the group to follow the same process as before and read each section within the
Guiding Principles individually and reflect on the following questions:
1. Are these an accurate reflection of the CAC's work?
2. If not, what is your memory and how is this different?
3. Is anything missing?
The following is a summary of the group's discussion:
• John suggested that the introduction be more specific about eligibility,with actual figures. He
proposed a new sentence "to be eligible, groves shall be a minimum size with a significant
percentage preserved ..." Group agreed to this change and also agreed to remove the word
"major".
• Darren suggested adding "set backs"to required lot and unit dimensions in #2. The group
agreed.
• Tony suggested adding "sidewalks, parking"to "street and utility standards".The group agreed.
• Bret questioned what "management" is referring to.The group agreed to delete the words "and
management". The group also agreed that this possibly needs to be updated in the code as well.
For a complete version of the guiding principles with suggested changes, see the attachment.
Meeting wrap-up and next steps
Adrienne congratulated the group on their good work on the guiding principles and said that the next
meeting would be on September 14th. The location for this meeting is yet to be determined. This will be
the last meeting at which they would review and approve the guiding principles for Hazard Trees and
Tree Permits.The comprehensive code will not be sent out in the packet,just the agenda,the parking
lot items and the next set of draft guiding principles.Todd will follow up with John and Ken regarding
their comments on the comprehensive code revisions. He will include a response memo to the whole
group before the next meeting.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-8-
The group unanimously agreed to sign the revised guiding principles for both the Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation, showing their support for these documents.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7
Meeting#10 DRAFT Summary
-9-
Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Development projects build, improve, and maintain public and private infrastructure
i cluding streets and utilities in accordance with city standards. Development projects shall
also contribute to the urban forest component of the city's green infrastructure regardless of
existing site conditions as follows:
Application
1. Provide an urban forestry plan by a certified arborist outlining methods for preserving,
planting, and maintaining trees in accordance with industry accepted standards.
2. Meet tiered "effective canopy" targets 2( 5 - 40%)tailored by zone with:
o New trees that have adequate soil resources, appropriate species, a diverse mix, and
are well placed; or
o Existing trees in good condition, suitable for preservation, appropriate species, and
are well protected during development.
3. Require street trees and parking lot trees to meet-iiiere detailed soil volume standards.
These trees often have limited access to soil needed to support their function of providing
canopy over impervious surfaces.
4. Encourage planting of new trees that will be large stature at maturity to meet tiered canopy
targets. Well placed, large stature trees are proven to have high benefit to cost ratios.
Implementation
5. Require regular monitoring and reporting of an urban forestry plan during the course of
development by a certified arborist to ensure successful implementation.
6. Record spatial and species specific data for inclusion in a publicly accessible inventory of
trees. Readily accessible information on protected trees benefits citizens and the city when
making future decisions in the years following development.
Preservation Incentives and Flexible Standards
7. Grant bonus credits towards tiered canopy targets as an incentive for tree preservation.€er
8. Allow a fee in lieu of meeting tiered canopy requirements to be used for a designatedf-tH
range of activities that support the uUrban€Forest y Master Plan in f,.,...vttet,,
9. To provide greater flexibility in meeting canopy requirements, allowP+evide a discretionary
review track_ This is in lieu of meeting tiered canopy requirements or fees for incorporating
innovative, alternate development proposals that provide equivalent environmental benefits
as trees (energy, hydrology, solar,wildlife, etc.).
10.Allow modifications of an urban forestry plan during the course of development through a
Type I review process so that planting and preservation strategies can be easily adapted.
11. Provide flexibility in sidewalk, parking, landscape, and lot standards to facilitate preservation
and planting.
-10-
Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Within the city limits, 70 native tree groves covering 544 acres have been identified as significant
through the state Goal 5 rule requirements. Development projects with a mapped
Significant Tree Grove shall be eligible for flexible standards and incentives to aid in preserving the
�ove. To be eligible groves shall be a minimum-size a significant percentage preserved. as
Allowed Density
1. Allow reduction of minimum residential density requirements based on the amount of grove
preserved. As more grove is preserved, require fewer units.
2. Allow transfer of residential density from the grove to the non-grove portion of a site. As
more grove is preserved, allow a reduction in required setbacks, lot and unit dimensions.
3. Allow additional building height and reduced setbacks for commercial and industrial
development that preserves a grove.
Neighborhood Compatibility
4. Ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood when transferring density for
grove preservation.
5. Maintain adequate buffering and screening from surrounding development when adding
height and reducing setbacks for commercial and industrial development that preserves a
grove.
Tree Grove Health
6. Waive any lot by lot canopy standard in favor of preserving cohesive canopy from a grove.
7. Establish authority to adjust street, sidewalk, parking and utility standards in favor of
preserving a grove as long as it does not create an unreasonable risk to the public.
8. Require the applicant to work with a certified arborist to maximize the connectivity and
viability of the preserved portion of a grove in accordance with industry accepted standards.
9. Require permanent protection and ffiatiageffient of a grove within a development that
utilizes any of the flexible standards and incentives for grove preservation.
-11-
Patty Lunsford
From: John Frewing <jfrewing@teleport.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:09 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Frewing Comments on Draft Code, 8/10/11
Todd,
Here is an electronic version of what I brought to the meeting this evening. John Frewing
FREWING COMMENTS ON DRAFT TIGARD CODE REVISIONS (URBAN FORESTRY, 8/10/11)
1 The 'guiding principles' are different from the 'summary' of code revisions. They should be
detained and the same. Reference to tree canopy should refer to 'canopy at tree maturity'.
2 There are no 'approval criteria' (with two minor and narrow exceptions, applicable only to
special situations) in 18.790. They should be added. Reference to other documents do not
constitute 'approval criteria' in land use decisions.
3 Section 7.40.060. Add horizontal clearance requirements from sidewalk or pavement.
4 Section 7.40.090. Incorporate 'greenway' definition in code; if it is the same as sensitive
lands, say so in code.
5 Section 8. Add 'applicability' section, as other code sections do.
6 Section 8.02.020. Incorporate the provision that 'the more restrictive requirement applies
where dual requirements are stated in code'.
7 Section 8.02.020. Make the ISA definitions the default definitions for terms not addressed in
Tigard code — eg nursery stock, crown, trunk, root system (eg def BB).
8 Section 8.02.030.Y. Specify that tree canopy is the area 'directly below' the parts of the tree,
not 'covered', since on a windy day, or under late day sun, a different area might be
considered 'covered'. Add that specification of a tree canopy area refers to a particular and
specified time, eg, at planting, or at maturity or some other time.
9 Section 8.04.020. Define the difference between 'City Manager Tree Permits' and City Board
or Commission Tree Permits. Two different things, one for city, one for citizens?
10 Section 18.790.060.A. The word 'acceptance' appears in line 2; what is being accepted,
how is it accepted, is it in writing? Clarify so everyone knows what the time limit is. Regarding
subsequent sale or separation of lots/tracts, the urban forestry plan requirement should be
required to be noted on any assignment, sale, deed, etc.
11 Section 18.790.060.B. The words 'guaranteed and required' appear in line 3; the reference
to Urban Forest Manual refers to 'bonds' that I don't find required elsewhere. Where are (or
include) details of the bonding requirement for establishment of planted trees.
12 UFM, Section 10, Part 1. Include the requirement that the mapping of trees should be
overlain on a drawing of all site development features, like utility ditches, excavation for
sewers, etc. so that a reviewer can determine if interferences exist.
-12-
13 UFM, Section 10, Parts 1, 2 and 3. The UFM (and code definitions) set forth a new term
called 'Development Impact Area', a portion of an overall development site 'affected'
by expected construction activities. Trees are planted in this area with calculated mature
canopy. However, when canopy cover is calculated, this 'Development Impact Area' is not
used as the denominator, but the 'overall development' area is used. Thus the canopy cover
requirement is biased by assuming canopy cover of the site area NOT within the Development
Impact Area' — this is not true in most cases and is a very nonconservative
assumption. Canopy cover should be based on the 'Development Impact Area.'
14 The code words give no hint at the former code wording that 'preservation is preferred
over tree removal'; they should. The code words make no effort to preserve dead/dying trees
that do not present a hazard to people or property; they should.
z
-13-
Patty Lunsford
From: John Frewing <jfrewing@teleport.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: adrienne@jla.us.com
Subject: Approval Criteria
Todd,
I just want to put in writing a bit more explanation of my comment last evening that the proposed Urban Forest
revisions to the Tigard Development Code need to have 'approval criteria' added to them.
The 'mother' provision appears in ORS 227.173 (1), where the basis for decisions is required to be standards and criteria
written in the code which relate approval or denial to the provisions of the code. Last night, I pointed out that the actual
words 'approval criteria' exist in other parts of the code for exactly this purpose. However, in the proposed 18.790, 1
find only two special and detailed elements which have 'approval criteria' and for a regular site development, no
'approval criteria' exist. I pointed out how the Tigard Hearings Officer has treated this matter very narrowly and
carefully, giving examples. In the recent Fields application for extension of Wall St, including a bridge over Fanno Creek,
the Hearings Officer stated (Final Order, page 11) 'the comprehensive plan is not an approval criterion'. He added (same
page), 'TDC 18.360.010.A is a purpose statement, not an approval criterion'. On the next page,the Hearings Officer,
notes that a signature, required on the Land Use Application (city form), ' is an application standard, not an approval
criterion'.
This last decision of the Hearings Officer is important, because in the proposed revisions of TDC 18.790,the code refers
to the Urban Forestry Manual, which is not part of the code, but is an administrative document of the city. Hence,the
provisions of the Urban Forestry Manual are not 'approval criteria'. Going to the LUBA website also provides numerous
examples of where the term 'approval criteria' have been narrowly interpreted.
The two narrow instances where 'approval criteria' are provided in 18.790 of the draft code revisions are for a
discretionary plan review process (18.790.040C) and for flexibility of setbacks to preserve trees (18.790.050B.2).
Last evening, you said that the city believed that the approval criteria of the overarching land use action (eg Site
Development Review, Planned Development, etc.) make the requirements of 18.790 into 'approval criteria'. I
disagree. The new 18.360.070 includes a 'submission requirement' of an urban forest plan, but the 'approval criteria'
for 18.360, ie 18.360.090 DELETES the requirement that 18.790 is to be considered as 'approval criteria'. In fact,the
commentary on 18.360.090 notes only that a 'cross reference' to 18.790 has been provided in 18.360.070,which is not
'approval criteria'.
Please include this further explanation in my comments of last evening and include your response in a response memo
to all CAC persons before the September 14 meeting of the CAC. I necessarily tried to be brief in last evening's
discussion, and could have gone on as written here, but the consultant asked very clearly that we not dwell on issues
with the draft code.
John Frewing
-14-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz <Ken@Gertzco.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 4:17 PM
To: Todd Prager; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna
Subject: Comments to Frewing comments 8/10/11
Todd
My comments listed under Mr. Frewing's.
FREWING COMMENTS ON DRAFT TIGARD CODE REVISIONS (URBAN FORESTRY, 8/10/11)
2 There are no `approval criteria' (with two minor and narrow exceptions, applicable only to special situations)
in 18.790. They should be added. Reference to other documents do not constitute `approval criteria' in land
use decisions.
That is simply not true.
5 Section 8. Add `applicability' section, as other code sections do.
6 Section 8.02.020. Incorporate the provision that `the more restrictive requirement applies where dual
requirements are stated in code'.
I prefer the more "appropriate" requirement as the more restrictive may not be the best option.
9 Section 8.04.020. Define the difference between `City Manager Tree Permits' and City Board or Commission
Tree Permits. Two different things, one for city, one for citizens?
It reads to me that one is for type 1 approvals and one is for type 2 where a variance to the code is required as
for Solar Access.
10 Section 18.790.060.A. The word `acceptance' appears in line 2; what is being accepted, how is it accepted,
is it in writing? Clarify so everyone knows what the time limit is. Regarding subsequent sale or separation of
lots/tracts, the urban forestry plan requirement should be required to be noted on any assignment, sale, deed, etc.
I don't think a subsequent sale document is necessary or practical and the CAC has already voiced it's opinion
on that several times.
i
-15-
12 UFM, Section 10, Part 1. Include the requirement that the mapping of trees should be overlain on a drawing
of all site development features, like utility ditches, excavation for sewers, etc. so that a reviewer can determine
if interferences exist.
This cannot be reasonably done in most instances and should not be a requirement. To include all the
requirements asked for would render the plan illegible.
Additionally, since preservation is rewarded in the new code, the additional requirement becomes a mute point
and an additional expense and burden on the home owner.
Also, in my experience, blanket requirements like this lead the novice to believe conditions are different then
they actually are. For instance, for excavation, many things need to be taken into account to calculate how
much room is needed to dig a sewer trench. Depth of pipe, pipe size, manhole locations, lateral locations,
additional width with shoring, evacuation of the spoils, reloading back-fill, equipment maneuverability, all of
which multiply exponentially in loose soils. What may look like a massively wide ditch may in reality not be
wide enough. Misreading drawings by novices has be figured into many appeals. So don't go there.
13 UFM, Section 10, Parts 1, 2 and 3. The UFM (and code definitions) set forth a new term called
`Development Impact Area', a portion of an overall development site `affected' by expected construction
activities. Trees are planted in this area with calculated mature canopy. However, when canopy cover is
calculated, this `Development Impact Area' is not used as the denominator, but the `overall development' area
is used. Thus the canopy cover requirement is biased by assuming canopy cover of the site area NOT within the
Development Impact Area' —this is not true in most cases and is a very nonconservative assumption. Canopy
cover should be based on the `Development Impact Area.'
I think what is intended, is that in order to preserve a section of trees, that section of land may be excluded from
the Development Impact Area, so as an incentive to the preservation of the trees, it would behoove the code to
include those trees into the calculation.
14 The code words give no hint at the former code wording that `preservation is preferred over tree removal';
they should. The code words make no effort to preserve dead/dying trees that do not present a hazard to people
or property; they should.
Preservation is preferred over tree removal has been brought up and shot down in appeals several times. It has
no legal bearing and therefore should not be included. Also, no clear and objective standard can be made.
While I understand and agree with the preservation of dead/dying trees, the preservation of a dead tree should
be left up to the owner as they are the ones who will be liable for it.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
2
-16-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz <Ken@Gertzco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:30 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna
Subject: Re: Comments Frewing August 11, 2011
Please include them in the packet.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
On 8/23/20118:24 AM, Todd Prager wrote:
Thanks for you emails Ken. Question...did you want me to include this email and your previous email in the packet
under the "comments" section or do you simply want me to consider your comments when responding to John's
comments for the next CAC packet?
Thanks,
Todd
From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 20114:23 PM
To: Todd Prager; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna
Subject: Comments Frewing August 11, 2011
Todd,
I see John Frewing is pushing hard to make the entire new tree code and UFM approval criteria. As you
know,he is a frequent appelent, and of all people and he should be well versed in what this would do to hamper
the Cities ability to conduct it's business efficiently. I would suggest you think long and hard before adding the
new tree code and UFM provisions to the list of Approval Criteria. Doing so would only add fuel to the fire,
opening the entire tree code and possibly the Urban Forestry Manual up to costly and delaying appeal after
appeal. In at least two of John Frewing's recent appeals,both the Hearings Officer and LUBA deemed certain
provisions of the tree code to not be approval criteria(instead they were application requirements or purpose
statements). This is an important distinction because these types of provisions are not subject to substantive
appeal under Oregon land use law. My suspicion is that he is trying to add loop holes that can be exploited in
the quasi-judicial process.
ORS 197.307(3)(b), as well as John's citing of ORS 227.173 clearly state that cities like Tigard must
only apply clear and objective standards in regulating residential development. Because much of the Tree
code is discretionary and designed to be flexible, it is not clear and objective and is not appropriate approval
criteria.
There are some things that are clearly approval criteria, while other portions of the tree code are not
practically enforceable or may not be applicable in all circumstances.
1
-17-
Unfortunately, a handful of anti progress people will try to use the code to stifle needed development
and upgrading. In my 35 years of experience, codes are a case of less is more. Providing a short list of
Approval Criteria is much preferred and easier to manage. Approval criteria should be something that can be
clearly determined as "does comply" or"does not comply." Where the City wants to add flexibility in the
Code, it is best done at the applicant's option.
Additionally, one of the biggest problems of the current tree code is the inability to change the plan as
needed to meet changes that develop. The fact that the tree plan under the new code is open to change after the
project has been approved makes it even more imperative it be an Application Requirement and NOT an
Approval Criteria.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule."
2
-18-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz<Ken@Gertzco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:29 AM
To: Todd Prager; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna; Ernie Platt; Dave Nielson
Subject: Forestry Code Response 8/22/11
Attachments: Gertz Forestry Code Response 8-22-11.doc
Todd,
See attached Word Doc. Let me know if you did not get it.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
i
-19-
Todd,
You guys have done a great job and I appreciate all you have done. There are still a few
glitches,but I am optimistic these can be worked out. This new code will be a far cry
better than the old one and is sure to do a much better job of adding canopy to Tigard.
Good job team.
Here are my comments of the code dated 8/10/11. I included page numbers for quick
reference to hopefully speed your review. Please include in the packet or as necessary.
Page 21 8.04.020.1)Allow for extensions and also grant extensions and continue as
necessary throughout the document.
Page 123 18.350.070.A.4.a.1 Greatest degree possible? As this is an approval criterion,I
suggest you remove this statement as it is not enforceable.
Page 129 18.360.090.A.2.a.1 where possible As it is an approval criterion,what exactly
is where possible? Needs to be clear and objective. Trees can be removed,topography
can be overcome and drainage can be rerouted or it drainage is in a buffer and handled by
CWS/DEQ. I think this whole line can be removed.
Page 131 18.360.090.12.a Is this a requirement for all developments or just PUDs? And
if so when is it required? Is the numbering correct? It does not seem to jive with page
129 with the same 18.360.090.
Page 197 18.745.050.B.4.a. Buffer trees This does not work with the current standards
for partial street improvements,flag lots or private drives. Remember fences and
retaining walls also need to be installed in the same location in many instances. Also foot
paths as the one I build at Weigela. If these requirements are required,density will
certainly be severely impacted. Suggest exempting at least these items and there may be
more like this. Should check with Cheryl and Kim on this.
Page 217 18.790.030.0. The minimum 20%tree requirement is a bad idea. The way I
read this is if I were to meet my requirements for canopy coverage through preservation
or planting on the overall site,I will still have to pay a fee for any lot that is under 20%
canopy. This idea is counter productive to the intent of the preservation of trees under
the UFM. There are a lot of people that do not want trees on there lots. It is an incentive
to me to be able to save or plant on my other lots in order to provide some lots with no
trees. Why should I save trees if I am still going to have to pay in the end? The cost of
saving may not be worth the effort if that is the case.
Page 221 18.790.040.C.La Shouldn't Views also be included as discussed at the CAC?
Page 231 18.790.050.C. Didn't the CAC decide less than 50%would still be beneficial?
-20-
Page 243 18.790.060.D. Processing Fee Consider adding a reasonable to processing fee.
I would like a number here. We don't want it to be another way to charge what would
amount to another S.D.C.
Page 247 18.790.070.B.I The way I read this,the exemptions would not be using a type 1
and would then do a type 2? Shouldn't all this section be performed under a type 1?
Page 247 18.790.070.B.1.a The way that I read this removing a tree that is on a tree plan
is not covered under the type 1 process so would be a type 2? If so,this would be counter
to what we have been talking about all along,regarding being able to modify the tree plan
as needed. What I prefer to do is to save as many trees as possible,then decide if the tree
needs to be removed when the home is built. It allows me to save more trees that way.
But if I am going to be required to do a type 2,I will mark them as remove and cut them
with the development. That's silly.
Page 275 Section 7 Part l.b.I For development,the requirement for a target should be
removed as the target will be there,but is not there now. For that matter,target should be
removed altogether,as there is nearly always a target in the city.
General Note:I see in my notes the requirement to GPS the trees. I would think the plot
plan that shows the trees is adequate for planted and saved trees. It is really costly to
bring in a surveyor to GPS a tree after the home is done. It would cost more to GPS the
tree than it cost to plant it in the first place. GPS locating trees will also add significantly
to cost of the development compared to what we do know. A tree is a pretty big thing
and hard to miss,I think a plat map is all that is necessary.
Page 291 Section 10 Part 3 m.ii.a. Would a small group of trees like one saved from a
stand of trees be classified as open grown? It is not really a stand and not really open
grown is it? I would assume that if I saved a group of 3 trees out of a stand of trees it
would count for the full canopy,not just one tree or even worse no trees.
Perhaps the language should be modified to include all trees. I think you could remove
m.ii.b if you did.
Page 291 Section 10 Part 3 m.c. Because it is such a big part of the tree canopy
calculations,I think we need a statement added that specifically talks about and allows
for the counting of the entire planted or standing street tree canopy towards canopy
coverage whether the associated right of way is a part of the development or not. I see on
page 191 5.c it speaks to the existing trees,but I don't see anything specifically about
planted street trees,and neither one clearly acknowledge that the entire canopy will be
counted toward the canopy coverage whether it is overhanging the site or the right of way
adjacent,but not technically apart of the development. For instance,I could see this as a
problem where there was a minor partition or development that did not do street
improvements,so technically the tree is not covering"associated"right of way. A
simple statement like"The entire mature canopy of all street trees including portions
extending beyond the overall development site"should suffice.
-21-
Page 292 Section 10 Part 3 nd I believe that 40%is too high a number for canopy
coverage. I think a more reasonable number would be 25-30%to be achievable and not
have the future owners cut them down to allow sun into their yards. The requirement
should be such to allow for increasing trees across other lots so as to provide some lots
with no trees. As forests have meadows,so we should have shade free lawns.
Page 292 Section 10 Part 3 n.i Single Family lots smaller than R-4.5 should be exempt as
the majority of the tree canopy will come from required street trees,as there is little room
for planting trees in people's yards. Due to demand for family homes on low
maintenance lots,and the influx of A.D.U.and Casitas for extended family members we
are currently building 3400 Sq Ft homes on 4500 Sq Ft lots which is within the allowable
use of the property and is a preferred by Metro. The homes are all the way to the setback
lines. By the time we build a deck or patio,there is no room for appreciable trees in the
back or side yards. It is only reasonable to exempt small lots and save a lot of trouble.
Page 292 o. The minimum 20%tree requirement is a bad idea. The way I read this is if I
were to meet my requirements for canopy coverage through preservation or planting on
the overall site,I will still have to pay a fee for any lot that is under 20%canopy. This
idea is counter productive to the intent of the preservation of trees under the UFM. There
are a lot of people that do not want trees on there lots. It is an incentive to me to be able
to save or plant on my other lots in order to provide some lots with no trees. Why should
I save trees if I am still going to have to pay in the end? The cost of saving may not be
worth the effort if that is the case.
Page 293 Section 10 Part 4 a.La This is a really high fee you are asking for. I was unable
to find the price of a tree on the PNC-ISA web site so I assumed the$174.00 referenced
in the commentary on Page 218. A 7500 Square Foot Lot would equate to 50.847 trees.
50.847X$174.00=$8,847.46. With a number like this,you can expect it to causing
hard feelings between the citizens and the City and that the home owners will plant the
trees and remove them at their convenience.
One of the flaws in the math is the use of 59 Sq.Ft. If I were going to plant a tree,I
would get credit for a tree of 706 Sq.Ft. So why are we not using that number,which
would be 4.25 trees. 4.25 X$174.00=$739.50. That seems a more reasonable number
to use to charge someone to not plant trees on their own lot.
Page 293 Section 10 Part 4 a.ii The minimum 20%tree requirement is a bad idea. The
way I read this is if I were to meet my requirements for canopy coverage through
preservation or planting on the overall site,I will still have to pay a fee for any lot that is
under 20%canopy. This idea is counter productive to the intent of the preservation of
trees under the UFM. There are a lot of people that do not want trees on there lots. It is
an incentive to me to be able to save or plant on my other lots in order to provide some
lots with no trees. Why should I save trees if I am still going to have to pay in the end?
The cost of saving may not be worth the effort if that is the case.
-22-
Page 295 Section 11 UFP Part 1.c.Sight inspection should only be required when
existing trees are saved.
Page 295 Section 11 UFP Part 1.d.This seems odd. If there are several builders in a
development,why would an individual builder have to inspect the whole community and
open spaces? Shouldn't this be incorporated into Part 1.c.and just do it once before any
permits are pulled for buildings?
NOTE:I would assume the tree plan can automatically be modified without fee with a
building permit. This would include the distribution of planted trees throughout the
development. This should be in the code someplace.
Note:The responsibility for maintaining existing and planting trees should be able to be
passed on from the developer to the builder or building permit applicant.
Page 296 Section 11 UFP Part 2 d. I am concerned about the ability for the developer or
builder to warranty any tree beyond the first home occupancy,as the developer or builder
has absolutely no control over the tree once the keys are handed over,nor do they or the
City have the right to trespass to even inspect the trees let alone water and fertilize them.
With the Dollar amounts you are talking about,this may be a hardship penalty many
builders are not willing to risk with negative results. Consider exempting single family
lots from this standard. Just require the planting be verified at Occupancy Permit.
Page 296 Section 11 UFP Part 2 e. Successful establishment shall be 80%survival. So
what is the replacement of 100%about? So if 20%die,you have to replace them and
that is what is required?
Page 296 Section 11 UFP Part 2 g.So if an owner removes the trees and the time limit
runs out,the developer/builder is on the hook for another 2 years,and so on and so on
throughout eternity? Crazy on residential lots see above page 296 Part 2 d.
Page 297 Section 12 Part 1 a.The Table. The way I read this,a public street would
require a 1000 CF volume. So in a standard 5'planter 3'deep,you would need 66.66
LF? 66.66 X 5 X 3=1000. A pretty good trick when you figure the street trees are
spaced 30'apart.Is that for real? So every single street tree would need some sort of
special vault? If so we require a cost effective way to achieve these soil volumes. Also
some drawings would be helpful.
Page 265 Section 2 Part 1 £i-v Planting next to a hard surface seems to be inconsistent
with planting in a planter strip next to a curb and sidewalk. Pease find all instances and
correct as it would appear that only small stature trees can be planted in a standard planter
strip? And it is inconsistent with Page 265 Section 2 Part 1 g of the same chapter
regarding root barriers,which would require root barriers be installed on all street trees
up to a 10'planter strip. That is really brutal. Also see page 274 e.vi-viii and 276.D.iii.e-
g and PG 277.e-g,Pg 280C.iii.e-g.and site plan requirements and probably more places
later in the book.
-23-
Note: Are all the trees in the various attachments approved for planter strips or are they
just trees that are approved for general planting? Should there be a separate list for street
trees? I did not see a list on the old 18.745.040 B but it seems there was one that was
available at the counter?
-24-
Patty Lunsford
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:26 AM
To: 'Jim Hamstra'
Cc: Darren Wyss
Subject: RE: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting#10-August 10,
2011
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your comments. I want to respond to both:
1. As I mentioned at the August 10, 2011 CAC meeting,tree permits are not proposed to be expanded to additional
areas where they are not already required. Also,the tree grove overlay is not intended to be survey quality, but
will be further refined if a development project intends on utilizing the incentives for preservation.
2. Concerning the wildfire issue, staff has worked on this with TVF&R. A new line has been added to the approval
criteria for tree removal in the draft code that if the fire marshal recommends removal of a tree on the basis
that it presents a significant fire hazard that cannot be abated by pruning or other non-removal method, it will
be permitted for removal.
I hope this addresses your concerns, and thank you for commenting and participating in this project.
Sincerely,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: Jim Hamstra [mailto:jrhamstra@gmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20117:29 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting #10 - August 10, 2011
Todd,
I am sitting in the meeting and I want to go on-record with two concerns:
1) Extension of the protected/regulated areas beyond the aleady-defined sensitive areas and significant habitat areas -
specifically as this relates to already-developed lots
2)Wildfire protectio recommendations to limit high-gowing vegetation near structures. There have been a few wildfires in
the Portland metro area that were difficult to control - basically they raced up ravines and threatened structures along the
rim. For fire safety there needs to be allowance for owners in potentially threatened areas to clear vegetation within some
reasonable distance of structures in ares with dense vegetation. For a back yard like mine there is a difficult tradeoff
between maintaining sufficient vegetation to limit soil movement while avoiding excessive storm and fire hazard.
I have previously raised both of these issues verbally and I have yet to see any results.
In my case I am taking the precaution of removing any trees now that I think may be problematic later.
-25-
From: Todd Prager <todd ti.ard-or.aov>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 20118:37 AM
Subject: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting #10 - August 10, 2011
Dear Members of the Public,
You are receiving this email because of an expressed interest in Tigard urban forestry.
I have posted the packet for the next UFCR CAC meeting and the comprehensive draft code to the UFCR website at:
http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision.asp.
The next CAC meeting will be held:
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
6:00-9:00 pm
Tigard Town Hall (where Council meets at City Hall)
13125 Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Please find in the packet:
• CAC Meeting Summary (6/8/2011)
• Comments
• Housekeeping Revisions Incorporated into the Comprehensive Draft Code
• Parking Lot Items for Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
• Memo Regarding the Canopy Standard
• Draft Guiding Principles for Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Thank you,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule."
2
-26-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Summary of Additional Revisions Incorporated into the Comprehensive
Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Date: August 23, 2011
Introduction
Staff has completed another review of the Comprehensive Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions to
identify any necessary revisions to improve code clarity, consistency and effectiveness. When
completing the review, staff paid particular attention to additional revisions suggested by CAC
members. Below is a summary of the additional revisions that have been incorporated into the
comprehensive draft since the August 10, 2011 meeting of the CAC. Please note that the
comprehensive draft has been reviewed by the city attorney and will be further refined during the
upcoming technical review process.
Summary of Additional Revisions
1. Revised the title of Albert Shields in the acknowledgements section to Program Development
Specialist to reflect his new title.
2. Made additional revisions throughout the document to conform to AP style requirements which
is the city standard.
3. Revised the background and summary section to incorporate the CAC's "Guiding Principles" to
serve as the summary of the code revisions.
4. Revised page numbers throughout the document as needed to reflect a shift in page numbers
due to the additional revisions.
5. Revised section 8.02.030 by adding a comprehensive definition of"Person" (which is the same
definition of"Person" in Title 18). Council requested this at their July 19, 2011 meeting so it is
clear that a homeowners association (or other group) would have standing utilize the hazard tree
evaluation and abatement procedure (see code section 8.08.030) if they have the potential to be
impacted by a hazard tree.
6. Code amendments for chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) were mistakenly omitted from the
August 10, 2011 comprehensive draft. The CAC reviewed these amendments separately at a
prior meeting, and they got separated from the comprehensive document. They have been
-27-
incorporated into the comprehensive document without any changes to the text previously
reviewed by the CAC. Commentary has been added for the code amendments explaining the
reasons for adding cross references between chapters 18.775 and 18.790 (Urban Forestry Plan).
7. Revised section 18.790.050.0 (Additional Flexible Standards and Incentives for the Preservation
of Significant Tree Groves) by striking the text requiring "permanent management" of
significant tree groves that utilize any of the flexible standards or incentives during development.
The CAC consensus at the August 10, 2011 meeting was that the term "permanently preserved"
is sufficient, and requiring permanent management is overly burdensome.
S. Revised section 18.790.060.A (Urban Forestry Plan Implementation, General Provisions) to
clarify the timeframe that an urban forestry plan is considered active. The term "final
acceptance" has been replaced with "the director determines all applicable urban forestry plan
conditions of approval and code requirements have been met".
9. Revised the approval criteria in Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Urban Forestry Manual to
allow tree removal through the City Manager Decision Making Procedures when a tree is
recommended for removal by the fire marshal. The fire marshal has agreed to evaluate trees to
determine if they present fire hazards to habitable structures or limit emergency access for
rescue workers. The fire marshal will work with the city arborist to determine whether
alternatives to tree removal such as pruning or other treatment are feasible, with removal being
the last resort to abate fire hazard or emergency access issues. The commentary in Title 8 has
been correspondingly revised to reflect the additional tree removal approval criteria for fire
hazard and emergency access issues.
10. Revised Section 10, part 2, items 1 and m in the Urban Forestry Manual to allow flexibility in the
placement of trees relative to the face of habitable buildings in downtown Tigard. Council
requested this change at their July 19, 2011 meeting because downtown Tigard has more limited
space for tree planting, and requiring minimum setbacks from buildings in all cases could result
in less trees downtown. The revised text allows the city manager or designee to consider
reduced setbacks from habitable buildings in downtown Tigard on a case by case basis.
11. Section 11, part 1 items a-d have been revised to clarify that site inspections are for tree
protection measures.
12.Revised the title of Attachment 2 (street tree lists) to clarify that the trees are approved for use
as street trees.
-28-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Summary of Parking Lot Items for Urban Forestry Standards for
Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Date: August 11, 2011
Due to limited meeting time, a number of issues raised by Citizen Advisory Committee members
but not fully addressed at meetings have been placed in a list of "Parking Lot" items to be
addressed as part of the comprehensive review phase of the project. Below are the Parking Lot
items from the topics of Hazard Trees and Tree Permit Requirements, with a staff update/response
and applicable code sections. Citizen Advisory Committee members may choose to discuss further
at the September 14, 2011 meeting.
-29-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
1. Hazard Define legal standing of This has been incorporated into the 8.08.030
Trees claimant as someone who draft code. Claimant must have the
will be impacted by the potential to be impacted by a tree
hazard tree. before they have legal standing to
engage the in the hazard tree evaluation
and abatement procedure.
2. Hazard Fee for bringing a claim for Fee schedule is a council decision. A N/A
Trees hazard tree should be lower CAC recommendation on fees could be
than$500. forwarded to council during the
adoption process.
3. Hazard Definition of noxious This has not been incorporated into the 7.40.050
Trees vegetation should exclude draft code although the concern has
compost piles. been addressed. Code enforcement
staff has verified that properly managed
compost piles are not considered
noxious vegetation. Modifications to
the text of the Nuisance Chapter (7.40)
not related to trees is a separate,
ongoing project that the public may
participate in.
4. Hazard Allow for other options This has been incorporated into the 8.02.030
Trees besides removal of a hazard draft code. Definition of"hazard tree
tree. abatement" allows for abatement
through "pruning...or other means
necessary."
5. Hazard Carry forward hazard tree This has been incorporated into the 18.120.030
Trees definition to development draft code. Definition of hazard tree is 8.02.030
code and other sections of the same in Title 18 and Title 8.
the code.
-30-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
6. Hazard Treat hazard trees on This has not been incorporated into the 8.02.030
Trees developed property draft code. The definition for hazard
differently from hazard trees trees incorporates the probability of
on developable property. failure, size of defective part, and target,
whether on developed or developable
property. The International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) standard is to apply
the rating system consistently to each
situation. If a property is in the process
of developing, the evaluator could
factor any additional targets into their
evaluation. Staff recommends not
creating a separate evaluation process
for developed and developable property
because it is inconsistent with industry
standard.
7. Hazard The city should follow the This has been incorporated into the 8.08.030
Trees same standards for hazard draft code. The proposed code does
trees as citizens. not differentiate between the city and
citizens. For example, a citizen could
bring a hazard tree claim against the city
(as periodically happens). In this case,
the city would be subject to the same
requirements as any other citizen.
8. Hazard Address stand management This has been incorporated into the 8.04.020
Trees of a large scale insect draft code. Stand management for
infestation in tree stands. items such as pest and disease
outbreaks and overstocking of trees is a
permitted activity through the City
Manager Decision Making Procedures
for all the re ated tree types in Title 8.
9.Hazard Define natural habitat areas This has not been incorporated into the 7.40.090
Trees where grass can be kept 10" draft code. It was identified as out of
high. Improve definition of scope for the Urban Forestry Code
"noxious vegetation" to Revisions project. Modifications to the
exclude vegetation in natural text of the Nuisance Chapter (7.40) not
areas so that vegetation in related to trees is a separate, ongoing
natural areas does not have project that the public may participate
to be maintained at 10" high. in.
-31-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
1. Tree The city should assume This is inherently addressed through 8.10.040
Permit risk when they decline an the city's permitting functions.
Requirements application for removal of There is risk associated with all
a tree. permitting decisions made by the
city. Adherence to code
requirements, administrative
procedures and clearly documenting
the basis for decision making limits
(but does not eliminate) the city's risk
when making permitting decisions.
2. Tree Fines for illegal removal This has been incorporated into the 8.20.040
Permit of trees (increase?) draft code. A minimum fine is
Requirements proposed ($250) as well as a
maximum fine (the city's cost to
plant and maintain an equivalent
number of trees as the diameter of
the one that was removed) for
violations of the tree removal
provisions. There was previous CAC
consensus on the issue.
3. Tree Soil compaction and soil This has been incorporated into the 18.745.040
Permit vaults (for street trees) draft code. Soil preparation and 18.790.050
Requirements planting requirements for street trees
are required by Chapter 18.745
according to the specifications in the
Urban Forestry Manual. Minimum
soil volume requirements are tied to
the width of the sidewalk right of
way. Flexible standards to increase
the size of the planting strip to
provide additional soil volume for
street trees without losing
development potential is allowed by
Chapter 18.790.
-32-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
4. Tree ISA and ANSI standards This concern has been addressed. 8.02.030
Permit need to be clear and easy The city has copies of ISA and ANSI 18.120.030
Requirements to research by the public standards available for public review (Def. of Tree
within the permit center. Staff is Care Industry
available to explain ISA and ANSI Standards)
standards when there are questions
by the public. There are also a
number of websites and
organizations available to explain
ISA and ANSI standards as well as
other best urban forestry practices.
In addition, according to the Urban
Forestry Master Plan,increasing
urban forestry education and
outreach materials is part of the city's
upcoming work program after the
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
project is complete. This will allow
for an opportunity to explain the
code provisions in an easy to
understand and user friendly way.
5. Tree Sidewalk size should be This has been incorporated into the 18.790.050
Permit flexible to allow for street draft code. Flexible standards to
Requirements trees increase the size of the planting strip
to provide additional soil volume for
street trees without losing
development potential is allowed by
Chapter 18.790.
-33-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
6. Tree There should be better This has been incorporated into the 18.790.060
Permit education to homeowners draft code. Chapter 18.790 requires
Requirements about which of their trees the recording of spatial and species
require permits for specific data for inclusion in a
removal. publicly accessible inventory of trees.
This will allow homeowners to
access information on their trees in
the years following development via
computer so they can easily
determine which trees require
permits. In addition, the city
currently has a program that mails
out postcards on a quarterly basis to
all new Tigard property owners
informing them about the city's tree
regulations and to "click/call before
you cut". The city regularly assists
homeowners in determining which
trees require permits for removal.
Finally, according to the Urban
Forestry Master Plan,increasing
urban forestry education and
outreach is part of the city's
upcoming work program after the
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
project is complete. This could
include additional outreach to
homeowners about the city's new
regulations and which trees require
permits for removal.
7. Tree Need to clarify the intent This has been incorporated into the 8.04.020
Permit that if there is not room commentary of the draft code by (commentary)
Requirements for a new tree, then an in adding the statement"If there is not
lieu of fee should not be room on site for a replacement tree,
required. then no fee in lieu is re uired."
-34-
TOPIC PARKING LOT ITEM STAFF UPDATE/RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
—;.,—Tree There should be a This has not been incorporated into 8.18.070
Permit replacement provision for the draft code. The heritage tree
Requirements heritage trees just like program is a voluntary program for
there is for other tree recognizing and protecting
removal situations. exceptional trees. The process for
designating a heritage tree requires
Tree Board and City Council
approval through a public process.
Heritage trees may only be removed
due to condition (dead, severe
decline, hazard) or through a public
review process. Thus heritage trees
are the most protected category of
trees in Tigard. Staff recommends
not requiring replacement of heritage
trees for four main reasons. First,
the replacement tree will replace the
unique attributes for which the
original heritage tree was designated.
Next,if the replacement tree is also
considered a heritage tree,it will not
have been so designated through the
formal,public Tree Board and City
Council approval process as required
for other heritage trees. Third, there
are not that many heritage trees in
Tigard, so not requiring replacement
will have an insignificant impact on
the overall urban forest. Finally,
there is already reluctance by
property owners to nominate
heritage trees because of the
restrictions against removing them.
If these restrictions are extended to
not only the subject heritage tree,but
also every replacement tree,it may
provide an additional disincentive for
the heritage tree program.
9. Tree Add a provision to the This has been addressed. Permits 8.12.020
Permit code that a permit should will be required to remove dead trees 8.12.040
Requirements be required for dead tree in sensitive lands. Necessary changes
removal on sensitive have been made to sections 8.12.020
lands. and 8.12.040 and section 6 of the
Urban Forestry Manual.
-35-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Response to John Frewing and Ken Gertz Comments
Date: August 17, 2011
John Frewing and Ken Gertz had a number of written comments about the comprehensive draft
code at the August 10, 2011 Citizen Advisory Committee meeting. Due to limited meeting time,
the Citizen Advisory Committee requested a written response to their comments for the September
14, 2011 meeting. Below is staff's response to the comments.
-36-
John Frewing Comments
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
1. The `guiding principles' are different from the Staff will integrate the guiding principles into the
`summary' of code revisions. They should be background and summary section of the code
detained and the same. Reference to tree revisions so they are the same. The specific
canopy should refer to `canopy at tree maturity'. language of the guiding principles will be
determined by the CAC through consensus.
2. There are no `approval criteria' (with two Chapter 18.790 contains development standards
minor and narrow exceptions, applicable only that are required to be met for a variety of Type
to special situations) in 18.790. They should be II and III land use permits (CUP, DDR,MLP,
added. Reference to other documents do not PD, SLR, SDR, and SUB). The approval criteria
constitute `approval criteria'in land use for each of these land use permits references
decisions. compliance with all applicable development
standards,which includes the development
standards in chapter 18.790. This continues
current administration of the development code.
As requested, the city attorney has reviewed and
a roved this response.
3. Section 7.40.060. Add horizontal clearance Section 7.40.060.A requires minimum horizontal
requirements from sidewalk or pavement. clearance of 8 feet above sidewalks and 13 feet
above streets.
4. Section 7.40.090. Incorporate `greenway' This revision was identified as out of scope for
definition in code;if it is the same as sensitive this project because it extends beyond the issue
lands, say so in code. of trees.
5. Section 8. Add `applicability' section, as Some chapters in the existing code include an
other code sections do. applicability section and some do not. This has
not been identified by the city attorney as a
requirement for the draft code.
6. Section 8.02.020. Incorporate the provision Section 8.02.020 states that the more restrictive
that `the more restrictive requirement applies provisions apply when there is a conflict
where dual requirements are stated in code'. between multiple code provisions.
7. Section 8.02.020. Make the ISA definitions Section 8.02.020 states that terms not addressed
the default definitions for terms not addressed in the code have their normal dictionary
in Tigard code—eg nursery stock, crown, trunk, meaning. This allows staff to define terms using
root system (eg def BB). dictionary definitions as issues arise.
8. Section 8.02.030.Y. Specify that tree canopy Section 8.02.030 provides a general definition
is the area `directly below' the parts of the tree, for tree canopy to describe what it is. Section
not`covered', since on a windy day, or under 10,part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual
late day sun, a different area might be provides the specific methods for calculating
considered `covered'. Add that specification of "effective tree canopy cover" to meet standards
a tree canopy area refers to a particular and for development.
specified time, eg, at planting, or at maturity or
some other time.
-37-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
9. Section 8.04.020. Define the difference The purpose statement in section 8.04.010
between `City Manager Tree Permits' and City generally describes the difference between the
Board or Commission Tree Permits. Two city manager process and the city board or
different things, one for city, one for citizens? commission process. The procedures in section
8.04.020 explain that approval for the city
manager process is based on the approval
criteria in the Urban Forestry Manual (dead,
dying, hazard, etc.). The approval for the city
board or commission process is discretionary
with a weighing of the tree benefits and reasons
for removal.
10. Section 18.790.060.A. The word For clarification as to when an urban forestry
`acceptance' appears in line 2;what is being plan is no longer active, the term "final
accepted,how is it accepted,is it in writing? acceptance"has been replaced with "the director
Clarify so everyone knows what the time limit determines all applicable urban forestry plan
is. Regarding subsequent sale or separation of conditions of approval and code requirements
lots/tracts, the urban forestry plan requirement have been met"in section 18.790.060.A. This
should be required to be noted on any will be documented in the city's permit tracking
assignment, sale, deed, etc. system (as is current practice).
Regarding subsequent activities on a property,
the CAC consensus was to use education and
outreach (property owner mailings,newsletters,
publicly accessible inventory of protected trees,
etc.) to alert owners of any tree re uirements.
11. Section 18.790.060.B. The words Section 18.790.060.B references Section 11, part
`guaranteed and required' appear in line 3; the 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Section 11,
reference to Urban Forest Manual refers to part 2 describes the tree establishment
`bonds' that I don't find required elsewhere. requirements for all trees planted to meet the
Where are (or include) details of the bonding Urban Forestry Plan requirements. The bond
requirement for establishment of planted trees. amount is the city's cost to plant and maintain a
tree for two years (which will be included in the
city's Master Fees and Charges Schedule)
multiplied by the total number of planted trees.
After the trees are planted and survive for two
years the bond will be reduced following written
verification by the project arborist. This
essentially documents the city's current practice
for tree mitigation, except it is expanded to all
trees (street trees,parking lot trees, etc.).
-38-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
12. UFM, Section 10,Part 1. Include the Section 10,part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual
requirement that the mapping of trees should requires all development impacts (construction,
be overlain on a drawing of all site development grading,paving, trenching, etc.) to be shown on
features, like utility ditches, excavation for the urban forestry plan in relation to existing
sewers, etc. so that a reviewer can determine if trees. There is an allowance for the
interferences exist. development impacts to be detailed separately
on multiple plan sheets as long as existing trees
are included for reference. This will allow the
reviewer (and applicant) to determine if conflicts
exist.
13. UFM, Section 10, Parts 1, 2 and 3. The The development impact area is the portion of
UFM (and code definitions) set forth a new the site that will be disturbed by development
term called `Development Impact Area', a (construction,grading,paving, trenching, etc.).
portion of an overall development site `affected' The urban forestry plan calls for more detailed
by expected construction activities. Trees are information on individual trees in the
planted in this area with calculated mature development impact area so the reviewer and
canopy. However,when canopy cover is applicant can determine if conflicts exist with
calculated, this `Development Impact Area'is existing trees. The effective canopy requirement
not used as the denominator, but the `overall is for the overall development site which is often
development' area is used. Thus the canopy larger than the development impact area,
cover requirement is biased by assuming canopy particularly in cases where there are sensitive
cover of the site area NOT within the lands that will not be disturbed by development.
Development Impact Area'—this is not true in Therefore requiring effective canopy based on
most cases and is a very nonconservative the overall development site is less conservative
assumption. Canopy cover should be based on (results in more trees/canopy) than if the
the `Development Impact Area.' development impact area was used as the
denominator.
14. The code words give no hint at the former Based on the consensus direction of the CAC,
code wording that`preservation is preferred the term "preservation is preferred over tree
over tree removal'; they should. The code removal" has not been included in the draft
words make no effort to preserve dead/dying code. Creating clear, flexible and incentive
trees that do not present a hazard to people or based standards that result in positive outcomes
property; they should. seemed to be the general preference of the
group.
-39-
Ken Gertz Comments
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
1. Page 21, 8.04.020.13,Allow for extensions and The draft code requires a one-year timeframe for
also grant extensions and continue as necessary taking action on a permit with flexibility for a
throughout the document. longer timeframe to be conditioned as part of
the approval. Staff feels this is a reasonable
approach because it provides ample time for
someone to take action on a typical tree removal
yet allows for more time to address unique
circumstances. Since the process for receiving
permit approval will be simple, an individual
may reapply and receive approval for a new
permit if they let their previous permit expire.
This is akin to allowing an extension. The
reason for having a timeframe for permit
approval is so that people cannot hold on to
permit approvals for many years even as the
code requirements change.
2. Page 123, 18.350.070.A.4.a.1, Greatest degree This language is from the existing code, and
possible? As this is an approval criterion, I modifying it would be out of scope for this
suggest you remove this statement as it is not project because it extends beyond trees.
enforceable.
3. Page 129, 18.360.090.A.2.a.1, where possible This language is from the existing code, and
As it is an approval criterion,what exactly is modifying it would be out of scope for this
where possible? Needs to be clear and objective. project because it extends beyond trees.
Trees can be removed, topography can be
overcome and drainage can be rerouted or it
drainage is in a buffer and handled by
CWS/DEQ. I think this whole line can be
removed.
4. Page 131, 18.360.090.12.a,Is this a This requirement applies only to Site
requirement for all developments or just PUDs? Development Review Permits (SDRs) and not to
And if so when is it required? Is the numbering things like Subdivisions (SUBS) and Minor Land
correct? It does not seem to jive with page 129 Partitions (MLPs). The numbering appears to
with the same 18.360.090. be correct.
-40-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
5. Page 197, 18.745.050.B.4.a, Buffer trees This The buffer provisions in Tables 18.745.1 and 2
does not work with the current standards for are from the existing code and are required
partial street improvements, flag lots or private between differing uses, for example between
drives. Remember fences and retaining walls commercial and residential uses and between
also need to be installed in the same location in residential uses of differing densities. Screening
many instances. Also foot paths as the one I (such as a fence or hedge) is required along
build at Weigela. If these requirements are accessways for flag lots (which is why there was
required, density will certainly be severely a screen required by the pedestrian access in
impacted. Suggest exempting at least these items Weigela). However these buffer requirements
and there may be more like this. Should check are different from screening. Screening is not
with Cheryl and Kim on this. required for private streets, only street trees.
This draft involves only minor revisions to
section 18.745.050.B.4.a (tree species, size, and
spacing requirements) to make them consistent
with chapter 18.790 and the Urban Forestry
Manual. These buffer provisions in the existing
code are typically not applicable to residential
lots surrounded by other residential uses and
have not proven to be incompatible with other
development standards or density requirements
when applied. As requested, Cheryl Caines,
Associate Planner, has reviewed and approved
this response.
6. Page 217, 18.790.030.C,The minimum 20% In an earlier draft of the code, the effective
tree requirement is a bad idea. The way I read canopy requirement for the overall development
this is if I were to meet my requirements for site (40 percent, 33 percent,25 percent based on
canopy coverage through preservation or zoning) was also required for each lot or tract in
planting on the overall site,I will still have to pay the development site. The CAC recommended
a fee for any lot that is under 20% canopy. This allowing an averaging of canopy across a
idea is counter productive to the intent of the development site as long as a minimum amount
preservation of trees under the UFM. There are of canopy per lot was provided. The draft code
a lot of people that do not want trees on there was revised accordingly allowing averaging and
lots. It is an incentive to me to be able to save requiring a 20%minimum canopy per lot. The
or plant on my other lots in order to provide reasoning for requiring a minimum amount of
some lots with no trees. Why should I save trees canopy per lot is to distribute more evenly tree
if I am still going to have to pay in the end? The benefits and maintenance costs across a
cost of saving may not be worth the effort if that development site. The draft code does allow an
is the case. exemption to the "20%minimum canopy per
lot" standard for preserving a significant tree
grove. This is intended to facilitate and
incentivize preservation of a contiguous tree
rove.
-41-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
7. Page 221, 18.790.040.C.1.a, Shouldn't Views Chapter 8.04 (Tree Permit Procedures) allows
also be included as discussed at the CAC? the designated city board or commission to
consider views when issuing a discretionary
decision on tree removal as recommended by
the CAC. Section 18.790.040 (Discretionary
Urban Forestry Plan Review Option) allows
development to meet the urban forestry plan
requirements without trees or a fee in lieu if
equivalent environmental benefits are provided.
However,under the standard urban forestry plan
requirements, the site could be designed to
incorporate views through strategic tree planting
and preservation. The discretionary urban
forestry plan review option is not necessarily
required to preserve views,but could be utilized.
8. Page 231, 18.790.050.C,Didn't the CAC The CAC consensus was to establish tiered
decide less than 50%would still be beneficial? incentives for the preservation of significant tree
groves. This was incorporated in table 18.790.1
(Density Transfer Table) to allow increasingly
smaller lot sizes and units with increased
preservation. The minimum amount of
significant tree grove preservation required for
density transfer is 25 percent.
9. Page 243, 18.790.060.D,Processing Fee The processing fee for collecting urban forest
Consider adding a reasonable to processing fee. inventory data will be determined by council and
I would like a number here. We don't want it to included in the Master Fees and Charges
be another way to charge what would amount to Schedule. It will be based on the cost of
another S.D.C. collecting the data. Specific fees are not typically
included in the code.
10. Page 247, 18.790.070.B.1,The way I read Section 18.790.070.13 exempts certain urban
this, the exemptions would not be using a type 1 forestry plan modifications from a Type I permit
and would then do a type 2? Shouldn't all this and allows the modifications to occur
section be performed under a type 1? administratively without fees or a formal permit.
This reflects current practice to allow some
modifications without fees or a formal permit
such as hazard tree removal, changing tree
planting location or species, modifying tree
protection fencing location when approved by
the project arborist and maintaining trees.
Section 18.790.070.0 requires more significant
modifications such as removing otherwise
healthy trees to receive a Type I permit whereas
a Type 1I permit was previously required for this
e of modification.
-42-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
11. Page 247, 18.790.070.B.1.a,The way that I Section 18.790.070.0 requires more significant
read this removing a tree that is on a tree plan is modifications of an urban forestry plan such as
not covered under the type 1 process so would removing otherwise healthy trees to receive a
be a type 2? If so, this would be counter to what Type I permit,whereas a Type Il permit was
we have been talking about all along, regarding previously required for this type of modification.
being able to modify the tree plan as needed. This reflects the CAC consensus and allows
What I prefer to do is to save as many trees as applicants more flexibility than in the existing
possible, then decide if the tree needs to be code,possibly encouraging additional tree
removed when the home is built. It allows me preservation.
to save more trees that way. But if I am going to
be required to do a type 2, I will mark them as
remove and cut them with the development.
That's silly.
12. Page 275, Section 7 Part 1.b.1, For Section 7 of the urban forestry manual applies to
development, the requirement for a target should trees that were required with development, after
be removed as the target will be there, but is not the development process is complete. In other
there now. For that matter, target should be words, the criteria apply to trees in already
removed altogether, as there is nearly always a developed sites. The tree risk assessment
target in the city. methodology developed by the International
Society of Arboriculture incorporates probability
of failure,the target area and size of defective
part to assign an overall risk rating. Staff does
not recommend modifying the tree risk
assessment methodology which is an industry
standard.
13. General Note: I see in my notes the The GPS inventory could be completed by the
requirement to GPS the trees. I would think the city using a handheld device as is current
plot plan that shows the trees is adequate for practice for city projects. The process is
planted and saved trees. It is really costly to relatively quick and inexpensive, and allows the
bring in a surveyor to GPS a tree after the home data to be loaded into a publicly accessible GIS
is done. It would cost more to GPS the tree inventory of trees. Aside from a publicly
than it cost to plant it in the first place. GPS accessible inventory of trees being
locating trees will also add significantly to cost of recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and
the development compared to what we do know. Urban Forestry Master Plan,it allows citizens
A tree is a pretty big thing and hard to miss,I and decision-makers to quickly identify the
think a plat map is all that is necessary. status of a particular tree. Historically, the city
has relied on plot plans to determine a tree's
status which is a time-consuming and
challenging process,particularly as records are
archived. The staff time required to locate
records represents a public cost and
inconvenience for citizens.
-43-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
14. Page 291, Section 10 Part 3 m.ii.a, Would a The project arborist is required to classify trees
small group of trees like one saved from a stand based on their professional expertise. Preserved
of trees be classified as open grown? It is not trees are proposed to be granted canopy credit
really a stand and not really open grown is it? I (x2) based on their existing sizes. When trees
would assume that if I saved a group of 3 trees are part of a stand, their canopies may be
out of a stand of trees it would count for the full delineated at the edge of the stand without
canopy,not just one tree or even worse no trees. measuring the canopy of each individual tree.
Perhaps the language should be modified to This is intended to save time during the
include all trees. I think you could remove m.ii.b inventory stage rather than requiring data on
if you did. each individual tree as the existing code does. If
a determination were made that the same trees
were open grown trees, then the canopy would
be measured individually for each tree and added
together. The result would not differ
significantly since canopy from a stand is a really
the sum of canopy from individual trees.
15. Page 291, Section 10 Part 3 m.c,Because it is In Tigard,property owners are responsible for
such a big part of the tree canopy calculations, I trees (and sidewalks,grass, etc.) within rights of
think we need a statement added that specifically way immediately adjacent to their properties.
talks about and allows for the counting of the The standards for calculating effective canopy in
entire planted or standing street tree canopy Section 10,part 3 item m grant full credit for
towards canopy coverage whether the associated preserved and planted trees within "associated
right of way is a part of the development or not. right of way" for lots directly adjacent to the
I see on page 191 5.c it speaks to the existing trunks of the subject trees. The reasoning is that
trees, but I don't see anything specifically about since the adjacent property owner is responsible
planted street trees, and neither one clearly for the tree, they should receive credit for its
acknowledge that the entire canopy will be canopy. This is reflected in the text and example
counted toward the canopy coverage whether it drawings that are being developed and will be
is overhanging the site or the right of way included in the manual.
adjacent,but not technically a part of the
development. For instance, I could see this as a
problem where there was a minor partition or
development that did not do street
improvements, so technically the tree is not
covering"associated" right of way. A simple
statement like "The entire mature canopy of all
street trees including portions extending beyond
the overall development site" should suffice.
-44-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
16. Page 292, Section 10 Part 3 n.i, I believe that The CAC has reached consensus on the
40%is too high a number for canopy coverage. effective canopy requirements which are tiered
I think a more reasonable number would be 25- based on zoning. Staff has tested the canopy
30% to be achievable and not have the future requirements on a variety of actual site plans,
owners cut them down to allow sun into their including lots that are less than 4,500 sq. ft. The
yards. The requirement should be such to allow effective canopy requirements appear to be
for increasing trees across other lots so as to readily achievable while resulting in a balance of
provide some lots with no trees. As forests have canopy and open space. In fact,many of the
meadows, so we should have shade free lawns. test cases reveal significantly fewer trees under
Page 292 Section 10 Part 3 n.i Single Family lots the draft code than the existing code which
smaller than R-4.5 should be exempt as the requires mitigation on an "inch for inch" basis.
majority of the tree canopy will come from The bonus credits for preservation, credit for
required street trees, as there is little room for street tree canopy in the right of way and credit
planting trees in people's yards. Due to demand for projected tree growth at maturity allow for
for family homes on low maintenance lots, and strategic design to balance canopy and open
the influx of A.D.U. and Casitas for extended space in a reasonable way. Also, the
family members we are currently building 3400 discretionary review option and fee in lieu
Sq Ft homes on 4500 Sq Ft lots which is within option both allow flexibility for situations where
the allowable use of the property and is a less than the standard effective canopy
preferred by Metro. The homes are all the way percentages are desired.
to the setback lines. By the time we build a deck
or patio, there is no room for appreciable trees
in the back or side yards. It is only reasonable to
exempt small lots and save a lot of trouble.
-45-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
17. Page 292 o,The minimum 20% tree In an earlier draft of the code, the effective
requirement is a bad idea. The way I read this is canopy requirement for the overall
if I were to meet my requirements for canopy development site (40 percent, 33 percent, 25
coverage through preservation or planting on the percent based on zoning) was also required for
overall site, I will still have to pay a fee for any each lot or tract in the development site. The
lot that is under 20% canopy. This idea is CAC recommended allowing an averaging of
counter productive to the intent of the canopy across a development site as long as a
preservation of trees under the UFM. There are minimum amount of canopy per lot was
a lot of people that do not want trees on there provided. The draft code was revised
lots. It is an incentive to me to be able to save accordingly allowing averaging and requiring a
or plant on my other lots in order to provide 20 percent minimum canopy per lot. The
some lots with no trees. Why should I save trees reasoning for requiring a minimum amount of
if I am still going to have to pay in the end? The canopy per lot is to distribute more evenly tree
cost of saving may not be worth the effort if that benefits and maintenance costs across a
is the case. development site. The draft code does allow an
exemption to the "20 percent minimum canopy
per lot" standard for preserving a significant
tree grove. This is intended to facilitate and
incentivize preservation of a contiguous tree
grove.
18. Page 293, Section 10 Part 4 a.1.a,This is a The tree canopy fee was developed by
really high fee you are asking for. I was unable converting the wholesale median tree cost in
to find the price of a tree on the PNC-ISA web the Willamette Valley, Oregon developed by the
site so I assumed the $174.00 referenced in the PNWISAI to a unit canopy cost. According to
commentary on Page 218. A 7500 Square Foot the PNWISA,the median wholesale cost of a 3-
Lot would equate to 50.847 trees. 50.847 X inch diameter deciduous tree is $174. The
$174.00 = $8,847.46. With a number like this, formula developed by Krajicek, et al' for open
you can expect it to causing hard feelings grown,broad spreading trees (maximum crown
between the citizens and the City and that the width (feet) = 3.183+1.829*DBH (inches)) was
home owners will plant the trees and remove then utilized to convert tree diameter to canopy
them at their convenience. diameter. According to the Krajicek formula, a
One of the flaws in the math is the use of 59 Sq. 3-inch diameter tree should have a crown width
Ft. If I were going to plant a tree, I would get of 8.67 feet or crown area of 59-square feet.
credit for a tree of 706 Sq. Ft. So why are we These dimensions were confirmed as
not using that number,which would be 4.25 reasonable by staff through several local field
trees. 4.25 X$174.00 = $739.50. That seems a samples. Using the median cost of a 3-inch
more reasonable number to use to charge deciduous tree ($174) and the crown area of a
someone to not plant trees on their own lot. 3-inch diameter tree (59 square feet), the unit
canopy cost or tree canopy fee should be $2.95
per square foot.This methodology is a
1 Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.Species Ratings for Landscape Tree Appraisal,
2nd Edition,Silverton,OR:Pacific Northwest ISA,2007.
2 Krajicek,J.E.,K.E.Brinkman,S.F. Gingrich 1961.Crown Competition-A Measure of Density.Forest Science
7:35-42.
-46-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
reasonable approach for three main reasons.
First, tree benefits (aesthetic, stormwater
management, air quality, etc.) are derived
primarily from their canopies, so proposing to
place a value to tree canopy is appropriate.
Second,in the proposal, tree canopy is valued
using the median wholesale tree cost only,
whereas standard tree appraisal is based on the
wholesale tree cost plus the cost of tree
installation. Finally, the Krajicek formula and
field samples by staff are based on the
maximum crown width to trunk diameter ratio,
and a typical tree does not have such a high
ratio. If the typical ratio were used, the unit
canopy cost would increase.
The tree canopy fee for a tree with a crown
width of 30 feet (706.5 square foot crown area)
using the methodology above would be $5.88
per square foot. Standard tree appraisal
methodology (trunk formula method) is based
on unit tree cost ($ per square inch of trunk
area). As tree size increases, the ratio of trunk
area to canopy area increases which results in
an increased value ($ per square foot) of tree
canopy. Therefore,basing the tree canopy fee
on a nursery size tree rather than a mature tree
results in a lower tree canopy fee. It is also a
more reasonable approach because people
regularly purchase nursery size trees rather than
mature trees, so we know people regularly pay
approximately$2.95 per square foot of tree
canopy when purchasing a 3-inch diameter
deciduous tree.
There is certainly an incentive for applicants to
plant or preserve trees rather than paying the
tree canopy fee,particularly since subsequent
owners will bear the cost of maintenance. This
also encourages privatization of tree
maintenance rather than paying fees to the city
which historically have not covered the cost of
city operations. Finally,if subsequent property
owners want to remove trees, they would do so
through title 8 which involves a different
-47-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
permitting process without a tree canopy fee
19. Page 293, Section 10 Part 4 a.ii, The In an earlier draft of the code, the effective
minimum 20% tree requirement is a bad idea. canopy requirement for the overall
The way I read this is if I were to meet my development site (40 percent, 33 percent, 25
requirements for canopy coverage through percent based on zoning) was also required for
preservation or planting on the overall site, I will each lot or tract in the development site. The
still have to pay a fee for any lot that is under CAC recommended allowing an averaging of
20% canopy. This idea is counter productive to canopy across a development site as long as a
the intent of the preservation of trees under the minimum amount of canopy per lot was
UFM. There are a lot of people that do not provided. The draft code was revised
want trees on there lots. It is an incentive to me accordingly allowing averaging and requiring a
to be able to save or plant on my other lots in 20 percent minimum canopy per lot. The
order to provide some lots with no trees. Why reasoning for requiring a minimum amount of
should I save trees if I am still going to have to canopy per lot is to distribute more evenly tree
pay in the end? The cost of saving may not be benefits and maintenance costs across a
worth the effort if that is the case. development site. The draft code does allow an
exemption to the "20 percent minimum canopy
per lot" standard for preserving a significant
tree grove. This is intended to facilitate and
incentivize preservation of a contiguous tree
rove.
20. Page 295, Section 11 UFP Part 1. C, Sight Section 11,pPart 1 items a-d have been revised
inspection should only be required when existing to clarify that site inspections are for tree
trees are saved. protection measures.
21. Page 295, Section 11 UFP Part 1. D,This The purpose of the provision is to document
seems odd. If there are several builders in a compliance with tree protection requirements
development,why would an individual builder for lots or tracts that will not be built upon
have to inspect the whole community and open prior to issuing building permits for lots that
spaces? Shouldn't this be incorporated into Part will be built upon. This would presumably be
1. c. and just do it once before any permits are done by the arborist involved in site
pulled for buildings? development work,not the arborist for
individual builders.
22. NOTE: I would assume the tree plan can Modifying tree planting is allowed by section
automatically be modified without fee with a 18.790.070.13.2 without a fee or permit.
building permit. This would include the
distribution of planted trees throughout the
development. This should be in the code
someplace.
-48-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
23. Note: The responsibility for maintaining Transfer of maintenance responsibility would
existing and planting trees should be able to be continue to be allowed consistent with current
passed on from the developer to the builder or practice. However, the individual providing the
building permit applicant. tree establishment bond would be financially
responsible for successful tree establishment
which is also consistent with current practice.
24. Page 296, Section 11 UFP Part 2 d,I am Requiring a two-year establishment period
concerned about the ability for the developer or continues current practice which overall,has
builder to warranty any tree beyond the first not proven to be an issue. This is because
home occupancy, as the developer or builder has subsequent buyers of a property are obligated
absolutely no control over the tree once the keys by any outstanding conditions of development
are handed over,nor do they or the City have approval and code requirements. Planning staff
the right to trespass to even inspect the trees let have never been denied entry when performing
alone water and fertilize them. With the Dollar inspections. In some cases, developers have
amounts you are talking about,this may be a made tree establishment agreements with
hardship penalty many builders are not willing to subsequent owners to prevent issues during the
risk with negative results. Consider exempting establishment period.
single family lots from this standard. Just require
the planting be verified at Occupancy Permit.
25. Page 296, Section 11 UFP Part 2 e, For planted open grown trees, the bond will be
Successful establishment shall be 80% survival. released if at least 80 percent of the trees
So what is the replacement of 100% about? So survive a two-year establishment period and any
if 20% die,you have to replace them and that is trees that die are replaced. For example,if 10
what is required? trees are required for a development project,
and eight trees survive, the bond will be
released once the two trees that die are
replaced. Each open grown tree is critical to
achieving canopy targets, so all should be
replaced and maintained if they die.
26. Page 296, Section 11 UFP Part 2 g, So if an If an owner were removing trees in violation of
owner removes the trees and the time limit runs the code, this would be an enforcement issue
out, the developer / builder is on the hook for that the city would need to address.
another 2 years, and so on and so on throughout Alternatively, the applicant could modify their
eternity? Crazy on residential lots see above urban forestry plan as allowed by section
a e 296 Part 2 d. 1 18.790.070 to address the issue.
-49-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
27. Page 297, Section 12 Part 1 a. The Table, The right of way width is measured from the
The way I read this, a public street would require edge of the street (excluding curb) in towards
a 1000 CF volume. So in a standard 5'planter 3' the subject site. Based on a typical Tigard street
deep,you would need 66.66 LF? 66.66 X 5 X 3 cross section (5 foot minimum planter strip, 5
= 1000. A pretty good trick when you figure the foot minimum sidewalk, 6 inch minimum
street trees are spaced 30' apart. Is that for real? easement behind walk), the minimum
So every single street tree would need some sort requirement would be 500 cubic feet of soil
of special vault? If so we require a cost effective volume per street tree. The standards for
way to achieve these soil volumes. Also some calculation do not prohibit trees from "sharing"
drawings would be helpful. soil volumes, so not every tree would be
required to have 500 cubic feet individually.
Also, section 18.790.050.B.3 allows flexibility in
sidewalk locations to facilitate the planting of
large stature trees. In this case,planter strips
could be widened with sidewalks potentially
placed in an easement to achieve greater soil
volumes. Alternatively, covered soiled volumes
using technologies such as structural soils could
be utilized. Drawings, specifications and
examples for calculating soil volumes are being
developed and will be included in the final draft
of the manual.
28. Page 265, Section 2 Part 1 f.i-v, Planting next If the minimum street cross-section
to a hard surface seems to be inconsistent with requirements are provided (5-foot planter strip),
planting in a planter strip next to a curb and then small and medium stature street trees
sidewalk. Pease find all instances and correct as could be planted. There is no prohibition on
it would appear that only small stature trees can providing additional planter strip width to
be planted in a standard planter strip? And it is facilitate planting of large stature street trees.
inconsistent with Page 265 Section 2 Part 1 g of Section 18.790.050.B.3 allows flexibility in
the same chapter regarding root barriers,which sidewalk locations to facilitate the planting of
would require root barriers be installed on all large stature trees. In this case, planter strips
street trees up to a 10'planter strip. That is could be widened with sidewalks potentially
really brutal. Also see page 274 e.vi-viii and placed in easements to achieve planter strip
276.D.iii.e-g and PG 277.e-g, Pg 280C.iii.e-g. and width. For city projects, root barriers are
site plan requirements and probably more places installed when street trees are planted within
later in the book. five feet of any hard surface paving. The
purpose is to direct tree root growth deeper
into the soil and avoid future conflicts such as
roots heaving pavement. The street tree root
barrier standard for city projects has been
included in the draft code so it also applies to
private projects as well.
-50-
COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE
29. Note: Are all the trees in the various The trees in attachment 2 contain a list of small,
attachments approved for planter strips or are medium and large stature street trees.
they just trees that are approved for general However,it was unclear that they are approved
planting? Should there be a separate list for street trees, so the titles of the lists have been
street trees? I did not see a list on the old modified to clarify. Also, trees not on the list
18.745.040 B but it seems there was one that was may be used if approved by the city.
available at the counter?
-51-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Draft Guiding Principles for Hazard Trees and Tree Permit Requirements
Date: August 11, 2011
Introduction
During the comprehensive review phase, the Citizen Advisory Committee will develop a set of
guiding principles for each of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions topic areas. The intent of the
guiding principles is to convey concisely the consensus view of the Citizen Advisory Committee to
Planning Commission and City Council during the adoption process. The guiding principles will
also serve staff during the technical review phase to ensure technical edits of the code remain
consistent with the Citizen Advisory Committee's consensus view. A brief introduction page will
be included to describe the purpose of the guiding principles and communicate the Citizen
Advisory Committee's overarching recommendation that the provisions be evaluated periodically
after adoption. Periodic evaluation will allow the code to be adapted as needed to address
unintended consequences and emerging science.
Following are a set of draft guiding principles for the topics of Hazard Trees and Tree Permit
Requirements. The draft guiding principles are intended as a starting point for the Citizen Advisory
Committee's discussion at the September 14, 2011 meeting.
-52-
Hazard Trees
While the urban forest provides economic and environmental benefits for the community, proper
management is essential for maximizing these benefits. When managing the urban forest, safety
shall be of primary importance, and clear code standards and procedures for addressing hazard trees
creates the regulatory framework for minimizing tree risk.
Definitions
1. Clearly define what constitutes a hazard tree using the standardized tree risk assessment
methodology developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. This methodology
factors in the probability of tree failure, the target area and the size of defective part when
evaluating risk.
2. Require hazard tree abatement when the risk rating exceeds a defined threshold. Abatement
may be achieved through pruning, tree removal or other means in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations.
Process
3. Establish a process for people (including groups) to resolve hazard tree issues in an
objective, equitable and efficient manner. The process shall be structured to limit false or
frivolous claims and incentivize people to work out issues informally without formal city
involvement.
4. Require people to demonstrate they have standing before filing a formal hazard tree claim.
A person shall have standing if they can demonstrate their life, limb or property has the
potential to be impacted by the alleged hazard tree, and they have tried unsuccessfully to
work the issue out informally.
5. Utilize third party tree risk assessors when independent hazard tree decisions through the
formal city process are warranted. Use of third party tree risk assessors will help limit the
city's liability.
6. Grant the city authority to gain access to property for hazard tree abatement to enforce
code provisions or in case of emergency.
Cost Recovery
7. Recover costs incurred by the city when parties rely on the formal city process for resolving
hazard tree issues. The public should not have to bear the full cost for issues that should be
resolved without city involvement.
-53-
Tree Permit Requirements
Tree permit requirements shall establish clear and consistent standards for permitting the planting,
removal and replacement of trees to ensure a healthy and sustainable urban forest.
The tree permit requirements shall not regulate any more tree situations than the city currently does, but
rather improve the consistency, clarity and scientific basis for decision making.
Code Structure
1. Consolidate tree permit requirements into a singly 'y y ase of use by citizens and decision
makers.
2. Continue to require tree permits for the following` tegories o
o Street and median trees;
o Trees in sensitive lands;
o Trees that were required with development;
o Trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund; and
o Heritage trees.
Decision Makin
3. Provide two tracks of decision making for tree permits:
o A low or no-fee administrative review process by city staff for simple situations such as
trees that are in poor or hazardous condition, nuisance trees, causing damage, fire dangers
or preventing allowed development to occur (except heritage trees). Do not allow removal
of heritage trees for development through an administrative process since heritage trees are
designated through a public process.
o A public review process by a designated board or commission for more complex situations
where the reasons for removal are less clear. The designated board or commission shall be
authorized to use their discretion to weigh the tree benefits and reasons for removal when
making their decision.
Pubhcl-y Recognizing Trees
4. Provide two tracks for publicly recognizing unique trees in the community:
o Heritage trees shall be of landmark importance, afforded regulatory protection from
removal and eligible for city funding for maintenance.
o Significant trees shall also be of landmark importance, but not afforded regulatory
protection removal and not eligible for city funding for maintenance. The significant tree
track allows property owners to publicly recognize their trees without losing flexibility for
tree removal on their property.
Enforcement
5. Establish enforcement provisions that deter violations while protecting citizens from
disproportionate penalties for tree removal violations.
-54-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC
MeetingSummary
Y
MEETING DATE: August 16, 2011, 3:00-4:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Gus Duenas (Development Engineer), Steve Martin (Parks and Facilities Manager), Gary
Pagenstecher (Associate Planner),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist),Brian Rager (Assistant Public
Works Director), Damon Reische (CWS), Carla Staedter (Surface Water Quality/Volunteer Coordinator)
Visitors Present—Caren Frykland (Sr.Administrative Specialist)
1. Call to Order,TAC Meeting#10 Summary
Gary Pagenstecher opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. The group approved the summary
for the May 17, 2011 TAC Meeting#10 with no corrections.
2. Presentation and Discussion of Comprehensive Discussion Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Todd Prager said that they had all been sent the link to the consolidated draft code, and that if anyone wanted a
hard copy it could be provided. He said that the draft code is a compilation of all the topics they had worked on
over the last several meetings,including a project background and summary. He said that they may include the
CAC's guiding principles as well once they reached a consensus on the summary for each code topic. He explained
the layout of the draft document which includes commentary on the left side for the corresponding code provisions
on the right, and the draft urban forestry manual at the end.
'I".
Todd then discussed the guiding principles created by the CAC for each of the four urban forestry code revisions
topics. He said that the purpose of the.guiding principles is to concisely communicate the main elements of each
topic and the consensus of the CAC,which would allow policy makers and the public to quickly understand the
purpose of the code. He said that it would also help with the technical review phase of the project to ensure that
any edits are truly technical and remain consistent with the CAC consensus. He said that the draft guiding
principles were provided to the TAC, and that while the CAC had made some minor modifications at its recent
meeting, the changes were not significant. He said that the CAC had signed off on these guiding principles for
Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives, and would be reviewing the
guiding principles for Hazard Trees and Tree Permit Requirements at their next meeting on September 14`''.
Todd said that the draft code document had been reviewed by the city attorney and that a few minor changes were
made, but he was satisfied with the draft overall. He said that changes could still be made if they needed to.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary —August 16, 2011
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 2
-55-
3. Scheduling, Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd said that AKS would have technical drawings ready for the September 20ffi meeting and he will see if AKS
could present to discuss those drawings provided funding is available. He said that he would get the technical
drawings out to the TAC about a week before the meeting. He also said that AKS would likely test the code on real
world development scenarios as part of the peer review. He expected the results of their testing would be available
to the TAC for discussion at their October meeting.
Todd will work with CWS to see if the Service Provider Letter (SPL) process can be streamlined when issuing
permits for trees in sensitive lands.
Schedule going forward:
• TAC meeting 9/20/11
• TAC meeting 10/18/11
• TAC meeting 11/15/11
• TAC meeting 12/20/11
• Measure 56 Notice to all affected property owners in late November/early December—Cityscape article
and mailing to explain notice to property owners should go out before that
• Public Review Open House 12/8/11
• Planning Commission Workshop 1/9/12
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30.
4
µ
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary —August 16, 2011
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2
-56-