Loading...
City Council Packet - 10/11/1994CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business WW-da Items cm be herd in env order after ZBO p-m Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Bd. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 369 (voice) or 664-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA M COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 1 CITE' COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY MEETING Executive Sesslon: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. Discuss Council Meeting Cates Schedule Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Receive and File a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4. UPDATE FROM ARTS POLICY TASK FORCE 5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - TRUCK RESTRICTIONS ON WALNUT STREET Staff recommends that the Tigard Municipal Code be revised to extend the existing truck restrictions to include the new extension of Walnut Street. a. Staff Report: Engineering Department b. Council questions. c. Council consideration: Ordinance No. 943 4 COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 2 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA .92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.180 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms: developed residential lot, hazardous tree, pruning, removal, and tree. In addition, the proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of time, and revocation of approval; 5) Add notice requirements for most tree removal; 6) Add provisions for setback adjustments and Incentives; 7) Add provisions for the mitigation of tree removal; 8) Add provisions for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, end 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.30.120. a. Open Public Bearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents G. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions 9. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94- 04 7. METRO GREENSPACES - APPROVE PRIORI'T'Y LIST OF PROJECTS IN THE TIGARD AREA a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94- z4 ~v 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REVIEW DING; CITY'S INQUIRY DOES THE CITY OF TIGARD HAVE ANY INTEREST IN PURSUING A MERGER WITH THE CITY OF DING CITY? a. Staff Summary: Interim City Administrator b. Council Discussion 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT =1011.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 3 . Council Agenda Item T I GAR D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STmy SESSION • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. Council meeting recessed: 7:30 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 7:39 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITORS -AGENDA: (Note: Persons who signed in on the Visitor°s Agenda to speak on the Arts Policy testified during Council Agenda Item 4.) • Sally Christensen, 15685 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon noted concerns with the process followed with the tree ordinance proceedings. She explained difficulties she encountered in obtaining the most current draft of the tree ordinance. She questioned how citizens could make informed comments under these circumstances. Interim City Administrator Monahan reported that the last review of the tree ordinance by city council was on August 22, 1994. Since that time, staff and the City CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 1 Attorney has worked on the ordinance continuously. A new draft was released on September 27, 1994. Cdr. Monahan also referred to the press coverage and advised this matter had been an agenda,item discussed at CIT meetings as well. Jack Polans, 16000 S.W. Queen Victoria, Ring City, Oregon requested that he be allowed to comment on Agenda Item 8. In addition, Mr. Polans said he was concerned about deliberate upoisoning" of trees (see public testimony - Agenda Item 6). Nathan Murdock, 7775 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, Oregon complained about political signs placed on property. Many signs are on city property without permission. He suggested levying fines. Interim City Administrator Monahan explained that some signs are on private property; candidates should ask for permission before placing signs on anyone's property. Signs should not be in the public right-of-way and would be subject to removal by the City. The signs are not thrown away; rather, the candidate is told where he/she can retrieve any signs removed by the City. After brief discussion with Mr. Murdock, Mr. Monahan advised candidates are sometimes given the opportunity to remove the signs themselves. Illegally placed signs at Genesis Loop will be checked by City staff. 3. CONSENT AGERQA: In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Interim City Administrator Monahan advised that the tentative notation listed next to Council meeting dates on the tentative agenda was because discussion with Council will be necessary to determine Councils individual calendars and availability for meetings. 3.1 Receive and File a. Council,Calendar b. Tentative Agenda Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Notion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwartz, Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla vote eyes.") 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 2 0 4. UPDATE FROM ARTS POLICY TASK FORCE a. Community Involvement Coordinator Newton reviewed this agenda item. The issue before the Council was "Should the City Council adopt a policy to provide funding for the arts?" Ms. Newton reviewed the Staff Report. It was noted that the Arts Policy Task Force (Committee) had suggested that potential funding be 1/4 of 1% of the City°s total budget. The suggested amount would be dedicated toward funding of he arts. Ms. Newton advised that funding approval was not requested of Council at this time. The Committee was hoping the Council would review the suggested Arts Policy. b. Public comments: Donna Milraney offered testimony with regard to the history and context of arts in the region. She reviewed the Arts Plan 2000+ planned for the Metropolitan area. Ms. Milraney advised that people want activities for the arts in their own communities. • Mary Simeone reviewed criteria for eligibility to receive funds (see Council packet for this material). In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Simeone advised that the Committee has looked into events such as a summer concert series. There was discussion on the definition of "arts." It was suggested that the Arts Policy be applied to arts and cultural activities. Ms. Newton, in response to a question from Mayor Schwartz, advised that the Council would set out the process (Criteria for Eligibility to Receive Funds) and the Budget Committee would decide, during the budget cycle, how the funds would be allocated. Barb Pearson, a Tigard business owner testified in support of the Arts Policy. She advised that such a policy would be proactive and a preventative approach assisting young people by making available after-school programs. She noted the arts policy would support a greater sense of community and the local economy. Ms. Pearson advised that the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 3 Chamber of Commerce was supportive of the Arts Polic y. In discussion which followed, it was noted that the Arts Commission of Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood (ACTTS) would be supportive in an advisory role to assist in prescreening requests for budget funds. Mary Simeone noted the criteria would be very specific which would show not only budget needs, but also a narrative to describe the project. Councilor Hawley noted that ACTTS would also be able to apply for funding. • Sharon Maroney, 8335 S.W. Durham Road, No. 1, Tigard, Oregon spoke in favor of the Arts Policy referring to the success of the Broadway Rose Theater in the community. • Bonnie Geil of Forest Grove, Oregon noted support of the Arts Commission and her appreciation for the work they have done. • Bert Black, 13410 S.W. Village Glenn Court, Tigard, Oregon advised he supported the arts and especially Broadway Rose. He noted the good benefits derived from participation with Broadway Rose for his family. • Linda Sher, 13485 S.W. Genesis Loop, Tigard, Oregon said she has participated in the Broadway Rose and noted her thanks for Tigard®s support of the arts. • Janice Grounds, Grounds Coffee World in downtown Tigard, noted her support for the arts and the benefits that are derived through an opportunity to reflect community culture. • Pamela Grounds, Grounds Coffee World in downtown Tigard, advised she supports the Arts Policy and noted there is a "thirst in Tigard" for arts. • Joyce Ashmanskas, 7575 S.W. 140th, Beaverton, Oregon commented on the Metro Arts Commission. She noted the success of the Beaverton Arts commission which has had a positive reinforcement in the City of Beaverton for the last 11 years. CITY COUNCIL MELTING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 4 C. Staff Recommendation: Ms. Newton advised that staff recommended that Council adopt the policy and criteria for eligibility to receive funds (as shown in the Council packet. (Note: Amendment to No. 1 - Criteria for Eligibility to Receive Funds is as follows: 1. Funds must serve Tigard residents, but not exclusively.) d. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Arts Policy and Criteria for Eligibility -sk Receive Funds. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - TRUCK RESTIWICTI NS ON WALNUT STREET a. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended that the Tigard Municipal Code be revised to extend the existing truck restrictions to include the new extensions of Walnut Street. There was brief discussion. b. ORDINANCE NO. 94-23 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 10.16.051 AND REMISING TRUCK RESTRICTIONS ON WALNUT STREET. C. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 94-23. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms: developed residential lot, hazardous tree, pruning, removal, and tree. In addition, the proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the issuance of permits;'4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of time, and revocation of approval; 5) Add notice 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 5 requirements for most tree removal; 6) Add provisions for setback adjustments and incentives; 7) Add provisions for the mitigation of tree removal; 8) Add provisions for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.30,120. a. Public hearing was opened.. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the Staff Report which is on file with the Council packet material. Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the currently proposed ordinance. In addition, he noted there may be properties within the City of Tigard which the Council may want to add to an exemption process. Mr. Bewersdorff advised that an average permit would cost $180 -$200 to process. Mr. Bewersdorff noted several concerns. Some may view the proposed ordinance as being stringent. Which trees should be protected may need more attention. In addition, there are concerns about resources which would be needed in order to implement the proposed ordinance. Options before the Council include: • Leave the proposed ordinance as it is. • Fine-tune the ordinance. • Discontinue further consideration of this ordinance. • Define further what kinds of trees should be protected. Interim City Administrator Monahan advised that Mr. Ty Wyman from the City Attorney's office was available to answer questions. d. Public Testimony Mayor Schwartz referred to the work done to date with regard to the tree ordinance. He also noted that notice had been given on this issue through articles in the newspaper and the Cityscape. -He requested individuals limit their testimony to five minutes. 4) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 6 0 ° Proponents - Jeffrey Gottfried, 7040 S.W. 84th- Street, Tigard, Oregon testified in support of the tree ordinance. Mr. Gottfried was a member of Fans of Fanno Creek. He noted the benefits of trees which'included protection of downstream properties. He supported the Tigard tree ordinance. - Jack Polans, 16000 S.W.- Queen Victoria, Icing City Oregon, noted his concerns with trees being poisoned. He urged Council to deter anything that may be done to harm trees. - Carol Kriege, 11910 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon testified in support of the tree ordinance. She noted that persons who own property under 7,500 square feet probably would not be affected by this ordinance. She said that there was need for park land and suggested the purchase of trees for wildlife habitat and water quality. Cece Dispenza, 11460 S.W. Dawns Court, Tigard, Oregon said she applauded the drafters of the ordinance. She said there was a need to protect natural resources for livability reasons. Ms. Dispenza advised that she liked the incentives portion of the ordinance. Christy Herr, 11386 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, referred to citizens who were concerned with personal property rights. She said that there was no place in an urban city for logging. Ms. Herr noted the proposal was a good ordinance with well-thought-out exemptions. She said that caring for trees will pay off. Ms. Herr referred to past newspaper coverage and disputed the articles and advised that there had been "fact manipulation." She stated that she did not have any part in the drafting of the tree ordinance. Ms. Herr advised of the need to assess any concerns with the tree ordinance on a either a quarterly or bi-annual basis. She noted the Tigard area has lost many trees. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 7 Kent Patton, 15735 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, noted he lived near a treed area. He said that it had been suggested that some trees be preserved over other trees. He advised that the vegetation near his home contains mixed varieties and that it would be difficult to determine which were waste and which were beneficial. He noted that the trees provide a noise and light barrier. Mr. Patton suggested that tree permits be reviewed at the time a building development plan is presented. With regard to loss of personal property rights, Mr. Patton commented that there are a lot of things individuals cannot do on their property. He pointed out that the ordinance would not affect trees within 50 feet of a residence. Mr. Patton said the ordinance was lenient. He advised the ordinance was not clear with regard to permit requirements for dead trees; he requested clarification. Nancy Tracy, 7310 S.W. Pine Street, Metzger, Oregon distributed photographs (see Council packet materials). Ms. Tracy supported restrictions for tree removal. She referred to removal of centuries-old trees and cited specific trees which had been removed in the area. She said that the City needed to keep the children's futures in mind and to think in terms of long-range. Ms. Tracy suggested that developers be more creative at the time of development in order to save trees. She also noted that she agreed with the suggestions which had been submitted by Doug Smithey with regard to the tree ordinance. In addition, she noted that snags or dead trees are also beneficial to wildlife. Casey Schleich, 7814 S.W. Skyhar, Tigard, Oregon noted concerns about the amount of development in the area and supported the letter submitted by Mr. Doug Smithey. In addition, Mr. Schleich noted that there had been indications from City Staff that there would be a tree study done in the area. He noted concerns that many trees will be gone and said he hoped that an interim ordinance 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 8 could be put into place. He supported strict Code enforcement. David Drescher, 9350 S.W. Brooks Road, Tigard (signed in on the testimony sheet, but did not speak.) Dan Mitchell, 16585 S.W. 92nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised that he lived on 1-1/2 acres near Cook Park. He noted there was a 100-year old tree on his property which he could cut down. He would like to see more regulations with regard tc protection of visually valuable or historic trees. He suggested that cooperation could be gained when a value placed on a tree. He also said that dead trees were valuable for wildlife habitat. Doug Smithey referred to his letter submitted -to City Council (said letter is contained in the Council. packet material). Mr. Smithey noted that this was the fourth public hearing on this issue and that it was time to do something. He suggested everyone participate in updating the ordinance in the future. Mr. Smithey offered an historical analogy with regard to property rights concerns proposed by others. He noted the importance of trees to prevent flooding and enhance air quality. Mr. Smithey noted that the world is getting smaller, all properties are connected, and that property ownership means rights and responsibilities. C Opponents - Betty Polson, 14400 S.W. McFarland, Tigard, Oregon noted she opposed the ordinance. She referred to ordinance as a "Big Brother mentality." Ms. Polson said that government was too involved in the lives of citizens. She questioned the funding source for the "tree police." She advised that developers, not private homeowners, were taking down the trees. - Sally Christensen, 15685 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon presented a letter which is on file with the Council packet material. The 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 9 r U letter posed a series of eight questions emphasizing her concerns with the proposed tree ordinance. Ms. Christensen also presented a petition which she advised was signed by 118 people. She noted concerns with property rights and advised the incentives were for developers only. There were no incentives for non-developing property owners. ("...they get a carrot and we get a stick.") Evelyn Beach, 11530 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified in support of property rights and noted the need to regulate developers which are cutting down larger .acreages of trees. Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, noted his concerns with current tree farm operations. He noted he has operated a tree farm for many years and requested that some kind of grandfather clause be incorporated into any tree ordinance to allow property owners to continue tree farms currently in operation. John Benneth, 15550 S.W. 109th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised he was an advocate for Mr. Erickson. 'tie referred to Mr. Erickson's participation in past years in the growth of Douglas Firs including some prize-winning efforts. Mr. Benneth said that the tree farm represents part of Mr. Erickson's income; it would be an injustice if properties such as this were not exempted in some way in the tree ordinance. Michael Smith, 11645 S.W. Cloud Court, Tigard, Oregon distributed a letter City Council (letter is on file with the Council packet material). Mr. Smith stated, "Please save this City unnecessary expense and acrimony and drop your ill-conceived tree ordinance." Marshall Stevens, 12400 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, said that he loves his trees but that they were his trees which must be replaced periodically; however, when and with what he would replace his trees should be his decision. Mr. Steven said he opposed the ordinance because: 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER. 11, 1994 - PAGE 10 1. He does not want to "hassle" to file for a permit. 2. As a taxpayer he is opposed to overhead noting that the City cannot enforce ordinances in effect now. 3. The proposal represents an intrusion into his life. He said government needs to be more business like in decision-making processes. He said he wants government to educate his children, enforce laws, fix streets but leave his .property alone. David Glaubke, 8940 S.W. Edwards Street, Tigard, Oregon advised that he grew up in Tigard. He said he opposed private property, residential restrictions. He urged the Council to concentrate on developers to work around trees. He said the proposed ordinance represented an infringement of rights; such infringement he warned would mean that there would "be a fight" if there were attempts to take them away. Nancy Glaubke, 8940 S.W. Edwards Street, Tigard, Oregon said the ordinance would penalize the private property owner more than it helps. She noted it infringed upon private property owners' rights. Bill McMonagle, 12555 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon said he was opposed to the ordinance as drafted. He said he agreed that individual homeowners were not taking down the trees; rather, it was developers. The ordinance, he advised, offers no solution to the problems. Mr. McMonagle said the City of Tigard Codes are part of the problem in that they are inflexible. The Code does not allow for variance in grades and horizontal alignments when developing property and streets. He suggested Tigard be proactive and flexible with road system development in marginal lands. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 PAGE 11 Jim Nicoli, 9025 S.W. Center, Tigard, Oregon advised that he spoke to Council previously at length on this issue. He noted that some incentives had been placed in the ordinance proposal but there were still problem areas. He advised he was still opposed to the ordinance. Mr. Nicoli noted the lack of incentives for small business owners. He noted issues with trees in rights-of-way and the reluctance of staff members to try to save trees. He suggested more guidelines be instituted. Mr. Nicoli advised current land use ordinances makes it difficult at times to save trees. He advised he was in favor of saving trees, but the proposed ordinance has gone too far. After brief discussion with Mayor Schwartz and Councilor Hunt, Mr. Nicoli suggested that an example of an incentive would be to allow people to build taller structures. William Hawley, 14790 S.W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised he had lived in Tigard most of his life. He said he has seen an increase in the number of trees as well as a change in the types of trees planted. He opposed the tree ordinance as written noting that it takes away rights to maintain the landscape on individuals' properties. He referred to the Lake Oswego tree ordinance which he said did not impose a prohibition on single-family, undividable property. Mir. Hawley said he did not see anything in the proposed ordinance which would "offend" him as a developer. The ordinance should not take away rights of citizens. He said he liked the exemptions portion of the ordinance. He expressed concerns with the overhead costs associated with the ordinance. Fetters received as part of the record (and on file with the Council packet material) on this item include the following: CITY COUNCIL 1EETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 12 • Letter dated October 3, 1994 from Brigitte Partington, 10085 S.W. Inez Street, Tigard, Oregon opposing the tree ordinance citing intrusion of government "in our lives." S • Letter dated. October 7, 1994 from Nancy J. Irwin, 11135 S.W. 125th Place, Tigard, Oregon, opposing the "tree removal lawn • Memorandum noting a telephone call from Charlotte O"Dell, 14850 S.W. 100th Street, Tigard, Oregon, opposing the ordinance because it is an infringement of her rights as a property owner. Council meeting recessed 10:35 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 10:45 p.m. • Mayor Schwartz announced he inadvertently missed a person on the sign-in sheet and called Mr. David Smith up to speak. • David Smith, Attorney at Law, 6975 S.W. Sandburg Road, Suite 130, Tigard, Oregon testified and also previously submitted a letter (on file with the packet material) on behalf of Mrs. Rita Hart listing objections to the latest draft version of the tree ordinance. Mr. Smith noted difficulty determining which version of the ordinance was under review because drafts were not dated. He cited Goal 1 implications. Additional testimony from Mr. Smith included the following: • Questioned whether the ordinance before the City Council protects more trees than what is currently in effect. • Noted issues with distinction of value of trees; significant trees. • Cited several Goal 5 concerns. • Referred to a heritage tree program. • Advised the ordinance was flawed because of Goal 2 and 5 issues. • Suggested that the Council not consider this ordinance until it was time for periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. 41 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -'OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 13 • Drew Council's attention to the three aerial photographs in the Town Hall noting the increased number of trees over the years (1950, 1983, 1993) City Attorney Ramis asked Mr. Smith several questions about tree protection ordinances. They briefly discussed State law, Goal 5, protection of investment, and aesthetics. G. Staff Recommendation: Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that the proposed ordinance needs further revision in the areas of notice provisions, systems development charge, and a number of other areas including the size of property which should fall under these regulations. Mr. Bewersdorff suggested formation of a Task Force to work out some of the issues. f. Council Questions In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, City Attorney Ramis advised that a two-tiered ordinance regulating development and residential property would be a possibility. • Mayor Schwartz referred to issues within Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary, the impacts of 2040 and increased pressure to raise the density requirements. This would also affect the ability to save trees on remaining developable land. He urged the public to participate at an upcoming "Listening Post" on Metro's Region 2040 program. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Council Consideration Councilor Scheckla advised he was not prepared to adopt anything at this time. He said it was appropriate to hold the issue order in order to receive more input and clarify the issues brought out during the hearing. He favored allowing more time to have the people in the City look the issue over. Councilor Hawley proposed that an ordinance be drafted to define developments/developers and regulate that process only and referred to 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 14 private property rights. She concurred with the suggestion of appointing a task force with people on both sides of the issue review and work toward an equitable solution. She suggested that the ordinance dealing with the development process be reviewed within the next month. Councilor Hawley also commented that the ordinance should allow staff flexibility and provide equally strong incentives and penalties. She advised she was not in favor of regulating non-subdividable lots. Councilor. Hunt noted objection to removal of provisions taking away the profit of cutting down trees. He also was concerned that the rights of individuals were not being protected. The ordinance should provide for control of development and riot individual tracts of land. • Councilor Rohlf referred to testimony alluding to the "'198481 (Big Brother) concerns. He advised of his concerns with protecting individual property rights and the efforts to get more public involvement on the issue. He noted that the two parties (proponents, opponents) may not be that far apart in that there appeared to be concerns for tree protection. He advised the ordinance was never aimed at limiting a private landowner's ability to landscape. Additional Council comments included: • During the Budget process a historic tree study funding request was removed. Suggestion now to study the older growth trees to identify significant trees and preserve old growth trees. There was note of older trees which have been removed despite promises of a developer to leave the trees in (8, 100-year old maple trees near Durham Road). • Initially the review of the tree ordinance was started to protect trees going down because of development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 15 • Council supported the formation of a task force. Comments concerning the task force included the following: Task force should be comprised of a cross-section of citizens to identify a common ground. - Review of incentives; developers rights to develop; and incentives for small business lots. • Interim city Administrator Monahan, in response to Council discussion, advised that staff could bring back for review information on historic trees (i.e., West Linn's regulations). g. The public hearing was continued to November 15, 1994 (Study Meeting). A draft ordinance for developments would be presented at that time as well as suggestions for formation of a Task Force. Consensus of Council was to allow additional public testimony on November 15. New versions of the ordinance will be made available in the Library and at the City Hall counter a week before the hearing. 7. SRO OREENSPACES - APPROVE PRIORITY LIST OF PROJECTS IN THE TIGARD AREA a. Associate Planner Duane Roberts reviewed the proposed resolution. The issue before the Council was, "Should the City submit the local greenspaces and trail projects for inclusion in Metro°s greenspace bond measure? If the bond measure is passed by voters in March, $755,923 would be available to Tigard as pass-through funds. if a list of projects is not approved by the City of Tigard, then the City will not be eligible to receive funds. b. Council Discussion - Council concerns were expressed with the short amount of time given to consider this issue. After discussion, consensus of Council was to delay making a decision in order to give Mayor Schwartz an opportunity to check with other Mayors in the area to determine how other cities are responding to this issue. Consideration was set over to October 25, 1994. 0 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 16 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REVIEW KING CITY°S INQUIRY DOES THE CITY OF TIGARD HATE ANY INTEREST IN PURSUING A MERGER WITH THE CITY OF KING CITY? a. Interim City Administrator Bill Monahan advised that the City received a letter on September 26, 1994, from King City Manager Larry Cole transmitting a question from one of their residents. A King City Council member suggested that the question be posed to Tigard which was to ask the City of Tigard whether they are interested in annexing King City." The King City Council did not take any action on that letter. A King City Council member indicated he wanted to find out whether the City of Tigard had any interest in pursuing the possibility of merging King City With Tigard. Mr. Monahan advised he talked to city Manager Larry Cole who made it very clear that the King City Council has taken no position, including the Council member who suggested that a letter of inquiry be sent to Tigard. Therefore, at this time, this is a very preliminary question; i.e., a hypothetical question. Mr. Monahan advised that he responded to King City advising that since they had not given Tigard any indication of what trair interest was, the Tigard staff would not analyze the question in any detail before taking it to the Tigard Council. Mr. Monahan said he sent information to King City about Tigard's tax rate. While taxes may not be the only concern to King city, they may be a major concern. The response back from King City was that they were aware of the taxes. The King City Manager feels that if the two cities were merged together, the net effect would be about a 2 cent reduction in the tax rate in Tigard; a 38 cent increase in the tax rate in King City discounting any outstanding indebtedness or the updated tax base if it passes-. At this time, advised Mr. Monahan, it is a preliminary inquiry. He posed the following questions to Council: - Do you have any interest in annexing King City? - If you have no answer to the above question, is it because you need additional information? - Do you want staff to go back King City requesting information? Do you want staff to ask willing to co-fund some Council would be able question? King City if they would be analysis before the Tigard to answer the annexation CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES --OCTOBER. 11, 1994 - PAGE 17 Mr. Monahan advised that another alternative would to be to tell King City that Tigard Council would like to have an indication from the King City Council before the Tigard Council is "put on the spot" for an answer. b. Council Discussion: Councilor Scheckla said it would be up to King City. He commented that they sent the letter and did not take a position and questioned, "How are we able to take a position?" He said the reply to them should be, "Until they make up their mind what position they want to take, I don't think we should do anything at the present time..." Councilor Hunt advised that Mr. Green called both Mayor Schwartz and him a month or two ago and asked whether they were interested in annexing King City. Councilor Hunt said the Mayor told Mr. Green that if there was anything that was to be done, it would have to come from the City Council of King city and not from an individual. (Mayor Schwartz affirmed that this was correct.) Councilor Hunt said this appeared to be the same situation with the Council asking a individual citizen's question. At this time with all the issues before the City of Tigard, Councilor Hunt said he would not have any interest of considering this question. C. Jack Polans, 16000 S.W. Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon, testified that in four years the City of King City has had over 18 Council members come and go. Mr. Polans referred to the Council meeting packet referencing the September 21, 1994 letter. Mr. Polans advised there was no record showing anything as to the numbers of King City residents wanting annexation. He said there was no name presented to the Tigard Council members as to who initiated this question. Mr. Polans reviewed other information contained in the Tigard Council packet. Mr. Polans said this was a "waste of time." d. Council discussion continued: Councilor Hawley advised that until the King City Council officially asks the question or takes a position, the Tigard Council should do neither. Councilor Hunt indicated he agreed with Councilor Hawley. Councilor Hawley said, "I think it is disrespectful of the City Council's position in King City to do anything else. They are representing the people. If there is a move among a significant number of people, they will be convinced and they will ask us in the proper form." 49 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 18 e. Mayor Schwartz summarized the Council consensus: Respond to King City through their manager, Larry Cole, that at this point in time, the City of Tigard is not interested initiating any annexation of King City and has no interest in looking at it. Should the City of King City, through their City Council, be serious about wanting to consider annexation, some type of a merger, or contract services; etc., this request must come from the City Council by their majority action. In response to a question from Mr. Polans about sharing costs Of studying the feasibility of annexation, Mayor Schwartz advised this was not an issue (reference the above-stated Tigard Council consensus). 9. NON-AGE MA ITEMS a. Public Officials Caucus - Councilor Hawley noted the importance of attending the Public Officials Caucus on October 19, 1994. b. Council consensus was that it would be acceptable to offer City-sponsored attendance to the successful Mayoral candidate. (LOC conference will be in November.) C. Chamber of Commerce Leadership Seminar. To date, eight applications have been received. 10. ADLTOU . 12:30 a.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, Cit ecorder Mayor ity of Tigard Date: can1011.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1994 - PAGE 19 • I >i n , ; - a r-.. w N t) ^ E<.~ J C--ti 00 N > 0. au Cr) 0 0 ~s , ~ N SJ C`v( ~ may. ~ZLLI C.D Cl) O co ~ w t D ? Q uj mm m 0) W ` U o ~ m 9L 0 x z m ® F- o ~ ~ 99~ a W 0 :1, a ❑ ❑ O L 0 2 P ar 6~. W G m ® Z co D O co c; M a > N r-1 l~ ® W rn ro r-i (0 - 4 O b) co tn -1 0) M H ~j 44 U) O >4 04 R) 4J ri b1 -1M v-1 UA H 0 8 Z d Q U J C4 a O ~ O Q ~ C7 LJ. OY C#) Q W O LL U. O M to U Q. 2 • t ~ N C OL = ~ Z 0 - r e ® > O W W Q cn N W m 0 - j U C q C W (a u m 0 r=; PC ;2 W cD a) a o W W .e. p'-9 2H WC C) (v Wc o CC) rH ® ® O as O ®d CL n I wo V g ' n C ON ..o 'a @ a . s ' 3 O • 4 CF U'~WWO t O1 U i W e 0 U e O e W W CC14 3 ~ n.. N 3 ~C Co ~ ® 06- 02~ L WOO 14 O ~3O.NUQ Rf O > p (A ~p G9 ~ 'iC 0) ® W t~j J Cm ®o C 0(D) C) c 13 OLV C9. r C U) -M 0 ca ca w 03 (D 0 e O 'O W W A w C O ~ E 4c E U. 2 ~c 'COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.Q. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 0 2 0 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ° City of Tigard ° ® Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I ° Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° I] Duplicate Affidavit ' Aouu . ...~znoga ;a,= ff1 wY~(..~L~- .9 - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION bi, •T" STATE OF OREGON, ) tl Mfr`: zaz,.a ~z COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. 4 2rui2~rob 32b% , I, Kathy Snyder " *sn being first duly sworn, depose ands ,that i cm 4he dvertising ni Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiQar -Tua~atin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the amity _niinri 1 Ruc' n aG Mt-g_ RECEIVE D a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and OCT 2 1994 consecutive in the following issues: CITY OF TIGARD October 6,1994 Subscribed and sworn t b fore me this 6th day of Octobe , OMCIAL SEAL & ROBIN A. BURGESS \r ."o'`/✓l NOTARY PUSLIC - OREGON COMM;SSION NO. 024552 NOt ublic for Oregon Ari rfUA411Cd1U PYOIP C MAV is 1007 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT" 0 f S i i °~fz°:~t311~~i.~€~.~~~.bdag~'ntsarepgblishe~~'6t: g°~aif'~r[~U►t~e-~ti11, agetfdaa P oadsicsed i o the City Reeorde §3F23''5NV. Hall' -oizlev.-dD Tigard. Crego~i 9'13, or lzy cataing 639;4171. BFR g I ~G~~ CIT'X',fi~.LL` =t?VN HP.I,L 't3. a2s1 W _HALL BQTJLEV.AR D TI(' &D , 124 Gd2N { Study Session (Town Hall Conference Bloom) (6:30 p.rfi.) m Executive Session: Ibe Tgad City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660', (1) (d), (e). (n) aisc~i As, labor relations , aro property, transactions, cur ent and Pend- ing fliigation is saes s Agenda Review j Be!sv~ess Meeting (Town 11a1i) (730 p.m.) • Pubic Hearings::. Tree Re-Imoval - Zone Ordinance:Amendcnent ZOA 92-00(34 , Location City-wide'. A reddest by-lhe City. of Tigard;to replace,, Qzpt°r 18.150 of the City c-ffigayd;Community Development Coale with new Code PaMsibns teri inirg to tree removal and to... provide addl,tior!d d6nifton 6f terias used in the ordinance ry Council Consi emuon " fi - Metro Green Imaces - Council's recommendation of a priority list f of projects in tlm Tigard area. Truck Restrictions on Walnut Strect atend the existing track; `restrictions to include the new extension of Walnut Street.', (Pro" Ordinance.) i Review King Cky's inquu Dm, the City of Tigard hale any in- i6iest in pursuing a merger wits the City of ling City? ® Local Contract Review Boat 'l? ?2 :hxl IiA # . abe,c 601994:' . M S`iud~j Jeaslor-~. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrtor DATE: September 30, 1994 SUBJECT: Council Meeting Dates Through December 1994 Following is a proposal for the Council meeting schedule through the end of December: October 11 Regular Meeting - Cable TV night 1s Study Meeting - No TV 25 Regular Meeting - Cable TV night November 01 Special Meeting - Conduct Council Business Meeting on this date. The regular meeting date is November 8 which is Election Day. TV may be available. 08 Regular Meeting Cancel 15 Study Meeting - No TV 21 Special Study Meeting with Planning Commission (Starting at 5:30 - dinner meeting) 22 Regular Meeting - TV available. (Note this is Thanksgiving week.) 29 Available for a Special Meeting if necessary. No TV available December 06 Special Meeting - Conduct Council Business meeting. The regular meeting date is December 13, but recommend that the meetings be moved up a week earlier because of holidays. TV may be available. 13 Business Meeting or Study Meeting can be held on this date. This is the regular business meeting date and TV will be available; however, Study Meetings have not, in the past, been cablecast. 20 Business Meeting or Study Meeting can be held on this date. No TV available. 27 Day after Christmas Holiday (Christmas is on Sunday; therefore, most offices are closed on 12/26). Cancel meeting? 49 h:\login\cathy\ccdates CITY OF TIGAR®, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Qkv begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and ay: That I postpd`in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) v[ q which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated - copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the ( day of 19 1. Tigard Civic Center, 18125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Comer of Pacific Hwy. (State Huey. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and swom to before me this day of U C . 19. • OFFICIAL SEAL &wui, T "aA47 bk-/ d CONNIC MARTIN i NOTARY.' PUBLIC : OREGON Notary Public for Oregon R COMMISSION No. 015577 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES :UNE 4,1996 My Commission Expires: 24 10gIn\K if0W f' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 94- cx3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 10.16.051 AND REVISING TRUCK RESTRICTIONS ON WALNUT STREET WHEREAS, Section 10.16.051 of the Tigard Municipal Code designates streets where through trucks are prohibited; and, WHEREAS, Walnut Street is a street where through trucks are prohibited; and, WHEREAS, Walnut Street is being extended to provide a connection between 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road; and, WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the prohibition of through trucks should apply to the street extension. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Paragraph 10.16.051(e) of the Tigard Municipal Code is revised to read as follows: "S.W. Walnut Street, from Pacific Highway to Scholls Ferry Road;" SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED : By Un19.i21YY4R" vote of all Council members present after beincy read by number and title only, this /1- day of , 1994. Catherine Wheatley, C& y Recorder APPROVED: This //dam! day Approved as to form: Ci Attorney` 1o/t t/4-f- Date =w/truck-c, ORDINANCE No. 94-113 Page 1 (limited to 2 minutes or less, please) i~ Qr ~~r w F sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on Please other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms: developed residential lot, hazardous tree, pruning, removal, and tree. In addition, the proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of time, and revocation of approval; 5) Add notice requirements for most tree removal; 6) Add provisions for setback adjustments and incentives; 7) Add provisions for the mitigation of tree removal; 8) Add provisions for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen 4P Involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.30.120. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS s:yk'~. AO t .:15'-Ix'A r 4 ropon®nt - (Speaking in Favor res~~ I W ~ - AdUrM PL &E P= Onnnnan4 E0 is ) h\.e A-y lAo ~ I ✓d •A -k .c.. LZ C:J Ctc~SCT 1 ](7 r, v u jS X35 s~ 76 ,7►~~ CY.Y~,I,i/) 7Y'GlGfi1 s - `7 "1'~tlf 9-7A) ~InZ S~ TtA q~9-,-)A gross -7 gt I--( 's e~av;;L Addross `~I So ZZ 11-; 3 c~ CaJ I'~ ca. LA kV- n® L' rLC4r5-©VL Iress n~~►A,J sv re/s sa sc ~ <o - Ireas Yeas no l fl G Sm, tTt+ Iress rWA n® AJ(CX _ 17. 1 Fwl,cd-ok A ress ~p~ q~ 0 sv~ ~~aec~ea~ ~iG(cv~, OAGMDA !rEM NO. • Pt..~4~~ ieRiN'Q'. Council Agenda Item 3JA- MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administratort-' DATE: October 3, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, October - December; 1994 Regularl y scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. October * 11 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 18 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 21 Fri Dinner with city Administrator Finalists (Time and Place TBA) 22 Sat Interviews - City Administrator Finalists Time and Place TBA) ( * 25 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting November 1 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting * 8 Tues Election Day - Regular City Council meeting cancelled. 11 Fri Veteran°s Day - City Offices Closed * 15 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 19- Sat - League of Oregon Cities Conference 21 Mon Red Lion, Jantzen Beach * 22 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 24- Thurs Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 25 Fri 29 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study session Business Meeting December_ 6 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 13 Tue (Tentative) Council Study Meeting (6:30 past.) 20 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting'(6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 26 Mon Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed 27 Tue (Tentative) Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting h:\logIn\cathy\cccal L Council Calendar - Page 2 4 0 Agenda Item No. 3. 1 b council Meeting of ► o I t 274 BELOW IS A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AGENDAS FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS. PLEASE CONTACT CATHY IF YOU HAVE CHANGES, COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS... Updated: October 3, 1994 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE - CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS October 11 - November 22, 1994 October 11 6:30 p.m. Study Session Agenda Review Executive Session 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Consent Agenda: • Council Calendar - October through December, 1994 • Tentative Agenda • Memo regarding Council meeting dates 0 Staff/Committee Presentation • Follow-Up - Presentation from Tigard Arts Policy Task Force Proposed Council Action Items • Resolution - Metro Greenspace.s Priority List Recommendations by COT • Proposed Ordinance - no trucks on Walnut extension • Consider King City's inquiry on merging with Tigard Public Hearing 0 Tree Ordinance Joint Meeting with CIT Resources Team & Facilitators Staff Reports: • Report on unfinished Business • Update from Engineering Department -Septic Tanks • Update on Notification process - proposed amendments to land use notification procedures. • Discussion of Speed Bump Policy (Engineering) • Unfunded Mandates - Authorize Mayor to Sign Letter on Behalf of city Council to Packwood/Hatfield and Furse. 7 October 18 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting October 25 6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Study Session • Agenda Review Business Meeting Special Resolution - Unfunded Mandates Consent Agenda • Approve Council Minutes of September 20, 27 and October 11 Council Consideration • Scholarships - Chamber of Commerce Leadership Seminar • Community Development Fee Increases - Resolution • Ordinance - CPA 94-0003 - Rembold Trust, Inc. Public Hearing(s) Proposed Reimbursement District - Randy Wooley H November 1 6:30 p.m. Study Neeting • Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Consent Agenda • Approve Council Minutes of October 18 • Council Calendar for November, 1994 through January, 1995 • Tentative Agenda Council Consideration • Tentative - ordinance - Proposed amendments to Initiative & Referendum process November 8 Cancel Council Meeting - Election Day - (Tentative) November 15 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting • Agenda Review November 21 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Planning to 7:30 p.m. Commission - dinner meeting - Discuss Triangle November 22 6:30 p.m. Study Session • Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Consent Agenda • Approve Council Minutes of October 25, November 1 Council Meeting - 11/29 or 12/6????? h:\login\cathy\tentagen AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of October 11, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Arts Funding Pgligv PREPARED BY: Liz Newton DEPT HEAD OX CITY ADMIN OK 1/✓h<~Z-L IS.,FIF RF.FAU THE rrtarrNrar. --------w------.~.---- Should the City Council adopt a policy to provide funding for the Arts? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached policy and criteria for eligibility to receive funds, and direct staff to develop an application form and process for Council review. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the June 221 1994 City Council meeting, Council voted to establish a committee to develop a draft Arts Policy and assign Councilor Hawley as the Council representative. The committee was comprised of individuals from ACCTS, the Metro Arts Commission, a representative of the Tigard Chamber and Tigard residents. Two committee meetings were held. Discussions focused on why Tigard should contribute funding to the Arts, and the eligibility criteria for receiving funds. The committee also discussed funding levels and the review process. Consensus was that Council should determine the review process, and funding level with Budget Committee input. The attached Arts policy conveys the importance of the Arts to a community's quality of life and encouraging activities and projects that serve a broad spectrum of citizens. The eligibility criteria, also attached', reflect the goals of the Arts Policy. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED k'ISCAL, NOTES Funding level to be determined by the Council and Budget Committee. CITY OF TIGARD ARTS POLICY The City of Tigard understands that arts and cultural activities build communities, enhance and improve learning, teach respect and understanding for all cultures and strengthen economic development. The City has a large stake in the future health of its arts and cultural assets, and city residents seek out and wish to participate in these resources and activities. Therefore, the City of Tigard will play an ongoing funding, leadership and policy making role. Criteria for Eligibility to Receive Funds 1. Funds must serve Tigard residents 2. Funded project (service or activity) is available to a broad and diverse range of citizens or meets critical needs of the community. 3. The project reflects a balance of quality, cultural authenticity and/or artistic merit in its product, administration and public outreach. Project is affordable and the City will encourage a balance of free and affordable public events. 5. Project producers demonstrate an ability to reach their goals and keep project budget commitments. 6. To receive funding in subsequent years, applicants must submit financial statements for completed fiscal years and/or previously funded projects. 7. Preference will be given to applicants who use the funds to: a. leverage other contributions. b. encourage partnerships and collaborations. Joyce Ashmanskas TIGARD ARTS POLICY COMMITTEE 7575 SW 140th Beaverton, Oregon 97005 643-3414 Vlasta Barber 11120 SW Summer Lake Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 524-3224 Wendi Hawley 14790 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 598-7912 Todd Mains 6705 SW Ventura Court Tigard, Oregon 639-6717 Donna Milrany 1120 SW 5th Avenue Doom #1023 Portland, Oregon 97204 823-5404 40 Liz Newton 13125 SW Ball Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 639-4171 Barb Pearson 10250 SW Greenbura Rd. #120 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mary Simeone 9708 SW London Court Tigard,' Oregon 97223 625-8110 Steve Slabaugh 11070 SW Summerlake Dr. Tigard, Oregon 97223 241-5505 CITY OF TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING POLICY The City of Tigard receives funding requests from various agencies and non-profit corporations each year during the budget process. This policy provides the framework within which funding decisions will be made by the Budget Committee. 1. The maximum social agency funding total each year will be one half of one percent of the previous year's operating budget, rounded to the nearest $1,000. 2. Agencies requesting City funds shall: • Demonstrate that the Agency has been providing service to City of Tigard residents for at least one year prior to the date of application. • Be registered with the Internal Revenue Service with a 501 (c) (3) not for profit tax status. • Be run by a volunteer Board of Directors with representation from the City of Tigard that is reflective of the agency's overall geographic membership and client service. • Operate with a balanced budget. • Be incorporated in the State of Oregon and registered to do business here. • Fill out and submit a completed application to the City of Tigard Finance Department by January 31. Provide written reports to the Budget Committee on a quarterly basis during the period of funding. Reports must include information related to the use of City funds and a discussion of services provided to Tigard citizens. 3. The Budget Committee shall review the applications and hear oral presentations from each requesting agency. 4. After all information has been gathered and reviewed, the Budget Committee, at a separate meeting, will deliberate the merits of each application individually and make decisions about which agencies should be funded. P 5. The Budget Committee will then determine how much each approved agency should be funded on its merits without regard to the funding available. 6. The approved funding for each approved agency will then be aggregated and the total will be compared to the calculated funding limit. All approved funding amounts will then be adjusted proportionately so that their total does not exceed the funding limit. 7. The Budget Committee may amend those procedures as necessary. 40 0 h:UoginWiceXwayna%socaagnf.und AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of October 11, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Truck restrictions on Walnut Street PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Revision of truck restrictions on Walnut Street to include the new street extension west of 135th Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached ordinance including the street extension in the restrictions. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, through trucks are prohibited on Walnut Street between 135th Avenue and Pacific Highway. Similar restrictions exist on other streets to prevent through truck traffic in the residential areas south of Scholls Ferry Road. Walnut Street is being extended westward as part of the Castle Hill subdivision development. When completed, the new street will provide a connection between 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. In order to maintain the neighborhood restriction on through trucks, staff recommends that the municipal code be revised to extend the existing truck restrictions to include the new extension of Walnut Street. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES Approximately $100 for signing costs. rw/t ruck--s AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of )W11 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 (Tree Removal) PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK V19y'*'' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revised Code Section 18.150 regarding tree removal? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt a revised ordinance amending the Community Development Code after changes are made relative to public testimony and Council deliberation. - INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Division drafted a new Community Development Code Section 18.150 (Tree Removal). Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the existing code. Because of significant interest in tree removal, the scope of changes has increased. The new code sections are an attempt to make the tree removal code section more clear and easier to administer as well as address some of the new issues heard by the Planning Commission as well as reflect the City council's deliberation. The ordinance section has been reorganized and reworked by the City Attorney's office. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in July, 1994 and a later work session in August, 1994. The present draft reflects discussions from those meetings as well as a recent study session on September 27, 1994. More work will undoubtedly have to be done prior to adoption. An overall summary of the proposed changes includes: 1) defining terms including "developed residential lot 2) clarifying tree permit exemption (hazardous trees, pruning, etc..); 3) adding provisions for code enforcement action for illegal tree removal; 4) clarifying criteria for the issuance of permits; 5) providing for the mitigation of adverse impacts by requiring the planting of additional trees; 6) simplifying sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of time and revocation of approval; 7) adding a 5500 per tree penalty for violation of chapter standards; and 8) adding provisions for setback adjustments to preserve trees (suggested by the Home Builders Association) and incentives; A key provision in the Planning Commission recommendation is that a developed residential lot would be defined as any lot that cannot be partitioned or subdivided. Therefore, a tree removal permit would be required for any residential property that could be partitioned. However, no permits would be required for trees within 50 feet of a residence. Two trees of no more than 24 inches in combined caliper size could also be cut in any calendar year with no notice or fee upon application by the owner of any residential property. The NPOs reviewed the original proposal. The new code section reflects some of the public input since the NPO review. Interested CIT's have or will have reviewed the draft with planning staff. Attachments: Draft ordinance OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Revise the attached ordinance with other provisions. 2. Leave the code as is and denying the proposed draft. FISCAL NOTES The Commission has recommended charging a fee of $75, plus $10 per tree for removal of any tree requiring a permit. The Commission also recommended utilizing 50% of the permit money and all penalty money for a tree planting fund. The City issued 45 tree removal permits in 1993, 58 in 1992 and 31 in 1991. If the new code provisions are adopted, the number of permits could increase significantly. The number of violations, field checking, review time would increase accordingly. Tree removal permits usually require from two to eight hours of staff time per permit depending on the issues involved. Staff is developing an estimate of the administrative cost of a tree removal permit as per Council's request September 27, 1994. 40 40 h, Wo,d •"~-rtecc+ C~cd CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCH TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTI1TG A REVISED CODE SECTION 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004). WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning commission reviewed proposals for revising Section 18.150 at public hearings on January 4, 1993, October 4, 1993, and January 17, 1994 and at work sessions September 20, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 28, 1993 and February 7, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Section 18.150, which has since been revised by the City Council, as shown in Exhibit "A'; and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 12, and October 11, 1994 to consider the proposed amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria is this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 3.4.2.b. and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by neighborhood planning organizations and public hearings. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. The Council has reviewed the Goal 5 questions and arguments raised by Mr. Smith (in memoranda dated January 17, 1994 and July 11, 1994), and understands the concern raised by DLCD that the ordinance is part of the City's Goal 5 implementation program. The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of these issues provided by the City Attorney (in memoranda dated March 1, 1994 and August 31, 1994). We conclude that the amendments to the Tree Removal Chapter of the Community Development Code do not require amendment of the City 's Goal 5 implementation program or a new Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) inventory and analysis under Goal 5 and its implementing rules. The Council recognizes that the City's Goal 5 implementation program references the tree removal ordinance. However, the Council notes that the specifically identified function of the ordinance under that plan is to protect 'major vegetation on undeveloped land' in the Little Bull Mountain Forest. Volume 1, Page I-97, Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 1 11 ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 2 Plan Report. By showing that the amended ordinance will continue to provide this protection, the Council finds compliance with the City's Goal 5 ESEE plan. Since that plan itself is acknowledged as in compliance with the goal, the ordinance does not require a new ESEE analysis. Many ordinances may be referenced as part of a Goal 5 implementing program. However, to require a new ESEE analysis upon any amendment to such ordinances would produce an absurd result which is not required under the Oregon land use system. Under that system, the various implementing measures of the comprehensive plan, including the Goal 5 implementation plan, are the guiding documents of the development ordinances. Upon acknowledgement, the plan is presumed to be in compliance with the goal. ordinances, thus, must show compliance with the plan. The key issue for the Council to determine is whether the amended ordinance continues to fulfill its requirement under the implementing program. Mr. Smith contends that under Goal 5, "the City must first inventory the location, quality and quantity of the trees it wants to protect." He thus reasons that upon such inventory, the City must follow the rest of the Goal 5 process, including an ESEE analysis. The Council finds Smith's premise, that trees are a resource required to be inventoried under Goal 5, to be faulty. Reference to the goal makes clear that trees per so are not a listed resource. The City Attorney's memorandum of August 31, 1994 more fully sets out this reasoning. The Council finds that the amendments will serve to maintain or increase the protection provided by the existing language. The Tree Removal Chapter as amended will continue to protect "major vegetation on undeveloped land" within the Little Bull Mountain Forest, the only such requirement in the City's Goal 5 ESEE analysis in Volume 1, Appendix I of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The identified resource areas will not change, and need not be re-inventoried or re-analyzed because of these amendments. The Council finds no other reference to the Tree Removal chapter in the City's acknowledged Natural Features and Open Spaces Report. Therefore, we find also that the amended Tree Removal Chapter will serve the same Goal 5 function as the existing acknowledged Tree Removal Chapter. The Council finds that, in fact,. these amendments have the effect of increasing protection for "major vegetation on undeveloped land." Under the existing ordinance, developed land is exempted form the permit requirement. Since the term "developed land" was not defined in the ordinance, it became a matter of staff interpretation. That interpretation was made as including any lot or parcel with an existing use. By setting out a definition which includes in developed residential land only those lots or parcels with an existing use which are not capable of being subdivided or partitioned, the amended ordinance will place more land under the permit requirement. The Council finds that such a result increases the level of resource protection sought by the implementation program. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged comprehensive Plat: bated an the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood groups beginning in January, 1993 through the present. 3. The Council has reviewed the argument concerning Implementation Strategy 4 of Plan Policy 3.4 (hereinafter referred to as Strategy 4) contained in the letters of David Smith dated January 17 and July 11, 1994. The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of this issue provided in the City Attorney's memorandum of March 1, 1994. We concluded that Strategy 4 is satisfied by the amended ordinance. The Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfy Strategy 4 because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique. stands Of trees and major vegetation areas as called for by that strategy. That strategy provides: 'where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development process and the 'tree cutting' section of the Community Development Code.' In his letter January 17, 1994 letter, David smith suggests that this policy is effectively amended because the proposed new ordinance addresses 'all trees on undeveloped land The Council finds this reasoning to be unpersuasive. Strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that ordinance must carry out the strategy by 'ensuring that development proposals do not substantially alter the character' of the described areas. The Council finds that the amended ordinance does so in that it requires development proposals, brought under the restrictions of the ordinance by the Site Development Review proces, g18.120.180.A.1.1, to obtain permits for tree removal. S18.150.030.A. To obtain such a permit requires a showing that, among other things, the removal is 'necessary' for the development to take place. 518.150.040.0. This requirement is unchanged from the current ordinance. some of the applicable criteria have changed. Notably, reasonable alternative to the removal cannot exist. Also changed is the amount of land falling under this permit requirement. Previously, the ordinance excluded developed residential property. That term was left undefined by the ordinance; staff interpreted it as including any residential property, 3 acres or less in area with an existing use. It now includes all land which either contains no existing use or which is capable of further subdivision or partitioning. The Council finds this to improve the effectiveness of implementation of Strategy 4 by placing more land under the tea. 'undeveloped,' and providing vegetation thereon with better protection. 4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 3 SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as indicated in revised Section 18.150 as shown in Exhibit RAI. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the city Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by n er and title only, this day of 1994. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1994. John Schwartz, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date 0 ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 4 h w of U r J C?. C ! Lv.,.. tJ r~. CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT "A°0 TO ORDINANCE NO. CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL .ectiong; 18.150.010 Purpose 18.150.020 Definitions 18.150.030 Permit Requirement 18.150.035 Permit Criteria - Nondiscretionary 18.150.040 General Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation - Replacement of Trees 18.150.010 Purpose. A. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, and provide noise barriers. B. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Protect major vegetation on undeveloped land in the City; 3. Regulate the removal of trees on all land in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 4. Allow homeowners to remove trees within the area immediately surrounding their homes; and 5. Protect sensitive lands from erosion. C. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) EXHIBIT °A° TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 1 18.?50.020 Definitions. A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in this chapter: 1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree. 2. "Developed residential lot" shall mean'a lot or parcel in a residential zone, which cannot be further partitioned or subdivided, and which contains an established, existing use. 3. "Director" shall mean the City's Planning Director or his or her designee. 4. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. 5. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices. 6. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, resulting in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability, or any activity causing the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning. 7. "Residence" shall mean a dwelling and any attached garage. 8. "Tree" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 9. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at Chapter 18.84 of the Code. B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. A. Except as set out in Subsection B of this section, the removal of any tree shall take place only pursuant to a tree removal permit. B. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94 Page 2 1. Int9rferes with, or prevents safe access to, underground or overhead utility lines; 2. 0bstruc4&-.s vier al clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of the Code; 3. Is a dead or hazardous tree; 4. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; 5. Is used for Christmas tree production, but does not stand on sensitive lands; or 6. Stands within 50 feet, as measured from the nearest point of both objects, of a residence on the same lot, but does not stand on sensitive lands. 1$.150.035 Permit Criteria - Nondiscretionarv. A. The Director shall approve a tree removal permit application meeting, the approval standards of this section without notice, opportunity for hearing, or opportunity for appeal. B. Notwithstanding Section 18.150.040, the following approval standards apply to the removal of a tree on any residential lot which contains a residence: 0 1. Two trees may be removed on the lot in any calendar year, subject to the following: a. the trees must have trunks no more than twenty-four inches in combined caliper size when measured four feet from ground level; and b. the trees must not stand on sensitive lands. 2. For all other trees, the applicable approval standards of this Chapter apply. C. Any permit granted under Subsection B.1 of this section shall be free of charge. 18.150.040 Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation. A. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree removal permit under this section in accordance with Section 18.32.090.A, applying the standards set forth herein. B. Notwithstanding Subsection C of this section; the follcg:.*i;;g approval standards shall apply to an application for a tree removal permit on sensitive lands: LEI EXHIBIT "A'" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 3 1. Removal of the tree must not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. 2. a. on a developed residential lot, the removal must not be for purposes of development or profit. b. on all other sensitive lands, the removal must be necessary in order to use the property in accordance with an allowed use, and the impact of the removal must be mitigated by tree replacement as described in Section i8.150.170.D. C. The following approval standards apply to an application for a tree removal permit: 1. Removal of the tree must be necessary in order to do one of the following: a. construct an approved improvement; b. use the property in accordance with an allowed use; C. allow use of passive or active solar devices; or d. prevent interference with existing improvements. 2. Any alternative to removal of the tree must either: a. fail to reduce the overall net amount of caliper size of tree loss; b. fail to advance the applicant's objective under Subsection C.1 of this section in removing the tree; or c. place an additional documented cost on allowed improvements being made to the property. 3. Removal of the tree must not have a signi_-f icant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. D. Either in lieu of the process described in this section or upon denial of an application for a tree removal permit, an application may be submitted for consideration, accompanied by a proposal to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed tree removal. Such a mitigation proposal must provide for the replacement of removed trees in the manner set out in Section 18.150.070.D. The following approval standards apply to an application with accompanying mitigation proposal made under this section: r EXHIBIT "All To ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 4 1. Removal of the tree must not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. 2. Removal of the tree must not be for purposes of development or profit. 18.15 .045 Incentives for Tree Retention. A. in order to assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval: 1. Density Bonus. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over six inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1%) bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a twenty percent (20%) bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. 2 ~.1 2. Lot Size Averaging. In order to retain existing trees over six inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. 3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees over six inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to twenty percent (20%) of that required by the underlying zone. 4. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Parking. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over six inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.106.030, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a one percent (1%) reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. 5. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Landscaping. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over six inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a develc>pment, plan, a one percent (1%) reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 5 granted. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. 6. System Development Charges.. System development charges may be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value of any existing tree over six inches in caliper that is preserved and incorporated into a development plan. The value of any such tree is to be determined by a written appraisal of a certified aborist retained by the City using the most current International Society of Aboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. The full cost of such arborist services will be deducted from any system development charge credit given ender this section. Said reductions may be substituted for any of the above incentives, but if reduction of system development charges is chosen as the weans of incentive, no other incentive in whole or in part may be utilized, except Setback Adjustment. 7. Setback Adjustment. The Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this Code, including but not limited to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Section 18.96.020. B. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out at Section 18.150.030.8.1 through 18.150.030.B.4, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this Chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction to this effect as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. 18,150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of TiMe Revocation}. A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit E)a1IBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 6 approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. C. Upon written notification, the Director may revolve a tree removal permit upon finding that any material fact supporting the application has changed, including but not limited to misrepresentations and false statements, or that any condition of approval of the permit has not been satisfied. This revocation may be appealed by the applicant as provided in Section 18.32.310.A. 18 ._n Requirements . 15A 060 ApDlication Submissip A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section, and the required fee. Applications shall not be accepted unless they are complete as defined herein. B. The supplemental data and narrative shall include: 1. The specific location of the property by address, assessor°s map number, and tax lot; 2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s) to be cut; 3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s); 4. The reason for the removal of the tree(s); and 5. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees; and 6. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this chapter, for example, Section 18.150.040.C, are satisfied. C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional information. 18, 150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation - Replacement of Trees. A. If the Director has reason to believe that the removal of a tree occurred contrary to the purposes of this chapter, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located .to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a wi'iidesaa Sa,.a ~,.cauc tate wna. from a qualified aah_ri st or forester, ' ~.aea v a. ~ z ~ , showing that tree removal was permitted by this chapter. 2. Take any enforcement action permitted by law. EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Rage 7 B. The following constitute a violation of this chapter, subject to citation and disposition under Section 1.16 of the Code, Civil Infractions : 1. Removal of a tree without a valid tree removal permit, in noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit, or in noncompliance with any other section of the Code. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval which results in damage to a tree or its root system. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any party found to be in violation of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Subsection D of this section; and 2. payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Aboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the formula in Subsection D.4 of this section. 4. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on ocher property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. 49 ]EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 8 5. The planting of a replacement tree shall be in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. . E. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for the costs of such tree replacement. v EXHIBIT "A'0 TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 9 Mayor John Schwartz and City Councilors City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors: 6 Ogober--1-994 0 C T j. x 1994 J9,1 , uu e..! t~L Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Tigard tree ordinance. I have several comments on the most recent draft. Much progress has been made and the city in near having an appropriate product. The following comments refer to specific sections of the draft. Page 1, section 18.150.010., part B. A part B6 should be added stating that protection of wildlife habitat, water quality, and noise abatement are purposes of the act and should be considered in planning. Similar language adding these resources for consideration should be added to page 4, section 18.150.040, part Bland C3, and in the same section on page 5, partDI. Language of this nature was in the Planning Commission version of the draft. These resources are important to citizens of Tigard and should at least be considered as part of the permit planning process to determine if there is a significant effect which could impact permit approval or what appropriate mitigations could be determined. Page 3, section 18.150.030. part B3. The word dead should be removed. It was removed in the Planning Commission version because snags can be very valuable as nesting and feeding sites for wildlife. Things as varied as woodpeckers and racoons will raise their young in the hollow if a .19 snag. If a snag or a tree is a hazard it is OK to remove it. I would recommend that snags that are not hazards not be exempted. Page 3, section 18.050.035. part B la. The word truck probably is a mispelling of trunk and should be corrected. I recommend that eighteen inches be substitued for twenty-four inches. Page 5, section 18.150.047. Though I'm not currently sure of the effect of the specfics in this section, I believe conceptually that the use of incentives is a positive step. On 23 September 1994, I stopped by City Hall and discussed a few things with city staff. We reviewed the agenda for the 27 September 1994, City Councl study session. The tree ordinance had been dropped from the agenda. Yet I was told by people who were there that it was discussed. I object to this. I would have been present to listen and participate if I had known it would be discussed. I hope these comments are helpful. The city should move forward on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Douglas A. Smithey Y I1, 'L 5 L loJfil tt r-+-a,y-r, to Mayor John Schwartz and City Councilors 6 October 1994 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Tigard tree ordinance. I have several comments on the most recent draft. Much progress has been made and the city iiS near having an appropriate product. The following comments refer to specific sections of the draft. Page 1, section 18:150..010., part B. A part B6 should be added stating that protection of wildlife habitat, water quality, and noise abatement are purposes of the act and should be considered in planning. Similar language adding these resources for consideration should be added to page , section 18.150.040, part B1 and C3, and in the same section on page 5, partD1. Language of this nature was in the Planning Commission version of the draft. These resources are important to citizens of Tigard and should at least be considered as part of the permit planning process to determine if there is a significant effect which could impact permit approval or what appropriate mitigations could be determined. Page 3, section 18.150.030. part B3. The word dead should be removed. It was removed in the Planning Commission version because snags can be very valuable as nesting and feeding sites for wildlife. Things as varied as woodpeckers and racoons will raise their young in the hollow if a snag. If a snag or a tree is a hazard it is OK to remove it. I would recommend that snags that are not hazards not be exempted. Page 3, section 18.050.035. part Bla. The word truck probably is a mispelling of trunk and should be corrected. I recommend that eighteen inches be substitued for twenty-four inches. Page 5, section 18.150.047. Though I'm not currently sure of the effect of the specfics in this section, I believe conceptually that the use of incentives is a positive step. On 23 September 1994, I stopped by City Hall and discussed a few things with city staff. We reviewed the agenda for the 27 September 1994, City Councl study session. The tree ordinance had been dropped from the agenda. Yet I was told by people who were there that it was discussed. I object to this. I would have been present to listen and participate if I had known it would be discussed. I hope these comments are helpful. The city should move forward on this issue. Thank you. SincArely, &,,too A 9,_ Douglas A. Smithey j~ C~(-eS~~Lvr.Sve~ P,A.1b The September issue of Cityscape mentioned the desire of the council to include incentives for property owners to save trees. Incentives are good. I see all sorts of incentives for dp-vj-J o?pxa tWe_eweine,es.-Amftr .The. onlv.iprim tuP tbat.Lsee ify... homeowners is the desire to avoid paying fees or fines. This ordinance does not treat property owners and developers equally, they get a carrot and we get a stick. QUESTION i Why are there no incentives for non-developing property owners? We have planted alder seedlings on our property so that, in a few years, we can harvest those trees to provide firewood for our personal use. For a fee of $10 we can go into the national forest and cut one cord of firewood. QUESTION 2: How can you justify charging me more for cutting my own trees for firewood than the government does for cutting, publicly owned trees? Let's look at my parent's situation. They are both in their late seventies. Neither is robust. They have two large, messy walnut trees growing in their`yard. Right now a neighbor does their yard work for them. When he can't help them any longer they are going to need to cut down those trees. This ordinance would require them to pay for a removal permit, they can't afford it. QUESTION 3: If a homeowner is unable or unwilling to do the necessary upkeep on a tree, by what authority can city government require them to do so? QUESTION 4: If fairness is a consideration in this issue why doesn't your fee schedule reflect the differences between devel6od and developing and? Your fee schedule is prohibitively high for property owners who want only to make landscaping decisions. $75 will buy one week's worth of groceries for my family, it's money out of my budget. That same $75 can be written off the developers' taxes. That's not Ouitable treatment for all. We have two mature cottonwood trees in our backyard. Suppose that in a few years my daughter becomes allergic to cottonwood pollen. I'm faced with a difficult decision. ®o I act as a responsible parent and pay the city for permission to remove the trees or do I let my child suffer? QUESTION 5: How is the City of Tigard enhanced by making her suffer through even one extra season of discomfort? QUESTION S:Why should I be facing city fees in order to do what I believe a good parent should do in such a situation? We have a large nuisance tree on our property. We want to keep it for a few more years but we want to take it out later on for several reasons. This is a landscaping, choice that we are making for our enjoyment of our yard. The imposition of a fee for this implies that my creation of a sunnier, more enjoyable and more productive yard -negatively impacts the liveability of this city. QUESTION 7: Is that the position of this council? QUESTION 8: If my landscaping choices do not threaten the livability of Tigard, why does is the City feel that it is necessary to regulate them? ' 5.3 r We, the undersigned, do believe that the proposed tree removal ordinance being considered by the city council of Tigard on October 11, 1994 does unjustly infringe on private property owners' rights by imposing the requirement of a city government administrative fee for tree removal." because homeowners have the responsibility to maintain their property according to safe and reasonable standards set by the city, we believe that we also have the right to maintain that property by making landscaping decisions such as tree removal and replacement. Name Address ~6Z-~/J 15Co85 5LJ ~T (a tip' l c- ~7a,?-~ f -v r _ -7 fc 7z2 I-S-6%s- s, 7lv f~ il, cl Cl 722 QAP 4v--r, ~vbo 6-w. -76z `37~a 57 717 -r/G4iW C?l ' f 5 W I r ~1v~`' . 5 d 71 % Q 722 Ul~ f/(! U rJ/ IL ' 6 G'LS~ ~r ,r 7a~ We, the undersigned, do believe that the proposed tree removal ordinance being considered by the city council of Tigard on October 11, 1994 does unjustly infringe on private property owners' rights by imposing the requirement of a city government administrative fee for tree removal. Because homeowners have the responsibility to maintain their property according to safe and reasonable standards set by the city, we believe that we also have the right to maintain that property by making landscaping decisions such as tree removal and replacement. T 0 iA I/ l 4 G-~ l G%/2A r - ~X- .27 3 7V sue. q~~~ ,w s s-~. o C? r7 ZzY S O - s_ C.G. Co7U J,W- 2, L 7.Z-. L5 r ( e G W _ 4 d' Q 123 F 4 We, the undersigned, do believe that the proposed tree removal ordinance being considered by the city council of Tigard on October 11, 1994 does unjustly infringe on private property owners' rights by imposing the requirement of a city government administrative fee for tree removal. Because homeowners have the responsibility to maintain their property according to safe and reasonable standards set by the city, we believe that we also have the right to maintain that property by making landscaping decisions such as tree removal and replacement. WL!VMe Address 7 z +41 0 5V 6Ar-Z) `77Z i A JA 9 a 01 Sp~~ CHKisTENSEA/ s w -7 Qth C)K q'77Q-~~ Co 2-0- 4 3 ~ We, the undersigned, do believe that the proposed tree removal ordinance being considered by the city council of Tigard on October 11, 1994 does unjustly infringe on private property owners' rights by imposing the requirement of a city government administrative fee for tree removal. Because homeowners have the responsibility to maintain their property according to safe and reasonable standards set by the city, we believe that we also have the right to maintain that property by making landscaping decisions such as tree removal and replacement. Name Address r`; ~Yt --SOIU~Ck_ CI-722 560 i c~-~-C~- 7 7 S S Zv °l ~r ~d2 2,9 A C - nLeFv--1khA C? T* ~ (emu 7. 04 -7 2 Z °J- Brigitte (Partington,10085 S. W Inez, Tigard, OR,97224 Thane: 5031620-5191 'J 0 Monday, October 03, 1994 The Honorable Mayor Schwartz & Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Schwartz & Council: qCT 11 f994 eft U Ll' r It has come to my attention that you and the council are considering a regulatory ordinance on trees on personal properties. I am writing to let you know that we have more than enough government in our lives as it is and don't need more. I have spend considerable time and money on the trees on my property and would be incensed to have to give you money in order to continue to do so. If Tigard would like to purchase my trees from me and take over their care and upkeep, I will sell them to you for each $1500 for the big ones, $1000 for medium size and $500 for small ones. If you have to come onto my property to do the upkeep, the city will need to purchase a permit from me at $25 each time, unless a truck needs to come onto my property, then the fee will be $75. Maybe this is a good time to remind you and the council that you are my employees not my parent or guardian and do not need for you to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property. If this is another ploy to try to squeeze more money out of residents of Tigard, I would suggest to you that you try budgeting better and live on what you have, the same as I have to. Sincerely, Brigitte Partington gZ,C:d /UhIgq U -i ree vrd i na-4Ac e October 7, 1994 Mr. John Schwartz, Mayor City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Schwartz: I will be unable to attend the Tigard City Council meeting on October 11 when the proposed Tree Removal Law goes to a public hearing. However, please register my op Wsition to the Tree Removal Law on the premise that decisions made regarding private property should not be made by the government, but, rather, by the owners. Neighbors of those who have trees on their land have no say in what is done with their neighbors' trees in my opinion. The idea of having to obtain a permit and possibly having to pay a fee for landscaping changes to your own land is a burden we citizens of Tigard should not have to bear. Sincerely, Y I 1 a.,,,-, -4,-Z, C®un ci t m-15 q lbkll q ' air'o'nC14 it (.0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: October 11, 1994 SUBJECT: Telephone Call Concerning Tree Ordinance Ms. Charlotte Odell called (14850 S.W. 100th Street, Tigard, OR 97224). Ms. Odell advised she was against the tree ordinance as she thinks it is an infringement of her rights as a property owner. c=1®11.94 0 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL ,NOTICE DATE: October 10. 1994 TO: Mayor & City Council CO./DEPT.: FAX FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Admin. DEPT: Administration PHONE 639-4171 SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Here are two items of correspondence for your review and in preparation for the tree ordinance hearing scheduled for tomorrow night. The first item is a letter from David B. Smith noting objections to the latest draft version of the "tree ordinance." The second item is an August 31 memorandum from Ty K. Wyman of our attorney's office which was written to clarify the relationship of Statewide Planning Goal 5 to the proposed tree ordinance. Tim Ramis and Ty Wyman will be available during the Executive Session to discuss Goal 5 and the "takings" question. Page 1 of 8 Our facsimile telephone number is (503) 684-7297 This number is to be used for business transmission only and is not available for advertising purposes. Should you have any difficulties with this transmission, please call (503) 639-4171 h:\login\cathy\faxtrans 49 A RECEIVED DAVID B. SMITH ATTORNEY AT IAW 6975 S.W. Sandburg Road, Suite 130 OCT U 5 1994 Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 624-9352 Fax (503) 6242735 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'October 4, 1994 Mr. Dick Bewersdorf Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-004; Draft Ch 2ter 18 150 • Tree Removal Dear Mr. Bewersdorf: On behalf of Mrs. Rita M. Hart, a resident of Tigard, the following objections to the city's latest draft version of the referenced code amendment are hereby submitted. The city's tree removal ordinance continues to expand its program to implement Goal 5 to include trees, and properties, including that of Mrs. Hart, that heretofore have not been included as protectedGoal 5 resources. These trees, and the sites upon which they are located, are new Goal 5 resource sites that must be inventoried, and subjected to ESEE analyses before any protection program in the Draft Chapter 18.150 can be applied to them. As the city attorney, Mr. Wyman, notes at page 2 of his memorandum to you of August 31, 1994, "Several forested areas are designated as Goal 5 resource sites, including the 'forested northeast slopes of Bull Mountain' and the summit of Little Bull Mountain." Thus, the city already has chosen some sites, and some trees for inventory and ESEE analysis. The city cannot now add other sites, and other trees, to its protection program without first going through the Goal 5 process for those sites .and trees. This is not a request for the city to redo work already done under Goal 5--it is a request to do Goal 5 work for the first time on the new trees and parcels subject to the tree- cutting ordinance. As Mr. Wyman noted, "DLCD has initially commented that this requires the City to engage in a brand new ESEE analysis." Although Mr. Wyman goes to great lengths to justify his contention that no further Goal 5 analysis need be done, the .evidence and findings adduced thus far fail to establish an actual factual base of why trees in some natural areas, such as Bull Mountain, are subject to Goal 5 analyses, but the trees on Mrs. Hart's property, and other properties similarly situated, even though they were never before protected, are now subject to the city's protection program. See ~q00 Friends o Oregon v. City'of North Plains LUBA (LUBA Nos. 93-154, 93-159, 93-160, June 24, 1994), slip op at 6 (legislative land use decision must be supported by substantial evidence), appeal filed CA No. A84856. The city must provide evidence and analysis explaining why some trees are protected through an ESEE (e.g. Bull Mountain),` and other trees are protected by the fiat of the city's exercise of the "police power" (e.g. Mrs. Hart's trees). This letter incorporates by reference the contents of the letters submitted by the undersigned on both January,17, 1994 and July 11, 1994. Please include this letter in the record of the proceedings conducted on October 11, 1994. Very truly yours, David B. Smith Attorney for Rita M. Hart CC: Mr. Ty K. Wyman, Esq. Mrs. Rita M. Hart OTONNELL RAMIS CREW RECEIVED CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 94 SEP 0 219 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 CoMMuNIT`f DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243.2944 DATE: August 31, 1994 TO: Dick Sewersdorff, Senior Planner FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office F41) RE: Goal 5 and Draft Chapter 15.150, Tree Removal The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the relationship of Statewide Planning Goal 5 to the enclosed draft of the Tree Removal Ordinance. Dave Smith has made two written submissions (letters dated January 17 and July 11, 1994) to the record of this ordinance. 40 Each of these letters argues that the City cannot amend its Tree Removal ordinance without first inventorying, for Goal 5 purposes, the trees it wishes to protect. Smith thus believes that this amendment triggers the entire Goal 5 process for resource protection: inventorying resources; identifying conflicting uses; conducting an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) analysis of these conflicts; and developing a plan for protecting the resources. As stated in our earlier responses to this argument, the City Attorney believes that Smith misapprehends the goal's application in this instance. APPLICATION OF THE GOAL GENERALLY Statewide Planning Goal 5 is "to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." The goal requires that each local government inventory certain listed resources. Included in this list are such forest-related resources as "wildlife areas and habitats . . .,11 "ecologically . . . significant natural areas . . "(o)utstanding scenic views and sites," and 11(h)istoric areas, sites, structures and objects." Clearly, trees may be included within these categories of resource areas. indeed, ii'tu .3 iv i ua..ua lal trees T used the example of the Treaty Oak at the last Council hearing) may themselves be a significant resource. (The City's acknowledged inventory of vegetation includes several large trees identified as "Distinctive Trees" (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, Appendix F, p. I-77), but these are not specified as being Goal 5 resources.) However, it is clear that individual trees are not per se a listed resource required to O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Memo re: Goal 5 and Draft Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal August 31, 1994 Page 2 be inventoried under Goal 5. If each individual tree was to be considered a resource under the goal, then obviously it would have been listed as-such. Thus, we continue to believe that Smith's argument that this new Tree Removal ordinance requires every tree in the City to be inventoried and analyzed under the Goal 5 rule is unpersuasive. APPLICATION OF GOAL 5 TO THIS ORDINANCE Al D1 T The issue of Goal 5's application to this amendment of the Tree Removal Ordinance does not end there, however. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan includes an extensive report on natural features and open space in the city. Several forested areas are designated as Goal 5 resource sites, including the "forested northeast slopes of Bull Mountain" and the summit of Little Bull Mountain. In the course of his review of the proposed ordinance amendment, DLCD Field Representative Mel Lucas pointed out that the current Tree Removal Ordinance is cited in the Comprehensive Plan as being part of the City's Goal 5 resource protection program. Specifically, the Tree Removal Ordinance is referred to in the City's ESEE analysis (the section that Smith would have the City completely revise) as part of the program for protecting the forested area of Little Bull Mountain. This analysis is an extensive document which identifies and describes 19 Goal 5 resource areas that are in conflict with other uses. This fact raises the concern that in amending the ordinance, the city is also amending its Goal 5 protection program. DLCD has initially commented that this requires the City to engage in a brand new ESEE analysis. However, instead of engaging in a new ESEE analysis, we believe that the City should simply make findings as to how the new ordinance continues to implement the Comprehensive Plan's resource protection plan. In other words, since the resource protection plan is acknowledged as in compliance with the goal we need simply to ensure that the new ordinance remains consistent with our plan, not that it re-demonstrate compliance with the goal. Because the resource sites and conflicting uses are not changing, the City's ESEE analysis retains its validity. This position was developed with the assistance of the State Attorney General's office and we will continue to discuss it with DLCD. We would obviously like to have their concurrence before acting on it. 0 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 40 Memo re: Goal 5 and Draft Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal August 31, 1994 Page 3' RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN The Comprehensive Plan's resource protection plan does allow broad development in the wooded areas among the 19 identified resource sites. Furthermore, the Tree Removal chapter is not mentioned in the ESEE analysis of other forested areas, including the Summer Creek Riparian Forest, the Summer Creek/Woodward School Fir Grove, and the Kallstrom Fir Grove. It is significant that the single reference to the Tree Removal chapter is in the analysis of the "Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest." The plan for its protection notes that both the Conditional Use and the Planned Development processes "have standards which review the removal of any major vegetation." It concludes: "In addition, the Tree Removal chapter of the Community Development Code protects major vegetation on undeveloped land." While it is true that this statement concerns all undeveloped land, the only function of the Tree Removal chapter under the Goal 5 analysis is "to protect major vegetation on undeveloped land" in the Little Bull Mountain Forest. The revised tree removal code serves the same function as the existing code with regard to designated resource areas, without changing the resource designations. The proposed Tree Removal Ordinance will continue to protect "major vegetation on undeveloped land" in the Little Bull Mountain Forest. The amended ordinance 1 The Comprehensive Plan's Goal 5 report indicates that development i's allowed in most wooded areas. The analysis states that several actions will be taken to preserve the identified resources. The action applicable to this discussion is listed first, as follows: 111. The significant wooded areas are identified and mapped. The policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan is that these areas will be preserved in as natural state as much as possible or integrated into the design of any development-, i.e., parking lot island, building setbacks, street rights of way and landscaping area whenever possible. ' If it is necessary to remove a portion or all of the trees, f the replacement landscape features shall be the subject to approval by the applicable approval authority." O'DONNELL RA~MIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 40 Memo re: Goal 5 and Draft Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal August 31, 1994 Page 4 defines the term "undeveloped land" to spec~fy that it includes land which can be partitioned or subdivided. Smith argues that because more trees will be protected under the proposed code, the City violates Goal 5 by not identifying which trees will be protected. As we discussed earlier, Goal 5 does not look at individual trees per se, and the City's report identifying areas to be protected was acknowledged by DLCD. The areas designated, analyzed and protected in the City's Goal 5 report have not changed, and will not change because of this ordinance. We are currently discussing this issue with DLCD staff in hopes of reaching agreement that the existing tree removal chapter can be amended to be more protective of trees without requiring a new and potentially expensive ESEE resource analysis. Unfortunately, there is no case precedent directly on this point to provide guidance. It represents our best evaluation of the meaning and intent of the goal and the rule. We do feel that this position makes sense because the proposed amended tree removal code meets the objective of preventing the loss of major vegetation on Little Bull Mountain, which is the only reason given for citing the tree removal chapter under the City's acknowledged Goal 5 analysis. THE AMENDED TREE REMOVAL CHAPTER WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS ON GOAL 5 "Consideration" of Goal 5 is required for the proposed amendment of the development code, under § 18.30.120.A.1. As we have noted before (See the March 1, 1994, memorandum to Dick Bewersdorff), the City's decision must include findings that reflect the required consideration, and a discussion of why the proposal is consistent with Goal 5. Broadly stated, we suggest these findings: 1. The Council has reviewed the Goal 5 questions and arguments raised by Mr. Smith (in memoranda dated January 17, 1994 and July 11,.1994), and has considered Goal 5 as a factor in this decision to amend the Tree Removal Chapter, pursuant to TDC S 18.30.120.A.1. 2. For the reasons discussed in the analysis of these same issues by the City Attorney (in memoranda dated March 1, 1994 and August 30, 1994), we conclude that the amendments to the Tree 2 The current ordinance did not define the term, which was interpreted by staff to include some land. which could be partitioned or subdivided. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Memo re: Goal 5 and Draft chapter 18.150, Tree Removal August 31, 1994 Page 5 Removal Chapter do not require a new ESEE inventory and analysis under Goal 5 and its implementing rules. 3. Rather, the, Council finds that the amendments will serve to maintain or increase the protection provided by the existing, language. The Tree Removal Chapter as amended will continue to protect "major vegetation on undeveloped land" within the Little Bull Mountain Forest, the only such requirement in the City's Goal 5 ESEE analysis in Volume 1, Appendix I of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The identified resource areas will not change, and need not be re-inventoried or re- analyzed because of these amendments. 4. The Council finds no other reference to the Tree Removal chapter in the City's acknowledged Natural Features and Open Spaces Report. Therefore, we find also that the amended Tree Removal Chapter will serve the same Goal 5 function as the existing acknowledged Tree Removal Chapter. 5. The amendments will generally make it more difficult to remove a tree in the City. Planning Goal 5 is to "protect natural and scenic resources." To the extent that trees in Tigard's identified resource areas are better protected by these amendments, the City's acknowledged compliance with Goal 5 is stronger. REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC TREE SPECIES My discussions with DLCD have focused Goal 5 compliance generally, thus I have not had much change to talk about specification of tree species. My thinking is that since trees themselves are not a Goal 5 resource, making a distinction between the "significance" of tree species would not be prohibited without an ESEE analysis. What we cannot do is make any distinction between how Goal 5 resources are protected. I will include this in my next discussion with Lucas of DLCD. /jh Enclosure cc: Bill Monahan (w/enclosure) 0 90024/jlh/BEW MISUON M 6 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall Tigard, OR 97223 11645 SW Cloud Ct. Tigard, OR 97224 October 11, 1994 Dear Council Members: ve, 1oiil HAND DELIVERED Please save this City unnecessary expense and acrimony and drop your ill-conceived tree ordinance. As I have discussed with several of you individually and written in a recent letter to the Tigard Times, this proposed ordinance is both unnecessary and illegal. Unnecessary in that there are more effective ways to encourage tree preservation and tree planting; illegal in that this constitutes uncompensated taking in violation of the 5th Amendment. This City recently spent over $100,000 prosecuting - and losing - the Dolan/A-Boy private property case. This money could have educated 26 Tigard school students at current levels for one year. Yes, we are a relatively wealthy community - still we need to prioritize our goals and allocate limited funds to those programs that will have the greatest benefit and long term impact. Spending resources - people, money, and time - regulating private property is at the bottom of any rational person's list of proper government functions (if indeed it's a proper function at all!). This proposed ordinance speaks of arborists (new City employees?) to interpret certain requirements of the proposed ordinance. We can also assume that additional code enforcement officer(s) will be necessary to police the populace to determine whether we are pruning or removing, depending on the amount of foliage being removed, the suspect tree's distance from a residence or attached garage, etc., etc., etc. What is the cost of these individuals, including all benefits, and what line item in the City budget covers these costs? Even if the City has the funds to assure compliance, is this - at bottom - the best use of people, money, and time? If you truly want to "Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City" (Goal # 1 in the proposed ordinance), why not instead declare Tigard Tree Day once a year and sponsor aCity-wide tree planting mart rl;af,s wi :seedlings dv;ated by forest products companies or by local businesses, and end up the day with a hell of a fun party at Cook Park celebrating all the trees planted voluntarily by Tigard citizens? council 2 of 2 One of your members recently asked me what I wanted from my City government. My reply was - and is: adequate police and fire protection, fix the potholes in my street and then leave me alone! This City - and all levels of government - have to understand that regulating every aspect of our lives is not your proper function. I urge you to spend your energies and my money on more productive endeavors than this ill- conceived and unnecessary limitation on freedom guaranteed to me in Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights. Best regards, ichael A. Smith c. Tigard Times v 0 s 0 it 4! - , v aw~•s cd ~ O •b ~I s M eo 5 a ono M•$ 'Sa00ia~i~•5s C Zs 42 0 r W a C0 O z W ar N M E a 0 cc 0 C 0 °a s W I C A ° •d d Q3~ v C6 S m, ~ Qt ~ ~ d a Fi J..•" y 67 V ~ s ~ ° • •p .COT.i G ~ ~ ~ ~ G 4•~ ~ a ~ 4OODDD •C~ sue-. d.r.v0 J s4J :19 c;, ca•CLy td C 4.2 O p ooo`i i3 E~ >,e~i r~ t~-+~ 0S4~o• a'°~ S.8.7 ~ z! 14 ~y N a> gy=p ~ • ~ g N 19 oNsw s sA" ~ q° w ~ ~ i'1 cr3 ~ ~ '~f •sy •pSs s n ~ c4 0 bog •O. ONO ~ ~•8 'C~ ~ ° ~ ° N S .°.J' raf o 'J A OO e rf; La $ o 2 dp ~:.~N.b,o3cdc~ai ~ •a Q ,•NO a, a m. RO V N ti 19 ci ao •b >7 c+f c~ U;~ w it.5 t.. '03 ta e !9 $s oN T (5 boo 19 Sollb -6 G4 'G .C ' "d O R9 .C Cp c7 s 'N A .3 c7 g O ' . , °Q S S ° N ao_Es s IU a 8°®3 sN r~ r o o= 0 ao30 N O N C 3 ma V :x~ C > bon =bO U 0 .9 o= 79 1 N 3 3 O~ ca Nb m os. G c O cA LL) sib .a~H° EN qty ,~°c~" :ate $ v° °[r 0 3.~C° o c~ s~ 3 co) L E 0 0 z E _ 0 0 ~ z State of Oregon Department of Forestry / Department of Revenue Notification number: 93-531-20910 Reprint Attached is the processed information from the Notification of operation and/or Application for Permits. Please review this information and retain for future reference. [ X ] - Notice is given to the State Forester that an operation will be conducted on the tends described herein (ORS 527.670). [ ] - A Permit to operate Power Driven Machinery is issued for the lands described herein (ORS 477.625). EXPIRES END OF 1993. [ ] A Permit to Ctenr Rights-of-Way is issued for the tands described herein (OHS 477.685). [XI - A Notice is given to the State Forester and the Department of Revenue of the intent to harvest timber (ORS 321.550). THE OPERATOR, TIMBEROWNER,.OR LANDOWNER, UPON SUBMITTING THIS NOTICE, GIVES CONSENT TO THE STATE FORESTER TO ENTER UPON THE LAND SUDaECT TO THE OPERATION FOR THE PURPOSES ON INSPIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOREST PRACTICES ACT AND INDUSTRIAL FIRE PREVENTION RULES. 1. WHERE TIMBER HARVESTING 1S A PART OF THE PROPOSED OPERATION: A. NOTICE TO TIMBER OWNER: Party owning the harvested timber at the point it is first measured is shown in the section marked TIMBER OWNER and is responsible for payment of the Oregon Timber Taxes. B. NOTICE TO LANDOWNER: Party shown in the section marked LANDOWNER is responsible for reforestation of the site if so required. 11. PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE STATE FORESTER AND WRITTEN PLANS: [ - A PRIOR APPROVAL may be required before certain activities can commence on the operation. A WRITTEN PLAN may be required for the situations indicated by an [X] Betow. Approval of a WRITTEN PLAN or a WRITTEN WAIVER must be obtained from the Forest Practices Forester before any portion of the OPERATION may commence. [ ] - Within 100' of a Class 1 Stream. [OAR 629-24-113(a)) [ ] - Within 300' of a wildlife resource site listed in the 1984 ODF/OOFW Cooperative Agreement. [OAR 629-24-113(b)] [ ] - Within 3001 of a Specific Protected Resource Site. (OAR 629-24-113(c)] [ ] - Within 3001 of a federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife resource site. [OAR 629-24-113(d)] Pi6ese contact the Forest Practices Forester indicated on the Unit Inforimtion sheet for further information on requirements that may be necessary to met before activities/operation begin. Signed by., Rita Mary Hart --Representing the Operator Paul Nuttall 3240 SW Nelson Road Gaston, OR 97119 (Operator Copy) District: Forest Grove Office: Forest Grove County: Washington WOSTOT: Date Received: 7/22/93 Time Received: 1630 . 15 DAY WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED N O T I C E The State Forester has determined the following PROTECTED RESOURCES are located within or adjacent to your operation area: UGD-City Of Tigard - Forest Operations Regulated By City. For Permits/Regulations Call: Victor Adonri-639-4171 X 349. Operator:. Paul Nuttall 3240 SW Nelson Road Gaston, OR 97119 Phone: 357-1166 Landowner: Rita Mary Hart 10993 SW N Dakota Street Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 639-4379 Timberowner: Rita Mary Hart 10993 SW N Dakota Street Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: 639-4379 James E. Brown State Forester District Forester 9/08/93 Notification HuTber: 93 531 20910 Site Activity: Partial. cut Ftethods Used: Dozer Start Date End Date 7/27/93 12/30/93 UNIT INFORMATION Unit Nmber: 1 FPF: Thomas M. Savage Phone: 357-2191 Site Conditions: None within 1/4 mile Slope of 0* to 35% No mass soil movement Special Concerns: Within Urban Growth Boundary Page 1 Acres Est Haarvsst Rd Constr t T R S N E N W S W S E Harv Government W G E n n s s n n s s s n n s s Reg Unit Lots P E C we we S 11wie Use O1S 01W 34 X Wvl USUGlly a ULI5LIUIIICL . 1LL A.5 0LUCL11 sapling in no way"replaces"the Oregon White Oak, one of the finest speciments and one of the oldest quercus garryana in our community. These trees are diffi- cult to propagate, all the more reason to treasure them. Location: Hall St. by'7-11 Store. There should be a hefty fine to pay for unauthorized removal of tree such as occured in the photo above. Also - careless, indifferent damage to tree roots, which then necessitates removal of the tree, should have also a hefty fine attached. M4 This tree, a match to the three Sequois that grace the turn-ar unc at-the Lincoln Center, was ear- marked for preservation, they knocked down on a Sunday morning to clear the way for,apx. 6 parkii spaces. Ste- ~ (afas - AGENx)A rrEm For Agenda of kr 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA rrEW SUMMARY IssuEvAG-ENDA TYT.LE Greensuaces Donal measuxv Local gham Funds PREPAREW BY: Duane Rolaerts DEFT BEAD ®K CITY ADAM ®K ' ISSUE DE i ORE THE, C®MCIL Should the City submit the attached local greenspaces and txmil projects for inclusion in Metro's greenspace bond aneasure? Do not authorize submittal of a local project list. Submit eligible projects diferent from those identified in the attached memo. FISCAL NOTES _ If the bond measure is passed by voters in March, $75.5,923 would be available to Tigard as pass- t w...~®b. .~~:~Tm~nO~t4t no GE► contribution toward a_--- -__8•=s~'~_d8. Aim J__ua&9 MZaO,. VWW%LLU 1L- &M Esa aB.., d:... ~ lii1Q avaaaa aoa Casa onfitlement 1Cd the funding of local projects required. - 0 nW Qdnbar 7. M4 WHEREAS, Metro Council has submitted to the voters of the District the question of contracting a General Obligation Bond indebtedness of $138.8 million for grreenspaces; and WHEREAS, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the General election held on March 28, 1995; and WHEREAS, the measure includes -up to $25 million for local goverr..ment greenspace projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard's pro rata share of this amount is $755,923; and WHEREAS, the City's list of local projects must be approved by the City Council and delivered to Metro no later than November 1, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. the City of Tigard, Oregon, based on the above considerations, expresses its support for the inclusion of the attached list of local Greenspace and Trail projects in the metropolitan Service District Greenspaces Bond Measure. PASSED : This day of 1994. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST : City Recorder - City of Tigard miSagtr 30, 1994 3 RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LIS r OF LOCAL, G NSPAC E PROJECT'S 1. A piire land or easements and. construct 7,50€9 lineal feet of greeenway trail within the City limits. 2. Acquire 7.5 acres of forest land located within the incorporated area of Full Mountain for a passive park. G paces IocA31 Share Funds The Greenspaces bond measure includes $25 million in pass-through funds. Tigard's share of this amount is $755,923. To be eligible to receive these faands the City is required to subunit a list of approved projects with rough cost estimates by November 1, 1994. Should they City submit? Mile the council adopted a neutral position on the 1992 greenspaces bond measure, I recommend that the City submit a project list as requested. Failure to submit would result in the City losing its eligibility to receive local share funds. Identifying local projects would not oblate the City to any particular stance on the March bond measure. If Tigard chooses to submit a local project list, I recommend the following: L*.-Ad Share IundeRnes Praority OLY Construct Greerxwav Trans The Tigard Park Plan calls for the development of an interconnected, area-wade g menway trail system. So far the City has completed about 13,000 feet or 15% of the proposed greenway trail segments located inside the City. Using $50 per foot as a rough cost for the acquisition of land or easements and the installation of a trail, the City could use the bond measure funds to complete an additional 15,000 feet of greenway trail. I would recommend, however, that half the Greenspaces funds be targeted to '~_~-"12411 . 1!_1__p 1L61Nata~cas L1 aaasaaYavesua~ acy ~i"CCE1WiSy t1II Cl9 4. i va v--~~ua@, ura~ vavy wsaaa cv.~...~.. three short links to complete an interconnected greenway system in northwest Tigard. Trails could be constructed through these and existing g reenway segments lacking trails to complete the trail system. Other parcels could be purchased along Fanno Creek Park to begin a trailway system there. PAority #2ol .Acquire land on Bull_ Mountain I recommend the City purchase seven to eight acres of this available land for an estimated cost of $377,500. a - 0d&w 17, HN Page 2 lll~ 6BGA ON BOND , PROPOSIM LOCAL SHARE GMELMES AGENDA ITEM # V For Agenda of October 11. 19944 _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE King City IpgMiry: Does the City of Tigard have any interest in -pursuing annexation of King City to the City of Tigard? PREPARED BY: VVU4--- DEPT HEAD OK BA CITY ADMIN OX ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Is the City Council interested in pursuing a merger or consolidation of the City of Zing City and aigard? STA'F'F RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to either: 1. Advise the City of King City that Tigard is interested in exploring the possibility of adding the land area of King City to Tigard, or 2. Advise the City of King City that the present City Council has no interest in pursuing a merger. INFORMATION SUMMARY King City Manager Larry Cole has requested that the Council give an indication whether Tigard is interested in merging with King City. The request is not accompanied by a vote of support or other indication of the King City Council's position on the question. No analysis has been performed to address Mr. Cole"s questions regarding process and assignment of assets. If the City Council is interested in pursuing a merger, staff will prepare a list of information needed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the merger. It is recommended that a complete study of financial impacts be completed before Tigard commit to a merger. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Delay action until a study of financial issues is considered. 2. Request a meeting with the King City Council to clarify the question and discuss how preliminary data may be assembled to assist the cities to evaluate the question. FISCAL NOTES If the council is interested in pursuing the question, staff should be directed to prepare an outline of the information needed to assess the financial impacts of the merger. The cost of such a study should be shared by the two cities. Before engaging in a study, the King City Council should commit t0 pursuing the qu@SL1CDi1 and vviaa.i..L.,ua.c i.a.aactaav.a.asly to tj-LjLe study. h:\lo9in\c®2hy\kcwv=.sLm 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, Interim City Administrator "_ti- DATE: September 26, 1994 01 133 IECvT• CCihr of Wien f °ihr Ogle" Iest Attached is a copy of a letter I received today from Larry Cole, City Manager of the City of ICng City, asking if Tigard has any interest in pursuing a merger with the City of King City. As this time, the question is being asked only to gather information. Mr. Cole's letter includes a number of questions which would need to be resolved if a merger is actually pursued. Of course, there are several other questions which we would want to add to the list if there is any interest. I am sending you this letter in advance of the Tigard City Council meeting of September 27, 1994, in case a representative or citizen of IGng City raises the issue during Visitor's Agenda. Perhaps during the Study Session we can speak briefly on this matter, to determine if Council requires additional information before discussing the question of interest in depth. We could then set a future study agenda item and provide information in advance to the Council. WAMAh attachment h:\1og1n\jo\wam0M.1 L Dear Bill, The King City Council has directed me to ask the City of Tigard if you have any interest in pursuing what has been called "annexation to the City of Tigard". I believe it actually would either be a merger or a consolidation of the two cities. Probably a merger. If the answer to the first question is positive at least to some degree,then the Council would like to know the procedure you would like to use. Knowing that ORS spells out the procedure for such an activity with some options, I assume you would want to follow that, but perhaps there is something you would like to add. The next question then is what would happen to various city property. Since ORS speaks to all King City property and debts becoming the City of Tigard's, the question really becomes: What would you do with it? In other words, would you sell City Hall or use it for something else? What would you do with the police and maintenance vehicles? The computers, etc. What about city personnel? Would they be used or just lose their jobs? Although not part of their instruction to me, at one time there was a question about whether the City Hall might be sold and the money returned to King City residents in some manner. The other part of this question would be: What about the city budget and investments, etc.? The Councilor making the motion to pursue this said this didn't mean he was in favor of "annexation", he was just responding to a question from a resident. The other Councilors made no comments regarding their position, so this shouldn't be taken as an effort to pursue this procedure. It is a "what if" question. It is an information gathering request. I believe this correctly conveys the desires of the King City Council at this point. If you have any questions or clarifications that are needed. I would be happy to try to respond to them. Thank you for your consideration. cc: King City Council October 3, 1994 Larry Cole city manager city of Ding City 15300 S.W. 116th Avenue Ding City, OR 97224-2693 Re: Potential Merger with the City of Tigard Bear Larry : I have forwarded your letter of September 21, 1994, to the City Council for review. Tentatively, I have scheduled discussion of this question for the October 11 meeting of the City Council. Since your letter does not indicate a Council position on this request, you or a representative of the Council may wish to attend the meeting to state your request and answer questions. The issue will be presented to the Council without any preliminary study by staff. I feel this is appropriate since your Council has not indicated it is in favor of the merger. Although I realize the tax rate is not the only issue that your Council will consider when it decides whether or not to favor annexation, I feel that it is appropriate to provide a comparison. I understand that your present tax rate is $1.59 per $1,000 A/v. According to the adopted 1994-95 City of Tigard Budget, our tax rate per $1,000 A/V is as follows: General Fund Tax Base: Parks Serial Levy G.O. Debt Service Water Debt Service Total $1.85 0.15 `1994/95 is the final year of debt- service on these certificates) 0.67 v_ a tagr i $2.72 I assume that the water debt service of $0.05 per $1,000 A/V is also charged to King City property owners. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Larry Cole October 3, 1994 Page 2 Please also be advised that Tigard is seeking an updated tax base beginning July 1, 1996. We estimate that the general fund tax base, with approval of the measure, will be approximately $2.37 per $1,000 A/v. Please advise me if your City Council tapes a position on this question before our October 11 meeting. If you have any questions, please call me. sincere , Willi ~A."-Mon Ian Interim City Administrator Attachment: Council Agenda Summary h:\log1n\cathy\wa=1G02.94 k, Assessed Tax Tax Kino Cit Rates Citv of Tigard Rates Cit of Durham Rates Govt.l Bonds School Govt. Bonds School Value Code Rate Govt. Bonds School 1,3011 0.0541 1.3011 0.0541 County 17720768523 1.3011 0.0541 King City 121669954 197470 23.86 1.623 2.0255 0.7401 Tigard 2175661079 440680 23.74 0.6872 Durham 58547786 40234 23.87 Tualatin 944449983 23.01 Tualatin II 1.7201 13.8567 1.7201 13.856 Dist. 23 3406348895 1.7201 13.8567 Dist. 88 549024610 0.2048 0.204 ESD - 0.2048 0.0959 0.778 0.0959 ;0.7763 0.0559 0.7783 PCC 0.2109 0.2109 Tri-Met 16481698790 ®'2109 , 0.1116 0.0929 0.1116 0.0925 0.1116 0.09..9 MSD 16389035981 0.0813 0.0528 0.0813 0.0928 Port 17720768523 0.0813 0.0928 1.8427 0.0383 1.8427 0.0383 1.8427 0.0383 NFSR 10565566433 911 0.3148 0.3148 0.3148 En. Patro 6767042728 En. Road 0.338 0,50'79 0.5679 {nSTIP P II 0.5679 0.367 0.367 0.367 Library 0,1208 0.1209 USA 16226354322 0'2,209 0.075 0.075 0.075 Water 202865771 St. Lts. 0.225 Sub Total. 6.2094 2.5009 14.8398 6.6119 3.241 14.835= 5.2736 2.5009 14:8398 Meas. 5 6.2094 2.5009 10 6.6115 3.241 10 5.2736 2.5009 10 19.8523 17.7745 Total Rate 18.7103 'Street lighting district =estimated for $100,000 house Actual costs=22.50 per residential lot annual charge --Merge with Tigard: Tigard AV + King City AV - 2.297,331,033 Tigard tax base - King City tax base = 4,604,271.86 Tax Rate = 4,604,271.86 divided by 2,297,331,033 = $2.0042' City of Tualatin Rates City of Tualatin II Rates County Unincorp Area Merger With Tigard Govt. Bands cnoo Govt. aonas Sc ao Govt. Bon s cnoo ovt. Bonds School 1.1706 0.0488 q. - F. PUS s a 0.0541 p 1.1706 "°2.0042 0.7401 2.8009 1.0569 1.0569 1.4857 2.8009 1.5741 12.6803 2.3395 0.1445 9.9288 1.7201 13.8567 L 7201 13.8567 0.1209 0.2048 0.11963 0.1863 0.0959 0.7783 0.0959 0.7783 0.0866 0.7022 0.0866 0.7022 0.193 0.193 0.2109 0.2109 0.1022 0.0651 0.0851 0.1116 0.0929 0.1116 0.0929 0.0744 0.085 0.1022 0.085 0.0813 0.0928 0.0813 0.0928 1.6857 0.0351 0.0744 0.0351 1.8427 0.0383 1.8427 0.0363 0.2833 1.6857 0.3148 0.3148 0.2833 0.6521 0.338 0.511 0.5679 0.5679 0.3303 0.511 0.367 0.367 0.1105 0.3303 0.1105 0.1209 0.1209 0.075 0.075 0.225 8.4441 3.2751 13.5688 9.2979 1.8455 10.8173 5.8015 2.5009 14.7559 6.5906 3.241' 14_8398 8.4441 3.2751 10 9.2979 1.8455 10 5.8015 2.5009 10 6.5906 3.241 10 21.7192 21.1434 18.3024 19•8310 I i