DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 6: TREE CODE

DCIP-6: Tree Code Alternatives 5-1-13 Page 1 of 23

DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 6: TREE CODE

Alternative Approaches Report

Urban Design & Planning – Comprehensive Planning April 30, 2013

Prepared by Tina Osterink, Natural Resources Planner

Introduction

This document presents alternative approaches to clarify sections of the Tree Code organized under the four issue area categories previously identified in this project. This document will be used to present the potential alternative solutions to the public, Planning Commission and City Council.

This 2013 Council Work Plan project is part of the Development Code Improvement Project-6 (DCIP-6). The alternatives in this document were developed by City staff and may be revised based on public input as the project proceeds.

Background

The City has a number of existing tree rules that establish a framework for tree preservation, planting and care. These rules are primarily found in Development Code Section 9.1000. The Tree Code Update project will clarify existing rules and address outdated tree provisions located throughout the Development Code.

The purpose of this project is to:

• Clarify and consolidate sections of the Tree Code so it is easy to use and clear to residents, property owners, developers, tree care professionals and City staff.

• Ensure that standards for tree protection, preservation, removal and replacement are clear and objective.

• Create a tree list to ensure the right tree is planted in the right place.

The intent is to revise Code sections that are not working well and match those changes to the adopted urban forestry policies and unique needs and circumstances of the community. In addition to reducing uncertainty and increasing consistent implementation, this project should lead to more clarity, efficiency and flexibility for all parties, including City staff when implementing the rules for trees.

Alternative Approaches

Previously the project has identified four issue areas and accompanying opportunities that

the Tree Code Update project would address. The four issue areas are:

1. An outdated and unorganized development code.

2. Unclear and subjective development code standards.


3. Inadequate and unclear development permits process.

4. Unclear options for tree mitigation and violations.

Staff has developed a series of alternative approaches to addressing these four issue areas.

Staff has researched four local, regional and national jurisdictional tree codes that have been

identified as using current best practices. Attachment A – Jurisdictional Best Practices

– is a summary of identified best practices. The four jurisdictions are:

• Tigard, Oregon weird

• Beaverton, Oregon

• Bellevue, Washington

• Cary, North Carolina

Staff also has analyzed Gresham’s Development Code to determine areas that have gaps or

lack a use of these best practices. Gresham’s Development Code along with the four

jurisdictions is summarized in Attachment B – Comparable Code Matrix.

What follows is a set of alternative approaches for each of the issue areas along with

jurisdictional best practices when applicable to illustrate the proposed alternative.

Issue 1: Outdated and Unorganized Development Code

Opportunities identified for this issue include determining how tree code sections can be

consolidated; determining how the City’s required tree list(s) can be improved; and

organizing the tree code so that it is easier to implement.

Alternative 1: No Change

Tree code regulations are found in several areas of the Development Code, which are briefly

summarized below in the order they are organized in the Code:

• Tree Related Terms and Definitions (3.0050). Tree Related Terms and Definitions

defines various aspects regarding tree code.

• Downtown Street Standards (4.1143). Identifies and illustrates trees related to

amenity zones and medians.

• Downtown Site Design Landscaping (4.1151.A.5). Addresses characteristics and size

requirements and maintenance of new trees in required landscaping.

• Civic Neighborhood Street Design Requirements (4.1247). Identifies trees as

elements of required medians and sidewalk amenity zones.

• Pleasant Valley Tree Planting Requirements (4.1469). Addresses tree preservation

and planting requirements for new development.

• Springwater Tree Planting Requirements (4.1469). Addresses tree preservation and

planting requirements for new development.


• Hillside Trees and Vegetation (5.0225). Addresses protection of trees before and

during development.

• Multi-Family Landscaping (7.0103.A). Address planting plan requirements and

characteristics and size requirements and maintenance of trees required for new

development.

• Single Family Attached Dwelling Landscaping (7.0201.D & L.7). Addresses

characteristics and size requirements of new trees in required landscaping.

• Community Service, Commercial, Industrial and Mixed-Use (commercial component)

(7.0202). Addresses characteristics and size requirements of trees required for new

development and for the integration of existing trees.

• Rockwood Landscaping (7.0503.1.A &2.A). Address planting plan requirements and

characteristics and size requirements and maintenance of trees required for new

development.

• Corridor Commercial Internal Circulation (7.0603.A.2). Characteristics and size

requirements for trees required for amenity zones and parking lots.

• Corridor Commercial Landscaping (7.0603.A.7). Address planting plan requirements

and characteristics and size requirements and maintenance of trees required for new

development.

• Buffering and Screening Requirements (9.0100). Address tree characteristics and

dimensional standards for new trees required in a buffer as well as integration of

existing trees into a buffer.

• Clear Vision Area (9.0200). Addresses the placement and pruning of trees in clear

vision areas.

• Parking (9.0800). Addresses integration of existing trees and characteristics and

dimensions of new trees requirement for parking lots.

• Tree Regulations (9.1000). Deals with removal, replacement and protection of 8-inch

diameter trees before and during development and for required street, buffer and

parking lot trees after development.

• Streets General Requirements (Appendix 5.400). Indicates (by illustrations) that trees

are an element of medians required of principal arterial, arterial, boulevard and some

collector streets.

• Significant Trees (Appendix 14). Addresses procedures and criteria for designating,

maintaining and de-listing significant trees


Alternative 2: Comprehensive Tree Code Article

Utilize the current Tree Regulations article as the basis for a comprehensive article. Create a

Comprehensive Tree Code Article that addresses elements that are applied across several

sections of the Development Code such as:

• Tree installation and planting

• Tree sizes

• Tree maintenance

• Soil volume and amendments

Identify elements (for example size requirements) that are applied throughout the

Development Code that can be placed in this single area utilizing cross references. Include

both trees required for on-site and for off-site (public streets, etc.) development. Some

existing sections of the Tree Code, described in the No Change Alternative, may be re-

located while others could be cross referenced. For instance, Appendix 14, Significant Trees,

could be merged with Section 9.1000 Tree Regulations. Consolidate, make consistent and

clarify differing tree characteristics and size requirements.

Jurisdictional Best Practices:

Tigard, Oregon: In 2011, Tigard adopted new Urban Forestry Code Revisions that

included soil volume standards for street and parking lot trees, which are based on

the width of the non-street portion of the right-of-way for street trees (i.e. planter

strip or parkway) and 1,000 cubic feet of soil volume per tree for parking lot trees.

Alternative 3: Separate Standards and Specifications Tree Manual

The manual would be structured similar to the City’s Public Works Standards document and

would include the implementing details found in the Development Code. Detailed landscape

plan submission requirements and standards would be placed in the manual rather than the

Development Code with the intent to:

• Minimize details outlined in the Development Code to improve ease of use and

implementation consistency;

• Provide greater flexibility to revise when best practices are developed; and

• Consolidates detailed guidelines for arboricultural practices such as pruning, tree

care, removal, landscaping, contracting and similar municipal forestry activities.


Tigard, Oregon: An Urban Forestry Manual, adopted in March 2013, was created as

an implementation tool and companion document to their Municipal and Development

Code as a means to document the City’s processes regarding tree planting,

preservation and maintenance without making the Code excessively long.


Beaverton, Oregon: Tree Planting & Maintenance Policy includes standards for public right-of-way and city owned property as well as street frontages within a public or private right-of-way or easement for single-family residential subdivision or partition.

Cary, North Carolina: Detailed landscape plan submission requirements and standards

are placed in the Community Appearance Manual rather than the Code with the intent

to integrate new development with the site’s landscape through minimal clearing and

grading, preservation of existing vegetation and a reliance on the natural drainage

system when possible. The Cary land Development Ordinance provides the guidelines

and processes for these standards while the manual includes a section on the

purpose, intent and applicability prior to listing the detailed standards and

specifications.

Alternative 4: Graphically Oriented Development Code and Tree List

The Tree Code and existing Street Tree List can be updated to include guidelines and graphic

icons to ensure the right tree is planted in the right place. Graphic illustrations in the Tree

Code are helpful to communicate tree protection, removal and replacement standards. A new

Tree List would be intended for use by the general public and city staff for the following

categories, which have existing Tree Code standards associated with them:

• Street trees;

• Parking lot trees; and

• Buffer trees that are required between different uses.

The ultimate purpose is to provide technically sound working documents that can be

referenced by multiple stakeholders to minimize unnecessary sidewalk replacement costs and

help Gresham gain tree canopy rather than lose it over time.


Beaverton, Oregon: Beaverton’s Development Code Tree Protection Standards during

development makes use of illustrations to communicate construction fencing

standards for the tree and critical root zone as shown in Figure 1 below.


Figure 1. Tree protection illustration

Source: Beaverton Development Code

Cary, North Carolina: Streetscape planting and tree placement standards are

illustrated in the Community Appearance Manual. Specifically, there are placement

standards for locating mature trees under power lines.

Figure 2. Tree placement next to Sidewalk

Source: Community Appearance Manual (Cary, North Carolina)


Figure 3. Tree placement under power lines

Source: Community Appearance Manual for Cary, North Carolina

Issue 2: Unclear and Subjective Development Code Standards

Opportunities identified for this issue include determining how the Tree Code can provide

clear direction; addressing when, where and how tree removal should be allowed; addressing

provisions for tree replacement; and clarifying what are rules regarding the type, size and

location for street, buffer and parking lot trees.


Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1010.B) references a definition of a regulated tree to include

any tree that has a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 8 inches or greater. These regulated

trees can be removed without permit when: 1) no more than 3 are removed from a site of

less than 35,000 square feet during a 12-month period, 2) no more than 6 are removed from

of site of greater than 35,000 square feet during a 12-month period, or 3) within 10 feet of

the outer edge of a single-family residence or related improvements once a building permit

has been issued. For circumstances numbers 1 and 2 listed above, the Code is unclear about

when the 12 month period starts. Nor is there a process described to allow a property owner

to validate and document such removal.

Removal/Replacement of Street Trees/Buffer/Trees/Parking Lot Tree (9.1010.C) generally

allows these trees to be removed but with replacement requirements under a Type I

procedure.

• Street trees

o Need to be replaced with a variety and at a location determined by the manager

except that for existing single-family home, it needs to have at least a 1-3/4 inch

caliper and be a variety in the Public Works Standards

o If destroyed or significantly damaged by accident it shall be replaced


o If other than a for single-family home it shall be replaced by a tree of equal

caliper up to a maximum of 6-inch caliper trees or determined by the Manager

o City of Gresham is exempt from permit requirements when it performs

maintenance of street trees but is “otherwise subject to these regulations”

• Buffer & Parking Lot trees

o Shall be replaced by trees in accordance with original approved plan or as

determined by the Manager

o If other than a for single-family home it shall be replaced by a tree of equal

caliper up to a maximum of 6-inch caliper trees

Tree Removal in Overlay Districts (9.1010.E) requires that any regulated tree be removed

only under the Type II procedures with these exceptions: allows up to three ornamental

trees associated with landscaping on a lot developed with a single-family home to be

removed per 12-month period with a Type I permit that requires a revegetation plan without

specifying criteria used to evaluate the revegetation plan; and allows street and parking lot

trees to be removed but subject to replacement requirements. The Code does not specify

how the three and six tree removal allowance of a regulated tree is applied in the Overlay

Districts and if the rules for ornamental trees apply to other forms of development. Except

that Tree Removal on Steep Slopes (9.1010.F) provides that any tree removal the results in

clear cutting on slopes in excess of 15% is prohibited.

Data Requirements for Tree Removal/Tree Protection Plan (9.1011) requires that a detailed

plan be completed for both a removal plan and a protection plan. It asks for a survey of all

regulated trees on the site and a survey of all 8-inch DBH trees on adjacent sites within 6

feet of the property line. Beyond requiring that a cluster of trees (3-5 feet spacing or closer),

the applicant must identify the predominant species, number and average size there is not

specific direction on what information should be provided about surveyed trees beyond

location and that they are regulated. There is no requirement as to who can prepare the plan

unless the plan includes removal of trees for health in which case an arborist is to prepare

the plan. It is unclear if these requirements apply outside of the development process.

Criteria for Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1012) specifies requirements for removal of

regulated trees not on a fully developed single-family lot and address tree retention, removal

and replacement for trees along natural drainage ways, the lot perimeter as well as buffer

trees and major trees.

Criteria for Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1012) is a list of criteria which allows the 8” DBH

regulated trees to be removed under the Type II procedures when no-permit exceptions do

not apply. In the introduction to the section its notes that the criteria do not apply “for tree

removal on a fully developed single-family residential lot, which implies that removal of 8”

DBH regulated trees is either allowed without permit or allowed with permit but without

approval criteria. The criteria were developed in the late 1980’s so it’s unclear if they are in


alignment with the recently adopted natural resource overlay areas such as Habitat

Conservation Area. The Criteria summarized include:

• Retaining trees in natural drainageways and water areas to preserve riparian habitat

• Retaining trees along property lines to serve as buffers

• Retaining conifers in sufficiently large areas and dense stands to ensure against

windthrow

• Allowing the manager (may) to requiring a proposed structure to be re-located to

retain trees if it can be accomplished within required setbacks and without increasing

development costs by more than 2%

• Trees may be removed because of their health, in which case the City may require

verification by an independent arborist at the property owner’s expense

• Trees may be used for a public purpose such as installation of public facilities and

utilities such as for public streets, trails, parks and urban plazas

• Clear cutting (tree removal leaving less than 1 tree per 1,000 square feet) is only

allowed by adding a condition of approval of having landscaping to mitigate “the loss

of vegetation”; it’s unclear how the allowance to remove 3 or 6 trees per year

coincides with this standard

There is a requirement for mitigation plans but no direction on what this entails. There is also

little specificity on what a “sufficiently large area” of conifer trees consist of. In (9.1012.F) it’s

unclear what the criteria is for “feasible’ and “prudent location” alternatives.

Tree Protection During Construction (9.1015) requires a protection plan to be either

recommended by an arborist or to meet a list of protective measures. Generally these

protective measures are to provide barriers or practices that prevent materials, machines or

trenching from impacting the tree structure and roots. It also requires that “changes in soil

hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized”. Graphics are

not used to illustrate how tree protection and removal requirements apply.

Street Trees (9.1020. B.) includes replacement requirements for trees located in the public

right-of-way or within the yard setback and/or buffer area for all new developments or

alteration of existing developments. First, it’s unclear how to measure the minimum height

standard based on the subjective term “head height”; and secondly it’s not known if 1-3/4

inch caliper is the best replacement size practice.

Spacing and Location Requirements for Street Trees (9.1021.C.) includes standards for the

number of trees required based on distance relative to their street classification. The

standard generally addresses tree placement where there is no planter strip, however, it

does not reference planting options for trees within constrained planter strip widths less than

3 feet.


Pruning of Street Trees and Other Public Trees (9.1030) includes ANSI (American National

Standards Institute) standards for pruning that are based on outdated standards for pruning

and arboricultural practices from 1995.

Other

Various code sections such as Parking (9.0800) and Design Review (7.0202) have provisions

that require the integration of existing trees into the design for new development.

Alternative 2: Preservation of Trees based on Right Tree/Right Place

Create criteria for preservation of existing trees (removal and replacement criteria) based on

species, size and location related to right tree in the right place policy rather than the current

focus on size and location of existing trees. Ensure data requirements for existing trees

match what is necessary to be able to make a decision on code criteria and ensure that they

don’t require information when not needed for decision making.


Tigard, Oregon: A) Newly developed Effective Tree Canopy Requirements for new

development are included in the Urban Forestry Manual with specific requirements

that are tiered and based on zoning districts:

• 40% Canopy Target: R1 to R-7

• 33% Canopy Target:R-12 to R-40 / Commercial / Mixed-

Use (employment, commercial-retail, residential) /

Industrial Park)

• 25% Canopy Target: Mixed-Use (central business district,

com.) / Industrial (light and heavy) / Schools

• Fee calculation based on the most recent wholesale median

tree cost established by the PNW-ISA for a 3-inch diameter

deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59

square feet

The intent of new tree canopy requirements for new development is to focus on the

end result of development on tree canopy, instead of basing planting and payment

requirements on the number of trees on-site prior to development (in other words,

instead of mitigation for tree removal). This means that the new requirements are

actually easier to meet on development sites with existing trees.

B) Incentives for tree retention in Tigard Development Code include:

• Density bonus

• Lot size averaging


• Lot width and depth

• Commercial/Industrial/Civic use parking

• Commercial/Industrial/Civic use landscaping

Beaverton, Oregon: Design review process in place for landscaping trees during the

development process to ensure tree resource protection.

Alternative 3: Preservation of Trees based on Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) Standards

Remove outdated criteria that require preservation of tree in drainageways and water bodies

and instead focus on ensuring that tree regulations are consistent with the City’s various

environmental overlay districts such as the HCA.

Alternative 4: Single-family Dwellings

Consolidate and create a section of tree rules specific to single-family dwellings. For many of

the existing regulations, the requirements for single-family dwellings are different than for

any other forms of development and are noted as exceptions throughout the Tree Code.

Alternative 5: Clarify ‘May’ and ‘Minimize’

There are a number of tree rules that specify that the Manager may require an action by the

development applicant. The Definitions General Provisions (3.0001) state “As used in this

ordinance, ‘shall’ and ‘must’ are mandatory. ‘May’ and ‘should’ are permissive”. Similarly

there is no code language that provides how the City is to determine if “minimize” has been

achieved by a proposal. In order to have a clear and object standards the code should

provide direction on the circumstances under which the Manager would require an action and

how the City would determine if a proposal meets the “minimize” criteria.

Alternative 6: Required Tree List Guidelines

Based on the right tree/right place policy create a set of guidelines for existing and new

development associated with a Required Tree List for street trees, parking lot trees and

buffer trees. The guidelines would first identify the characteristic of trees that apply to

varying circumstances such as canopy and height, density of branches, durability especially

in constrained spaces, and potential conflict with sidewalks or paving. Secondly, the

guidelines would describe how individual species meet the respective characteristics to help

the list user understand optimal planting scenarios.



Tigard, Oregon: Separate tree list for each of the following areas and tree types:

• Streets • Medians • Parking Lots • Columnar trees • Native tees • Nuisance trees

Beaverton, Oregon: Approved Street Tree List organized by trees permitted in a:

• Minimum 3-foot planting area with no overhead utility wire conditions




• Trees permitted by PGE and City of Beaverton for use under power wires

• Oregon state icon used to denote if Native

Street Tree List Rules for All Trees on List:

• Must be healthy grown nursery stock;

• A minimum of 1.5 inch caliper at 6 inches above ground level;

• At least 8-10 feet high;

• Have a straight trunk, well developed leader with tops and roots characteristic of the species cultivar or variety;

• Free of insects, diseases, mechanical injury and other objectionable features when planted;

• Bare root stock shall leave a root system sufficient to insure survival and healthy growth;

• Balled and burlap (B&B) stock shall leave a natural sound ball sufficient to insure survival and healthy growth; and

• All trees that are grafted are to be grafted at a minimum height of 7 feet above ground level.

Bellevue, Washington: The only tree list used is a Downtown Tree Species Plan that is

currently being revised and a recent effort began to create an Urban Boulevards List

for major streets within the city.

Cary, North Carolina: Two lists are used in the Town of Cary that include a Streetscape List and Parking Lot/Islands Tree List. These two lists are located in the Community Appearance Manual with key headers that include Mature Height/Spread and Native; an asterisk is used to denote if the tree is not suitable as a streetscape or parking lot tree; or in parking lot islands; and if prone to dry soil. The list is organized in the following way:

• Large Deciduous Trees

• Large Evergreen Trees


• Small Deciduous Trees

• Small Evergreen Trees

Alternative 7: Clarify Public Tree Pruning Standards

Identify clear and objective criteria aligned with the most recent standard arboricultural

practices for tree pruning and industry standards for topping.

Issue 3: Inadequate and Unclear Development Permits Process

Opportunities identified for this issue include how to track tree removal and replacement;

clarifying the role of arborists in the permit process; and ensuring that the permit process is

appropriate for the action.


As noted in Alternative 1 of Issues 2, Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1010.B.) are regulations

that do not require permits for removal of up to 3 (less than 35,000 square feet site) or 6

(more than 35,000 square feet site) 8-inch DBH trees during a 12-month period.

Circumstances and associated procedures where the Tree Code does require permits for

are:

Type I Procedure

• Removal/Replacement of Street Trees/Buffer Trees/Parking Lot Trees Regulated

Trees (9.1010.C.) provides for removal and replacement for street, buffer and parking

lot trees located on developed property under a Type I procedure.

Type II Procedure

• Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1010.B.) has criteria (see Issue 2, Alternative 1) that

require a permit when more than 3 or 6 trees are removed in a 12-month period. As

noted above, the Code is unclear about when the 12-month period under a Type II

procedure.

• Tree Removal in Overlay Districts (9.1010.E.) has rules that require a Type II

procedure for trees located within a hillside, floodplain, or habitat conservation area,

except if they meet the criteria listed for ornamental tree reviewed under a Type I

procedure.

Type III Procedure

• Removal of Regulated Significant Trees (9.1010.D.) has rules that are reviewed under

a Type III Permit process in association with development for individual trees and

groves designated by the City with the property owner consent as Significant.

Verification of Tree Removal Permit or Exemption (9.1010.H) requires that before obtaining a

grading permit or before preforming any “grading, ground breaking, grubbing, tree removal,


or clearing activity” that a tree removal permit or “written verification from the Manager that

no tree removal permit is required”.

Definitions – Arborists (3.0010) is defined under four categories: Certified; Consulting;

Qualified and Registered Consulting. Below lists a number of references within the Tree Code

to these four arborist definitions, including additional references to an Independent Arborist

or Independent Consulting Arborist:

• Section 9.1011.E states that an arborist’s report and recommendations “(if required)”

should address all stages of development;

• Section 9.1011.F states that a consulting arborist may be required to verify the need

of tree removal in a Special Purpose Overlay District;

• Section 9.1011.G states that “plan may be required from a qualified arborist if the

information provided by the applicant is, in the interpretation of the Manager, not

adequate to address … criteria”;

• Section 9.1012.A.6 provides that the “Manager may require a mitigation plan or

windthrow assessment … by a qualified arborist or a certified landscape architect”;

• Section 9.1012.B provides that the City “may request verification by an independent

arborist” when trees are proposed to be removed due to health:

• Section 9.1012.E provides that “Consulting Arborist” can document the emergency

removal of a tree as an imminent hazard;

• Section 9.1013.A requires a “tree preservation plan prepared by a consulting arborist”

when a development site includes Significant Trees;

• Section 9.1015.B provides that a Tree Protection During Construction Plan be

prepared by a qualified arborist or meet specified criteria;

• Section 9.1011.B.5 provides that the City “may require a Consulting Arborist be

present during any construction or grading activities that may affect the drip line of

trees to be protected”;

• Section 9.1030.B provides that a Certified Arborist may be required by the Manager

to do Major Pruning of street and right-of-way trees; and

• Section 9.1040 B requires that a person removing trees without required permit pay

for an “independent consulting arborist” to determine the value of the trees removed

without permit for Civil Penalties purposes.

Alternative 2: Establish Defined Time-Frame for Exemptions and Permits

Alternative definitions for a 12-month period could include calendar year; a period beginning

with the issuance of the permit; beginning with the removal of a regulated tree or beginning

with removal of the allowed number of trees. This alternative would also determine how the

verification of exemption required in Section 9.1010.H would apply in regard to allowances

for removal of regulated trees without permit.


Alternative 3: Tree Removal Exemption and Required Verification

Determine if removal of trees allowed without a permit should require a written verification

prior to removal as stated in Section 9.1010.H.

Alternative 4: Arborist Title and Role

There are a number of references to arborists in the Tree Code with five separate definitions

that range from certified arborist to registered consulting arborist. For ease of use, limit the

number of arborist titles referenced in the Tree Code to reflect the expertise necessary to

implement the Tree Code. Also, identify those instances when the role of the arborist ‘Shall’

versus ‘May’ be required. The Definitions General Provisions (3.0001) state “As used in this

ordinance, ‘shall’ and ‘must’ are mandatory. ‘May’ and ‘should’ are permissive”. Create clear

and objective standards for when an arborist is required for both shall and may

circumstances.

For instance, in Section 9.1011.E it’s unclear if the qualified arborist should only be consulted

when “tree health is proposed as a reason for tree removal”, as stated in the introduction

code section paragraph, and what type of criteria is used to determine when an arborist

report is required – especially when there are factors related to soil stability or habitat loss in

the natural resource overlay districts. This alternative would clarify the role arborists and

other registered landscape professionals play in verifying requirements in the Tree Code

related to:

• Tree protection plans

• Tree health

• Hazard tree designations

Alternative 5: Clarify Tree Permit Process

To provide a more efficient and complete permit process for what is asked from the applicant

and provided to city staff for review; and provide clear code criteria for both development

and non-development permitting cases that better defines what types of plans are required

and how to display information. Use best practices and different ways to require and display

information on plan submittals for tree protection, removal and replacement.


Tigard, Oregon: The following are required under a Type I Procedure:

• Tree preservation and removal site plan. This is a demolition/preservation plan identifying trees to remain and trees to be removed and includes the following:

o Trees over 6 inch diameter


o Trees less than 6 inch diameter that are street and median trees,

heritage trees, trees in sensitive lands, and trees planted using the

Urban Forestry Fund

• Tree canopy site plan. This landscape plan shows all trees to be preserved

and planted and visually displays how the effective canopy requirements will

be met.

• Supplemental report. Narrative for the site plans providing more detailed

inventory data for preservation of trees and stands of trees such as:

o Species

o Size

o Condition

o Suitability

The following are required under a Type II or III Procedure. These are larger project

types require an urban forestry site plan be submitted as part of a land use review:

o Subdivisions

o Planned developments

o Minor partitions

o Site development reviews

o Conditional uses

o Sensitive lands review

o Downtown design reviews

All plans required to be developed by a landscape architect or a person certified as

both an arborist and tree risk assessor.

Alternative 6: Update Procedures and Criteria for Tree Removal/Replacement in Overlays

To ensure the permit procedure is appropriate for the action, whether it is tree protection,

removal or replacement in the natural resource overlay districts, match the review method,

associated criteria and procedures to the permit complexity.


Tigard, Oregon: Tree removal permits can be approved by way of two processes:

• Simple review method. This is for simple situations without an applicable fee

and reviewed by city staff based on approval criteria in the Urban Forestry


Manual and the decision is usually final and valid for up to one year. Example

cases are for trees:

o In poor or hazardous condition

o Considered a nuisance

o Damaging structures or infrastructure

o Preventing allowed development

• Complex review method. This is for more complex situations with a fee of

$307 per tree that are reviewed by a City board or commission that uses

discretion to weigh tree benefits and reasons for removal. Example cases are

for trees:

o Blocking views or solar access

o Not desirable due to species or personal preferences such as

aesthetics or location

Issue 4: Unclear Options for Tree Mitigation and Violations

Opportunities that have been identified for this issue include tree code incentives for tree

preservation; options for mitigation; considering if mitigation should be fee, size or height

bases; and addressing when, where and how fines are applied.


Tree Removal/Replacement/Protection – General Provisions (9.1010.B, D & E) include

mitigation plan references for regulated trees, including ornamental trees in the Overlay

districts, with (9.1010.D) referencing an alternative off-site mitigation plan for significant

trees. Several references to caliper replacement requirements for street, buffer and parking

lot trees are stated in (9.1010.C).

Criteria for Removal of Regulated Trees (9.1012) provides some tree replacement provisions

for “perimeter trees” and requires a “mitigation plan” that may not be aligned with the most

recent best practices since the provisions have not been updated since adopted in 1990.

Civil Penalties (9.1040.B.) outlines punitive and mitigation provisions when Section 9.1000,

the Tree Code, is violated, which includes a fine based on up to three times the arboricultural

value of the lost tree or trees that was determined by an independent consulting arborist;

the cost of the arborist review; and the replacement of the “trees with like trees that equal

the replacement value of the lost trees”. This section also references the City’s list of solar

friendly trees, which does not exist in any formalized way.


Civil Penalties (9.1040.C.) describes how the violator (including the property owner, violator’s

agent and any other developer) who damages any tree that has been designated for

protection shall all be penalized $50 per each individual point of damage to the tree. The

penalty may also require a consulting arborist report prepared at the developer’s expense.

Alternative 2: Mitigation for Tree Preservation/Replacement Based on Right Tree/Right Place

The Tree Code can be updated to include incentives to retain regulated trees on-site as well

as better define when, where and how on and off-site mitigation standards apply for

development and redevelopment. For instance:

• Incentives to retain on-site regulated trees could be developed in a way that makes it

easier to meet site requirements and protect trees based on the right tree/right place

policies. The Tree Code can use are the Multi-Family Development Code design

standards (7.0103.A.5.d.6.). The Multi-Family design standards provide the option to

count existing regulated major trees, which are over 12 inches in diameter, for

required trees. Yard setback trees may also be credited towards any tree required for

the buffer.

• On-site and off-site mitigation standards to protect and replant trees based on the

right tree/right place policies can include defining:

o Specific submittal requirements needed for an on-site mitigation plan

o Criteria for on and off-site site mitigation of all regulated trees

o Best practices for tree size and location replacement requirements

o Best practices for capturing replacement value of trees that may include tree

type, size, species, condition, location data, transplantable size information

and literature based replacement costs.


Tigard, Oregon: A) Four options for Developers:

• Preserve: 200 percent credit based on existing canopy area (i.e. easier to

meet site requirements):


• Plant: canopy credit for mature canopy area with native receiving 125

percent:

• Pay: in-lieu of fee for planting or preserving trees elsewhere at $2.95 per

square foot of tree canopy:

• Discretionary Review: propose alternative development for

discretionary approval providing equivalent environmental benefits such as

wildlife, hydrological, or climate (i.e. through green building or

development instead of providing trees)


Source: City of Tigard concept drawings

B) Incentives for tree grove preservation on developable sites to avoid all tree groves

removed as shown in the illustration below:

Residential Example. Waive minimum density requirements to preserve all tree

grove as shown below:

Non-Residential Example. Allow increased building heights for all or partial tree

grove preservation as shown below:

Source: City of Tigard concept drawings


Alternative 3: Mitigation for Tree Removal Violations

When mitigation is required as a response to tree removal violations, comparable

replacement value methods can be stated in the Civil Penalty section of the Tree Code rather

than the current ‘tree for tree’ approach used. This would quantify the Civil Penalty code

language to clarify what is meant by the replacement of the “trees with like trees that equal

the replacement value of the lost trees”. Best practices can be developed for appropriate

mechanisms to capture the replacement value of trees when tree planting that cannot be

accommodated either on or off-site. Referencing applicable tree lists located in the Tree

Code would also guide the violator to replace the right tree in the right place.


Tigard, Oregon: Urban Forestry Fund used for planting trees and replacing lost canopy and in the following ways:

• Deliver and plant free street trees to Tigard residents requesting in the fall

and winter

• Large scale plantings in stream corridors, on school grounds and along

highways where canopy is needed

• Maintain prior planting during an establishment period

Beaverton, Oregon: The following three monetary mitigation funds:

• Tree Mitigation Fund (mitigation trees)

• Urban Forestry Program Fund (street trees)

• Tree Preservation Fund (street trees)

Alternative 4: Update Civil Penalty Code Structure

Update civil penalty language in the Tree Code based on best practices to provide a revised

structure and tiered approach to minimum and maximum fines. For instance:

• A Revised Civil Penalty Structure - this could include a civil penalty matrix for removal

of trees to specify when, where and how fines should be applied within the Tree

Code. The matrix could discern between unpermitted removal of healthy trees and

those that are dead, dying, and hazardous or are in need of emergency removal.

Likewise, the matrix could address unpermitted pruning of trees. The matrix could be

developed for a range of tree sizes, if the trees are high or low value (i.e. cedar vs.

cottonwood), required tree status, and location within the City.

• A Tiered Fine Approach – evaluate applicability of be st practices used to provide a

tiered fine approach to minimum and maximum fines to deter unpermitted tree

removal violations.



Tigard, Oregon: Minimum fine of $250 imposed as well as a maximum fine for tree removal violations with the following rationale:

• Requiring a minimum fine is intended to be a deterrent

• Limiting the maximum fine protects citizens from disproportionate penalties

Preferred Approach Evaluation Criteria

Once the range of alternative approaches has been determined, the next step in Tree Code

Update project is to evaluate and select a preferred alternative approach. The process for

selecting a preferred alternative approach involves evaluating each alternative approach to

determine which does the best job in reaching the project’s goals. The evaluation can lead to

a selection of a single approach but more often will be a combination of elements of different

approaches as well as additional new elements that arise out of the evaluation process.

Staff is proposing that the evaluation criteria for selecting the preferred alternative would be

the Urban Forestry Management Plan Goals and applicable Policies that were adopted by

Council in 2012. These Goals and Policies are found in in the Policies Document of the

Comprehensive Plan (10.014, Section 3). Each alternative approach would be evaluated on if

it is the best, better or good in meeting the Goal or Policy. The Goals and applicable Policies

are:

Goals:

1. Create a high-quality urban forest in Gresham

2. Establish proactive public tree maintenance and management practices

3. Promote community partnership and education opportunities for urban forestry

Policies:

1. Protect, preserve and enhance Gresham’s urban forest.

2. Maximize tree-canopy cover to expand Gresham’s urban forest.

3. Maximize the ecological, environmental and economic benefits of the urban forest.

4. Mange the urban forest to maximize community benefits for all.

6. Adopt best management practices and resource management tools to improve tree maintenance citywide.

7. Improve the health and care of Gresham’s street trees.

9. Increase public awareness and engage the community in active stewardship of the urban forest.


Next steps

Staff recommendations will be developed after additional input from the Public, including the Urban Forestry Subcommittee and Natural Resources and Sustainability Committee, as well as the Planning Commission. The alternatives will be reviewed by the public at a May 1 community forum, by the Planning Commission at a May 13 meeting and by the Natural Resources and Sustainability Committee at a May 15 meeting. Public comments will be used to inform the Preferred Approach Selection phase of the project, which will begin in August 2013.

Documents

DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 6: TREE CODE