The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/08/2005 D ria-n c-0, CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 8, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1:\0fs\Donna's\Ccpkt1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Agenda Item No. 3_1 For Agenda of March 22. 2005 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Harding (arrived at 6:34 p.m.), Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff • STUDY SESSION > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - The following items were distributed or discussed briefly: a. Mayor's Agenda distributed. b. Noted League of Oregon Cities training for newly elected officials scheduled for Portland on March 3, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Information distributed in the 2/4/05 Council Newsletter). If interested in attending, contact Joanne Bengtson. C. Dan Murphy, Tigard Chamber of Commerce Representative, is unable to attend this-evening. He hopes a Chamber member will come in his place to update the Council on upcoming Chamber events. d. Discuss when to schedule meetings with Representative Galizio and Senator Burdick. One suggestion was for May; another was to schedule time on the March 29 5th Tuesday Council Meeting. Last Legislative session, legislators were invited to the first business meeting each month. Representative Galizio has contacted the City and asked whether the City of Tigard would sponsor a town meeting. After discussion, consensus of Council was to invite Representative Galizio and Senator Burdick to the 5th Tuesday meeting on March 29, 2005. The Council would like to use this time as an opportunity to tell the legislators what the Council thinks is important and what they should be working toward. Interim City Manager Prosser said he would find out if the 5th Tuesday meeting could be televised. e. JPACT Nomination - Beaverton Mayor Drake's letter was sent to Council on February 4; nominations are due by 2/18. Council supported the nomination of Mayor Rob Drake as the primary JPACT representative. No alternate was selected. At this point in the meeting the Council heard information from City Attorney Ramis on Land Use Basics (see "CITY COUNCIL ORIENTATION" section below). Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 February 8, 2005 f. Tualatin Resolution - Interim City Manager referred to a resolution distributed to the Council from the City of Tualatin addressing some Metro issues. The Mayor requested staff to review this Tualatin resolution and craft a resolution that would generally support Tualatin's position and also present issues specific to Tigard. A copy of a draft resolution was distributed to the City Council representing staffs attempt to respond to the Mayor's request. Mr. Prosser asked the Council to review the draft ordinance and advise him of any comments or edits by the end of the week. A proposed resolution will be presented to the Council at its February 22 Council meeting. Council agreed to review the resolution. The Mayor urged the Council to compare the draft resolution to the original resolution from Tualatin to determine if Tigard's issues are addressed. g. TPOA Arbitration - Interim City Manager referred to an arbitration session held in November. Under the timelines of state law governing binding arbitration, a decision from the arbitrator was due January 10. The California arbitrator lost a home in recent landslides; therefore, both TPOA and the City contacted him and said, given the circumstances, he did not need to meet the January 10 deadline. Mr. Prosser said that Councilor Woodruff had heard that the City's labor attorney, Ken Bemis, would not join with TPOA to write a letter to the arbitrator, but this is not the case. Each side (TPOA and City Management) is sensitive to the arbitrator's recent tragedy. Councilor Woodruff advised he had a call from TPOA President Glen Scruggs about another matter. Mr. Scruggs said he thought there was hesitation on the City's part and suggested there be a joint letter issue. Councilor Woodruff told Mr. Scruggs he would ask about sending out a joint letter. Mr. Prosser said Mr. Bemis and TPOA's lawyer would get together to issue a letter. Councilor Wilson said he would appreciate a "Labor Negotiations 101" type of class for Council members to understand more about labor law and how the law affects public sector employees as compared to private sector employees. He also mentioned he'd like to know about civil service protections. Mr. Prosser agreed such training would be timely as there will be issues coming up for Council to deal with. Mr. Prosser will schedule this training with Attorney Ken Bemis for the Council. In response to a question from Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 February 8, 2005 Councilor Wilson about civil service protections, Mr. Prosser advised that the City of Tigard does not have a civil service system "per se," but it would be worthwhile to discuss civil service and the City's employment structure. h. NW Medical Teams - Interim City Manager Prosser advised that Councilor Woodruff had indicated he was interested in inviting NW Medical Teams to a Council session to recognize this organization for the incredible work they have been doing in SE Asia. Staff has contacted NW Medical teams, but has not heard back from them. i. CIP Tour - is scheduled. February 28. 3-5 PM j. Calendar Review • February 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 29: 5th Tuesday Council Meeting - 7 p.m. - Water Auditorium At this point in the meeting, Council went into Executive Session as noted below. > CITY COUNCIL ORIENTATION City Attorney Ramis reviewed an outline with Council on "Land Use Basics." A copy of this outline is on file in the City Recorder's office. Information reviewed included: o Quasi-Judicial and Legislative Distinguished o Legislative Decisions o Quasi-Judicial Decisions o Findings and Conditions o Due Process o Ethics in Land Use Cases At the conclusion of the discussion on this agenda item, Council returned to its review of the Administrative Items (starting with 'T Tualatin Resolution"). Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 February 8, 2005 • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:02 p.m. to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review & evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) & (i). Executive Session concluded at 7:33 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance: Cub Scout Pack 232 conducted a Flag Ceremony. 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham presented Council with information on current and future activities at Tigard High School. An outline of these activities is on file in the City Recorder's office. • Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard, Oregon, said she talked to City staff about installing a stop sign at the corner of Hillshire where Westridge and 135th come together, where she has seen a lot of near and actual accidents. She said she received notice that a stop sign would be installed by the end of the week and she thanked the City. • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication - Interim City Manager noted in January, CPO 413 President Holly Shumway requested Tigard staff attendance at her organization's meetings. CPO 4B is part of the County structure. Staff will be talking with Council in April about communications and suggests this request be considered at that time. In the meantime, staff recommends that if the County requests City staff to attend, then City staff would attend. - Interim City Manager Prosser noted that Brian Wegener of the Tualatin Riverkeepers presented issues to Council at a previous meeting about storm drainage. Staff is reviewing this information. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 February 8, 2005 Rob Williams, Tigard Youth Forum President, reviewed the Consent Agenda as follows: 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for January 11, 2005 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda c. 5th Tuesday - Council Meeting Notes for November 30, 2004 3.3 Authorize Submittal of the City of Tigard's Third-Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report - Resolution No. 05-06 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL TO METRO OF THE CITY'S THIRD YEAR TITLE 7, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, COMPLIANCE REPORT 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program b. Authorize the Purchase of New Police Portable Radios Using a State of Oregon Price Agreement 3.5 Reappoint Bob Rohlf to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Budget Committee - Resolution No. 05-07 A RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE 3.6 Approve Separation Agreement for William A. Monahan Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 4. ADOPT 2005 COUNCIL GOALS Mayor Dirksen summarized the goals. A list of the goals is on file with the City Recorder. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 February 8, 2005 The Mayor noted the Council decided to set goals in a different manner for 2005. Instead of listing long-term goals in many different areas, the Council focused on specific tasks they would like to see accomplished this year. The decision to change was largely based on information received by Council from a citizen surveys (by the Park and Recreation Board) and from the citizens' visioning process. The Council would like to commit the City's resources to addressing some individual issues of concern. Overlaying specific actions taken in each of the goal areas is a commitment to: o Seek community involvement o Tie actions to the Vision Task Force Goals o Enhance the appearance of the City o Measure results The Mayor reviewed each goal: 1. Revitalize Downtown This is a continuance of an effort for the last couple of years. He noted the continuing efforts of a citizen task force. In 2005, the Council is committed to completing the Downtown Plan and to implement the plan. The City might use urban renewal for that implementation; part of the plan is to study different ways to finance the projects identified to revitalize the downtown area. Once the Downtown Plan is completed and there is a process in place to implement it, the City can identify specific projects that could be done immediately. 2. Improve 99W When the City asks citizens about what they think the biggest problem is in Tigard, they often respond, "traffic... and, specifically, Traffic on 99W." Mayor Dirksen noted that 99W is not a City street, but just because that is so, it does not mean that there are not things that the City could do. Therefore, the City's task for this year is to identify some specific projects that the City could do to alleviate congestion on 99W. Once the City has determined the appropriate projects and the projects are prioritized, the City will actively seek funding. The City could use what funding it has available to attempt to leverage additional funding from other revenue sources from the State and Federal governments. The Mayor noted that traffic is not the only thing wrong with 99W; "it's also its appearance." The Council would like to explore ways to enhance the appearance of 99W as well. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 February 8, 2005 3. Address Growth The Mayor advised that the Council is committed to beginning a revision of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan is a document the City uses as a road map to determine the needs of the city; i.e., where types of building should be located, consider impacts to streets, what should streets look like, what is the zoning, and what should density be in different areas. The Comprehensive Plan as it now exists was adopted about 20 years ago. While the Plan has been updated regularly, it has not been reviewed in its entirety and revised in a comprehensive manner. The process will begin with establishment of a citizen review and involvement process. The Mayor said the City hears from citizens that some of the issues they have are issues for which the Council has no jurisdiction. The Council identified some Metro issues and determined that this year the City should discuss with Metro and the State ways that the Metro Charter could be changed to address concerns citizens have relating to zoning and density. The Mayor noted one of the objectives under this goal is to identify and acquire open space. He referred to the parks system development charge which was recently increased and this year, the City will aggressively seek pieces of property the City to purchase for park development or reserve as open space. The next objective under this goal is to review growth of expenditures and revenue. At times, expenses grow faster than revenue as a result of inflation (for example, increased fuel and insurance costs). The Council will review the growth of expenditures and try to determine areas where adjustments can be made. The last objective under this goal is the graphic identity (branding) for the City of Tigard. The Council is looking for some ideas for signage, including monument signs as you enter the City. Also, the entrances to parks could be better identified with signs or gates. The City will also review the City logo with citizen and professional input. The Mayor advised that last year the Council set six goals and each of those goals had four or five tasks for a total of 37 tasks that staff was asked to address. He said that a lot of progress could not be made in all of these tasks because of limited City resources. The Council, therefore, made the choice this year to reduce the number of goals and to limit the focus so significant progress could be made in a few areas. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 February 8, 2005 The Mayor asked for citizen comments about the approach to the goal setting this year. The Mayor noted there will be open houses for a dialogue with the community on the Downtown Plan over the next couple of months. He asked that citizens look at the Plan and let the City know what they think. He advised there is a meeting Task Force meeting on Thursday. Councilor Woodruff said that all of the goals contain objectives or tasks that can be measured. The Council will be holding staff responsible to work towards getting these accomplished or moved in the right directions and the Council expects that the public will hold the Council accountable to move the goals in the right direction this year. Councilor Woodruff said, "We certainly do solicit any help and ideas that people have about how we can make these things happen ...so we can be successful with these goals by the time we get to the end of this year." 5. RECOGNITION OF CENTREX Risk Manager Mills presented this agenda item and introduced Jim Severson, President of Centrex Construction, Inc. and Doug Mead, the project superintendent for the remodel of the Permit Center and City Hall. An outline of the highlights of Ms. Mills' presentation to the Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. Ms. Mills reviewed the outstanding work of Centrex, Inc., a Tigard-based contractor who completed the remodel on the Permit Center and City Hall. Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adopt Resolution No. 05-08. RESOLUTION NO. 05-08 - A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING CENTREX CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF TIGARD CITIZENS. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 February 8, 2005 6. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: MISSION/VALUES EXERCISE RESULTS Public Works Director Koellermeier presented the staff report on this agenda item. An outline of the highlights of Public Works Director Koellermeier's presentation to the Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Koellermeier reviewed the Mission Values/Exercise Results started in the summer of 2004. The results of these group discussions are a new Mission Statement, slogan, and a set of core values for the public works department: Mission Statement: "The Public Works Department proudly provides stewardship over the City's water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streets, fleet, buildings, and parks services in a safe, efficient, courteous and professional manner." Slogan: "Taking Care of the Community" Core Values: Professionalism Respect Integrity Dedication Enthusiasm Council members agreed that this was a good effort by the Public Works Department. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATIONS (VAC 2004-00002) SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79TH AVENUE Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this agenda item. Associate Planner Tracy presented the staff report, which outlined the application to initiate two separate public utility easement vacations. There were no declarations or challenges. No one signed in on the testimony sign-in sheets to testify. City Attorney Ramis asked the public in attendance if anyone was present to testify on this item. Hearing no response, City Attorney Ramis advised the Council could proceed with the hearing without a detailed reading of the hearing process for a quasi-judicial hearing. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 February 8, 2005 Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance No. 05-03. ORDINANCE NO. 05-03 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,248 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2004-00002). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Harding, to adopt Ordinance No. 05-04. ORDINANCE NO. 05-04 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 475 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79TH AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2004-00002). The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ASH CREEK ESTATES - LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND - SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ o ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037 Mayor Dirksen read the following: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 February 8, 2005 ITEM ON REMAND: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded City Council's approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews for additional findings to support their decision. This hearing is limited to the four specific assignments of error which are generally: 1) The City's acceptance of lower "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag on SW 74th and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized to approve such deviations to adopted street standards; 2) The requirement that the applicant prepare and submit a tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provide a removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.790; 3) Revised findings are required for the proposed curb tight sidewalks on SW 74th Avenue and also for the cul- de-sac standards to address the relevant criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.370.C.11; and 4) Additional findings related to the landscape protection criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.745.030.E. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at http://tuba.state. or. us/pdf/2004/aug04/03194.htm. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.745, 18.790 and 18.810. a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Statement by City Attorney - City Attorney Ramis read a statement, which he noted is read at the beginning a land use hearing in order to provide some instruction about the procedures to be followed in a land use case. If during testimony, anyone has a question about process or procedure, he asked that the question be directed to the Mayor and either the Mayor or City Attorney will try to assist and answer the question. The statement included instruction on: ■ Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. Please make sure testimony is relevant to applicable standards for the item in question. ■ Tonight's hearing is confined to the four issues identified by the Land Use Board of Appeals, which the Mayor read in the earlier statement. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 11 February 8, 2005 ■ The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision applying the existing laws of the City of Tigard City. The Council cannot change the law with a land use application now under consideration. ■ Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. ■ Council members must declare any contacts about this case with members of the public. ■ Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts such as from a visit to the site in question. ■ A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. ■ After the discussion of conflicts of interest and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the impartiality of the City Council and may rebut the substance of the Council member's knowledge of the facts. The Council member in question may respond to the challenge. ■ A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance to the hearing room. ■ The staff report for this item has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website. A paper copy of the staff report has been available in the Tigard Public Library for the last seven days. ■ Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the applicant and those in favor of the application will testify. After that, witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns may testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the applicant can respond. The Council members may also ask the staff and witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. ■ After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the applicant can make a closing statement. ■ After the record is closed, the Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During the deliberations, the Council may reopen the public portion of the hearing, if necessary, to receive additional evidence before making a decision. ■ You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. ■ Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that the Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 February 8, 2005 ■ Failure to raise Constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow a response precludes an action for damages in Circuit Court. ■ Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with a statement of an earlier witness, please state that and add any additional points of your own. ■ You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. ■ You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to new evidence. ■ Demonstrations from the audience are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record, so you need to make sure that any comments that you make are picked up on the tape at the desk at the front of the meeting room. ■ When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name. Please spell your last name and give your full mailing address, including zip code. ■ If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider you must hand new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask for them to be returned. C. Community Development Director Hendryx introduced the following staff members: Development Review Engineer McMillan, Planning Manager Bewersdorff, and Associate Planner Tracy. d. City Attorney Ramis asked the following questions: Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? None declared. Does anyone wish to declare any ex parte communication? Mayor Dirksen declared he made a site visit last week for the purpose of observing the current condition of the site. Councilor Wilson and Councilor Harding also reported they visited the site. There were no challenges to any Council member's ability to participate in this decision. C. Staff Report: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 February 8, 2005 Associate Planner Tracy listed the written testimony received by staff after the generation of the staff report, prior to this hearing: o E-mail from Merilyn Ferrara (2/8/05) o E-mail from Carol Paddock (2/8/05) o Letter from Jim Labbe from the Portland Audubon Society (2/3/05) o Kurahashi & Associates transmittal - Washington County Street Standards, submitted by John Frewing on February 4, 2005. The above items were distributed to City Council. Associate Planner Tracy advised that the subject of the public hearing was for consideration of additional findings to supplement the Council's prior approval of the Ash Creek Subdivision. The findings respond to four issues raised by the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). This matter before City Council is strictly limited to the four issues remanded by LUBA. The remainder of the decision has been approved. To the extent the material discussed tonight does not supplement or supersede the previous findings, those previous findings stand. An outline of the PowerPoint presentation to the Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. Associate Planner Tracy gave an overview and background of the hearing process. This application is for a 29-lot subdivision submitted in the summer 2003. The applicant has proposed a planned development to cluster the home sites outside the drainage way, Ash Creek, and reduce from yard setbacks to limit the extent of disturbance to the area adjacent to the creek. In addition, a private street cul de sac was proposed to serve 23 units, and in order to use a private street serving more than six units, a planned development was required. The Planning Commission heard this matter on July 7, 2003, After deliberating, the Commission voted 4 in favor, 4 opposed. As a result of a tie vote, the Commission Rules of Order stated that the application was denied. Since the application was denied without findings, the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council for its consideration. Significant public testimony was received at its August 12, 2003, hearing, which caused it to be held over to September 9, 2003, and another hearing on October 28, 2003. Council ultimately approved the application with 51 conditions of approval on November 4, 2003. The application was appealed to LUBA on November 25, 2003. The appeal cited 25 errors and sub-errors in the decision. On August 20, 2004, LUBA issued their decision that 21 of the 25 errors were rejected, one was sustained and three others were sustained in part. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 February 8, 2005 LUBA found that insufficient justification was provided for four issues. The four issues are: 1. The City's acceptance of a lower "K" value for the vertical sag on SW 74t Avenue. A "K" value is a mathematical expression of the severity of steepness of curve. It's an engineering term used to describe a tight curve. The lower the number, the tighter the curve. Typically roads designed for 25 mph speeds are required to have a minimum "K" value of 13.4 based on the City's design manual. The applicant in this case has proposed a curve of "K" value of just over 5. A design of the stream crossing of the conforming curve would negatively impact existing public facilities and natural resources. Below SW 74t Avenue right of way, the City of Tualatin has a 36-inch main water line, which is adjacent to the proposed crossing are the stream and wetland areas. The placement of significant additional fill would make maintaining the Tualatin main water line difficult and would also require a greater width of fill to maintain a maximum of 2:1 slope for each side of the road to support the road bed. The City's street design manual was not intended to cover every type of situation and clearly states this in the preface of that document. The City Engineer may consider deviations of these standards based on topography and other existing physical conditions. These designs must conform to standards of engineering principles such as the American Association of the Society of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO permits a minimum "K" value of 5 with a reduced 15 mph speed limit. In this case, staff agrees that the applicant's proposal to design the curve for a 15 mph speed will result in the closest conforming design with the least impact on existing physical conditions. Therefore, the City Engineer has accepted the modification with the condition that signage be placed on both sides of the curve advising drivers to slow to 15 mph through the curve and that the street be monitored for a year after its construction to determine whether any additional measures are needed. The cost of these measures will be borne by the applicant and a condition of approval is imposed to that effect. 2. Lack of a Tree Plan. There are four elements required. A Tree Plan was not initially required because it was the position of staff that parcels with timber deferral status were not required to have a Tree Plan since the timber deferral allows the owner to harvest trees for commercial purposes without a permit. LUBA, however, rejected this position and instructed the applicant to prepare and submit a Tree Plan. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 February 8, 2005 The applicant had a surveyor and arborist inventory trees on the site greater than six inches in diameter. The Council received a copy of the Plan showing trees to be removed and trees to remain. The other elements of the Tree Plan include a tree removal plan, a tree protection program, and tree mitigation program. The Plan shows 893 total trees greater than 12 inches diameter; of those, 115 are deemed hazardous, 321 are proposed for removal and 457 viable trees are proposed for retention (about 59 percent of the total). Based on a previous LUBA case, Miller vs. the City of Tigard, Tree Plans may no longer be adjusted in the field to account for site-specific issues. Subsequent changes require reapplication through a public-review process. As a result, applicants generally show the worst-case tree removal scenario to provide the greatest flexibility rather than show an optimistic plan that would back them into a corner later during construction. However, in light of this, to encourage the applicant to retain even more trees, staff has recommended a condition that will credit saved trees from the final mitigation calculation. In other words, if during construction, the applicant retains and protects healthy trees that were previously indicated for removal, these caliper inches will be credited back against the mitigation bond. To insure that the trees that are saved are protected after the homes are sold, staff required that deed restrictions be placed on each lot, restricting trees greater than 12 inches from being removed by property owners unless they are dead or hazardous. 3. Insufficient analysis to grant adjustments to cul de sac and planter strip requirements. In this case, the cul de sac was proposed to serve 23 units; the maximum allowed is 20 units. The length of the cul de sac is limited to 200 feet by the Code and the applicant's proposal was 570 feet. There is a requirement for a five-foot wide planter strip on public streets. The applicant was proposing a curb-tight sidewalk in the area on 74th Avenue where it crossed over the stream to reduce the street width. LUBA found that the City had addressed many, but not all of the criteria, for the requested adjustments. LUBA also noted the City had applied one set of adjustment criteria, generally for subdivisions in a general set of criteria instead of the more specific criteria for street improvement adjustments. To respond to this, the applicant has provided comprehensive planning for both sets of criteria and staff also searched the existing text as to what the Development Code would permit for tight sidewalks in light of the adjacent water resource without the need for an adjustment. These findings are Tigard City Council Minutes Page 16 February 8, 2005 contained in the staff report, which was sent to the City Council in the packet material for this item. Staff found that both the general and specific criteria for granting the adjustments are met and, therefore, did not recommend any .additional conditions of approval for this particular issue. 4. Insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landscape protection criteria are being met. The applicant's arborist's tree protection guidelines were submitted to the City Council in the Council meeting packet. The arborist, Terry Flanagan, is a certified arborist and provided a detailed program for tree protection measures. Development Code Chapter 18.745.030 E. provides that: Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can b e fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees. The applicant's arborist report includes specific methods for protection of the trees on site. This includes protection fencing established around individual and groups of trees and under story vegetation in their critical root zone will also be protected by this fencing. Clean Water Services also requires the drainage way be protected from encroachments as well. Staff proposed four additional conditions to address this issue: 1. Construction documents will include a construction sequence as well as the arborist's protection requirements including tree protection fencing around the critical root zones of the trees to be retained. 2. Regular monitoring of tree protection by the City Forester and regular status reports from the project arborist will be required every two weeks. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 17 February 8, 2005 3. Failure to follow the Plan and maintain tree protection on the site shall be grounds for suspension of work until remediation steps are taken, including civil citations. 4. Each building permit will be required to submit site plans showing tree protection consistent with the overall tree protection plan, along with an approval from the project arborist approving the placement of the structure and construction techniques to be employed when building the house. The protection plan shall remain in place for the duration of home construction and may only be removed after approval by the City Forester. Associate Planner Tracy reported that he has received many comments about the tree protection issue. Many in the public have expressed that the tree removal plan did not show enough trees being preserved. The applicant will need to speak to this. In light of the Miller vs. City of Tigard decision, the applicant is showing a worse-case scenario and the intention is (and the arborist report states) that as the homes are sited, the trees that are left on the lots will have homes built around them. An effort will be made to retain the largest number of trees on each lot. Associate Planner Tracy said it was important to note that the findings contained in the staff report go into much greater detail than what has been presented in his summary. In consideration of the findings in the report and the testimony the City Council will receive, the City Council has several alternatives: ■ The City Council may adopt staffs findings and conclusions as provided. ■ Modify the findings based on the evidence received during this hearing process. ■ Request additional evidence to support other findings. ■ Decide the applicable criteria have not been met and prepare findings to deny the request. d. Public Testimony Mayor called for public testimony. Consensus of Council was for a three-minute time limit for individual testimony. Proponents: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 18 February 8, 2005 o Dale Richards, 12655 SW North Dakota, Tigard, Oregon, testified as the owner of Winwood Construction Company. Mr. Chris Koback, 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Portland OR 97212, accompanied Mr. Richards and advised he was representing Mr. Richards and his company. Mr. Koback said that when LUBA came down with its decision, their reaction was to go to staff and say "tell us what you need us to do." Staff told the applicant what they wanted and the applicant has done it. All that was done with the City of Tigard staff is incorporated in the staff report and Mr. Koback urged the City Council to follow it. Mr. Koback said there were two issues he wanted to address: 1. What is the impact on the wetlands if the 25 mph speed through the sag curve is maintained. Mr. Koback referred to two large drawings which show the impacts. These drawings were set up for City Council view and labeled as follows: Exhibit 1 - Ash Creek Estates PD - 74th Avenue Plan/Profile - Dale Richards, Winwood Homes - Sheet 1 of 2 Exhibit 2 - Ash Creek Estates PD - 74th Avenue Plan/Profile - Dale Richards, Winwood Homes - Sheet 2 of 2 Mr. Koback described the drawings. One drawing showed the amount impact if the 15 mph modification is applied. Less fill will be needed. If the 25 mph speed was adhered, the other drawing showed that significantly more fill would have to be used, which would have additional impact on the wetland and stream. The drawings were presented to supplement the staff report to illustrate what the applicant was trying to avoid by working with the City Engineer to modify the standards. Mr. Koback said he understands the City of Tigard standards are based on the Washington County standards, which allows the 15 mph speed. 2. The Tree Plan submitted is a worse-case scenario. Mr. Richards has the bond for mitigation and every incentive to avoid cutting trees. The worse-case scenario was done because of the Miller case and the applicant would not want to come back through a public process for a modification if he wanted to cut more trees. This way, there is incentive built in so that if a tree does not have to be cut, there will be a direct Tigard City Council Minutes Page 19 February 8, 2005 economic impact on Mr. Richards and his development company. The goal is to cut as few trees as possible. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Koback pointed out the location of the Tualatin water line. o Gregory Kurahashi, Kurahashi & Associates, 15580 SW Jay Street, Beaverton, Oregon 97006, pointed to the location of two water lines. One of major concern is a 36-inch water line, which is the main feed for the City of Tualatin. Mr. Kurahashi described the location of the water line. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Kurahashi said there was a vertical exaggeration as shown on the drawing. Councilor Harding commented that the K value would only stand up if the traffic if, in fact, is maintained at 15 mph in that dip. Mr. Kurahashi responded that the K value was developed based on ability to see without headlights. On a crest vertical curve, you cannot see anything past a certain point, because the headlights do not shine on it. On a sag vertical curve you can see things if there are street lights. Mr. Kurahashi referred to the Washington County documentation sent to the Council. This documentation says "you can even go lower than the 5 at a 15 mph limit. It's really related to the fact that you will not be able to see it without lights. So, since there will be street lights ...you can actually go lower than the 5 at a 15 mph speed limit." Councilor Harding responded, "That's if 15 is maintained, am I correct... if it's higher than, then that would affect the K value, right?" Mr. Kurahashi confirmed that the K value is based on a speed of 15 mph or less, but it wouldn't necessarily pose a safety problem at more than 15 mph. Mr. Koback said that, while they hoped everyone would travel at 15 mph, the City Engineer made a recommendation to monitor this and if it's not working, the City Engineer has retained the authority under that condition to require something else. It might be necessary, in the future, to have additional signs including a stop sign to make sure people slow down at that point. Councilor Harding noted during a site visit to SW 74th, she saw a sign that said to slow down - children playing. From this, she got the sense that speeding at this location is already an issue. She noted her concern that the 15 mph limit be enforced from the beginning. Mr. Koback noted that this would be monitored and if there is a problem, then some adjustments will be made in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 20 February 8, 2005 o Walt Senn, 13323 Meridian Avenue, North, Marysville, Washington 98271 testified that his mother owns the property under consideration. He said he spoke to the Council over a year ago on this same issue. He said could not really add anything to the four remaining issues, but, as he mentioned before, his parents bought this property in 1950. His mother will be turning 90 years old in April and this has been going on too long. He said someone ought to be able to sell their property if they want to under certain restrictions. Mr. Senn noted the Council approved this development over a year ago and "because we have some people in the neighborhood that don't want the development... their property was developed someplace along the line ...would they like to just take their property and their house down and start over? I think it's immoral what these people are putting my mother through. She should have been able to have sold this property years ago, but because we have some tree huggers in the area that don't want to see this developed... they'll do anything they can to stop it. I just think that they have put her through enough. She ought to be able to sell her property and do something with the money. Again, she's almost 90 years old and she would like to sell the property and have some enjoyment out of it. I can't add anything to the four issues that are up there except that I urge you to pass this and let's get on with it." o Connie Coleman, 9750 SW 74th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, advised Mr. Senn is her brother. She said that there is some information she wanted to relay to the neighbors, which is pertinent to the issue of retaining trees. Ms. Coleman said that her mother, as the neighbors will recall, had been approached by Metro to purchase the property. She was in favor selling it to Metro because she did want the trees to be kept in the neighborhood. Metro made a deal with her mother on a Friday evening. Metro personnel spoke with Ms. Coleman on a Sunday and confirmed that "it'll be a deal ...the City of Tigard will not have to be involved...." On Monday morning, Metro representatives called Ms. Coleman and cancelled the deal to purchase the property. Ms. Coleman said her mother then found a builder who would retain the trees and construct nice homes. Ms. Coleman said she thought from earlier testimony the neighbors should know what exactly had transpired so they could look at this more positively - her mother is not trying to destroy the neighborhood, she's trying to retain the trees. In response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, Ms. Coleman said she did not know why Metro pulled out of the deal. She said Tigard City Council Minutes Page 21 February 8, 2005 at first it was to be 75 percent Metro money and 25 percent City of Tigard money/sewer money. The Metro person she talked to on a Friday told her it looked as if the deal could be put together without City of Tigard. When she was contacted the following Monday, Metro did not tell her why they would not pursue. Ms. Coleman said she thinks the neighborhood has a lot of misconceptions as to what had happened and if the neighbors have issues, then they should talk to Metro, rather than take issue with her mother. In response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, Community Development Director Hendryx advised that the Metro effort to purchase the property took place a couple of years ago. Mr. William Edy of Metro was involved. City of Tigard staff worked with Clean Water Services and Metro to determine if there was a method for purchase of the property, but due to the limitations on funding, the purchase was not possible. o Karen Schuster, 2720 NE 85th Circle, Vancouver, WA 98665, advised Ms. Coleman is her sister. She referred to the four issues under consideration at this hearing and said she wanted to say again that the family has owned the property since approximately 1950 and they are concerned about the Tigard community. She said "We, too, are taking care of the community. And, as Connie indicated, we did our utmost to work with the preservation of the property as it is and it was to no where. Looking at the best possible option for everybody sitting here... everybody sitting here in this room most likely is living in a home that was built on property that at one time had trees, was before rules and regulations with environment.... And, now my mother, she'll be 90 on April 12 is asking for the opportunity for what others have done in the same scenario while at the same time preserving this gorgeous piece of property that will be an asset to the community, because we are taking care of the community by this approach with Mr. Richards. He is a very responsible builder. He has a tree mitigation plan firmly in place. We are willing to work with the community and offer not only an income source, but a beautification to the City and I think that's very, very key. There is a large open area on the property ...we are looking at 59 percent of trees going to be retained..." She said the best option for the community would be to allow Mr. Richards to develop this property; he has the plans and the know-how. Opponents: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 22 February 8, 2005 o John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 advised he had prepared testimony but to begin, he said he wanted to look at new evidence offered by the applicant. He said he wanted to have time to study and comment on it. City Attorney Ramis affirmed that Mr. Frewing could delay his testimony until he had an opportunity to inspect. Mayor Dirksen proceeded to others signed in to give testimony to allow Mr. Frewing an opportunity to review Exhibits 1 and 2 submitted by the applicant as noted above. o Ned Lesnick 7140 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 signed in to speak, but did not come forward to testify. o Merilyn Ferrara, 7140 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 signed in to speak, but did not come forward to testify. o William Iron, 9780 SW Ventura Court, Tigard, OR signed in to speak, but did not come forward to testify. o Bob Storer, 7225 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, OR asked if it was possible to yield his time to John Frewing. Mayor indicated this would be acceptable. Mr. Storer's written testimony was submitted to the City Recorder. o Ron Ellis Gaut, 10947 SW Chateau Lane, Tigard, OR said two Council goals-related to this issue. He saw an opportunity to work toward a creative solution for a Council goal to acquire park space. He said it was possible that this might still be an option. The Council, based on the LUBA decision, could decide to disapprove the development and then actively engage with the property owners to provide them with a financial return on the sale of the property with the acquisition of the property for park space. He urged the City Council to consider whether planned developments really should be of mutual benefit for both the property owners and the people of Tigard who have to live with the results of planned developments. He said it was an option for the City Council to deny this application. He asked for the City Council to strive for a true "win/win" solution for the people of Tigard and the Sim's. o Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, OR 97223, noted she had a lot of concerns with this development. An outline of some her remarks as well as two photographs are on file with the City Recorder. City Council members viewed the photographs during Ms. Bielke's testimony. She referred to her review of some of the Tigard City Council Minutes Page 23 February 8, 2005 past planned developments. The plan under consideration had originally been showing a complete clear cut and saving of few trees. She noted the site has extensive wetlands, a creek, steep slopes, numerous drainage problems, and slumping. She said "it just can't be done." Ms. Bielke said she looked at many other developments in Portland and has seen developments in Portland where a clear cut of trees has occurred to construct the number of houses that were wanted to be built. When this happens (referring to a site on Mt. Scott), remaining trees die because the hydrology has been changed so greatly. Ms. Bielke asserted that when you come into an area such as this to put in a long cul de sac and homes with the clear cut, you cannot sustain this kind of development. She urged the City Council to think about these problems. Ms. Bielke said similar problems have occurred on Bull Mountain where the City has had to come back after all the development is done under the CIP process and "we have had to pay for it, not the developer, but us." This costs the City thousands of dollars. She urged the City Council to think about this, "because we are going to run into the same problems." She noted that Ash Creek runs through the site. Other subdivisions are being built "and this creek is being hit really hard." She asked the City Council to think about the whole purpose of the Planned Development Code to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of planning procedures that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site. She said the current plan does not make this possible. She said the application does not meet the Code. The purpose of the Code is to make sure that what you do meets this and if you are going to design an area, you want to make sure that all of the details "are going to end up with that end result" and that can't happen. Ms. Bielke referred to Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.745.030, regarding the Tree Plan. The application does not meet the requirements of the Code. She cited TMC 18.790 and said in a conversation last year with Colin MacLaren of Clean Water Services and he pointed out that the developer did not have permission to remove 74 trees from the sensitive lands area. She said this needs to be addressed because, as far as she knows, this has not been approved by Clean Water Services. Ms. Bielke said she spoke to someone at Three Rivers Land Conservancy who tried to work with the Sims, Metro Parks and Tigard City Council Minutes Page 24 February 8, 2005 Greenspaces to purchase this site a number of years ago. Ms. Bielke said she also talked to Metro. She confirmed that Metro did try to purchase the site. The problem was that the City of Tigard said it did not have adequate funds, so the deal fell through. She understands the Senns' position and she said "we are not quote "tree huggers"; we truly care about the land, the neighbors, and the people that own that the site. So, my proposal is Council to think about this site. If you've looked at it, it's one of the most unique sites in Tigard left and that is why we would like to have it purchased as an open space, as a parcel, as an actual resource that the entire City can enjoy." She said if the development goes through, the open space will not be open to the public, but just available to the people that live in the development and that is not a good thing. Councilor Woodruff asked staff if it was their understanding that there are 74 trees that are to be removed from sensitive lands and there has not been approval for this from Clean Water Services? Associate Planner Tracy said there were areas on the original tree removal plan that indicated trees were to be removed from steep slope areas, which were considered part of the sensitive lands. He said does not believe that Clean Water Services regulates steep slopes. There are also trees within the area of the stream crossing where the road is being constructed that would be removed. Associate Planner Tracy said from his recollection CWS approved the stream crossing. He said CWS does not get to the specific level of approving or not allowing the tree removal. o Alice Ellis Gaut, 10947 SW Chateau Lane, Tigard, OR 97224, said she has never heard anyone vilify Mrs. Senn for trying to sell the property and no one feels that this is something she should not have done. The dispute is really how the property is being developed. A Planned Development, historically has a different philosophical underpinning than a subdivision and it contemplates a quid quo pro and that quid quo pro was essentially expressed "as the ability to grant flexibility in exchange for having a superior living arrangement... and require Planned Developments preserve, to the greatest extent possible existing landscape features and amenities." She said "we encourage development that recognizes the relationship between buildings, use of open space and access ways. The Senn property has long been recognized as one of the highest quality natural areas in Tigard and this value should figure prominently in your deliberations, especially as to the landscape preservation and the tree removal and protection and mitigation section. Tree mitigation, as we know, can require both onsite and offsite. And, we are looking at Tigard City Council Minutes Page 25 February 8, 2005 this site, as three of you did, and when you look at the tree plans, particularly, the succession of tree plans that have been submitted for this project over the last several months, notwithstanding the fact that the Miller decision has encouraged the developer to overstate the need to remove trees, when you look at where those trees are targeted for removal, and these are mature trees, they are very, very close to that steep slope. And, my view to allow that condition, that tree plan to pass muster would be to endorse a needless degradation of this resource." Ms. Ellis-Gaut said, "As Mr. Ramis emphasized backstage before the show this evening, in the nice presentation he gave about the land use statutes, in the Planned Development context, because that flexibility is inherent in making it work at all, you have the discretion to tailor the conditions according to your assessment of the facts, the issues... As you Mr. Mayor and Councilors Wilson and Sherwood will recall, from personal experience, there are many citizens both adjacent to this development and citywide who have said plainly for nearly two years that we would really like to see this natural area protected. That is the quid we are requesting for the quo's that have already been granted. You have an opportunity to redirect and realign that relationship and a second chance. Please fashion a solution that works for Tigard citizens and honors our duty as a community to protect our environment from tragic and irrevocable loss." o Brian Kelly, 7045 SW Ventura Drive, Tigard, OR, testified that most of his concerns had been covered. He asked the City Engineer if a mitigation plan had been included. Associate Planner Tracy said the mitigation plan does not include a landscape plan specifying where trees are going to be planted The plan is more of a statement, rather than a drawing. Mr. Kelly said his concern was that there are numerous locations where trees down the slope are slated for removal. In many areas there seems to be a good compromise to try not to remove trees, but was concerned about other areas. He noted the steep hill and advised of his concern with erosion of the hillside and the condition of the stream. He said he hoped that controls would be put in place that would be adequate. o John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 advised he was not ready to testify. He looked at the exhibits and he has 16 comments, some big and some small. He asked that the record be left open for seven days. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 26 February 8, 2005 Mr. Frewing said he would like to integrate his new comments with written comments. He noted he has 20 pages of written comments plus some handouts for the Council. He said, however, that he would only give one comment to the Council this evening and said, "Regardless of your deliberations and decision on the seven-day extension in order to comment on this new evidence, I would like to integrate these comments, the new evidence comments, with my comments and give the balance to them at a later time. Let me give you the one comment that I think that is both simple and clear. A general theme throughout the 60-some comments is that you've been given a very varnished product by staff and by the applicant that has all kinds of warts hidden underneath it. And, I've got a number of examples ...I only want to show you one right now...The applicant's lawyer rests his case on use Washington County and State of Oregon standards for street design. The Oregon standards do not exist as evidence in this proceeding, and they apply for many different settings than only a city. I believe they are irrelevant to this case. The Washington County standards are of limited applicability because they cover a very large rural area with small roads, quite different from the urban setting of Tigard. However, only in your packet because i gave it to Morgan the other day, is a copy of the Washington County standards, which Greg Kurahashi transmitted on 11/15/04 to the City saying that Chris wanted it. I presume that refers to Mr. Koback. Clearly stated at the bottom of Page 27 on those Washington County standards... talking about, well, there's some flexibility, but in no case shall the design speed for the alternative designs be less than 20 mph for local roads and 15 mph for alleys. 74th, in this case is not an alley. It's a local road. I think it was called residential in the Tigard terminology. It's classified as a Neighborhood Route, a local street, on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan, and that is documented in the record of the prior hearing at Page 84. Hence, there is explicit guidance at the County level that the proposed vertical sag curve is too sharp and violates their standards as well as those of Tigard. So, that's my one comment and I would like the opportunity to submit these comments when I integrate this material. I presume I'll be able to look at this material at City offices in the coming days." Mr. Ramis confirmed that the exhibits would be available. Councilor Wilson said he thought he heard AASHTO as the standard. Mr. Frewing said that AASHTO is a national organization that writes standards and cities, counties, and states pick up what they want out of them. In the case of Tigard, "Tigard has picked up this business about 25 mph speed limits for local Tigard City Council Minutes Page 27 February 8, 2005 streets. That's also a general state standard. There are deviations allowed. I can tell you in the case of Washington County their general standard is also 25 mph, but they allow some deviations down to 20 for streets and down to 15 for alleys. This is main through-street on the Tigard Transportation Plan and ' should be considered as such." Councilor Wilson asked if Mr. Frewing would prefer to see the grade raised 13 feet, placing more fill into the creek? Mr. Frewing said he would prefer adherence to the design for a 25 mph street and place a bridge across South Fork/Ash Creek. Councilor Sherwood referred asked for clarification on Mr. Frewing's position about a bridge vs. a culvert. Mr. Frewing said the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provides specific guidance with regard to protecting riparian and stream habitat and bridges are preferred over culverts. He said he believed it was true that in order to protect this particular habitat on this stream a bridge is better than a culvert. The Tigard Trail Plan shows an Ash Creek Trail (not yet developed). Mr. Frewing said he thought the plans were to buy, in the next year, some land at the bottom of Ash Creek. He said it was his hope that the Ash Creek Trail would work its way up to this point. He said the extended piece of greenway along here provides a wonderful opportunity for Tigard to have some more open space, which is one of the Council's goals for the next year. Mr. Frewing said, "I overheard some comment about buying the property, both from the Senn ladies and an earlier testifier here. And, it's my knowledge, my personal knowledge, that Mr. Richards told me on August 12, '03...which was a hearing before the City Council ...that he had offered the natural area, the drainage way, the buffer zone to the City for free and the City turned it down. Now, this is some four acres of greenway for the City and I then asked... Dan Plaza if that were true and he said yes. He said he referred it to his boss, his supervisor, and never heard back and nothing ever came of it... I admire you guys for trying to take charge of the City. It's a big job. I don't demean it at all. But, you're not getting the full story. Ask, inquire to staff, find out what happened to that offer, why was it turned down? I think there's an opportunity here to make something good for Tigard ...to make Tigard great, we've got to do some good things. This is a tremendous asset for this part of Tigard. The closest park for the people who live nearby is Victory Park down at Main Street and Highway 99W; that's not exactly neighborhood." Tigard City Council Minutes Page 28 February 8, 2005 n o William C. Iron, 9780 SW Ventura Court, Tigard, OR spoke at this time (signed in earlier). Mr. Iron said he supported Mr. Frewing's comments 100 percent. Rebuttal o Mr. Koback said they would not consent to any extensions. He said he interpreted the Oregon State Statute to require an extension after the first evidentiary hearing and this is not that. He said there was no entitlement to an extension and they oppose it because this has dragged on long enough. Mr. Koback commented about the testimony about the purposes of a PUD and preserving trees to the extent possible. He reminded the City Council that those issues were decided by LUBA in favor of the applicant, upholding the City's findings. They are not an issue on remand. Mr. Koback referred to a comment about clear cutting of the site. He said he did not think there was any evidence in the record to support the notion that this site is being clear cut. 59% of the mature trees are being preserved. The tree plan complies with the Code and staff has told City Council that the Code does not require that all of the shrubs be shown. The tree plan may show some trees being removed and he did not think they were all on slopes. The only trees being removed on the tree plan are for when it's necessary for the street improvements. Also, if trees are dead or decaying, the trees will be removed - that determination will be made by the arborist. There is no plan to remove trees for the sake of removing trees. Mr. Koback said Mr. Frewing made a couple of points that need to be rebutted. The design speed of less than 25 mph will be addressed by Mr. Kurahashi. It was Mr. Koback's understanding that Washington County does say that you shouldn't design streets for less that 25 mph. Mr. Koback said they are not proposing that at all. The street is designed at 25 mph; there's just a narrow area where they were asking for a modification for the very reason that Councilor Wilson asked the question. The impacts to the wetland are significant if they don't. So, they were not proposing a design of 20 mph or less on any street; they were just asking for a modification for an exception in one area and the facts warrant it. Mr. Koback said that a bridge over this area was discussed and was mentioned in the staff report. If there was a bridge constructed and the water line failed under the street, the bridge would have to be removed to fix the water line - it would Tigard City Council Minutes Page 29 February 8, 2005 make fixing the water line a significant issue. If the water line is under a limited amount of fill, it can fixed by digging a trench, which would be a less costly way for repair. This is why a bridge was not pursued. Mr. Koback said, "my last comment goes to who Dale Richards is and what he is all about. He did offer to give the wetlands - the area that wasn't being developed - I think it was about five acres to the City for a park. I think that's a generous offer. Developers don't have to do that. He did it because he wants the use of the property as a developer and he's not shy about that, but to the extent he can give back to the City, he is willing to do it. He's a responsible developer and I think the plans and the staff report that you have show that. So, we would ask that you adhere to your staff report, the recommendations, and approve the development based on the findings that are contained in the staff report." o Greg Kurahashi referred to the discussion of the water line vs. the bridge. He said he has taken the issue and argument to the DSL and the Corps of Engineers, explaining why the applicant wants to do a fill rather than a bridge. He noted it is difficult to maintain a 36-inch waterline. It's also difficult to cross an area that is a natural area. One of the reasons water lines are placed in public streets is because they are hard to maintain. Water lines need to be monitored to avoid problems. In his talks with DSL and the Corps, he explained why they wanted a culvert rather than a bridge in this area: issues of maintenance, safety, and what would happen if there was a failure. DSL and the Corps agreed with Mr. Kurahashi about the culvert rather than a bridge. They allowed it also because it was a short culvert. He talked about the amount of fill and the requirements for the culvert. He also talked about how the project was design to help with maintenance of the water line. Mr. Kurahashi noted the impacts to the wetland and trees that would have to be removed for the culvert. Mr. Kurahashi addressed the issues regarding the speed limit and said the proposed modifications are allowed all of the time because of local conditions. He noted that there are many areas in other jurisdictions and in Tigard that cannot meet the standards. In this case, there is a house with a steep slope and the street cannot be lowered. The water line is also an issue with regard to its ability to withstand the weight of the load by more fill that would be needed for a road. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 30 February 8, 2005 Mr. Kurahashi addressed the issues regarding vertical curves. Washington County allows what the applicant is requesting. There are 15 mph locations allowed under certain conditions. Mr. Kurahashi addressed issues involving trees. He said he was not sure where 74 trees were missed. It could be trees being removed for fill or some misunderstanding about how they relate to the overall area in the wetlands, sensitive areas, and slopes. All trees on the banks are being saved. He said hazardous trees would be cut. Councilor Harding noted information she read that said the bridge was much too expensive to construct. She said she would like to review this more closely. e. Staff Recommendation -Associate Planner Tracy said staff is recommending that City Council direct staff to prepare a final order for Council's next meeting to adopt the additional findings in support of the approval for the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development. City Attorney Ramis made a procedural suggestion. Whatever the statute may say about automatic continuances, it is within the City Council's discretion to decide how to handle these requests. One possibility that would still allow the City Council to decide the case by the March 13 deadline would be to: 1. Close the public hearing in terms of oral testimony at this time. 2. Continue the matter for deliberation until the City Council hearing on February 22. 3. Allow the parties to submit argument and evidence in writing on the following schedule: Allow opponents' written evidence and testimony to be submitted until Monday, February 14. Allow applicant to respond with any written evidence, written argument and final summation until Monday, February 21. City Council would take the matter up for deliberation on February 22. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 31 February 8, 2005 The difficulty with the above schedule is that the City Council would have only one day to review the information that would come in from the applicant. Mayor Dirksen asked City Attorney Ramis that if anyone requests a delay, then the City Council must grant it? City Attorney Ramis said, "No, that's not the case." Mr. Ramis referred to the law at the evidentiary hearing. He said that, in fairness, when new evidence comes in the City Council should create an opportunity for people to respond. The argument being made by the applicant is that the automatic continuance is not available, because this is not the initial evidentiary hearing. Mr. Ramis said he is not aware of a case that tells how this statute is to be applied when there is a remand. There has been a revised application. Mr. Ramis said that the safest course would be to allow the parties who want to provide additional evidence to do so to avoid additional debate about the entitlement to do that. Mr. Ramis said he understands the deadline to decide this case is March 13, 2005, unless there were to be an extension. Councilor Wilson said that while he would prefer to make a decision tonight, he would support the extension to assure adherence to procedural requirements. Councilor Sherwood noted she agreed with Councilor Wilson. Councilor Woodruff said, at the same time, he wanted to be sensitive to the concerns by the owners and the developers about the length of the delay that has already occurred. He supported the delay so the conclusion that is made is the final conclusion. Councilor Wilson said that this has been a long process and noted that very little that was said to the Council at this hearing dealt with the four issues on remand. He said the greatest concerns were for the trees. He referred to the issues of the curb-tight sidewalk and landscaping, and the issue that came back to the City Council on a technicality with regard to the trees. Councilor Wilson noted that because this was a registered tree lot, the owner had the right to harvest the trees on a portion of the site that was not in the sensitive lands area. The determination was made that if the owner.was allowed to harvest the trees, then the owner would not be required to submit a tree protection plan for that portion of the site. LUBA remanded the decision to City Council because the City of Tigard Development Code requires a tree plan regardless of whether there is a tree removal permit or not. The applicant has returned with a tree removal plan as Tigard City Council Minutes Page 32 February 8, 2005 required. If the record is to be left open, he said he hoped that the additional evidence submitted would relate to those points on remand. Mayor Dirksen said that the City Council is limited to making a decision on the four issues on remand. The City Council is not allowed to consider any other issue. Councilor Wilson added that "purchasing a park is just not on the table. It's not something we are being asked to consider here. This is a development process ...the owner has certain rights and, among those, is the right to develop his property in accordance with the rules. So, the only question is, 'is this according to the rules or not?"' Councilor Woodruff noted there were 58 conditions that were submitted along with this approval, and there were only four them that were sent back to the City Council with concerns. Two Councilors - Councilor Harding and Councilor Woodruff - were not on the City Council when this came up for discussion. Some of the discussion tonight would have been relevant at the beginning of the process and, perhaps, the outcome would have been different. He said, "But, we cannot go back and change history. The Council had approved this request with those conditions, four of them have come back. And, we have to see what we are going to do about those four. I think that's the only thing we can focus on regardless of what our personal feelings are about this and our desire to have more parks and open space..." Mayor Dirksen summarized that what he heard was a consensus of Council to continue this matter until February 22. City Attorney Ramis asked that the parties follow the schedule he suggested earlier in terms of written suggestions. Community Development Director Hendryx asked that in order to give City Council sufficient time to review all the material, does the applicant need seven days to provide a response? After discussion with the applicant's representative, Mr. Koback, it was determined that the applicant would respond to the City Council in writing by facsimile transmission by Friday, February 18, 4 p.m. and this information will be forwarded to the City Council on Friday. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None Tigard City Council Minutes Page 33 February 8, 2005 6 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held. 12. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Harding, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. i a erine Wheatley, City Record r Attest: (f- . "~e a\ Mayor ity of T gar Date: .3-aa. C75 1ladmkelhykaM20051050208.doc Tigard City Council Minutes Page 34 February 8, 2005 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPEI~$ 1325 SW Cuslor No, Portland, OR 97219 • PO Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 Phone: 503.884.0360 Fax: 503.620.3433 Email: IegalsberOsioo@commoewsQapers.COm AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Ash Creek Estates Subdivision LUBA remand CNI TT10520 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues January 20, 2005 Gw~c\w Charlotte Allsop (Accounting nager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON January 20, 2005 CoMMissioN No'. 3445M MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC FO REGON My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Size 11.5 •(1~ Amount Due $ remit to address above CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday February 8. 2005 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days priot to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Moran TracyJ at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171 or by email tc morgann_.ci.tigard.or.us. SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037 > ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION LUBA REMAND < ITEM ON REMAND: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded City Council's approval of a 29-Lot Plannec Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews for additional findings tc support their decision. This hearing is limited to the four specific assignments of error which are generally: 1) This City's acceptance of~over "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag on SW 74 and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized tc approve such deviations to adopted street standards; 2) The requirement that the applicant prepare and submit tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provide E removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.790 3) Revised findins are required for the proposed curb tight sidewalks on SW 749 Avenue and also for the cul-de-sac standards to address the relevant criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.370.C.11; and 4' Additional findings related to the landscape protection criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.745.030.E. A full copy of LUBA's final Opinior and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at httl2:Hluba,state.or.us/pdf/2004/aug04/03194.htm LOCATION: 9750 SW 74 Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single. family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutions uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIER CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.745, 18.790 and 18.810. VICHUTT i ~T;il Y -DIOMM PDBR100 L IONI003.00003 r < v VAARR200034 0036 ~ i VAR20O3.00037 1 - - \ ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION TUBA REMAND -7- a - S LL - -T _ G iaxm cU'a+'w TT 10520 Publish January 20, 2005 4 . COMMUNITY SPAP]ER5 1325 SW Coster Orke, POrllend, OR 97219 • PO Boa 370 • Bonerton, OR 87075 Phone; 503.884.0380 fm 503.920.3433 Email: Iegalifter6siogQeommnewspapers.eom AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Ash Creek Estates Subdivision LUBA remand CNI TT10520 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues January 20, 2005 DW W Charlotte Allsop (Accounting M nager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this January 20, 2005 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Size Amount Due $p~ remit to address above COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS Rp 1325 SW Cxsler OPIVe, Porileed, OR 97219 . PO Box 370 • Beewerixe, OR 97075 CITY OF TIGA Phone: 503-884-0360 Fax: 503.820-3433 OREGON Email: IegaleduerUslagQsammaewsQaQers.eam CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF EASEMENT VACATION & PUBLIC HEARING State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS VACATION (VAC) 2004-00002 > FREWING @ PACIFIC HIGHWAY SEWER EASEMENT VACATION& 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, PFAFFLE 79TH AVENUE SEWER EASEMENT VACATION < depose and say that I am the first duly The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday Accounting February 8 2005 at 7.30 PM at the Tigard City Hall, Town Hall Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Room 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 to consider Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of the proposed vacation involving an approximate 1,248 square foot general circulation, published at Beaverton, in public sewer easement, and an approximate 476 square foot portion the aforesaid county and state, as defined by of a public sewer easement. ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that The applicants have proposed to either relocate or reconstruct the sewer lines in conformance with current city engineering standards. These vacations are necessary to implement prior development City of Tigard - Notice of Easement Vacation approvals. & Public Hearing Vacation 2004-00002 The request was filed with the City on October 25, 2004 and initiated Frewing @ Pacific Highway Sewer Easement Vacation & by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January 11, Pfaffle @ 791h Avenue Sewer Easement Vacation 2005. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against CNI TT10519 the proposed vacation of said FrewtnC@ Pacific Highway Sewer Easement Vacation & Pfaffle @ 79 Avenue Sewer Easement a copy of which is hereto annexed, was Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with published in the entire issue of said the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 8, 2005, newspaper for Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact` Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, 2 Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171, or by email to morgankei.tigard.or.us. TT 10519 Publish January 20, 27, 2005 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues January 20, 2005 January 27, 2005 C'w[og Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this January 27 2005 OFFICIAL WEAL ROBIN A BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON PeI4 COMMISSION NO.344589 NOTARY PUB!_! FOR OR ON MY COMMISSION B PIRES MAY 16, 2005 My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 SizeJ>114 Amount Due $1~3 (oD remit to address above Mayor's Agenda 0 Greeter: Jim Hendryx TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 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. Citizen Communication 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 Manager. 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 agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 - 6:30 PM 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION The Commuter Rail Urban Renewal Feasibility Study item will be set over to February 22, 2005 l lPn aTF ON CQMMI ITF ~Deii~BAN~~ L a~-vrcr-~vr~cvr-rr cur v-cra.. ---r- crrr CTS f Community Development Dlrectnr Hen`{ fx > CITY COUNCIL ORIENTATION ■ City Attorney • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review & evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) U (i). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance: Flag Ceremony - Cub Scout Pack 232 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Dan Murphy • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication - CPO 4B - Tigard staff attendance at meetings (update by Interim City Manager Craig Prosser) - Brian Wegener - Submitted information on January 25, 2005 regarding stormwater runoff and recommendations from the Audobon Society regarding specific sections of Tigard's code. The information Mr. Wegener submitted has been sent to Engineering and Community Development staff for review. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 2 Rob Williams, Tigard Youth Forum President, will review the Consent Agenda: 7:40 PM 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 Approve Council Minutes for January 11, 2005 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda c. 5`h Tuesday - Council Meeting Notes for November 30, 2004 3.3 Authorize Submittal of the City of Tigard's Third-Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report - Resolution No. 05-06 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL TO METRO OF THE CITY'S THIRD YEAR TITLE 7, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, COMPLIANCE REPORT 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program b. Authorize the Purchase of New Police Portable Radios Using a State of Oregon Price Agreement 3.5 Reappoint Bob Rohlf to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Budget Committee - Resolution No. 05-07 A RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE 3.6 Approve Separation Agreement for William A. Monahan • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. ADOPT 2005 COUNCIL GOALS ■ Summary: Mayor Craig Dirksen COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 3 7:55 PM 5. RECOGNITION OF CENTREX ■ Staff Summary: Risk Manager Loreen Mills ■ Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05-08 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 8:00 PM 6. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: MISSION/VALUES EXERCISE RESULTS ■ Staff Summary: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director 8:15 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATIONS (VAC 2004-00002) SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79T" AVENUE COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 4 The following should be read by either the Mayor or City Attorney: The applicants have proposed to either relocate or reconstruct the sewer lines in conformance with current city engineering standards. These vacations are necessary to implement prior development approvals. The request was filed with the City on October 25, 2004 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January 1 1, 2005. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said Frewing @ Pacific Highway Sewer Easement Vacation 8z Pfaffle @ 791 Avenue Sewer Easement Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 8, 2005. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor Dirksen b. Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify those standards at the beginning of the hearing. The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A potential conflict is a situation in which the Council member or close relative could have a personal or business financial interest in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member, a conflict is potential if the decision could result in a financial benefit to the Council member. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 5 After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 6 Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? C. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director d. Public Testimony Mayor to call for testimony of. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: There are two ordinances, which should be considered separately; therefore, the following script should be followed twice - one time for Ordinance No. 05-03, then for Ordinance No. 05-04: Councilor: 1 move for adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 05- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05- (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:25 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-) UDICIAL) ASH CREEK ESTATES - LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND - SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003- 00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003- 00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00037 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 7 City attorney to advise public about testimony limited to remand areas... The following should be read by either the Mayor or City Attorney: ITEM ON REMAND: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded City Council's approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews for additional findings to support their decision. This hearing is limited to the four specific assignments of error which are generally: 1) The City's acceptance of lower "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag on SW 74`h and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized to approve such deviations to adopted street standards; 2) The requirement that the applicant prepare and submit a tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provide a removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.790; 3) Revised findings are required for the proposed curb tight sidewalks on SW 74`h Avenue and also for the cul-de-sac standards to address the relevant criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.370.C.11; and 4) Additional findings related to the landscape protection criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.745.030.E. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at http://iuba.state.or.uslpdfl2OO4laugO4lO3l94.htm. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM IS125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.745, 18.790 and 18.810. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor Dirksen b. Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify those standards at the beginning of the hearing. The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 8 determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A potential conflict is a situation in which the Council member or close relative could have a personal or business financial interest in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member, a conflict is potential if the decision could result in a financial benefit to the Council member. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 9 Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? C. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director d. Public Testimony Mayor to call for testimony of. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: One option would be to direct staff to prepare a final order to be considered by Council at the Council meeting of (date). 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 10 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review at evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) 81 (1). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT i:1adm\cathy\cca\2005\050208p) rev 2-5-05.doci:\adm\cathy\cca\2005\050208p) rev 2-5-05.doc2/7/05 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 11 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon • STUDY SESSION The Commuter*Rail Urban Renewal Feasibility Study will be set over to February 22, 2005. I IRDATF QNI CC)MMI ITGD D/.AII I IRBANI RFAIFW~lL FEASIBII ITY STUDY 6 Community Development Dlr-ecter lim Hen`Ir~N > CITY COUNCIL ORIENTATION o City Attorney Tim Ramis > CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING ON LAND USE PROCESS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review 8z evaluate the employment- related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) 8z (I). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. >ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS a. Distribute Mayor's Agenda b. Note League of Oregon Cities training for newly elected officials scheduled for Portland on March 3, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Information distributed in the 2/4/05 Council Newsletter). If interested in attending, contact Joanne Bengston. C. Dan Murphy, Tigard Chamber of Commerce President, is unable to attend this evening. He hopes a Chamber member will come in his place to update the Council on upcoming Chamber events. d. Discuss when to schedule meetings with Representative Galizio and Senator Burdick. One suggestion was for May; another was to schedule time on the March 29 5th Tuesday Council Meeting. e. ]PACT Nomination - Beaverton Mayor Drake's letter was sent to Council on February 4; nominations are due by 2/18. Does the Council have a nomination for a designated member and alternate? Mayor Drake would like to continue to serve as the designated representative for Washington County cities. f. Tualatin Resolution g. TPOA Arbitration h. NW Medical Teams L CIP Tour - February 28. 3:00 - 5:00 PM j. Calendar Review • February 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open • February 21: Capital Improvement Program Tour 3-5 p.m.; Meet in the Permit Center Lobby • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 29: 5th Tuesday Council Meeting - 7 p.m. - Water Auditorium Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660(2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660(2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(2) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. i:ladmlcalhykounciVink sheet - study session agendas1200W5011 l Am Mayor's Agenda Greeter: Jim Hendryx TIG`AV 'C ,ltCO,U- J! IL~` w r; ~ fl*QG~,`x " FE~Fl1A1~`~8r 005 30' °I CITY OF TIGARD a~ OREGON TIG~RD CITE :kiL~E" r :a , r ) f. ii. r t 3 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. Citizen Communication 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 Manager. 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 agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 - 6:30 PM 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION The Commuter Rail Urban Renewal Feasibility Study item will be set over to February 22, 2005 > UPDATE ON COMMUTER RAIL URBAN RENEWAL FEAclanG~lrv T~'G~Tr- CtT'C7' TTJ777--rr 7Tfl7 Cy f Community Development DIFectnr Henri„ rnrrrcr c~v~prrrcrrc-ircccv~-rrcTr 'x > CITY COUNCIL ORIENTATION ■ City Attorney • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review & evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) U (i). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance: Flag Ceremony - Cub Scout Pack 232 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nikki Pham • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Dan Murphy • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication - CPO 4B - Tigard staff attendance at meetings (update by Interim City Manager Craig Prosser) - Brian Wegener - Submitted information on January 25, 2005 regarding stormwater runoff and recommendations from the Audobon Society regarding specific sections of Tigard's code. The information Mr. Wegener submitted has been sent to Engineering and Community Development staff for review. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 2 Rob Williams, Tigard Youth Forum President, will review the Consent Agenda: 7:40 PM 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 Approve Council Minutes for January 11, 2005 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda c. 5' Tuesday - Council Meeting Notes for November 30, 2004 3.3 Authorize Submittal of the City of Tigard's Third-Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report - Resolution No. 05-06 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL TO METRO OF THE CITY'S THIRD YEAR TITLE 7, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, COMPLIANCE REPORT 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program b. Authorize the Purchase of New Police Portable Radios Using a State of Oregon Price Agreement 3.5 Reappoint Bob Rohlf to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Budget Committee - Resolution No. 05-07 A RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT BOB ROHLF TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE 3.6 Approve Separation Agreement for William A. Monahan • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. ADOPT 2005 COUNCIL GOALS ■ Summary: Mayor Craig Dirksen COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 3 7:55 PM 5. RECOGNITION OF CENTREX ■ Staff Summary: Risk Manager Loreen Mills ■ Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05-08 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05- Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 8:00 PM 6. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: MISSION/VALUES EXERCISE RESULTS ■ Staff Summary: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director 8:15 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATIONS (VAC 2004-00002) SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79T" AVENUE COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 4 The following should be read by either the Mayor or City Attorney: The applicants have proposed to either relocate or reconstruct the sewer lines in conformance with current city engineering standards. These vacations are necessary to implement prior development approvals. The request was filed with the City on October 25, 2004 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on January 11, 2005. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said Frewing @ Pacific Highway Sewer Easement Vacation & Pfaffle @ 79' Avenue Sewer Easement Vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be flied with the City Recorder by 7:30 PM on February 8, 2005. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor Dirksen b. Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify those standards at the beginning of the hearing. The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A potential conflict is a situation in which the Council member or close relative could have a personal or business financial interest in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member, a conflict is potential if the decision could result in a financial benefit to the Council member. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 5 After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 6 Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? C. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director d. Public Testimony Mayor to call for testimony of. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: There are two ordinances, which should be considered separately; therefore, the following script should be followed twice - one time for Ordinance No. 05-03, then for Ordinance No. 05-04: Councilor: I move for adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 05- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05- (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:25 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ASH CREEK ESTATES - LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND - SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003- 00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003- 00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00037 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 7 City attorney to advise public about testimony limited to remand areas... The following should be read by either the Mayor or City Attorney: ITEM ON REMAND: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded City Council's approval of a 29-lot Planned Development Subdivision on 9.3 acres and associated Zone Change, Sensitive Lands, and Adjustment reviews for additional findings to support their decision. This hearing is limited to the four specific assignments of error which are generally: 1) The City's acceptance of lower "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag on SW 74' and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized to approve such deviations to adopted street standards; 2) The requirement that the applicant prepare and submit a tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provide a removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.790; 3) Revised findings are required for the proposed curb tight sidewalks on SW 74' Avenue and also for the cul-de-sac standards to address the relevant criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.370.C.1 1; and 4) Additional findings related to the landscape protection criteria of TCDC Chapter 18.745.030.E. A full copy of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order can be obtained from City Hall at cost, or is also available online at http://iuba.state.or.uslpdfl2OO4laugo4lO3l94.htm. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74t'Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.745, 18.790 and 18.810. a. Open Public Hearing - Mayor Dirksen b. Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify those standards at the beginning of the hearing. The Council has two related decisions to make in this hearing. One is to make a land use decision applying existing state, Metro and City laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Council's other decision is a discretionary decision whether it wants to annex the territory proposed for annexation. In making that decision, the Council must also COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 8 determine whether statutory provisions relating to annexation have been complied with. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A potential conflict is a situation in which the Council member or close relative could have a personal or business financial interest in the decision. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member cannot participate. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member, a conflict is potential if the decision could result in a financial benefit to the Council member. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed annexation. Then the applicant and those in favor of the proposed annexation testify. Then those who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re-open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council' s decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself and earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. You have the right to respond to new evidence presented at the hearing. You may request that the hearing be continued or the record held open in order to respond to the new evidence. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 9 Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are ' prohibited. Please refrain from them. Please treat all witnesses with respect. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. The exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. Conflicts Does any member of the Council wish to declare an actual or potential conflict of interest? Does anyone wish to challenge any Council member's ability to participate in this decision? C. Summation by Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director d. Public Testimony Mayor to call for testimony of. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: One option would be to direct staff to prepare a final order to be considered by Council at the Council meeting of (date). 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 10 f 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss employment of a public officer, real property transaction, pending litigation, and to review U evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(a)(e)(h) & (1). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT Y. sdmtcsthyteeot20051050208p) rev 2-5.05.loci:kadmlcathylcca\2005\050208p) rev 2-5-05.doc277705 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 page 11 w City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting ArKMAM CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) OREGON q d~~ 0(4 9- 4s ys-. 03 %1 os-: &40 STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), b g by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 0^' Q:3 %I- OJ' , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of ;Z - S - 05 , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 02 LQ - day of , 20C--S 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon n..e GJ Signature of Person who Perfo d Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of ®c=~~ , 20 0,57. y,~si ~A~TD OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Notary Public for Oregon i GREER A GASTON NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC aoos- tuC City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinances 05-01 through 05-16 OREGON 0(-~D 14- CA 40 C>q STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. k1 OS City of Tigard ) rUC(Ahe~ I, ae O a 4l , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose an say: That I on December 15, 2005, I posted in the following public place, a copy of Ordinance Numbers 05-01 through 05-16, which were adopted by the City Council. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon rlcu~~ ir-"k L;) Signature of Person who Perfold Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of 1)6C0'I'IhCt'-' , 2005. OFFICIAL SEAL JILL M BYARS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Signature of Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 381793 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008 iAadm1greerVonns%aff1davftMafOdavit of posting - 05 ordinances - 05-01 to 05.16 - permit center.doc • V CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 05- 03 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,248 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2004-00002). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on January I Id, 2005, and has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the approximate 1,248 square foot public sewer easement had previously been granted to the public; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City of Tigard vacate this public sewer easement as described in Exhibit A and shown in Exhibit B located on property better known as 9965 SW Frewing; and WHEREAS, the said sewer utility easement, or portions thereof, are not necessary to advance the public health, safety or welfare, in consideration of realigned easement and reconstructed sewer line using modern materials; and WHEREAS, all affected . service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have been given the opportunity to review the vacation proposal and have provided no objections; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, notice of the public hearing was posted in the area to be vacated and published in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on February 8, 2005, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public sewer easement as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130; and WHEREAS, the vacation of said public sewer easement is necessary to construct the approved improvements on the subject site. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said 1,248 square foot portion of public right-of-way as.shown and described in the attached Exhibits "A" and "B" (legal descriptions and maps of the areas to be vacated), and by this reference, made part thereof. PASSED: ByUAalftmt5ilS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this gt' day of - ' 72005. ORDINANCE NO. 05-_03 Page 1 of 2 Attwhnent I - VAC2004-00002 Ord I City Recorder - City of Tigard j APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of Z , 2005. g A-1,L9)E 0 Craig ksen, Mayor Approved as to form: A V r Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO.05- Q3 Page 2 of 2 Attachment I - VAC2004-M2 Ord I EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION VACATE SANITARY SEWER. EASEMENT MASSIH PROPERTY The following described real property situated in the State of Oregon, County of Washington, City of Tigard being a portion of Lot 21, Frewing Orchard Tracts, situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian; An easement for sanitary sewer, 10.00 feet in width, the center of which is described as follows; Beginning at a 5/8" iron bar marked "O.D.O.T" in the centerline of Pacific Highway and running thence North 45° 39' 01" East along said centerline a distance of 20524 feet to it's intersection with, the centerline of S.W. Frewing Street; Thence South 53° 16'001 East along said centerline a distance of 153.94 feet; Thence North 45° 48100" East a distance of 20.25 .feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; Thence North 450 4810011 East, a distance of 124.84 feet to the end of this easement. RE ISTERED PROF SSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L OREGON JULY 16, 1W THOMAS P. SW K 2312 EXHIBIT B VACATED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EXHIBIT PACIFIC PARK PLAZA SW FREWING STREET SCALE: 1 "=40' Q~S1P cP ' St xx ,x TL 2900 so zo o o o" 1 UPPER STORY ♦ j _ 2984 SF 10, a?~ 7L 2800 / Sao. A~ .F 00 ♦ b / TL 3200 EGISTERED TIE: pROFESSIONAL `v'tib \ SUM N45'48'00"E LAND SUR 20.25' \ OREGO 987 \ ` ,61-Y I6' way, Welkin Engineering, P.C. THOMAS F' PLANNERS. CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURMORS 231~ MDO 1W. PFAME MREET, POR71.AN4. OREGON SW / PHONE (BD81 MB-1866 FAX mama-1868 1 V CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 05- 0q AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 476 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79"' AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON (VAC2004-00002). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on January 110i, 2005, and has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the approximate 1,429 square foot public sewer easement had previously been granted to the public; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City of Tigard vacate a 476 square foot portion of the 1,429 square foot sewer utility easement by reducing its width to the City's minimum standard of 10 feet from its present 15 foot width, as described in Exhibit C and shown in Exhibit D located on property better known as 7935 SW Pfaffle; and WHEREAS, the said sewer utility easement, or portions thereof; are not necessary to advance the public health, safety or welfare, in consideration of realigned easement and reconstructed sewer line using modem materials; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have been given the opportunity to review the vacation proposal and have provided no objections; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, notice of the public hearing was posted in the area to be vacated and published in the newspaper; and WI-IEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on February 8, 2005, funds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said portion of the public sewer easement as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said 476 square foot portion of public right-of-way as shown and described in the attached Exhibits "C" and "D" (legal descriptions and maps of the areas to be vacated), and by this reference, made part thereof. PASSED: By UrOr►i Maz vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 2005. ORDINANCE NO. 05- O Page i of 2 C:IDOCUM B-I ICathy.0001LOCALS-11TemplGWViewerlAttacli ment2 - VACL004-00002 Ord 2.doc L.~ City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this g ' day of 2005. r Crafg Dirken, Mayor Approved as to form: ty Attorney r Date ORDINANCE NO.05- d Page 2 of 2 Attachment 2 - VAC2004-00002 Ord 2 OCT 22 2004 10:28 ATEC 503 233 788SO 5932381138 P,02i03 EXHIBIT C .ZTec Engineers, Inc. Civil Structural ♦ Surveying John Md- Middleton P.E. Chris Fischborn P.LS. Roildid b. Sellards P.E. 3737 5E 0 Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 503-235-8795 - Fax 503-2337889 DWI:- chris@ztemgineers.com October 21, 2004 VACATION OF A 5 FAT WIDE PORTION OF A SEWER EASEMENT A parcel of land, being a part of Lot 14 of the'recorde-d Plat of Friendly Acres, located In the southwest one-quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Wifiamette Meridian, in the qtyflf Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. Said parcel of land also being the Easterly 5.00 feet of a 15.04 foot wide sewer Easements benefiting the United Sewerage Agency and recorded in May of 1973 In Book 923, Page 540, Washington County deed records, and more pwticsularly described os follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 14, thence South 88°48'50" East, along the Northerly line of said Lot 14 to a point that is 10.00 feet Easterly of when measured at right angles to the Westerly line of said Lot 14, said point tieing the true point of beginning of the parcel of land herein described. lbence South OD°21'00° West{ parallel with arid. 1,0.00 {feet Zast * of said Westerly line a distance of 95.79 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way fine of said SW Pfaffie Street,t_ Washington County Road No. 975 thence south 88°48 0 . Ent along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 5.00 feet tb a point that 1515.40 feet Easterly of when measured at right angles to the Westerly line of said lot 14} thence North 00°21'00° Fast; parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 14, a distance of 95.29 fee, to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 14; thence North 88"4850'' West along said Northerly line a distance of 5.00 feet to the true point of beginning. said Easement area contains an area of 476.45 square feet more or less. C I 1 OC7' 22 2004 10:28 FR•EC 503 233 78890 5032381138 P.03/03 EXHIBIT A "FRIENDLY ACRES" ` TRUE* POINT OF BEGINNING ` P.O.B. LOT 15 I SBB'48'5D'E 135.38' ,I 15' SEWER WNW 25' EIMEF17ING U.S;A, r RECORDED MAY 1913 P 8K. 923, PG. 540 I cc ~ t~+ N 16 DEED (3) A LOT 14 VA~ 5' EASFJMT TO BE VACATED NW48'50V 114.38' S.W. PFAFFLE STREET (CO. RD. NO. 975) GRAPHIC SCALE $o 0 15 30 60 120 ( IN FUT ) I inch - 30 ft. TITLE: EASE)'WEJVT EXHIBIT ZTec ENGINEERS, INC. DATE: 10-21-04 PLDT DATE. 10-21-04. ROR 1 MERi~97202 ' CHK BY ~ `QO DWG BY- JHH 503) 235-8795 SHEET: 1 nF 1 FILE: L31791M GJENT t~TRBt-t9t~~Ci~S dbt d iA * TOTAL PAGE.003 >k* Be CITY of TIGARD 'Y OEOONAVH!c St.;ORMATION SYSTRN FT T'Fil _j U 1 71=- VICINITY MAP -1 L >e VAC 2004-00002 Pfaffle @ 79th (Martindale) PL I s ao @. ~490NRA Tlwm also MUD A Frewing @ Pacific Highway " (Massih) 0 400 800 1200 Feel 11= 800 feet City of Tigard lnfommgm an Olt map la for general bralbn ady and shmthl be vWmW VN an owdopmm4 Sarnlrn MASIOa 13128 SW Haa SW Ttard, OR (503) 639-4171 tepnwYN.,~.ag><a aua Community Development Plot date: Jan 26, 2005; C:1mag(ckMAGIC03APR Cathy Wheatley - Re: Meetings_with Rep. Galizio and Senator Burdick Page 11 From: Joanne Bengtson To: Cathy Wheatley Date: 2/7/2005 10:24:40 AM Subject: Re: Meetings with Rep. Galizio and Senator Burdick When I left, the Mayor told me that he and the rest of council didn't want to meet with Rep. Galizio until May. So I called his office and cancelled the March meeting. However.... This morning I understand from Craig that the Mayor indicated a possible 5th Tuesday (3/29) televised meeting with Rep Galizio would be fine ...so I'm confused and need to add this item to the pink sheet for Council to discuss and decide. Thanky-Spanky! Cathy Wheatley 2/7/2005 9:00:41 AM Hi Joanne, Welcome back. Agendas are filling up quickly! When you left you were trying to find a time for Rep. Galizio to meet with the Council and it looked as if March 8 was the target date. Any new information on this? Also, I recall that you were putting together the annual or regularly scheduled agenda items (boards and committees, school board, etc.). Was Galizio and Burdick on that list, too? Last legislative session, the legislators were scheduled 1x a month to meet with Council. Thanks, Cathy CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT COLLABORATION WITH OUR WASHINGTON COUNTY NEIGHBORS REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO GOAL 14 (UBANIZATION) AND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, AND TO SUPPORT LOCAL CONTROL OVER THE LAND-USE PROCESS. WHEREAS, as an incorporated city in the state of Oregon, the City of Tigard is subject to state land-use planning laws and must have an adopted Comprehensive Plan that results from broad citizen involvement that meets mandatory state standards, which include 19 statewide planning goals; and WHEREAS, as an incorporated city in the Portland metropolitan region, the City of Tigard also is located within the service territory of Metro, which has the primary responsibility for regional land-use and transportation planning; and WHEREAS, in October 2004, the City of Tualatin passed Resolution 4301-04 which voices local concerns in defining Metro's role in balancing regional and local issues, including the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard recognizes that while regional efforts have focused on establishing and amending the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), critical aspects of implementation have been overlooked, including the process of converting urbanizable land to urban land, the timing of conversion, and the availability of public facilities, services and patterns; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard feels strongly that implementation must be addressed in a cohesive and comprehensive manner - including annexation - prior to development, or areas will continue to urbanize without adequate services, creating additional costs and administrative burdens to jurisdictions providing services and creating unincorporated urbanized areas which are in direct opposition to Goal 14; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard recognizes that there have been efforts to clarify Metro's authority under the Metro Charter based on the Oregon planning program principle which emphasizes citizen involvement and direction and local land use controls; any directive by Metro to address local plan and zoning content is inconsistent with state law and prevents the exercise of balanced legislative judgment by a local council. 1AADM\Packet'05\050208\URB Resolution 2 8 05 Tul_2.doc Resolution No. 05- Page I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard supports regionwide collaborative efforts to work on Goal 14 Urbanization and Urban Growth Boundary administrative rules in order to address transition of urban uses and services in unincorporated areas, including annexation before development. SECTION 2: To assure that the Tigard Comprehensive Plan reflects our community's sense of place, the City of Tigard supports regionwide efforts to limit Metro's authority to adopt local land-use controls. SECTION 3: This resolution takes effect immediately. PASSED: This day of 22005. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard lAADWPacket'05\050208\URB Resolution 2 8 05 Tul_2.doc Resolution No. 05- Page 2 February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor and City Council Members OREGON FROM: Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Direct r RE: Status of TPOA Arbitration In response to an inquiry that Councilor Woodruff made with regard to the status of the TPOA Arbitration, we wanted to let Council know where this issue currently stands. As you may recall, the arbitrator for this case was required to render his decision by January 10, 2005. However his family's life took a catastrophic turn when both of his homes in La Conchita, California were either completely destroyed or badly damaged in the major landslide that occurred on January 10th. Out of consideration for his situation and family, both Darryl Garretson, attorney for TPOA, and Ken Bemis, the City's labor attorney, advised the arbitrator that they supported him taking the time he felt was necessary to get his personal insurance and family situation in order before rendering a decision. Ken Bemis has suggested that it seems appropriate at this point to send a joint letter from the City and TPOA inquiring as to when the arbitrator will be forwarding his decision, so we will be proceeding to do that as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1 C ' copies to: ' ~ \ 1~ VOI""~1 Mayor ~ Other: O t W~ Councilors O~~C City Manager OZ Council Mail CITY of BEAVERTON Mayor's Calendar 1 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive, P.O. Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076 TEL: 526.2481V/TDD Fax 526.2571 ROB DRAKE MAYOR February 2, 2005` r- J t Mayor Craig Dirksen City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Dear Mayor Dirksen: This letter is to formally solicit your city's input regarding the appointment of a Washington County cities' representative to Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT). Metro has asked me to coordinate the nomination process. Nominees must be elected officials. Once we have collected nominations, we will send each Washington County city a ballot to vote on its choice for the JPACT representative. Your nomination can include a recommendation for the designated member and the alternate position. The member and alternate need to be from different cities. Nominations need to be returned to my office by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 18, 2005. JPACT meetings are held the second Thursday of each month, at Metro, starting at 7:15 a.m. They usually last about two hours. I have enjoyed serving you as the designated representative for Washington County cities and would greatly appreciate continuing to serve as your representative to JPACT. Beaverton will be forwarding my name to serve as the designated representative. Please contact me if you have questions. Si erely, ob *Dre Mayor cc: City Manager a CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE BASICS Timothy V. Ramis Gary Firestone Ramis Crew Corrigan 8t Bachrach, LLP 2005 LAND USE PROCESS I. QUASI-JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTINGUISHED A. A legislative decision is one affecting either the entire City or large areas or numbers of people. Examples of a legislative decision is a change in the text of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code. Rezoning of entire areas is also primarily legislative. B. A quasi-judicial action is one affecting a small number of people and applying pre-established standards. An example would be a land use approval for a single property, such as a conditional use approval. II. LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS A. Legislative land use decisions come before the Council on a recommendation from the Planning Commission for a Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code text or map change. B. In making 'a legislative decision, the Council needs to act consistently with statewide land use planning goals, applicable statutes and regulations, in some cases Metro regulations, and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that are not being changed. C. A wide range of options is normally available in a legislative decision. So long as the legislation is consistent with the goals, statutes and plan, the City has discretion as to what precisely it wants to include in its land use regulation and what zones it wants to apply throughout the City. D. No exparte communication prohibition. Not usually restricted to the record. 2 III. QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS A. Quasi-judicial decisions typically come before the Council on an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission. Not all quasi-judicial decisions come to the Council, some are resolved by the Hearings Officer. B. In making a quasi-judicial decision, usually the only relevant standards and criteria are those set out in the Community Development Code. The Community Development Code is consistent with and implements the goals and plan provisions. Staff will advise in any situations in which standards other than CDC standards apply. C. In making a quasi-judicial land use decision, the City Council's options are limited. It has only 3 choices: 1. Approval 2. Approval with conditions 3. Denial D. The decision must be based on compliance (or noncompliance) with applicable standards and criteria. The City cannot deny a land use application. that meets all applicable standards and criteria. It cannot approve an application that does not meet all applicable standards and criteria unless it grants a variance as permitted by the code and/or imposes conditions that will result in compliance with all applicable standards and criteria. 3 IV. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS A. Findings are statements of fact relevant to the application. 1. Staff will have prepared proposed findings for every matter that comes before the Council. 2. The Council must adopt findings. 3. These can be based on the staff findings or others which the council directs. The council may reject the staff findings and its recommendation. It can direct preparation of alternatives. It may make a "tentative decision" and adopt findings at a future meeting. B. Conditions of approval are issued only with approvals, and impose obligations that must be complied with by the applicant. 1. Conditions may be imposed when expressly authorized by code or when needed to ensure compliance with applicable standards and criteria. 2. Staff will normally prepare conditions, which the Council may modify. 3. Statutory mandate to use conditions to support approval. ORS 197.175. 4 V. DUE PROCESS A. Both the applicant and opponents have due process rights to present testimony and rebut testimony. B. The normal procedure is to have the staff present a report, followed by the applicant and supporters, followed by opponents, followed by a chance for rebuttal by the applicant. An opportunity for neutral testimony may also be provided. C. The ethical rules discussed above must be followed. Councilors will be given the opportunity to withdraw, to declare ex parte contacts and conflicts of interests at the start of the hearing. D. In some situations, a decision that is primarily legislative will have enough effect on individual properties to trigger notice requirements and other due process rights. For example, rezoning of an area is legislative in nature, but those who own property being rezoned have rights to notice and other due process. 5 VI. ETHICS IN LAND USE CASES A. In land use cases, a council member is subject to both the financial conflict of interest rules administered by the GSPC and other considerations specific to land use cases. The general rule for financial conflict of interest is that a council member must disclose actual and potential conflicts of interest and cannot participate if an actual conflict is present. An actual conflict is present if the decision would result in a financial benefit or detriment to the councilor, relative, or associated entity. A potential conflict is present if the decision could result in a financial benefit or detriment to. the council member. B. Ex parte contacts must be disclosed. An ex parte contact is any contact concerning the substance of the quasi-judicial matter with a person other than staff. If ex parte contacts are fully disclosed, the council member may participate. C. Site visits must be disclosed. D. In land use cases, as well as all other quasi-judicial proceedings, the applicant or other person involved has a due process right to an impartial tribunal. Therefore, if a council member is personally biased so as to prevent that council member from making an impartial decision, the council member must refrain from participation. g: /muni/tigard/councitiandusetraining 6 AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : February 8, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 2 kk ~h al~los Tigard High School Tigard High School 9000 SW Durham Road Leadership Officers Tigard, OR 97223 2004.2005 February e. 2005 Advisor, Judy Edti Academics: Finals Week two weeks ago 3 quarter, second semester President: Four months and 3 days until seniors graduate! Nikki Pham Activities: MORP (PROM backwards) Vice President: Assembly Feb. 7th Rachael Hart Dance Feb 12th Senior Citizen's Dance, 12"', 1-3pm Activities: Mr. And Mrs. Irresistible days Joel Walker Athletics: Basketball competing for spots in playoffs Secretary: Ski team and snowboard team doing well... O Ashleigh Stroud Girls are 1st or 2nd in Metro League Swimming districts are February 11"' and 12"' Treasurer Schleyer Wrestling districts 1 id' and 12th Tigerettes host competition on 12 Human Relations: Boy's routine, and dad's routine. State prep. Bd Jones Artwo Band still waiting for rooms to be finished Assemblies: Working on solo ensemble literature Travis Brown Concert February 26"' and March 17t Jazz band playing at the Senior Citizen's Dance Spirit: Choir working on solo ensemble competition also Kristi Dazzo Publicity: Stephanie Rogers Technology Co.: David McDougall "Motivation, Dedication, Participation" Leadership Mission Statement 2004-2005 MEMORANDUM Administration CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Agenda Item No. 3.2 a. For Agenda of February 8, 2005 FROM: Cathy Wheatley ~Oc~, DATE: January 31, 2005 SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar Regularly scheduled council meetings are marked with an asterisk February 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 21 Monday President's Day - City Hall Closed, Library Open 21 Monday Capital Improvement Program Tour - 3-5 pm - Meet in the Permit Center Lobby 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall March 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 29 Tuesday "Fifth Tuesday" Council Meeting - 7 pm Town Hall April 12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 25 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 1Andmtcity councilt3-month calendar word tormat.doc 3-Month Council Calendar - February to April 2005 1 AGENDA ITEM # _3,a b Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004 FOR AGENDA OF Q, $ , 05 Meeting Date: February 15, 2005 Meeting Date: February 21, 2005 Meeting Date: February 22, 2005 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Tour - 3 PM Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: Meet @ Permit Center Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Bill D. Materials Due @ 5: February 1, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: February 8, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: January 31, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: Bid Opening Deadline: February 7, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: January 28, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: Scan Deadline @ noon: February 4, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: January 14, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: Req to Sched Due @5: January 21, 2005 Televised: No Televised: Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: Attorney Attends: No Study Session Council Training 1. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Capital Improvement Program Tour Update on Commuter Rail Urban Renewal Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion - by Council, Transportation Financing Feasibility Study (Schedule and Status of Barbara - 60 min. Strategies Task Force, Press Downtown) - Jim H. - 20 min (if not on agenda for 2/8/05) 2. Joint Meeting with Transportation Financing City Manager Recruitment - Sandy Z. Strategies Task Force - Gus - 35 min Consent Agenda Award Contract for the Construction of North 3. Wall Street Update - Gus - 55 min Dakota Street Pedestrian Crosswalk 4. Strategic Finance Plan Discussion - Tom - 60 min. Business Meeting Recognition of Citizen Community Partners - Bill D./Jim W. - 10 min Indonesian Resource Cities Exchange Report PP - Dennis - 30 min Update from Washington County on the Commuter Rail Urban Renewal Feasibility Study - PP - Jim H. - 60 min. Ash Creek Estates Remand - (continuance or adopt findings) TriMet IGA - Bill D. - 15 min. TriMet Budget Amendment - RES - Bill D. 5 min *LCRB - Revised Purchasing Rules - PH 1 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2004 Meeting Date: March 8, 2005 Meeting Date: March 15, 2005 Meeting Date: March 22, 2005 Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop/6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business/6:30 Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Gus Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: February 22, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: March 1, 2005 Materials Due @ 5: March 8, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: February 21, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: February 28, 2005 Bid Opening Deadline: March 7, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: February 18, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: February 25, 2005 Scan Deadline @ noon: March 4, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 8, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 15, 2005 Req to Sched Due @5: February 22, 2005 Televised: Yes Televised: No Televised: Yes Attorney Attends: Yes Attorney Attends: No Attorney Attends: No Study Session Tigard Water Supply Options- Dennis - 60 min Joint Meeting with Library Board - Margaret - Review of FY 2005-06 Community Event 40 min Funding Requests - Craig 30 min Proposed Capital Improvement Program Projects for FY 2005-06 - Gus - 20 min Joint Meeting with Skate Park Task Force Dennis - 30 min Consent Agenda City Website Review/Consent for Publishing Consent Agenda Crime Statistics - PP -Gary E. - 60 min. Downtown Task Force Update - Barbara - 40 min Business Meeting Business Meeting Form Sewer Reimbursement Dist No. 34 - (SW 117th Avenue) - RES - PHI - PP Gus - 10 min Form Sewer Reimbursement Dist No. 31 - (SW O'Mara & Edgewood) - RES - PHI - PP Gus - 10 min Finalize Sewer Reimbursement District #27 PP, PHI, RES- Gus - 10 min Finalize Sewer Reimbursement District #30 PP, PHI, RES- Gus - 10 min Update on the Community Assessment Program PP - Liz - 20 min 6/11/2005 2 AGENDA ITEM # 3,;R c. FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive and File: Meeting Notes - Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting of November 30, 2004 PREPARED BY: Cathy WheatleAp&DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive and File: Meeting Notes - Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting of November 30, 2004 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept the November 30 Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting Notes as a "receive and file" item. Future Fifth Tuesday meeting notes will be submitted to the Council as a Receive and File item on its agenda. INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to an inquiry from City Recorder Cathy Wheatley, City Legal Counsel Gary Firestone suggested the Council set its policy with regard to the Fifth Tuesday meeting record where there is a potential for a Council quorum at the meeting. Attorney Firestone outlined two options: 1. Present the meeting notes to Council as a "receive and file" item on its agenda. 2. Set up the meeting notes in Council meeting minutes' format for formal Council adoption. The November 30, 2004, Fifth Tuesday Council meeting was the first meeting of this type; therefore, it is appropriate for Council to set its policy at this time. Unless directed otherwise by Council, staff will continue to submit the meeting notes for Council as a "receive and file" item after the Fifth Tuesday Council meetings. Staff prepares the advance public notices for the Fifth Tuesday meetings as required. The next Fifth Tuesday meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2005, 7 p.m. at the Tigard Water Building. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Direct staff to prepare the meeting notes in regular Council meeting minutes' format. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST November 30, 2004, Fifth Tuesday Council meeting notes. FISCAL NOTES No cost. FIFTH TUESDAY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2004 7:00 PM Sign-In Sheet : John Frewing Fred Swan Marilyn Sturm Gayle Kauffman Pat Leonard Bill Brencman Scott McLoud Mark Padgett Gretchen Buehner Lisa Hamilton - Treick Request To Speak: Fred Swan Subject - Burke's properties code. violation John Frewing Subject - George Burke property 9265 SW 74`" Ave violation of Tigard code - property maintenance Marilyn Sturm Subject - Not noted Meeting Notes: > Property Maintenance: - Dispute Resolution - City of Beaverton - 503-526-2523 for Mediation Services > Signage Aesthetics - motion signs (99W) - What does law allow to restrict? - School zone signs, (end school zone, blinking lights) - Who determines school zone signage and policy? - Code enforcement on Sunday? (Real estate signage) > Density requirements and CC&Rs conflicts > Pedestrian access at 99W & 217 (along 99W) (ODOT handles) > Greenways & Parks - Tigard needs more (increased developer fees) > Rezoning - Commercial and Greenburg triangle? (around viaduct) > Downtown Tigard Plan - Open House @ Library - Saturday, 9 -12 > Tigard Vision - Task Force Study iAadm\fifth tuesday 113004.docl2/7/04 AGENDA ITEM # 3, 3 FOR AGENDA OF 2/8/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Third Year Title 7, Affordable Housing, Functional Plan Compliance Report PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD O ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUN IL Should Council approve a resolution authorizing submittal to Metro of the Third Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the resolution authorizing submittal of the the City's Third Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report. INFORMATION SUMMARY In 2001, Metro adopted Title 7, "Housing and Affordable Housing," to amend the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. This title requires local jurisdictions to adopt comprehensive plan amendments aimed at encouraging the provision of affordable housing and to consider a variety of techniques to meet regional and local affordable housing needs. During 2001-02, Council considered potential new affordable housing measures in a series of workshop meetings. The outcome of this process was the adoption of the "Affordable Housing Program," which is "intended to serve as a comprehensive delineation of the City's program to emphasize and encourage affordable housing in the community." Title 7 also requires jurisdictions to submit to Metro three annual progress reports. The third and final report in this series is due. It requires local governments to report: amendments to their comprehensive plans, the outcomes of affordable housing tools implemented, and affordable housing developed and expected. A draft copy of a proposed Third Year Report for Tigard is attached. Metro acceptance of the Third Year Report will end Tigard's reporting obligations under Title 7. By way of "what's next" in the area of affordable housing at the local level, the City will continue to carry out the various components of the adopted Tigard "Affordable Housing Program." These include tax abatement, housing inspection, reduced parking requirements, and other land use and non-land use measures. Additionally, affordable housing provision will be included as part of the upcoming prehensive plan update. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Authorize submittal of the report with any modifications Council deems appropriate. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management, Goal #3: Partnerships for advocacy for development of additional units and preservation of affordable housing are encouraged and supported by the City and the community. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Proposed Resolution Authorizing Submittal of the City's Third Year Title 7 Report. Exhibit A: Third Year Title 7 Functional Plan Compliance Report. FISCAL NOTES No funds are involved. i/lrpln/dr/title? 3`d yr rpt Attachment 1 January 27, 2004 David Bragdon CITY OF TIGARD Council President OREGON Metro Regional Center 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232-2736 -Dear President Bragdon: The City of Tigard has reviewed the Metro Title 7 Compliance Report and wishes to submit comments regarding the Tigard section of the second-year portion of the report. The Tigard Outstanding Items section of the Metro report lists three items. They include: (1.) Comprehensive plan measure to maintain the supply and increase new disperse affordable housing. (2.) Consideration of density bonus and the transfer of development rights. (3.) Consideration of replacement housing and inclusionary housing in urban renewal areas. (1) We agree that the referenced plan policy was not directly addressed in the Tigard Affordable Housing Program report. The City will consider a proposed comprehensive plan amendment in order to comply with. Title 7. (2.) With regard to density bonus and transfer of development rights, on page 10 of the Tigard Affordable Housing Program is the statement that "The following is a description of the approaches that Council decided were not appropriate for Tigard." The resolution adopting this report identifies the document as a "complete and official statement of the City's overall affordable housing program." As such, the phrases "considered, but did not adopt" and "Council has discussed the TOR concept, but taken no action" used in connection with the two strategies under discussion should be read in this context as equivalent to "declined to adopt." Although the phrasing is somewhat imprecise and does not replicate the phrasing used by Metro, the fact is that the Tigard Council clearly did meet the requirement of considering and taking final action, which was to decline to adopt each of these particular strategies. We request that the Tigard section of the Metro second-year report be changed to indicate that the City complies with Metro Code Section 3.07.730.6. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 (3.) The Tigard City Council considered replacement housing and inclusionary housing as part of its consideration of the seven land use strategies (see Tigard Affordable Housing Program pages 10 and 11). The decision not to adopt these strategies applies to their use citywide, including in urban renewal areas. We request that the Tigard section of the Metro second-year report be changed to indicate that the City has met Metro Code Section 3.07.760. _ In summary, we believe Tigard's Outstanding Items list should be revised to include one item: Comprehensive plan measure to maintain the supply and increase new disperse affordable housing Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, . JAMES N.P. HENDRYX Director of Community Development Attachment 2 CITY OF'TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE:NO. -m- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, HOUSING, VOLUME II OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise Chapter 6 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies, Volume II; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2004, regarding amendments to the housing chapter; and WHEREAS, these amendments are those included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2004 00002; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are designed to promote the dispersal and facilitate the maintenance of affordable housing within the community; and WHEREAS, the amendments reflect pre-existing actions taken by the City in recent years that have not, as yet, been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted unanimously to recomriiend Council approval of the proposed amendments shown in Exhibit and WHEREAS, the City Council held a pubic hearing on August 24, 2004, to consider the amendments, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendments are consistent with all relevant criteria based on the facts and conclusions rioted in the attached-staff report (Exhibit "B"). SECTION 2: The specific text amendments attached to the Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION : This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By jj&d_Q1 vote of all Council m mbers present after being read by number and ti e only, this .ay of A- a-4 , 2004. M, 'ad-,601i e McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder ORDINANCE No. 04- ~j Page 1 ' APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thise day of gaZ-~e .2004. r. Craig D' en, Mayor Approved as to form: 14 Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 04 Page 2 Attachment 3 _ Bold addition CFesseu deletion Tigard Comprehensive Plan Findings, Policies & Implementation Strategies, Volume II 6. HOUSING This chapter considers the land and the dwelling units where Tigard residents live. Residential land uses occupy more land area than any other land use in the City. This chapter addresses the Statewide Planning Goal #10: "To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the State." The plan policies focus on five basic areas: 1) Housing needs; 2) Housing costs; 3) Established residential areas; 4) Housing conditions; and 5) Urban Expansion. Detailed information concerning housing in Tigard is available in the "Comprehensive Plan Report: Housing." 6.1 HOUSING NEEDS Findings • Residential housing in Tigard has been developed as 55.6% single family detached dwellings, 42.7% attached units, and 1.7% manufactured homes. • The Metropolitan Housing Rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission states that Tigard must provide for 50% single family and at least 50% single family attached or multiple family units with a minimum of 10 units to the net acre. The Metro Housing Rule applies to only vacant buildable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area, and does not affect established and developed residential areas. • The rapid increase in housing and land costs over the last several years has excluded many households from obtaining suitable housing to meet their needs. • Many of the households that do not desire or are unable to afford conventional single family detached dwellings rely on the rental market or attached dwellings to meet their housing needs. • The rapidly changing housing market will require the City to periodically reevaluate its housing and land use objectives to provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the needs of future residents. • Approximately 19% of the households in Tigard are inhabitated by senior citizens. • Undue concentrations of public assisted or subsidized housing serves to isolate the recipients of such housing from the mainstream of the community, its full range of basic services and the diversity of its neighborhoods. For this reason, the City should take steps to disperse such housing within individual neighborhoods and throughout the City itself. POLICY 6.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING DENSITIES AND RESIDENTIAL TYPES AT VARIOUS PRICES AND RENT LEVELS. (Rev. Ord. 85-03; Ord. 84-38; Ord. 84-29; Ord 96-24) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall monitor the rate of development through an annual "land survey," which will function as an up-to-date inventory of land available for future residential needs. 2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall list a broad range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and comply with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (50-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land). 3. The Tigard Community Development Code, through the Planned Development process, shall establish a procedure to allow properties exhibiting physical constraint characteristics, e.g., steep slopes or floodplains, to develop with density transfers allowable on the site. In addition, the City shall encourage developers to use the planned development process in all developing areas. . 4. The City shall allow for manufactured homes in all residential zoning districts. 5. The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. 6. The City shall provide for opportunities for proposals to develop specialized housing for the area's senior citizens and handicapped based on the needs of these groups by: a. Making information available on subsidizing programs; b. Allowing special use housing for these groups in all development districts; C. Requiring the needs of the handicapped to be considered as a part of the Site Design Review process. 7. The City shall coordinate with the Washington County Housing Authority, private non-profit housing corporations, H.U.D. and other Federal, State and regional agencies for the provision of subsidized housing programs in Tigard. 8. The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as those prepared by the area Agency on Aging, the extent of the City's need and projected need in the area of low and moderate income housing, senior housing and specialty housing. The City shall encourage the development of such housing types to meet the identified and projected needs. 9. The City shall maintain its long standing intergovernmental agreement with the Washington County Housing Authority that, among other provisions, emphasizes the supply of new Authority-owned affordable housing at dispersed sites within the community. 10. The City shall establish a fee subsidy program intended to offset fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development The guidelines for the award of the competitive funds shall give high consideration to projects that facilitate the dispersal of affordable housing within the City. 11. The City shall encourage maintenance of a sufficient regional residential land supply. 6.2 HOUSING COSTS Findings • The factors that have contributed to increasing housing costs are materials, labor, land costs, financing and regulation costs. (The average sales price of a new single family home increased from $22,700 in 1970 to $45,000 in 1976, to over $76,000 in 1980.) • Land and regulation costs have dramatically increased the cost of development. • Construction costs may be reduced by building smaller units and using alternative construction techniques. • Excessive regulation costs can be reduced by simplifying the application process and reducing unnecessary development standards. • Financing costs of residential units cannot be controlled by the City of Tigard; however, the City can assist in public facilities and services development through financing mechanisms. POLICY 6.2.1 THE CITY SHALL DEVELOP CLEAR AND CONCISE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS TO FACILITATE THE STREAMLINING OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, AND WILL ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS WHICH COULD INCREASE HOUSING COSTS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING BENEFIT. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall review, revise and update the land division, zoning and sign codes. The corresponding document will be grouped in a single code and identified as the Tigard Community Development Code. 2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall include clear and concise processes for the review and approval of development proposals, to the degree that the quality of the review process is not adversely affected. This will be accomplished by, but not limited to: a. Administrative procedures; b. Application forms; and c. Clear and concise standards for each development process. 3. The City shall seek ways to minimize the cost of housing by encouraging a variety of home ownership alternatives such as, but not limited to, townhouses and condominiums. 4. The City shall continue to support the development of traditional housing types such as single family detached dwellings, duplexes and apartments. 5. The City shall encourage geographic flexibility in the choice of housing. 6.3 ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS (REPEALED BY ORDINANCE 98-19 dated 8/25/98) 6.5 HOUSING CONDITIONS Findings • A majority of the City's existing units have been built since 1960; and in general, these units are in good condition. • Most of the upkeep on these structures involves minor mechanical problems, weatherization and painting. • The City currently does not have any rehabilitation programs for those residential structures that need major repairs. The Washington County Community Action Organization (WCCAO) does administer a weatherization program funded by the federal government to assist low income residents. Other residents of Tigard may rely on federal and State tax incentives for weatherization, as those incentives are available. As many of the existing 20 year-old homes age, more repair and rehabilitation work may be needed in order to maintain the high quality of residential structures that now exist. • The Washington County Community Development Office operates a Home Repair Program funded by the Federal Government to assist low and moderate income homeowners. The Housing Authority of Washington County alse operates a Multi-Family Rental Rehabilitation Program funded by the Federal Government, to assist units occupied by low and moderate income tenants. POLICY 6.5.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL HOUSING UNITS BE: a. CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE OREGON UNIFORM BUILDING CODE OR OTHER APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL STRUCTURAL CODES; AND b. MAINTAINED IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CITY'S NUISANCE OR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Tigard Community Development Code will establish a Site Development Review, Conditional Development and Planned Development process in which to review development proposals. 2. The City will continue to administer the Uniform Building Code on all applicable types of construction in Tigard. 3. In order to insure continued safe and sanitary housing, the City shall develop a Residential Property Maintenance Code and assign a Housing Inspector to administer it. 4. To assist residents who need financing for home repairs, the City shall encourage residents to utilize the various low interest loan and grant programs offered by the Washington County Office of Community Development through its Housing Rehabilitation Program. 3.5 The City will enforce, where fieaasiall feasible, all nuisance ordinances that relate to d site appearances. The City also will enforce all ordinances that relate to structural soundness. The City will encourage private property owners to comply with all nuisance and structural ordinances, which will alleviate the financial burden of the City and its taxpayers to enforce these ordinances. 46 The City will set reasonable rules in the Tigard Community Development Code for accessory buildings which will protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods. i/Irpn/dr/6 1 Attachment 4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 19, 2004 1.. CALL TO ORDER President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:Q0 p.m. The meeting was held 'in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Bienerth, Buehner, Meads, and Munro Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, Haack, and Sutton Staff Present: Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS • The next meeting is scheduled for August 16th. . • Eight Planning Commission. applicants will be interviewed for the open and alternate positions. • The secretary has copies of the Government Standards & Practices training . • President Padgett wants to have a workshop on planned developments in September. President Padgett reminded the Commissioners about the Bull Mountain Annexation hearing on July 27th. Commissioners may testify as individuals, not as representatives of the Planning Commission. • Discussion was held on meeting attendance. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to accept the June 21, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Buehner abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00002 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes to amend Chapter 6, Housing, of Volume II of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan in order to facilitate the provision of affordable housing within the community and to provide additional evidence of Metro Title 7 compliance. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 6 and 12; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 10; and Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 19, 2004 - Page I STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that these are housekeeping amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan there are no new affordable housing policies or implementation measures proposed. The purpose of the amendments is to update the Housing Chapter of the Comp Plan and to demonstrate Metro Title 7 compliance. Roberts highlighted the proposed amendments and asked the Commission to make a recommendation of approval to Council. Commissioner.. Buehner asked if these amendments might be changed with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Roberts did not foresee any major, mandatory changes to the Housing Chapter with the Comp Plan update. Commissioner Meads asked about density bonuses. Roberts said that the Council considered density bonuses for affordable housing, but did .not adopt the code. Commissioner Meads asked about items mentioned in a letter from John Frewing (Exhibit A). Roberts answered that he responded to the letter. He said Frewing was not aware of the existing adopted Affordable Housing Program. With regard to ensuring that affordable housing is dispersed, Roberts noted that we have an agreement with Washington County about location of affordable housing. Discussion was held on manufactured housing. It was noted that we are bound by state laws regarding placement of manufactured houses. PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Buehner moved to recommend approval to Council of CPA 2004- 00002, based on findings in the staff report and discussion held during the public hearing. Commissioner Bienerth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. GOAL 5 WORKSHOP Associate Planner Julia Hajduk handed out copies of a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). She noted that the objective of Goal 5 is to improve the overall environmental health of the Tualatin River basin. She went over the presentation with the Commission, advising that we are now in step 3 of the action plan. Hajduk advised that it has not been decided who will determine the 50% of mitigation. The concept will be presented at the public hearing. After that time, the Basin Partners will work on the details. She also advised that mitigation standards PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 19, 2004 - Page 2 Attachment 5 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 24, 2004 The meeting was called to order- at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Dirksen. i i Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, Woodruff i STUDY SESSION ! The Council discussed what the hearing process would be relating to the LUBA remand. i EXECUTIVE SESSION - Not needed STRATEGIC PLANNING I Mr. Monahan noted he had suggested several dates in his memo and asked Councilors to review their calendars to indicate when they were available for this planning session. Councilors Woodruff and Sherwood offered the use of their homes for the meeting. I ➢ VOTERS PAMPHLET MEASURE ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION Mr. Monahan noted the memo from Deputy City Recorder Jane McGarvin relating to submitting information for the Washington County Voter's Pamphlet. I ➢ ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS I a. Calendar Review August 31: Potential City Council Meeting (Ballot Title?) I . September 14: City Council Business Meeting September 18: Tigard Blast/Citizens Fair ! • September 21: City Council Workshop Meeting • September 28: City Council Business Meeting f~ 1 Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 1 I S. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) TO CONSIDER AN I } ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 (HOUSING) I a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Duane Roberts, Long Range Planning Staff, explained the proposed comprehensive plan amendment updates the Housing Chapter by incorporating references to various actions the City has taken in recent years to support affordable housing. It also reflects the requirements of Metro's Title 7 on Affordable Housing adopted three years ago, which required jurisdictions to consider a number of identified tools and strategies for encouraging affordable housing development. Metro's evaluation for Tigard identified several deficiencies in Tigard's comprehensive plan. These amendments address those deficiencies. The amendments include: • Allowing manufactured homes in all zoning districts which Is already in the development code and comprehensive plan; • Establishing a fee subsidy program for affordable housing development which Council adopted two years ago. Staff also recommends a guideline be added that will give preferential treatment to projects that serve to disburse affordable housing within the community. • Require the development of a property maintenance code which the City accomplished in the late 1990's but is not referred to in the comprehensive plan. • Encourages residents to make use of Washington County's Administrative Home Repair funds. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and voted to recommend Council approve the amendments without changes. Mr. Roberts noted comments were received regarding the amendments from the following: ` The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) referred to outstanding items identified by Metro which are technical in nature and which the County is currently questioning. DLCD also suggested the City of Tigard consider including affordable housing in its downtown planning effort currently underway as affordable housing is not identified as part of the downtown plan. • John Frewing submitted several comments and suggestions. He proposed disbursal of affordable housing throughout the City by dividing the city into quadrants and requiring each quadrant to have its share of affordable housing. Mr. Frewing suggested enforcement Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 8 If 1 1 would be by prohibiting development in a quadrant until an affordable housing project is proposed for that quadrant. Staff did not support i that proposal as blocking housing development would not address the main obstacle to affordable housing, which Is funding. This proposal would not provide funds for affordable housing projects. In addition, moratoriums are governed by state law and can only be imposed if state-defined essential services are in short supply; affordable housing is not on the list of essential services. C. Public Testimony • John Frewing,. 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, said his proposal would put some teeth in the City's comprehensive plan provisions to get some affordable housing projects, Each quadrant should have some affordable housing. He can recall only a couple of affordable housing projects in Tigard. One recent one is located in the Metzger area. He pointed out the affordable housing project located on Hall Boulevard recently had a sidewalk installed fi•om it to Hwy. 99. The sidewalk, however, was built around utility poles and mailboxes located in the middle of the sidewalk. He did not feel the sidewalk rnet ADA requirements for accessibility and width. I Councilor Sherwood responded there are affordable housing located in almost all quadrants but are not well publicized. Housing Services of Washington County operates a number of units in Tigard, including The Colonies at the base of Bull Mountain, a project on Bonita Road, and they are looking at others. Affordable housing projects require huge subsidies. She sits on the Housing Authority Board, and they heard a report today indicating there. are going to be more cutbacks in funding for affordable housing projects, Section 8, and many other areas. She did not feel that other housing projects should be put on hold while funding was found for affordable housing because of the amount of money that is needed for those projects is so huge. Mr. Frewing asked if Tigard has considered a supplemental fee on other development that could raise funds for affordable housing projects. Councilor Sherwood replied she has been a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force for the past year, who has tried to come up with a way to develop a fee that would be used for affordable housing projects. The Task Force looked into a real estate transfer fee, but did not believe the fee would be approved because too many people were Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 9 I f opposed to it. Any type of fee would have to be approved at the state legislature. Right now, it looks like anything is several years away. Mr. Frewing asked if the Task Force has looked at a system development charge (SDC) fee, similar to parks SDC's that could be used for affordable housing. i Tim Ramis, City Attorney, explained that the SDC's had to first be authorized by the 'state legislature before local jurisdictions could implement a SDC for using funds in a particular area, such as parks. Mr. Frewing explained he was just trying to come up with some type of program that would fund affordable housing in Tigard. Councilor Sherwood noted Tigard is one of the few cities in Washington County which has a fund ($10,000) that is used to reduce fees for affordable housing programs. It is not much, but it helps those groups putting a project together. Councilor Woodruff explained Councilor Sherwood had reviewed the work of the Blue Ribbon Task Force recently and the needs and how ► difficult it is to fund affordable housing programs. He asked. Mr. Frewing if his comments on affordable housing conflicts with his discussion about density, as more people want less density, not more. Affordable housing will probably be denser. Mr. Frewing responded that there will be people in the Bull Mountain area with two units per acre, but maybe they should pay a fee to enjoy that environment, so the rest of the City would have a higher density. i In that way, both high and low density would be met. He would support some type of fee on new development, particularly on those i developments with a low density that would be used for affordable housing. Lisa Hamilton-Treick, 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, unincorporated Bull Mountain, stated she is a real estate broker and Is concerned about the lack of affordable housing throughout the whole tri-county area. Tigard is not unique in not having enough affordable housing. There was an article in Sunday's Oregonian about an arrangement to purchase property under a trust so people can own their home. It will take creative solutions to address affordable housing issues. She participated in Tigard's Visioning Task Force where affordable housing Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 10 i was discussed. She is not clear what is meant by affordable housing; does that mean affordable rents or affordable prices, or both. Home ownership benefits those who have the opportunity to buy a home. Councilor Sherwood responded that she has lots of information on both affordable rents and prices. The Blue Ribbon Task Force noted that the subsidies were huge to get just one family into a house, whether it was rented, purchased, or built. Habitat for Humanity and Washington County have both built affordable housing units. Many are not successful, because not many lower income families can qualify to buy a house and then maintain it. Most to the focus is for affordable housing to rent and finding programs to help those low income people to get into a unit. This issue was discussed at the Housing Authority Board meeting today. Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated a situation came to her, attention recently about some property in Tigard that. had some management Issues that would prohibit them from being a good investment for a'number of people. Some homes can be purchased by people on limited means. Due to these management issues in these neighborhoods or properties, they are not available to first time home buyers. Councilor Sherwood concurred that in some condominium or j homeowner associations, the fees are so high, by the time people qualify for the condominium, the additional association fees makes the unit unaffordable. Ms. Hamilton-Treick added that another issue is the rental- to owner- occupied ratios, where management has not paid close enough attention to those ratios, and have let them get so out of whack, that a " person who n6mially would qualify for conventional financing is no longer available and would have to get more expensive private financing. Councilor Woodruff asked Ms. Hamilton-Treick if she had seen the " Blue Ribbon Task Force report presented at the August 17 Council Workshop. The report provided the best information about affordable housing he has seen and was based on different sized homes, income levels, and what the reasonable amount someone could afford based on their income. i " Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 11 i Ms. Hamilton-Treick stated she generally has concerns about many of the formulas used to compute the information, but she will take another look at the report. Councilor Sherwood noted the report included pretty recent data prepared by technical people. The Blue Ribbon Task Force wanted hard numbers, not pie in the sky numbers, and the Task Force felt the information was pretty accurate. Ms. Hamilton-Treick noted another concern was that many affordable housing projects are built and retained by a builder/developer and then rented back to people on limited means, or investors buy up all the units and rent them back to those people on limited means. That becomes counter productive. She stated she hoped the City is aware of those situations and does whatever is legal and fair to minimize that from happening. Councilor Sherwood stated there is not a lot the City can do. That has to be the responsibility of the owners or the condominium associations themselves. • Henry Kane, 12007 SW Camden Lane, Beaverton, stated the Beaverton City Council recently passed an ordinance addressing affordable housing, but unfortunately the ordinance did not contain any teeth to enforce or impose financial liability. One concern he has is what is meant by median income. He stated that as Portland and Multnomah County Imposes more fees and taxes, more people will move out of Multnomah County to Washington County. There will be a breaking point unless there is a moratorium on building. If there is going to be affordable or subsidized housing, how much is it going to cost. Mr. Roberts Indicated the proposed ordinance does not add any fees or taxes. d. Staff recommendation. Mr: Roberts stated the staff recommendation was for Council to adopt the proposed ordinance with attached amendments as written. Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 12 ; i e. Council Discussion Councilor Sherwood stated she had already made her comments with respect to making each quadrant do affordable housing. She noted that a lot of people in the County and non-profit agencies are doing what they can. She supports the change to the comprehensive plan. Councilor Woodruff concurred the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and unanimously supported the, recommendations. Councilor Wilson pointed out land costs increase development costs and commented that Tigard is on the list of being one of the least affordable communities in the nation. The area remains somewhat affordable because of the low interest rates. When interest rates rise, that will not be the case. He noted Metro requires jurisdictions to maintain a certain amount of buildable land supply, while at the same time requiring affordable housing is provided. He suggested the addition of another implementation strategy, possibly under 6.3, which would state: "The city shall encourage the maintenance of an adequate regional land supply for housing." Council then discussed the addition of the appropriate wording and location in the Housing Goal. Motion made by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO SECTION 6.1 AS ITEM NO. 11, "THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE THE MAINTENANCE OF A SUFFICIENT REGIONAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY." The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff: - Yes Mayor Dirksen noted the City will be beginning its revision of the comprehensive plan in the near future, and this discussion made it clear to i him how much this needs to be addressed, reviewed and changes made. He noted this action is a housekeeping measure to formally add Council policies adopted during the past couple of years on an informal basis into the Housing Goal to meet a Metro 'requirement. There will be other discussions in the future to review this goal again. Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 13 Motion was made by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 04-09, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, HOUSING, VOLUME 11. OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes 6. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE UPDATE Dick Bewersdorff, Community Development, reported the Planned Development Committee has met three times and meets again September 7. 'The work plan is moving forward. There were several months when the Committee could not meet. The projection is to forward a recommendation for Planning Commission review and Council's approval. Mayor Dirksen encouraged the committee to continue its work and he looks forward to their report and recommendation. 7. DARE SUMMER CAMP REPORT Bill Dickenson, Police Chief, noted the Police Department has three primary responsibilities to carry out: 1) respond to emergencies and respond to. calls for service; 2) investigate crimes that have occurred; and 3) carry out prevention and intervention programs. Chief Dickenson stated Tigard has an ongoing program of working with schools during their school year.' The summer DARE program was developed to continue the work and involvement with students during the summer. He then Introduced Community Service Officer Sheryl Huiras, who has operated and managed the DARE to be Great Summer Camp Program. Officer Huiras explained the seventh year of DARE camp for kids was just completed. This year, the five weekly sessions were limited to 60 kids each as that are all one school bus will hold. In addition to the campers, 65 high school students volunteered as counselors and mentors. Both prospective campers and counselors had to be turned away because there was not enough room or funding to Tigard City Council Minutes - August 24, 2004 Page 14 Attachment 6 Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Guidelines 1. Both for- and not-for-profit entities are eligible to apply for affordable housing fee assistance funds. 2. Eligible activities include affordable housing acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. Affordable housing acquisition and development will receive greater consideration than rehabilitation. 3. High consideration will be given to projects that facilitate the dispersal of affordable housing within the City. 4. The proposed project must be consistent with City housing policies and applicable planning and zoning standards. 5. Only units targeted to households earning at or below 50% of median income are eligible for City funds. Units targeted to households earning 60% of median income are eligible when the project includes an equal number of units serving households at or below 50% of median. 6. The organization guarantees that the housing produced or rehabilitated will maintain long-term affordability, with long-term defined as the longer of 25 years, or, if applicable, the life of any State or Federal loan used to finance the project. 7. The organization guarantees that the project will be enrolled in the City Enhanced Safety Program (ESP) and maintain ESP certification for the respective (a.) period of long-term affordability defined in guideline #5, or (b.) the life of the ESP program. 8. Council review and approval of each separate award will be required. This review will include an in-person presentation to Council by a representative of the organization making the request. 9. The time limit on the use of the funds is two years. 10. Applications for assistance will be accepted twice per year. Applications shall be submitted on forms provided by the City of Tigard. 11. The maximum amount available is $500 per qualified unit, up to the current Social Services and Events Fund affordable housing set-aside line item balance. i/Irpln/dr/1-28-03 affordable housing AGENDA ITEM # 3 - J~ 0.. FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the Construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program b' PREPARED BY: Vannie Note DEPT HEAD OK: A t- P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of FY 2004-05 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Paul Lambson Contracting in the amount of $37,453.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY The existing storm drainage system on 70th Avenue from 750 feet south of Taylors Ferry Road to 69th Avenue is under capacity. The relatively flat street and the limited number of catch basins are contributing factors for the storm water collection problem. Homes on the downhill side have experienced flooding on the street during heavy rain events and year-round ground water from adjacent springs causes unsightly algae buildup which is detrimental to the pavement surface. This project proposes to install approximately 300 feet of storm drain pipe and three new catch basins. In addition, it proposes to upgrade three existing catch basins from standard CG-1 type to curb inlet CG-2 type to reduce runoff buildup due to accumulation of leaves on top of the catch basins. There is also a portion of curb and driveway damaged by tree uprooting preventing water from getting into an adjacent existing catch basin. The curb and driveway apron will be replaced thus allowing water to run into the basin. This project was advertised for bids on January 4 and January 6, 2005 in the Daily Journal of Commerce and the Tigard Times respectively. An addendum was issued on January 12, 2005 for provision of current BOLI wage rates and clarification of design issues and bid quantities. The bid opening was conducted on January 18, 2005 and the bid results are: Paul Lambson Contracting Battleground, WA $37,453.00 D&D Concrete & Utilities Tualatin, OR $38,350.00 Canby Excavating Canby, OR $44,500.00 Western Underground Warrenton, OR $45,507.00 Kerr Contractors Woodburn, OR $46,309.00 Cipriano & Son Boring, OR $49,799.50 Morgan Siteworks Aloha, OR $50,985.87 Robinson Construction Tigard, OR $57,640.00 Dunn Construction Portland, OR $65,925.00 Engineer's Estimate $36,000 Based on the bids submitted, the lowest responsive bid of $37,453.00 submitted by Paul Lambson Contracting appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the contract award to this qualified lowest bidder. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project is funded in the amount of $100,000 in the FY 2004-05 CIP Storm Sewer Fund. This amount is sufficient to award the contract of $37,453.00 to Paul Lambson Contracting. i:\erp\vannie\dry coundU00405 sdmmp - 70th ave\248-05 y 00-05 sdmmp Contract award ais.doc FY 2004-05 SDMM 70TH AVENUE 750' SOUTH OF TAYLORS FERRY ROAD TO 69TH AVE ROAD w Tq Jz w w z z w Ohs F~~~~ > > Q Q Q 2 Z t0 > ~ ~ Q t to R JECT LOCATION Z~ WALNUT TERRACE SHADY LANE ELMWOOD ST LOLA LANE ALFRED STREET ~P BARBARA C~tiF' VENTURA COURT AGENDA ITEM # . `I b FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF NEW POLICE PORTABLE RADIOS USING A STATE OF OREGON PRICE AGREEMENT. PREPARED BY: Joe Barrett DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board authorize the purchase of new portable radios for Police Department use? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the purchase of twenty new portable radios utilizing the pricing available to the City through an existing State of Oregon contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Police Department's current 800mhz portable radios, used by all sworn personnel, are outdated, do not have necessary new digital technology, and will no longer supported by Motorola (production ceased in 2004). In addition to the proposed new radios being an upgrade over the standard features of the Department's current radios, the replacement radios will be capable of "SmartZone" technology, allowing the user to seamlessly roam between different regions. This new technology is becoming the communication standard for emergency service providers, and will increase the overall effectiveness in cooperation with other emergency service agencies throughout the state. The replacement radios are available through State Contract #4018 which the City is eligible to access through its membership in the Oregon Cooperative Purchasing Program (ORCPP). The replacement radios have been approved by the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) and will therefore be maintained by them when problems may arise. The funding for this purchase will be completely reimbursed by the FY '04 Homeland Security Grant that was awarded to Tigard Police in the Spring of 2004. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not authorize the purchase of the radios. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES The cost of the twenty radios will be $66,273. Through Budget Amendment 43, the appropriate funds for this purchase were moved from contingency to the Police Department's budget to cover the cost of this purchase. The City will be reimbursed for all costs associated with this purchase from the 2004 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Grant. r AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reappoint Bob Rohlf to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Budget Committee PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Reappoint Bob Rohlf to the Washington County Consolidated Communication Agency (WCCCA) Budget Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Appoint Mr. Rohlf to the WCCCA Budget Committee INFORMATION SUMMARY Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency is comprised of most of the public safety agencies in Washington County, including Tigard. All agencies are authorized to appoint a representative to the Budget Committee. Terms for the Budget Committee are three years. Mr. Rohlf is a resident of the City of Tigard and has served on the Budget Committee of WCCCA as a representative of Tigard. When this committee opening was announced, Mr. Rohlf applied. The next Budget Committee meeting is February 17, 2005 at 4:00pm. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay this appointment. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMN 41TTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution appointing Mr. Rohlf Biographical information on Mr. Rohlf FISCAL NOTES There are no costs directly associated with this appointment. Bob Rohlf `s biographical information Mr. Rohlf served on the Tigard City Council from 1994-1998, and on the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force under Mayors Nicoli and Griffith. While on the City Council he represented Tigard on the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Executive Committee. He has also served previously on the Budget Committee of WCCCA. Mr. Rohlf has also served in other volunteer capacities in this community during his 23 years of residence in this community. 0 AGENDA ITEM # 3. (D FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve separation agreement with William A. Monahan and authorize Mayor to sign agreement PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow, HR Dir 4 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK C-P ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approve separation agreement with former City Manager William A. Monahan and authorize the Mayor to sign this agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve agreement and authorize Mayor to sign INFORMATION SUMMARY The separation agreement between the City of Tigard and William A. Monahan, employed as City Manager since 1994, has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office. The agreement has been reviewed and signed by Mr. Monahan on February 2, 2005. This agreement needs final approval by the Council and the signature of the Mayor to complete the process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Separation agreement attached FISCAL NOTES The separation agreement has been agreed to as provided for in Mr. Monahan's employment contract. Costs will be paid out of City Administration in the Central Services Fund. Finance will proceed to submit a budget amendment transferring from Central Services Fund contingency to cover the costs. The total cost of this agreement is $117.601.73. This calculation is based on current benefit costs. City Council Document Transmittal 1~, CITY OF TIGARD To: S V e,,cr, -e-. OREGON From: Date: Q . 6i- os- I'm sending you: Document Type: ❑ IGA ❑ Contract ©-Other 14 Document Name: ~ar~l~V-? ,t U., aea.~ J-~~ Approved at the Council Meetin ~ . o1.,- Number Copies Included: 2 On Cx1 Your document(s) have been signed by the Mayor ❑ Your document(s) have been signed by the City Manager ❑ Your document(s) requires an additional signature(s) ❑ When all signatures have been obtained, file an original document with City of Tigard Records ❑ Additional instructions: hGt e -x& l2 IK 1,1 J I:\NDM\FORMS\CITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT TRANSM~C City Council Document Transmittal CITY OF TIGARD OREGON To: A00 n &2~,1,6 tm From: oji'IdLd Date: y~ I'm sending you: Document Type: ❑ IGA ❑ Contract -8 Other J Document Name: M vhXA. Approved at the Council Meeting of: O_S -v- Number Copies Included: ❑ Your document(s) have been signed by the Mayor ❑ Your document(s) have been signed by the City Manager ❑ Your document(s) requires an additional signature(s) ❑ When all signatures have been obtained, file an original document with City of Tigard Records ❑ Additional instructions: r c.~~~J I:1ADMIFORMSICITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL.DOC AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into between the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, ("City") and William A. Monahan, an individual ("Monahan"). RECITALS A. Monahan has been employed by the City as its City Manager since November 1994, and presently serves as City Manager pursuant to an employment agreement dated May 14, 2004, and amended in December, 2004. (`Employment Agreement") B. Monahan serves at the pleasure of the City Council and may be terminated from or resign his employment. The City and Monahan may also mutually agree to terms. C. Monahan and the City have agreed that Monahan's employment with the City shall terminate as provided in this Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION of the parties mutual release of their respective rights and obligations as set forth in the Employment Agreement and the terms and conditions as set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. Termination as City Manager The City and Monahan agree that Monahan's responsibilities as City Manager shall terminate on January 25, 2005. Provided however, he will continue to have ongoing responsibilities to the City as provided in Section 4 below. The terms and conditions of this agreement shall continue to apply until fully performed. This agreement is intended to supersede the Employment Agreement as of January 25, 2005. . 2. Pay and Benefits The City shall provide salary and benefits to Monahan through March 26, 2005, as if he were still employed under the Employment Agreement. For the period from March 26, 2005, through September 26, 2005, City shall pay Monahan the base salary under the Employment Agreement ($10,220 per month), and provide medical and dental insurance on the same terms as currently provided, but shall not provide any other benefits to Monahan. In the event Monahan obtains employment during that six-month period and the employer provides medical insurance benefits, the City's obligation to provide health and dental insurance shall terminate when he becomes covered by similar insurance from the new employer. "Similar" means similar in type (e.g. medical), not comparable. Payments and benefits described in this section shall be made in the ordinary course of City payroll payments. In the event the City provides a cost of living adjustment to management employees prior to September 25, 2005, Monahan shall receive the same adjustment. Page 1 - Agreement 3. Payment of Accruals By January 31, 2005, the City will pay Monahan in a lump sum for unused vacation leave accrued through January 25, 2005. By March 31, 2005, City will pay Monahan for unused vacation leave accrued from January 26 through March 26, 2005. Monahan shall not receive any compensation for accrued unused sick leave days and no payment shall be made on account of unused sick leave days. Monahan shall not receive any compensation or payment for unused management leave. 4. Cooperation with City A. For a period of eight months from January 25, 2005, Monahan shall cooperate and assist in the transition to new City management, including at a mutually agreeable time or times, meeting with the interim City Manager and/or new City Manager to inform and update the interim and/or new City Manager of the status of important City matters. B. During the same period of eight months, as set forth in Section 4. A., above, Monahan agrees he shall make himself reasonably available to the City as reasonably requested to answer questions and otherwise provide information relating to all matters with which he was involved while employed with the City. After that time, the City and Monahan may agree to terms regarding additional assistance of this type. Nothing in this section requires Monahan to meet or be available at times that would interfere with any future employment or with efforts to obtain employment. C. In addition, Monahan agrees to be reasonably available to appear on behalf of City in any litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding involving Monahan's performance of his duties while employed by the City. The City agrees to provide Monahan access to files and the assistance of staff as needed to help him prepare for any testimony. 5. Confidentiality and Publicity Monahan agrees that he will not disclose any information or data concerning litigation, employment and personnel matters, real property transactions, or other subjects disclosed to or acquired by him in confidence at any time during his employment with City, unless authorized in writing by the City Council or pursuant to court order. 6. Representation of Others Monahan agrees that, for the next eight months, he will not represent any person or entity adverse to the City before the City, on appeal of a City decision, or in a court or administrative proceeding where the City is an adverse party. Page 2 - Agreement 7. Release Monahan does hereby release, covenant not to sue and discharge the City, its Mayor, Councilors, officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, insurers, attorneys and all related entities from any and all liability or claim which presently exists or may arise in the future, relating to any claim Monahan has or might have relative to his employment by the City as the City Manager or his termination from that position. This section covers any and all liabilities or claims the factual basis of which occurred or is alleged to have occurred or commenced prior to the date of this document. This section includes all claims for any and all additional wages, salaries, compensation of any sort, damages, attorneys' fees, or other costs however denominated of any nature. This section includes any and all claims and remedies available under any federal, state or other governmental statute, regulation, ordinance or presidential executive order, including, without limitation, a grievance under any applicable labor contract or employee handbook, any employment contract express or implied, common law tort claims, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 42 USCA 1981, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the State of Oregon and the Federal Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State of Oregon wage and discrimination statutes (including Chapters 652, 659, and 659A), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To the extent permitted by statute, the City shall hold harmless from and indemnify Monahan for any and all liability, settlements, loss, costs, and expenses in connection with any action, suit, or claim resulting or allegedly resulting from Monahan's acts, omissions, activities, or services within the scope of his employment as City Manager of the City of Tigard. 8. Review Period Monahan acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and has been advised in writing by the City to consult with an attorney before signing this Agreement. Monahan also acknowledges that he has been given a period of 21 calendar days within which to consider this Agreement if he so wishes. Monahan expressly agrees that this 21 calendar day waiting period is waived to the extent that this Agreement is signed by him and delivered to the City before the expiration of such 21 calendar day period. 9. Revocation Period After signing the Agreement, Monahan has seven (7) calendar days from the date on which the signing occurred to revoke this Agreement. Any such revocation shall be made only by notifying the City in writing at the following address: Page 3 - Agreement City Recorder City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Such written notice of revocation must actually be received within the required seven (7) calendar day period to be effective. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until this seven (7) calendar day period has expired. Payment of any sums required by this agreement will not be made until after the expiration of the seven (7) calendar day period. This seven (7) calendar day period cannot be waived. 10. Employment References The City agrees to release information in Monahan's personnel file that is exempt from disclosure only with the consent of Monahan. 11. Waiver Failure on the part of either party to exercise any rights or privileges granted herein shall not be construed as waiving any such rights, privileges, obligations, duties, or creating any custom contrary thereto. 12. Severabilitv All agreements and covenants contained herein are severable and in the event that any of them shall be held to be null, void, invalid or inoperative for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be interpreted as if such invalid provisions were not contained herein and shall retain full force and effect. 13. Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties. Monahan'agrees that no other promises or inducements have been made to him unless contained in writing, attached hereto, or incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement may not be modified in the future except in writing signed by the parties. 14. Understanding of Agreement Monahan acknowledges that he has had the opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel of his choice during the negotiations prior to the execution of this Agreement and in fact has consulted with his own attorney and enters into this agreement after receiving advice from his attorney. Monahan acknowledges that he has had a reasonable period of time to consider whether to accept this settlement. Page 4 - Agreement 15. Attorney Fees In the event that one of the parties to this Agreement initiates litigation or arbitration to enforce its provisions, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of the reasonable attorney fees expended in such action and on any appeal therefrom. CITY OF TI! Mayo' William A. Monahan Date: oZ g D 5 Date: 2~2 Ze 5 Approved as to Form: ~ ity Attorney G:\muni\tigard\bemisamendwamsepagr. DOC Page 5 - Agreement AGENDA ITEM # "`1 FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY IS TITLE Adopt 2005 Tigard City Council Goals PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider the proposed list of 2005 Tigard City Council Goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and revise, if needed, the attached Tigard City Council Goals for 2005. Adopt the final list and direct staff to identify projects and work programs for each goal. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard City Council met on January 18, 2005, to review the status of the 2004 goals and develop new goals for 2005. On January 24, 2005, Council met with staff members to review the goal list and discuss with staff the principles that overlay all of the specific actions taken to achieve the goals. Once the 2005 goal list is approved, staff will prepare work programs for tasks in each goal area and submit these work programs to Council for review and approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Revise the goal list. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Visioning Program served as the underlying framework for 2005 Council goal development. ATTACHMENT LIST Draft Tigard City Council Goals - 2005 FISCAL NOTES Financial implications for implementation of each goal will be identified in the work programs staff will develop for each of the tasks identified under each goal area. iAadm\packe1'05\050208\goa1 ais.doc Draft Tigard City Council Goals - 2005 Preamble The City Council's focus for 2005 is to address three key areas. Overlaying specific actions taken in each of these areas is a commitment to: ■ Seek more community Involvement ■ Tie actions to the Vision Task Force goals and strategies ■ Enhance the appearance of the City ■ Measure results 1. Revitalize Downtown • Complete and implement the Downtown Plan • Urban renewal implementation o Public relations plan and vote • Identify and begin projects 2. Improve 99W • Identify specific projects to alleviate congestion on 99W • Prioritize projects/funding • Leverage additional funding 3. Address Growth • Revise Comprehensive Plan for Tigard and, if funded, for Bull Mountain • Metro - seek changes • Identify and acquire Parks and Open Space • Review growth of expenditures and revenue • Graphic identify (branding) o Signage o Logo o Stationery Upon formal adoption of the goals by City Council, staff will prepare work programs that include timelines, communication plans, and performance measures. is\adm\cathy\council\goals 2005\Tigard City Council Goals-2005 REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN TIGARD CITY COUNCIL COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN PLAN GOALS FOR 2005 • URBAN RENEWAL IMPLEMENTATION Key Areas of Focus... - PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN AND VOTE SEEK MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TIE ACTIONSTO THE VISIONTASK FORCE GOALS IDENTIFY AND BEGIN PROJECTS ENHANCE THE APPEARANCE OF THE CITY MEASURE RESULTS IMPROVE 99W ADDRESS GROWTH • REVISE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TIGARD AND, IF • IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PROJECTS TO ALLEVIATE FUNDED, FOR BULL MOUNTAIN CONGESTION ON 99W • METRO - SEEK CHANGES • PRIORITIZE PROJECTS/FUNDING IDENTIFY AND ACQUIRE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE • LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL FUNDING REVIEW GROWTH OF EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE • GRAPHIC IDENTITY (BRANDING) SIGNAGE, LOGO, STATIONERY 1 I9 Draft Tigard City Council Goals 2005 Preamble The City Council's focus for 2005 is to address three key areas. Overlaying specific actions taken in each of these areas is a commitment to: ■ Seek more community involvement ■ Tie actions to the Vision Task Force goals and strategies ■ Enhance the appearance of the City ■ Measure results 1. Revitalize Downtown • Complete and implement the Downtown Plan • Urban renewal implementation o Public relations plan and vote • Identify and begin projects 2. Improve 99W • Identify speck projects to alleviate congestion on 99W • Prioritize projects/funding • Leverage additional funding 3. Address Growth • Revise Comprehensive Plan for Tigard and, if funded, for Bull Mountain • Metro - seek changes • Identify and acquire Parks and Open Space • Review growth of expenditures and revenue • Graphic identify (branding) o Signage o Logo o Stationery Upon formal adoption of the goals by City Council, staff will prepare work programs that include timelines, communication plans, and performance measures. iAadmkatthylcouncihgoals 2005111gard My Coundl Goals-2005 AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF 2/8/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reco tion of Centrex Construction PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK U 07 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Recognize the contribution of Centrex Construction Inc., the Tigard-based contractor who completed the remodel on the Permit Center and City Hall. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution acknowledging Tigard-based Centrex's contribution to our community. INFORMATION SUMMARY As part of the Library bond measure process, the City assured citizens that the old Library and City Hall buildings would be remodeled with funds outside of the Library Bond to accommodate the programming needs of the administrative departments of the City for the next 10 years. Centrex Construction Inc. was the low bidder for the remodel construction of the Permit Center (old library) and City Hall buildings last August. The City wishes to recognize the contribution Centrex Construction has made while managing the remodel. It was clear from the start that Centrex took pride in its community and they were excited about doing this project for their City. Centrex not only provided excellent quality workmanship, they also remodeled portions of the project with staff and citizens using the buildings during construction. Centrex made sure citizens had access to City Hall and the Police Department throughout the project. They also provided cost saving recommendations during the project. While many contractors just do the job, Centrex took the time to make sure the project was working well day-to- day for staff and citizens. It has been an honor to have a Tigard-based firm like Centrex work on the remodel of the Permit Center and City Hall. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The vision identifies "adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning and programs and services for all ages." That goal identified by Tigard's citizens resulted in the construction of a new library. At the time the new library bond was passed by Tigard voters, the City made the commitment that the old Library and City Hall buildings would be remodeled to accommodate the programming needs of the administrative departments of the City for the next 10 years. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution acknowledging the contributions of Centrex Construction, Inc. FISCAL NOTES Funds were budgeted in the 2004-05 FY budget. A complete project update with be provided to City Council within the next few weeks. Po~nc e~~ ~s~~su ~entrex consvue~on, mc. T►9ard.ote9o~ Petn►itCe~ Permit Center ~ J ii I1~ Permit Center i i IL AL Permit Center 2 Permit Center Permit Center Permit Center ?s _t 3 Permit Center Permit Center Staff Moving li 4 Permit Center Today Permit Center Today - ---fir , City Hall ~r 5 City Hall City Hall City Hall 'f. 6 ~yHalli~ati & Ce~e~ teatlob ~r Agenda Item No. Meeting of a u5 Se+ u~'e~ ~r~'om 1~ ago'I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Works Department: Mission/Values Exercise Results PREPARED BY: Brian Rager DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Public Works staff will report as to the results of a recent exercise conducted with the department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. Information only. INFORMATION SUM]AARY The Public Works department has gone through some personnel changes over the last year, including changes in, management staff. In addition, the department identified some key concerns related to the internal culture and environment and was seeking a process that would help to bring about a positive change. It was also a good time to evaluate how the external customers of the department view the service provided During the summer of 2004, the department began a process referred to as the Mission & Values Exercise. This process involved all Public Works staff and began with a department-wide setting where Staff (management and non-management) were mixed into six different discussion groups. These groups were facilitated by staff from other departments. The result of these group discussions, as well as follow-up discussions with Staff, is a new Mission Statement, Slogan and a set of Core Values for the Public Works Department. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a ATTACHMENT LIST PowerPoint Presentation FISCAL NOTES Only minor printing costs for business cards, wall-mounted displays and door decals. A wise business man once said... ■ "if you run your business this year the way r 1Public Works Department you ran your business last year, you will not A' be in business next ear." M'ttiy Mission & Values Exercise Results Issues in Public Works: #1 Mission & Values Exercise: ■ Changes in personnel k ■ Department-wide kickoff on June 29, 2004. t . lmv~ ~~(x ■ Concern with Internal culture: How do we fl l~ ■ Discussion groups Included all staff. treat each other? ■ Facilitators recruited from other departments. t1 ■ Concern with Customer Service: How are we ■Ncn-blared help doing? I 1 ■ Allowed supervisor/management staff to be mixed in the groups. F' Good opportunity to ask ourselves what we value and what our mission should be. Mission & Values Exercise: a Discussion Results: Values I~ We asked three primary questions: iIR ■ Safety ■ support from ■ "What are the most important things you value? ■ Respect Management in the work environment?' ■ Honesty ■ Leadership h ■ Professionalism 1~{ .I ■ "What do you see as the Department ■ Humor flldI ( ■ Laughter ■ QualityTrelning mission?" i` of 3 I tit,- ■ "How do you want to be treated by your r Trust ■ Fairness to All f4~ I coworkers?" ■ Teamwork 1 Discussion Results: Mission Discussion Results: Treatment ■ Provide good, r Go the extra mile. 1 i ■ Respect ■ Treat others as you courteous, prompt r Provide ahigh-quality Fr~~ ■ Treat as equals (no want be treated service. product favoritism) ■ Be friendly to one Ell, ■ Operate professionally. ` ■ Fairness to all another. s II ■ Maintain the City fl, ■ Be consistent • Be trustworthy. r Infrastructure to the ■ Deal with individual ex,k~l best of our ability. Ti I problems; do not punish `;I i~i the whole group. •;•awwr,wr•vr. u.r r tinwre w.•,+s.aw Follow Up to Discussion it Public Works Mission. Statement I' ■ Management staff developed drafts of "The Public Works Department proudly Mission Statement, Slogan and list of Values. provides stewardship over the City's - ■ Managers met with each division to review i water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, f drafts. streets, fleet, buildings, and parks t ! services in a safe, efficient courteous and ■ Final All-Staff meeting on September 3D, a $I' i professional manner." 2004 r Final comments and changes ■ Celebration luncheon •».rr.w ,r.r•vrm•. . w,.ror.,s..•w. wm. „ w Public Works Slogan Public Works Core Values }fir. - "Taking care of the community" Professionalism Respect 7rvF` ~ tR ~ji Integrity ~u 9M Dedication i u'. ry5f~?, Enthusiasm 2 a II k 1 Other Follow Up,. , Next Steps: ' ■ Public Works customer satisfaction survey.- ■ Slogan on PW business cards rH ~a ■ Proposed for introduction after January 1, x Slogan on door decals rF 2005. fliti~l a Make Mission Statement, Slogan and Core Values visible. ;lti` ■ New clothing policy. ■ Conduct our business in accordance with our 4 ~ Mission and Core Values. ail ■ Mission and Values will become part of performance reviews, s Review Mission & Values biannually. Mrrrrasravrrerr o rMaafaear ao.rlHis war p Slogan: Door Decal Example RUM `dII~DGtlOl1111EG0~ aurww rrravrr.r a 3 AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: February 8, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATIONS (VAC 2004-00002) SW FREWING STREET AT SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND SW PFAFFLE STREET AT SW 79T" AVENUE Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 7 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # ` FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SW Frewing Street at SW Pacific Highway and SW Pfaffle at SW 79`h Avenue public sewer easement vacations. (VAC2004-00002). PREPARED BY: Morgan Trac Ai DEPT HEAD O CITY MGR OK ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council vacate an approximate 1,248 square foot public sewer easement located at SW Frewing and SW Pacific Highway? Should the City Council vacate an approximate 476 square foot portion of a 1,429 square foot public sewer easement located at SW Pfaffle and SW 791h Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the two requested easement vacations. INFORMATION SUMMARY In the City vacation process there are two ways of initiating the vacation of streets, easements and other public dedicated areas. An applicant may file a vacation petition with the City Council, which initiates a vacation by passing a Resolution to schedule a formal public hearing to consider such requests. The second option is for an applicant to file a petition with the Planning Commission requesting a vacation. The Council initiated the vacation proceedings on January I Ith, 2005. This application is a combined request to initiate two separate public utility easement vacations. The applicants have combined their requests to expedite the process in one combined package, and to share costs associated with the vacation process. The first easement (Massih) is on property located at the southeast corner of SW Frewing Street and SW Pacific Highway (see Attachment 3). The property was recently approved for commercial development (case file number SDR2004-00001). An existing sewer easement is located under the middle of the proposed new building. This easement serves the parcel to the north. The applicant has recorded a realigned sewer easement around the proposed building and will construct a new line in the new location as part of the development. The second easement (Martindale) is located at the northwest corner of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 79`h Avenue (see Attachment 3). The lot was recently partitioned (case file number MLP 2004-00003). The easement at this location was established as a 15-foot-wide sewer easement. Current City standards only require a 10-foot- wide easement for sewer service. The applicant has requested that a 5-foot-wide portion of the present 15-foot- wide sewer easement be vacated. The resulting 10-foot-wide easement will be adequate for City maintenance requirements, and furthermore, the applicant has proposed constructing the new sewer line with modern materials to minimize the need for future maintenance. If the Council approves the vacation requests, the approved developments may proceed, and properly aligned public sewer utility easements will be established. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny one or both of the vacation requests. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance (Massih-Frewing at Pacific Highway) Resolution 05-01 Initiating the vacation proceedings Exhibit A: Legal Descriptions Exhibit B: Site Plan Attachment 2: Proposed Ordinance (Martindale-Pfaffle at 79th) Resolution 05-02 Initiating the vacation proceedings Exhibit C: Legal Descriptions Exhibit D: Site Plan Attachment 3: Vicinity Map FISCAL NOTES There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this request as all fees will be paid by the applicant from their deposit. I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 05- 01 A RESOLUTION INITIATING VACATION PROCEEDINGS FOR A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,248 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW FREWING STREET @ SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY (VAC2004-00002). WHEREAS, the public sewer utility easement of approximately 1,248 square feet had previously been dedicated to the public; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City of Tigard initiate vacation proceedings to vacate the 1,248 square foot sewer utility easement in exchange for a relocated sewer easement and reconstructed sewer line, as described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B"; and WHEREAS, the said sewer utility easement, or portions thereof, are not necessary to advance the public health, safety or welfare, in consideration of realigned easement and reconstructed sewer line using modern materials; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate vacation proceedings for the requested public utility easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby initiates a request for the vacation of an approximately 1,248 square foot sewer utility easement in exchange for a relocated sewer easement and reconstructed sewer line, as described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" and by reference, made a part hereof. SECTION 2: A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on February 8, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council will hear any objections thereto and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public utility easements. SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This ! day of 2005 Mayor - ty of Tigard ATTEST: rp- City Recorder = City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. o5- D1 Page 1 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION INITIATING VACATION PROCEEDINGS FOR A PUBLIC SEWER UTILITY EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 476 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT SW PFAFFLE STREET @ SW 79" AVENUE (VAC2004-00002). WHEREAS, the public sewer utility easement of approximately 1,429 square feet had previously been dedicated to the public; and WHEREAS, the applicants have requested that the City of Tigard initiate vacation proceedings to vacate a 476 square foot portion of the 1,429 square foot sewer utility easement by reducing its width to the City's minimum standard of 10 feet from its present 15 foot width, as described and shown in Exhibits "C" and "D" and WHEREAS, the said sewer utility easement, or portions thereof, are not necessary to advance the public health, safety or welfare, in consideration of realigned easement and reconstructed sewer line using modern materials; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate vacation proceedings for the requested public utility easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby initiates a request for the vacation of an approximately 476 square foot portion of a 1,429 square foot sewer utility easement by reducing its width to the City's minimum standard of 10 feet from its present 15 foot width, as described and shown in Exhibits "C" and "D" and by reference, made a part hereof. SECTION 2: A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on February 8, 2005 at 7:30 PM in the Town Hall at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council will hear any objections thereto and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public utility easements. SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of AaAU(A 2005 Mayor - -`City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tig d RESOLUTION NO. 05- 0 02, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: February 8, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish mtestify mare City Council on: PUBIC HEARING -ASH CREEK ESTATES - LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (CUBA) REMAND -SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003- 00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003- 00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR)2003-00037 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Z E PRINT Pro onent - eakin In Fav c~) O nt - eakin Against) Neutral ame, Address & Phone No. , ddress-& Phone, No. e, Address & Phone No. /Z65 S' Sam/ n ~O~c calyGQ~~ ~ G O Name, Address & Phone No. Name, AdIdZ) hone No. Name, Address & Phone No. C& ~K4Ar&L+ck Nam e, Address & Phone No. Name, Addre & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ckr,~- eatac'k LR+1-Y'4 R R - R/-) 13wSw Vd"- L_,4 L-+A1 `Name/, Address & Phone No. Name, ddress & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. `T"1 -9~zz~ SW J~~ r. lYe~.~~ ~ 5~3 any-y941 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. --S A N Rok s Ccw f J~ ~o~5/7 5") CGS f Cc~ L, UAzJCt,I,eve (v'A qis AKK - ?dy AGENDA ITEM No. 8 PLEASE PRINT Proponent- (Speaking In Favor)' opponent- (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1) t- ~ kL 9:-223 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Av, ~ S Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. '7045 Sw Venr1%)4,kD2 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Z - ff o 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ash Creek Estates Subdivision - LUBA Remand ~L PREPARED BY: Mor ag n Tracye~l DEPT HEAD OK, r CITY MGR OK :M J. ISSUE BEFORE THE C CIL Consider additional findings and analysis for the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development for the four items on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Council may either accept the findings and analysis prepared by the applicant and reviewed by staff thereby affirming the previous subdivision approval, modify the findings based on the evidence and testimony received and either affirm or overturn the previous approval, or determine that the criteria for approval are not met and prepare findings to deny the request and overturn the previous subdivision approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a final order for Council's next meeting to adopt the additional findings in support of the approval for the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development. INFORMATION SUMMARY Ash Creek Estates is a proposed 29 lot subdivision on 9.36 acres located at 9750 SW 74`x' Avenue. On July 7, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application. The Planning Commission moved to deny the application, which failed in a 4-4 tie vote. The Commission then moved to approve the application, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application was denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The applicant, Dale Richards of Windwood Homes, filed an appeal of the application denial on July 15, 2003. The City Council held a public hearing, de novo, on the appeal on August 12, 2003, but did not have sufficient time to receive testimony from all interested parties. The public hearing was continued to the September 9, 2003 Council meeting to complete the public hearing and render their decision. After that hearing closed, Council members indicated that they were persuaded the requirements of the Development Code had been met and approved a motion for tentative decision for approval of the application. Council directed the applicant to provide the written findings for this decision for final Council consideration at its October 28, 2003 meeting. The applicant submitted findings along with modified conditions of approval to support the decision. The Council met one final time on November 4, 2003 to adopt a corrected resolution approving the Ash Creek Estates proposal. On November 25, 2003, an appeal of Council's decision was filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA issued their Final Opinion and Order on August 20, 2004. In that Order, LUBA considered 25 assignments and sub assignments of error, and remanded the decision back to the City for additional review and findings on four specific sub-assignments of error. Essentially, LUBA accepted the vast majority of the City's approval, but found that insufficient justification had been provided for four specific issues. These issues are 1) The City's acceptance of lower "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag on SW 74th and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized to approve such deviations to adopted street standards. 2) The requirement that the applicant prepare and submit a tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provides a removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program. 3) Insufficient explanation of how the adjustment criteria were met which granted adjustments to cul de sac standards (length and number of units), and the provision of curb-tight sidewalks through the stream crossing. 4) A demonstration of how the landscape protection criteria are being met, since no tree protection plan was originally submitted. The applicant submitted additional findings on November 15, 2004 in support of their application with respect to the above items raised by LUBA. A written acknowledgement to commence the 90 day review period was received from the applicant on December 13, 2004, pursuant to ORS 227.181. Staff has reviewed this additional information, prepared additional analysis and findings and ultimately recommended that the Council adopt those findings and uphold the original approval with the imposition of seven additional conditions of approval, as outlined in the attached Staff Report. The case on remand is strictly limited to the four issues remanded back from LUBA. Staff has not modified nor deleted any previous conditions of approval, and suggests that the findings contained within the staff report supplement the previously adopted findings, to the extent that they do not conflict, on these four specific issues. The Council may accept, modify, or reject the proposed findings and conditions, but should Council find that the criteria have not been and cannot be met, the result would be a denial of the entire subdivision proposal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Prepare alternate findings based on the evidence presented. • Request additional evidence to support alternate findings. • Prepare findings to deny the request. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management-Goal #1, Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas. ATTACHMENT LIST* Attachment 1 - Staff Report to City Council Attachment 2 - Applicant's Justification for Items Identified In LUBA Remand, dated November 15, 2004 EXHIBIT A - Tree Plan Narrative - Terragan and Associates, dated November 19, 2004 EXHIBIT B - Revised Tree Preservation Plan - Kurahashi and Associates, dated January 10, 2005 Attachment 3 - Applicant's Statement clarifying the Tree Plan, dated January 19, 2005 Attachment 4 - City Forester's memorandum, dated January 24, 2005 Attachment 5 - City Engineer's memorandum, dated January 25, 2005 * The Record for Ash Creek Estates PD (SUB2003-00010) is incorporated by reference and is available through the City Records, but is not included with this packet due to the volume of material and the redundant nature of including it into the record twice. FISCAL NOTES Staff time and report analysis preparation are not reimbursable as part of this LUBA remand process. Agenda Item: Hearin Date: Februa 8 2005 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OFTIGARD Community Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShapingA Better Community 90 DAY REMAND PERIOD = 3/13/2005 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: REMAND of ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION LUBA FILE NO: 2003-194 CITY CASE NO'S: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2003-00010 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2003-00003 Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2003-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2003-00005 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2003-00036 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2003-00037 APPLICANT: Dale Richards OWNER: Ernest E. and Elda H. Senn Winwood Construction 9750 SW 74th Avenue 12655 SW North Dakota Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 PROJECT Kurahashi and Associates CONTACT: Attn: Greg Kurahashi 15580 SW Jay, Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 REQUEST: The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has remanded City Council's approval of a 29-lot planned development on 9.3 acres and associated sensitive lands and adjustment reviews for additional findings to support their decision. This hearing is limited to the four specific assignments of error which are generally: 1) the City's acceptance of lower "K" values in relation to the proposed vertical sag curve on SW 74th and demonstration that the City Engineer is authorized to approve such deviations to adopted street standards, 2) the requirement that the applicant prepare and submit a tree plan that identifies the size, species, and location of trees on the site, provides a removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program in accordance with TCDC18.790, 3) revised findings are required for the proposed curb tight sidewalks on SW 74tH to address the relevant criteria of TCDC 18.370.C.11., and 4) additional findings related to the landscape protection criteria of TCDC 18.745.030.E. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1 S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 1 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 218/2005 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.790, and 18.810 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept and adopt the additional findings presented in the applicant's submittal, as further elaborated on within this report and find that the proposed Planned Development and street adjustments will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Criteria outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings adopted previously as Resolution 03-61 and further refined, and amended within this report: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Note, conditions #1-51 are from the original decision and are included for reference only) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborists review. The applicant will not cut any healthy trees within the designated open space tract. Furthermore, the applicant shall not cut any healthy trees in the tree preservation areas of Lots 1-18, which shall be defined as the area at least 15' from the rear of the building footprints. However, if an arborist determines that trees in these areas are dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard, then the applicant shall remove affected trees from those areas. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction when the tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly. 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals for work within the wetlands from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. 5. Prior to site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. If the damage is such that it will no longer effectively identify the tract, it shall be replaced/reinstalled immediately. 6. Prior to site work, a signed approval shall be included with the City's construction drawing packet. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 2 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 7. Prior to approval of construction plans, the applicant shall "pothole" the City of Tualatin's main water transmission line to determine the exact location and condition of the pipe. The applicant shall notify the City of Tigard and the City of Tualatin 48 hours prior to the pothole inspections and when any construction activity will impact the pipe (such as placement of fill and excavation in the immediate vicinity) so that a representative from both the Cities of Tualatin and Tigard can be present. 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover all infrastructure and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any other drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or,us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associates with the project. 11. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 74th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route, without bike lanes, from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, with a minimum pavement width of 24 feet; B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. Concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip (unless adjusted); F. Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. Street striping; ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 3 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. Underground utilities; J. Street signs (if applicable); K. Driveway apron (if applicable); L. Adjustments in vertical and /or horizontal alignment to construct SW 74Th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department, including reductions to the speed limit as necessary; and M. Right-of-way dedication to provide 27 feet from centerline. 12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 13. A profile of 74th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 14. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility improvement permit. 16. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three- year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 18. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to ensure the surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 4 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 19. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2003, into the final grading plan. The applicant shall have the geotechnical engineer ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/of permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 21. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 22. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext 2428) for review and approval: 23. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. 24. Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for the public street to vary the streetscape. 25. The applicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 and 29 and cause a statement to be placed on the plat limiting additional direct vehicular access to SW 74th Avenue. 26. Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. 27. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a homeowner's association in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan), 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 28. Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the construction of the private storm line in the private street. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 5 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 29. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $900.00 (Staff Contact: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it (them). 31. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The CC&R's shall additionally establish restrictions regarding the removal of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter from any of the lots or tracts following completion of the subdivision improvements. Trees may only be allowed to be removed subject to a certified arborist's finding that the trees are dead, or in severe decline. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) and the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy) prior to approval of the final plat. 32. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 33. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 74th Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- lieu of under grounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $11,578.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 34. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary date or narrative. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 6 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The final plat and date or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 74th Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. Note: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 37. Prior to issuance of any building permits, re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file #2819, prior to obtaining building permits. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans that show one (1) off- street parking space, which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, provided on-site for each new home. 39. At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks as set forth in this decision and record a copy of the approved setback plan with the deeds for each lot. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. 43. Prior to the issuance of building permits on any lot, the applicant must provide city staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter (#2819). Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 7 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 44. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide a post-construction sight distance certification for the new intersection at 74th Avenue. 45. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential street have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. Note: The City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 47. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 48. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photo mylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 49. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 50. The applicant shall install street trees and an evergreen hedge of Leyland Cypress spaced no greater than three feet on center along the northern property line of Lots 1-10 and the eastern property line of Lots 10-12. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ASH CREEK ESTATES: 51. The applicant and future owners of lots within the development shall ensure that the requirements of CDC 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) are complied with at all times. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 8 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED THROUGH REMAND FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 52. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that show advisor~r "15 mph" speed limit signs to be placed in advance of the crest and sag curves on SW 74t in accordance with the City Engineer's Memorandum of January 25, 2005, which requires that the sag be monitored after construction to determine if any other measures need to be taken. The applicant shall be responsible for installation of additional measures within a year after construction of the street is accepted by the City if monitoring indicates that additional traffic control measures are needed. 53. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a bond for the equivalent value of mitigation required (3,446 number of caliper inches times $125 per caliper inch). If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the bond may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the bond, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the bond as a fee in lieu of planting. 54. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction for each lot to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 55. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The "Tree Protection Steps" identified in Teragan & Associates Letter of November 19, 2004 shall be reiterated in the construction documents. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 56. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 57. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 9 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 followed by the contractor, the City shall stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 58. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S FINAL DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Application History The property is currently developed with one single-family residence and a couple of small outbuildings. On July 7th, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for a 29 lot subdivision and planned development on 9.36 acres. The property is located at 9750 SW 74th Avenue. The proposal is to provide single-family detached housing on lots ranging between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The Planning Commission moved to deny the application, which failed in a 4-4 tie vote. The Commission then moved to approve the application, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The applicant, Dale Richards of Windwood Homes, filed an appeal of the application denial on July 15, 2003. His stated grounds for the appeal are "That applicant contends that the Planning Commission should have adopted specific grounds for denial. The denial should have been based on the proposed plan not meeting the Development Code. All specific requirements of the code were met. The applicant, therefore, proposes that the project should be approved through the appeal process." On August 12, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal to reconsider the application, de novo. Based on the large numbers of those in attendance wishing to testify, there was insufficient time to receive testimony from all interested parties. Therefore Council continued the public hearing to the September 9th Council meeting to complete the public testimony. At the September 9, 2003 hearing, the applicant offered rebuttal to the points raised by the opponents. After the hearing closed, Council members indicated that they were persuaded the requirements of the Development Code had been met and approved a motion for tentative decision for approval of the application. Council directed the applicant to provide the written findings for this decision for final Council consideration at its October 28, 2003 meeting. The applicant submitted ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 10 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 findings along with modified conditions of approval to support the decision. At the October meeting, Council adopted resolution 03-58 approving the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision. In that resolution, a reference was made to a letter dated September 26, 2003 from the applicant. That date was erroneous. The letter which established the Conditions of Approval for the project is dated October 10, 2003. The correct letter, and consequently the correct findings and conditions of approval were incorporated in the adopted resolution. Only the reference to the date of the letter in the resolution was in error. As a result, on November 4, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 03-61) correcting the reference. Within the 21-day appeal period established for appeals to the State Land Use Board of Appeals, John Frewing filed an appeal with LUBA. On August 20, 2004, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), issued a decision to remand the City's decision approving the application. LUBA's decision specified four instances where it found the City's findings insufficient. Vicinity Information: The site is located in the northwest corner of the City limits, south of SW Taylor's Ferry Road, on the east side of SW 74th Avenue. The property is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences on lots that vary in size. There is a stream (Ash Creek) on the property that runs in an east west direction along the southern property boundary. This drainageway contains wetlands and areas of steep slopes. Proposal Information: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 29 lots for single-family residences. Because of the trees, wetlands, and slopes on the site, the applicant has requested a planned development to allow them to vary the underlying zoning standards to develop around these features. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to allow a curb tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated from the travel surface by a planter strip, and an adjustment to the cul-de-sac standards limiting the number of units on a cul-de-sac and the 200-foot maximum length permitted for a cul-de-sac. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CLASSIFICATION: SECTION 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking approval of a 29-lot subdivision on 9.3 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Single family residential development is outright permitted in the R- 4.5 zone. The existing single-family home is to be demolished. Lot sizes within the proposed development are between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet and average 6,424 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to set aside approximately 4.15 acres in an open space tract for the drainageway and wetland area. A private street cul-de-sac is also proposed to extend from the public street stub into the property. The site is located within the R-4.5, Low Density Residential District. Planned Developments are permitted in all zoning districts. The applicant has applied for conceptual and detailed planned development approval in conjunction with the subdivision. SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. This is a Planned Development/Subdivision, which is defined as a Type III-PC Application. The Planning Commission decision is appealable to the City Council. The City Council decision is the final ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 11 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 decision at the local level. Appeals of City Council decisions are heard at the State level by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA may either affirm, reject, modify, or remand the decision back to the local decision making authority. In this case, LUBA remanded the decision for further consideration. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to City Council. In cases where both the Hearings Officer and Planning Commission are involved, the Planning Commission has preferential jurisdiction, per Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.390.080(D)(2)(a). SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS As this case has been remanded from LUBA' based on four assignments of error related to insufficient evidence to support the City's conclusions, the applicable review criteria are those related to the specific assignments of error. City Council has previously reviewed this proposed development, and provided findings related to the other relevant portions of the review criteria. Those findings are memorialized by Resolutions 03-58 and 03-61. This review is limited to the criteria and issues that were raised by LUBA. The applicant provided a narrative and additional evidence to respond to the issues outlined in LUBA's remand. The findings contained herein are intended to supplement the City's existing adopted findings where consistent. In the case that the following findings conflict with the original findings, these findings shall govern. LUBA's opinion on the four assignments of error on which it remanded are reproduced in their entirety in the following sections (distinguished by a different typeface), followed by the applicant's additional findings and Staffs analysis, as applicable. 1. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5(13) LUBA found that there was inadequate evidence to support the City's position that it has the authority to approve a street design that does not meet the standard design specifications, especially as it relates to the vertical sag curve on SW 74th Avenue. The text of their discussion follows: B. Vertical Sag Curve SW 74th Avenue along the western border of the property is currently unimproved. To improve SW 74`h Avenue along the western border of the property a creek and wetlands near the southwestern corner of the property must be crossed, which will create a vertical sag curve.2 With increased speed, the vertical sag curve needs to be more level or gentle to allow traffic traveling at the road's design speed to travel across the vertical sag curve safely. With decreased speed, the vertical sag curve can be steeper, or more severe, and still be safely 1 ORS 197.835(9) states "In addition to the review under subsections (1) to (8) of this section, the board shall reverse or remand the land use decision under review if the board finds [that] the local government or special district made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record." 2According to respondent, a vertical sag curve is the opposite of the type of curve that must be negotiated to climb and crest a hill and descend the other side of the hillcrest. In traversing a vertical sag curve, one descends to the bottom of the curve and then climbs up the other side of the curve. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 12 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 traveled. The issue presented in this subassignment of error is whether the city approved construction of SW 74`h with a vertical sag curve that is too steep. (emphasis added) TCDC 18.810.020(B) provides that the City Engineer is to establish street construction standards.' The parties apparently agree that the City Engineer has done so. Attached to the petition for review, as Appendix B, are two figures that petitioner and the city apparently agree are street construction standards that have been adopted by the City Engineer. The first figure shows a typical road pavement section, which indicates that the design speed for local roads is 25 miles per hour. The second figure shows vertical sag curve "K" values for roads with different design speeds. We do not fully understand that table, but the vertical sag curve "K" values clearly increase with design speed. For example a road with a design speed of 25 miles per hour must have a K value of at least 13.4. For a road with a design speed of 55 miles per hour, a K value of at least 65.1 is required. It appears that the smaller the "K" value the steeper the vertical sag curve. Conversely, the larger the "K" value the more gentle the curve. Rather than place fill in the area of the creek to decrease the severity of the vertical sag curve to a "K" value of at least 13.4, the county [sic] approved a steeper vertical sag curve with a "K" value of 5.4.4 To allow the steeper vertical sag curve and maintain safety, the county [sic] reduced the speed limit that would otherwise apply to this part of SW 74`h Avenue to 15 miles per hour. The county [sic] explained its decision as follows: "The applicant also requested that the speed limit be reduced to 15 miles per hour in the section where the 74`h Avenue crossing will occur. This speed limit was accepted by the City of Tigard Engineer. The city of Tigard standards are met by a 15 mile per hour vertical curve design, to a `K value' of greater than 5 (AASHTO)." Record 43. It may well be that a road with speed limited to 15 miles per hour with a vertical sag curve with a "K" value of greater than 5 is just as safe as roads with the design speeds shown on the table with vertical sag curves with the "K" value that corresponds to the different design speeds. However, the city's street standards seem to call for roads with a design speed of at least 25 miles per hour. Roads with a design speed of 25 miles per hour may have vertical sag curves with a "K" value of no less than 13.4. While avoiding the fill that will be necessary to achieve a vertical sag curve in this section of SW 74`h Avenue might make sense from both environmental impact and traffic engineering perspectives, and might result in no compromise in safety if the posted speed limit is reduced to 15 miles per hour, the city's findings identify no authority for simply deviating from the lowest "K" value that is specified in the city's standards, and reducing the speed on the street to maintain safety.5 (Emphasis added). If the City Engineer has retained discretion under the TCDC and any other related city regulations to simply deviate from the table and allow construction of a road with a lower "K" value and impose a speed limit to preserve safety, no party identifies such authority. The findings simply say the City Engineer has accepted the proposal. Neither the city's findings nor the response brief identify any place in the record that explains the City Engineer's reasoning in support of the lower "K" value or the city's engineer's authority to approve deviations from the adopted "K" values. Without that explanation, we must sustain this subassignment of error. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS SW 74th Avenue along the western border of the property is currently unimproved. The City required the applicant to make improvements to S.W. 74 as part of its approval (Conditions 10, 11, 13, 33, 45). 'TCDC 18.810.020(B) provides: "Standard specifications. The City Engineer shall establish [street and utility] standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles." 4The findings explain that to achieve a "K" value of 13.4 a great deal of fill would be required in the wetland and that fill would have to be placed on top of an existing water line. The city wished to avoid placing this amount of fill on the water line. Record 84. 5Taken to an extreme, if the speed limit were reduced to a crawl, we assume almost any "K" value could be accommodated. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION 'REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 13 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 The applicant has accepted these conditions. The applicant notes that due to the topography and the existence of a stream, the improvements to S.W. 74 will result in a fairly steep sag curve and a corresponding crest curve. There are standards that define how steep sag and crest curves can be at various speeds. The steepness of the curves is expressed as a "K" value. For example, at a speed of 25 miles per hour (mph), the typical standards require a vertical sag "K" value of no less than 13.4. In this case, the speed limit on S.W. 74th is 25 mph. To achieve a "K" value of 13.4, the applicant would have to place a significant amount of fill in S.W. 74 to make the sag curve shallower and the crest curve lower. During the hearing process, the applicant provided evidence that significant fill would cause negative impacts to the resources adjacent to S.W. 74th and might possibly damage an existing 36-inch diameter water main serving the City of Tualatin that is in the street right of way. Also, in order to be able to maintain this line, the amount of earth over the line must be minimized. By designing the curves to meet the "K" values required for a 25 mile per hour design speed would result in fills greater than 35 feet deep. This would impede normal and emergency maintenance and repairs as well as make a large failure have catastrophic results (i.e. loss of the road and loss of water service to the City of Tualatin). Also the fills would result in greater impacts to the creek with either larger footings for retaining walls or wider fill slope areas, which would remove a meander in the creek, more wetland area, and additional large trees from the sensitive area. The applicant's engineer considered using a bridge as opposed to fill. The applicant's engineer concluded that a bridge would result in an unmaintainable water line that could not be repaired or maintained under the bridge deck and the line would be much too expensive to construct and maintain. Relocating the waterline is not a viable option either since it would interrupt water service to the City of Tualatin. This would also increase the difficulty of maintaining the line as it would be in the waterway as well as have increased impacts to the sensitive resources. As the applicant had previously presented, allowing for a lower speed limit is the only reasonable solution to the waterline construction and maintenance issue. At 15 mph, Windwood could make the required improvements using only 21.63 ft. of fill. While that means that any repair will still require some excavation, it is 13.27 feet less than what is required if the sag curve is designed at 25 mph, and as a result, much more viable to maintain. Accordingly, the applicant proposed to lower the speed limit in the area of the sag curve to 15 mph. At that speed the sag curve "K" factor is no less than 5. The applicant could improve S.W.74th to meet that standard without significant fill. The City agreed with the applicant's proposal and, in the final findings, stated as follows: "The applicant also requested that the speed limit be reduced to 15 mph in the section where the S.W 74 Avenue crossing will occur. This speed limit was accepted by the City of Tigard Engineer. The City of Tigard standards are met by a 15 mph vertical curve design to a "K" value of greater than 5 (AASHTO)." The City Engineer has provided a memorandum expressly approving the modified design by granting an exception to the standard. This exception is mitigated by the requirement for additional advisory signage and street lighting, as further described in the memo. Section B (City of Tigard Standard Specifications) reads "The City Engineer shall establish standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles" The City's Public Improvement standards are based on AASHTO standards and the standards of Washington County. The preface to the City's design standards states: "The form has been kept brief and no attempt has been made to ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 14 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 cover all possible situations or to provide detailed explanations." In relation to sag curves and crest curves, the Washington County standards, as set forth in tables, include speeds of less than 25 mph and speeds as low as 15 mph. Because the City's published tables are not intended to be comprehensive and because they are based on Washington County standards, the applicant asserts, and the City agrees that the City Engineer has the authority to approve a design based on a 15 mph speed consistent with Washington County standards. The Washington County table confirms that the applicant's proposed design meets AASHTO standards since Washington County designs conform to AASHTO. In fact, the applicant's proposed design exceeds Washington County's standards. Washington County's standard for both sag and crest curves require a "K" value of at least 5.0 at 15 mph. The applicant's proposed design will result in a "K" value of 5.3. In order to clarify the authority to "set" speed limits, the applicant's engineer contacted the State of Oregon. The speed limit is set by the State as 25 miles per hour as the normal speed limit on all residential streets. Where specific sections of streets cannot meet this standard, cities have authorization to provide design exceptions that allow for sections of streets that they are in ownership of to be constructed, reconstructed, or repaired that don't meet the speed limit standards. The State administers design exceptions on its own highways as well. According to the State, design exceptions at the state level are mitigated by using advisory signs as well as other safety measures. Jurisdictions are, therefore, allowed to post special signs and take other measures to safely control traffic. The applicant proposes two options: Option 1: Advisory Signage A. Install "Bump" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. B. Install "DIP" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. (Place sign in advance of crest or sag to allow safe reaction and deceleration time.) Option 2: Three Way Stop Intersection A. Install a "3 -Way Stop" at the intersection of the new public road access to S.W. 74 Avenue. B. Install "DIP" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. (Place sign in advance of crest or sag to allow safe reaction and deceleration time.) Although Option 2 would result in a stop sign on S.W. 74 which is a through street, this would remove the need to sign the street for 15 miles per hour at the crest since the stop sign will slow traffic to an approach speed of 15 mph at the critical location. Although this would not meet warrants for a "need" by ASSHTO standards, this would be a very effective "legal" mitigation for the crest not meeting speed design standards. These measures would qualify as a mitigation for the sag and crest. The City Engineer has determined that neither option presented is desirable. Option 1 seemingly calls for the installation of a speed bump, which could exacerbate the present deficient "K" value, and there is insufficient documentation in the record to indicate the effects of such a proposal. Option 2 proposes to install stop signs on a designated through route (SW 74th Avenue), without sufficient warrants to require the stop signs. The City Engineer has determined that placement of 15 mph" advisory signage in advance of the crest and sag in each direction are appropriate mitigation ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 15 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 measures and are sufficient to address the deficient "K" value. The City Engineer has determined that the sag should be monitored to verify whether the signage is sufficient to slow traffic. If not effective, the applicant will be required to install additional traffic control measures at the direction of the City Engineer within a year following completion of the street construction. A condition to this effect will be imposed: Recommended Condition of Approval (#52): Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that show advisor~r "15 mph" speed limit signs to be placed in advance of the crest and sag curves on SW 74t in accordance with the City Engineer's Memorandum of January 25, 2005, which requires that the sag be monitored after construction to determine if any other measures need to be taken. The applicant shall be responsible for installation of additional measures within a year after construction of the street is accepted by the City if monitoring indicates that additional traffic control measures are needed. 2. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5(I) LUBA disagreed with the City's interpretation of the Development Code that would exempt properties with timber deferral status from filing a tree plan consisting of an inventory, removal plan, protection plan, and mitigation program. The text of their discussion follows: 1. Completeness and Adequacy of the Applicant's Tree Plan One section of the TCDC is entitled "Tree Removal." TCDC 18.790. We recently discussed this section of the TCDC at some length in Miller v. City of Tigard, 46 Or LUBA 536, 539-43 (2004). There are several sections of TCDC 18.790 that are relevant under this assignment of error. 1. Tree Removal Permits TCDC.790.050 identifies circumstances where a permit is required from the city to remove a tree and identifies circumstances where a permit is not required to remove a tree.6 Under TCDC 18.790.050(A), a city permit is required to remove any trees growing on sensitive lands. But under TCDC 18.790.050(A), no permit would be required from the city to remove the trees from the part of the subject property that falls outside the sensitive land area along the southern part of the property. TCDC 18.790.050(D)(4) appears to have been intended as a further qualification of the TCDC 18.790.050(A) requirement for a permit to remove trees on sensitive lands. But if TCDC 18.790.050(D) was intended to qualify TCDC 18.790.050(A), the final clause of TCDC 18.790.050(D)(4) renders the exemption inapplicable in the only circumstance it could apply, i.e., where land in Christmas tree or forest tax deferral is on sensitive lands. The TCDC 18.790.050(D)(4) exemption is unnecessary for trees that are not located on sensitive lands, because TCDC 18.790.050(A) does not require a permit to remove such trees in the first place. In summary, as far as we can tell, the applicant could remove all of the trees from the portion of the property that the applicant proposes to develop, without violating TCDC 18.790.050(A). That is because those 6As relevant, TCDC 790.050 provides: "A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. "D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1.***** "4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or [stands on] land registered with the Washington CountyAssessor's office as tax- deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands." ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 16 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 trees are not located on sensitive lands, and TCDC 18.790.050(A) does not require a permit to remove trees unless those trees are located on sensitive lands. 2. The Tree Plan Requirement TCDC 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan be provided when property is developed. The precise nature of the obligation to protect trees through a tree plan is somewhat ambiguous. TCDC 18.790.030(A) states "[p]rotection is preferred over removal wherever possible." [See footnote 7]. But TCDC 18.790.010(C) expressly recognizes that trees may need to be removed to develop property,8 and TCDC 18.790.030(B)(2) anticipates that more than 75% of the trees on a site may be removed to accommodate development, subject to mitigation requirements. [See footnote 7]. In addition to the somewhat ambiguous preference for preserving trees, the city also relies on a series of incentives for tree preservation, which are set out in TCDC 18.790.040. 3. Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner challenges the adequacy of the applicant's tree protection plan. The focus of petitioner's challenge is on the part of the subject property that is to be developed, where most of the trees will be removed. It is not clear to what degree petitioner's arguments challenge the adequacy part of the plan that applies to the sensitive lands, where almost all of the trees are to be preserved. But petitioner's argument includes an overriding complaint that the applicant's tree protection plan evolved significantly over the course of the local proceedings and that it is difficult or impossible to determine with any degree of certainty precisely what the tree protection plan is. The city and intervenor do not really respond to petitioner's arguments that the tree protection plan that the applicant submitted and the city ultimately approved is inadequate to comply with a number of particular requirements of TCDC 18.390.030. (emphasis added) Instead they rely on city council findings that no tree protection plan is required at all for the part of the property that lies outside the sensitive lands part of the property and that the plan to protect nearly all the trees on the sensitive lands is sufficient to comply with TCDC 18.390.030. We turn to those findings. TCDC 18.790.030 provides: "A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. "13. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 111. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; "2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: "a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; "b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.0601); "c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; "d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. "3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; "4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. * * 'TCDC 18.790.010(C) provides: "Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, * * * 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." ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 17 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 4. The City's Findings Simply stated the city council found that a tree protection plan is not required for the part of the subject property where the applicant proposes to develop houses, notwithstanding the express requirement in TCDC 18.390.030 that a tree plan must be provided "for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision * * * [or] planned development * * * is filed." The city council reached this conclusion based in large part on the TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) exemption for tree removal permits discussed above. The city council recognized that if TCDC 18.390.050 is read by itself, the TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) exception serves no purpose, for the reasons we have already explained. To give TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) some effect, the city council concluded it should be read to exempt proposals to develop lands that are not sensitive lands from the TCDC 18.390.030 requirements for a tree plan and for mitigation in certain circumstances. The fatal problem with that interpretation is that TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) does not say anything about tree plans or mitigation; it is an unnecessary exception to the TCDC 18.390.050(A) requirement for a tree permit. We review a local governing body's interpretation of its land use regulations under the standard set out at ORS 197.829(1) and the Court of Appeals' decision in Church v. Grant County.9 Even if interpreting TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) in the way the city did here might have survived the more deferential standard of review that was required before Church, it cannot be affirmed under Church. Contrary to the city's argument, the city's interpretation does not merely clarify "the scope of the exemption" provided by TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4), it applies it to a tree plan requirement that it clearly does not apply to. The city council's interpretation is inconsistent with the express language of TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4). The city council's policy reason for the interpretation it applied here presents only a slightly closer question. The city council concluded that no permit is necessary from the city to harvest trees outside sensitive lands. If the city is right about that, the applicant in this case could remove all of the trees in the area proposed for development and then submit the application, thereby avoiding any requirement to produce a tree plan for that area of the property. If that is true, there may be a loophole in the city's tree removal ordinance that in some circumstances may effectively eviscerate the TCDC 18.390.030 requirement for a tree plan and mitigation. Even if the applicant could take advantage of that loophole, as far as we know it has not done so, and the trees remain on the area of the property to be developed. It is also important to note that the possibility that the applicant in this case could utilize the loophole to remove the trees before submitting an application does not render the requirement for a tree plan nonsensical. If the portions of a proposed development site that are not sensitive lands are not completely logged before development even though they could be logged, as will frequently be the case for a variety of reasons, there is nothing nonsensical about requiring a tree plan to protect those trees on lands to be developed, during and after the construction phase, and requiring mitigation for the trees that will be removed. It may be that the tree plan that the applicant has proposed comes far closer to a tree plan for the entire property that complies with TCDC 18.390.030 than petitioner argues. However, without some assistance from the city and intervenor, we cannot conclude that the approved tree plan is consistent with TCDC 18.390.030. We reject the city's attempt to interpret TCDC 18.390.030 with TCDC 18.390.050(D)(4) to conclude that no tree plan is required for the part of the site that does not qualify as sensitive lands. (Emphasis added) This subassignment of error is sustained. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS FORS 197.829(1) provides: "[LUBA] shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government's interpretation: "(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or "(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements." ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 18 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 In its decision, City Council interpreted its code to require a tree plan only in situations where the applicant was required to obtain a tree cutting permit to remove trees. The City reasoned that because the applicant in this case was not required to obtain a tree cutting permit for the majority of its site as it was in timber deferral, a tree plan for the entire site was not required. A tree plan was submitted for the balance of the site where sensitive lands were present. LUBA rejected the City's interpretation. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted a tree plan encompassing the entire site and which includes all of the information required in TCDC 18.790.030. The City Forester has reviewed the plan and has agreed that it is acceptable, as noted in his Memorandum of January 24, 2005. The proposed attached tree plan and arborist's report establishes the trees to be saved and those to be cut. As reflected in that plan, there are 893 total trees on site that are larger than 12" diameter. Of those, 115 are deemed hazardous and are not subject to the mitigation requirement. From the remaining 778 net viable trees, 321 are proposed for removal. This constitutes a 59% retention. Since the total number of trees that will be retained is greater than 50%; one-half of the caliper inches being removed is required to be mitigated. A total of 6892 caliper inches are to be removed, so 3,446 caliper inches will be required to be replanted. This may be accomplished by either planting trees on-site, off-site or payment of a fee in lieu. To assure that mitigation is accomplished and that subsequent tree removals are undertaken in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, staff recommends that the following conditions be imposed: Recommended Conditions of Approval (#53 and #54): Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a bond for the equivalent value of mitigation required (3,446 number of caliper inches times $125 per caliper inch). If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the bond may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the bond, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the bond as a fee in lieu of planting. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5(J) LUBA found that the City erred in its decision to grant adjustments to the street improvement standards (number of units on a cul de sac, length of a cul de sac, and curb tight sidewalks on SW 74th) by not providing sufficient findings to respond to the adjustment criteria. The text of their discussion follows: J. Special Adjustments The challenged decision grants an adjustment to street improvement sidewalk construction standards to allow a curb-tight sidewalk where SW 74`h Avenue crosses the drainageway. The challenged decision also grants two adjustments to allow construction of the pro osed cul-de-sac. Those adjustments allow the cul-de- sac to exceed 200 feet in length and to serve 23 houses.' 10Under the TCDC, cul-de-sac streets may provide access to no more than 20 houses. The adjustment allows the cul-de-sac to serve 23 houses. Apparently the first 200 feet of the cul-de-sac will provide access to lots 1 and 2 and lots 20-23. The adjustment to the ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 19 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 The city council's decision does not apply the special adjustment criteria set out at TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11), even though the adjustments all appear to be directed at street improvement requirements. ~ ~ Instead, the city council applied the special adjustment criteria at TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1).' No party questions that choice by the city, and we therefore do not question it either. The city's findings addressing the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(a) requirement that there be special circumstances are set out below: * * The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the 5-foot planter strip along 74`" Avenue to reduce 1,100 additional square feet of impact to the drainageway and wetland area. The applicant proposes this curb tight sidewalk for the special circumstance where the development is required to cross the stream. Outside the resource area, the sidewalk will meet the required public street standards. "Due to the presence of the sensitive lands, the development width of the property makes a looped street unfeasible. Also, because of existing development patterns adjacent to the site, the cul-de-sac could not be extended to the site's east property line. The applicant was able to extend a new public street to the north property line for future connectivity. The length of the cul-de-sac is the primary reason to exceed the 20 home maximum standard on this private street. Because of the special circumstances affecting this property, this criterion has been satisfied." Record 30a. The city council's findings explaining why the adjustments are necessary for proper design and functioning of the subdivision under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(b) are as follows: 200-foot length limitation is necessary to provide access to lots 3 through 19. Otherwise a loop road would be required and it would appear that such a loop road would almost certainly have to encroach on the wetland and drainage area that is protected under the proposed plan. "TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11) provides: "Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." "TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1) provides: "Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: "a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; "b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; "c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and "d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title." The adjustment criteria at TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1) in some respects resemble traditional variance criteria, which are exceedingly difficult to satisfy. Lovell v. Independence Planning Comm., 37 Or App 3, 586 P2d 99 (1978); Wentland v. City of Portland, 22 Or LUBA 15, 24-26 (1991); Patzkowski v. Klamath County, 8 Or LUBA 64, 70 (1983). However as the Court of Appeals made clear in deBardelaben v. Tillamook County, 142 Or App 319, 325-26, 922 P2d 683 (1996), LUBA is to extend appropriate deference to the city's interpretations of its own adjustment criteria. Under Church v. Grant County, the city is not entitled to the highly deferential standard of review that was required at the time deBardelaben was decided, but it still is entitled to appropriate deference under ORS 197.829(1)-and Church. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 20 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 "The adjustment request for the curb tight sidewalk is necessary to reduce impacts to the drainageway and wetlands. The adjustment for the cul-de-sac length is necessary to provide access to Lots 3-19 and to allow a turn around for emergency equipment and garbage trucks. The adjustment to allow more than 20 units to access the cul-de-sac is a result of both the length of the resulting cul-de-sac, and the desire to eliminate the need for a second redundant access serving three lots. Providing this second access would have reduced the amount of area available for buildings, with the result of eliminating the lots being served by it. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied." Record 30a-31. The city council's finding regarding the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(c) public health safety and welfare criterion is as follows: "The Fire District has reviewed the proposed street design and has provided no objections to these adjustments. There is no evidence that these adjustments will be detrimental to the health safety or welfare to other property owners surrounding the site." Record 31. Finally, the city council's finding regarding the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) extraordinary hardship standard is as follows: "Due to existing development patterns, the natural resources, and the shape of the site, the adjustment is necessary for the applicant to make use of substantial property rights. The applicant is proposing to build within the density prescribed for this site. The criteria for granting these adjustments to the street design, cul-de-sac length, and sidewalk standards have been satisfied." Id. Petitioner assigns error to the city's findings concerning the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(c) public health safety and welfare criterion and the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) extraordinary hardship standard. We have set out the other city findings, on the first two criteria, because they have some bearing on the last two criteria. Petitioner first contends that, contrary to the city's finding that there is no evidence that these adjustments will be "detrimental to the health safety or welfare to other property owners surrounding the site," there is a great deal of evidence to that effect. The city appears to be correct that some of the evidence cited by petitioner relates more to the development itself rather than the three adjustments that are at issue under this subassignment of error. However, some of the evidence cited by petitioner clearly does address this criterion, and the city's finding that there is no such evidence is in error. (Emphasis added) This part of subassignment of error 5(J) is sustained. Petitioner also argues the city's finding that the adjustments are needed to preserve a substantial property right due to extraordinary hardship that would result from strict compliance with the adjusted standards are inadequate and are not supported by the evidentiary record. Reading the city's findings concerning TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(a) and (d) together, we reject petitioners challenge to the findings regarding the cul-de-sac adjustments under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d). It is reasonably clear from those findings that if the applicant were forced to provide access to the proposed lots without the adjustments, much more of the property would have to be developed with roads, at a significant additional expense and with the potential loss of lots that would otherwise be approvable. It is reasonably clear that the city considers those impacts to constitute a hardship. We cannot say the city misinterpreted TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) or that its findings are inadequate to demonstrate that the cul-de-sac adjustments comply with that criterion. The city's findings concerning TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) and the curb tight sidewalk are a different story. Although it appears that granting the adjustment would serve the desirable purpose of minimizing fill in ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 21 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 the wetland and drainage area, the city does not explain why it would be a hardship on the applicant to construct a conforming sidewalk. 13 To summarize, the city's findings concerning TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(c) are inadequate for all three adjustments. The city's findings concerning TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(a) and (d) are sufficient to demonstrate that the cul-de-sac adjustments comply with TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d). The city's findings concerning TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) are inadequate to demonstrate that the curb tight sidewalk adjustment satisfied that criterion. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The City Council addressed the applicant's requested adjustment request under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1), which is a general adjustment standard and not under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11), which is specific to street improvements. The applicant has acknowledged that in its application material it too addressed the requested adjustments under the general standard as opposed to the specific standard. In its decision, LUBA concluded that the City's findings related to the health safety and welfare impacts of the three adjustments were insufficient. LUBA also concluded that the extraordinary hardship criterion to allow the curb tight sidewalk had not been sufficiently addressed. Staff asserts that the adjustment for the curb tight sidewalk was not necessary based on the strict criteria in Chapter 18.810, and provides findings for such a conclusion below. Nevertheless, the applicant has provided additional findings related to both the general adjustment standard as well as the specific street adjustment criteria. Staff agrees that the specific criteria related to street improvements are more appropriate to this decision than the more general criteria. Staff therefore believes that the specific criteria of TCDC 18.810.070(C), and 18.370.020(C)(11) apply rather than the general criteria of TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1). In the event that the Council or a reviewing entity take the position that the general criteria apply, findings relating to those criteria are also provided. Planter Strip Requirement 18.810.070 (C) A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less)Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. There is adequate right of way to accommodate the required planter strip, and sidewalks do not yet exist on predominant portions of the street. There are some potential conflicts with utilities, but not on the side where the planter strip is required. There are also no existing structures that would be in such close proximity to the new sidewalk. However, additional large trees and water features would be destroyed if the sidewalk were required to be moved five feet further east into the sensitive lands resource. Staff interprets the term "destroyed" to mean that additional trees would be removed, and additional area within the sensitive resource area would be disturbed by grading activity, vegetation removal and possible stream bank rechanneling. Although it is acknowledged that in some instances, these areas can be restored by the planting of new trees, or through revegetation and redirection of 13 We note that there is no extraordinary hardship criterion like TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d) in the special adjustment criteria for street improvement standards at TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11). See n 48. However, as previously noted, the city applied the special adjustment criteria at TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1) rather than the TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11) criteria. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 22 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 the stream channel, it is the general preference and the expressed intent of this exemption to avoid the impact in the first place. Specific Adjustment Criteria 18.370.020(C)(11) "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." Findings for Length of Cul de Sac (TCDC 18.810.030(L)) Strict application of the 200 foot limitation on cul de sac length would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the proposed development and natural features for the following reasons. Preexisting development surrounds a majority of the site to the north and east. Ash Creek cuts across the property from the southeast to the northwest. The only undeveloped area borders the 968 foot deep site for the first 490 feet. The last 478 feet could either be served by a long cul de sac, or a loop street. A loop street could not return to SW 74th without a high degree of encroachment into the stream and wetland resource. This near doubling of pavement would serve no additional units, and would likely result in the loss of the two lots on the south side of the stream. The other possible option would be to propose a street that would extend through the developed properties and ultimately connect with an adjacent public street. This would have adverse impacts upon existing development however. As described previously, there are no impacts to the public health safety or welfare from granting such an adjustment, so it follows that the impacts raised here exceed any benefit to the public from a strict adherence to this standard. Findings for Number of Units served By a Cul de Sac Strict application of the 20 unit maximum limitation on a cul de sac would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the proposed development and natural features for the following reasons. Similar to the findings for the length of the cul de sac, it follows that with a cul de sac of this length, the number of units served by it will exceed the maximum allowed. In this case, there are three additional units on the private cul de sac. By strictly complying with this standard, the applicant would either have to lose three lots, an adverse impact on the proposed development, or reconfigure the through public street to accommodate the three additional units. Staff examined the future streets plan to asses what impact would result if the public street in Ash Creek Estates were extended to encompass the three additional lots presently on the cul de sac. Staff found that if the street were extended to encompass the three additional units, the extension of the public street north would either not align with SW Shady Place (thus requiring an adjustment to street spacing) or would not meet geometric curve requirements to make the alignment (thus requiring an adjustment to street improvement standards), or would need to terminate in a second cul de sac (thus requiring further adjustments to cul de sac length and number of units served). As noted previously, staff found that safety will not be impacted by the three additional units as the cul de sac street and intersection is in all other manners conforming with design requirements and capable of handling the additional vehicle trips. Also, TVF&R has determined that length does not affect safety with respect to the number of lots to be served by a cul-de-sac. The public welfare is moreover unaffected by the three additional houses on this cul de sac since the standard is intended to limit the use of lengthy culs-de sac and promote connectivity and transportation options. In this case, there are no available points to connect to, apart from what is already proposed by the future street plan. The existing development pattern and presence of resources prevent the development from complying with the block length standards. Accordingly, there are only two options to access the eastern lots in the proposed subdivision: one is a cul-de-sac and one is a looped street within the subdivision. A looped street would have to be constructed in environmentally sensitive land and would require significant excavation and/or fill. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 23 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 With the proposed cul de sac, preservation of the stream bed and stormwater conveyance system will be achieved. This will serve to benefit the general welfare of the public at large. Therefore, staff finds that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. Findings for Curb Tight Sidewalk TCDC 18 810 030(L) Strict application of the 5 foot wide planter strip requirement would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the proposed development and natural features for the following reasons. If a 5-foot planter strip was required, then an approximate 1,100 additional square feet of impact to the drainageway and wetland areas would occur. While this would not have an adverse impact on existing development, it would have some impact to the proposed development in terms of additional landform disturbance and cost. This would also certainly have an additional adverse impact to existing natural features including the stream, wetlands, and likely additional trees. The public benefit of a planter strip is the additional aesthetic amenity of breaking the hardscape mass. The presence of the large open stream channel behind the road and sidewalk will serve a similar purpose. Therefore, staff finds that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. General Adjustment Criteria 18.370.020(C)(1) "c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property" Findings for Length of Cul de Sac (TCDC 18.810.030(L)) Granting the requested adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the public. Nor will it be injurious to the rights of other property owners. The length of a cul-de-sac is a planning issue related to an attempt to geometrically control block sizes from becoming too long. This standard allows continuity of blocks without having long dead-end streets affecting block sizes. The applicant's engineer has evaluated this issue as part of a team whose responsibility it is to evaluate the methods set by Metro to control block geometry to increase connectivity. By limiting the length of cul de sacs, developers are encouraged to provide more through streets, thereby enhancing connectivity. This enhanced welfare is balanced by increased through traffic which may disturb residents. From a safety standpoint, culs-de-sac are vulnerable from the standpoint of only having one available ingress/egress. In certain situations, this access could become blocked preventing residents access to or from their homes. This is also balanced from a public safety perspective by the fact that culs-de-sac are more defensible spaces from burglary, and are generally less prone to break-ins and vandalism. The length of a cul de sac has no bearing on public health. Additionally, neither the Tigard Police nor TVF&R raised any safety concerns over the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. Extending the length of the cul-de-sac reduces the number of intersections and the safety risks associated with intersections. Opponents testified generally that the adjustments allowing a longer cul-de-sac that would serve more than 20 residences would increase the amount of traffic and nearby streets and then concluded with no further evidence that an increase in traffic will automatically result in decreased safety. The City finds that the amount of traffic is a function of the number of proposed units, not the arrangement of streets. It may be the case that more traffic will use the single point of access, than if there were two entries into the street, but the net difference from a conforming cul de sac is approximately 30 trips per day (see the following findings related to 3 extra units on the cul de sac). This limited number of additional vehicles that will result from the adjustments as opposed to the development itself will not automatically result in decreased safety as the streets within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision are capable of handling the full amount of traffic from this development. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 24 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 Moreover, when the property to the north is developed, a new street will connect to the proposed subdivision and serve to offset the traffic impact at SW 74th and the Ash Creek Estates public street intersection. Findings for Number of Units served By a Cul de Sac In examining the detrimental impacts to the public health, safety, and welfare, it is important to consider that a conforming cul de sac is limited to 20 units. The subject application represents an increase of 3 units. Many of the findings presented previously with regard to the length of the cul de sac are still relevant to these findings. However this request will result in a net increase of approximately 30 vehicle trips per day moving through the intersection of the public street and private cul de sac. There has been no evidence to suggest that the public health will be impacted by this additional traffic, as the total number of units is still within the permitted range of density on the site. In evaluating injury to the rights of other owners of property, the only adjacent property that may be affected by the proposed addition of 3 lots on the cul de sac is tax lot 200 (immediately north of the subject site). Staff examined the future streets plan to asses what impact would result if the public street in Ash Creek Estates were extended to encompass the three additional lots presently on the cul de sac. Staff found that if the street were extended to encompass the three additional units, the extension of the public street north would either not align with SW Shady Place (thus requiring an adjustment to street spacing) or would not meet geometric curve requirements to make the alignment (thus requiring an adjustment to street improvement standards), or would need to terminate in a second cul de sac (thus requiring adjustments to cul de sac length and number of units served). With the requested adjustment, the property rights of the adjacent owner are preserved. Staff found that safety will not be impacted by the three additional units as the cul de sac street and intersection is in all other manners conforming with design requirements and capable of handling the additional vehicle trips. Also, TVF&R has determined that length does not affect safety with respect to the number of lots to be served by a cul-de-sac. TVF&R makes the determination of whether the number of lots poses a safety concern. According to Eric McMullin, TVF&R requires two (2) accesses for safety when more than 25 residential houses are on a street. Here, that standard is met because only 23 houses will be served. The public welfare is moreover unaffected by the three additional houses on this cul de sac since the standard is intended to limit the use of lengthy culs-de sac and promote connectivity and transportation options. In this case, there are no available points to connect to, apart from what is already proposed by the future street plan. The existing development pattern and presence of resources prevent the development from complying with the block length standards. However, where the block length standards incorporated an exemption for these types of constraints, the cul de sac standards did not. Moreover, due to these prior development patterns, there is no way to connect the private street serving the lots to adjacent streets. Accordingly, there are only two options to access the lots in the proposed subdivision: one is a cul-de-sac and one is a looped street within the subdivision. A looped street would have to be constructed in environmentally sensitive land and would require significant excavation and/or fill. With the proposed cul de sac, preservation of the stream bed and stormwater conveyance system will be achieved. This will serve to benefit the general welfare of the public at large. Therefore, staff finds no basis to determine any detriment will occur to the public health, safety, or welfare nor does staff find that there is any injury to neighbors as a result of allowing the three additional units on this cul de sac. No additional conditions are warranted in this case. Findings for Curb Tight Sidewalk TCDC 18 810 030(L) Curb tight sidewalks in the area proposed will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other property owners. (The curb tight sidewalk can be considered safe because the area behind the sidewalk has a flat spot which allows pedestrians to keep to the outside while walking.) Curb tight sidewalks are used often and are an alternate location in many ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 25 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 similar public streets throughout the city. This is not a safety concern. Instead, this detail is used where only a few curb cuts are proposed. Planting strips provide for street furniture and places to put mailboxes, power poles, streetlights, telephone pedestals, and power pedestals. This area does not have many of these features. In addition, as discussed above, the traffic in the area of the proposed adjustment will be traveling relatively slowly due to the topography of the road. With a normal sized sidewalk, there will not be pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The curb-tight sidewalks result in less impact to the stream, and a healthy environment contributes to public health. "c. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. Findings for.Curb Tight Sidewalk TCDC 18 810 030(L) Without granting the adjustment, the applicant would be required to amend the Division of State Lands and Army Corps joint wetland permit. One aspect these agencies seek in wetland fill/encroachment permits is minimization of disturbance to the resource. It is conjecture to speculate that the applicant would not be able to obtain such an amendment to their permit; however, it is important to consider the possibility. Without the DSL/Army Corps approval, the project would not be allowed to proceed, depriving the applicant of the ability to develop the property at the allowed density. The other hardship that would be encountered is the additional cost associated with either additional fill, or larger retaining walls. Since the value of the exaction for the roadway stream crossing is already disproportionate, additional costs placed on this crossing result in an exceeding hardship on the applicant. The applicant would therefore be denied the rights to develop his property within the normal limits of takings law. As the findings for granting the adjustments have been met, no additional conditions of approval are warranted. 4. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5(K) Lastly, LUBA found that since there had been no tree plan filed to establish the methods and extent of tree protection requirements, it was premature to determine whether sufficient protection had been afforded to plant materials. The text of their discussion follows: K. Landscaping One of the specific planned development criteria is TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(g)(1).14 Petitioner contends that the city erred in counting the 44 percent of the site that will be included in the open space and drainage tract on the site, which will be left in its current undeveloped state, in applying the TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(g)(1) landscaping requirement. Petitioner contends that TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(g)(1) requires more proactive landscaping efforts on the part of the applicant. The city's interpretation of TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(g)(1) to allow the open space area that is to be left in its natural state to be counted toward the TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(g)(1) 20% landscaping requirement is implicit. Record 29. The city contends that it is a sustainable interpretation under ORS 197.829(1) and Church. We agree with the city. 14TCDC 18.350. 1 00(13)(3)(g)(1) imposes the following requirement: Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped[.]" ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 26 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 Petitioner also cites TCDC 18.745.030(E) and TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(a)(5) and argues that the applicant's landscape plan fails to protect existing vegetation "as much as possible" or replace trees.15 The city does not respond to petitioner's contention concerning preservation of vegetation during construction under TCDC 18.745.030(E). Accordingly, we sustain that part of subassignment of error 5(K). (Emphasis added). Petitioner's contention regarding TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(a)(5) is not clear. We have already sustained petitioner's subassignment of error 5(I). Until that deficiency is considered by the city on remand, it is premature to consider whether there is any obligation to replace any trees in the area to be developed, beyond the replacement trees that are already proposed. This subassignment of error is sustained in part. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS LUBA had found that since the applicant had not prepared a tree plan, there was inadequate evidence to evaluate the petitioner's claim that vegetation was not being protected. The applicant has submitted the required tree plan, including a protection program. Apart from the areas that will be disturbed to construct the infrastructure (sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, etc.) and the lots that will be graded for soil stability and proper drainage, the remainder of the site will be required to be protected from disturbance. The applicant will be required to erect protection fencing around each tree or group of trees to be retained. To ensure that the remaining vegetation is protected as much as possible, the following conditions should be required. Recommended Conditions of Approval (#55, 56, 57, 58): Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The "Tree Protection Steps" identified in Teragan & Associates Letter of November 19, 2004 shall be reiterated in the construction documents. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities "TCDC 18.745.030(E) provides: "Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible. 111. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and "2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). TCDC 18.350.100(B)(3)(a)(5) provides: "Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal." ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 27 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/8/2005 and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City shall stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. SECTION VII. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the City asserts that the applicant has adequately responded to the errors identified by LUBA, and has supplemented the record with additional information and evidence with which to evaluate the findings. Staff concurs with the applicant on these findings, and has recommended several additional conditions of approval to ensure that these standards and practices are implemented as part of this final decision. Staff therefore recommends approval of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, case file SUB2003-00010/ ZON2003-00003/ PDR2003-00004/ SLR2003-00005/ VAR2003-00036/ VAR2003- 00037. ,,~IL ( January 25, 2005 PREPAR BY: Mor n Tracy DATE Associate Planner January 25, 2005 APPROVED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION "REMAND" STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 28 OF 28 CITY COUNCIL HEARING 2/812005 4,ti"e,"f 2 LAWYERS al Davis Wright Tremaine L'LP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. CHRISTOPHER P. KOBACK SUITE 2300 TEL (503) 241-2300 Direct (503) 778-5382 1300 SW FIFTH AVENUE FAX (503) 778-5299 chriskoback@dwt.com PORTLAND, OR 97201-5682 www.dwt.com November 15, 2004 Morgan Tracey City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 2129 Ash Creek Estates PUD Justification For Items Identified in LUBA Remand Dear Mr. Tracey: In a decision dated August 20, 2004, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), remanded the City's decision approving Windwood Construction's application for a planned unit development named Ash Creek Estates. LUBA's decision specified three instances where it found the City's findings insufficient. In this letter, Windwood Construction is providing the City with additional information and evidence related to those findings. FINDINGS RELATED TO VERTICAL SAG CURVE (TCDC 18.810.020(B)) S.W. 74th Avenue along the western border of the property is currently unimproved. The City is requiring that Windwood make certain improvements to S.W. 74th as part of its approval. Windwood does not object to the City's requirement. However, due to the topography and the existence of a stream, the improvements to S.W. 74th will result in a fairly steep sag curve and a corresponding crest curve. There are standards that define how steep sag and crest curves can be at various speeds. The steepness of the curves is expressed as a "K" value. For example, at a speed of 25 mph, the typical standards require a vertical sag "K" value of 13.4. In this case, the speed limit on S.W. 74th is 25mph. To achieve a "K" value of 13.4, Windwood would have to place a significant amount of fill in S.W. 74th to make the sag curve more shallow and the crest curve lower. During the hearing process, Windwood provided evidence that significant fill would cause negative impacts to the resources adjacent to S.W. 74 h and would create the possibility of damaging a water main under the street. Specifically, prior to Windwood's application, the City of Tualatin constructed a 36" supply line under the creek within the S.W. Morgan Tracey City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 2 74`h Avenue right-of-way. In order for this line to be maintainable, the amount of earth over the line must be minimized. A 25 mile per hour design would create fills greater than 35 feet deep. This would make failures of the line extremely difficult to reach and repair, and also make a large failure have catastrophic results. Also the fills would result in impacts to the creek, which would include removing a meander in the creek that would result in too much impact to the environment and the removal of more large trees in the sensitive area. Windwood's consultants considered using a bridge as opposed to fill. The consultants' conclusion was that a bridge would result in an unmaintainable water line that could not be repaired or maintained under the bridge deck and would be much too expensive to construct and maintain. Relocating the waterline is not a viable option either since it would create too much interruption in service to the City of Tualatin and would increase the difficulty of maintaining the line by placing it in the waterway As Windwood previously presented, allowing for a lower speed limit is the only reasonable solution to the waterline construction and maintenance issue. At 15 mph, Windwood could make the required improvements using only 21.63 ft. of fill. While that means that any repair will still require some excavation, it is much less than what is required if the sag curve is designed at 25 mph. Accordingly, Windwood proposed to lower the speed limit in the area of the sag curve to 15 mph. At that speed the sag curve "K" factor is 5. Windwood could improve S.W.74th to meet that standard without significant fill. The City agreed with Windwood's proposal and, in the final findings, stated as follows: The applicant also requested that the speed limit be reduced to 15 mph in the section where the S.W. 74th Avenue crossing will occur. This speed limit was accepted by the City of Tigard Engineer. The city of Tigard standards are met by a 15 mph vertical curve design to a "K" value of greater than 5 (ASSHTO). LUBA declared the City's finding to be lacking, concluding: "The findings simply say the City engineer has accepted the proposal. Neither the city's findings nor the response brief identify any place in the record that explains the city engineer's reasoning in support of the lower "K" value or the city engineer's authority to approve deviations from the adopted "K" values. Without explanation, we must sustain this subassignment of error." PDX 1191299vl 44727-22 Morgan Tracey m City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 3 Windwood believes that there is an adequate explanation for the city engineer's authority and ample reasons for exercising that authority to deviate from the basic standards in the City's code. Section B (City of Tigard Standard Specifications) reads: "The City Engineer shall establish standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles." The City's Public Improvement standards are based on ASSHTO standards and standards of Washington County. The preface to the City's design standards states: "The form has been kept brief and no attempt has been made to cover all possible situations or to provide detailed explanations." In relation to sag curves and crest curves, the Washington County standards, as set forth in tables, include speeds of less than 25 mph and speeds as low as 15 mph. Because the City's published tables are not intended to be comprehensive and because they are based on Washington County standards, Windwood believes that the city engineer has the authority to approve a design based on a 15 mph speed consistent with Washington County standards. The Washington County table confirms that Windwood's proposed design meets ASSHTO standards since Washington County designs to ASSHTO. In fact, Windwood's proposed design exceeds Washington County's standards: Washington County's standard for both sag and crest curves require a "K" value of 5.0 at 15 mph, but is based upon the absence of street lights. Windwood's proposed design will result in a "K" value of 5.3 and also incorporates street lights. In order to clarify the authority to "set" speed limits, Windwood's consultants contacted the State of Oregon. The speed limit is set by the State as 25 miles per hour as the normal speed limit on all residential streets. Where specific sections of streets cannot meet this standard, cities have authorization to provide design exceptions that allow for sections of streets that they are in ownership of to be constructed, reconstructed, or repaired that don't meet the speed limit standards. The State administers design exceptions on its own highways as well. According to the State, design exceptions at the state level are mitigated by using advisory signs as well as other safety measures. Jurisdictions are, therefore, allowed to post special signs and take other measures to safely control traffic. Below are options that Windwood proposes: Option 1: A. Install "Bump" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. B. Install "DIP" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. (Place sign in advance of crest or sag to allow safe reaction and deceleration time.) PDX 1191299v1 44727-22 Morgan Tracey m City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 4 Option 2: Three Way Stop Intersection A. Install a "3-Way Stop" at the intersection of the new public road access to S. W. 74th Avenue. B. Install "DIP" sign with 15 mph advisory sign below it. (Place sign in advance of crest or sag to allow safe reaction and deceleration time.) Although Option 2 would result in a stop sign on S.W. 74th, which is a through street, this would remove the need to sign the street for 15 miles per hour at the crest since the stop sign will slow traffic to an approach speed of 15 mph at the critical location. Although this would not meet warrants for a "need" by ASSHTO standards, this would be a very effective "legal" mitigation for the crest not meeting speed design standards. These measures would qualify as a mitigation for the sag and crest. FINDINGS RELATED TO TREE PLAN (TCDC 18.390.030) In its decision, City Council interpreted its code to require a tree plan only in situations where the applicant was required to obtain a tree cutting permit to remove trees. The City reasoned that because Windwood did not require a tree cutting permit for the majority of its site, a tree plan for the entire site was not required. Windwood did submit a tree plan related to its removal of trees in the environmentally sensitive area of the site because a permit was required to remove trees. LUBA rejected the City's interpretation. Accordingly, Windwood understands that it is now required to submit a tree plan encompassing the entire site and which includes all of the information required in TCDC 18.390.030. The proposed attached tree plan and arborist's report establishes the trees to be saved and those to be cut. As reflected in that plan, the total number of trees that will be retained is greater than 50%; thus, 50% mitigation is required. This will be accomplished by planting trees on-site or off-site. An in-lieu-of fee will be paid for any trees not planted by site development permit issuance and shall be bonded for until they are planted or the fee paid. Additional trees may be saved during the construction of houses. If trees are saved within the bond period, we would request that the in-lieu-of fee be reduced. A separate permit will be submitted for tree cutting within the sensitive area pursuant to TCDC 18.790.050. PDX 1191299v 144727-22 Morgan Tracey City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 5 FINDINGS RELATED TO ADJUSTMENTS Windwood requested three special adjustments to street improvement and sidewalk construction standards. One adjustment allowed curb tight sidewalks on a small segment of S.W. 74`x' Avenue. Two of the adjustments allowed a cul-de-sac to exceed 200 feet in length and to serve 23 houses. The City Council addressed Windwood's requested adjustment request under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1), which is a general adjustment standard and not under TCDC 18.3 70.020(C)(1 1), which is specific to street improvements. Windwood acknowledges that in its application material it too addressed the requested adjustments under the general standard as opposed to the specific standard. In its decision, LUBA concluded that the City's findings related to the requested adjustments was insufficient in a couple of areas. LUBA also noted the difference between the two criteria and suggested that the City could consider the requested adjustments under the standards applicable to street improvements. Consistent with LUBA's decision, Windwood will discuss its requested adjustments under both standards and, to the extent required, provide additional evidence and information under the general adjustment standards. 1. Adjustments to Streets and Sidewalks Under (TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11)). Section TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11), the code section that addresses adjustments to street and sidewalk improvements, reads as follows: Adjustments for the street improvement requirements Chapter 18.810: By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by section 18.390.040, the director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on the findings that the following criterion is satisfied: strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on the existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees, in approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits to strict application of the standards. Chapter 18.810 of the Tigard Development Code, Street and Utility Improvement Standards, applies to both public and private improvements. Windwood believes that under TCDC 18.810.020(D), the adjustment criteria in TCDC 18.370.020(C)(11) applies to all street improvements, whether public or private improvements. Therefore, Windwood believes that said criteria should be used for all three requested adjustments. PDX 1191299v1 44727-22 Morgan Tracey m City of Tigard p~! November 15, 2004 Page 6 a. Response to Curb Tight Sidewalk (TCDC 18.810.030(L)). S.W. 74 h Avenue crosses Ash Creek in a deep draw area. The project normally requires a section of the street with sidewalks separated from the street. Under section 18.810.070(C), planter strips are required between the street and sidewalk, except where the following exists: there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required. A sidewalk in strict conformance with TCDC 18.810.030(L) will require either filling the stream or increasing the size of a retaining wall already shown on the plan. Larger retaining walls will require significant footings that will encroach into the wetlands. Windwood believes that this type of development will result in an adverse impact on the stream and/or wetlands. The curb tight sidewalk as proposed along S.W. 74`h Avenue reduces the amount of impact to wetlands. Furthermore, insistence on strict application of the standards for sidewalks will not result in a public benefit that exceeds the adverse impacts to the wetlands. Curb tight sidewalks will not increase any danger to pedestrians. Traffic in the area in question will be traveling fairly slow to address the sag curve as discussed above. In addition, the sidewalks will meet the standard for sidewalk widths. Windwood has observed that curb tight sidewalks are not uncommon along other streets in Tigard. Consequently, the negative impact to the stream/wetland exceeds any marginal benefit from requiring a planter strip. b. Response to Cul-de-sac Longer than 200 Feet (TCDC 18.810.030(L)). Under TCDC 18.810.030, various limitations apply to cul-de-sacs: (1) they shall be no more than 200 feet long, (2) they shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and (3) they shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation. When a cul-de-sac is used, additional standards also apply: 1. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround, Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; 2. The length of a cul-de-sac shall be measures from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb; and 3. If the cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to and adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the city. Due to prior development patterns, there is no way to connect the private street serving the lots to adjacent streets. Accordingly, there are only two options to access the lots in the proposed subdivision: one is a cul-de-sac and one is a looped street within the subdivision. A looped PDX 1191299v1 44727-22 Morgan Tracey City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 7 street would have to be constructed in environmentally sensitive land and would require significant excavation and/or fill. Thus, strict application of City standards would have a negative impact on natural features. Those impacts outweigh any public benefit from strict application of the standards. It would appear to Windwood that the 200-ft. requirement is not a safety standard, but rather a planning device to gain smaller block sizes. Windwood addresses this concept in more detail in its discussion of the general adjustment standards. The Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue ("TVF&R") has reviewed Windwood's plans and indicated that the design will not negatively affect safety. Their own code allows 25 houses to be served by a single access. 2. Adjustments to Streets and Sidewalks Under TCDC 18.370.020(C)(1)(d). As discussed above, Windwood will also discuss the requested adjustment in the context of the general adjustment standards. Windwood does not believe the City must get to this analysis in light of the applications of TCDC 18.3 70.020(C)(1 1). The criteria for general adjustments is: Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). the director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result form strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The City made findings that as to each of the adjustments Windwood requested, Windwood submitted sufficient evidence to meet each of the above criteria. LUBA disagreed as to some of the City's findings. Specifically, as to the adjustment to the sidewalk standards, LUBA held that the City's finding that the adjustment would not be detrimental to the public PDX 1191299v1 44727-22 Morgan Tracey F.1 City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 8 health , safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other property owners was inadequate. LUBA also held that the City's finding that the requested adjustment was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of extraordinary hardship was insufficient. As to the two adjustments Windwood requested to the cul-de-sac standards, LUBA held that the City's finding on a single criteria-lack of detriment to public health, safety and welfare-was inadequate. a. Response to Curb Tight Sidewalk TCDC 18.810.030(L) If a planter strip was placed pursuant to the City standard in the area where S.W. 74'' Avenue crosses the creek, a tall retaining wall would have to be placed at the bottom of the slope to keep from encroaching into the stream. This would create a significant extra cost to an improvement which already exceeds the proportional improvement cost based on the size of the subdivision. Also, the wall would become an expensive item to be maintained by the City. This is an extraordinary hardship on the development and on the City. Additionally, Windwood has tentatively been allowed by DSL and the Corps of Engineers to construct a culvert rather than a bridge structure because it has been able to demonstrate that it is minimizing the fill across the creek by the use of a curb tight sidewalk. If Windwood is required to construct a planter strip, it mayl not be able to use the culvert and will be required by the DSL and the Corps of Engineers to construct a bridge. It is an extraordinary hardship for a 29-lot subdivision to build a bridge across the creek to meet the City's road standards. Without this demonstration, the road crossing itself and the ability to develop the property at all was jeopardized. The requirement to build a bridge will not meet the proportionality test. (The curb tight sidewalk can be considered safe because the area behind the sidewalk has a flat spot which allows pedestrians to keep to the outside while walking.) Curb tight sidewalks in the area proposed will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other property owners. Curb tight sidewalks are used often and are an alternate location in many similar public streets throughout the city. This is not normally a safety concern. Instead, this detail is used where only a few curb cuts are proposed. Parking strips provide for street furniture and places to put mailboxes, power poles, streetlights, telephone pedestals, and power pedestals. This area does not have many of these features. In addition, as discussed above, the traffic in the area of the proposed adjustment will be traveling relatively slowly due to the topography of the road. With a normal sized sidewalk, there will not be pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. b. Response to Cul-de-sac Length (TCDC 18.810.030(L)) (Hardship). Granting the requested variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the public. Nor will it be injurious to the rights of other property owners. PDX 1191299v 144727-22 Morgan Tracey m City of Tigard November 15, 2004 Page 9 TVF&R has determined that length does not affect safety. With respect to the number of lots to be served by a cul-de-sac, Windwood understands that TVF&R makes the determination of whether the number of lots poses a safety concern. According to Eric McMullin, TVF&R requires two (2) accesses for safety is when more than 25 residential houses are served by one access. Here, that standard is met because only 23 houses will be served. The length of a cul-de-sac is a planning issue related to an attempt to geometrically control block sizes from becoming too long. This standard allows continuity of blocks without having long dead-end streets affecting block sizes. Windwood's consultants have evaluated this issue as part of a team whose responsibility it is to evaluate the methods set by Metro to control block geometry to increase connectivity. This cul-de-sac length is probably a response to developing standards utilized by local cities and counties in the Metro region.as part of a Metro planning study. Short cul-de-sacs were recommended as a way to serve internal lots it blocks with square patterns and cities and counties have implemented these standards. In actuality, the long cul-de-sac provides safety to residents of the cul-de-sac and surrounding neighbors by making the exit of robbers who have broken into houses more difficult. Police can secure an exit by blocking automobile exiting. Additionally, the Windwood's knowledge, TVF&R raised no safety concerns over the length of Windwood's proposed cul-de-sac. Opponents of Windwood's proposal testified generally that the adjustments allowing a longer cul-de-sac that would serve more than 20 residences would increase the amount of traffic and nearby streets and then concluded with no further evidence that an increase in traffic will automatically result in decreased safety. Windwood disagrees with that conclusion. The limited number of additional vehicles that will result from the adjustments as opposed to the development itself will not automatically result in decreased safety. Without some specific evidence of how this small increase in traffic will negatively impact safety, Windwood believes the City should reject the opponents' argument. Very truly yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L P 4,~,L_ Christopher P. Koback CPK/lkt cc: Dale Richards, Windwood Construction Gary Firestone PDX 1191299v l 44727-22 Nov 20 04 06:58p Terrence P. Flanagan 503-624- 1 ~CE1vEQ_ 2 JAN 14 2005 p~orry OF TISAW Teragan & Associates, Inc. Terrence P. Flanagan Arboricultural Consultants Friday, November 19, 2004 Dale Richards Winwood Contraction 12655 SW North Dakota St. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tree Plan for Ash Creek Estates Summary There are a total of 778 trees greater than 12 inches in diameter on the site. 115 of those are considered to be dead, diseased or in such poor health or structural condition to not be able to survive long term. 457 of the trees greater than 12 inches diameter are planned for retention and 321 are trees planned for removal, which equals retention of 59 % of the trees being retained on site, over 50% of the total number of trees on site. There are a total of 17,029 tree diameter inches on the site of viable trees greater than 12 inches in diameter. 6,892 diameter inches are to be removed. Given that 59 % of the healthy trees on site are to be retained; only 50% of the tree inches that are to be removed need to be mitigated for per section 18.790.030 of the City of Tigard code. This equates to the need to mitigate for 3,446 inches of tree diameter. Mitigation will be done on site and other property owned by the developer. Umiting Conditions and Assumptions The survey of the trees on the site was completed by the'survey crew of Kurahashsi & Associates, Inc. Teragan & Associates, Inc. evaluated the located trees for; specie, size, health and structure. Teragan and Associates also checked for missed trees and worked with the survey crew to locate on the survey the missed trees to complete the tree inventory. Trees selected for removal were determined by the owner and Kurahashsi & Associates, Inc. The trees to be removed were indicated in the tree inventory spreadsheet that was created by Teragan & Associates, Inc. by Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. The trees to be removed were also indicated on the survey plan of the property by Kurahashsi & Associates, Inc. Field Measurements Please refer to appendix # 2 for the spreadsheet listing the trees over 6 inches in diameter on the site. The spreadsheet lists their diameter size as measured per industry standards, the species and the condition of the trees. Additional comments are included in the spreadsheet if warranted. Discussion The trees that are to be removed are due to the necessary grading to prepare the site for road improvements, utility installation, the preparation of lots for home building and other improvements. In order to allow for the greatest flexibility on home design, the individual lots are shown with most trees being removed. It is possible that depending on the final home design that is chosen, some of the trees 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 E-mail: Terry r@"r Teragan.com Certified Arborist # PN-0120AT Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists 11 /)A/9nAA CAT /G. CO rrviov nrn 0 n1 Ihnn9 Nov 20 04 06:.59p Terrence P. Flanagan 503-624-1915 p-3 Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Page 2 of 4 Tigard, Oregon 111192004 that are shown to be removed will not be. As indicated to me by the engineers on the project, it may be decided at a later date to retain some of the trees on each of the lots. All trees that are to be retained will need to be identified before any site work commences as they will need to be protected during any of the construction phases, including the initial site preparation and grading. Appendix # 1 outlines all the necessary steps that will need to be taken to protect the trees. It will be important when a decision to retain trees on site that the project arborist be consulted to insure that the planned use for the area will not impact the trees that are retained. Tree protection fencing should be installed before any site work is started on the site. Where tree protection fencing may be in the way to remove nearby trees, it can be temporarily removed to allow for the falling of the trees as long as no damage to the remaining trees will occur or that no wheeled.or tracked equipment is allowed within the tree protection area to remove the tree debris or logs. Conclusion Due to the planned removal of many of the trees off the site, mitigation for the.6,892 tree diameter inches will have to be competed. The mitigation that is proposed by the owner is not detailed in this tree plan but in another part of the application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns regarding the information in this report. Si cer ly, Terrence P. Flanagan `J Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist 4PN-0 12OBT Enclosures: Appendix #r 1 - Tree Protection Steps Appendix # 2 - Tree Species Inventory 3145 Westvicw Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Far (503) 597-1976 E-mail: TcrryfaTcragan.com Certified Arborist # PN-0120AT Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Nov 20 04 06:59p Terrence P. Flanagan 503-624-1915 p.4 Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Page 3 of 4 Tigard, Oregon 11/19/2004 Appendix # 1 Tree Protection Steps It is critical that the following steps be taken to ensure that the trees that are to be retained are protected. Before Construction Begins 1. Notify all contractors of the tree protection procedures. Have all sub contractors sign memoranda of understanding regarding the goals of tree protection. For successful tree protection on a construction site all contractors must know and understand the goals of tree protection. It can only take one mistake with a misplaced trench or other action to destroy the future of a tree. 2. Hydraulically deep root fertilize trees to aerate the soil, deep root water the tree and fertilize it with a balanced fertilizer before construction. 3. Fencing a. Establish tree protection fencing around each tree or grove of trees to be retained. b. The fencing is to be put in place before the ground is cleared in order to protect the trees and the soil around the trees from any disturbance at all. c. Fencing is to be placed at the edge of the root protection zone. Root protection zones are to be established by the project arborist based on the needs of the site and the tree to be protected. d. Fencing is to consist of 6-foot high metal fencing tied to steel posts driven into the ground or free standing with the proper support to prevent it from being moved by contractors, sagging or falling down. Plastic orange fencing may be acceptable if properly support to prevent it from sagging and acceptable by the local jurisdiction. e. Fencing is to remain in the position that is established by the project arborist and not to be moved without written permission from the project arborist. 4. Signage a. All tree protection fencing should have signage explaining the purpose of the fence. An example would be as follows; Tree Protection Area Do Not Enter Without Written Approval From Project Arborist or Property Owner Teragan & Associates 503-803-0017 b. Signage should be place as to be visible from all sides of a tree protection area and spaced every 75 feet. 3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswcgo: OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 E-mail: Terry@bTerasan.com Certified Arborist # PN-0120AT Member. American Society of Consulting Arborists iiignignne ceT IR-R t fTY/AY Nn 79901 X1004 Nov 20 04 06:59p Terrence P. Flanagan 503-624-1915 p.5 Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Page 4 of 4 Tigard, Oregon 11/19/2004 During Construction 1. Protection Guidelines Within the Root Protection Zone a. No traffic shall be allowed within the root protection zone. No vehicle, heavy equipment, or even repeated foot traffic. b. No storage of materials including but not limiting to soil, construction material, or waste from the site. i. Waste includes but is not limited to concrete wash out, gasoline, diesel, paint, cleaner thinners, etc. c. Construction trailers are not to be parked/placed within the root protection zone without written clearance from project arborist. d. No vehicles shall be allowed to park within the root protection areas. e. No activity shall be allowed that will cause soil compaction within the root protection zone. 2. The trees shall be protected from any cutting, skinning or breaking of branches, trunks or roots. 3. Any roots that are to be cut from existing trees, the project consulting arborist shall be notified to evaluate and oversee the proper cutting of roots with sharp cutting tools. Cut roots are to be immediately covered with sail or mulch to prevent them from drying out. 4. No grade change should be allowed within the root protection zone. 5. Any necessary deviation of the root protection zone shall be cleared by the project consulting arborist. 6. Provide water to trees during the summer months. Tree(s) will have had root system(s) cut back and will need supplemental water to overcome the loss of ability to absorb necessary moisture during the summer months. Any necessary passage of utilities through the root protection zone shall be by mean s of tunneling under roots. After Construction 1. Carefully landscape in the area of the tree. Do not allow trenching within the root protection zone. Carefully plant new plants within the root protection zone. Avoid cutting the roots of the existing trees. 2. Do not plan for irrigation within the root protection zone of existing trees unless it is drip irrigation for a specific planting or cleared by the project arborist. 3. Provide for adequate drainage of the location around the retained trees. 4. Pruning of the trees should be completed as one of the last steps of the landscaping process before the final placement of trees, shrubs, ground covers, mulch or turf. 5. Provide for inspection and treatment of insect and disease populations that capable of damaging the retained trees and plants. 6. Trees should be fertilized and inoculated with mycorrhizae treatments if damaged. All. other trees should also be evaluated for fertilization need at the end of the project and treated as necessary. 3145 Westvicw Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 E-mail: Tery@Temgan.com Certified Arborist PN-0120AT. Member, American Society of Consulting Arborisls II/9n/9And cam IQ - rQ rrrviov Lin '79nn1 rihnnr Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH 'than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 2 5001 Westem Red Cedar 1 29 Good Leans West 3 5002 Dou las Fir 1 20 Good 4 5003 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good Decay In root at ground level, south/southwest. 5 5004 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Fair Suspect heart decay and rot column 6 5005 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good 7 5005 Douglas Fir 1 28 Good Healed wound with odd depression West side 8 5006 Douglas Fir 1 16 Good at 4 feet above round level 9 5007 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 10 5008 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 11 5009 Douglas Fir 1 17 Good 12 5011 Oregon Red Alder 10" Good Wound seam at ground level to 7 feet North 13 5012 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good side. Suspect rot column Lost top with new leader forming, high crown, 14 5013 Douglas Fir 1 18 Poor suppressed growth Cat face East side from 12 feet to 18 feet above ground level from small windfall leaning 15 5014 IDouglas Fir 1 21 Fair on trunk. 16 5015 Douglas Fir 1 13 Good Leans West 17 5015 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good 18 5015 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 19 5016 Western Red Cedar 1 32 Good Leans South 20 5017 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor 21 5018 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good 22 5019 Douglas Fir 1 31 Good High Crown 23 5020 Douglas Fir 1 18 Fair Struggling 24 5021 Douglas Fir 1 19 Fair Thin 25 5022 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Fair 26 5022 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Fair 27 5023 Western Red Cedar 1 Poor Broken top, 23 inch dia. 28 5024 Douglas Fir 1 32 Good Edge tree 29 5025 Western Red Cedar 11 Good 30 5026 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good Edge tree 31 5027 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Fair Thin canopy 32 5028 Ore on Red Alder 10 Good 33 5029 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 Good Hazard/habitat tree. Main stem is dead, 45" 34 5030 Western Red Cedar 1 Ve Poor dia. Teragan Associates, inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Pagel of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 35 5031 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 36 5032 Westem Red Cedar 1 21 Fair Thinning 37 5033 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Fair Severe lean Southwest. Broken top. 38 5034 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 16" x12 ft cavity In trunk; hazard/habitat, 41" 39 5035 Oregon Red Alder 1 Very Poor dia. 40 5036 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Poor Suppressed; leans West 41 5037 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Poor In decline 42 5038 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Good 43 5039 Ore on Red Alder 1 28 Poor Over mature, dead limbs in top. Leans North 44 5040 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good Leans South 4" X 35 ft cavity above ground level with decay. 45 5041 Westem Red Cedar 1 24 Fair Leans West Uprooted/hazard, Leans South 30 degrees 46 5042 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor from vertical; thin crown, 29" dia. 47 5043 Western Red Cedar 1 Poor Lost to ; cavity, 18" dia. 10" x 48" cavity with decay from ground level 48 5044 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Fair North side 49 5045 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Poor Thin crown, leans Northwest 50 5046 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Poor Thin crown, leans West 51 5047 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good Leans Southeast 52 5048 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 53 5049 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 54 5050 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Fair Thin crown 55 5051 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Fair High Crown Red ring rot. Galls at 8 feet 30 feet and 45 feet, 56 5052 Douglas Fir 1 Hazard 16" dia 57 5053 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Good Hazard/Very Decline. 50% decay on East side ground level 58 5054 Western Red Cedar 1 Poor to 35 feet, 16" dia.. 59 5055 Westem Red Cedar 1 49 Fair 2 leaders at about 35 feet 60 5056 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Good Partial) undermined b creek. Appears stable. Hazard/Habitat leans North, severe decay, 24" 61 5057 Western Red Cedar 1 Hazard dia 62 5058 Western Red Cedar 1 34 Very Good 63 5059 Douglas Fir 1 27 Good 64 5060 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Poor Decline. 65 5061 Douglas Fir 1 27 Good Hi h Crown 66 5062 Western Red Cedar 1 38 Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 2 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 67 5063 Douglas Fir 1 32 Good High Crown. Leans South 68 5064 • Westem Red Cedar 1 39 Good Electrical Conduct in ground North Side. 2" 02" cavity with decay 18" to 30" above ground level South side. Decayed root at ground level 69 5065 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Fair South side. 70 5066 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good 71 5067 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Almost dead, 17" dia 72 5068 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Fair Leans Southwest 7" X 40 feet tapering cat face with decay 73 5069 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Fair Southwest side 74 5070 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 75 5071 Bi leaf Maple 1 23 Good 76 5072 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good 77 5073 Western Red Cedar 10 Fair 24" root legs 78 5074 Westem Red Cedar 1 16 Good 79 5075 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 80 5076 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 25" x 30 feet bark eel on West side, 15" dia 81 5077 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good High crown 82 5078 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Hazard, cat face all the way up trunk, 25" dia 83 5079 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Good High crown 84 5080 Western Red Cedar 1 21 poor 85 5081 Western Red Cedar 1 42 1 42 Good 86 5082 Westem Red Cedar 1 34 Good High crown 16" x 10 ft cavity from ground level South side, 87 5083 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Poor 6" x 10" cavity North side above round level 88 5084 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good Leans West 89 5085 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good Seam cavity, North side 90 5086 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 91 5087 Ore on Red Alder 1 14 Fair Leans North. High crown 92 5088 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good High crown 93 5089 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 94 5090 Western Red Cedar 1 34 Good Mature 95 5091 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 96 5092 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair 97 5093 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 98 5094 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good 99 5095 Western Red Cedar 1 45 Good 2 stems at 6 feet above round level Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 3 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 100 5096 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Fair Shedding bark 101 5097 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Very Good 102 5098 Western Red Cedar. 1 24 Good High crown 2 stems, 21" 813", 13" stem dead, leans 103 5099 Oregon Red Alder 1 21 Fair Northwest 7" x 54" cat face East side starts at ground 104 5100 Oregon Red Alder 1 Very Poor level. 10" diameter STEMS, HIGH CROWN, 6" IS IN POOR 105 5101 Westem Red Cedar 10,6 GOOD CONDITION 106 5102 Alder 9 107 5103 Westem Red Cedar 8 GOOD 108 5104 Western Red Cedar 1 VERY POOR 6"DIA 109 5105 Western Red Cedar 8 GOOD 110 5106 Western Red Cedar 7 GOOD 111 5107 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR THIN 112 5108 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 113 5109 Cedar 6 114 5110 Bi leaf Maple 1 VERY POOR BROKEN TOP, HIGH CROWN, 8" DIA 115 5111 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR SUPPRESSED, LEANS EAST 116 5112 Western Red Cedar 6 FAIR SUPPRESSED, LEANS NORTH 117 5113 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR SUPPRESSED, HIGH CROWN 118 5114 Western Red Cedar 10 GOOD HIGH CROWN 119 5115 Cedar 6 120 5116 Western Red Cedar 6 FAIR. SUPPRESSED HIGH CROWN, BROKEN TOP, NEW 121 5117 Bi leaf Maple 8 POOR LEADERS SUPPRESSED, BROKEN TOP WITH NEW 122 5118 Bi leaf Maple 6 POOR LEADERS, HIGH CROWN 123 5119 Western Red Cedar 7 POOR HIGH CROWN, SUPPRESSED 124 5120 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 FAIR HIGH CROWN 125 5121 Cedar 10 126 5122 Ma le 9 127 5123 Maple 10 128 5124 BIGLEAF MAPLE 1 VERY POOR SUPPRESSED, 6" DIA 129 5125 Maple 6 130 5126 Maple 9 131 5127 BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR SUPPRESSED 132 5128 Maple .6 133 5129 Ma le 9 134 5130 Ma le 6 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 4 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE I ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 135 5131 Ma le 8 136 5132 Oregon Red Alder 8 POOR HIGH CROWN, LEANS SOUTH 137 5133 BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 FAIR SUPPRESSED CAT FACE NORTH SIDE WITH DECAY STARTS AT 18' ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, 6" X 24" CAT FACE WITH DECAY SOUTH SIDE STARTS AT 18" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, 7" 138 5134 BIGLEAF MAPLE 1 VERY POOR DIA 139 5135 Ma le 9 140 5136 Ma le 7 141 5137 Ma le 6 142 5138 Cedar 9 143 5139 Fir 8 144 5140 Ma le 10 145 5141 BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 POOR SWEEP, 2 FT NORTH OF #5142 HAZARDOUS, 10 FTNORTHEAST OF #5725, MAIN STEM 50% DECAYED, 15"X8" CAVITY 146 5142 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR ON SOUTH SIDE, 11" DIA 147 5143 Ma le 9 148 5144 BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 FAIR LEANS WEST 149 5145 Ma le 10 150 5146 Cedar 6 151 5147 Cedar 10 152 5148 Birch 7 153 5149 Cedar 11 154 5150 Fir 10 155 5151 Ma le 6 156 5152 Ma le 6 157 5153 Western Red Cedar 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 158 5154 Western Red Cedar 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 159 5155 Western Red Cedar 11 FAIR ROOT LEG SOUTH SIDE 160 5156 Ma le 11 161 5157 Cedar 8 12 FT EAST OF #5953,2 STEMS, SEVERE LEAN NORTH, OOZE AT 7 FT ABOVE 162 5158 JOREGON RED ALDER 7,11 1 13 POOR GROUND LEVEL FROM 11" STEM 163 5159 Cedar 8 164 -5-16-0-]Maple 6 165 5161 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR 17 FT EAST OF #5953, SUPPRESSED Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 5 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 7 FT SOUTH #5953, LEANS WEST, HIGH 166 5162 OREGON RED ALDER 9 POOR CROWN 167 5163 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 POOR 8 FT SOUTH #5953, SUPPRESSED 168 5164 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 169 5165 Cedar 8 170 5166 Maple 1 12 171 5167 Cedar 6 172 5168 Cedar 8 173 5169 Hawthorne 1 VERY POOR SEVERE LEAN NORTH, 4',6- AND 7" DIA 174 5170 Cedar 6 175 5171 Cedar 10 176 5172 Alder 11 177 5173 BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADER 178 5174 Western Red Cedar 9 FAIR HIGH CROWN, SEVERE INCLUSION IN 179 5175 Western Red Cedar 8 POOR CROWN 180 5176 Western Red Cedar 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 181 5177 Ma le 9 182 5178 Maple 6 183 5179 Oregon Red Alder 1 VERY POOR HIGH CROWN, DEAD TOP, 8" DIA HIGH CROWN, CAVITY FORMING EAST SIDE 2" X 3-,18 " TO 48" ABOVE GROUND 184 5180 Oregon Red Alder 9 POOR LEVEL HAZARD, SEVERE LEAN AND SWEEPS, 185 5181 Ore on Red Alder 1 HAZARDOUS HIGH CROWN, 7" DIA 186 5182 Ma le 10 187 5183 Alder 8 188 5184 Ma le 6 189 5185 Alder 11 190 5186 Alder 11 191 5187 Cedar 10 192 5188 Ma le 1 12 1 12 193 5189 Cedar 6 194 5190 Cedar 8 195 5191 Maple 1 12 1 12 196 5192 Maple 11,8 1 14 197 5193 Alder 10 198 5194 Alder 7 199 5195 Alder 11 200 5196 Cedar 6' Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 y Page 6 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS FORMS CORNOR OF TREE FOOT, HIGH 201 5197 Oregon Red Alder 8 POOR CROWN 202 5198 Alder 8 203 5199 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 GOOD LEANS SOUTH 204 5201 Westem Red Cedar 1 24 Good High crown High crown 4" x 48" cavity with decay South 205 5203 Western Red Cedar 1 27 1 27 Good side 206 5204 Bi ieaf Maple 1 17 1 17 Hazardous, severe decay, secondary borer 207 5205 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor infestation, 17"dia 1 foot East #5205. Hazardous, sever decay, 208 5205A Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 29" dia. 209 5206 Ore on White Oak 1 26 1 26 Good 210 5207 Cher 1 12 1 12 Good 211 5208 Western Red Cedar 1 31 1 31 Good Edge tree 212 5209 Dou las Fir 1 40 Good High crown 213 5210 Bi leaf Maple 1 14 Poor Leans South. Dead to 214 5211 Cherry 1 18 1 18 Fair 215 5212 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Good High crown 216 5213 Western Red Cedar 1 25 1 25 Good High crown 217 5214 Western Red Cedar 1 47 Good Lost to with new leaders formed 218 5217 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good High crown 219 5218 Western Red Cedar 1 32 1 32 Good High crown 220 5219 Douglas Fir 1 15 1 15 Fair High crown 221 5220 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Fair High crown 222 5221 Western Red Cedar 1 31 Good Edge tree 223 5222 Douglas Fir 1 33 1 33 Good High crown 224 5223 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good Hii h crown 225 5224 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Fair High crown 226 5225 Western Red Cedar Not on property, 24" dia. 227 5226 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Good 228 5227 Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Good High crown 229 5228 Oregon Red Alder 1 22 1 22 Fair High crown. Leans West; over mature 230 5229 Oregon Red Alder 1 20 1 20 Poor Leans North. Over mature. 2" X 15" decay cavity 2 feet above ground 231 5230 Ore on Red Alder 1 20 1 20 Poor level, West side 232 5231 Western Red Cedar 30 Not on property 233 5232 Ore on Red"Alder 1 17 1 17 Poor Dead top. Over mature 234 15233 Western Red Cedar 1 38 1 38 Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 7 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11120/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 7" x 12" burl on 9"stem at 5 feet above ground level. 4 stems, 6" x 8" burl on 15" stem at 5 feet 235 5234 Cherry 1 24 1 24 above round level, 12,9,12,15" stems. 236 5235 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Good Hi h crown 237 5236 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Good High Crown 238 5237 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Fair 2 leaders at 35 feet. High crown. 239 5238 Westem Red Cedar 1 20 1 20 Good 240 5239 Alder 1 Dead 20' tall dead trunk, 14" dia. 241 5240 Ore on Red Alder 1 19 1 19 Poor Mature, leans West 242 5241 Western Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Fair Rubs #5240 243 5242 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good High crown 2 stems. High crown, 10" stem severe decline, 244 5243 Ore on Red Alder 1 Very Poor 21"/10" dia., two stem tree 245 5244 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown 246 5245 Ore on Red Alder 1 23 1 23 Good High crown. Leans North 247 5246 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Dead 248 5247 Western Red Cedar 1 39 1 39 Good Edge tree Hazard. Trunk split through from 3 feet above ground level to 15 feet above ground level, 16" 249 5248 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor dia. Not on property, 16" diameter, double leader at 250 5249 Western Red Cedar 35' 251 5250 Western Red Cedar 1 23 1 23 Fair High crown. Thinning crown 252 5251 Western Red Cedar Not on roe , 24 " diameter 253 5252 Western Red Cedar Not on property, 20 " diameter 254 5253 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Fair High crown 255 5254 Western Red Cedar Good Not on property, 27" diameter . 256 5255 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Good High crown Bulge and distortion in trunk at 9 feet above 257 5256 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Fair round level 258 5257 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Good HI h crown High crown; bark inclusion at 10 feet above 259 5258 Ore on Red Alder 1 11 Poor round level at stem break 260 5259 Douglas Fir 1 31 1 31 Good 261 5260 Western Red Cedar 1 35 1 35 Good 262 5261 Ore on Red Alder 1 17 1 17 Good Mature 263 5262 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 Good High crown 264 5263 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Poor Broken to with new leaders 265 5264 Ore on Red Alder 1 Very Poor 2 stems; thin crown, 10", 6" dia., two stems Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 8 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 266 5265 Hawthorne 1 13 Poor Leans Northwest 80 degrees 267 5266 Ore on Red Alder 11 Good High crown 268 5267 Dou las Fir 1 29 1 29 Good 269 5268 Ore on Red Alder 1 16 1 16 Fair Mature leans South 20 degrees 2 stem 11", 10" dia., high crown leans 270 5269 Oregon Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Good Southwest 271 5270 Oregon Red Alder 1 Very Poor Broken top, in decline, 18" dia. 2 stems, high crown, bark. inclusion, 12", 14" 272 5271 Oregon Red Alder 1 30 1 30 Poor diameter stems 273 5272 Bi leaf Maple 1 17 1 17 Good 274 5273 Ore on Red Alder 11 Poor High crown, leans West 275 5274 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Poor Broken to with new leaders 276 5275 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Fair 277 5276 Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Poor 2 stems, root legs, 10", 11" stems 278 5277 Dou las Fir 1 30 Good 279 5278 Western Red Cedar 1 31 1 31 Fair Lost to with new leaders 280 5279 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown 281 5280 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good Leans North 282 5281 Ore on Red Alder 10 Poor High crown High crown, cat face 2" x 9" West side at 18" 283 5282 Oregon Red Alder 10 Poor above round level 284 5283 Western Red Cedar 1 31 1 31 Fair Old broken to with new leaders 2 stems, broken top with new leaders, 27"& 9" 285 5284 Western Red Cedar 1 28 1 28 Poor stems 2 stems, severe inclusion between stems, high 286 5285 Ore on Red Alder 1 18 1 18 Poor crown, 11% 14" dia. Stems 3 stems; 10" stem leans North 20 degrees, 13",102 stems, severe inclusion between stems, high crown, 11"& 14" dia. 13",11",10" 287 5286 Oregon Red Alder 1 26 1 26 Fair stems 288 5287 Douglas Fir 1 32 1 32 Good 289 5288 Oregon Red Alder 1 18 Good Mature, leans South 15 degrees 290 5289 Bi leaf Maple 1 29 1 29 Good 291 5290 Ore on White Oak 1 22 Good Heavy Iv load 292 5291 Western Red Cedar 1 45 1 45 Fair Broken to 293 5292 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Poor Suppressed, broken to with new cedars 294 5293 Oregon Red Alder 1 21 1 21 Fair Mature, leans South 295 5294 Douglas Fir 1 33 Good Hi h crown 296 5295 Bi leaf Maple 1 15 1 15 Poor High crown 297 5296 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Poor 2 stems; suppressed, 9",8" dia. stems Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 9 of 42 Ash Creek I 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE I ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 298 5297 Bi leaf Maple 1 26 Good 299 5298 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Fair Thinning crown 300 5299 Oregon Red Alder 1 16 Good High crown 301 5300 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good Sweep and crook in trunk, 1" x 8 ft cavity 302 5301 Western Red Cedar 1 30 Fair Southwest side at 20 feet above round level 303 5302 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good High crown 304 5303 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good High crown 305 5304 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good High crown 306 5305 Douglas Fir 1 21 Good High crown 307 5306 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Good 308 5307 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good 309 5308 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good High crown 310 5308AU Western Red Cedar 1 28 Fair Broken to with new leader 311 5309 Oregon Red Alder 11 Poor High crown; leans North 312 5310 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 313 5311 Dou las Fir 1 27 Good 314 5312 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor Thin crown; high crown 315 5313 Douglas Fir 1 31 Good High crown 316 5314 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Broken top, 22" dia. 317 5315 Western Red Cedar 1 23 1 23 Good High crown 318 5316 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Not on property, broken top, 24" tree 319 5317 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good High crown 320 5318 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good High crown 321 5319 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good 322 5320 Douglas Fir 29 Good Not on Property, high crown 323 5321 Oregon Ash 1 12 Good 324 5322 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Dead 325 5323 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good High crown 326 5324 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 35" dia. 327 5325 Western Red Cedar 15 Poor Not on property, broken to with new leaders 328 5326 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Poor Broken to 329 5327 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 17" dia. Mature; 4" x 8" limb cavity at 15 ft. above 330 5328 Ore on Red Alder 1 16 Fair round level East side; high crown 331 5329 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Poor Suppressed 332 5330 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Thin crown; broken top, 18:"dia. 333 5331 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Fair Thinning crown; high crown 334 5332 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Dead 335 5333 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Poor Thin crown; high crown Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Pagel 0 of 42 Ash CreekI 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 336 5334 Western Red Cedar 1 35 Good Broken top with new leaders; thin crown; high 337 5335 Westem Red Cedar 1 20 Poor crown 338 5336AU Western Red Cedar 1 23 Dead 339 5336 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Broken top, 15" dia. 340 5337 Westem Red Cedar 1 25 Poor Broken to ; thin crown 341 5338 Bi leaf Maple 1 12 Poor High crown; thin crown 342 5339 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Dead 343 5340 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Dead 344 5341 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Dead 345 5342 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Thin crown, 21 dia. 346 5343 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Dead 347 5344 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Thin crown, 20" dia 348 5345 Oregon Ash 1 28 Good Over mature 349 5346 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Poor Broken to 350 5348 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Fair Broken to 351 5349 Western Red Cedar 18 Not on Pro e 352 5350 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Dead 353 5351 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Poor Broken to Broken top; 12" cavity Southeast side ground 354 5352 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor level to 12 feet above round level, 26" dia 355 5353 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Poor Thin crown 356 5354 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 12" dia. 357 5355 Douglas Fir 1 30 Good 358 5356 Ore on Red Alder 1 21 Fair Hi h crown; over mature; thinning crown 359 5357 Western Red Cedar 1 35 Fair Broken to with new leaders High crown; offset in trunk at 50 feet above 360 5358 Dou las Fir 1 20 Fair round level 361 5359 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 Dead Broken at 50 feet above round level; hazard 362 5360 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good 363 5361 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good High crown 364 5362 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Broken top, 20" dia. 365 5363 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good 366 5364 Dou las Fir 1 38 Good Leans South 367 5365 Western Red Cedar 1 38 Fair 12" x 24" cavity at round level North side 368 5366AU Bi leaf Maple 1 18 Poor Thin crown; man burls on trunk; leans South 369 5366 Oregon Red Alder 1 Dead Hazard; Severe lean South, 14" dia. 370 5367 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Not on property, dead top, 27 " dia. Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 11 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS Hazard/Habitat; many woodpecker holes; 371 5368 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor broken top, 19" dia. 372 5369 Western Red Cedar 1 30 Fair Old broken to with new leaders 2 stems; high crown; over mature; some die 373 5370 Bi leaf Maple 1 26 Poor back In top, 20",17"dia. Stems 374 5371 Bi leaf Maple 11 Poor Broken to with new leaders 375 5372 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Broken top, 28" dia 376 5373 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Good 377 5374 Ore on Red Alder 1 Very Poor Broken to ; 30 de ree leans South, 15" 378 5375 Douglas Fir 1 17 Good Hi h crown 379. 5376 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Poor Broken to 380 5377 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor Thin crown; 2" x 7 ft cavity above round level Sweep in trunk; leans South; offset in trunk at 381 5377BS Douglas Fir 1 26 Poor 35 feet above round level 382 5377AS Western Red Cedar 10 Poor Thin crown; 2" x 1 ft cavity on North side 383 5378 Dou las Fir 1 35 Good High crown 384 5379 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good High crown 385 5380 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Poor Sweep in lower trunk; woodpecker holes 386 5381 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Fair Old broken to with new leaders 387 5382 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Fair Suppressed 388 5383 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 389 5384 Bi leaf Maple 1 27 1 27 Fair Mature; old broken to with new leaders 390 5385 Western Red Cedar 1 58 1 58 Fair Old broken to with new leaders 391 5386 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good High crown 18"x40" broken stem cavity on North side 392 5387 Oregon Red Alder 1 25 1 22 Poor oversee sturdy high crown Old broken top with new leaders; 2" x 12" cavil 393 5388 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Fair North side at 6 feet above round level 394 5389 Western Red Cedar 1 35 Good High crown 395 5390 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good 396 5391 ]Western Red Cedar 1 31 Fair Old broken to with new leaders 397 5392 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Good High crown 398 5393 Bi leaf Maple 1 20 Fair Mature; sweep in lower trunk; leans West 399 5394 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Poor Thin crown 400 5395 Bi leaf Maple' 1 12 1 12 Good High crown 401 5396 Cher 1 24 1 24 Fair Mature; high crown 402. 5397 Douglas Fir 1 23 1 23 Good 403 5398 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 12 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS Broken top; 12" x 36" cavity East side above 404 5399 Western Red Cedar 1 45 1 45 Fair round level 405 5400 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 Fair High crown; leans South Broken top with new leaders at 30 feet above 406 5401 Westem Red Cedar 1 17 Poor round level 407 5402 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Good 408 5403 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 Poor High crown; I inning crown 36" x 36" burl/gall at ground level West side; 8" diameter gall at 10 feet above ground level West side; high crown; many galls in crown; 409 5404 Douglas Fir 1 Very Poor thin crown, 15" dia. 410 5405 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good High crown 411 5406 Ore on Red Alder 1 Ve Poor Over mature; severe lean to South, 23" dia. 412 5407 Bi leaf Maple 11 Fair High crown 413 5408 Dou las Fir 1 28 Good High crown 414 5409 Ore on Red Alder 1 Dead Hazard; Bark is sloughing, 20" dia. Hazard/Habitat; Broken top with new leaders; 415 5410 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 15" x 17 feet cavity North side, 17" dia. 416 5411 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good Broken top with new leaders; thinning crown; 417 5412 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor. hazard/habitat, 36 " dia. 13" x 40 ft cavity North side from ground level, 418 5413 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 16" dia 419 5414 Bi leaf Maple 1 16 Fair High crown; old wound seam West side 420 5415 Bi leaf Maple 1 15 Poor High crown; broken to with new leaders 421 5416 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Fair Bulges at 20 ft, 25 ft, 30 ft, 35 ft, and 40 ft above ground level North east side; dead limbs; high crown; thinning crown; possible 422 5417 Douglas Fir 1 28 Poor broken to • 423 5418 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Poor Broken to with new leader 424 5419 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 425 5420 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor Broken to with new leaders 426 P54233 Ore on Red Alder 1 Dead 11" dia. 427 Westem Red Cedar 1 24 Poor 428 Oregon Red Alder 1 18 Poor Over mature 429 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair Ta is missin ; leans South 1'12" x 6" blaze South side 40 feet above Western Red Cedar r 1 33 Good round level Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 13 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 431 5425 Oregon Red Alder 1 15 Fair High crown 432 5426 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown 433 5427 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair 434 5428 Oregon Red Alder 11 Poor High crown 435 5429 Douglas Fir 1 19 Good 436 5430 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Poor Thinning crown; high crown 437 5431 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor Broken to with new leaders 438 5432 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown 439 5433 Westem Red Cedar 1 18 Poor Broken to with new leaders 440 5434 Ore on Red Alder 1 17 1 17 Fair High crown 441 5435 Ore on Red Alder 1 Very Poor High crown; dead to ; Hazard, 11" dia. 442 5436 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 25" dia. 443 5437 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown 2 stems, 15"& 12" dia., forms two comers of tree fort; 10" x 40" cat face at 10 feet above ground North side of 15" stem; 3" x 36" cat face East side 12" stem; 10" x 50" cat face on South 444 5438 Oregon Red Alder 1 19 1 19 Poor side 12" stem at 12 feet above round level 445 5439 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Good 446 5440 Ore on Red Alder 1 17 Fair Leans North 447 5441 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Fair Sweep in trunk 448 5442 Western Red Cedar 1 32 Good 449 5443 Western Red Cedar 1 39 Poor Broken to ; habitat 450 5444 Ore on Red Alder 1 16 Fair Leans Southeast 451 5445 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Good 452 5446 Oregon Ash 1 Dead 11" dia. 453 5447 [Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good 454 5448 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good 455 5449 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Fair Broken to with new leaders 456 5450 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Fair Thinning crown 457 5451 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead Broken at 20 feet above round level, 20" 458 5452 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Good Epicormics; high crown; unusual swelling at 3 459 5453 Cherry 1 13 Poor feet above round level North side 460 5454 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Fair 24" x 5 It cavity at round level West side Hazard; 19" diameter open cavity ground level 461 5455 Oregon Ash 1 Ve Poor to 15 feet and dead scaffolds, 30" dia 462 5456 Westem Red Cedar 1 15 Good High crown 463 5457 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good High crown Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 14 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory ' A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 9" x-7 It cavity at ground West side; broken top 464 5458 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Poor with new leaders 465 5459 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Fair High crown 466 5460 Ore on Red Alder 1 16 Fair Leans West 467 5461 Ore on Red Alder 11 Fair Leans West 468 5462 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Very Poor Broken to ; thinnin crown 469 5463 Westem Red Cedar 1 16 Good field tagged 5473 470 5464 Westem Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Broken top, 26" dia. Severe lean with correction South 45 degrees; .471 5465 Ore on Red Alder 1 Poor limbs with to ; Hazard, 13" 472 5466 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 473 5467 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 Good High crown 474 5468 Western Red Cedar NOT USED Leans North; broken top; suspect decay 475 5469 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 Poor column 476 5470 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 477 5471 Douglas Fir 1 19 Good High crown High crown, sweep in lower trunk, 13 It East of 478 5472 Douglas Fir 1 18 Fair #5487, same as #6000 Broken top; cavity formed South side 10 feet 479 5474 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Poor above round level to to ; Deep inclusion between 2 leaders; one leader is dead, decay and die back is growing out very 480 5475 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Poor olds rin board stump 481 5476 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Poor Broken to with new leaders 482 5477 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 483 5478 Western Red Cedar 1 32 Good 484 5479 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 485 5480 Ore on Ash 1 14 Poor Over mature; thin crown; high crown 1/2" x 24" cavity East side at 9 feet above 486 5481 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Poor round level; thin crown; high crown 487 5482 Westem Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Die back in crown; thin crown, 11 488 5483 Western Red Cedar 1 36 Poor Broken to ; hollow; 10" x 20 ft cavil East side 489 5484 Western Red Cedar 1 38 Good 6" x 40" cat face East side at ground level; 490 5485 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Poor broken to with new leaders 491 5486 Western Red Cedar 1 33 Fair 8" x 18" cavity round level Northwest side 492 5487 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Fair 493 5488 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Fair To is growing into #5479 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 15 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE ' DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 494 5489 Ore on Red Alder 1 Dead 16"dia. 495 5490 Ore on Red Alder 1 Dead 1 V dia. 496 5491 Westem Red Cedar 1 23 Good 497 5492 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good Measured at 5 feet above round level 498 5493 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 499 5494 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 2 stems, 15" 7 8" dia. High crown; burl at 20 feet above ground level 500 5495 Douglas Fir 1 22 Fair on North side 501 5496 Ore on Red Alder 1 16 Good 502 5497 Douglas Fir 1 12 Poor Suppressed 503 5498 Westem Red Cedar 1 24 Poor Thinning crown 504 5499 Western Red Cedar 1 Ve Poor 90% die back in crown, 27" dia 505 5500 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good Bears to #5468 506 5501 Douglas Fir 1 20 Good High crown 507 5502 Dou las Fir 1 22 Fair High crown 508 5503 Willow 11" Poor Broken to Broken top; decay in roots at ground level on 509 5504 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor West side, 15" dia 510 5505 Ore on Red Alder 13 Good Not on property, slight leans off property 5506 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Good 512 5507 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair One sided 513 5508 Western Red Cedar 1 27 1 27 Fair 514 5509 Pine 17 Not on property, leans south Broken top with new leader; entire South side 515 5510 Western Red Cedar 1, Very Poor decayed, 13" dia. 516 5511 Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Fair Thin crown, 8" x 48" cavity Southeast side 517 5512 Westem Red Cedar 1 18 Fair 518 5513 Bi leaf Maple 1 12 Fair 519 5514 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 29" die 520 5515 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 521 5516 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 522 5517 Westem Red Cedar 1 27 Good 523 5518 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good High crown 524 5519 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Poor Broken to with new leaders Old broken top with new leaders; ferns growing 525 5520 Bi leaf Maple 1 16 Fair Inside of trunk; leans South 526 5521 WESTERN RED CEDAR 24 527 5522 Oregon Red Alder 11 Poor High crown; leans South 528 5523 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 Dead Uprooted laying on round Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 16 of 42 " Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS High crown; mature; dead side stem at 40 feet 529 5524 Oregon Ash 1 21 Fair above round level 530 5525 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Ve Good East of shed Epicormics and burls, broken top with new 531 5526 Bi leaf Maple 1 22 Fair leaders 532 5527 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Fair Thinning crown 533 5528 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Fair Broken to with new leaders 534 5529 Bi leaf Maple 1 19 Fair 13" 814" dia. stems, Leans South 535 5530A Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Dead top, 13" dia. 536 5530 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Dead top, 17:" dia. 537 5531 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Fair Thinning crown 538 5532 Ore on Red Alder 1 20 Fair Mature; thinnin crown; leans South 539 5533 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 31" dia 540 5534 Bi leaf Maple 11 Fair High crown 12" x 60" cavity West side at 12 feet above 541 5535 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Fair round level 542 5536 Ore on Ash 1 28 Fair Over mature; a icormics; thinnin crown 543 5537 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Poor Leans South; mature; rubs against 544 5538 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Lost top, thin crown 545 5539 Bi leaf Maple 1 15 Fair Leans South Broken top with new leader; burls on South 546 5540 Douglas Fir 1 22 Poor side at 10 feet and 14 feet above round level 547 5541 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Poor Broken to with new leader 548 5542 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 549 5543 Bi leaf Maple 1 13 Good Leans South 550 5544 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 31" dia 551 5545 Westem Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Good 552 5546 Western Red Cedar 1 23 1 23 Good 553 5547 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good 554 5548 Western Red Cedar 1 27 1 27 Good 555 5549 Westem Red Cedar 1 28 1 28 Good 556 5549A Western Red Cedar 11 Good 7' North of # 5549 Tapering burled cavity West side ground to 8 557 5600 Westem Red Cedar 1 36 1 36 Fair feet; 6" wide at round level 558 5601 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 16" dia 559 5602 Dou las Fir 1 19 Fair High crown; possible 560 t5605 3 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Fair Thin crown. 561 4 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Thin crown; one tree, 12" dia. 562 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Almost dead, 13' dia 563 5606 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Poor Suppressed Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 17 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 564 5607 Douglas Fir 1 28 Good 565 5608 Dou las Fir 1 21 Good Leans to the South slightly 566 5609 Douglas Fir 1 17 Good High crown; leans Southeast 567 5610 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Poor Suppressed 568 5611 Westem Red Cedar 1 22 Fair Seconds to at 25 feet 569 5612 Dou las Fir 1 25 Good 570 5613 Western Red Cedar NOT USED 571 5614 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good High crown 572 5615 Western Red Cedar 1 31 Good 573 5616 Westem Red Cedar 1 35 Good 574 5617 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good Tag missing 575 5618 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good High crown 576 5619 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good High crown 577 5620 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Good High crown 578 5621 Western Red Cedar 1 40 Good 579 5622 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good High crown 580 5623 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good High crown 581 5624 Westem Red Cedar 1 25 Poor Thin crown, high crown, leans East 582 5625 Westem Red Cedar 1 28 Good 583 5626 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good High crown, leans Southeast 584 5627 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair Tag missing 585 5628 Western Red Cedar 11 Good 586 5629 Western Red Cedar 1 40 Poor Broken with new leaders; leans Southwest 587 5630CS Western Red Cedar 1 16 Fair High crown 588 5630BS Western Red Cedar 1 18 Fair High crown; thinning crown 589 5630AS Westem Red Cedar 1 26 Fair High crown; thinning crown 590 5630 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Fair High crown; thin crown 591 5631 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good High crown 592 5632 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good High crown; leans Northeast 593 5633 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good High crown 594 5634 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead Hazard, 17" dia 595 5635 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair High crown 596 5636 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 597 5637 Ore on Red Alder 1 21 Poor E icormics and burls on trunk, mature Leans West 30 degrees from vertical, high 598 5638 Ore on Red Alder 1 23 Fair crown, mature 599 5639 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good High crown 600 5640 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good 601 5641 Ore on Red Alder 1 21 Poor E icormics and burls, high crown, mature 602 5642 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good Edge tree, leans South Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 18 of 42 - Ash Creek I 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 2 stems, 12" 812" stems, lost top with new 603 5643 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Fair leaders, equivalent to a 17 inch diameter tree 604 5643 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Fair 2 stems Open cavity with decay South side ground level 605 5644 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Fair to 16 feet above round level 606 5645 Douglas Fir 1 27 Good 607 5646 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good 608 5647 Douglas Fir 1 27 1 27 Good 609 5648 Western Red Cedar 1 19 Good High crown 610 5649 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Fair Broken to with new leaders 611 5650 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good 11"8 11" dia. stems 612 5651 Ore on Red Alder 1 20 Poor Leans North a icormics, mature 613 5652 Western Red Cedar 1 23 Good 614 5653 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good High crown 615 5654 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 616 5655 no tree surveyed NOT USED 617 5656 Western Red Cedar 1 32 Good 618 5657 Western Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Fair 2 stems, 16" 8 8" dia. 619 5658AS Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good High crown 620 5658 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good High crown 621 5659 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Good Edge tree 3" wide wound seam and cavity with decay 622 5660 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Fair round level to 18 feet above round level 623 5661 Western Red Cedar 1' 20 Good 2" x 5" cat face South side above round level 624 5662 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good High crown 625 5663 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Fair High crown 626 5664 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good High crown 627 5665 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Poor E icormics, leans North, mature 628 5666 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good 629 5667 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Fair 18" North of 14" Ceder 630 5667AS Western Red Cedar 1 14 Fair 18" South of 17" Cedar 631 5668 Dou las Fir 1 29 1 29 Good 632 5669 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good 633 5670 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 634 5671 Dou las Fir 1 24 1 24 Good 18" x 30 ft cat face South side with three new 635 5672 Western Red Cedar 1 31 1 31 Poor leaders at 30 feet, 3 leaders 636 5673 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good 637 5674 Western Red Cedar 1 25 1 25 Poor 20" x 35 ft cat face with decay West side Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 19 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS. HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS Cavity and bulge at 18 ft above ground level 638 5675 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Poor East side 639 56758 Westem Red Cedar 9 Fair 640 5676 Westem Red Cedar 1 21 Good 641 5656A Westem Red Cedar 6 Fair 2 ft East of #5656 642 56506 Western Red Cedar 9 4 ft East of #5650 6" old cat face at 12 feet above ground level 643 5678 Western Red Cedar 1 25 1 25 Poor sus ect deca 644 5679 Westem Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 645 5680 Dou las Fir 1 33 Good Flat burls, healed wounds on lower 5 feet of 646 5681 Dou ias Fir 1 26 Fair trunk on the East, South and West sides 647 5682 Cher 1 12 1 12 Good 648 5683 Douglas Fir 1 33 1 33 Good 649 5684 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 650 5685 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Fair 4 stems, 10",4",2"8" dia 651 5686 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good 652 5687 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good 653 5688 Dou las Fir 1 23 Good 654 5689 Douglas Fir 1 19 Good 655 5690 Dou las Fir 1 22 Good 656 5691 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good Field tagged #5697 657 5692 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Good 658 5693 Westem Red Cedar 1 20 Good 659 5694 Douglas Fir .1 19 Good 660 5695 Dou las Fir 1 21 Good 661 5696 Douglas Fir 1 16 Good 662 5697 Western Red Cedar Good Not used 663 5698 Douglas Fir 1 21 Good 664 5699 Douglas Fir 1 23 Fair 665 5700 Douglas Fir 1 20 Good Suppressed, 3" x 48"decayed cat face starts at 666 5701 Western Red Cedar 11 Poor round level South side 5' x 60" cat face South side starts at ground 667 5702 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair level 668 5703 Dou las Fir 1 .22 Good 669 5704 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good 670 5705 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Good 671 5706 Western Red Cedar 1 14 Good 672 5707 Dou Ias Fir 1 27 Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 20 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory - A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE. DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 673 5708 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 674 5709 Dou las Fir 1 14 1 14 Good 675 5710 Douglas Fir 1 16 Good 676 5711 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 677 5712 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good 678 5713 Western Red Cedar 1 16 Good 2" x 10" cavity with decay West side at 3 feet 679 5714 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Fair above round level, wound seam North side 680 5715 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 681 5716 Bi leaf Ma le 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown 682 5717 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 683 5718 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good 684 5719 Western Red Cedar 1 22 Good 685 5720 Western Red Cedar 1 20 Good Modest lean South 686 5721 Western Red Cedar 16 Good In Right-of-way, 5" side shoot with broken to 687 5722 Dou las Fir 1 14 1 14 Good 688 5723 Western Red Cedar 1 21 Good Modest lean South 689 5724 Western Red Cedar 11 Good 690 5725 Douglas Fir 1 38 1 38 Good 691 5726 Douglas Fir 1 13 Very Poor Hazard; bad top, bent severe) 692 5727 Dou ias Fir 1 21 Good High crown 693'5728 Bi leaf Maple 1 14 1 14 Fair High crown 694 5729 Douglas Fir 1 12 Poor Suppressed. 695 5730 Douglas Fir 1 23 1 23 Good 696 5731 Oregon Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Good High crown 697 5732 Western Red Cedar 22 Good Tree located in right-of-way 698 5733 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Good 2 stems, 17" & 14" diameter Cavity at base, 12" wide at ground to 0" at 6 699 5734 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Good feet above round level 700 5735 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good 701 5736 BI leaf Maple 1 14 1 14 Fair High crown 702 5737 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Fair One sided 703 5738 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown; bark inclusive 704 5739 Douglas Fir 1 20 Good High crown 705 5740 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor Dead top, 26" dia 706 5741 Douglas Fir 1 20 Good High crown 707 5742 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good High crown 708 5743 Oregon Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Good Leans Northwest 709 5744 Douglas Fir 1 28 1 28 Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 21 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter. INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 710 5745 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Good 711 5746 Western Red Cedar 1 29 1 29 Fair 712 5747 Western Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Good 713 5748 Oregon Red Alder 1 14 1 14 Fair High crown, dead branches 714 5749 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good South side, wraps around main step, included 715 5750 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Fair crotch 716 5751 Westem Red Cedar 1 20 1 20. Good 2 stems, 15" 814" diameter 717 5752 Bi leaf Maple 1 15 1 15 Fair Leans South, high crown 718 5753 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Good High crown 719 5754 Douglas Fir 1 13 1 13 Fair Suppressed 720 5755 Western Red Cedar 1 24 Good 721 5756 Bi leaf Maple 1 17 1 17 Fair Sweep in trunk, leans South, high crown 722 5757 Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair High crown 723 5758 Douglas Fir 1 27 1 27 Good 724 5759 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Good Leans to the West 725 5760 Ore on Red Alder 11 Poor Broken top, high crown High crown; 6" x 20 ft cavity from 5 ft above ground level to 25 ft above ground level on 726 5761 lWestem Red Cedar 1 20 1 20 Poor South side 727 5762 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown, leans North 728 5763 Dou las Fir 1 12 1 12 Poor Suppressed, high crown, root legs 729 5764 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 730 5765 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Fair Suppressed 731 5766 Western Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Good 5" x 72" cavity Southeast side 18 ft above 732 5767 Western Red Cedar 1 37 1 37 Fair round level 733 5768 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good 734 5769 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Fair High crown, 17" x 4 ft 6" cavity East side 735 5770 Dou las Fir 1 Very Poor Broken top, to is 90% dead, 13" dia 736 5771 Douglas Fir 1 29 1 29 Good 737 5772 Bi leaf Maple 1 12 1 12 Good 738 5773 Dou las Fir 1 27 1 27 Fair Broken to 739 5774 Westem Red Cedar 1 20 1 20 Fair 740 5775 Ore on Red Alder 11 Fair High crown, sweep in trunk, leans North 741 5776 Dou las Fir 1 22 1 22 Good 742 5777 Douglas Fir 1 22 1 22 Good High crown 743 5778 Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Good 744 5779 Western Red Cedar EdPoor Dead Hazard, 28" dia. 745780 Dou las Fir 1 13 1 13 Su ressed, broken to with new leaders Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 22 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004. Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 746 5781 Douglas Fir 1 29 1 29 Good 747 5782 Western Red Cedar 11 Good Hi h crown 748 5783 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good 749 5784 Dou las Fir 1 18 1 18 Good 750 5785 Dou las Fir 1 22 1 22 Fair Broken to with new leader 751 5786 Dou las Fir 1 17 1 17 Fair Broken to with new leaders, high crown 752 5787 Douglas Fir 1 22 1 22 Good 753 5788 Western Red Cedar 1 Dead 11" dia 754 5789 Douglas Fir 1 19 Fair Thin crown, high crown 6" x 24" cat face North side at 24" above 755 5790 Bi leaf Maple 1 Very Poor round level, 12" dia 756 5791 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Poor 3 stems grown together, leans West 757 5792 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Poor Broken top, suppressed 758 5793 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good Conks at 8 ft, 10 ft, 14 ft, and 19 ft above 759 5794 Dou las Fir 1 30 1 30 Poor round level East side, high crown 760 5795 Dou las Fir 1 28 1 28 Good High crown 761 5796 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown, leans South 762 5797 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Poor Suppressed, hi h crown. 763 5798 Douglas Fir 1 19 1 19 Fair HI h crown, broken to with new leaders 764 5799 Dou las Fir 1 14 1 14 Poor Broken to 765 5800 Western Red Cedar 1 34 1 34 Good 766 5801 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Fair 5" side stem, thin canopy 767 5802 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Fair 4 stems 5"/21"/9'712" 768 5803 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Fair Thinning crown 769 5804 Dou las Fir 1 14 Fair Healed wound North side at 3 ft, old fence 770 5804 Douglas Fir 1 26 1 26 Good High crown, star on South side at 2-5 ft 771 5805 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Poor Broken top, new to 772 5806 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Good High crown 773 5807 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Good High crown 774 5808 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair Leans to the West, bark inclusion at 40 feet 775 5809 Douglas Fir 1 21 1 21 Good High crown 776 5810 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good 777 5811 Dou las Fir 1 26 1 26 Good 778 5812 Bi leaf Maple 1 17 1 17 Good 779 5813 Dou las Fir 1 23 1 23 Good 780 5814 Dou las Fir 1 15 1 15 Fair Bad to 781 5815 Western Red Cedar 1 14 1 14 Good Leans North 782 5816 Douglas Fir 1 15 1 15 Fair High crown 783 5817 Douglas Fir 1 29 1 29 Good Hi h crown Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 23 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES RemoJal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 784 5818 Douglas Fir 1 15 Poor Broken to 785 5819 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Poor Broken top, suppressed 786 5820 Douglas Fir 1 28 Fair High crown, butt swell 787 5821 Douglas Fir 1 17 Poor Bad top, one-sided, suppressed 788 5822 Douglas Fir 1 20 Good 789 5823 Douglas Fir 1 19 Poor Broken to with new leader East side 790 5824 Western Red Cedar 1 28 Good 8" side seam at 40 ft above round level 791 5825 Douglas Fir 1 30 Good 792 5826 Douglas Fir 1 28 Good 793 5827 Douglas Fir 1 22 Good 794 5828 Douglas Fir 1 26 Good 795 5829 Oregon Red Alder 11 Good 796 5830 Bi leaf Maple 1 13 1 13 Good 797 5831 Bi leaf Maple 1 16 1 16 Fair High crown 798 5832 Douglas Fir 1 23 Good 799 5833 Bi leaf Maple 1 13 1 13 Good 800 5834 Douglas Fir 1 14 Fair High crown, bad top, one sided 801 5835 Douglas Fir 1 18 Good High crown 802 5836 Bi leaf Maple 10 Good Has wound seam North side ground level to 10 803 5837 Douglas Fir 1 24 1 24 Good ft above round level 804 5838 Bi leaf Maple 1 12 1 12 Good 805 5839 Bi leaf Maple 1 13 Fair High crown, 30 ft East of #5825 806 5840 Bi leaf Maple 1 32 Fair Partial) u rooted long ago. Leans South Great wildlife tree, all that is left is the main 807 5841 Wester Red Cedar 1 Dead trunk, 29" dia 808 5842 Oregon Red Alder 11 Good 809 5843 Douglas Fir 1 23 Good Leans West 810 5844 Dou Ias.Fir 1 21 Good 811 5845 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Poor Broken top, new leaders, suppressed 812 5846 Douglas Fir 1 14 Fair High crown 813 5847 Douglas Fir 1 26 Good High crown 814 5848 Douglas Fir 1 .19 1 19 Good 815 5849 Douglas Fir 1 15 Fair Leans East, offset to at 50 feet 816 5850 Douglas Fir 1 25 Good 817 5851 Western Red Cedar 1 35 1 35 Good 3 stems, 23",14",23" dia. 818 5852 jDouglas estern Red Cedar 1 12 Good 1 9 5853 estern Red Cedar 1 14 Good 820 5854 estern Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Good 821 5855 Fir 1 Dead 24" DIA Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 24 of 42 - Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004, Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH - than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 2 stems, 19" & 18" dia., broken top with new 822 5856 Bi leaf Maple 1 26 1 26 Poor leaders 823 5857 Westem Red Cedar 1 18 Fair 824 5858 Bi leaf Maple 1 14 Fair 825 5859 Douglas Fir 1 26 Good 826 5860 Douglas Fir 1 28 Good High crown High crown, 4 It burl at 20 feet above ground 827 5861 Douglas Fir 1 21 Fair level 828 5862 Douglas Fir 1 23 Good 829 5863 Western Red Cedar 1 37 Good 830 5864 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Fair Suppressed 831 5865 Western Red Cedar 1 29 Good 832 5866 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good 833 5867 Oregon Red Alder 1 23 1 23 Good Not on property, topped, wood fence nailed To 834 5868 Douglas Fir 27 Fair West side 835 5869 Western Red Cedar 11,8 1 14 Fair 2 stems, IV& B" stems, 14 inch equivalent Wound scar ground to 5 feet East side, lean to 836 5870 Cher 1 21 1 21 Good northwest 837 5871 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good 838 5872 Western Red Cedar 1 28 1 28 Fair Cavity round to 8 feet with decay, 3 leaders. 839 5873 Western Red Cedar 1 39 1 39 Very Good cavity SW side, 14" x 60" at round level 840 5874 Western Red Cedar 1 40 1 40 Good West side stem sweeps to South, 8" stem with 841 5875 Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Good deca in oor condition 842 5876 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good 843 5877 Dou las Fir 24 Not on ro e 844 5878 Ash 18 Not on property 845 5879 Western Red Cedar 1 31 1 31 Good 2 lead tree 846 5880 Bi leaf Maple 1 12 Fair High crown, leans East 847 5881 Western Red Cedar 1 25 1 25 Good 2 stems, 18" & 18" dia. 848 5882 Western Red Cedar 1 25 Good 849 5883 Western Red Cedar 11 Good 18 degrees, broken top, 2 leaders 850 5884 Western Red Cedar 1 18 1 18 Good one side to West 2" x 24" cavity East side above ground level, 851 5885 Western Red Cedar 1 14 1 14 Fair 13" & 6" dia. 852 5886 Western Red Cedar 1 15 Good 853 5887 Dou las Fir 1 25 1 25 Good 854 5888 Western Red Cedar 1 32 1 32 Ve Good Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 25 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 855 5889 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 17 Good 3 stems, 13",10",4" dia. 856 5890 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Good 857 5891 Westem Red Cedar 1 37 1 37 Poor Broken to 2" x 12" cavity , Southwest side at 8" above 858 5892 Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good round level 859 5893 Bi leaf Maple 1 18 1 18 Fair Broken to with new leader, leans South 2" x 48" cavity South side 30" above ground 860 5893 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Fair level 861 5893 Western Red Cedar 1 27 Poor Hollow 862 5894 Douglas Fir Not on property, 22" dia Not on Property, 28" dia., Cavity, Southeast 863 5894 Western Red Cedar side at round level 864 5895 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Good 865 5896 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good One sided 866 5897 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Good 867 5898 Western Red Cedar 1 36 1 36 Good thin 868 5899 Bi leaf Maple 1 18 1 18 Good New cat face 14" x 40" from 2 ft above ground 869 5900 Western Red Cedar 1 36 1 36 Good level to 6 ft above round level South side 870 5901 Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair Leans South, high crown 871 5901A Ore on Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair Leans South, high crown 872 5902 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 873 5903 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 874 5904 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Fair 875 5905 Oregon Red Alder 1 17 1 17 Fair High crown, mature 876 5906 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown 877 5907 Western Red Cedar 11 Fair Leans Northeast 878 5908 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Good High crown 879 5909 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Good Leans South 880 5910 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good High crown 881 5910A Ore on Red Alder 11 Fair 882 5911 Oregon Red Alder 1 14 1 14 Fair High crown, mature 883 5912 Western Red Cedar 1 25 1 25 Poor Broken to with new leaders 884 5913 Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair High crown 885 5914 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown 886 5915 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good Thin crown, offset in trunk 40 ft above ground 887 5916 Douglas Fir 1 26 1 26 Fair level 888 5917 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair High crown Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 26 of 42 ° Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004. Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 889 5918 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 2 leaders at 24 feet with inclusion, 13" dia 890 5919 Westem Red Cedar 1 14 1 14 Good 891 5920 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Poor 4" x 10" cat face North side 892 5921 Western Red Cedar 1 32 1 32 Good 893 5922 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Fair Broken top, new leaders. 894 5923 Douglas Fir 1 22 1 22 Good 895 5924 Ore on Red Alder 1 17 1 17 Fair Leans East. 896 5925 Western Red Cedar 1 32 1 32 Fair 16" x 14 ft tapering cat face Southwest side 897 5926 Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Good 898 5927 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good 899 5928 Western Red Cedar 1 28 1 28 Fair Old broken to with new leader 900 5929 Dou las'Fir 1 21 1 21 Fair Offset in trunk at 30 feet above round level 901 5930 Oak 30 Not on property 902 5931 Cher 1 22 1 22 Good High crown 903 5932 Dou las Fir 1 27 1 27 Good 904 5933 Western Red Cedar 1 33 1 33 Good 14 FT SOUTHEAST OF #5965 905 5934 Bi leaf Maple 1 24 1 24 Fair Mature, bad included crotches 906 5935 Western Red Cedar 1 17 1 . 17 Good 907 5936 Western Red Cedar 1 39 1 39 Very Good 908 5937 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good 909 5938 Douglas Fir 1 26 1 26 Good Hazard; 2 leaders 15 ft above ground level with 910 5939 Western Red Cedar 1 20 1 20 Poor severe bark inclusion with decay 911 5940 Ore on Red Alder 1 14 Good High crown 912 5941 Bi leaf Maple 1 26 1 26 Good 913 5942 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good . 914 5943 Oregon Red Alder 1 27 1 27 Good 915 5944 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Good 916 5945 Bi leaf Maple 1 21 1 21 Good 917 5946 Oregon Red Alder 1 14 1 14 7" stem dead, high mature scaffolds in crown 918 5947 Bi leaf Maple 1 20 1 20 Good 919 5948 Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair Leans North 920 5949 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Good 921 5950 Western Red Cedar 11,9 Fair 2 stems 922 5951 Western Red Cedar 1 27 1 27 Fair 923 5952 Oregon Red Alder 11,10 Poor 2 stems inclusive cavil 924 5953 Western Red Cedar 1 24 1 24 Good Edge tree 925 5954 Bi leaf Maple 1 34 1 34 Good Mature Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 27 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIAULF- Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS High crown, overgrown cat face 4" x 7 ft at 926 5955 Douglas Fir 1 18 1 18 Poor round level 2 stems, 21% 22" dia., broken top with new 927 5956 Western Red Cedar 1 30 1 30 Fair leaders on each stem 928 5957 Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair High crown 929.5958A Oregon Red Alder 11 Fair 930 5958 Ore on Red Alder 1 18 1 18 Fair 931 5959 Douglas Fir 1 24 Good 932 5960 Ore on Red Alder 1 13 Poor Broken top, thin crown 933 5961 Western Red Cedar 1 21 1 21 Good 934 5966 Oregon Red Alder 16 Fair 2 stems, 11" , 11" diameter stems 935 5962 Ore on Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown 936 5963 Ore on Red Alder 1 14 Fair 937 5964 Western Red Cedar 1 27 1 27 Fair Broken to with new leads 938 5965 Western Red Cedar 1 32 1 32 Fair Thinning crown 939 5966 Ore on Red Alder 11,11 Fair 2 stems 940 5967 Douglas Fir 1 28 1 28- Good 941 5968 Western Red Cedar 1 17 Good 942 5969 Bi leaf Maple 1 19 1 19 Fair Sweep in trunk, leans North, mature 943 5970 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair 944 5971 Oregon Red Alder 1 14. 1 14 Fair 945 5972 Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Fair High crown, leans Northeast 946 5973 Western Red Cedar 11 Fair 947 5974 Western Red Cedar 1 26 1 26 Good 2 stems, 26" & 28" dia., old broken tops with 948 5975 Western Red Cedar 1 36 36 Fair new leaders each stem 949 5976 Western Red Cedar 1 12 1 12 Fair 950 5977 Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 951 5978 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19. Poor 6" x 18' cat face West side 952 5979 Western Red Cedar 1 34 1 34 Fair 3 stems, break at DBH 953 5980 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 17" x 30 ft cat face West side, 17" dia 954 5981 Western Red Cedar 1 22 1 22 Fair 2 stems, 9" & 20" dia. 955 5982 Western Red Cedar 1 41 1 41 Good 956 5983 Western Red Cedar 1 12 Fair Leans East 957 5984 Bi leaf Maple 1 14 1 14 Good 958 5985 Westem Red Cedar 1 47 1 47 Good 3 stems, break at 4 1/2 ft above round level 959 5986 Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 960 5987 Cher 1 14 1 14 Good 961 5988 Oregon Red Alder 1 14 Fair Leans South 962 5989 Douglas Fir 1 13 1 13 Fair Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 28 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 963 5989 Oregon Red Alder 1 13 1 13 Fair Leans South 964 5989 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 1 15 Fair Leans South 965 5990 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Fair 966 5991 Western Red Cedar 1 21 1 21 Good 967 5992 Western Red Cedar. 1 32 1 32 Good 6" x 14ft tapering cat face South side 968 5993 Bi leaf Maple. 1 20 1 20 Good 969 5994 Western Red Cedar 1 16 1 16 Good Foms 2 stems at 15 ft above ground level with 970 5995 Western Red Cedar 1 23 1 23 POOR inclusion 971 5996 Western Red Cedar 1 19 1 19 Good 972 5997 Dou las Fir 1 27 1 27 Good 973 5998 Ore on Red Alder 1 15 Good 974 5999 Ore on Red Alder 1 20 1 20 Fair 3 stems, 11", 12", 12" dia. 975 6000 Dou las Fir 1 16 Numbered as 5472 in field 976 5997A Cher 9 Good 977 Hazardous, 10 ft West of 5129, almost dead, 978 5129A Douglas Fir 1 Very Poor bad top, 10" DIA 979 5835A Western Red Cedar 1 Hazardous 1 branch alive, good wildlife tree, 23" dia. 980 5227A Ore on Red Alder 1 12 Poor Leans North, broken top, 2 ft West of 5227 981 5229A Douglas Fir 1 Very Poor Suppressed, leans West 982 5208A Western Red Cedar 7 Poor 7 ft Southeast of 5208, suppressed, bent trunk 983 5077A Ore on Red Alder 1 19 1 19 Good Mature, high crown, 13 ft West of #5077 984 5203A Western Red Cedar 7 Fair 4 ft East of #5203, one-sided 985 5474A Cher 8 Poor Suppressed, 11 ft West of #5474 986 54086 Cher 9 Poor High crown, 14 ft North of #5408 5 ft West of #5473, high crown, broken crown, 987 5473A Western Red Cedar 11 Poor suppressed 22 ft East of #5835, high crown, weak crotch at 988 5835B Bi leaf Maple 10 Poor 20 ft above round level 989 5779A Bi leaf Maple 7 Fair 6 ft North of #5779 990 57798 Bi leaf Maple 8 Fair 6 ft Southwest of #5779 991 5826A Bi leaf Maple 10 Fair 12 ft West of #5826, high crown 992 5776A Bi leaf Maple 7 Poor 15 ft South of #5776, suppressed 993 5468A Western Red Cedar 7 Poor 1 ft North of #5468, suppressed 994 5473A Western Red Cedar 11 Fair 3 ft West of #5473 9 1 ft East of #5501, uproot with corrected leader, 95 5501A Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 7" dia Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 29 of 42 Ash Creek I 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 4 ft East of #56588, suppressed, broken top, 996 5658C Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 11"dia 5 ft Northwest of #5889, 2 stems, suppressed, 997 58898 Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor 2" and 6" dia 998 5805A Western Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Poor Thin and rubbing on Alder 999 5805b Western Red Cedar 1 15 1 15 Fair Some dead branches 1000 5804B Bi leaf Maple 9 Fair 18" East of #5804 1001 5743A Oregon Red Alder 1 12 1 12 Good At base of #5743 Hazardous, leans, bends to West, broken top, 1002 5743B Cherry 1 Very Poor 9" dia 10 ft South of #5696, severe lean West 45 degrees, fallen trees laying on South side, 7" 1003 5696B Western Red Cedar 1 Very Poor dia 8 ft North of #5014, first 4 1/2 feet of trunk lays 1004 50146 Western Red Cedar 10 Fair on round, to sweep u 1005 5004A Western Red Cedar 1 18 Good 3 It Southwest of #5004 1006 5730A Dou las Fir 1 12 1 12 1 Dead 6 ft South of #5730, 12" dia 1007 5844A Bi leaf Maple 6 Fair 5 ft North of #5844 1008 5844B Bi leaf Maple 7 Good 8 ft West of #5844 1009 5879A Western Red Cedar 8 Good 11 ft East of #5879 1 ft Northeast of #5427, broken top.with new 1010 5427A Bi leaf Maple 1 Very Poor leader. New leader wraps around #5427, 9" dia 1011 5486A Western Red Cedar 1 13 Good 10 ft Northwest of #5486 1012 5490A Western Red Cedar 9 Poor 2 ft South of #5409, suppressed 1013 5504C Western Red Cedar 1 17 Poor 8 ft Southeast of #5504, thin crown 1014 5530A Bi leaf Maple 10 Poor 4 ft South of #5530, broken top, thin crown 1015 5522A Western Red Cedar 7 Good 10 ft Northeast of #5522 1016 5352A Bi leaf Maple 9 Fair 4 It East of #5352, high crown 1017 5321A Ore on Ash 4,9,9,6 Good 4 stems 1018 5376A Western Red Cedar 1 26 Good 1019 5383A Western Red Cedar 1 14 Good High crown 1020 5830A Bi leaf Maple 1 14 1 014 Good 13 It Northwest of #5730, high crown 1021 58306 Western Red Cedar 9 Fair 9 ft North of #5830 1022 5770A Bi leaf Maple 1 12 1 12 Good High crown, 7 ft Southeast of #5770 1023 5770B Bi leaf Maple 9 Good High crown, 7 ft Southeast of #5770 14 ft Southeast of #5794, broken top, high 1024 5794A Bi leaf Maple 1 13 1 13 Fair crown 1025 5973A Western Red Cedar 9 Fair 6 ft East of #5973 1026 5961A Euro can Mountain Ash 8 Poor 1 ft East of #5961, suppressed Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 30 of 42 Ash Creekl 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1027 5926A Western Red Cedar 8 Fair 2 it West of #5926 1 ft East of #5937, suppressed, broken top, 1028 5937A Western Red Cedar 6 Poor new leader 1029 5900A Ore on Red Alder 10 Poor 13 ft Northeast of #5900, high crown 1030 5897A Westem Red Cedar 1 Dead Broken at 15 ft above round level, 13" dia 1031 5812A Western Red Cedar 11 Fair High crown, 5 ft North of #5812 1032 5939A Westem Red Cedar 1 13 1 13 Fair 1 ft West of #5939 1033 59398 Western Red Cedar 6 Poor 5 ft South of #5939, suppressed 1034 5942C Oregon Red Alder 1 12 Fair 18 ft South/Southwest #5942 1035 5953D Western Red Cedar 7 Poor 16 ft East of #5953, suppressed 1036 5955A Western Red Cedar 6 Poor 7 it North of #5955, suppressed 1037 5955B Western Red Cedar 7 Poor 9 ft North of #5955, suppressed 1 ft West of #5901, high crown, leans 1038 5901B Oregon Red Alder 8 Poor Southwest 2 ft North of #5397, broken top with new 1039 5397A Western Red Cedar 1 23 1 23 Poor leaders 1040 5295A Western Red Cedar 9 Fair 1 ft West of #5295 1041 52956 Ore on Red Alder 11 Poor 13 ft East of #5295, high crown, thinning crown 1042 5296A Western Red Cedar 6,9 Poor 8 ft North of #5296, 2 stems, suppressed 1043 5396A Western Red Cedar 8 Poor 9 ft Southeast of #5396, suppressed 1 ft North of #5279, high crown, thin crown, 1044 5279A Oregon Red Alder 1 Very Poor leans 30 degrees North, has borers, 8" dia 1045 52798 Western Red Cedar 9,6 Fair 1 it West of #5279, 2 stems 1046 5279C Western Red Cedar 9 Fair 7 ft South of #5279 1047 5279D Western Red Cedar 7 Fair 12 ft South of #5279 1048 5280X Oregon Red Alder 1 Very Poor Broken to with rot column, hazardous, 19" dia. 1049 5960A Westem Red Cedar 8 Poor 4 ft West of #5960, suppressed 1050 59586 Ore on Red Alder 10 Poor 7 ft East of #5958, leans Southeast 30 degrees 1051 5292X Ore on Red Alder 11 Fair High crown 1052 5292XA Western Red Cedar 9 Poor 5 ft South of #5292, suppressed 1053 5275A Western Red Cedar 11 Fair 1 ft Southeast of #5275 1054 5914A Western Red Cedar 8 Fair 3 it North of #5914 1055 5986A Ore on Red Alder 11 Fair 21 ft South of #5986, severe lean South 1056 1057 1058 1059 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 31 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter. INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1060 6001 CHERRY 9 1061 6002 OREGON RED ALDER 10 FAIR 1062 6003 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 1063 6004 CEDAR 10 1064 6005 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 1065 6006 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 1066 6007 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 POOR SUPPRESSED 1067 6008 DOUGLAS FIR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED, LEANS NORTH 1068 6009 DOUGLAS FIR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED, BROKEN TOP 1069 6010 ALDER 10 1070 6011 OREGON RED ALDER 8 GOOD LEANS NORTH 1071 6012 OREGON RED ALDER 8 POOR DEAD TOP 1072 6013 ALDER 8 1073 6014 CEDAR 7 1074 6015 CEDAR 10 1075 6016 ALDER 8 1076 6017 ALDER 7 1077 6018 CEDAR 6 1078 6019 ALDER 8 1079 6020 ALDER 9 ° 1080 6021 ALDER 10 1081 6022 CEDAR 6 1082 6023 CEDAR 8 1083 6024 ALDER 11 1084 6025 ALDER 10 1085 6026 CEDAR 2 6&8 1086 6027 CEDAR 7 1087 6028 CEDAR 7 1088 6029 CEDAR 8 1089 6030 CEDAR 2 7 & 9 1090 6031 ALDER 11 1091 6032 CEDAR 6 1092 6033 ALDER 11 ° 1093 6034 OREGON RED ALDER 7 POOR HIGH CROWN 1094 6035 OREGON RED ALDER 11 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1095 6036 OREGON RED ALDER 8 POOR HIGH CROWN 1096 6037 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR HIGH CROWN 1097 6038 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR HIGH CROWN 1098 6039 OREGON RED ALDER 11 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1099 6040 CEDAR 7 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 32 of 42 Ash Creek I 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1100 6041 CEDAR 10 1101 6042 CEDAR 10 1102 6043 ALDER 8 1103 6044 ALDER 8 1104 6045 BIRCH 8 1105 6046 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR 4 FT SOUTHEAST OF 5245 1 FT EAST OF 5219, LEANS EAST, 1106 6047 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 1107 6048 CEDAR 6 1108 6049 CEDAR 6 1109 6050 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 POOR SUPPRESSED 1110 6051 HOLLEY 6 BLAZE WITH #112 AT 3" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL SOUTH SIDE, BROKEN TOP, ON 1111 6052 JBMAPLE 11 POOR FENCE LINE 1112 6053 BIGLEAF MAPLE 1 13 1 13 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1113 6053AS BIGLEAF MAPLE 8810 1 12 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1114 6054 CEDAR 11 3 STEMS, ONE 6" STEM IS DEAD, HIGH 1115 6055 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6, 5, 6 POOR CROWN 1116 6056 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 FAIR 1117 6057 CEDAR 8 1118 6058 WESTERN RED CEDAR 2 6&8 POOR SUPPRESSED, 2 STEMS 1119 6059 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR DEAD, 2 STEMS, 4" AND 6" DIA 1120 6060 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR 8 FT NORTHWEST OF 5889 1121 6061 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 4 FT WEST OF 5899,2 LEADERS 1122 6062 CEDAR 11 1123 6063 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR 6" LEADER 1124 6064 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 FAIR THIN CROWN 1125 6065 CEDAR 7 1126 6066 BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 POOR BAD STRUCTURE 1127 6067 MAPLE(DEAD) 14" DIA 1128 6068 HAWTHORNE 11 FAIR HAZARDOUS HABITAT, 15" X 30" CAVITY 1129 6069 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR NORTH SIDE, 15" DIAMETER 1130 6070 OREGON RED ALDER 9 FAIR HIGH CROWN, LEANS NORTH 1131 6071 DOUGLAS FIR 7 POOR SUPPRESSED 1132 6072 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR SEVERE LEAN SOUTH HAZARDOUS, SEVERE LEAN NORTHEAST, 1133 6073 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR 8" DIA Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 33 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1134 6074 ALDER 6 1135 6075 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR HIGH CROWN, BROKEN TOP, 7" DIA 1136 6076 OREGON RED ALDER 10 POOR HIGH CROWN, LEANS SOUTH 1137 6077 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR HIGH CROWN, 7" DIA 1138 6078 ALDER 6 1139 6079 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR HIGH CROWN, 7" DIA 1140 6080 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 FAIR 1141 6081 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR SUPPRESSED 1142 6082 HOLLY 6 1143 6083 OREGON RED ALDER 10 FAIR 1144 6084 OREGON RED ALDER 8 FAIR 1145 6085 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 1146 6086 OREGON RED ALDER 11 FAIR HIGH CROWN, LEANS NORTHEAST 1147 6087 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 FAIR SWEP IN LOWER TRUNK 1148 6088 OREGON RED ALDER 7 POOR HIGH CROWN HIGH CROWN, TRUNK SWWEP, LEANS 1149 6089 OREGON RED ALDER 11 POOR NORTHWEST 20 DEGREES 1150 6090. ALDER . 8 1151 6091 BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR LEANS NORTH 40 DEGREES 1152 6092 OREGON RED ALDER 1 13 1 13 POOR HIGH CROWN 1153 6093 MAPLE 6 1154 6094 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 1155 6095 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 POOR BROKEN TOP 1156 6096 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 FAIR 1157 6097 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 FAIR 1158 6098 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 1159 6099 WESTERN RED CEDAR 11 POOR SWEEP AND OFFSET IN TRUNK 1160 6100 CEDAR 2 6 1161 6101 CEDAR 6 1162 6102 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 GOOD 1163 6103 HAWTHORNE 1 14 1164 6104 OREGON RED ALDER 10 POOR HIGH CROWN 1165 6105 OREGON RED ALDER 11 POOR HIGH CROWN 1166 6106 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR DEAD TOP 1167 6107 HOLLY 6 1168 6108 HOLLY 6 1169 6109 OREGON RED ALDER 10 GOOD 1170 6110 ALDER 10 1171 6111 ALDER 1 14 1 14 1172 6112 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 34 of 42 Ash CreekI 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1173 6113 BIRCH 8 1174 6114 MAPLE 9 1175 6115 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 13 POOR SUPPRESSED 1176 6116 CEDAR 7 1177 6117 CEDAR 6 1178 6118 CEDAR 6 1179 6119 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 12 POOR BROKEN TOP 1180 6120 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 POOR BROKEN TOP 1181 6121 WESTERN RED CEDAR VERY POOR BROKEN TOP, 8" DIA 1182 6122 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR BROKEN TOP, SUPPRESSED 1183 6123 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD 1184 6124 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR BROKEN TOP, 9" DIA 1185 6125 CEDAR 7 1186 6126 CEDAR 6 1187 6127 CEDAR 9 1188 6128. MAPLE 10 4 STEMS, 4,9,9,6 Inches diameter, equivalent 1189 6129 OREGON ASH 15 1 15 8 GOOD to a 15 inch diameter tree. 1190 6130 ASH 9 1191 6131 CEDAR SNAG 9 1192 6132 CEDAR 1 30 1193 6133 WESTERN RED CEDAR VERY POOR DEAD TOP, TRUNK DECAY, 16" DIA 1194 6134 CEDAR 6 OVER MATURE, BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADER, 18" X 17" TRUNK CAVITY NORTH 1195 6135 OREGON ASH I VERY POOR SIDE, HOLLOW, HAZARDOUS, 25" DIA 1196 6136 CEDAR 6 1197 6137 CEDAR 8 1198 6138 CEDAR 10 1199 6139 MAPLE 11 HIGH CROWN, 3" DIAMETER BLAZE WEST SIDE 3" DIAMETER BLAZE SOUTH SIDE AT 1200 6140 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR 3" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, 7" DIA 1201 6141 OREGON RED ALDER 10 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1202 6142 OREGON RED ALDER 8 POOR HIGH CROWN 1203 6143 OREGON RED ALDER 9 POOR HIGH CROWN 1204 6144 BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADERS 1205 6145 ALDER 10 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 35 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H 1 J K --Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1206 6146 BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADERS 1207 6147 ALDER 10 1208 6148 MAPLE 9 BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADER, HIGH 1209 6149 BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 POOR CROWN 2"X 6 FT CAVITY EAST SIDE ABOVE 1210 6150 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 22 FAIR GROUND LEVEL HIGH CROWN, THINING CROWN, LEANS 1211 6151 OREGON RED ALDER 9 POOR WEST 1212 6152 OREGON RED ALDER 10 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1213 6153 CEDAR 8 1214 6154 CEDAR 9 1215 6155 CEDAR 8 1216 6156 CEDAR 7 1217 6157 MAPLE 6 1218 6158 BIRCH 8 1219 6159 CEDAR 8 1220 6160 ALDER 6 1221 6161 ALDER 6 1222 6162 APPLE 1 18 1 18 1223 6163 ALDER 8 1224 6164 ALDER 8 1225 6165 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 GOOD 4 FT NORTH OF 5670 1"x 6 FT CAT FACE WEST SIDE, 2 1/2 FT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL TO 9 FT ABOVE 1226 6166 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 13 FAIR GROUND LEVEL; 11 FT SOUTH OF 5646 1227 6167 ALDER 8 1228 6168 SPRUCE 7 1229 6169 ALDER 8 1230 6170 ASH 7 1231 6171 BIRCH 10 1232 6172 SPRUCE 6 1233 6173 BIRCH 1 16 1 16 1234 6174 MAPLE 9 1235 6175 ALDER 6 Tree located in right-of-way 1236 6176 ALDER 6 1237 6177 OREGON RED ALDER 8 GOOD 1238 6178 ALDER 8 1239 6179 OREGON RED ALDER 9 GOOD 1240 6180 CEDAR 8 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 36 of 42 Ash Creekl 11/20/2004" Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1241 6181 BIRCH 7 10 FT WEST OF 5857, HIGH CROWN, BURL NORTH SIDE AT 24" ABOVE GROUND 1242 6182 CHERRY 8 POOR LEVEL 1243 6183 CHERRY 10 POOR 11 FT WEST OF 5857, HIGH CROWN 1244 6184 MAPLE 6 1245 6185 CEDAR 11 1246 6186 FIR 8 5 FT EAST OF 5855,4"x 10 FT CAVITY WITH DECAY NORTH SIDE FROM GROUND 1247 6187 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR LEVEL 1248 6188 MAPLE 6 1249 6189 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 POOR 6 FT NORTH OF 5850, SUPPRESSED 2 FT WEST OF 5604, STRESS/LEANS WEST 1250 6190 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 POOR AND CROOK IN TRUCK 3 FT NORTHWEST OF 5606, LEANS 1251 6191 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR NORTHWEST 1252 6192 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 3 FT EAST OF 5609 HAZARDOUS, 2 FT SOTHEAST OF 5846, 1253 6193 DOUGLAS FIR 1 VERY POOR SUPPRESSED RED RING ROT, 6" DIA 1254 6194 FIR 9 1255 6195 BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 25 FT NORTH OF 5850 4 FT SOUTH OF 5820, SUPPRESSED, 1256 6196 BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR BROKEN TOP 1257 6197 BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 5 FT SOUTH OF 5789, HIGH CROWN 1258 6198 MAPLE 6 8 FT SOUTH OF 5768, SUPPRESSED, 1259 6199 BIGLEAF MAPLE 1 VERY POOR BROKEN TOP, 6" DIA 1260 6200 BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 10 FT SOUTHWEST 1261 6201 MAPLE 7 1262 6202 CEDAR 6 1263 6203 FIR 10 1264 6204 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 FAIR 6 FT WEST OF 5052, SUPPRESSED 1265 6205 CHERRY 6 FAIR 1266 6206 BIRCH 9 1267 6207 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 POOR SUPPRESSED, 1 FT EAST OF 5022 1268 !6210 08 CEDAR 6 1269 09 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD 1270 CEDAR 7 1271 6211 CEDAR 8 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 37 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1272 6212 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 FAIR 1273 6213 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 FAIR 24" CEDAR SUPPRESSED 1274 6214 ALDER 6 1275 6215 BIRCH 6 1276 6216 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 12 GOOD 1277 6217 WESTERN RED CEDAR 11 GOOD 1278 6218 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD 1279 6219 CEDAR 6 1280 6220 ASH 6 1281 6221 OREGON RED ALDER 1 13 POOR EPICORMICS, LEANS SOUTHWEST 1282 6222 CEDAR 6 1283 6223 CEDAR 6 1284 6224 CEDAR 6 1285 6225 CEDAR 6 1286 6226 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR 1287 6227 CEDAR 1 14 1288 6228 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD 1289 6229 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR SUPPRESED 1290 6230 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 1291 6231 CEDAR 6 1292 6232 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 LAYERED UP ROOT 1293 6233 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 POOR SUPRESSED 1294 6234 ASH 8 1295 6235 WESTERN RED CEDAR 11 FAIR 1296 6236 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR 1297 6237 CHERRY 1 VERY POOR 2 STEMS, BLIGHTED, 6" AND 9" DIA 1298 6238 CEDAR 10 1299 6239 CEDAR 6 1300 6240 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 GOOD 1301 6241 BIRCH 8 1302 6242 ALDER 7 1303 6243 ALDER 9 1304 6244 OREGON RED ALDER 6 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1305 6245 ALDER 6 1306 6246 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR HIGH CROWN 1307 6247 OREGON ASH 11 POOR DIE BACK ON TOP 1308 6248 OREGON ASH 11 POOR DIE BACK WITH TOP 1309 6249 ASH 6 1310 6250 OREGON RED ALDER 9 FAIR LEANS SOUTH 1311 6251 OREGON RED ALDER 8 POOR HIGH CROWN, DEAD WOOD IN TOP Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 38 of 42 Ash Creekl 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1312 6252 OREGON RED ALDER 8 FAIR HIGH CROWM 1313 6253 ALDER 6 1314 6254 OREGON RED ALDER 8 POOR DEAD WOOD IN TOP 1315 6255 OREGON RED ALDER 9 FAIR 1316 6256 ALDER 7 1317 6257 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 GOOD 1318 6258 OREGON ASH 9 POOR LEANS NORTHWEST, MANY DEAD LIMBS 1319 6259 CEDAR 6 1320 6260 CEDAR 8 1321 6261 CEDAR 11 1322 6262 CEDAR 8 5 FT EAST OF 5461, SUPPRESSED, HIGH 1323 6263 OREGON RED ALDER 7 POOR CROWN 1324 6264 OREGON RED ALDER 10 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1325 6265 OREGON RED ALDER 9 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1326 6266 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 2 FT SOUTH OF 5479, SUPPRESSED 2 FT SOUTH OF 5479, SUPPRESSED, 1327 6267 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR SEVERE LEAN SOUTH, 6" DIA 1328 6268 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 FAIR SUPPRESSED 1329 6269 FIR 7 1330 6270 CEDAR 8 1331 6271 OREGON RED ALDER 6 POOR 22 FT EAST OF 5430, EXTRA HIGH CROWN 1332 6272 MAPLE 10 1333 6273 MAPLE 8 1334 6274 OREGON ASH 9 POOR 22 FT SOUTH OF 5429, BROKEN TOP 1335 6275 BIRCH 8 BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADERS, SUPPRESSED, HIGH CROWN, 5 FT NORTH 1336 6276 DOUGLAS FIR 1 VERY POOR 5408, 10" DIA 1337 6277 CEDAR 8 1338 6278 DOUGLAS FIR 1 VERY POOR 9 FT NORTH OF 5499, SUPPRESSED, 7" DIA 1339 6279 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR 13 FT EAST OF 5499, SUPPRESSED 1340 6280 CEDAR 6 1341 6281 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 13 GOOD n345 6282 MAPLE 8 6283 OREGON ASH 6 POOR BROKEN TOP, SEVERE LEAN TO SOUTH 6284 ALDER 6 6285 ALDER 10 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 39 of 42 Ash Creek I 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K ree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1346 6286 ALDER 6 1347 6287 ALDER 6 1348 6288 ALDER 10 1349 6289 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 20 POOR BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADERS 1350 6290 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 1351 6291 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 17 POOR THIN CROWN 1352 6292 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 22 POOR BROKEN TOP WITH NEW LEADERS 1353 6293 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 23 POOR THIN CROWN 1354 6294 BIRCH 6 1355 6295 CEDAR 6 1356 9296 MAPLE 10 1357 6297 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 POOR HIGH CROWN 1358 6298 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 30 POOR BROKEN TOP WITH NO LEADERS, NO TAG 1359 6299 MAPLE. 6 1360 6300 MAPLE 6 1361 6301 MAPLE 6 1362 6302 MAPLE 7 1363 6303 ALDER 9 1364 6304 ALDER 9 1365 6305 ALDER 7 1366 6306 ALDER 7 1367 6307 ALDER 10 1368 6308 ALDER 10 1369 6309 ALDER 8 1370 6310 ALDER 9 1371 6311 ALDER 9 1372 6312 ALDER 11 1373 6313 ELM 6 4 FT EAST OF 5492, DEAD TOP, 1374 6314 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR SUPPRESSED 1375 6315 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 FAIR 3 FT EAST OF 5492 1376 6316 BIGLEAF MAPLE 9,10 FAIR 2 STEMS LEAN TO SOUTH 1377 6317 MAPLE 10 1378 6318 MAPLE 10 1379 6319 FIR 6 1380 6320 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 GOOD ROOT LEGS GROW FROM OLD STEM 1381 6321 BIRCH 9 1382 6322 BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 FAIR SWEEP IN LOWER TRUNK 1383 6323 OREGON ASH 7 GOOD HIGH CROWN Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 40 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1384 6324 OREGON ASH 8 FAIR 1385 6325 OREGON ASH 1 VERY POOR LEANS ON #5336C, 8" DIA 1386 6326 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR SUPPRESSED 1387 6327 DOUGLAS FIR 9 POOR BROKEN TOP 1388 6328 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 FAIR 1389 6329 CEDAR 2 10 BROKEN TOP, DECAY CLOUMN IN TRUNK, 1390 6330 OREGON RED ALDER 1 VERY POOR 9" DIA 1391 6331 OREGON RED ALDER 11 POOR BROKEN TOP, LEANS SOUTH 1392 6332 BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 1393 6333 BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 1394 6334 BIRCH 10 1395 6335 HOLLY 6 1396 6336 MAPLE 10 1397 6337 WESTERN RED CEDER 1 12 GOOD ROOT LEGS 1398 6338 CEDAR 6 1399 6339 OREGON RED ALDER 12 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1400 6340 CEDAR 6 1401 6341 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 DEAD 10" DIA 1402 6342 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 17 FAIR HIGH CROWN 1403 6343 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 14 POOR SUPPRESSED 1404 6344 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR SUPPRESSED, DEAD TOP, 8" DIA 1405 6345 WESTERN RED CEDAR 10 SUPPRESSED 9 FT SOUTH OF 5077, SUPPRESSED, BENT 1406 6346 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 POOR STEM 7 FT NORTH OF 5227, SUPPRESSED, RUBS 1407 6347 WESTERN RED CEDAR 7 POOR ON 5227A LEANS NORTH, BROKEN TOP, 2 FT WEST 1408 6348 OREGON RED ALDER 11 POOR OF 5227 1409 6349 ALDER SNAG 10 1410 6350 FIR 6 1411 6351 WESTERN RED CEDAR 8 POOR LEANS NORTHWEST, SUPPRESSED 1412 6352 CEDAR 6 1413 6353 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 FAIR 16 FT NORTHEAST OF 5066 LEANS NORTHWEST, 13 FT NORTHEAST 1414 6354 OREGON RED ALDER 8 FAIR OF 5066 1415 6355 MAPLE 6 1416 6356 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 GOOD 10 FT SOUTH OF 5719 1417 6357 CEDAR 6 1418 6358 CEDAR 8 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 41 of 42 Ash Creek 1 11/20/2004 Tree Inventory A B D E F G H I J K VIABLE Tree TREES Removal TREE LARGER Larger TREE DIAMETER THAN 12" INCH than 12" REMOVAL LESS HAZARD TREE 1 POINT # DESCRIPTION DIAMETER DIAMETER Diameter INCHES THAN 12" TREE CONDITION COMMENTS 1419 6359 WESTERN RED CEDAR 1 VERY POOR 80% DEAD, 7" DIA 1420 6360 FIR 6 1421 6361 WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 GOOD 1422 6362 WESTERN RED CEDAR 9 GOOD 1423 6363 FIR 6 1424 6364 MAPLE 6 1425 6365 MAPLE 6 1426 6366 MAPLE 6 1427 6367 CEDAR 6 1428 6368 CEDAR 6 1429 6369 CEDAR 6 10" X 12" BURL, BURL 12" ABOVE GROUND 1430 6370 CHERRY 7 POOR LEVEL ONSTH SIDE, SUPPRESSED 14316371 CEDAR 8 1432, 778 17029 321 6892 115 Teragan Associates, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-1975 Page 42 of 42 Y I ~M 1 I S~ r • ( ~ F'..,~ llll~ ~ 4I l~ I 1 f 1G) 1. ; 4 ..,~..,,....-.....~r~..~.......... . I,~J ~ ~ E (`,r;~ ~ ,i ~ r , rte. rev . T I _ ~.l' ~ ~,...............,.w.~..~.........,,~,~,.,........w~w...~........ w~ . ~ i I ~t ~t r .r.' 11 1.1! „ 1 ,a. „ ~ , ~ ~ , 1 .Y W~ : ( 1 ■ l I~ ry 1 ,~1 ~ '886 9 817 ~ 3 ' ~ 3 .8 1 _r L ..~,..v~ i • , ~ . 8~ ~ ..M.....~.w g• ~ ..~........,.y..,~,..,....... ..w .~._...w., ; M ~ .f,._ l f ti ; 1~ ~ r" i , E s ✓r .r v ...M,.,......,.,..w.~........ .......,......,w t l ~ • i 6 l ~ , ~ c l~_ ti~ 9I8 ~ r i 1 ~ ,,per: ~ r 598 ~'...y y; w~, _ 5 .I 05 ~ i r ' l ~ 1. c:.... . - i'`4 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ • X71 L t l l i ~ ~ fr ~ ti 1 l ~ t ! ' r Y~ t t~l,l I ~ k 1 fl i 1 f \ rr 5 1 1 I 1' . eoo 1 , i 3. l 1. t 1 ~ 1 ~ I / 3~ F, 1 11 1 F ~ i {i! 5~ 1t1:t 3S 11 i ~ ;I ,w"N«~w...,.., 1 s i,,~ ' ~J r x 1 574 ~ h i ' 7 ~ 4 t I , ~ rw ~ E t . , S r 1 l ~ t I ~ J i. , ~ r ~ : ► 1 fti,~~, , , 7?~ ! ~ ...a .w.. 11 1 1. _ ~ ~ ~ S . k ~ c.... S ~ ,I o . ,l f,~ ~ . Y , ~»,.r,,, ,ter. s`r Li mow. ~ 4 i' ?~4 ! .rte'' ~ l ~a~ . I?it,~ 1 ~ f. ° I I ~ r,. ` ~ " i i ~ Vr~, 1 , i j . - . • ~ , ~ r I I:. ` •7'~ ~r~a' ' I~:D1 'r.. A 1. ~A `t,. ~'n r' .3 ~ ' i 7 ~...r„ i } ~rv.~ `~r ~ t4 . , Y r f... 1' I<. r, 'r~` ~ 881 f II~ ~ r , , 1,• ~ ti ~ 63 70 Y i f , QS r r Jj' ~ 'yyn._ , a t,~ J _ - , JI f.. l ~ S ~ 4. 0 1: , •,.i p t 3 ~ 1k ib'r•- _ 1 A~ ,y,,, f I ' ~ \ ~ f i 1 I , i )I ti.~ I ! TREES 12 AND GREATER 1 ~ i I X83 ~ C i ~7 n ; , ~o - x TREES LESS THAN 12 TO ; 1 Irr S ~ ti~ ~ y I BE SAVED , , ti. I. Oo , , ~ ~ 'I ,,r TREES NOT CONFIRMED BY ` r t7 r~ ■ r01 ■i x I T ~ ARBORS ~ ; ~ , r ! 1 GREATER THAN 12 HAZARD ; ~ { , t I , 1 , ; f.. f x TREES ALL HAZARD TREES ; ; , ',x ~ , 1 N T HA B CUT ,1 1 ~ ~ ~ % 1 0 LOSS LL E ~ , t . ~ ' ~F;w? i ,1 r, 0 833 ,r ~ 9 r 8 , ~ ; l r~-, ~ i ,,r, ~ ) , HAZARD TREES SMALLER . ~ 1 ~ F ~ 84 if x 1. ,i,l ~ 8q ~ THAN 12 ALL HAZARD , I , , ! 5°s ~ 1,..,, f S? i 3 TREES ON LOTS S LL BE 1 ~ O , ~ .n 1 , ~ ~N ' CUT , , ~ , i , 8 " i l I ! k ' ~~8 t ~ ~I ~ h li 11 r i °88 ~ r. „ , i t ,Jl ~ k 1 ~ ~ TREES GREATER THAN 12 , i i i • f TO BE CUT 1 i , . fi , , 1 0 ' , 635 ~ r. t ~F; I l l .ti fi n I t ;t f 4 ~ 1,., r/ I p+' TREES LESS 1HAN 12 TO ~T~ • ! F, l f"1 ; ti tl,.~ f T. BE CUT 1 ! 68 ti I ~ i ~ : 1 ' ~ ~ s~" ~ f 1 I ~ / 1 t ( ' Y ~ Ij No~rE S: ~ r ~ , ~ os r 1. 3000 AND 4000 SERIES ARE NOT 1 ~ ~_~,w,.. r.:, , I~ ~ ~ r= 8p ,k ~ . TRIES. . , so r~, 4 r 08 0 >8 ~n~. ~ ~ ~ rte( 7.'-w..,` r~'.r w.. _vVv~ k 1 I s rV. k 2. ALI_ TREES SAVED WILL BE SUBJECT ~ : ~ ~ °s v TO ARBORIST REVIEW IF DURING ~ ~ 5y29 5Z4 OOSp~s Y f . Q5 61 a;°`'..~ 5 608 1 ~ ~ a54 k Os ~S 8 05 .849 FM CONSTRUCTION Of SUBDIVISION OR SZ2y s ~ , 06) k ~ 49 i ~ ~ 6 ' k ,tru ~0) r ~ ~''r • 60J 10 0521S 6 611 F, 0 HOUSES, THE GRADING IS PROPOSED ~ ~`~9 y 1 56 8 38 0 4 CLOSER THAN 1' PER INCH DIAMETER y 1 I ~ . ' Syq~ 8349 g?0 . 3 1 Q 39 60 38? • , k Y ; ~ , 60I ~.r , 0 - ~ 0 05 ®sso~ s'8oe OF TREE. ARBORIST SHALL PROPOSE S ~ ` ~a8~ A NECCESSARY MITIGATION. -c'""~`" 834 ~ 4 ~ e61 0 ~ v ~ t J k k 1 ?3 r"1 6 • ~ 3 3 0 a8 8 5 OqS ?i 045 ~ X k ~ S ~S 6 k ` ~ ,;i'~'*~. 3. AI_L TREES SMALLER THAN 12" ~ 63'~~(~ ~~p ~9? wC 0 QS 83 k ?6 5 ~ ~ p ~s ? 5o y 08 k 830 86 k SO c Uss,7 WILL BE CUT. TREES LESS THAN 12" ."~i ~ -)off *62~ ~g 8y k ~5 ~ ~ Aso AT EDGE OF LOTS MAY BE SAVED s 4""'~ =r , , ~ Sy ~q(~ 4 k 03 , ~ -'V ~ • ?,eF n.RM1a W'.Wd[WWR e l '^.r 1 f r r~~ k 6 ? ~ rr . . 3 ` ...w sso'-'- SI UNTIL HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED { ~ A TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES , S~? s 8 . 8~ k w..,..,.~...,~,,,~ ~ ` li f SAVED. " I ~ ~8 ~3qq ~~9! ~ , 18 0? ~ ,fit ~ f 6? 501 k ~k ; , 9 4 ~ 0 ~ , e6 ?9 ~ 1) 4. SEE ABORIST REPORT FOR SIZES, u' _ # ~ I ~d2q ~ ~o CONDITION AND REMQVAL LIST ( ` 8j x r 1II ~ ~ ~ . 6 ~ lI r k l Its, _ j~ ? 56? r' ' } ?I k ~ : ~ k 5. HAZARD TREES WITHIN THE LOTS " 3~------{ ~~!'O~5?3y Sy ~~~9 ~~99 632~ti. ' r ~ti ~ 216 k Q5 1 es R o ??6 ~ r, 30 8? ~ SHALL BE CUT. f ~i' Cr lA ~:l .~P: FI.NrH: _ % x 1 6p4B ) ~@6 86 ~ ; , ??4 5 ~ k 6 C ~ 6. hIAZARD TREES WITHIN OPEN SPACE ?p6 ~ ~ 6,~ 05 t k ss 4 s1 05 ? 63 4 ~ Os ~ e k 41 8 62z 1&4 .;PSI SHALL BE REVIEWED 4Y ARBORISi \1'` ~ ~ of ; 648 r1 ...i ~ a~ , DURING CLEARING AND WILL BE CUT 1 I~\") 573 ~ 35 ?!8 QSy SAFETY HAZARD ' Ir ~ S?34' j~ 3 ~S?36~ ? $ Sy i ~ 1 f I r 'r \ 56 631 •18 ~ f ~ ~ ~ ?3 k :~-~i ~ 561 ~ .r 50 ' 5466 UX IF THEY REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT ~f ~T 'v per` _ - - 4it i ~ ?3 a 7. ALL TREES TO BE SAVED SHALL HAVE t"~.~ ? - ' ~ ' I ic,(}i ~s~) 32q"g~' W_04g ~ TREE PROTECTION FENCING PLACED - ~ 7 KURAHASHI AROUND THEM AS DIRECTED BY r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ep4g~ _ ARBORIST _ I ~~y~ !°C' ?3~ ' eo4y & ASSOCIATES, INC. Y~ ~ g ®624 , o _ _..__-1 I l Civil Engineering • Water Resources Landscape Architecture . Planning s= Environmental Surveying ~ i ,r' ~,o(5?S3 QkS~ ~5?13 ~~52~g., 1 ~ - =rte i o q__~.... I 3p42 ~ ' ` I 2S ~ 7___.__1 ~ i s S ~ L:l:s{~-~.-'hil~~ .l~1s:SJi Fl~.CE 1:INF-G~16pg~..~?... g l _ ~8(__ . ......_~___....~ZSV . Sys - - .Z p4 4gr5_ J i ! x x s?49 3 r °r~ f Z9......... ®ITK 01/11/03 C'rl x 5 954 I 11 Designed Date 1 M, . S8s ~,~~ih~~~'~~}~f3 ' ' 1'I~ ~r~a~,1, C OIL. 01/11/03 ~ 052 LEGEND Drawn Date O K 01/11/03 6 TREES 12" AND GREATER Check/Revise Date ~M,.,,.~ x w.,. . ~ r~..... w.,...... ....~.J, w......... ~M„~ ......n g8 6 ~ .w~ ~.......8~,.... :061 8 Q MEMO=" 60 9 586 ' s g 5 ~ S - 89 5 8 )q 882 g2 s 6 ~ k ) OS O 8 ^r 1 58 I 598 81? 9) ~ ~ s =ti . - r j 6~ 5 8 A . ~ 9 S9 81? I I 1 i 1 1 I 1 I S89 9 s 3 - es o q ~s 588 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 5)6 l s I ss 51 51) I ~ 581 1 5 5. f: 4 5) g 6) I I r= 1 )5) 5)9 S9 S)6 1 3gq 5 4 1)0 51 _ ~.,r... 5)6 6) 516 . _ .k ~ . ~ 939 i r OWE! n 5~I 594 Sl _ _s05 i 8 ? 68 594 h 0 4 2c 939 ~ 5) e 55 S) x r._. ...M . Y s5 ..Q M { 1 6 1s4 516 ~ h,u... , . w 1 053 6 . _ 4S3 59, . r . ~ qS 5) 34 16 _ S4 5 ~ 516 S1 Sl 6 ~ x S ? S 61 Sg 410 ...w 953 163 s ~ v....w....N..,.... 408 ,J r - , 5)3 - . ~ . 3. 59 i rr - qtr 5)5 ~ ~ ~..w S s s ?2 0 ~ 1 s 00 44 , 6 w.. 0 5 s ~t. 055 S)8 - . ~ ~ 40) 511 ? M ....k. r i 5 ~ ~ . '~18 11 ~ ri ~...lw . , e 5)6 51 ~ . w.. . h. 2 5 60 S) (w w 7) . ~ ~ Og . 1~~ S9 ~ ~ 5 S Sg S 9~5 ~ ...w~x~~.. ~ ~ ~ 640 0 24 ,,f.., 9 5 g~ r 3 S! 5)S 5 511'„~ , ; , ~ ! 36 5 95 954 w / Ol )5 6 112 , . ~ 9?g 5q g w x 5) 1 S11 S11 ~ 48 53 s 3 . K - ~ ~.n.. 5 59 5g ~ A. 59 95S , j " c 50 Og ~ w . ~ f.. i) ~ ) xu ,5`~j~... ri 511 ~ sq ~ ~ ? S 9 5 ~ _ . 1 ~ ~ 1) S ..-..,_x ....~~..w. 14q 1g9 5) ~11~ , 5)8 1S6 51 ~ 61 1 S s 54 003 S 5 )3 X80 S , 5)8 9 g 8 - . . ) S2 14 4 x n. ~ . 0 i r-+ )3 ~ w 3 Ol 581 . ) 5) 51 w ~ .~....,~.......r... i) i s4 S 5 ~ ~ ? g13 5110 7)) 944 i. - 5 _ w..... ~ . _ 5) 5g v.. 8 95 1l ~r ..r w.v 5 ,_,_S .....6 )86 f I )g3 ~ )g~... . S 1) ....w. S g4 51U S 5)8 ~ 1~2 6 59 i~J 9 809 3 ~ 580~~... 49 0 w... 1)4 5 8)1 J LrGTc.~Yc,~i 51 S) ~ ~ ~ 9 58 ,4 45 8 , o , f ~ 1 S) ~ ~ 4 1 K..... 4Q F; S)8 8S 5 S ~ ~ ? 91 S1 I S18 518 )9 S1 v...... r~~ ~ ~ ; 9p 189 $ ~ ,r : f ~ / ~ 5I8 51 > s w fl r,. t 80 S - i S S 1?3 TREE LOCATION ~ P. r ~ S )9 5) ,)1 4 BY ARBORIST J 5,y' ls` ~ 51 OQ S 1 44 24 )~0 )9 ~ r 5)9 4q 90 2 5)) S 59 6 r 0 ) 04 { q ? 8 8 5 'S 0@ 34q 30@ 0 ~ 519 816 ~ 3 f TREE LOCATION 5 I S 86 5 S1 )90 BY ARBORIST 83 51 435 51 ( Q 0 S1 81 ~)6 ?8 S1 ~ 82 ~T~ f ' S13 8 5 3p 51 s 1 f ~ ~ S1 s ? 5) 134 L 2 85 :f~ 5 ~ s?3 S4 S12 ~ ~ )3 I E 28 g 9 j 51 31 , ~ S) ~ : 89 58 lg 513 513 1 51 58 )8 g 583 3 5 )8 866 i 8 1 5 k 5 E 0 8 ,g 20 r ice, f a n.l ~ 'ti ~ t 5 s _ 13 ~ ~ . ._5 x ) ~ Y~ - 1g OS ~ S? 5 61 5 e)s '4 9 r _ S w e e 8 s 8 61 x ~ 15 39 x 9) 5 0 2 05 x x 13 x x 8 0 s 0 - , 3 x 0 8 OS 58 8?3 S 583 18 8 3 x l s 0 18 ~ 3 S8 x 8 ~ Q5 x 0 8 sg 0 83 S85 61 32 k 51 S x 5 x ti OS 84 0 Q5 x ~ 8 8 ~ 2) s18 6p 84S s k r 66 05 ti. 1 6 8 9 1 85 ? 1 S 8) 3 ~ 4 ~ 543 x 3 O,s es1 k .4,` a?? , a l f 1, , , .1 $ Os ~ ..9 356 k f..., ~ ~ ~ , ~ 5 D$ 40 8 3 3 r w ? ? ~ I r_ ? 8 1 x . 5 OS 4 ®6 43 M. .~L.w w..~ 189 618 0 D6 ,,...M., ? Q x 2)2 86 QS - 183 429 ~ . k x i x 8 US Q 0 OS 59 8S 58 85 ) 61 63 ~ 5 x ~xSo 0 85 ~x S 2)1 404 40 05 8 es 05 5 8 4 2 4 3 Q5 52 x )3 16 )9q 414 ~S 408 3 x 4 3s2 2 )g 4 238 x 36? ~1 k 9 ~8e„ 81 05da, . e8~~. nfi.,. l0 ~y k "408 k 6 ~ f I /°'Q116 5304 05 00 4 85 88? 0 5 09 4pT 41l 6 28 150 ~ k 0 45) k I i ,ice k d ? oT 618 ®5 Oe 3 4~9 QS , i 30 05 k 44g ~ 5 386 k 0 I Os ks5.5 k e os k ~ S $30 ? t•. 05 44 6 k 1- 40 8 x 05 ~ 5' , ~ 3 1 ,r:.,~ k r, GS 82T k 4p5 0 50 0 05 "~515 8 5 420 k k 388 e81 45 k 03 ~ 7 . US 1, 310 ~ 05 k • D 5 A 5 4 ~S U l) ,t ~6 0 4 5 80 8g ~4 Q~5 41 8 5 38 3 62 k k ~ 1 53 :~8 06 8 ? ~ , . ~fi ?g ~ ~ 4 ~ 4 ,.v., , 55 Qk k 6 k ® k~ 91 0 Olq Q5 k 383 55 k 48 S o k 541 2 8 48 50 ~ ~ 9 ( , 5 ) k 1 ti 383 403 e61 53 4 esl 3g 83A 0 5 4 OS S 8 ~~6« 1 ~ 9 4 ? 41 w..., S18 8 54 8l k 89 S S5 ~ 89 Q8 D6 4) 5 2gg k 331 fri k 05 k ~ 3 k : , 4T1 05 ~ ~ k ~ 41? 6 5 ~ 31 X16 ~ , 38 k 0 k ~ 4 O6 6 4 4 ( 2 ) ~ Os 1 8 1 e 3 31) 9 :23 I . 9,S 408 T5 S3 ~.T k 5g k k ~ 531 5 k t~5 i 1 ~ 5 32 •f; Q5 44 ~ k k ~ . . i ~tP~". 8s o~ 2TT k , . ? 41 a5 ~ ~ ~ 88 d 8 38 ~1T k 548 8 54 5?8 8 1 ? f s .r.. 302 ~ k 8 ~ 1 319 Os1 20 ; 8 35 1 e ,•~r os k ? ? ' a 54 4T o5 ~ k ~ e8 4 k ~ , , . ~ ? , 83 Q5 es3 6 oQ t 11 61 k 4 i ?2 Q5 86 , , 54 k ~ 541 ~ l I ~ r~ . ~ 491 281 , ~ I ; ~ , ?5 Y A 54~ 30~ ~ ~ 7 r M1.,, . X53 ~ ~ 280 . ~ Be 5 ~ ~ , ?51 493 5a'vw ~ ~5 ik k ?k 05 :05 32 r' 52 1 34 s...... $ 8 ~ . ._.....r' k y., ~ ~8 88 5 ~ k 28 3 2g 33 a5 4, u ee 2T8 s Z5 , , ~ ~ ~,'t. . w.., 3 k ~ ...,,~w....~ Os 3 k k 3 35 80 OS ~ . , ~ 05 s I ; 8? 31 , , , 531 S5 ~ 8?~ x 05 ~ 1 ~ S1g 9 ~ ,~3 360 0 r, ?g )8 k k s 0 46 k ~ ,.@ ~~~~1 i , ~0 49 k 2I 6 I ~ k 9 Q as s s?) s s 3pA 53 530 ~ k 61 k 4 05 s ~ 3 5 ~ ~ 14 54T 90 ~S S45 ?58 ~ ~@~ t.. A D Qk 4 A 510 i 9 k ~ k ;1~; l i C~3 n_ 29 346 ) 3?1 33) 6 li('j k 29 5 Q,g 1 s ~ 24 34 6 2,ti I ~ n ~ w.... ~ ~ , ~ . w...:~T.. . w...w, ~ 824 ~ .w.. - QS 318 5 38 6 538 k 12 l o QS i. ~ ~ S ~ 1 ' r ~ ~b~ !',J{ , k kk h~ ti J , rl i W ~ i 249 ~ Y ~ . d5 /f k 51 k 532 61 05 53 ? ~ 5 ) e 5~8 31 )A ~5 QS 3)) 361 36 ..C 3` i ~ 8BR&S~C@ ftM6@ ~F ~`Rg,t,~e r / r.,` 6 4 ?9 e ~ ti ~S i w ~ r, 9 ?9 8 4? t ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ k 29 @S 5 u~-~-R'u`~ ~ru= lNe~ ."x a ~.___~_.-~-~:r~~ - } ~ ~ , 0 s S I I .8 ~ 8?4 `@ea 6 ' @ ~ • ~ ~ 6? k ?9 88 k , . l: ~ 8 e6 ~ 462 k B 8 k mobs ! ~ ~ `~z w ~ 0 m ; ~ 8 ?4 ?4 ..,ti , , 5 C ~ I I ?48 4 3 . i 5 543 ~ 240 I I t ~ , ~ I r x tom. ~ 538 44 l r ~ , 82S ~ ~.ti ` k KURAHASHI ~ . o ~ ~ 1 i _ d~ k ti 55 ~ I; QS ~ o { & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ~ I 48 ~ 47 l j 05 s , ~ . } 0 05 3 ~ Civil Engineering • Water Resources ~ ; i ~6 480 'w, _ , ..n,......... r Y Landscape Architecture . Planning o 481 88 488 8 ~ ~ 5 ~ $ i Environmental • Surveying ~ I 1' 45 ~ 8 54) d5 4, J ~r ~ ~ a 5 ~ ; ?8 28 9 485 ~ ~1,, m i e k 3 ~ a a~a@@@@~. N ~ 54 4 ~ s 5k ~ 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200 Beaverton, Oregon 97006 ~ , , ?8 LOCATION NOT 484 .N... 8 8T @ d (503)644-61342 fax: (503)644--9731 625 ° 05 SURVEY APPROXIIUATE 8 'i ' fa 9 496 8,26 ~ ~ 31 83~-~,, CV , ~i , t ~~A v 26 ""~9 r , K~ ~ I . k,.<..,. REVISED TREE . r ~ ; u, ' 550 6 1 i t, ; i i 288 311 4? PRESERVATION , ~Q 3 } I - ~ r o x N(~.; i..f ~ , , 834 ~3 4~.^... A~-- ,_.r,,.. .x e ~,~.I~`?i~l~d'`1 t~~• 6:~J~,lif.~ ~^11~, ~ ;,a ~ r ,~k:", QS 4 I t F s t~ ~ ~ , 98 . ~ 631 3 ~ h~ N L.I ~t f;. 0 a"~~~ 8 .5 14 ~ l._ , . ~ . } aid d~:A)~ba'~ -at"1.. n . 4 i N I LAWYERS RECEIVED PLANNING Davis Wright Tremaine LLP JAN 2 0 2005 CITY OF TIGARD ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE HONOLULU LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. CHRISTOPHER P. KOBACK SUITE 2300 TEL (503) 241-2300 Direct (503) 778-5382 1300 SW FIFTH AVENUE FAX (503) 778-5299 chriskoback@dwt.com PORTLAND, OR 97201-5682 www.dwt.com January 19, 2005 Morgan Tracey City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 2129 Ash Creek Estates PUD LUBA Remand Dear Mr. Tracey: The purpose of this letter is to provide limited additional evidence relevant to the issues for the February 8, 2005 remand hearing on the above development application. In its decision dated August 20, 2004, LUBA sustained Petitioner's assignment of error that Windwood's landscape plan fails to show protection of existing vegetation as much as possible during construction. See TCDC 18.745.030(E). Subsequent to LUBA's decision, Windwood commissioned an arborist to assist in the preparation of a new detailed tree plan. The preparation of that plan involved a formal tree survey that identified all trees over 12 inches in diameter that will be removed and retained. The arborist also prepared a formal tree protection plan for the trees being retained. I have enclosed a copy of the arborist's suggested protection plan. Windwood suggests that the City include in any approval of its application a condition requiring Windwood to follow the enclosed tree protection plan. Very truly yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP LL, L P. Christopher P. Koback CPK/lkt Enclosure cc: Dale Richards, Windwood Construction PDX 1222003v1 44727-22 61402-3 MEMORANDUM TO: Morgan Tracy FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Ash Creek Estates DATE: January 24, 2005 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Ash Creek Estates" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. • The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 18.745.030.E, Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.G, Conditions of Approval of Existing Vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required.for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040, Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. • The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees, over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. • As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Terry Flanagan, of Terragan & Associates, Inc.. The plan contains all four of the required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore, acceptable. • 1 suggest planting native species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745 Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. • Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. ■ A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. ■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. ■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. ■ Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. ■ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: ■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4 Y2 feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. ■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. ■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development. A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. ■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. • If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. • Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The "Tree Protection Steps" identified in Teragan & Associates Letter of November 19, 2004 shall be reiterated in the construction documents. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 3. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or. the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City shall stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Morgan Tracy Associate Planner FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: January 25, 2005 SUBJECT: Ash Creek Estates The applicant on this development project has submitted design drawings for 74`h Avenue that include a sag vertical curve that does not meet the design standards. They have asked for an exception to the standards in order to minimize the amount of fill placed over the City of Tualatin water transmission line. The `k' value that results from this design will not meet the standards for a 25 mph posting. The City Engineer may authorize modification of the street improvement design standards if justified and if the street can be made safe for motorists to use with those modifications in place. To ensure that the appropriate speed is followed for the street at that location, the posting of an advisory 15 mph sign is required. The construction of a street that does not meet the design standards at that sag is acceptable provided a 15 mph advisory sign is posted as part of the project. The applicant has also proposed posting stop signs on all legs of this `T' intersection and the construction of a speed table crossing 74`h Avenue. These alternatives are not desirable. The installation of the advisory speed would provide for safe passage at that location and does reduce the depth of fill over the existing water line. The sag location should be monitored after construction to determine if any other measures need to be taken. The applicant must commit to installation of additional measures within a year after construction of the street if observations indicate that additional traffic control measures are needed. c: Kim McMillan Dick Bewersdorff Ilengtgus\rnemorandums\ash creek estates sag posting.doc Cathy Wheatley - Feb. 8 Council Meeting Agenda , UC~~C. Page 1 A-9 e n da From: "Merilyn Ferrara" <mf@bizlaw1.com> Z~ ~-~os To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us> 1 l Date: 2/8/2005 3:34:51 PM w r i 1 ~'Q p-L +e-s OYL Subject: Feb. 8 Council Meeting Agenda Cathy, I live near the proposed Ash Creek Estates development, and I hope to be able to attend the Tigard Council Meeting tonight, specifically to hear Item 8, the Ash Creek Estates remand. Since I may not be able to attend, I am sending this note to express my strong concern that the City act responsibly to correctly and fully comply with its own Development Code in requiring a genuine tree plan and mitigation program. It is dismaying that the City would not appropriately apply its own requirements during the application process, and that it caused a lot of time, money and effort spent by concerned neighbors to bring the LUBA appeal to tell the City that it must do what it should have done to begin with. It appeares the City is indifferent to its own rules, and to the strong interest of the many people throughout the community in keeping Tigard a "tree city USA" as our signs claim! I wish I believed such indifference were an anomaly, but it now seems to be the Council's standard approach to development. I have the same concern with regard to how the fact the City allowed the standard for safety of the road and road users and for protecting Ash Creek to be lowered in approving a lowered standard for the proposed SW 74th Avenue crossing of Ash Creek. I hope to see or learn that the City will follow appropriate standards tonight. Thank you for making this opportunity to communicate available. Merilyn Ferrara (mf@bizlaw1.com) Morgan Tracy - Ash Creek Estates _ Page 1 From: "Carol Paddock" <cpaddock@mail.viclink.com> To: "Morgan Tracy" <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/8/2005 5:18:17 PM Subject: Ash Creek Estates Please include in tonight's discussion: Tigard City Council: Re: Ash Creek Estates It seems that once application was made to the city, the trees, even those outside sensitive lands, came under a degree of city protection. From LUBA: TCDC18.790.030(A) states ""[p]rotection is preferred over removal wherever possible."" But TCDC 18.790.010(C) expressly recognizes that trees may need to be removed to develop property,[45] and TCDC 18.790.030(B)(2) anticipates that more than 75% of the trees on a site may be removed to accommodate development, subject to mitigation requirements. In removing trees before homes are designed, the applicant makes an assumption and determination that he/she knows what is best for each specific lot, when, in fact, each lot is individual by nature of the slope, tree locations, specific home design, street location, sun orientation, etc. The decision as to which trees are best retained or removed given each lot’s specific qualities should be left in the hands of the individual home buyers and designers. Certainly more will be protected this way (per city preference TCDC18.790.030(A)) and those removed will be based on actual development need of the end user (preserving all possible). This is a far better approach than an initial cut that pre-empts the end users’ options. Another approach that certainly keeps more trees that can clearly be retained is to keep all those within the building setbacks on all individual lots. Thank you for your consideration, Carol Paddock (503) 864-3115 5001 NE Mineral Springs Rd. McMinnville, Oregon 97128 o~Society,, ~ Ory oU~ded i~ ti9 5151 NW Cornell Rd. Portland, OR 97210 February 3, 2005 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Tigard Planning Commission, I am writing behalf of the Audubon Society of Portland including our 2400 members residing in the Tualatin Basin and over 250 living within the City of Tigard. Our comments below relate to the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision and its remand hearing of February 8, 2005. Please enter these comments in the record of that hearing. We praise the City of Tigard's efforts to protect urban forests through its local development code in order to maintain the multiple natural resource and community benefits provided by urban trees. An increasing body of literature documents the wildlife, water quality, property value and human health benefits of urban trees. The extent of forest cover within our watersheds relates directly to aquatic health of streams and rivers, a relationship documented by local studies in the Tualatin Basin.' The primary explanation for the correlation between watershed tree canopy cover, water quality, and aquatic health is relationship based on the documented capacity of trees control the quality and quantity of urban stormwater run-off.2 Patches of native vegetation and forest cover also support numerous native bird species, particularly neotropical migrants.3 A growing body of literature also links the presence of urban trees to child development, crime reduction, local business activity, lower domestic violence, and mental and physical health.4 In i Booth, D. 1991 "Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System-Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses." Northwest Environmental Journal 7 (1): 93-118. Cole, M. B. 2002. Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Relation to Land Use, Physical Habitat, and Water Quality in the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon. Prepared for Clean Water Services by ABR, Inc.-Environmental Research Services, Forest Grove, OR, pp. 38. Frady C. Gerth, B., Li, J., and Hennings, L. Portland Benthic Invertebrate Analysis, Metro Regional Services, Portland, OR, pp. 87 z McPherson, G.E., Maco, S.E., Simpson, JR., Peper, P.J., Xiao, Q., VanDerZanden, A.M., and Bell, N. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis California, pp. 76. 3 Hennings, L.A. 2001. Riparian bird communities in Portland, Oregon: Habitat, urbanization, and spatial scale patterns. Masters' Thesis, Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon. 4 Kuo, F. & Sullivan, W. (May 2001). Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior, 33:3, 343-367, Lyman, F. (August 2002). The Geography of Health. Land & People Magazine; Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Views of Nature and Self-Discipline: Evidence from Inner-City Children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21; Trees in Business Districts: Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior!, University of Washington; Ulrich, R. (1984). View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. addition, recent research documents the significant contribution of trees to neighborhood property values. Research comparing different tree resources with sales prices of residential properties suggests individuals will pay 3-7% more for properties with significant tree resources versus properties with few or no trees. One of the most comprehensive studies based on the actual sales prices found that each large front-yard tree was associated with about a 1% increase in the sales price.5 A much greater value of 9% ($15,000) was determined in a U.S. Tax Court case for the loss of a large Black Oak on a property valued $164,5006. These values approximate those reported locally. Recently a Portland developer was quoted that "A nice tree in a back yard can raise a lot's value by $5,000." The research summarized above would all suggest that urban trees also contribute significantly to a cities' property tax base. Unfortunately, the loss of urban tree canopy, which is severest in suburban areas in the Portland- Metro region, threatens all of the above values at the neighborhood, watershed, and regional scale.8 Development of strong local ordinances to protect urban trees and forest canopy is one important measure to reverse these trends. Research indicates that local tree protection measures and active tree planting efforts have contributed in the net gain of forest canopy in some Portland neighborhoods.9 We urge the City of Tigard to actively pursue the full range of urban tree conservation efforts, coordinate these programs with other local governments in the Tualatin Basin and the entire Portland-Metropolitan region, and monitor progress for retaining and increasing forest canopy within the City's watersheds. Metro is currently developing watershed- based urban forest canopy protection and enhancement targets as part of regional fish and wildlife plan and could by part of Tigard's local monitoring of tree protection efforts. With respect to the applicant's "Tree Plan for Ash Creek Estates" received January 14, 2005 we ask that the City of Tigard review this plan against the standards of the TCDC Section 18.350.100(B)(3)(a)(1) which requires preservation of "the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible". It is absolutely possible for the Ash Creek Estates meet a much higher standard of environmental impact avoidance, minimization and mitigation associated with tree removal on this site. Attached is an example of a single-family housing development in the City of Portland that exemplifies environmentally responsible site planning to avoid impacts "to the greatest degree possible."10 Thanks you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Jim Labbe Urban Conservationist Audubon Society of Portland 5 Anderson, L.M.; Cordell, H.K. 1988 Residential property values improve by landscaping trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 9: 162-166. 6 Neely, D. 1988. Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and other plants. Seventh Edition. Urbana, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 50p 7 Lutzenhiser, M. and N. R. Netusil. 2001. The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home's Sale Price. Contemporary Economic Policy 19 (July): 291-298, Oregonian, February 27, 2004, hqp://www.urbanfauna.org/Trees.html. 8 American Forests. 2001. Regional ecosystem analysis for the Willamette/Lower Columbia region of northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington State. pp. 16. 9 Poracsky, J, and Lackner M. 2004. Urban Forest Canopy Report in Portland, Oregon, 1972-2002, Cartographic Center, Geography Department, Portland State University, Portland, OR, p. 42. 10 Also online at: hn://www.urbanfauna.org/GrubePosterFinal7RSM.doc Building Within Nature's Envelope: An example from Portland, OR Blend your home with Oregon's natural beauty! Can you guess the age of this development? • Recognize the unique character of the site. Design your home • The house, deck, and driveway are nestled into the foliage. • Embrace the local architectural style - in this case • The abundance of mature trees makes you think this development Pacific Northwest style. to meet family needs and has been here a long time. • Configure the footprint of the house to preserve • The house was constructed in 2002. mature plants and protect slopes and streams. respect the landscape. Building in an environmental zone is possible! • The approximately 10,000 sq. ft. property is almost entirely within the City's Environmental Conservation Overlay Zone. ~ • • A reduction to the front yard setback allowed the development to be built close to the street. • Flexibility in design and habitat protection were achieved through a site specific review process. ,,.`A ` . c • Significant detrimental impacts were first avoided, then = minimized, and finally, mitigated. Limit disturbance, save habitat, save costs! • Only six trees were removed to accommodate this development. jf H. II • Limits disturbance of wildlife and habitat. 4: • Minimizes grading and saves topsoil. }a I' ' ' ,1 I i t' Avoids the cost of replanting trees, shrubs, and groundcover. ii~~ • Provides you with an instantly mature looking development. y 1 0 1E• • Mature trees can be worth over $5K each, according to Portland t, 1 ; area developers. "We do not live apart from nature, are a part of nature." Native plants suit our climate, soil and wildlifei we . Bret Rappaport, from Building InsideMature''s • They are readily available. Envelope, by Andy Wasowski 1€ N • They don't require mowing, watering or fertilizers. What about steep slopes? k k" / • The average slope of this property is 24%. i Keep stormwater on-site to minimize impacts to stream! • The steep slope makes it difficult to construct a I / g • Because of the landslide hazard, stormwater on this site will be house and driveway. Disturbing hillsides exposes p sf Q. retained by a spreader trench with a lined bottom and plants. soil to rain and wind, which erode the slope.' • The house, deck, and driveway are called impervious surfaces. • When soil erodes, it pollutes streams and harms g 1`;i l./- x~~ • Impervious surfaces are areas where water won't infiltrate into aquatic life. h; t p 9 fi the soil. • Landslides hazards are increased by: i ; ' .r~•• fi • Impervious surfaces increase destructive water velocity and o altering topography, volume. Runoff sends pollutants to streams. o removing vegetation, • Retaining vegetation provides habitat and retains stormwater. o saturating soil with misdirected stormwater. Rev 7, 10 March 2004. Jan Yarbrough, Tricia Sears, Steve Muliinax Inc. &shl:& As~p~Lj .00 O'c FYOrn= 'gbi TO" a„ Tra~Y Damoa4 Cover= Morg Includu'~ of es CoII,any Tom # Yes. city rtu 'bet' .7 pro~ectNun'beL: ; bg4,7.9 ❑ AS. RegaeSted piojccG. [].pleas C tes a -P-'P . ' ..Ash a JAY eat ~ , ivot `ricw+ e a' ~ C~riu /send 9°u Moto ked . o. 10 y°U'~~ Kviah~h' an EGON o06 ON 0 ggT 7 S~3ITE, 200; $'4 ) 644-9731 ET X - :t.0 Sw. 3AY -STO E 644-6842, Fp► g L5 „ 1.. 5,15 11/1~/ZU,u4 mule ID:ZM r'?L& SUJ U44 9731 xuranashl ~ Assoc., Inc. 10 002/007 TA6LE 111='DESIGN:'SPEEDICENTERLINE RADIUS-MINIMUMS. MAJOR COLt_ECTORS/ARTERIALS STREETSlALL RURAL ROADS. Design. Friction . stope/R Speed(NIPtd Fadnc(F) (e),496 (e) 25% (4) 0%: (e)2.6~0 (e) 4g6 (e) s9'o . 25 .165 335' ; 300' ' 255' . ' 220` " 20.7 185' 30 :160 504' 445' 375' ' 325' 300' 275' . ' ; :155 710' 630' 420' 380' . . '35 40 .150 970" - 855' 710' 610' . 560' . '510' 45 .145 1285':::. 1126'., 930' f95' c ' 730'. 660' 50 0. 16t,5' ' 1450' 11901 . ' 1010'. .925' 835' =55. :1301 2240' 1300' 1190' 1060'• 60. .120 ' _ 5000' X2525'. 2000' 1,655 W. 1335' MINOR COLLECTORS/LOCAL STREET/SPEC/AL-AREA ROADS - ' Deglgn Frietion = slop thin. e (e) 691o " SPeed(lAPii) l-'adot(F). (e}49'o (9}2.5'% o : Se).09r^o (e)2:5°f°. .(e) 4`% 25 0.252 195.' ' : 165' 165'-' S0' 145' 135' .30 0.221 330', ; 305' , .270' 245' 230' ' : _ 215' 35' 0.197: 530' '475',, : 415' ' 345' ' 320' NOTES: -for Tabte III'- off right-0f-4r4y rufioff,shall be controlled -to. prevprit'concentrate flow'in'superelevated sections:. Where superelevation'.is used, street 6 irves should be;designed for a maximum - superelevatiori rate of 0:04.. if terrain. dictates sharp-curvature, a maximum , .superelevatibn of 0.06.is justified' N the curve is long enough. to provide.an adequate . sUperelevation, tranSltion: ` On"•local streets; requests "for design",speeds less than 25 mph.shall be based on ' topography, R.O:W.,: aitemative'design features approved' through the land-use process or'geographic conditions which 1rhpose an economic hardship on the applidant.' Requests must show-that a reduction in. centerline. radius•wiil not compromise safe There mgy be,posting requirements assoclated•with designs below 25 mph. 'In.no 'roads. case shall the design speed foraltemative;designs be less than 20 mph.for local and 15: mph for alleys. ; ..SOURCE: REFERENCE 9 27 }1/ la/ ZUV4 MUty 10: su !''Ali 5U.3 U44 9731 Kurahashl & Assoc., Inc. 16003/007 210.4 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT... Alignments shall meet the following requirements: Minimum tangent street.gradients shall be one-half (0.5).percent. along the crown. and curb: Mazimum.street gradients shall tie Mee (15j percent for minor collectors, and local streets, and ten (10) ' ict for all other: streets:. Grades in . excess of .fifteen, (15), percent must be approved by the County Engineer on ..an individual basis: Local~streets intersecting with a minor collector or greater functional classification street or strdets intended to be 1: sQ with a stop`sign shall provide-a landing averaging five (5),. percent or less.. Landings are that portion of the street within twenty. (20) feet of the. edge of the intersecting street at full improvement. Gi°ade changes:of more than one'.(1) percent shall. be accomplished with vertical curves: ' Street grades, intersections and-superelevation transitions shall be ' - designed to not allow concentrations of,storm water to flow over the pavement.... Offset crowns. shall be allowed and must conform to Standard Drawing M- .403. Streets intersected by streets not constructed-to full urban standards shall be designed-to trtatch both present and future vertical alignments of the intersecting streets. The requirements of this manual shall be met for both . present and future conditions. Vertical curves shall conform to the values found in-Tables IV & V. Slope easements shall be dedicated or obtained for the purposes of grading outside of the'rights-of-way. AASHTO provides the designer of-sag vertical curves the option of.using shorter curves with the installation of street lighting.' These "comfort" designs can also be slightly alternate by providing a one:(1) percent grade break at each, end of the'curve. The following chart compares sag curve lengths using these ciiteria: L1/15/2004 MON 15:30- FAX 503 644 9'731 Kurahashi-& Assoc..,, 'Inc. Z004'/007 '1 7 Algebraic Difference'Standard Comfort " Comfort'w/Grade Breaks in Grades . 25 MPH 25'MPH -0 50 67 46 7.59/0 : 225 101 - : 74 1 °17.50% : 525 235 , 208 - A.fucther conoem'has beers with the design. of a sag cunre;at the , interse'on.•of a local road `with a .local road or a local road with i minor.: 0011ector road.: In either case;: if the intersecti ng -street, is- st0p.00ntr011ed; a . . ; minimum design speed of 15-MPH -is allowed on the intersecting sheet. This it-based onAhe reasonable speed of a vehicle fuming from the through street-to the' intersecting street:. Minimum curve. lengths usinga 15 MPH design. "speed arse as follows: Alg rence . Comfort Comfort w/Grade i3re216 _ in'Grades 15 MPH 15 MPH 5.0% 24 7.5% 36 27 12.5% 60 :51:. 17.5% - 85' 75 ' ` • I• ( , fit.. .29 15/XVU4 iUN 15:JU FAA 5U3 644 9731-Kurahashi,& Assoc., Inc. 1~J005/007 ..,TABLE, IV = . DESION CONTROLS FOR CREST VERTICAL-.CURVES=BASED, ON-STOOPING SIGHTDISTANCE :.DESIGN.;SPEED - K ' 20: 10=10 20-.20 . $0 30 30': 40 45 80 -120' 50 °110 -160 ' • " • 55 150 220 , SOURCE REFERENCE 9. 1. _ Feet ; A F Algebraic Difference in grades,, present 1. Length ofvertical curve, feet: TABLE.V - - ESIGN'CONTROLS,FOFt-SAG VERTICAL CURVES BASED ON STOPPING SIGHT. DISTANCE . DESIGN..SPEED' K • - • 15=~ 5•,5.x. _ - . . 20,4 10-10 30-30 . 40 - 4' 40 . " .60 -70 :'its 70-90 90 -110 55 -100 130 . SOURCE: REFERENCE 9. , WHERE. L Feei ' - K = .A = Percent . - . - ; • , , A = Algebraic Diffeeence'in-grades; percent L'. = Length of yertical curve, feet Values may be reduced if street Itghting: is present for sag:;vertical curves:. AASHTO ' publication, M Informational Guide forRoadway Liahtina shall.serve" as a guide. SOURCE:' .REFERENCE 10. - ' Sf[.f V V v . g 503 644 9731 Kurahashl & Assoc•.Inc' V15/~004 MON 15.3-0." 210.51NT~RSECTtOtJ. interseGtions" the rniriimum mClulrerrtents for Th e following specify as nea tee t rto:rnnefy=(90) . 'or angle .irrtersect~ng: s~~ S bye 'th event~i-five (75}" ' . The inien. P` ' shall it an's ossible'and in•no'case . ;nimurn of lwentY-five (25). degg as gent section shall tie.carned a.m degrees.. A n f iritersectin eight-of;wa►Y:lines- ' . feet each side _o g . VI: us, or various rt shalt be as'shown in Table s shatfpe ection Curb dit at... tetsections dii at inters carp ohs::: The -n9ht-)4f-way Y i4 spacing. as`the 7.71 funrfion d-aificati at toast the earn right-of-wa to:niatnfiain e;. sufFiderit ' tower dassfied Meet... all inters Dectionrawins, ; vided at atI comers of 9 ramps shalt- be- F to' the:( DOT ndard Sidewalk access e - and -shalLconform regardless of curb_tYP ; 1V, 4uV-: mviI LO: 2't1A Vus 044 avsl nurallashl & ASSOC., Inc. 111007/007 TABLE Vi - TURNING RADII (FEET) o Edge of Pavement/Curb - Minimums Street MaylMin Major Minor Transit Commercial Local Classification Arterial Collector Collector Street Industrial Street Street street street street MajoNMlnor Arterial 55 40 30 40 40 25 Street Major Collector 40 40 30 40 40 25 Street Minor Collector 30 30 30 30 30 25 Street Transit 40 40 30 40 40 25 Street Commercial Industrial 40 40 30 40 40 25 Street Local 25 25 25 25 25 15 Street" s If bike lane or on-street parldng eadsts, above radii maybe reduced by five (5) feet. On 28' Local Streets, parking shall be prohibited within 50' of a public street Intersection. 32 r r t`'ti~ . ~ .o ~ ~ a t ` \ . L,, ~l , I i ~1_ kdrI't-rC~h ~ 0S~ a /Os February 8, 2005 RE: Ash Creek Estates Subdivision (SUB) 2003-00010 LUBA Remand Good Evening Mayor, Councilmember's, City staff, and Stakeholders: My name is Bob Storer. I reside at 7225 SW Ventura Drive in Tigard. The two issues I want to testify about tonight are the exception to and mitigation for the proposed vertical sag curve and associated deviations to adopted street standards; and the tree protection plan, mitigation, and conditions of approval. The Sag Curve issue and associated proposal for an exception to the standard is being mitigated by the recommendation for additional advisory signage and street lighting. Will residents really slow down and adhere to a 15 mph speed limit? Is anyone using our city streets traveling at 25 mph? And, why would the City only monitor for one-year after completion of street construction? Will all of the homes be completed by then? In addition, if not effective, the applicant will be required to install additional traffic control measures. What effectiveness criteria will be measured and how will it be determined? As typical, the applicant will be long gone after a few years leaving the community to fend for itself. What other traffic control measures will be considered for mitigation? As argued before you in other hearings, a bridge, contrary to the applicant's position, would provide a much better alternative to crossing Ash Creek in this deep draw. When you consider all of the pros and cons this alternative will have far less of an overall impact on natural resources and safety concerns. It is proposed that the applicant's arborist is to submit written reports to the city's forester, at least, once every two weeks. I suggest as an alternative that your staff actually go out and inspect these relatively large developments each week, and therefore; would not need to review reports and have to determine whether to get out to the site several weeks after a report is submitted. By the time several weeks have passed it is way too late, and if there is damage, it usually results in irreparable harm that has already occurred. Other issues of concern with the Tree Protection Plan include the following points: • The proposals to notify all contractors of the tree protection procedures and have all the subs sign an MOU regarding goals of the tree protection plan? What are the goals and is this a realistic objective that will be undertaken by the applicant? • The proposal to hydrate and deep root fertilize the trees prior to construction? In reality, I would be willing to bet this won't occur, or be enforced. • The recommendation for 6-ft. high metal fencing with steel posts or plastic orange or snow fencing if properly supported to prevent sagging, with signage visible on all sides and spaced every 75-ft. These requirements, especially signage, are almost never implemented on most developments and rarely enforced. Metal fencing is almost never used and should be on this site as recommended by your city forester. The plastic fencing is usually not properly supported, and rarely if ever maintained or enforced. Also, on p. 4 of the Davis Wright Tremaine letter to Morgan Tracey, dated November 15, 2004, in its Justification for Items ID in the LUBA Remand, it states, "A separate permit will be submitted for tree cutting within the sensitive area pursuant to TCDC 18.790.05. I was under the impression that no tree cutting was to occur within the sensitive area? I would appreciate some clarification of this? Mitigating for the cumulative impacts on this development and the loss of almost 500 trees on this site and the adjacent development cannot be attained and will never be accomplished. I will close by challenging you to challenge your staff and the development community to provide incentives to build smarter and in a more sustainable manner. I would also recommend that you visit this site and tour the surrounding developments under construction in our neighborhood. Does shared access on two lots, one of which is only I t 4,700 square feet make good quality development sense on this site and in our community? You have the discretion on these four issues and associated variance requests. Variances should be discouraged and held to a higher standard. The question is - will you find the political will, balance the benefit versus the harm, and require these developments to be more creative and sustainable? I would implore you to push off your decision tonight and take our legitimate concerns into serious consideration. Please make a very sincere, thoughtful, and informed decision and consider the enormous impacts of the consequences. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and express my concerns as a stakeholder, and adjacent neighbor whose quality of life will forever be changed. COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD REGARDING SUBDIVISION 2003-00010 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2003-00004 ASHCREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION LUBA APPEAL Sue Beilke, Director Biodiversity Project of Tigard February, 8, 2005 We submitted comments earlier during the initial Ash Creek decision and subsequent appeals. Our comments subsequent to the LUBA remand are as follows: We ask you, the members of the Tigard City Council, to consider what one of the purposes of the Planned Development Code, which includes: • To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site. Upon reviewing again, this proposed project, we argue here that it does not meet the Purpose of the PD code. The PD is a trade off between adding benefit to the city for giving the developer some flexibility, but not so much that it negatively affects the existing landscape, including in this case, the steep slopes, sensitive lands, and Ash Creek, on the site. The applicant proposes to not only clearcut the entire upper portion of the property, but also to remove 74 trees from the sensitive lands. This proposed action will have extreme negative affects on the site, since it will drastically alter the hydrology of the site as well as cause erosion and great harm to the remaining trees on the sensitive lands area. Heavy equipment will impact tree roots as well as small shrubs and herbaceous species, and wildlife, such as salamanders and frogs which cannot move out of the way of this equipment. The steep slopes have numerous seeps and unstable fragile soils which will be negatively affected by development and removal of any trees. We have seen numerous examples of the negative results of clearcutting or removal of even a portion of trees from a steep slope, and they are disastrous. Trees remaining end up dying due to the change in hydrology, stream turbidity increases due to slope movement and soils washing into the stream, and a tremendous amount of wildlife, including songbirds, amphibians, deer, fox, etc. is outright killed or displaced to the streets due to the loss of habitat. Section 18.745.030 of the Code states that "Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible." This does not mean just trees, but includes native shrubs and herbaceous species. It MUST include these plants, for they are an integral component of a forest or riparian vegetative community. Shrubs such as snowberry and dogwood and herbaceous species such as ferns provide critical habitat for wildlife, including nesting sites, food, etc., and also cover for a variety of species including red-legged frogs, a State Sensitive-critical species which is found on this site. This proposed PD does not meet this section of the code as it currently stands, for it fails to include a plan for protection of "vegetation", therefore, the application should be denied.. I\ Section 18.790: In addition, in a conversation we had with Clean Water Services (Colin MacLaren) in 2004, we were told that the developer DID NOT have permission to remove the 74 trees from the sensitive lands area. This has never been, to our knowledge, cleared up, and we are still waiting to hear from CWS. As a result, we ask that the Council deny this application based on this information. The Metzger-Progress Community Plan (MPCP) is the resource documentation underlying the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. It designates the Senn property as the ASC 10 (Area of Special Concern). Under this designation it requires that "Development of structures and land division in this special wooded area shall be planned and reviewed under the Type III review provisions of the Community Development Code. It goes onto state that because of the importance of trees and other natural vegetation to the wildife habitat and scenery of the community, "development shall be designed to minimize the area disturbed". It also lists the Senn Ash creek site as a "Significant Natural Resource", and highlights its wildlife importance. The Tigard Comp. Plan, Policy 3.4.2, states "The city shall require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the Fish and Wildlife map on file at the city." The wording of the Comp. Plan is mandatory. Since the applicant has not provided cluster typed development, etc. in this application, nor has met the requirements of the Comp. Plan, nor made an attempt to protect more of this natural resource site, we argue here the application should be denied. We ask you, the Council members, to think about the latest results from the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Vision in 2004 survey results in the Cityscape, February, 2005. They. included: • Provide for preservation of the natural environment and open space throughout the community. • Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established neighborhoods. This project as proposed, cannot accomplish the above. It would fail to protect the character and livability of the established neighborhood, and in fact would ruin the character of the area. We ask you, Council members, to help us preserve and protect the Ash Creek site, since it is the last predominantly western red cedar forest left in the Metro region. We would like to see this site purchased by the City of Tigard in its entirety, as a natural area for all the citizens of Tigard to appreciate and enjoy. If we do this, we can protect the livability of this neighborhood, as well as protecting a unique biologically diverse natural resource. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Sue Beilke ISSUE: LEGEND S.F. 05/05/05 Designed Date L.H. 05/05/05 R E TE BOX CULVERT PROPERTY BOUNDARY Drawn 05/05/05 z - (1) 114 LF OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE (2) 17.6 FEET COVER OVER LARGE V > GRAPHIC SCALE ~ G E WATERLINE z Check/Revise W Date r)=MTFF21 I NIP nF= T71 Tr-H 30 u .5 JO 60 „a (3) CHANNEL IMPACT OF 81 FEET w IN FEET ) W 1 inch = 30 ft. ry W-/ Ii IMPACT LINE t/ S TAj _r r' 4 T H / 1 z 1 1 16 DD Y w.~..~ w.. ....mow.. w G , ~T C- 20+ _ _ 24 w_m_ At 77 IN - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - kit ~J I 1 . POND . , I I ) go At Alf so vw tw ~i' v, ♦ N YJ r~ -7 1 n I~ 0, r/ IMPACT LINE 74TH AVENUE PLAN i 270'.---------------- PVl STA = 16+50 P14 ELEV = 227.73 ,II 260._ aa. = 2.10 - _ K = 23.87 _ _ 50.00' VC _ _ H POINT 250 _ _ . POINT"S PW STA m ..r1._._.......___......__. LOW POINT REV = 7 _ ..___._._._n.... - - L._POITS...._..__..18+5364---- ° h K = c m Etr ................_._._._.._.....___.___._._._..---_._....._..._P~ ELL 240 =`20132' _ f N A,D. 25.01 120.0 -t-r ...a..------------- _.._._...._.''...tu__._._.-------- K = 5.20 _ - 130.0'VG 2,30,7 20 cz~ _ _ _ . N m rn y - N o^+ ry 220.. - _ - V - - - A~ - _ r4 cr, dl _ - - - - m P POSED RADE gt 210 - Clo IN - ................_....._......_._._..__._...._........_._._._.q.,, _ ,1,~......__...._ yC...._... EX1 ING GRAD _ _ _ 0 200 . _ t, m ,.r_.--------------- .._..._....._.EX TING_GRAD - El'ISTING G R, i N 3 f' = 30' 14OR1Z. i a k r` 1" 0' VERT. w.~ t urveying ~ T N 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 91 fN1 99440 W 0.~ d 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200 W w 74TH AVENUE PROFLE 1 L. a SCALE HOR . f 3V N VERT- f 10' 3 op. 05/oWO5 ISSUE: Designed Date 0li. 05/05/05 (1) 211 LF OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE E ' E TE BOX CULVERT W Drawn Date z ram - op. 05/05/05 LLJ b (2) 36 FEET COVER OVER LARGE WAT WATERLINE Z MAGNETIC Check/Revise Date > GRAPHIC SCALE 0 75 30 ro 120 (3) CHANNEL IMPACT OF 230 FEET (4) ECONSTRUCT APPROVED SUBDIVI`, ~ (IN FEET ) W W i inch = 30 ft. i, W o IMPACT LINE ' S r► 7 4 T H 1 z ~ 1 1 w n ~ 1 1 l 7 KY 1 a 16 00 t ~ --sw ~ ~ Im ~ 20+ 5 - --F--_- _ _ _ _ _ - - r 24 -µ...{.W ~_..p. ._._._..._N-._. ~wj c` £ EY STONE PET. WALL r ♦ 1 1 tr 4 1 ggk f V-7 K: CA I I 1 IMPACT LINE 4f* 4$#4%,~ ~411~ Fi i~ii'~ti- 1 r 2 d:. ii l~ tl .•.v I ~ ~ ~ t•: ,~I~~ ' IMPACT LINE FOR RELOCATED 36' 74TH AVM PLAN DIA, WATERLINE X31, P I STS r CO ~D LOW POINT 17LEV = 2212.57 VI ELE\ .m _-ttl INT fA-1 A,D, _ w PVI STA = 17+03. 6 ( K = ti PVI ELE = 219.7 110,00' C A > as A.D. 17,30 w HIGH POINT ELEV = 224.03 K 13.40 240 \ - _ in ro HIGH DINT STA = 16+75 w t OD + "i P VI STA = 8+90 v N • r t• - a OD N PVI ELEV = 24,73 ON N N K = 20.0 uu 230 WW ri 77 a3o 0' - % i 220- - r I _ _ - - ri<rl Nu I tit 210 I rt\, !d { i 200 _ L f i Y ' a • I 1 - AA 1 - in N 190 . ,y O O _ _ r ~ n 3 O o DATUA( ELEV m 180.00 i 30 & It vi o N M r N OD [D OD In I~ C7 OD 1 r- ro ON N C,m 0 `n m "13' to NrOD OD m~ stn v0) rm v~ ~~:10'r~T, ym iD ('j Cu CO 7 N 46 OY V n (h d- fU N tU QI a` "1 LM r d' (`7 "'1 N N `ti i7 nilni d. ni mm RIM nN NN NN NN NN NN N(U °'N -,_1 Mni NN (u Cu cu NN o Environmental . Surveying 1N 1 I I I I I I I I I F I' U u uusvape arcmceceure . riannmg 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 0 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 o Beaverton, Oregon 97006 N (503)644-6842 tax: (503)644-9731 74TH AVEMJE PROFEE w J 74TH AVE M 0 SCALE dZ: q/► W GRADM EXHBIT N VERT- f -10' sHMr No. 2 Of 2 CN N KAI# 2129 hQ. _ IP&-UPA t qA TP6L 1 70 CITY OF TIGARD a..~ ~S Ash Creek Estates - LUBA Remand Public Hearing February 8, 2005 2 FO-1 Topic Council is considering additional findings to supplement the City's previous subdivision approval to address four specific issues raised by the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 3 0 LUBA's Issues 1) The City's acceptance of a lower "K" value for the vertical sag on SW 741h Avenue. 2) The lack of a tree plan. 3) Insufficient analysis to grant adjustments to cul de sac and planter strip requirements. 4) Insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landscape protection criteria are being met. 470 Alternatives • Prepare alternate findings based on the evidence presented. • Request additional evidence to support alternate findings. • Prepare findings to deny the request. 5 0 Staff Recommendation • Direct staff to prepare a final order for Council's next meeting to adopt the additional findings in support of the approval for the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development. 1