10/21/2013 - MinutesCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Mayor Cook and Tigard City Council
From: Marissa Grass
Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Review
Date: October 21, 2013
The City of Tigard has a proud history of commitment to preserving, enhancing and
maintaining its urban forest. The city's trees provide an important backdrop for life in Tigard.
The city's vision is that Tigard's urban forest is:
Valued and protected by city residents
A thriving, interconnected ecosystem
Managed to improve quality of life and increase community identity; and
Maximizing aesthetic, economic and ecological benefits
As of March 1, 2013, the city's regulations relating to urban forestry were updated. The
following discussion details a summary of activity, feedback, and recommended action items
related to each key element of the updated code: Urban Forestry Standards for Development,
Tree Grove Preservation Program, Tree Permit Requirements, and Hazard Trees. Council
requested a six month review of the code as part of implementation.
All action items are summarized in Attachment A: Urban Forestry Issues Log. These issues were
collected by staff between March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013. Listed in this memo are the
action items that require a change to the Urban Forestry Manual (Administrative Rules).
The process to implement the changes described in Attachment A are detailed below:
Administrative Rule updates to the Urban Forestry Manual – The Tigard Municipal
Code states that “notification shall be made to council of the proposed administrative
rule or amendment. At any time following council notification, any councilmember may
put the subject on the discussion agenda for the next available council meeting for
council consideration or action.” Council has 14 days from notification to decide if they
want to discuss the item.
If Council chooses to discuss the Administrative Rules, then there is an optional 14-day
public comment period and newspaper notice before discussion.
2
If Council chooses not to discuss these items, then there is a required 14-day public
comment period and newspaper notice, after which the city manager or designee “will
take into consideration the written comments received and may either approve, modify
or reject the proposed administrative rule(s).”
All administrative rules will be effective on the 14th day after approval by the city
manager or designee, unless a written protest is received and a Council public hearing is
scheduled.
Development Code Updates – Development Code updates are processed by way of a
Type IV land use decision. Type IV decisions require notice to the State Department of
Land Conservation and Development, a mailed and newspaper notice sent by the city,
and a public hearing of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Because the Development Code items proposed in this memo do not warrant a separate
project, the amendments discussed here will be added to other upcoming amendments
packages. This could be as part of the Parks Zone project or the next round of
administrative procedures updates. Either way, we anticipate that all code items will be
reviewed by Council by the end of the year.
Municipal Code Updates – No Municipal Code updates are proposed at this time.
Procedural or Material Updates – These updates are administrative in nature and will
be implemented by the Community Development Department with supervision from
Tom McGuire.
Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Overview
In the Development Code, larger project types (Type II or III) require an urban forestry plan be
submitted as part of land use review. This includes projects like subdivisions, planned
developments, minor land partitions, site development reviews, conditional uses, sensitive lands
reviews, and Downtown design reviews. Urban forestry plans are required to be developed by a
landscape architect or a person certified as both an arborist and tree risk assessor.
The urban forestry plan requirements consist of three main parts.
Tree preservation and removal site plan - Essentially a demolition/preservation plan
identifying trees to remain and trees to be removed.
Tree canopy site plan - Shows all trees to be preserved as well as those to be planted. It is
essentially a landscape plan that includes just the trees. It visually displays how the
effective tree canopy requirements will be met.
Supplemental report - A narrative for the site plans providing more detailed inventory
data on the species, size, condition, and suitability of preservation for trees and stands of
3
trees. This report also contains the details on how the effective tree canopy requirements
will be met.
The Urban Forestry Manual (Administrative Rules) spells out the requirements for each of the
three parts.
Once approved, Urban Forestry Plans must be implemented with oversight by the project
arborist or landscape architect. The implementation requirements include:
Twice monthly inspections for trees to be preserved.
For Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions, a signature of approval by the project
arborist or landscape architect on building plot plans prior to building permit issuance.
An example building plot plan is in Appendix 13 of the Urban Forestry Manual.
Prior to final building inspection, the project arborist or landscape architect must
document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan.
Trees to be planted must be bonded and survive an establishment period, after which
time the bond is released.
After the development is complete, all of the preserved and planted trees are required to
be GPS located and included in the city's GIS inventory of trees
Summary of Activity
The city received 10 applications between March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013, that were
subject to the Urban Forestry Plan requirements. All of the applications received during this
timeframe used either planting or preservation to meet the requirements, with the majority of
applicants using a combination of both. One application, the Bonita Pump Station, qualified for
the lowest tier of canopy required (25 percent), while the others were subject to 33 percent or
40 percent requirements. Details about the applications received in this timeframe are available
in Attachment B.
Feedback
More feedback was submitted related to the Urban Forestry Standards for Development, than
for any other topic. Please see Appendix B for the full range of feedback collected. For the
most part, this feedback relates to the Administrative Rules in the Urban Forestry Manual, and
specifically the Urban Forestry Plan and Plan Implementation standards. Proposed
Administrative Rule Amendments are included below. Please see Appendix A for the full range
of feedback collected.
4
Action Item Summary
Details
Type of Action
Required
Do Not Require a Detailed Assessment of Offsite Trees
In some situations, it may not be possible to perform a detailed
assessment of offsite trees due to access limitations. There should be
flexibility for the project arborist or landscape architect to qualify
and/or limit their assessment in these situations.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Trees Outside of the Impact Area
An inventory of trees within 25 feet of the development impact area
which are greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH or which otherwise
require a permit to remove is required on a tree preservation and
removal site plan. In some cases this may not adequately protect large
trees that have roots that extend more than 25 feet. One suggestion is
for a revision to address large trees that are close to the development
impact area. Our arborist could work up a numeric standard for such a
revision.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Remove Double Credit for Nuisance Trees
The double canopy credit does not discriminate between nuisance trees
and desirable species, such that we are providing a strong incentive to
preserve nuisance trees.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Add Bonus Credit for Preserving Native Trees
Grant extra bonus credits (150 percent based on mature canopy,
perhaps) for preserving native trees that are less than 6 inches DBH.
Preserving these trees is more valuable than planting new native trees,
which currently receive 125 percent credit.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Add Parks Zone Canopy Requirement
The new Parks Zone currently under consideration would need to be
assigned a minimum canopy requirement if adopted. A requirement of
25 percent would be consistent with that required for high schools,
where there was acknowledgement of a need for open areas for sports
and other activities.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Remove Inventory Requirement for Homes in Residential Zonin g
Districts
Because development tree permits are not required in residential zoning
districts, this inventory requirement could be removed.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
5
Tree Grove Preservation Program
Overview
Flexible standards and incentives are now allowed to facilitate the preservation of the city's
remaining tree groves. These standards and incentives were developed in compliance with
statewide Goal 5 requirements and allow transfer of residential density from the tree grove to
the non tree grove portion of a site, reduction in minimum residential density and increased
building heights for commercial and industrial development.
The city identified 70 large groves of primarily native trees covering 527 acres that are eligible
for incentives. The incentives may be used if at least 50 percent of the portion of the tree grove
that is outside of already protected sensitive lands (such as wetlands and stream corridors) is
preserved.
Summary of Activity
The city has yet to receive an application which proposes to take advantage of any of the
incentives offered as part of the tree grove preservation program.
In addition, the Goal 5 inventory and analysis work has been completed for the River Terrace
Area. A map amendment will be adopted as part of the River Terrace Community Plan to
include this area in the city’s tree grove preservation program.
Tree Permit Requirements
Overview
The City of Tigard preserves and maintains the urban forest by reviewing tree removal permits
for street and median trees, trees located in sensitive lands, Heritage Trees, trees planted using
the Urban Forestry Fund and trees required with high-density residential and non-residential
development.
To apply for a permit, applicants must fill out and submit a completed application form
addressing all the relevant approval criteria and pay the applicable fee. Permits can be approved
by way of two processes: either by a staff process (for simple situations), or by a Tigard board or
commission (for complex situations). There is no fee when trees are removed for simple
situations. The fee is $375 per tree in complex situations. In most cases, the decision is final and
valid for up to one year.
Most of the time, trees are required to be replaced if removed. This is to ensure the
sustainability of Tigard’s urban forest. Replacement standards for each type of tree requiring a
permit are included in the Urban Forestry Manual.
6
Summary of Activity
The city received 25 Tree Removal Permit applications, for a total of 108 trees, between
March 1, 2013, and September 15, 2013. To date, all of the applications received have qualified
for the simple free tree permit process. By far, roots causing damage is the number one reason
cited for tree removal (40 percent of applications). In addition, trees that are infested with pests
or disease or tree removal that is required for the purposes of an approved permit are often
valid reasons for simple removal. Details about the applications received in this timeframe are
available in Attachment C.
Feedback
The main difference between implementation of the Tree Permit Requirements portion of the
code and other key elements is that organizational changes have also impacted the way we
process tree removal permits. First, previous tree removal permits were primarily handled by the
city’s arborist who is no longer on staff. Second, the planning staff now rotates in a “planner on
duty” schedule at the front counter. This means there is a wide variety of staff reviewing and
processing tree removal permit applications. For this reason, we’ve received several suggestions
from planning staff about process improvement. Please see Appendix A for the full range of
feedback collected.
Action Item Summary
Details
Type of Action
Required
Street Tree Conflicts with Buildings
Add a spacing standard to the Street Tree Planting and Maintenance
Standards to address acceptable distance from buildings. This will have
the effect of allowing street trees which are causing damage to buildings
to be removed according to the free simple process.
Administrative
Rule Amendment
Hazard Trees
Overview
Tigard’s new process for resolving hazard tree conflicts aims to be more equitable, objective and
efficient. While neighbors are encouraged to work out their issues amicably, a third party
arborist could be hired to provide an objective voice and a path toward resolution.
The Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement procedures include two options: 1) informal
reconciliation, between parties without city involvement; or 2) formal reconciliation, where the
claimant submits an application, provides information and pays fees to the city. City will accept
the application for formal reconciliation only after the informal process has been completed.
7
Individuals or organizations who can demonstrate that their life, limb or property is at risk by a
tree in question have the right to file a hazard tree dispute resolution application. This is
intended to limit the concern that people could use the hazard tree process as a means of
harassment or intimidation.
If the city has reason to believe a hazard tree poses an immediate danger and there is not
enough time to complete the Hazard Tree Evaluation and Abatement procedure, the city may
choose to take immediate action
Summary of Activity
While we have had several inquiries about the Tree Hazard Evaluation and Abatement process,
we have yet to receive an application for formal reconciliation. The city did receive one
emergency abatement request, but our Arborist determined that the clai mant had time to use the
Evaluation and Abatement procedures.
Feedback
Clarification of the Emergency Procedures has been requested by staff to ensure that applicants
are not able to bypass the informal reconciliation process. The emergency process should only
be used in cases that warrant immediate attention. Please see Appendix A for the full range of
feedback collected.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
6 Month Update
1
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Susan P Shanks, Senior Planner
Re: River Terrace Community Plan Update
Date: October 21, 2013
The city is moving forward with its effort to complete the River Terrace Community Plan
(RTCP). Since the Planning Commission’s last project update in May 2103, a number of
significant changes and events have occurred. These are summarized below.
PROJECT TEAM UPDATE
The following staff changes have occurred:
Susan Shanks was hired to replace Darren Wyss as the RTCP project manager. Her
first day was September 3, 2013. She can be reached at susans@tigard-or.gov or
503-718-2454.
The city is actively seeking to hire a planning intern to help with RTCP and Tigard
Triangle project meeting support and public engagement efforts.
The consultant project team is comprised of four firms that will share responsibility for the
various public facility plan updates identified in the RTCP scope of work. Otak is the
primary managing consultant. A contract for professional services was signed on August 14,
2013, and a kick off meeting was convened on September 3, 2013. The consulting firms and
their specializations are as follows:
Otak (Parks, Stormwater, and Project Management)
Murray, Smith, and Associates, Inc. (Water and Sewer)
DKS Associates (Transportation)
FCS Group (Finance)
PROJECT UPDATE
As you are aware, the city will need to design and construct many different major public
facilities in the River Terrace area. Collectively, we refer to these facilities as infrastructure,
RTCP Project Update Page 2 of 4
and we often talk about them in terms of systems, e.g. the water system, transportation
system, etc.
The RTCP project team is currently conducting a preliminary assessment of each of the systems
that will be built in and around River Terrace. These assessments consist of comparing the
assumptions and methodologies in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan against the policies
and standards contained in Tigard’s master plans and other relevant studies, if any.
Once the preliminary assessments are complete, the RTCP project team will prepare a draft
master plan addendum for each system. Collectively, these addenda will become the Public
Facilities Plan for River Terrace. Individually, they will serve to update the city’s various master
plans, which guide all of the city’s long-term infrastructure priorities and investments. In this
way, River Terrace infrastructure improvements will be both physically and politically integrated
into the city’s existing systems for water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and parks.
OVERVIEW OF RECENT MEETINGS
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)
have each met four times in 2013. These meetings occurred in March, August, September,
and October. Land use and natural resource maps have been reviewed by both groups, and
the final proposed maps for inclusion in the RTCP contain the following refinements:
The land use map (Attachment 1) contains a reconfigured commercial zone area in
response to recommendations made by Leland Consulting Group in a market analysis
requested by the city. The overall size of the area was not changed, it was merely
stretched over to the west so that it would have frontage on Roy Rogers Rd. Both
groups unanimously supported this reconfiguration.
The title of the natural resource map (Attachment 2) that shows the locations of
wetlands and water quality resources was changed from “Wetlands and Stream
Corridors” to “Wetlands and Riparian Areas.” This map no longer shows all local
wetlands. It only shows significant wetlands since local wetlands are included within
the water quality resource areas. A few SWG members expressed concern about the
accuracy of the boundaries shown on the Wetlands and Riparian Areas Map. The
project team explained that this particular map is meant to show approximate, not
precise, boundaries and that this is a common practice across the region. It is Tigard’s
Community Development Code and Clean Water Services’ (CWS) Design and
Construction Standards Manual that determine the exact location of each natural
resource boundary at the time of development. The project team has followed up
with the group to ensure that each member understands the purpose of the various
natural resource maps and how they work in concert with their associated regulations.
Both the TAC and SWG have also had preliminary finance discussions in preparation for the
more detailed finance work that will happen after the master plan draft addenda are
RTCP Project Update Page 3 of 4
completed in 2014. See the attached handout (Attachment 3) for an overview of the River
Terrace Financing Strategies process.
Project staff gave a lengthy project update to CPO 4B at their October 10 meeting. The
group’s main questions and concerns revolved around how the anticipated transportation
and stormwater impacts would be mitigated and how the proposed parks and trails in the
concept plan would be implemented.
OVERVIEW OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next several TAC and SWG meetings will include substantive discussions on
parks and transportation.
One of the main changes that has occurred with respect to the parks element in the West Bull
Mountain Concept Plan (WBMCP) is the decision to no longer show the locations of future proposed
parks on the RTCP maps. This is consistent with current city policy to not designate specific
properties as park properties until they have been acquired by the city or otherwise dedicated to the
city for park use. The project team has also decided to apply the city’s current level of service (LOS)
standards to the River Terrace area so as to be consistent with the city’s recently adopted Parks
System Master Plan. The table below shows the difference between the LOS standards in the
WBMCP and Tigard’s recently adopted standards.
Table 1: Comparison of Park Standards
Park Type WBMCP Hybrid City of Tigard
Pocket Park
(Tot Lot)
0.5 acre / 10001 No standard
Neighborhood Park 2.0 acres / 1000 1.5 acre / 1000
Community Park 3.0 acres / 1000 3.0 acres / 1000
Linear Park/Trail
Contributes to
Core Standard
10 acres / 1000
1.25 acre / 1000 (Park)
0.26 miles / 10002 (Trail)
Special Use Area Contributes to
Core Standard
10 acres / 1000
No Standard
The project team is proposing some minor revisions to the TAC and SWG meeting
schedule in order to allow for more in-depth discussions on the transportation and
finance topics. See the attached schedule (Attachment 4) for more information.
The next Community Meeting is tentatively scheduled for early December 2013.
RTCP Project Update Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Land Use Map
Attachment 2 – Wetlands and Riparian Areas Map
Attachment 3 – River Terrace Financing Strategies
Attachment 4 – Proposed Public Meeting Schedule Revisions