City Council Packet - 06/03/2008
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223
MM
M
4 N
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
June 3, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
I:\Ofs\Don na's\Ccpktl
Phone: 503.639.4171 . Fax: 503.684.7297 www.tigard-or.gov 9 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
City of Tigard
Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 3, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town 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 Deao.
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 Deao.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
CABLE VIEWERS: This City Council meeting will be taped by TVCTV; however, this special meeting will not be
shown live. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 3:00 p.m.
Friday 10:00 P.M. Monday 6:00 a.m.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of3
MI City of Tigard
M :L
Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda
Mo
o
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 3, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
6:30 I'M
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 I'M
2. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies; Topic: Special
Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals, policies and recommended action
measures to reflect current community conditions and values. The complete text of the proposed
Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.dgard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and Services, General
Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles
1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Rules of Procedure: City Attorney
C. Declarations or Challenges
- Does any Council member wish to declare or discuss a conflict of interest or abstention?
d. Staff Report: Community Development Department
e. Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
f. Staff Recommendation
g. Council Questions
h. Close Public Hearing
i. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 08-
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 3, 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of3
7:35 I'M
3. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF
GOAL 2)
1
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies and recommended
action measures to reflect current community conditions and values relating to Tigard's Urban Forest..
The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at
http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning
Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and
18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Public
Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13; and
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Rules of Procedure: City Attorney
C. Declarations or Challenges
- Does any Council member wish to declare or discuss a conflict of interest or abstention?
d. Staff Report: Community Development Department
e. Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
f. Staff Recommendation
g. Council Questions
h. Close Public Hearing
i. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 08-
5:35 I'M
4. DISCUSSION ON TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.44.010 - CITY COUNCIL
COMPENSATION
• Staff Report: Administration Department
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session
is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. 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.
5:45 I'M
6. ADJOURNMENT
I:\ADNI\Cathy\CCA\2005\050603 srcciaLdoc
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on
Tuesday June 3, 2008 at 6:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center -Town
Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written
COMMUNITY testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held
under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and
SPAPEI~S available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section
18:390.060.E. Further information may be obtained from the City of
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Darren Wyss) at 13125
Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 97075 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171.
Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Email: - Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide
legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning - REQUEST: Amendments
to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies; Topic:
Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updat-
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ing the goals, policies and recommended action measures to reflect
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS current community conditions and values. The complete text of the
proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
depose and say that I am the Accounting ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380
Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement,
Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in and Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1,
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 14. Publish 5/15/2008. TT11133.
City of Tigard
Notice of Public Hearing
TT11133
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
May 15, 2008
CW Lo4
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Ma ager)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
May 15, 08
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
"i NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O ON coMMlssloN No. 390701
My commission expires MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2008
Acct #10093001
Doreen Laughlin
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Size 2x4
Amount Due 66.80
'remit to address above
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
TIGARD'i
In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s)
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, A being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or
affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s)
~AVI 0 ^ 0 , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of At,,P-,e 6) D
with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part
hereof, on the Q~
day of , 20
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
Signature of Person who Per ormed sting
Subscribed and sworn (o~~ before me this /3 day of
-3wl9& , 20 D~ .
OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
° JILL M BYARS
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 427990
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2012
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 08-Oc7
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2008-00001
TO UPDATE THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
PERTAINING TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council directed staff to complete a full update of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan, including a process for garnering citizen input; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard visioning reports, community surveys, and policy interest team meetings were
utilized to develop draft language for the update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has proposed an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Topics 1, 11,
and 12 by updating Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures corresponding to Statewide
Planning Goal 2; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance
with City standards, on April 7, 2008, and recommended approval of the proposed CPA 2008-00001
by motion and with unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in
accordance with City standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA 2008-
00001; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted CPA 2008-00001 by motion, as
amended, pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, Council's decision to adopt CPA 2008-00001 is based on the findings and conclusions
found in the City of Tigard staff report dated April 7, 2007, and the associated record, which are
incorporated herein by reference and are contained in land-use file CPA 2008-00001.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Comprehensive Plan is amended to include new text and to rescind existing
text as shown in "EXHIBIT A"; and
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature
by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
ORDINANCE No. 08- 07
Page 1 of 2
.
PASSED: By U1f.(11 b`(1l_1AS vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and tide only, this yJ - day of )2008.
Gam- Gc~~
Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this )r~ day o , 2008.
r
$ ~ ~zz"'-Zr
Crai irksen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
• ~ • 0%
ORDINANCE No. 08- D -7
Page 2of2
4
EXHIBIT A
1
Al 1r f
41
~ ~ ~ f t J r w. 7" ?4
Sy .
•;r" ^ sum t, .r. Jc4 ~ J`,
3 Y
f t~ ar it
Im a r
rt t x, F ,1; i
Uw , of r F
< 1 -
a
S Land Use Planning
'To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions. "
LAND USE PLANNING
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
DATE CPA# CHANGES
00-00-08 0000-00000 XXX'YXX
SECTION COVER PHOTO: CITY STAFF
Plans.
1 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
Land use planning influences the type and character of development in
Tigard, as well as the City's ability to provide and sustain essential urban
services. The type, quality, and amount
of new development and its required urban
Land use
services can affect attainment of community
objectives such as quality of life, sense of place Planning
and uniqueness, and a strong local economy.
The Comprehensive Plan and its implementing influen
ei
regulations are unportant policy and regulatory the type and - 1 1.
tools needed to achieve the above, and other,
'
community objectives. They are also essential character of
to guide cooperation, coordination, and
t
partnerships with other governments and development.'
agencies that have a stake in the overall well-
being of the Portland Metro Region. t y,:
The goals and policies contained in this chapter, as well as all chapters in the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan, establish the legislative policy basis for Tigard's
land use planning program. The program includes the Community Development
Code, regulatory maps, special area plans, etc. In addition, these policies estab-
lish important criteria to be used when initiating regulatory changes or reviewing
and developing code, map, and policy amendments. The policies also provide
guidance on when and how to update the Comprehensive Plan and state the
City's commitment to coordinating the development and maintenance of its
land use program with other affected agencies and jurisdictions.
Land Use Planning
i
`To establish a land use planning process and polity framework as a basis for all decision
and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions
and actions."
Statewide Planning Goal 2 requires that:
■ City, county, state, and federal agency and special district plans and actions
related to land use be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities,
counties, and regional plans adopted tinder ORS Chapter 268 (Metro);
■ Land use plans identify issues, problems, inventories, and other factual infor-
mation for each applicable statewide planning goal;
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-1
LAND USE PLANNING
■ Specific implementation measures be developed consistent with and
adequate to carry out local jurisdictions' comprehensive plan;
■ Adoption and subsequent amendment of comprehensive plans and their
implementation measures be coordinated with the plans of other affected
governmental units; and
■ All adopted land use plans and implementing measures be periodically
reviewed and revised to address changed conditions and circumstances.
Section 1: Legislative Foundation
Incorporated in 1961, the City of Tigard has experienced rapid growth over the
years. This growth can be attributed to many factors, primarily the close prox-
imity to Portland, a healthy inventory of developable land, and easy access to
major transportation facilities such as Hwy 99W, Hwy 217, and I-5.
Tigard recognized the need to plan for growth and adopted its first Community
Plan in 1971. This plan set the stage for the City's future land use planning
efforts. Shortly thereafter, in 1974, the state adopted the Statewide Planning
Goals. This required that all Oregon jurisdictions prepare and adopt compre-
hensive land use plans and implementing ordinances that comply with the
goals. Subsequently, the City of Tigard updated its Community Plan into a
Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1983.
The City completed its first and only Periodic Review of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1989 and since that time the context and scope of land use planning
has changed considerably. For example, Tigard has undertaken several other
planning efforts that are required to be coordinated, from a policy perspective,
with the current Comprehensive Plan. These include the Tigard Triangle Plan,
the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, the Tigard Transportation System
Plan, the Tigard Urban Renewal Plan, and the Tigard Downtown Improvement
Plan. Furthermore, many new state land use laws and administrative rules have
been passed, while Metro has taken the lead in several other areas of urban
growth management. Metro's responsibilities now include the management of
the regional urban growth boundary, transportation planning, natural resource
management, and household and employment allocations to regional jurisdic-
tions. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan must be in compliance with state goals and
laws, while also being consistent with Metro's growth management rules.
One of the biggest growth management challenges that Tigard will face, as
2-2 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 4
as the rest of the Portland region, is the need to
accommodate up to a million new residents and
"Part of 1`
commensurate employment growth within the
region as forecasted by Metro's 2030 population region's the projection. Cities in the Portland region have
future rowth 41
already committed to minimize urban sprawl and •
accommodate a significant part of this growth
will have to
within compact urban centers within existing
municipal boundaries. However, part of the occur at the
region's future growth will have to occur at the
"edges" of the urban growth boundary. It is "'edges" of the "It
unlikely that any of this "edge" growth will be
urban rowth
within the City of Tigard because urban level •
development in unincorporated Washington t,
County separates future urban growth areas from
Tigard's city limits. The only factors that would
alter this would be annexation of these lands and/
or changes in policy and intergovernmental cooperation that would allow exten-
sion of City boundaries to noncontiguous future growth areas. The manner in
which Tigard and the rest of the region chooses to address these challenges
will be significant in determining the area's future quality of life, character, and
prosperity.
Another growth management challenge that Tigard faces is the lack of large
vacant parcels available for urban development. This type of development is a
thing of the past and most household and employment growth in Tigard will
be the result of redevelopment and infill. Within residential areas, the City's
land use program assures that infill occurs in a way that is sensitive and comple-
mentary to existing residential neighborhoods. In the City's downtown center,
commercial corridors, regional center, and industrial areas, the Comprehensive
Plan and implementing regulations will guide the development of vibrant and
compact urban housing and employment/ shopping areas. In both instances, it
is important that the City's land use planning efforts protect natural resources,
assure the provision of needed public facilities and services, and promote the
development of well designed, high quality urban areas.
The City's land use program also impacts its strong economic ties with other
jurisdictions within the Portland region. A significant portion of Tigard
residents commute to other communities, particularly Portland, for work.
Conversely, most of those who work in Tigard commute from elsewhere. This
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-3
04% LAND USE PLANNING
situation will require Tigard to work cooperatively with these other jurisdic-
tions and Metro to develop land use patterns and employment opportunities to
minimize impacts from commuting.
KEY FINDINGS
■ Portland area jurisdictions' comprehensive plans are required to be consis-
tent with statewide planning goals and Metro rules.
■ Most of Tigard's developable land has been urbanized.
■ Future development in single-family residential neighborhoods will likely
consist of small lot partitioning, infill, and redevelopment.
■ Future commercial, employment, and multi-family growth will likely occur
through redevelopment.
■ Tigard's expansion into new urban growth boundary areas is unlikely under
the current policy framework.
■ A well conceived and responsibly implemented land use planning program is
essential to the City's quality of life and economic prosperity.
■ The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City's land use program.
• A properly balanced mix of land uses is necessary to ensure that it derives
the tax revenues required to fund needed community services.
■ Local governments may assign, to the extent possible, the public facility
costs associated with development to the actual development itself.
■ Compatibility of new and existing development is an important issue in
developed communities.
■ Planned Development standards/ regulations are important tools to allow/
encourage high quality/innovative design and quality development.
■ A significant part of the City's currently identified Urban Planning Area has
been urbanized in unincorporated Washington County.
GOAL:
2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regula-
tions and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use
planning program.
POLICIES:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction,
comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own
interests.
2-4 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions
shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation
of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and
agencies.
4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land
through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs.
5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-desig-
nated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of
land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed
services and advance the cominunitv's social and fiscal stability.
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall imple-
ment the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses
including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special
planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or
committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to,
or concurrently with, development occupancy.
9. The City may, upon determuiing it is in the public interest, enter into
development agreements to phase the provision of required public facili-
ties and services and/or payment of impact fees and/or other arrange-
ments that assure the integrity of the infrastructure system and public
safety.
10. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays
for development related services and assumes the appropriate costs for
impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-5
04% LAND USE PLANNING
11. The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety
and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities.
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned develop-
ment, design standards, and conservation easements, that encourage
results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site
conditions.
13. The City shall plan for future public facility expansion for those areas
within its Urban Planning Area that can realistically be expected to be
within the City limits during the planning period.
14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use
applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of
the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary,
those of the state and other agencies.
15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed
applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map
shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be avail-
able, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to
serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public
facilities and services;
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community
need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services,
employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and devel-
opable properties;
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of develop-
able, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be
allowed by the new designation;
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation
2-6 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and
the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled;
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compat-
ible, or capable of being made
compatible, with environmental
'
conditions and surrounding land
"The City, shall f;`.
uses; and
L..
G. Demonstration that the amend- require i
ment does not detract from the
viability of the City's natural development
systems. to conform to
.
16. The City may condition the approval site designI
of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to g:
e
assure the development of a definite development
land use(s) and per specific design
/development requirements.
17. The City may allow concurrent "
applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for
development plan approval of a specific land use.
18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public
interest, initiate legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive
Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or the Community Development
Code.
19. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the
City Council that it consider initiating legislative amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan, Plan/Zoning Maps, and/or Community
Development Code.
20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its
Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures
to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide
reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative
rules, and regional requirements.
21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/devel-
opment regulations.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2_7
LAND USE PLANNING
22. The City= shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of
its land use program.
23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure,
to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it
and adjacent existing and future land uses.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban
development and to enhance the community's value, Livability, and
attractiveness.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES.
i. Work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),
Metro, Washington County, and others to develop means to equi-
tably assign costs to new development for its unpacts on the inter-
state and infra-regional freeway and arterial system.
ii. Develop and maintain land use regulations, standards, and proce-
dures necessary to enhance the design of multi-family; commercial,
and industrial development, and to mitigate impacts on adjacent land
uses.
iii. Implement measures to preserve and enhance the quality and char-
acter of Tigard's residential districts. Examples include managing the
design of infill development, tnitigating impacts of adjacent dissim-
ilar land uses, improving quality of streetscapes and the pedestrian
environment, and providing greater access to open space.
iv. Develop and periodically update Citywide Public Facilities and
Transportation System Plans (PFI? TSP) to guide the location,
financing, and timing of future public facilities. Coordinate the
preparation and adoption of these Plans with other affected jurisdic-
tions and agencies.
v. Revise the Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and related findings as
needed to maintain reliability and timeliness; to ensure consistency
2-8 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
among goals, policies, and recommended action measures; to assure
accuracy of findings; and to comply with state, regional, and federal
laws and rules. This includes review by the Planning Commission
every two years, formal evaluation every five years, and an overall
update at least every ten years.
vi. Monitor and evaluate whether City actions and community condi-
tions and circumstances are consistent with the goal and policy direc-
tion of the Comprehensive Plan. When appropriate, amend the Plan
or adjust City= actions, regulations, or standards.
vii. Monitor actions, programs, and policies of federal, state, and
regional governments. When appropriate, amend the Comprehensive
Plan and its implementing regulations and plans to be consistent
with those of other agencies.
viii. Develop and adopt special district plans to enhance opportunities
for economic development, housing, social vitality, access to transit,
etc.
ix. Actively participate and engage with other Portland Metropolitan
Area jurisdictions and agencies to represent Tigard's interest
involving region-wide land use, transportation, natural resource, and
public facility issues.
x. Implement incentive and redevelopment programs to utilize urban
land and existing public facilities more efficiently.
xi. Review transportation and other public facility plans and projects to
address potential negative aesthetic or operational impacts on neigh-
borhoods and take mitigating action when necessary.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the methods used
in determining development impacts upon water quality, natural
resources, and other land uses.
xiii. Review and analyze the use of the Planned Development process
as away to gauge its functionality and whether it is working as
intended.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-9
r
LAND USE PLANNING
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different
elements of the City's land use program,such as maps, codes, and
area plans, and make changes when necessary to further community
objectives.
xv Develop criteria to identify and protect unique community features
and resources.
%vi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the
community from transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and
natural hazards associated with land use activities.
2-10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
mdee~
PW GE
EXbbit A
}pAPI ~ Goal 2: Land Use Planning
t
CPA2008-OOOOl
City of `Tigard
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS GGRAPREHENISP C PLAN ARE DF=Sl(_NED
TO HR Em G- GO hi S- i S-=-hlT WITH T-H! S PLAN ; AND
6. THE TI5l1fi61-(~(3MRf~€#€1'ICI~~R N AND GOMMUNITV n€y~~PMENTr
G-C-3-DEM ARE KEPT GI IRRENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE GGAAA41 INITY 1
ORDER TO DO THIS
THiv PIAN S-H1166 B€ R€NI€W€ AND I-IP-D.A.=--D AT LEAST EVERY
Fn/Crr•az EARS:
7 THE C-0-04DCC41CNSIVC PLAN AND EACH OF ITQ ELEMENTS SHALL RC OPENED
FOR AMENDMENTS THAT CONSIDER GOMPWANCE WITH T14F= PI ANS C)F :rHE
AAETROP66TAN SERVICE DISTRICT (MSD) OR
R SIICCr=R5;QR ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED IF DEEMED NECESSARY By THE CITY GOI INGII ANN' I L AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR GGAAPI IANIGE WITH
WITH ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE-OPENING OF I=OGAI= PLANS APPROVED
THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED.ASS WAIVING ANY LEGAI= RIGHTS
1A HICH THE CITY MAY 14AV€ TO GHALL€NGE THE ~!^er~lcrITY OF a CEIONAI
WHICH THE ~ ~c-~ v -vr--rrrc mmv
GOAL, GBjF=GI:IVE, OR PLAN PROVISION.
NPLEMENT-ATION STRATEGIES
G. Medium 1409h DeRrSity Re6ideRtial 13 to 20 unit6 to the net aGFe. The appliGable
are R-20, aRd R-40.
(°-°T
h . GeRtFal 13u6mne66 D*6tr4Gt The aFea deemed appFQpFiate f49F high intensity mixed use
High deRMY F86idential development will be 9AGGUFagee~.
k. Heavy k4us-troal - Those aFeas deemed appFGPFmate fOF intensive maRufaGtu~ng,
CPA2008-00001 2 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
R. Mexed W6e GeFAmeF-.4 DiStdrut - POAGiple development iR these weas will be high
60 uRits aR aGF66. The Regional Gei;teF PIaA FeGeFnmends that 'and are-Rd the
Washington SquaFe Mail and laRd immediately werst of Highway 217 be designated
OriC
use. AFears will be desipated high demity (MUR 1) OF medeFate density (MUR 2).
u6e desig attiw;.
. 02 2)
and approved Of the Gity GQUAGOI finds;
G. A Fno6take was made *R the GFigiRal land use desipa#Gp,
ESPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN
11 1-DOWNTOWN TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
Citizens have expressed a desire to create a "heart" for their community: a place to live,
work, and play, and to serve as a community gathering place.
Main Street and the surrounding area have served as Tigard's historic center, dating back to
around 1907.Planning for Downtown Tigard's revitalization has been a long-term process,
stretching back at least 25 years. The most recent effort dates back to 2002, with the
announcement of plans for a Washington County Commuter rail line with a planned station
in downtown Tigard. This inspired a small group of citizens and business owners to work on
ideas for Downtown to capitalize on Commuter Rail. A state Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) grant facilitated the hiring of consultants and a more extensive
planning process. A Task Force of 24 citizens was formed to guide the plan's development.
The planning process incorporated high levels of citizen involvement, including community
dialogues, workshops, open house, and a public survey.
CPA2008-00001 3 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
The TGM grant and planning process resulted in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
(TDIP). The TDIP set forth a vision to create "a vibrant and active urban village at the
heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of
transportation, recognizes and uses natural resources as an asset, and features a combination
of uses that enable people to live, work, play and shop in an environment that is uniquely
Tigard."
An Urban Renewal Plan was developed to implement the TDIP. The tools provided by
urban renewal, including Tax Increment Financing, are intended to attract private investment
and facilitate the area's redevelopment. Tigard voters approved the use of Tax Increment
Financing for Urban Renewal in the May 2006 election.
Key Findings
Existing Conditions
■ The Urban Renewal Area contains approximately 193.71 acres (including 49.57 acres
of right-of-way) and comprises 2.6% of the City's 7496 acres of total land area. It
contains 193 individual properties.The current land uses are dominated by
development with little pedestrian-friendly orientation. Outside of Main Street, the
existing buildings do not create a sense of place and cohesive function, but rather
appear to be spread out and auto-dependent. Block sizes are large for a downtown.
• In general, downtown properties have low improvement to land (I:L) ratios. Healthy
I:L ratios for downtown properties range between 7.0 -10.0 or more. In Tigard's
Urban Renewal Area 2004-05 I:L averages were 1.43 for commercial properties and
2.79 for multi-family residential. (Report Accompanying the City Center Urban
Renewal Plan.)
• Under existing conditions, Downtown is underdeveloped and lacks the mix of high
quality commercial, office, residential and public uses suitable for an urban village.
Transportation System
■ The Area is served by two major transportation corridors (99W and Hall Blvd.) with
heavy traffic levels. Many of the other Downtown streets lack complete sidewalks. In
general, there are poor linkages to and within the Downtown.
■ Railway tracks also bisect the Downtown. A planned system upgrade will make both
commuter and freight train operation more efficient and less disruptive to
automobile traffic.
Natural Features
■ Fanno Creek flows through downtown and is the most notable natural feature. The
creek, part of its floodplain and associated wetlands are part of a 22-acre city park
with a multi-use path.
CPA2008-00001 4 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Current Zoning Districts and Comprehensive Plan Designations
■ The majority of the Downtown is zoned Central Business District (CBD). While the
current CBD zone allows the mix of uses necessary for a successful downtown, the
regulations lack the language to guide new development to be consistent with the
preferred urban form. As a result, the area has developed without many of the
pedestrian-oriented qualities specified in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
and Metro's 2040 Growth Concept.
■ The Tigard Urban Renewal Area encompasses the original Plan area and several
additional tax lots, which are zoned R-4.5, R-12 (PD), R-25, C-G (General
Commercial) and C-P (Professional/ Administrative Commercial.) Several of these
tax lots are located to the northwest of Highway 99W. These additional zones do not
permit mixed use development, which is crucial for successful downtowns.
Community Values
• According to the Comprehensive Plan Issues and Values Summary, Downtown is
important to Tigard residents; many use it on a weekly basis. Many would like it to
see improvements so it will become a gathering place for the community.
■ Tigard Beyond Tomorrow's Community Character & Quality of Life section,
includes a goal to achieve a future where "the Main Street area is seen as a `focal
point' for the community," and "a clear direction has been established for a
pedestrian-friendly downtown and is being implemented."
■ The passage of the Urban Renewal measure in May 2006 by 66% of voters also
shows strong community support for Downtown's revitalization.
Metro Requirements for Town Center Planning
■ Title 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requires local
jurisdictions to adopt land use and transportation plans that are consistent with
Metro guidelines for Town Centers.
Goal
15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart
of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of
transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination
of uses that enable people to live, work, play and shop in an environment that is
uniquely Tigard.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Provide public, including members of the development community, with regular
informational updates on Urban Renewal progress and an accounting of funds
spent by the City Center Development Agency.
CPA2008-00001 5 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Goal
15.2 Facilitate the Development of an Urban Village
Policies
1. New zoning, design standards and design guidelines shall be developed and used to
ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown as the
"heart" of Tigard, while being flexible enough to encourage development.
2. The Downtown's land use plan shall provide for a mix of complimentary land uses
such as:
A. Retail, restaurants, entertainment and personal services;
B. Medium and high-density residential uses including rental and ownership
housing;
C. Civic functions (govemment offices, community services, public plazas, public
transit centers, etc);
D. Professional employment and related office uses;
E. Natural Resource protection, open spaces and public parks.
3. The City shall not permit new land uses such as warehousing; auto-dependant uses;
industrial manufacturing; and industrial service uses that would detract from the goal
of a vibrant urban village.
4. Existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of
allowed expansion.
5. Downtown design, development and provision of service shall emphasize public
safety, accessibility, and attractiveness as primary objectives.
6. New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including
ownership, workforce and affordable housing in a high quality living environment.
7. New zoning and design guidelines on Main Street will emphasize a "traditional Main
Street" character.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Develop design guidelines and standards that encourage attractive and inviting
downtown commercial and residential architecture with quality design and
permanent materials, particularly in the building fronts and streetscape. Also
develop appropriate density, height, mass, scale, architectural and site design
guidelines.
ii. Utilize form based code principles in ways that are consistent with state planning
laws and administrative rules.
CPA2008-00001 6 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
r
iii. Adopt non-conforming use standards appropriate to a downtown in transition.
iv. Develop code measures to mitigate any compatibility issues when new
downtown development occurs in close proximity to the Downtown's commuter
rail line.
V. Provide areas in the Downtown where community events, farmer's markets,
festivals and cultural activities can be held.
Vi. Designate the Downtown area as the preferred location for Tigard's civic land
uses.
vii. Promote an awareness of the Downtown's history through measures such as
public information, urban design features and preservation of historic places.
viii. Monitor performance of design guidelines, standards and related land use
regulations and amend them as necessary.
Goal
15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into
Downtown
Policies
1. Natural resource functions and values shall be integrated into Downtown urban
design.
2. The Fanno Creek Public Use Area, adjacent to Fanno Creek Park shall be a primary
focus and catalyst for revitalization.
3. Development of the Downtown shall be consistent with the need to protect and
restore the functions and values of the wetland and riparian area within Fanno Creek
Park.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Acquire property and easements to protect natural resources and provide public
open space areas, such as park blocks, plazas and mini-parks.
ii. Develop "green connections" linking parks and greenways with adjacent land
uses, public spaces and transit.
iii. Incorporate public art into the design of public spaces.
CPA2008-00001 7 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
r
iv. Enhance the landscape and habitat characteristics of Fanno Creek as a key
downtown natural resource.
V. Develop and implement strategies to address concerns with homeless persons
and vagrancy in the Downtown and Fanno Creek Park.
Goal
15.4 Develop Comprehensive Street and Circulation Improvements for Pedestrians,
Automobiles, Bicycles and Transit
Policies
1. The Downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi-modal transportation
services including auto, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.
2. The Downtown shall be Tigard's primary transit center for rail and bus transit
service and supporting land uses.
3. The City, in conjunction with TriMet, shall plan for and manage transit user parking
to ensure the Downtown is not dominated by "park and ride" activity.
4. Recognizing the critical transportation relationships between the Downtown and
surrounding transportation system, especially bus and Commuter Rail, Highway
99W, Highway 217 and Interstate 5, the City shall address the Downtown's
transportation needs in its Transportation System Plan and identify relevant capital
projects and transportation management efforts.
5. Streetscape and Public Area Design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly
environment without the visual dominance by automobile-oriented uses.
6. The City shall require a sufficient but not excessive amount of parking to provide for
Downtown land uses. Joint parking arrangements shall be encouraged.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Develop Comprehensive Street and Circulation Improvements for Pedestrians,
Automobiles, Bicycles and Transit
ii. Develop a circulation plan that emphasizes connectivity to, from, and within the
Downtown in the design and improvement of the area's transportation system,
including developing alternative access improvements to Downtown, such as
connections across Highway 99W.
iii. Address public safety and land use compatibility issues in the design and
management of the Downtown's transportation system.
CPA2008-00001 8 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
iv. Investigate assigning different roadway designations within the general area of
the Downtown as means to support transportation access to Town Center
development such as ODOT's Special Transportation Area (STA) and Urban
Business Area (UBA).
V. Implement an integrated Downtown pedestrian streetscape and landscape plan.
vi. Acquire property and easements to implement streetscape and landscape plans,
and develop needed streets, pathways, entrances to the Commuter Rail park and
ride lot, and bikeways.
vii. Express the themes of an urban village and green heart by utilizing the "unifying
elements" palette from the Streetscape Design Plan to design streetscape
improvements.
viii. Emphasize sustainable practices in street design through innovative landscaping
and stormwater management and provision of multimodal infrastructure.
ix. Encourage sustainability features in the design of Downtown buildings.
X. Encourage the formation of a Downtown Parking and Transportation
Management Association.
xi. Incorporate the Downtown's public investment / facility needs into the City's
Public Facility Plan and implementing Community Investment Plan.
11.2 ASH AVENUE
Fps
CPA2008-00001 9 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
RaGqaGent e+~beF#eed: ,
Avea,,e
PQI ICI€S
14.2.1 ASH AVENUE SHALL 13E EXTENDED ACROSS FAb NO GREEK, ENABLING AGGESS
HIGHWAY. DESIGN FEATURES SHALL BE USED :rO SLOW TRAFFIG AND MAKF
THE STREET AS rw SAFE AS rw RnSSIRIs.E e. r AevrS14AI=~ BE D€SSI-RAT€D As A
a r vvCU ~ AVENUE
11.2.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W. ASH AVENUE FROM S-.IA(. HII-L TO FANNO GREEK
PROPERTIES FFHEI STREET IMPROVEMENTS AI G.b'G- INITL'I 114.I11E DEVELOPMENT
BARRIGADE SHAII RE FLAG€r,,-rATTr--rl Hill STREETAPPROXIMAWIYATTHERNI
OF THE EXISTING- PM.IEMENT TO PROT-EGT- [:rl4F=l NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT-8
FROM THE GOMMERGIAI= TRAFFIG.
i r.c7.o METHODS 4 METL. ODS OF ~AITIGATING THE TRAFFIC IMPJ~€T Obi THE NEIGHBORHOOD
-,a, rr/urrr~ruw THE rrvvvrv r
SHATcc I INCLUDE, IN THE FOLLOWING-- ORDERr- OF -IMPRCI€M€NT,
y nz „w cvccc u•
a. 1AARRn6 S- vT~MG:,~6B STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS TO ENGOURAGE TRAFFIG FROM SOUTH OF MCDONALI) TO
USE MGE)QNAI=D TO EXIT TO HAI=L ANDIOR PAGRG HIGHWAY;
b. IMPROV€M€NT-S TO THS RESIDENrTIIAr PORTION OF ASH FROM H11=1= :W
FBI?€::/INo. TH€o€ IMPROV€M€NTS C-01-16B lNGI=UDF= LIMIT-ED PARKING,
SIDS OF r-THE STREET;
G. EXTENSION OF SIN HIS TO S.W. ANDIOR IMPROVEMENT OF
S.W.
EXTENSION OF IN- n ARA TO S.W. HI66 PARAL=LEL TO S.I~-v~V.. AoT
a c OF v. •~.o~ r'n
2 REnnnNiAI nFTuF RARRIrenF lb- RI ArF ON AS14 AVENUE AT C IN uu 1
IMI'ROV€M€NT OF S.W. 9'MARA STREET TO INTERIM n •TENANGE
STAN-DARDS TO FAIGOURAGF AAI AI TERNATF ROUTE;
OF AS14 IF AND WHEN -RAFFIG VOLUMES EXCE€Irl THE MIDDLE Ro4jGE
n rwr r rr
'-'A.4'TF-=D- TQ RANTING ISLANDS, SPEED BUMPS, BUTTONS, TURNING
RESTRIGTIONS, LOAD LIMITS AND ENFORGEMENT,
11.3 NEIGH13OR1400D PLANNING ORC_Z.AA"_7A.TIQN4t3
lightly tFaveled, but whiGh aFe now FneFe heavily tFave-ledd. Rome of this #afk Fersults fFeFn
iFApaGt the quality ef the Fe6ideRGeS alw;q these FGad6. Thir, is pwkulady the Gase with 1246t Avenue
The GgMpFehensive plan for NPQ 93, adopted by the Gity of T-qgaFd OR 1975, suppGFted ;-;Ad
CPA2008-00001 10 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
v
thmugh NPO #3. it ha6 been the GP*R*AR of both the City and the IOGal Fesidents that the MUFFay
this wWall Iffinkage GOuld Femeve Fnu--.h of the through #afft fFGFn what should be ReighbeFheed
PRdiRgs
StFeets.
S.W. GaaFde StFeet and S.W. 121st Avenue south of Walnut both have MaRy URGOAtF
made.
the Gity of Tigard. It ham ;.also beeR FejeGtad by the GUFFeAt NPO #3.
?1.3.? THE C1124 S-H1166 C-0-A1S-10€R TH€-FOLL FOLLOWING- WHEN PRF-=P.A.Rlhlc-; STREET.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT AFFE0T S:W:'~TT AVENUE OR GAARDE CTOG~
8. .THE IMPAGf- ON THE EXISTING RF=SIDENTT-IAA= STRUCTURES AND THE
AST€RNATIVES WHICH PAVE THE MINIM IM ADVERSE ECCECT IN TERMS
Ql~
REDUCING THE DICTAN E €ETWEEN THE OW€661Nr-flND TuR
„cvvv,,,,v THE cr,v,r, v ~,-rc
STREET; AND
raj NOISE IMRerTC
THE EFFErT THE InARRf1\/EMENT WI 1 HAVE ON THE TRAFFIG EI mAI ARID
THE Rl1CCIRI E NEGATIVE EFFErTC ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS
G. INIMIZING THEM Iam1S-€~1F THE1-E S-TRErMISS AS PART OF THE ARTS
M,,,,,,.~, ,,.,v ~-,-crc,- ,roc
11 3 2 TuE rITV O-F TIG-ARID CuAI 1 \A/f1RK 1A/ITU O-THF-R GOVERNMEAITAI RQDIES Ef\R
Q-R S-CHOLLS FERRY R - - - FIG HIGHWAY. THIS- ARTERIAL
ROUTE SHOU6D BE 60GATED WEST OF BULL M Q SHOULD NOT
UTILIZE ROADS WHIGH PASS THROUGH EXISTI R E S_ I D_ Em ~:r I.A. I=m
TIGAROc
IMP66MENTATION STRATEGIES
i. S.VV. GaaFde StMet and S.VV. 1216t Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall be developed
needed at Gengested *RtemeGtiens.
2. The URdeveleped 'and alORg S.W. 121st Avenue (seuth of VVa'RUt) shall be planned fe
development OR ar.GGFdaRGe with the IGGatwGRal GF*t8F*a PO"Gies that apply tO 'GGat*Rg FA9diuFA
"Developing" aFeas.
CPA2008-00001 11 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
etheF than a S*A919 OF NVO faMily StFUGWFe. The site design Feview shall *AG!ude FevieW Of StFee
Fight of, way and pavement leratieA.
RAI=IEI€S
11.4.1 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGI=E (I.€. THAT-AREA BOUNDED BY PACIFIC HIGHWAY,
HIGHWAY 217, AND THE INT€RSTAT€ 5 FREEWAY), IN THE MIXED IJSE
EMPLOYMENT ZO CIEnEI+I-Ta /1 c
« ZONE, N~ITY R~€~I~l1 6 9E-a!€6b1,--,.. PME ~R~T -r.:., 25
UNITS PER AGRE► S14A 1 BE A USE Al-1-0-I.A.WED OUTRIGHT.
11.5 NEIGHR-O-RHO-O--DPI=ANNINGORGANIZA:r!C)N-#5
Findings
Highway 217- and the hve Faikead lines tmvwsing the aFea have led to a GORSideFable amount
Af OffiARPRd 0 du&ial developmeRt along 72nd AveRUe, south of Highway 217.
GFeek. The Relling Hills SubdiVi6ion abutG iRdu&ially planned land 0A MO 6*der:, and is within
appmximately 600 feet of land planned f49F heavy iRdUStFial use.
P()I=!GX
11.55.1- TH€-GMY RHA61_ R€QI NOR BUFFERING AND _SCREENING B.E A/EEN
TO DRMI (1RAAEAIT APPROVA1 AS F()1 1 ()►A/C•
a ALL BUII=DIN,GS-C-Al IND-1I2TRIAI LAND SuA1-1- R~F= S;F=T RACK A DICTANGE
OF 50 CCCT FROM ANY PR(1DEpTV 1 IAIE \n/HIGH AQI ITC A RESIDENT-IN 1 V
PLANNED AREA7
THE CITE PI AN' SHA1 I PROVIDE CLIP THE I CAST INTENSIVE PRO120SED
IJSF=S ON THE SIT-6 1N T-HF-= ARRAS WHICH ABUT AN ADjOINING
RESIDRNIT1A1 PI AAIAIEn epEA• eAln
G. BUFFERING AND Crvm~c€~IIAI~r.v-vHALL RCiv€DiA/ITHIAI THE 50 C!1()T
STANDARDS CONTAINED
POIAGVi -v-~. IT IS NOT THEM INTENT OF THIS CI IQCE(`TION' TO REQUIRE
THE ENTIRE 550 FEET TO BE LANDSCAPED PROVIDED T-14E STANDARDS IN
6.6.1 ARE MET IN WHIGH GARR A PORTION OF THR RI -r=PF=R AREA MAY BF=
1lccn FOR PeRKING• cYCERT
1. NO BTRUGTUR€, PAVERWNT OR nEVEI OPAAEAIT MAY BE LOCATED
WITHIN THE fi-Q--r=QQ-T SETBACK ARFA SURROUNDING THE ROLLNG 39 40, 41, 42, ANID 43j AND
AI I EXISTING VECCTATI(1A1 CHAI I QC'PCTAIAIEn AND MAINTAINED
WITHIN THF=
-F=TBAGK AREA SURROUNDING THE R01=61PIG
AVISION' EXCEPT. BEHIND I=OT-S # 39, 40, 41, 42 AND-43
WHERE SECTION 18.100.130, THE BUFFER MAT-RIX APPLIES AND
19.100.080 APPLIES.
(Rev n.a 84_7-0)
IMPI CMENTATION STRATEGIES
CPA2008-00001 12 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Fequi remeRts
11.6 ACTION AREAS
eAGOUFaged *R GONUAGtiOR with COFAFAWGial, Light lndust~al aRd MedWFA, Medium Hugh ai;d High
GOALS
ERGeuFage aRd faGihtate pedestrian tFaffiG thFOUgh land use, G*Gulatien patteFAS and design
60nIFAIS.
R9N61€S
DESIGNATE AS ACTION AREAS CONGENTRATIONS OF GENF=RAI= COMMERGIAL,
UGHT INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM, MEDIUM HIGH, AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIA'
\A/'"'CRC TWF= F=Q 1 QVVING GRPTERI A ARE "ACT
THE AREA r<Pwz Iw C GENERALLY WITHIN ONE QUARTER Mr6€ OF A ""~lo^o,°
'v. P THE TRANSIT GENTCR OR TRI INK ITE
h eREeC \n~~ P OP 1.1 ru CYICTING WHICH ARE Ff~€0d€NT€D-€Y
o. r<~w<v • nv r
PF=DF=STR'Ah S, OR VAGANT LAND WHICH G RT- USES WHICH
ING-1-11-D BE PATRONIZED BY PEDESTRIANS AN[)!()R TRANSIT RIDF=RS
G. AREAS •~P AREA~w<v S VVI41GH ARE CI IRREnIT6Y AUT--OMOBII=€ ORIENTED- MAY BE
nP P rv rc vvP~P~c~• -r--
I-IDF=D IN AN
OF A CHANGE OF USE OR REDESIGN OF
PEDESTRIAN WAYS TO BETTER MIT€GF- AT€ THE I ICE INTO THE CTIGN AREA.
11 R 7 DETERMIN€ PERMITTED- USES TH 'I~ 1~`_H ZONING. CI I~T~T~E_`111 ATIn"I Or=
v.c P cP c
I ICES IN' AGTI^AI ARCAC C4.1e1 1 RE AGrn"ADI IC4-ICf1 WITH AN' n\/SRI AV ONE
WHICH l MI`~TC SPECIFIC ITn" Al1RII=F= ORIENTED I l,v` ASS J
AND ENGO11RA!`_CC A 41r`_HER 1 EVEI OF USES WHIGH ARE PEDESTRIAN AND
PUBLIGTRANSIT ORIENTED.
11.6.0 REQUIRE THAT A61_ D€V€6 NT RE=i""...r-.€D (N erTIQN AREAS BE
-DESIGNED TO CAGI ITATE REIIECTR1AN MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CENTER ANE)
TO TRANSP
11.6.4 REVIRAI AND UPDATE CITY PARKING ORDINANCES :rO RE-QGhII7F= PARKING
NEMEDS IN' AGTION AREAS,
11.6.5 DEVEI=OP A DESIGN PLAN FOR EACH A.C-TIO-N ARE.A. TO PR VIDE QUIDANCR
USES. PLANS FOR AUTOMGBII=E, TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BIGYGLE
WILE BE INGWD€D. THE CITY IAIII I # AV9 THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
D€V€60RIP1 TTI;=-D€S16N PLAN RI T- WILL-GOORDINAT,€-WITT,-H ,--^OREGOON
MET-
41.6.6 D€V€LO° :".€P'rT -IN Tkl€-AETION-AREAS MAY BE TO 5SP°-€61AI=
CIRCULATION AND DESIGN CONS! DERATI QNS DURING DESIGN REVIEW PRIQR
1.6-7 ENCOURAGE FORM - _AL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS OR OTHER
CI IITARI C RRn/'`RA"AC FOR Ce!`4J AGTION ARCH TO CI"IA"1GC 1"ARI C"ACAITATI/1P1
CPA2008-00001 13 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
OF THE DESIGN PLANS.
(Rev. QFd 87_55)
IR 1989, a FnajeF Feal estate development Gempany, togeth8F With inteFested FesideRts aRd pFopedy
Hall Bewlevwd, Highway 217 and- SI.A.( GFeenbuFg Read. T4;e developmeRt GenGept would FeqUOF9 the
the Gity establish an uFbaR Fenewal pIaR to help fund needed publiG iFApFGVeFAeAt6, aRd OtheF pFgj
P-.
€s
GORGept.
Additennn' st-d*Ar, will be needed as FnGFe s eGifiG development plans aFe appFeved WhiGh
kROWR.
!A eFdeF tO obtain a 6ound, unified development of high quality, an eveFall develepMeRt pIaR fO
eGhange PL.
and f9F PFOpeFty ewReFS. Single family PFOpeFt*e6 would likely be a6semed f0F the*F ZORed affte
eXiMiRg ZGRwF;g until the land *6 needed feF FedevelopmeRt GORSOMeAt With the GOFnFneFG*aI
CPA2008-00001 14 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Wo4he
WAePA __.j
~ses~~'tati~ e.-e
,
' E,d,ibit A
Goal 2' Land Use Planting
15
CPr1200$-00001
City of Tigard
ThwRk GFeatively and be iRAQ-VR-tiYA- quality of life.
GGvemmenWnsfitmfienal Inc,
Ti-n po rfation
PWan fa-.r.:; multm medal tFaR6pGFtatiGR 6y6teFA that aGGGFnFn9date6 ;RGFea6ed auto
Ron auto tFavel Fieed6.
with develepmw*
Me Regional Center- Man Should
Be within a Feasenable, staged PeFied of time
Help develop a 6ense of Gommunity with a Gommen vi6ien, hope and eptimism
f
1,074 aGFer. eXGIU6mYe of pub!*G Fights of way and 1,250 total aGFe6. About 4.2 pment of the ne
The Tarsk F=GFGe evaluated all laRd6 within the study aFea fOF futwe development eF
f
f
GapaGity" fGF eaGh jud6diGtiGR in the Fegion. The goal of setting these taFget A um-hem., .;F-; fleir
2020-
Employment ^9 8044Gbs
Retail: 1-1 884Gbo
CPA2008-00001 16 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Offing.
8,4 s
~ec4ging: 180 jobs
HAdsing: 1,500 u l*6
.2,630 people
•
Ler.ust wm'I develop at Felatively high densities. Aireanss neirt.h. 01 LeGust and we6t of Highway-24-7-
will develop at M9Fe medwate intemities, but genwally gFeateF than e*istiRg Wemity in there
Offine .rl, CAD , 25 l:,1 CeD 0.6
Holail- @ FXR«6 -@ FAR. 0.3
-Adg*Rg @ FAR 1.0- FAR 1.0
•
Adequate development and FedevelOpMeRt GapaGity exists within the study aFea ar, a whole to
•
•
•
PeOed& Highway 217, GFeeRbUFg Read, Hall Bewlevwd aRd .9GhGIIS F=eFFy Read We 6ubjeGt to
•
the highway in the 6tudy aFea M GVeFGFGS6iRgS OR Hall RouleVaFd, SOWS F=eFFy Read and
GFeeRbUFg Read. Of the6e_ thpaA cparrenp, sWewalks aFe found only on Hal' Beulevwd and
GFeeRbUFg Read, With b;GYG'e IaReG only on SGhells FeFFY Read. The eRly Wke laRes an the
•
w0thOR and GeRneGting to the study ma.
•
•
•
CPA2008-00001 17 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
•
.A.d;4F;A whetheF the Fn the Regional Gentw
r. 91; ant additional tFanspokatieR, impFevement6 rampwed with existing ZGR*Rg.
#Jeedpla+ta afea.
•
The Fesul1r., of the P-NOR9eFiRg and eAV*FGRrReRtaI analysis show that all of the
of the PR~eGtS We fatally flawed.
MedifiGatiOR6 tO Qty of T-igaFd development MaRdwds that apply to skes that iF;Glude
CPA2008-00001 18 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
etleFS.
€eas*ble.
pF+vate sesleF
RONC.!€S
ONTAINED IN THE WASHINGTGN SQUARE
REGIONA1 GENTER RI AAI QuAI 1 RRMIIDC THR OVERALL GUIDING FRADARNORK
FOR MORE ncTeuccLr Rn !MP cEc[M v THE ACTIONS FOR THC ARE THE
FOR nrvrcc-c c r THE
!MPI=EMF=NT-ING ACTIONS INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM;
I n
CPA2008-00001 19 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
P~RGOPW6 of the plaR.
i.9.2 r l rl,C 7 THREE Ccr nICTIAICT TYPOS /1C MIXED_ IyIpC
CC DISTRICTS SHALL BE €S•TA€ ISH€D
r Irc 1 11\D 1 1 I 1 CV DI 1~
MIXED IICC COMM€RGIALDISTRIGTS (MUG). T-H€ RRGIONAI GEN'T€R
"AAI 1 AND 1 eAln 111A"ACDIATCI V INFEST OF HIr_`WIA/AY 717 QC DESIGNATED A
MIXED USE COMMERGIAL DIST-RIGT. PRINGIPAI= DEVELOPMENT 1N THESE
AREAS VVILC BE ^F-FIG€ €I III DINGS, RETAIL ANDS€R`~'ro€S. A
z ..r
,_7ElNM1Q_ DE~Ir'A1°.~OF MUG W;zL AI=SO -ALL `~A~I MIn€B' €
DEVEWPMENT AND HOUSING AT DENSITIES ()r= 50 1 INITS; AN' ACRF= AAI IC
DISTRICTS VVII=I= ENCOURAGE LARGER BUjj=[)Ih'G_R_ WITH P.A.RK'h'G
h "AIYCn ,I ICC RAW OY"ACAIT DISTRICT- (MU€). MIXED USE €MRL^YM€NT
O. I~Irr IC:V 'vCG. CI+11 Cv 1 I+I C:I\ 1 v10 I I II,O ] [ P
DIST-RIGT-S REFER TO AREAS WITH CONCENTRATIONS OF OFFICE,
R€SEARGH AND D€ ,IEWP :"ENT, .'D- L HT n UFAGT- lRING
INN S-TR1e1 UovcvSES CO"A"L€RGIAL AND RETAIL SUPPOR-T IICC ARE
Il,vvv r 1\v sc -w,..r1+u v w -rmc
AIc1ccrvvc OINEn, R vv r LIMITED. TH€ ZONING WILD'€R11T
l' IT ARE c
. r;A;=
DEVF=I.l 1.1 cr, r COMPATIBLE COMPATIBL€ WITH• THE DISTRICT' €MRLv"A,vr€pr1.T_
c o cu c -r
GH RASTER 1 ~LN-CENTER -IS AN EXAMRL€ OF AN AREA
yr n+rv +srru-c. c ]
D€S'~^NAT€D THE HIGH DENSITY MIX€D USE EMPI=OYM€NT
MODERATE ncnICITIEC
"vlu~cccrAIYCn Ivvc I\cvICC RCCIDCAITInAIc v DIST RICTS /MUR` TH€ MUR DESIGNATION-Io
o. I-lvcl\Islv+l,r.v T- c
APPROPRIATE FOR PRCnn"AIAIAAITI V RCCIDEAITIAI AREAS WHERE "AIMED
-E-I- -1111
I ICCC ARC RCR"AITTCn WHEN COMPATIRI C WITH THE RESIDENTIAI IICC
DENSITY ("AI IR_2)
i-1.°- 3 NE-G€SCARRY PUBLIGIT~€S ING-1-1-10ING SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE
TO CI IPPORT NFON DEVCI OR"AENTC
11.p1 19Cp COG>\I\ 1 TRANSPORTATION A NEGESCARY FAGILITI€S, AS DETERMINED BY A 1 1 V ~Z TRAFFIC
~MAPACT ASSESSMENT, -SHQULD SHE IN RLAGE OR PUNNED TO BE
r s-~v
C-0- hIS_TRI_IC_TF_=_D IN' TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
(Re.. OW 07_12)
11.10 11' IRWAM 01 I°RRY "AIYCn I ICC [)E=VF= !1P"AC"IT ARCH
T
WGFk togethe r te Anne, wage a high qual.ty, pede6tFian Mendly, tmn6it 9~ented mixed u6e devel9pMent
OR th8 Site of the DUFhaFn Only 7.2 aGFer. of the 29 aGFe site aFe within the Qty ef Tigwd,
POWGI€S
V.40A THE GITY OF TIGARD WILL= GONTINI-IF TO WORK WITH WASHINGTON GQIWINP~
ARID THE GIPa OF TWA- 91=P ASSURE THAT DEVE6012MENT WITHIN
THEM DURHAM QUARRY MIXED USE DEVF= OPMENT AREA PROVIDES A HIGH
1
QUALITY UR13AN EcAIVIRQNM€NT THAT EMPHASIZES RE~`TRIr--RAIT",
,accn sc I r 1 v s v> y r , v 1 c ssr T'
11 1n o THE n11RHAM-QUARRY MIX€D USE DEV€WPMEN~rI I °E'wQ€GT~
. I. Ip.C THE Grp hll Ir+
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WIT-I THE CITY OF TL el eTIN WHICH
AN II\ I CI\,".7 c rr
IN1 H 13 Al THORIZI= TWF= CITY OF TI IN AT-IN' TO A AKE LAND USE AND BWIL=()1NG
11.10.3 A UNIQUE MIXED USE T HAS Q€€N ESTABLISHED FOR THE DURHAM
CPA2008-00001 20 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
,
. PJl~
IJI
e~ia.s~►
!Fats
.1 ~-JJJD
#ogow,
aGG,
- Exhibit A
Goa12: Land Use Planning
21
CPA2008-00001
City of Tigard
dFa*Aage, high wateF table OF fleediAgi and
as
(a) -FaGilitie&
'ice
r, Watw
r~vcvr
(iii; -Drainage
(*Y) SGhOGIS
b-SerViGeS;
r~ o„r,.o
Health
(1) AFeas WhiGh have been hiStOFiGally developed with IaFqe Iet6 and WhiGh aFe
- buildable -a
zoned remistent with the existing development r
(2) The GapaGRY of ..ties and °
SeNiGes should be zoned f49F smallw lets.
2. Medium Density Re6ideRtial
.A.. The following faGtOF6 will be the deteMinants of the weas designated f0F medium deR6*p,;
OR the p{aR Raab
development;
(3) The GapaGity of the
(4) The dustame to the pUbIiG #ansuti
seRteFS; and
3. Medium High and High DeFirity Residential
the plaR FRaP.
(4) AFear., ;AoWnh Art; not subjeGt to de Rations;
CPA2008-00001 22 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
~~~lefs e~pWb1+~ ra~~9
IAAPk~€N~;~,a~ be
0
etas
is F~
Fill
$xhibit A
Goa12: Land Use Planning
23
CPA2008-O000I
City of Tigard
aFea.
A. Rngle
(1) TFade AFea. Up to 5000 people.
(2) Site 2- i-e. Twe acre aniFn -
(1) -SpaGiRg and-Lesalion
least one half [of al mile.
(b) Commercial development shall be Amited to one quadrant Of R A Feet
Stfeet.
(2) Assess
GhaFaGteFiStOGS of the mast iRtens-Ove ussee allowed An the zone.
(3) Site Ghwartwu6t*G&
uses, but shall not exGeed tIMA AGFA6
(4) !FnpaGt Assessment
FeaiRtaiFed.
(G) it 6hall be possible to ;RGGFPGFate the unique featWe6 inte the site desigR
and develOpMeRt plan.
A-wai°v
(1) -Trade AFea. Varies
B. WAntuer FoteFia
(1) SpaGing and I=GGafiGA
thaR tWO 6ide&7
(2) AGGe6o
CPA2008-00001 24 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
o •
based GA 6tFeBt GapaGity, existing and PFGjeGted tFaffir. volumes, the speed
GhaFaGteFiStmGG of the YaF*OU6 types of uses,
(b), The site shall have diFeGt aGGe66 fFeFA a FnajGF selleGtOF OW -RAR-rial rtFAGt,
(3) Site GhaFaGteFi6tiG6
(a) The site shall be of a size whiGh Gan aGGemmedate pFesent and PFOjeGted
uses.
(b) The t;*tt; shRII have high vqs4bW.
(b) The site GGAfiqwatien and GhaFaGteF*St*GS shall be SuGh that the p9vaGy-d
(G) it shall be possible to *AGGFPGFate the unique site featWes onto the 6ite
design and developmeRt plap,
non FesidepAial uses.
(1) T -Fade aFea.-VaF'•
(2) Site size. Vanes
(4) Cnaninn and 1 eGa inn
(a) The GOFAPFehQ-RR..O;fA- PI-an map fixes exarat boundaFies of the GeF:nFneFG*al
ffefessieflal aFea.
(2) Assess
GhaFaGteFi6t*G6 of the YaF*OUS types of use&.
(3) Site Charanteristic
(a) The site shall be of a size wNGh Gan aGGemmedate pFeseAt and pFGjeGted
Reeds.
(b) The site shall have high visibW.
(4) !FnpaGt Assessment
(a) The site ne shall be 6uGh that the PF*YaGy-4Df
adjar.ent ROR GOFAFAeFG*al uses Gan be maintained.
(b) It shall be pe66*ble to inseFpwate the unique r,4e featUF% iRtG the site
design and developmeRt pla4;-.
CPA2008-00001 25 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
40
e►epe
. a
a~-
A WOO
Exhibit ~
Go" LAr a Use Planning
26
CP A200g-p0001
City of Tigard
with exi6fiAg Code pFevisiepr,.
may be developed 'RdepeRdeAtly although the City Fnay FSqUiFe that
development S_.
system shall b9 6UGh that r.Ant non-nn WFGial U6e6 Gan be
Fna+ntained.
(e) Unique featUW6 of the site 6hould be ORGGFpwatedd into the 60te
development pIaR.
GemmeFGW distOGt shall be GOntFelled eF mitigated so that they do F;Gt
Site-
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The GemmuRoty Development OFdinaAGe shall;
b. R°eq Ui Fe that
O
a. Rey4ew the Gemmwial development patt9FAS that have on-n-urred- a-long PaGik Highway
The *ntent of the 'Rdu6tdal land use de6*gRat*GR i6 t9;
3. PreteGt existing and patenfial land6 suitable fa-.r *Rd-,-,F-;trw;-;' development fFeFn eRGF9aGhFaeRt by
CPA2008-00001 27 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
f
assembling aGtivitie& Use6 within this GlassiftatieR aFe GhaFaGteF*zed by large buildings and
them geneFally Gempatible with etheF RGA indU&W u6e6 and WhiGh have ne off site effeGts.
L P~ .~.1
P01 ICY
THE CITY Al C^
-d. 1 tHE SHLI=- REQUIRE THAT-; T-;
a SITES FOR HgA\N INN ICTQIAI DEVELOPMENT SHAT=1
(4) SEPARATED BY Pnr_QAOUV €STABLISH€9 L1 €€€i&,
TRANSPORTAXIC-M OR OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL LAND USES FROM
RESIDENT-01 1 V IICVCI OPED AREAL
(,2) -1 OrAT€DO iN* nR€nS HnVIN G RAIL SERVIG€,-ART€RIAI OR nee Ino
SI-T€S_ rFQR I-I -uT INDUSTRIAL DEVEI OPMENT Cuei I QC_:
(r71\ BUFFERED FROM o , cl=d1 D€NTInL € S
-FROM nR
n Tl_€NSI~R€ TH,~,~,T PRIVACY
AND TJd€-R€........ ~IARasT€R-rte T~I€-nR€n A+~
PRESERVED-.
(2) 1 nreTCn ON AN ART€RInL ORC'0LL€GTOR STREET AND T14AT
RESIDENTIAL AREAS,
G THEM SIE CruAI BE OF A SIZE AND SHAPE WHICH W11=1= PROVIDE FOR
THE SHORT AND WN(' RANGE NEEDS GOF THEM IWIS&
d. THE LAND INT€NDED FOR OEV€LGrQMETVT S-RAI:L Ar E AN AVERAGE SITE
TOPOGRAPHY OF LESS THAN' 6
GRADE, OR THAT- IT GAN BE
DEMONSTRATED THAT THROUGH ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES ALL
LIMITATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT AND THEE PROVISION OF SERVICES GAN
QC MITIGATE
IT CAN QC DEMONSTRATED
v. vrccc vc
THAT ASSOCIATED LIGHTS, NOISE AN^)
OTHER EXTERNAL EFFECTS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITIJ TI..IC erT1\ATICC
AND USES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
1MP F=M9 ITATIQ_bI STRATEGICS
ensUFe hat;
6UFMUndinq weal;
(1) Hews of operatigr;
(1) -Neise;
(4) Lighting; and
(5) QtheF use GhaFa6tektOGS.
CPA2008-00001 28 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
tj
Pr°^°ef°F~
s4a&
(7) A minimum of 0 of lan&Gaping,:
42.4 COMMUNIT41JT-ILITIESANI)rmAG!6!T-IES
aFea.
aGhievedi
nd-rtr*Rl imp
and
defansible 6p36e-
f+JWG4
MANNER INHIGH AGGORDS WITH:
a THE ARRI 1rAQ1 E PO 1GIES IN THIS RI ANN
:rHi= I-OCATIONAI CRITRRIA~A RTP AR' R TO T~CAI E AND STANDARDS
OF Tv THF= I ISE
€asil+ties
Miner Impae4 Utilities Admin. SeFV We (GGA
SeF1A6es)
Tax bets tae Neighberheed Parrs GOFRFAURity R°k°
Grade Ssheel6 uIt "^I Ef4r,*bft
CPA2008-00001 29 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Watef Storage 6+braFy SeF:bsos
Assembly
Rower &~bstatien AAidd'A oG„wls
High Cnt.eeI
TFa de Cnheelc
Tran~:4 Cfa4ien (Within !`W
!`nmm~ ~n:4.. !'Gr.ie Caeil:4ie~
Cemeteni Ren\Iel:nn Gen4er
Postal SeFyores °enreatien
FiFe Station Hospitals
AmWange SeFViGe MajGF See"ep° 8
Util+t+es
Transit Statien(edtside GSG) Lanv„1
1) AGwss
pFavided;
(a) The use shall be allowed ffavided;
(ii) I=aFge Q-0-ASARKtion aRd paFkiRg 19t6 Gan be em the
adjaGentUses;
GeFAFF " i I Gan be maintained through design and sate
afea; and
/y.\ Bufferine n R be u sed to S " the a eat from ad:aeent Uses.
(3) Site GhaFaGteF*6t*Gr,
The unique nat oral feat MS if any, n b9 i rated iRte the
desigR of the faGql*t*es OF aRangement of land uses;
0
of less thaR PFGIV*S*GF; Of reFV*GeS Gan be mitigatedi (NOT-9; This dee6 Fiat apply
to paFits.)
senseFvat+en:
(1) AGGess
CPA2008-00001 30 Exhibit A
City oETigald Goal 2: Land Use Planning
use.
patteFR6.
(h) There is ad-equate aFea landSGaping tO filteF the dust fF9M the site aF
(3) Site Ch;ar;anh;r*At4r-r
(a) The land Wended f0F development has aR aVeFage site topegmphy of ler,6
than a 0
(G) The unique natumal feature6, if any, Gan be *RG9FpeFated inte the design a
the fad"fies OF aFFangement of IaRd user,
A. Ssa;e
1) GGess
(s)-There is public. Wanrit •n the site
use.
ai jaseR-uses.
Site Characterisfins
(a) The land intended f4OF development ha6 aR aveFage Site tOpOgFaphy of less
than a 0
be-FnitigatAEz
and is of a shape whiGh allows fQF a site layout in a maRReF whiGh
(1` A6sess
CPA2008-00001 31 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
f
.(a) ThAre
use.
developments,
(3) Site GhwarteFiMiGr.
than a 0
teGhAiques, R-11 limita-tions- to development and the pmvisiGA Of 66MGe-sGal;
be Mitigated.
the fRA"mt*Rr,
;e and eneFgy GOR6mation.
IMPI C~ACAITATION STRATEGIES
and s+gA6.
Reed6pFOvided by the GeuRty-
11AIYCr1 I ICC rlICT01!`TC
R9NGy-
Q.b.1 THE GIPY SHALL -PRC) F cno MIXED USE -DEVELOPMENTS IN AGGORDANGE
VVIT- :
a APP'-'C-.A.-R'-F-= PI A.N °n' IGIES;
b. APP PORR STATEMENTS; AND
G APPLICABLE COMMUNITY D-E-VEI nC11ACNT GODS PROVISIONS
CPA2008-00001 32 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
tFaRSPOFtatie
2. A.4-med Use Empleymen
A. The puFpose of the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) land- ume- designation is;
3. Wxed Use ResWeRtiai
A. The puFpese of the Wxed Use Residential (MUR) land use dermigRation is;
pFedUGe that heus*Rg iR ways that Fesidei#6 have a high degFee a
the Gity of Tigard
POUCI S
12:-5 22 THE CITY RHAII_-APPI YA MIXED I IS~SE COMPA€RrlA1 I AND USE DESIGNATION
FQR ARF-=A.S- SHOWINI AS REGIONAL GENTER IN THE METRO 2040 GROWTH
CONCEPT OR TO GTHOR AREAS 1DENT-IFIED BY TIM-FE CITY A.S- APPRO-PRIATE
FOR MIXED USE C/111 MERG1A1 DEVELOPMENT.
(Re„ QFd 01 _07)
.v 3 THE GITY SHALL -APP6 MIXED USE €MPI_~lrMENT LAND USE n~IGNI ~I
rc
FOR AREAS QI-If11A/AI AS REGIONAI CCAITCR AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE RAFTRO
fl~`I!_`AIATIl1AI
12. 6.4 11 ICA THE CITY SHALL APPLY A. MIX€B USE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
I G~`lr I r r r C ~pL~ TpTmTfpff
FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL GENT-F=R IN' THE A4F-=TRC-) 2040 a-R
IMP6EMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The Communety Development Code shall;
4-
(Rev. QFd 01 0:7)
CPA2008-00001 33 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
d. Re at:
development patteFR i6 aGhi6Ve4,L
e Dr.,.ide f"r.
.
streamg and
Fesidej
#loedplains.
CPA2008-00001 34 Exhibit A
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 08- CJ2
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2008-00002
TO ADD GOALS, POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES PERTAINING
TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2: TIGARD'S URBAN FOREST, (4s A mE n4 a ED
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council directed staff to complete a full update of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan, including a process for garnering citizen input; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard visioning reports, community surveys, Tigard Tree Board meetings, and policy
interest team meetings were utilized to develop draft language for the update of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has proposed an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Chapter by
updating Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures corresponding to Statewide Planning
Goal 2; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public meeting on April 21, 2008, and
recommended approval of the proposed CPA2008-00002 by motion and with unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2008, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Commission's recommendation on CPA2008-00002, hear public testimony, and apply applicable
decision-making criteria; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted CPA2008-00002 by motion, as
amended pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, Council's decision to adopt CPA2008-00002 is based on the findings and conclusions
found in the City of Tigard staff report dated April 7, 2008 and the associated record, which are
incorporated herein by reference and are contained in land-use file CPA2008-00002.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Comprehensive Plan is amended to include new text and to rescind existing
text as shown in "EXHIBIT A!% and
SECTION 2: 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 (.lr1q_ginims vot~ of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this 3 r day of , 2008.
ORDINANCE No. 08- v0
Page 1
V
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 3 day of )2008.
Craig 16irksen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorne
(p~30$
ORDINANCE No. 08- Q g
Page 2
v
EXHIBIT A
04% . LAND USE PLANNING
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland, Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings, roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection, management, and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identifir and sense of place, but for the social, ecolog-
ical, and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic, economic, and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color,
texture, line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realhn through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind, providing habitat for birds and wildlife, enhancing
community attractiveness and investment, improving water quality and soil
stability, and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century, and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy, reed canary grass, and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive. However, remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City. Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities, and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries, and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest, Tigard possesses a large number of
2-10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940s through the 1970's, many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources. Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat, a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found "the protection of trees and natural resource areas" as rating
the highest of all "livability" characteristics posed to the respondents, scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2), maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8), pedestrian and bike paths (7.7), and compatibility between
existing and new development (7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84°io of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees, with only 6° o strongly disagreeing and 90-1o somewhat
disagreeing. In addition, 90% of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. "These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining' urisdictions who maintain, or have begun significant updates to, their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City, USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services, the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality, reduce
erosion, and provide shade, structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's Hoodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects, cooperative efforts with
non-profits, contract services, and the labor of Public XVC orks crews, thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects, the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands, distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Street Tree Program, and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-11
Y
04%
. LAND USE PLANNING
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along trails, riparian
areas, and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees, particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older, the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canopy, and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat, erosion control,
slope stability, water quality, air-quality, and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations, failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983, further challenging the Cite to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally, the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents, developers, and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property, particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes, wetlands, and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed, and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands, riparian corridors, and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean %yVater Services as part
of their stormwater management program. These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas, and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending, or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city, which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally, because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
. r
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
hensive tree removal consultation or pernut system, protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest, a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
Cite
■ This urban forest provides social, economic, and ecological services that
create public and private value to residents, businesses, and visitors.
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting, tree main-
tenance, and outreach activities. Additionally, new development is required
to install street trees, landscape trees, and trees for mitigation purposes.
• The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
• Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code; applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner; and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel-
opment permit review. Furthermore, landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their properm
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place-high value on
the protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources, and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory= structure that would protect additional trees.
GOAL:
2? To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations
and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-113
014% LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating
to landscaping, site development, mitigation, and tree management
shall be consistent with, and supportive of, one another; administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees, within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards pro-%71'de
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees, unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects. Trees should be planted Within planter strips, or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees,
parking lot trees, and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11 _ The City shall develop and implement a city-wide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations, standards, programs, and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion required by development approval, with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees, street trees, and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventor- and evaluate street tree, parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive, and determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified, and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings, permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
City policies, regulations, and good arboricultural practices for the
general public, developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance, and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-15
04% LAND USE PLANNING
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant, site appropriate, and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries, landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii. Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous varieties, and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects, such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City, promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, taking into consid-
eration the related financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
2-16 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
K
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other. vegetation.
6. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review
7. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses,
other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian
areas, tree groves, specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-17
04% LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the Cite
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands, and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii_ Conduct surveys, workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v. Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property..
2-18 Cite- of Tigard ~ Comprehensive Plan
Agenda Item No.
Meeting of a~ V $
U
® City of Tigard
Tigard Special Meeting - Minutes
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 3, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,
Tigard, OR 97223
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:34:00 PM
1.2 Roll Call:
Name Present Absent
Mayor Dirksen ✓
Councilor Buehner ✓
Councilor Sherwood ✓
Councilor Wilson ✓
Councilor Woodruff ✓
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
2. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - GOAL 2: LAND USE
PLANNING
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions
and values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.dgard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 20
Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
6:34:20 P11
a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing.
b. City Attorney Ya.machika reviewed the rules of procedure for this hearing.
6:37:21 PbI
C. Declarations or Challenges: None
- Does any Council member wish to declare or discuss a conflict of interest or
abstention?
6:37:44 I'M
d. Associate Planner Wyss presented the staff report Assistant Community Development
Director Bunch was also present.
An email communication from Sue Beilke was distributed. This communication was also
reviewed in the public hearing following this hearing. Assistant Community Development
Director Bunch summarized the comments from Ms. Beilke and staff s position. 6:43:43 1'1\t
6:4(13411\1
Councilor Buehner said she understands Ms. Beilke's perspective regarding the connection
between Goal 2 and 5. She asked staff if, by referencing this during the public hearing, was a
sufficient connection created for future ordinance development. Assistant Community
Development Director Bunch said natural resources language has been integrated throughout
the Comprehensive Plan review. The language in the Plan will not prevent City Council as it
implements the plan through adoption of ordinances to match the needs and desires of the
community.
6:47:59 PIM
e. Public Testimony: None
6:49:37 PNI
f. Asscociate Planner Wyss recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance as also recommended by the Planning Commission.
g. Council Questions: None
6:50:08 PN1
h. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing.
i. Council Consideration:
Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 08-07.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-07 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2008-00001 TO UPDATE
THE GOALS, POLICES AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
PERTAINING TO STATEWIDE PLAN GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 20
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present:
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buehner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
3. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - URBAN FOREST
(SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest.. The complete text of the proposed Amendment
can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
6,51:23 Pi11
a. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing
b. Rules of Procedure: City Attorney announced the rules of procedure that were outlined
in the previous hearing are still in effect.
C. Declarations or Challenges: No conflicts declared by any City Council member and no
challenges to hear this matter were expressed from the audience.
d. Associate Planner Floyd presented the staff report
The Comprehensive Plan amendment fulfills Task 1 of Council Resolution No.07-30
that directs the Tree Board and Planning Commission to develop and recommend to
the City Council appropriate goals policies and recommended action measures relating
to tree stewardship within Tigard including the contributions of trees to Tigard's quality
of life.
Associate Planner Floyd advised the Tree Board and Planning Commission have
worked in close cooperation with each other and the public to develop a consensus-
based document, which is before the City Council tonight. The Tree Board met more
than 25 times and these meetings were open to the public. The Tree Board made a
unanimous recommendation to the Planning Commission. Also, two joint workshops
were held between the Tree Board and the Planning Commission to specifically discuss
this item and to work out details. The Planning Commission held two public hearings
in April before making a unanimous recommendation to City Council. The final
language reflects the compromises reached by the involved parties. This amendment
will establish Tigard as a strong steward of trees in the urban forest and it leaves
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 20
considerable room as to how the City might choose to implement it in the future. This
flexibility is reflected in the following four themes contained in the document:
1. Minimize impacts to and removal of trees without absolutely prohibiting their
removal.
2. Use of flexible and incentive-based standards.
3. Broadens the definition of mitigation.
4. Ensures the speedy removal of hazard trees.
6:53:49 PA1
At the May 5, 2008, City Council workshop regarding this item, the City Council
received input from the public and then gave direction to staff Associate Planner
Floyd reviewed the recommended language changes contained in Attachment No. 8 to
the City Council packet material
Staff received one additional comment letter from Sue Beilke (e-mail with attachments
sent today). This letter was distributed to the City Council.
Associate Planner Floyd said that staff recommends that the City Council find the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to meet the necessary approval criteria and approve
the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment to update goals, policies and recommended action measures
pertaining to Tigard's urban forest as determined through the public process. An
approval ordinance was included the City Council's packet, Attachment No. 1.
6:55:48 YIN1
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch referred to the e-mail submitted
by Sue Beilke. He said her concern was that the language before the City of Tigard this
evening regulates only the removal of trees on environmentally sensitive lands and lands
subject to hazard. Her e-mail communicates that all lands within the City should have
trees regulated and require property owners to obtain a permit for tree removal from
the City. Assistant Community Development Director Bunch advised that the staff's
response is that these policies before the City Council this evening provide the
opportunity for City Council to decide whether to have a permit process. The Council
would have the flexibility to regulate trees only in designated, specific areas and also
regulate trees citywide. The intent is to provide the City Council with a flexible tool.
Ms. Beilke stated in her email that she opposes language such as "where possible and
appropriate." Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said there are a
couple of policies in the proposal that use the words "as appropriate." For example,
The City shall, as appropriate, require the use of trees and other vegetation as
buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said the above language was
provided to give some practicality and reasonableness to specific actions. In some areas
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 20
it might not be appropriate, feasible, or practical to require trees and other vegetation as
buffering and screening between incompatible uses; other methods might be required.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said that Ms. Beilke says the urban
forest section fails to address several key items of concern and are related to the recently
adopted goals, policies and action measures in the Parks and Recreation section. Again,
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch advised that these policies are
integrated with those policies in the Parks and Recreation section; in fact, the whole
Comprehensive Plan is an integrated document The criteria can be mixed and
matched and used as needed by City Council decision makers to address a specific issue
or criteria.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said Ms. Beilke's email says that no
language in the amendment addresses important natural resource areas - local forests
that are unprotected and deserving of acquisition in the language. He said that the
City's Goal 5 process provides the City Council with that kind of regulatory ability.
This is a Goal 2 process oriented toward trees as part of the general land use process
and development. There is another way to get to what Ms. Beilke is talking about.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch referred to Ms. Beilke's reference
to special status to protect rare and diminishing species, addresses the oak prairie
habitat reduced to less than 1 percent in the entire Willamette Valley. He said she again
references that there is no language that addresses the upland forest's remaining acreage
and advised that this will be brought to the City Council as part "of Goal 5.
Furthermore, Ms. Beilke says these policies do not have specific language addressing
forests that might harbor rare species such as the northern red-legged frog and actions
taken to improve their habitat She says the language does not address fragile habitat
and that these action measures, policies and goals need to have more detail. Ms. Beilke
says the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan are not in compliance with
applicable regulations and asks the City Council not to adopt the adopt the changes, but
deny them and continue to work with citizens to strengthen this document until it
meets both Goal 2 and Goal 5 requirements. Assistant Community Development
Director Bunch stated that these policies have been coordinated, from staff's
perspective, with all applicable state agencies. The state agencies have not submitted
any statements that they are not in compliance with the statewide planning goals; they
are the experts.
7:00:05 P\4
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch addressed the concern about Ms.
Beilke's concern about the desired levels of detail. The Comprehensive Plan is a general
tool to stand the test of years if need be. At the same time, there is language in the Plan
that will be revised as necessary during reviews every two or five years. The Plan's job
is to provide a flexible legislative tool for the City Council. If the Plan has "these levels
of detail" providing specific directions to meet very specific interests (i.e., red-legged
frog, oak forests) then we might not be able to preserve the forest because we are
looking at specific trees. It's necessary to have a broad tool; we don't want to tie this
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 20
City Council's hands or the hands of future Council members with the level of
specificity desired by Ms. Beilke.
7:00:59 I'M
Councilor Buehner asked about Ms. Beilke's concern regarding retention of invasive
species (those that have been placed on the state nuisance list) and whether we have
sufficient flexibility in the current language should a future City Council wish to adopt
an ordinance relating to not allowing or getting rid of invasive species. Assistant
Community Development Director Bunch said the proposed wording provides the
basis the adopt regulations to prohibit or prevent invasive species, similar to what
Portland does. There are policies in the Goal 2 tree section and invasive species are
referenced in the natural resources section.
Councilor Wilson noted that he had supplied the federal definition of invasive species,
and he liked this language because it was specific.
7:02:34 PM
Public Testimony:
• Alan DeHarpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, Portland, OR 97225, testified. He
advised he was trying to achieve a sense of balance with the Tree Code, ongoing
development, and infrastructural development with the City. He noted when he was
before the City Council on May 5, 2008, there was an issue of trying to get
builder/developers on the Tree Board. He said no builder living in the City limits is
willing to sit on the Tree Board, which could be implied as apathy; however, he has
heard comments from those in the community who feel the City and staff have made
up their minds about the tree regulations, that their input is unwelcomed and any
efforts attempting to add the view of the builder/developer community would be a
waste of time and effort He said he couldn't imagine that the above statement is true,
considering the builder/developer community is one of the most effective groups and
would appreciate input from the City Council or staff about this. He said he wished
that someone from the Council, staff, or Tree Board, had actually contacted the HBA
when no builder/developer, who was a City resident could be found to sit on the
Board.
705:00 P14
He went on to name several people who would have been willing to provide input;
however, he did note that none of those people were Tigard residents but either had
owned or now own property in the City of Tigard and have worked with the current
tree code. They have a vested interest in the City and urban forest CPA currently
before the City Council.
7:05:24 P\1
Mr. DeHarpport said his biggest concern is without builder/developer input, he feels
the CPA, as written, has the potential to create an even larger divide between a key
stakeholder group that could have been included rather than avoided in an effort to
reach out to non-resident members of the builder/developer community. He urged the
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 20
City Council to read through the list of recommendations; a copy of this list is on file in
the City Recorder's office. He asked the City Council to consider making some of the
changes they recommend. Mr. DeHarpport referred to the survey question regarding
the regulation of trees, and his concerns were noted in the first suggestion contained in
his written comments.
7:06:371'M
Mr. DeHarpport summarized the recommendations contained in his written testimony.
7:0920 PIN
Councilor Wilson, in response to staff's comment, said he thought the intent of this
language is to give the City Council and future Councils flexibility to preserve trees to
the extent that it could impact property rights or on the other hand preserve property
rights to the extent that it could impact trees. We are going to find some balance,
which is the next step in the process; i.e., revising the Code. He said he hoped Mr.
DeHarpport understands that the City Council is to some degree not being specific
purposely. Mr. DeHarpport said he understood this; but, there is no acknowledgement
of development. That is, the document states "preserve trees" without acknowledging
that development has a place in the community as well. Councilor Wilson said he
thought that this was a valid point; however, with regard to Mr. DeHarpport's
statement that they haven't been able to be involved, he hoped that in the next part of
the process they could be.
7:10:54 Pi\1
Councilor Buchner said as a follow-up to Councilor Wilson's comment that she did
respect Mr. DeHarpport's position. She said she certainly did not want to see trees
preserved to the exclusion of everything else. She also said she hoped that Mr.
DeHarpport and/or his colleagues would volunteer to serve on the committee as work
starts on the ordinances; this will be a very important process.
7:11:49 Pi\1
• John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard OR 97223, offered testimony on two points:
o He said he worked with Associate Planner Floyd and the Tree Board, as a
citizen, and through a number of meetings and workshops. Now, at this point
when the City Council might adopt Comprehensive Plan words, he said he
finds that the words are so general that they do not mean very much. He said
he understands the City Council wants flexibility, but the entire document and
staff's response could always be, "Well, we have flexibility." Mr. Frewing said
the whole section could be resolved by saying:
■ Goal: "We will try to preserve trees."
■ Policy: "Work with community persons to save trees."
Mr. Frewing agreed that eventually there will be ordinances written and said he
hoped this would work out all right. He said that he thought the City has lost
an opportunity to actually state clearly what we want.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 7 of 20
o Mr. Frewing referred to the terminology "minimize" and "maximize." He said
there needs to be a legislative basis for finding a minimum or a maximum. He
said, "You can't say something is the lowest or the highest without having
something to compare it against." The policies and goals do not have any
legislative basis for later requirements of some kind of alternatives presentation
so that one can find that either tree removal has been minimized or something
else has been maximized. There needs to a basis of at least two elements.
Councilor Wilson commented that Mr. Frewing was saying there should be a standard;
however he wondered how something like this could be accomplished. Mr. Frewing
said that wording could be added to one of the policies that says, "The City shall
include the requirement for alternative presentations when something is to be
minimized or maximized." Mr. Frewing said he was not asking for a standard at this
time, but there ought to be something in the language that allows and directs the Code
writers and the committees that they can and should require the presentation of
alternatives in information where one is being asked to minimize or maximize
something.
• Ken Gertz, Gertz Fine Homes, 19200 SW 46 h, Tualatin, OR 97062 testified that he is a
landowner and a long-time resident of Oregon. Overall, he said he was in concurrence
with the Plan with the exception of what has been voiced by Mr. DeHarpport. He
would like to see the developers and the City work on a combination of preservation
and reforestation. This should be a Citywide effort, not just on treed sites. He said the
problem he has with the way this is being approached at this time, is singling out a class
of person. Mr. Gertz advised that many times developers are buying property from the
elderly as they are those who have the larger pieces of property. This is their retirement
property. He is concerned that the way the current goals are written, there is nothing to
protect these people.
Mr. Gertz explained that tree mitigation could impact the value of a piece of property if
the number of developable lots are reduced. He was concerned that if there is no
language to protect the "seniors" they could inadvertently be discriminated against. Mr.
Gertz said this does not have any beating on him as developer as he will offer the
purachase price based on how many lots he can develop; however, this is a huge impact
to those trying to sell the property. He questioned the fairness. He said he has asked
many times that language be inserted to provide some protection for the landowner and
this has not happened.
Councilor Wilson referred to the current code, which provides certain zoning and
allows a certain number of lots. Under current zoning the only deduction from
developable land would be for sensitive lands; i.e., steep slopes or floodplains. Mr.
Gertz concurred with Councilor Wilson's statement Councilor Wilson went on to say
that trees would not cause the developer to "lose" lots; however, it could raise the cost
because of mitigation. Mr. Gertz commented there is a policy in the proposed language
regarding preserving groves of trees. Councilor Wilson said he thinks the language
expresses a preference of groves over individual trees. Mr. Gertz said there is nothing
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 20
specific in the language that assures a property owner that he or she would be allowed
to develop the property to the current zoning code. He noted there could be density
shifting, but people do not like smaller lots. He said his fear is that there is nothing
specific stated to maintain the rights of the landowner.
Councilor Wilson referred to Mr. Gertz' concerns and Mr. Frewing's concerns and said
what he is hearing is that they believe the Comprehensive Plan language is too general.
Councilor Wilson said this might be all right if then the language allows for a
compromise to take place in the next step.
Councilor Buehner said she is sensitive to Mr. Gertz' concerns. She said that she
"...again, would strongly suggest that maybe you would be willing to volunteer to be
part of the workgroup to work on a proposed ordinance, because it is going to be very
important that we get input from all sides of this issue..."
7:25:05 I'M
Mr. Gertz said he has volunteered to work on the ordinances. However, the problem
is, "what we say today and what happens six months or a year from now when this
whole plan is fully put together - without a guideline to follow ...we are not going to be
dealing the same faces anymore. That's just the way it is. I look more at contract law
than anything else." Councilor Buehner said she has asked questions of staff intended
to include issues in the legislative history about what is being done so that future
decision makers will know how the Comprehensive Plan was approached.
7:26:38 Pn4
Councilor Sherwood commented the current Code is written so that people could fell
every tree on a lot before selling the property. This is not where the City wants to go;
that is, to become so restrictive that before people sell their lots they cut all the trees.
We need to find a balance and to use good judgment.
7:27:46 Y\(
Mr. Gertz said he believed if "eve work together, we can come to an agreement."
7?8:12 P\I
Councilor Wilson referred to the goal for housing and said he could not recall if this
goal contained language to preserve the land available for the number of units within
the applicable zone and if there is an expectation that when it is zoned for a certain
number of units, that it will actually be permissible to build those.
7:28:52 PM
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch responded to Councilor Wilson
that goals and policies are in the Comprehensive Plan addressing housing and economic
development needs. There are very specific goals that target the number of housing
units and the number of employees emphasizing that development is an important part
of this community. Councilor Wilson asked, as an example, when the Tree Code is
written if there are relevant portions of other goals that apply, then those would need to
be addressed as well. But, the Development Community is pointing out that "if you do
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 39 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 20
this to the Tree Code, this is not going be possible." Mr. Gertz confirmed that this has
been the problem, but so far "it's been falling on deaf ears." When we bring these
issues up, it gets pushed to the side so that is why he feels strongly that this needs to be
part of the goals.
Mr. Gertz referred to the development of the urban growth boundary and the
regulations overlaid on property within the boundary. The development community
"pretty much needs to develop to the current standards If you don't put something in
the goals that basically says you really need to adhere to the current zoning standards,
who is to say it wouldn't go the same way as the sensitive lands issue ...where all of a
sudden you have people that are losing acres of property to sensitive lands." Sensitive
land has to be viewed as an entirely different thing than trees. Trees need to be
preserved as best as possible but you cannot penalize people that own the property just
because they have trees. It is not fair to them. Someone with a blank piece of property
would have a substantially more valuable property than the person who has a treed
property. Trees are not wetlands; they are not riparian areas - they should be
preserved, but we can also grow new trees through replanting. Mr. Gertz said "if you
are going to be enforcing this on one class of people, it should be enforced on the
whole City. And, if you really have a goal as a City to preserve trees and enhance the
canopy of the City, it needs to be on a citywide basis."
7:32:461'M
Mr. Gertz suggested that all the language that would needed is for the City to say, "eve
want to see x-amount of trees per lot" That way existing trees would count or trees
could be planted, as long as they will become mature trees. The advantage is that not
only does this address treed lots today, but they address "un-treed" lots as well and it
spreads evenly across the whole city and it provides a citywide canopy.
7:33:35 PNI
In response to a statement by Mr. Gertz, Mayor Dirksen noted there is nothing in the
proposed Comprehensive Plan language that requires tree mitigation. The document
says we need to have tree mitigation procedures and policies; it doesn't say what those
policies and procedures will be. Mayor Dirksen said he thought that, in many ways, Mr.
Gertz' and Mr. Frewing's concerns are similar: "on the one hand you are concerned
that the document is not specific enough and then on the other hand, you ask us to add
other things to it that would make it very specific." Mr. Gertz maintained that what he
was suggesting wasn't specific - it's just clarifying that "we are going to be able to give
the people the number of lots on the landowner's property that they can currently get.
We are not asking for any changes. All we are asking is for a guarantee that it will
remain the same. This is a paramount thing to senior citizens... for the developing
community it means absolutely nothing to us, because we are only going to purchase
what we can develop as the number lots. It has everything to do with the landowner
who currently owns the lot with trees. That's what it is all about And, the fear is that
there is nothing there to protect these people's rights. What is wrong with putting
something in there that says ...with all of these guidelines, you are going to do this and
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard X13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 20
you are still going to be able to develop at the current zoning standards. That is what
needs to happen."
7:35:17 I'M
Councilor Buehner recalled she had requested that when the City reviewed the urban
forest section of the Comprehensive Plan to make sure there was a connection with
Goal 5 and to have a balance. She said she believes there is legislative history attached
to the housing and development sections that addresses some of Mr. Gertz' concerns.
7:36:08 P14
Mayor Dirksen pointed out that another issue is that one portion of our Code can't be
written in such a way that it violates another portion of our Code. When we talk about
development standards and zoning requirements with regard to what the zoning is
going to be and what the minimum density will be - and then we refer to tree
protection requirements, one cannot preempt the other. Then, in the urban forest
section, when we say that trees will be preserved to the maximum extent possible, that
includes considering meeting the needs of the Development Code to allow
development to the minimum zoning standard. Mr. Gertz asked then if this shouldn't
be one of the goals.
7:37:08 PM
After some discussion, Assistant Community Development Director Bunch noted that
this has been discussed at the Tree Board and at the Planning Commission and staff has
responded in the policies with the statements that you have to consider the
Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Not only do we have housing targets in the zoning
code that directs us to be consistent but there is a policy recommended by the Planning
Commission that says the City shall consider the financial impacts of preserving trees.
2-16 - Prescribing the mitigation of impacts of development, the City shall give
priority to the protection of trees and shall consider the financial impact of
mitigation.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said this gives "you that balance to
seek. In addition, there is a policy that says:
The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive
allow and encourage flexibility of site design through all aspects of development
review.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said this issue has been discussed
and addressed. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation. "What we
are hearing this evening are fears and concerns..." We have a whole range of land use
goals and policies that address the aspects of development in the City of Tigard, which
the Council and the Planning Commission, not bound by specifics, can weigh and
balance when making decisions.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
Cityof'figard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 11 of 20
Mr. Gertz contended that if it weighs in the wrong direction, senior citizens could lose
their retirement funds. "This not a very happy situation for any us; we're all going to be
there someday." Most of what we are dealing with today are small-lot subdivisions. He
said he sees no harm in referencing this. If it is not a problem, then put it in. This will
give direction to those in the future.
7:40:45 PM
Councilor Wilson said he believes this language is there on Page 2-16, Goal 2.
7:41:10 PA4
Staff Response:
Associate Planner Floyd noted Mr. Frewing expressed a broad concern that this
document is not specific enough to bind the City to do anything. The document does
not prescribe administrative practices or regulations. The document does have specific
objectives for the City. For example, Policy 2.3.1
The City shall develop and implement standards or procedures designed to
minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees
non-native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread.
The above tells the City to establish standards that will minimize tree removal and also
prioritize. It doesn't say how we will do it, but describes the overall objective.
Policy 2.3.6 requires the City to provide flexible standards that are available to builders.
If you are going to ask the development community to protect more trees, we should
give them the tools to do so.
Alternatives analysis was discussed by the Tree Board. At the time of this discussion,
staff was concerned about asking a person to provide multiple site plans for one project
might be in conflict of the requirement for clear and objective standards. Also,
submitting multiple plans might not be the best way to do this. Associate Planner
Floyd referenced the appeal of a administrative interpretation over how soon one can
demonstrate they have minimized tree removal. The current process does not require
people to submit multiple maps. There is a narrative that requires the developer to talk
about the process they went through. Associate Planner Floyd said he would argue the
proposed language does give specifics; this is not a useless exercise and there are
specific results that will emerge.
7:44:59 Pi\4
Councilor Buchner referred to the Homebuilder's letter (Mr. DeHarpport), Item No.
III (on the first page) relating to language on Page 2-12 and the top of Page 2-13. She
said that she did not see any language in the proposed Comprehensive Plan that
addressed the specific issue. She said she would not have a problem with adding this
language, to make it clear that the City will continue to recognize the right of people
who are not developing to have control of what they do with trees on their own
property. Councilor Sherwood said she felt the same way. Councilor Sherwood added
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 12 of 20
that she thought that Councilor Woodruff, at another meeting, commented that we do
not want to be getting into anyone else's backyards.
7:45:54 PM
Associate Planner Floyd referred to discussions about the above comments at the Tree
Board and Planning Commission level. There was a lot of concern about Tigard
becoming too restrictive affecting people's property rights. He said there are a lot of
ways to do this. Many cities require permits and specify certain thresholds that have to
be met; i.e., you are allowed to cut up to three trees per year. The goal is to avoid clear
cutting of the property. A lot of current research shows that trees on property adjacent
to another create value for both properties. There is a collective gain if the whole
neighborhood is treed. The proposed document does not speak to permits, because
the Planning Commission and Tree Board did not want to bind Council in this regard
so that language was removed.
7:47:08 PM
Associate Planner Floyd noted there was a property owner in Tigard who had no intent
to develop his property but he was selling his property to a different party. The
purchaser asked the seller to cut the trees before the sale was closed. Associate Planner
Floyd said he is not sure if the current language would prevent this type of situation.
7:47:58 P14
Councilor Wilson asked if any thought was given for more aspirational language in the
Code that wasn't specific but would provide that homeowners would not be unduly
burdened with regard to tree removal. Are we requiring people to live a certain way on
their land; is there some flexibility. Councilor Wilson said he didn't see anything that
spoke to what Councilor Sherwood and Councilor Buehner mentioned.
7:48:59 I'M
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch noted this is an important issue. A
homeowner on a 5, 10 or 15,000 square foot lot has a right to manage his or her trees
and landscape in the manner that is consistent with their lifestyle. Comparatively, if we
have a four or five acre piece of property that has a lot of trees on it and it is clear cut
one year and someone waits to build on it, then the City has lost a considerable number
of resources. There needs to be a distinction. To have the flexibility for future
decisions, the City might want to adopt a policy that recognizes the rights of individuals
to manage the trees and landscapes on their own property. That would not include the
clear cutting of sites that have significant importance. So, recognizing the rights of
individual homeowners to manage their trees and landscapes is important, but at such
time the City Council or the future City Council decides to adopt a permit process, then
they would have this particular policy to guide them. For example, regulating the
cutting of each individual tree five inches in diameter and requiring a person to get a
permit to do so is not conducive to the homeowner's rights; however, requiring them to
get a permit to cut more than 15 trees per year (for example) or to provide advice and
encouragement to manage their landscapes might be in the City's interests. Assistant
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 13 of 20
Community Development Director Bunch suggested language to recognize the rights
of individuals to manage their private trees and landscapes would be sufficient.
7:51:20 P\1
In response to Mayor Dirksen, Councilor Buchner said she would find this type of
language to be acceptable "if we can be clear that we are not imposing any limitations
on the property owner with respect to individual trees or a small number of trees." She
said she understands the concern if someone wants to clear cut the property; this is a
different issue. We do not want to get down to telling people what they can or cannot
do with their property. She does not think this is what the residents of our community
want in terms of taking care of their own property. Councilor Buchner said she would
like for there to be a policy statement in our Comprehensive Plan reflecting the above.
If a future City Council would want to be more restrictive, then they would need to go
through the process for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
7:52:31 PINt
Mayor Dirksen said he thinks that Assistant Community Development Director
Bunch's proposed language reflects the aspiration as stated by Councilor Buchner
without being too specific. The proposed language acknowledges the rights of
residents to have control over the landscaping on their property without undue
interference from the City.
7:53:52 JIM
As a point of clarification, City Manager Prosser asked if it would make a difference to
the City Council whether the property was dividable under current zoning - or not
dividable? City Council indicated it would not make a difference. Councilor Buchner
said that something that is not dividable now might at some point in the future become
dividable. We need to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility. We are looking a
major policy issue of whether we want to tell homeowners what to do on their own
property. In response to a question from City Manager Prosser, Councilor Buchner
pointed out there are not that many large lot owners in the community; we are dealing
with small infill-types of potential development Councilor Sherwood noted in her
condominium association , they have a large trees and two have had to be removed.
No permit was required. She said she talked to the City forester who confirmed for her
that these were diseased and would not recover. At the same time, Councilor
Sherwood noted that there are some people in her association that would like to have
all the trees removed while others want the tree canopy. You have to find the balance;
yet, she would not want the City to determine that the trees could not be removed.
Mayor Dirksen said he thought the definition for nuisance or hazardous trees would be
different that the general removal of trees for no particular reason. Councilor
Sherwood agreed.
7:55:49 PM
Councilor Buchner noted another city requires the homeowner to prove that a tree is
sufficiently diseased to justify a permit for removal. She noted this could be expensive
for the property owner and she was concerned that the City of Tigard would not move
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 14 of 20
in that direction. Councilor Sherwood agreed. Councilor Wilson added he thought the
whole City Council agreed.
7:57:12 PA4
h. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing.
7:57:18 PM
i. Staff comments and recommendations:
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch, in response to an inquiry from
Mayor Dirksen advised that he would place the policy under the first goal: "To enlarge
and improve and sustain a diverse urban forest (Page 2-13); it would be acceptable to
place the language either under Goal 2.2 or 2.3.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said that based upon the above
conversation, he thought it was important to recognize the rights of the individuals;
they need to manage trees and landscapes; but it also needs to also be on developed
residential lots. Combining the three principles, Assistant Community Development
Director Bunch proposed the following language:
The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage trees and landscapes on developed
residential lots.
7:58:50 Pi11
Councilor Buehner said she did not think the City Council said specifically just on
developed residential lots. Mayor Dirksen said that is what Assistant Community
Development Director Bunch is recommending to be added as this would help avoid
the opportunity for clear cutting. There is a difference between potentially developable
property.
Councilor Wilson commented on the distinction being not to impose regulations on
someone's living situation, their home. Mayor Dirksen said that's why he
recommended the wording include "resident" as opposed to "property owner."
Councilor Wilson added that this would not apply to other types of land; i.e., industrial.
Councilor Sherwood said she liked Assistant Community Development Director
Bunch's language.
159:41 I'M
Councilor Buehner asked that if she has a house and a separate lot that is undeveloped
that could be divided, how would that policy apply to trees that she had on the potential
second or third lot.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch responded: For example, if you
had a lot that was 20,000 square feet and it is not divided. That would be considered a
developed, residential lot so you could manage your landscape any way you would want.
But, if you had a 10,000 square foot lot and also owned another tax lot adjacent to it
and there is a tax lot line separating the two, then this policy would apply to the lot on
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 15 of 20
which your house sits on. The intent would be to regulate the clear cutting of the lot
adjacent to you; that is one outcome. He also noted regulations would need to be
developed. The intent would be to no constrain a person in any way of managing the
landscape on the property that your house is on, but it could likely constrain you to
manage the landscape on the separate lot
5:01:18 PAl
Mayor Dirksen asked how this would apply to that same 20,000 foot lot if it was
dividable; if it was one lot tax now, but it could be divided. Assistant Community
Development Director Bunch responded that it would say you would have the right to
manage the landscape on the whole 20,000 square foot lot
8:01:41 1'M
Councilor Buehner noted there are tax or estate planning reasons to partition property
and she is raising the concern whether the City would be creating a discriminatory
situation if there is a differentiation between whether one lot is split and one is not
Mayor Dirksen responded to Councilor Buchner's comment and said if the property
owner has done that, then they have created a situation that is different Therefore, it
would be legitimate for the City to recognize the difference between the two
circumstances.
8:02:19 P14
Councilor Wilson suggested the discussion was getting too specific. Councilor
Sherwood said this type of language would be considered during the Code update.
8:02:24 PA1
Mayor Dirksen said that what we are looking for is language now that will guide to the
proper type of code. Councilor Sherwood responded that what Assistant Community
Development Director Bunch has written makes sense.
8:02:34 PM
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said he did not use the word
"residence" because the property might be renter occupied. The word "individuals" is
broadly inclusive and allows maximum flexibility for the property owner. Councilor
Wilson suggested the following wording:
The City of Tigard shall recogni.Ze the right of individuals to manage their home landscapes.
Councilor Wilson asked why we would need to be specific about whether it's a lot or
dividable; this would come later in code.
Mayor Dirksen asked Assistant Community Development Director Bunch to repeat his
proposed language. Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said:
The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage trees and landscapes on developed
residential lots.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 16 of 20
8:03:27 P\1
City Attorney Yamachika spoke to Assistant Community Development Director Bunch
about addressing the specificity issue on residential developed lots is fairly specific and he
would agree with Councilor Wilson that something that says:
The City will continue to recognize that individuals have the right to manage tree and
landscaping on theirpropery
Discussion followed regarding additional changes to the wording. Councilor Wilson
was asked to restate his suggestion:
The City of Tigard shall recognize the right of individuals to manage their homer (or their
home) landscaper
Additional discussion on the wording followed regarding the wording which would
represent the intent of the City Council. Assistant Community Development Director
Bunch suggested the following wording:
The City shall recogniZe the rights of individuals to manage their residential landscapes.
There was consensus of the City Council regarding the above wording. Mayor Dirksen
suggested it would be more appropriate for this wording to appear in Goal Section 2.3.
8:05:57 PM
Councilor Buehner recommended that the letter supplied by the Homebuilders be
included in the reference materials for those who will be working on the ordinance
process. Councilor Sherwood added that Sue Beilke's comments should be included
and Councilor Buehnex concurred.
Attorney Yamachika recommended the City Council make a motion to add this
language to the Comprehensive Plan.
8:07:151i\1
Motion by Councilor Buchner to amend Goal 2.3 (Exhibit A of the proposed
ordinance) to recognize the rights of individuals as read by staff (The City shall recognize
the rights of individuals to manage their residential landscapes.)
Councilor Sherwood seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buehner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES JUNE 32 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 17 of 20
Councilor Sherwood made a motion to adopt the ordinance; however, this motion was
withdrawn when it was pointed out that there were some housekeeping amendments to
consider also. After discussion on process, the following motion was stated as follows:
8:09:21 I'M
Motion by Councilor Buehner to adopt the staff recommendations set forth in
Attachment 8 (of the Council Agenda Item Summary document) to be included as part
of the ordinance.
Councilor Wilson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buchner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
8:09:4211
Motion by Councilor Sherwood to adopt Ordinance No. 08-08 as amended.
Councilor Wilson seconded the motion.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-08 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2008-00002 TO ADD GOALS, POLICIES, AND
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES PERTAINING TO STATEWIDE
PLANNING GOAL 2: TIGARD'S URBAN FOREST
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buehner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
4. DISCUSSION ON TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.44.010 - CITY COUNCIL
COMPENSATION
Council discussed a recommendation from the Council Service Task Force regarding Council
Compensation relating to additional responsibilities that could be assigned to the Mayor or a
City Council member along with an increased stipend to be paid to the official who agreed to
the increased assignments.
Assistant City Manager Newton reviewed this agenda item. Highlights of the discussion
that followed are listed below:
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 18 of 20
The proposed ordinance was reviewed
➢ Assistant City Manager Newton suggested omitting the last sentence in Section 1 of the
ordinance.
➢ Section 2 of the ordinance would define responsibilities and the term (i.e., might be 3-years);
set compensation more generally. Specificity would be set by the City Council.
➢ Councilor Buchner and Councilor Sherwood spoke to how this came about as a
recommendation by the Council Service Task Force. The goal is for the City to have more
effective regional representation if an elected official has the ability to attend more key
meetings. This should translate into more resources for the City of Tigard.
➢ Council members stressed that they would like to invite and receive public comment on this
proposal. Councilor Wilson noted that this was not about compensation of a City Council
member, but more about giving the Mayor (or Council President) the ability to be more
available. While recognizing there are trade-offs to have the elected positions be classified
as citizen representatives, at the same governance is very demanding and the City could
receive more benefits with a Mayor more engaged.
➢ Councilor Wilson commented there was no hurry to implement this and the City Council
should take more time to consider how or if it should be implemented.
➢ Mayor Dirksen suggested that people send in recommendations to Assistant City Manager
Newton so she could create another draft for the City Council to review.
After discussion about how to proceed from here, the City Council members agreed to
schedule this item for public comment on June 24, 2008. City Council members will provide
input they might have to Assistant City Manager Newton as she prepares the information for
the June 24 meeting.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held.
8:32:55 I'M
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adjourn.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present:
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buehner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 3, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.figard-or.gov Page 19 of 20
atherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
/xv Z'a
Ma , i of Tigard
Date: ~AAjq
i
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB/ MINUTES -JUNE 32 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 20 of 20
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date Tune 3, 2008
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 - Update the goals,
policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Prepared By: Darren Wyss Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA2008-00001) to update the goals, policies, and recommended action measures applicable to Statewide Planning
Goal 2?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
update goals, policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use
Planning.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed Land Use Planning chapter included in the amendment is a result of Council's direction to complete a
full update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The updated chapter is based on technical information and current
community conditions and trends. Additionally, staff considered relevant findings from past citizen surveys and the
Tigard visioning project. This ensured that the expressed values and attitudes of the hundreds of citizens who
participated in these efforts were incorporated into the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council's direction to update the Comprehensive Plan also stressed the importance of garnering citizen input. Staff has
done this through Policy Interest Teams (PIT) that met several times. For this particular chapter, the Planning
Commission acted as the host for the PIT meetings. Staff felt this was important to the process as the Commission is
directly involved in implementing the City's land use program. By hosting the PIT meetings, the Commission was, given
the opportunity to fully understand the concepts and information before reviewing the information in the workshop
and public hearing process. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on March 17, 2008 and a
public hearing on April 7, 2008. The Commission recommended the Council adopt the updated chapter (Exhibit A).
included in CPA2008-00001. At the public workshop, the Commission requested a few minor changes be made before
bringing it back for the public hearing (Attachment 4). No further. changes were requested at the public hearing.
Like all updated Plan chapters that will come before Council, it is important that the Land Use Planning chapter be
technically sound. Therefore, during the development of the chapter, a Department Review Team was involved to
determine its technical accuracy and conformance with applicable laws and rules. In addition, the updated chapter was
1:\I-RPLN\Council Materials\2008\6-3-08 AIS CC Hearing CPA2008-00001.doc 1
sent to state and regional agencies for review. Those comments, and staffs replies, are available in the Staff Report to
the Planning Commission (Attachment 2).
The intent of the updated chapter is to provide Tigard a much better foundation on which to prepare ordinances,
associated plans, development standards, programs, and intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the
tools needed to develop and implement an effective land use program. The successful management of the land use
program is essential to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
The proposed chapter provides a necessary update and a significant change to the current language in the
Comprehensive Plan, which is out-of-date and limited in scope. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) requires jurisdictions to periodically update their plans to reflect current conditions, regulations,
and information relating to the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. This amendment will act as a major stride in ensuring
compliance with the Statewide Planning Goal 2 through goals and policies that act as the basis to manage, maintain,
and expand the land use planning program of the community.
City Council reviewed the amendment at a May 6, 2008 workshop meeting. The only request from Council was for,
staff to verify the statement contained in the chapter introduction "...is the need to accommodate up to a million
new residents and commensurate employment growth within the region in the next forty years." Staff found the
target year for Metro's forecast to be 2030 and staff will make the necessary change to the introductory language.
Other than the verification request, Council concurred with the proposal, as written, and did not indicate any policy
language changes would be necessary for consideration at the public hearing.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt CPA2008-00001.
2. Modify the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt CPA2008-00001.
3. Remand to the Planning Commission to hold additional hearings and deliberations for future consideration
at City Council.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Complete the update and begin the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00001
Exhibit A: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Statewide Planning Goal 2)
Attachment 2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 7, 2008
Attachment 4: Council Memo dated April 18, 2008 (Pertaining to Council workshop on CPA2008-00001)
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable
1:\1,RPI_N\Council Materials\2008\6-3-08 AIS CC Hearing CPA2008-0000l.doc 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Item:
Hearing Date: April 7. 2008 Time: 7:00 PM
G
`STAFF 1REPO~RT T ,x .:THE, - - -
vi
PLANNING COMMISSION
.
i. FORTHGITYOFTIE GARD; OREGON-
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE GOALS,
POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
PERTAINING TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2: LAND USE
PLANNING
FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2008-00001
PROPOSAL: The City is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the
current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies; Topic: Special Areas of
Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals, policies and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
j Tigard, OR 97223
' LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING
i DESIGNATION: All City zoning districts
1
{
COMP PLAN: All City comprehensive plan designations
APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters
Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and Services, i
General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan
Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
i
Staff recommends the Planning:Comrnisston finds this request to meet the necessary approval'
criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMENDS to the Tigard. j
City Council that it amends the Tigard Cornpreherisive:Plari as determmed through the pulihcheattng
process. . . . .
4
' STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STA"IEWIDE PLANNING GOAL.2 PAGI3 1 OF 35
I
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
j The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is the primary document that guides land use decisions within the
community. It outlines goals, policies, and recommended action measures that are intended to
reflect the community's values and aspirations for a broad range of matters relating to land use
planning and growth management. It also aims to organize and coordinate the relationships
between people, land, resources, and facilities to meet the current and future needs of Tigard.
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required by State law and must conform to 12 of the 19 Oregon
Statewide Planning Goals. Land development and related activities, including the City's
development codes, also must be consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
r
It is now seven years beyond the year 2000 planning horizon of the City's 1983 Comprehensive
Plan. Tigard has grown dramatically since 1983, from 18,379 residents to 46,715 today. Jobs and
business activity have grown just as fast. Although minor updates have taken place over the years,
the 1983 Plan, in many ways, does not reflect current and projected community conditions. For this
reason, it is necessary to undertake a thorough update. This is important to ensure the Plan remains
a viable tool for decision-makers and citizens to use when seeking policy direction regarding land
use and Tigard's future. For this reason, the Tigard City Council has made it a goal to update the
Comprehensive Plan.
The first step in updating the Tigard Comprehensive Plan involved City staff developing a fact base
to inform the update. The result was the Tigard 2007 resource document completed in February
2007. Key findings from Tigard 2007 combined with community issues and values, form the basis
for Plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures. Community issues and values were
identified through the community's visioning process and a number of surveys completed over the
last several years.
The second step involved community volunteers and stakeholders coming together to develop
draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures. These Policy Interest Teams have been
meeting over the past several months to discuss Comprehensive Plan topics in which they share an
interest. City Department Review Teams then review and provide comment on the work of the
policy interest teams. These final draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures are then
forwarded to the Planning Commission to begin the legislative process.
The final step is the legislative process. Since each of the Policy Interest Teams are moving at their
own pace, Staff will be bringing a series of Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) through the
legislative process over the next several months. Each CPA will correspond to a Statewide
Planning Goal that is applicable to Tigard. The CPA will strike the appropriate language from the
existing plan and replace the language with an updated chapter that addresses that particular
Statewide Planning Goal.
The chapter before the Planning Commission tonight is Land Use Planning (Goal 2). The Planning
Commission hosted two Policy Interest Team meetings before holding a workshop on March 17th
to discuss the draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures that were formulated. At the
Planning Commission workshop, the following changes were requested (also found in Exhibit A
with deleted text as strilteauts and added text underlined):
STAFF REPORT' TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 2 OF 35
Policies:
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, te-pretnete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
23. The Gity sh*H require tho new uiban development does not dkniflish the quftlity of life in the
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the prateeal methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and pelieies area plans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
I
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with
land use activities.
Proposal Description
The primary intent of the proposed update is to ensure the Comprehensive Plan remains a viable
tool for decision-makers. By updating the Comprehensive Plan, the City will ensure it is in
compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, plans, and programs. As importantly, the I
update will also ensure the Comprehensive Plan reflects current community conditions and
j values.
i
i
i STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STA'T'EWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 3 OF 35
i
i
I
This amendment is part of a series of amendments that will update the Comprehensive Plan in its
entirety. This amendment will update Statewide Planning Goal 2 with goals, policies, and
recommended action measures that will serve as the "legislative foundation" in regards to the
City's land use planning program. Land use actions and amendments to the Tigard Development
Code will be based on the new language included in this amendment.
j Below is an explanation of the terms that create the "legislative foundation":
i
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
I achieve that end.
I
Obligation - The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
1
1
Policy
i
! Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
i
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. To amend the Comprehensive j
Plan, the City must show consistency with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment j
must take place following prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise
violate a Plan policy.
s Recommended Action Measures
I
Definition - A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard, which if executed,
I would implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects, !
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific
i issues. These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions
and agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
I
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
I citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
i
{
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are j
suggestions to future City decision- makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
! of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them.
Neither do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request `
amendments or changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of recommended action measures is
not exclusive. It may be added to or amended as conditions warrant.
STAFF REPORT'ro TIME PLANNING COMMISSION j
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 4 OF 35
i
SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT
Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions
• Tigard Community Development Code
o Chapter 18.380
o Chapter 18.390
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
o Newly Adopted Chapters 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11
o Old Topics 1, 3, 8, and 10
• Applicable Metro Standards
o Title 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13
• Statewide Planning Goals
o Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
City Department and outside agency comments
SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 181
Chapter 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments
Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map
' A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be
{ undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.309.060G
' Findings: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan would establish policies
to be applied generally throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being
i processed as a Type IV procedure, Legislative Amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
Chapter 18 390: Decision-Making Procedures
Chapter 18.390.020. Descripption of Decision-Making Procedures
B.4. Type IV Procedure. 'Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative
matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy.
Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions
made by the City Council.
Finddn~QS: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed under
the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the
i amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission with City Council making
the final decision.
I
Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the
Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the
following factors:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197;
j 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable Metro regulations;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
Fins: As indicated pursuant to the findings and conclusions that address applicable Statewide k
Planning Goals and Regional Functional Plan Titles, the amendment is consistent with this k
i criterion.
i
4
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGI 5 OF 35
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy
the applicable review criteria within the Tigard Community Development Code and recommends
+ the Planning Commission forward these proposed amendments to the City Council with a
recommendation for adoption.
CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed
amendments:
Newly Adopted Com rchensive Plan Chapters
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate in all phases of the planning process.
Policy 2. The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase
of the land use planning process.
Findings: The proposal has complied with all notification requirements pursuant to Chapter
18.390.060 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This staff report was also available
seven days in advance of the hearing pursuant to Chapter 18.390.070.Rb of the Tigard Community
Development Code.
Additionally, a Public Involvement Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update was developed in
March 2006. This Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement
and the Planning Commission. The Program outlined the information, outreach methods, and
involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the process.
Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested parties
listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open houses.
Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open 'houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and attending the Planning Commission workshop.
Additionally, the interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the policy interest
teams were provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 20,
2008 issue of The Times. Notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing.
The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer
questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the
text changes could be viewed.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 S-rATF-wIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 6 OF 35
i
Policy 5. The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be
appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the
community.
Findin&s: As outlined above, the community was given multiple venues to get information and get
involved. This included a number of articles in the Cityscape newsletter that is delivered to every
household in Tigard. Staff also made a good faith effort to ensure a diversity of citizens and
stakeholders were involved in the policy interest team meetings by not only soliciting volunteers,
but by inviting organizations that share a common interest in that particular topic.
Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form.
Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community
and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand.
i Fines Information regarding the topics included in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment was
available in multiple locations in an understandable format for the duration of the process. This
included paper and electronic copies that were available in the permit center and also on the
website. Information was regularly sent to the project listserv and to the community volunteers
who participated on the policy interest teams.
Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters,
newsletters, the internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and
! continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used.
Findings. Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested
parties listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open
houses. Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Policy 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with
community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored
boards and committees.
Fps: Outreach methods included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
I pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and, attending the Planning Commission workshop.
Additionally, the interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the policy interest
teams were provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
i
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 7 OF 35
i
Chapter 6: Environmental Quality
Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region.
Policy 1: The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional,
state, and federal standards for air quality.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
j Policies 1, 3, and 10. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. Policy 10 requires protection of public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions, including meeting air quality standards.
Policy 2. The City shall support regional and state plans and programs to attain regional,
state, and federal standards for air quality.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. Policy 10 requires protection of public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions, including meeting air quality standards.
Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality.
I
I
I Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional,
i
state, and federal standards for water quality.
i
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, 10, and 21. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. Policy 10 requires protection of public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions, including meeting water quality standards and Policy 21 signifies the City's
! commitment to protecting natural resources. This protection of natural resources, particularly
along streams, can positively affect water quality and help in meeting standards.
Chapter 7: Hazards
f
Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe
weather hazards.
i ~
Policy 1. The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development
limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering
techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed
l development:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
i CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 8 OF 35
f j
A. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential;
B. Areas subject to slumping, earth slides, or movement;
C. Areas having slopes in excess of 25%; or
D. Areas having severe weak foundation soils.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. Policy 10 requires protection of public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions.
Policy 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100-year
floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain.
Findings: 'T'his policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency develops
regulations that are implemented at the state and local levels. Policy 10 requires protection of
public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions, which includes prohibiting development
from increasing flood hazards in the community.
Policy 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year ~
floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless:
A. The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise floodway is maintained, and
' B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no
detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area.
I
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 10. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other I
affected agencies and jurisdictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency develops
regulations that are implemented at the state and local levels. Policy 10 requires protection of public
safety and welfare from hazardous conditions, which includes prohibiting development from
increasing flood hazards in the community.
Chapter 9: Economic Development
' I
Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
i
Policy 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to
promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is
! made available. j
in s: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11. Policies 1 and 2 ensure that City actions are consistent with }
Comprehensive Plan policies and serve its citizens' interests. Policies 4 and 6 ensure land is used
efficiently and appropriately to create economic development opportunities and Policy 8 requires
I
S`rAFT, REPORT TO'1T-IE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 9 OF 35
public facilities are adequate and available. Policy 11 encourages regulatory flexibility in the form of
various tools available to the City.
Policy 5. The City shall promote well-designed and efficient development and
redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands.
Finding This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 4 and 5. These policies direct the City to use redevelopment and incentive programs to
promote the efficient use of land, while at the same time promoting urban level development on
the City's employment and industrial lands.
Policy 6. The City shall promote actions that result in greater, more efficient, utilization of
its Metro-designated Employment and Industrial Areas.
Fps: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 4 and 5. These policies direct the City to use redevelopment and incentive programs to
promote the efficient use of land, while at the same time promoting urban level development on
the City's Metro-designated centers, corridors, and employment and industrial lands.
Goal 9.2 Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses, including those
that focus on environmental sustainability.
Policy 1. The City shall institute appropriate land use regulations to accommodate a
contemporary mix of economic activities.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 2 and 6. Policy 2 outlines the City's commitment to implementing its Comprehensive Plan,
including accommodating a mix of economic activities. Policy 6 directs the City to promote a
range of land uses that provide sufficient economic value for the City to remain viable and livable.
Policy 2. The City shall periodically review and update its policies, land use regulations,
and other efforts to ensure the City's land use program is responsive to changes in the
economic structure, and is adaptable to businesses changing development needs.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 17, 18, and 19. These policies outline the various avenues the City may follow in updating
its land use program while at the same time signaling its commitment to adapting to changing
conditions.
Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
Policy 1. The City shall focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high-
density housing development in its Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown); Regional
Center (Washington Square); High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99W); and the Tigard
Triangle.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 4 and 5. These policies direct the City to use redevelopment and incentive programs to
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 10 OF 35
promote the efficient use of land, while at the same time promoting urban level development on
the City's Metro-designated centers, corridors, and employment and industrial lands.
Policy 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well-designed
and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector
investments.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policy 24. This policy directs the City to adopt design standards to enhance the community's
livability, value, and attractiveness.
Chapter 10: Housing
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing
needs of current and future City residents.
i
Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that
provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs,
j preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents.
I
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
I Policies 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. Policies 1 and 2 ensure that the City's land use program is consistent with
{ Comprehensive Plan policies, sets a clear policy direction, and serves its citizens' interests. Policies
4 and 6 ensure land is used efficiently and appropriately to create economic development
opportunities and Policy 7 requires the City to provide land dedicated to Residential land uses.
Policy 2. The City's land use program shall be consistent with applicable state and federal
laws.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policy 1. Policy 1 directs the City's land use program to be in compliance with state and regional
requirements. Federal laws are incorporated into state statutes and administrative rules and are thus
covered by this policy.
Policy 4. The City shall adopt and maintain land use regulations that provide opportunities
to develop housing for persons with special needs. The scale, design, intensity, and
operation of these housing types shall be compatible with other land uses and located in
i proximity to supporting community services and activities.
r
Findings. This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
j Policies 1, 6, 7, and 23. Policy 1 requires the City's land use program to serves its citizens' interests,
which includes those with special housing needs. Policies 6 and 7 ensure land is used efficiently and
appropriately and requires the City to provide land dedicated to Residential land uses. Policy 23
requires new development to minimize land use conflicts by ensuring compatibility with existing
and future adjacent uses.
Policy 5. The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as
town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit
corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 11 OF 35
i
i
i services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for
in the future.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 4 and 5. These policies direct the City to use redevelopment and incentive programs to
promote the efficient use of land, while at the same time promoting urban level development on
the City's Metro-designated centers, corridors, and employment and industrial lands. Urban level
development includes medium and high density housing development.
Policy 6. The City shall allow accessory dwelling units in appropriate residential districts,
but shall ensure they are compatible and blend into the overall residential environment.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 6, 7, and 23. Policy 1 requires the City's land use program to selves its citizens' interests,
which includes the opportunity to develop accessory dwelling units. Policies 6 and 7 ensure land is
used efficiently and appropriately and requires the City to provide land dedicated to Residential
land uses. Policy 23 requires new development to minimize land use conflicts by ensuring
compatibility with existing and future adjacent uses.
Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
i
Policy 1. The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of
its residential neighborhoods. '
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 23 and 24. Policy 24 directs the City to adopt design standards to enhance the community's
livability, value, and attractiveness, while Policy 23 ensures development minimizes conflicts and is
compatible with the neighboring land uses. `
Policy 6. The City shall promote innovative and well-designed housing development
j through application of planned developments and community design standards for multi-
family housing.
Finding5: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 11. This policy directs the City to provide tools, including planned developments and
design standards, that will result in high quality and innovative design and construction..
i
Policy 7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to
locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and
natural resources, availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use
! patterns.
f
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically t
Policies 8, 10, 11, 21, and 23. Policy 8 requires the availability of public facilities is committed or
available prior to development. Policy 10 requires the City to protect public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions related to land use and Policy 21 directs the City to protect natural resources.
Policy 23 ensures development minimizes conflicts and is compatible with the neighboring land
uses. All of these policies are intended to ensure land use densities are appropriate for the
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STAITVME PLANNING GOAL. 2 PAGE 12 OF 35
i
characteristics and conditions of a site. Policy 11 outlines the tools the City can employ to
implement these actions.
Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or
more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as:
A. Orderly transitions from one residential density to another;
i B. Protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open
space areas; and
C. Installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening.
Fps: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 11, 20, 21, and 24. Policy 21 directs the City to protect natural resources, while Policies 20
And 24 requires the City to develop design standards and regulations to enhance the community's
livability, attractiveness, and value. Policy 11 outlines the tools the City can employ to implement
these actions.
Policy 9. The City shall require infill development to be designed to address
compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 20, 23, and 24. Policies 20 and 24 require the City to develop design standards and
regulations to enhance the community's livability, attractiveness, and value, while Policy 23 requires
new development to address compatibility issues with existing and future adjacent land uses.
Chapter 11: Public Facilities and Services
Goal 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water
resources, and wildlife habitat.
Policy 1. The City shall require that all new development::
A. construct the appropriate stormwater facilities or ensure construction by
paying their fair share of the cost;
B. comply with adopted plans and standards for stormwater management; and
C. meet or exceed regional, state, and federal standards for water quality and
flood protection.
i
I
Findings. This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 8, and 9. Policy 1 directs the City's land use program to be in compliance with state and
regional requirements, while Policies 8 and 9 outline development's commitment and requirement
for ensuring available public facilities and the mechanisms that may be used to fund these
improvements.
Goal 11.2 Secure a reliable high quality water suPP1Y to meet the existing and future needs 1
~
of the community.
I
Policy 8. The City shall require all new development needing a water supply to: j
A. connect to a public water system;
I
B. pay a system development charge and other costs associated with extending I
service;
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION l
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 13 OF 35
i
f
f
C. ensure adequate pressure and volume to meet consumption and fire
protection needs; and
D. extend adequately sized water lines with sufficient pressure to the
boundaries of the property for anticipated future extension.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 8, and 9. Policy 1 directs the City's land use program to be in compliance with state and
regional requirements, while Policies 8 and 9 outline development's commitment and requirement
for ensuring available public facilities and the mechanisms that may be used to fund these
improvements.
Goal 11.3 Develop and maintain a wastewater collection system that meets the existing and
future needs of the community.
i
Policy 1. The City shall require that all new development:
A. connect to the public wastewater system and pay a connection fee;
B. construct the appropriate wastewater infrastructure; and
C. comply with adopted plans and standards for wastewater management.
Findines: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 8, and 9. Policy 1 directs the City's land use program to be in compliance with state and .
regional requirements, while Policies 8 and 9 outline development's commitment and requirement
for ensuring available public facilities and the mechanisms that may be used to fund these
i
improvements.
I
Old Comprehensive Plan To ics
Topic 1: General Policies
? Policy 1.1.1 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT:
a. THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS ADOPTED BY
THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, THE
REGIONAL PLAN ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT;
b. ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE DESIGNED
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN; AND
C. THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE ARE KEPT CURRENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN
ORDER TO DO THIS:
1. THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED AT LEAST EVERY
FIVE YEARS.
r f
Policy 1.1.2 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EACH OF ITS ELEMENTS SHALL BE OPENED
FOR AMENDMENTS THAT CONSIDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS OF THE
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT (MSD) OR ITS SUCCESSOR ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
j CITY COUNCIL. ANNUAL AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ABOVE REGIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT
WITH ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE-OPENING OF LOCAL PLANS APPROVED BY THE
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (LCDC).
THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY LEGAL RIGHTS
WHICH THE CITY MAY HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF A REGIONAL
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PLAN PROVISION.
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 14 OF 35
Findings: Current Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 will be deleted and replaced in
their entirety by proposed amendment Goal 2.1 and the associated Policies (see Exhibit A). This
update will ensure the City is in compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, plans, and
programs. This update will also ensure continued compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 2 as
the new goals and policies reflect current community conditions and values. The new goals and
policies have been developed through a citizen involvement effort, reviewed by City staff,
reviewed by affected agencies, and reviewed by the Planning Commission at a March 17, 2008
workshop.
Topic 3: Natural Features and Open Space
Policy 3.4.2 THE CITY SHALL:
a. PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS BY
MANAGING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND CONTROLLING EROSION, AND
j BY REQUIRING THAT AREAS OF STANDING TREES AND NATURAL
VEGETATION ALONG NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AND WATERWAYS BE
MAINTAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE;
b. REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN DESIGNATED TIMBERED
OR TREE AREAS BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED; AND
C. REQUIRE CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING IMPORTANT i
WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE AS DELINEATED ON THE "FISH AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT MAP" ON FILE AT THE CITY.
d. ADDRESS GOAL 5 RULE REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THE
j PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS ONCE ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON THE
LOCATION, QUALITY, AND QUANTITY OF WETLAND SITES IS OBTAINED.
THIS GOAL 5 REVIEW WILL INCLUDE DETERMINING WHICH WETLAND
i SITES ARE ECOLOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT. CITIZENS
WILL PARTICIPATE IN MAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
j PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THOSE WETLAND AREAS
DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT. THE CITY SHALL COMPLETE ITS GOAL 5
REVIEW OF WETLAND AREAS BEFORE THE CITY'S NEXT PERIODIC
REVIEW, BUT NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 23,1996.
i
j Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 2, 7, 10, 11, and 21. Policy 2 ensures City actions are consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies, including 3.4.2 above. Policies 7, 10, 11, and 21 more directly addresses the need for the
protection of natural resources through the land use planning program. These protections may
be in the form of map overlay districts, planned development review, or standards and
regulations. '
i
Topic 8: Transportation
Policy 8.1.4 SET AND MAINTAIN TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT:
a. SET A MINIMUM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR THE
CITY OF TIGARD AND REQUIRES ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES TO BE
DESIGNED TO MEET THIS STANDARD.
b. SET PARKING RATIOS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING, WHILE
PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE TO LIMIT THE USE OF THE SINGLE
OCCUPANT VEHICLE.
C. ENCOURAGE WORKING WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS IN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, INCLUDING TRI-MET, METRO AND ODOT TO
G
STAFF REPORT TO THE: PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE. PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 15 OF 35
4
i
i
DEVELOP, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS, INCLUDING COORDINATION OF TRAFFIC.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. Policies 1, 2, and 3 ensure that City actions are consistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies, state and regional requirements, and are coordinated with other
affected agencies and jurisdictions. Policies 8 and 9 require development to meet transportation
performance criteria and also outline the financing mechanisms to pay for the improvements
needed to meet the criteria.
Policy 8.1.7 IMPLEMENT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) IN A COORDINATED
MANNER BY COORDINATING AND COOPERATING WITH ADJACENT AGENCIES (INCLUDING
WASHINGTON COUNTY, BEAVERTON, TUALATIN, LAKE OSWEGO, CITY OF PORTLAND, TRI-
MET, METRO AND ODOT) WHEN NECESSARY TO DEVELOP TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
WHICH BENEFIT THE REGION AS A WHOLE IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policy 3. Policy 3 requires the City to coordinate its land use program, which includes the
important component of transportation planning, with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies.
Transportation planning is coordinated by Metro and their Regional Transportation Plan, which
the Tigard Transportation System Plan is required to comply with, including land use patterns
that are assumed in these plans.
Topic 10: Urbanization
Policy 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO
ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO
SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE
ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF
SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN
THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE:
1. WATER;
2. SEWER;
3. DRAINAGE;
4. STREETS;
5. POLICE; AND
6. FIRE PROTECTION.
* Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan.
b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH
WASHINGTON COUNTY A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED
THROUGH SUCH A DISTRICT. THE EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT
OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) WATER;
b) SEWER;
c) DRAINAGE; AND
d) STREETS.
2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE
SERVICES OR THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY INTO A SPECIAL
SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES.
C. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE
STAFF REPOR'T' TO T'HE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 16 OF 35
1
TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY UPON ANNEXATION.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.1 and specifically
Policies 8, 9, and 12. Policies 8 and 9 outline development's commitment and requirement for
ensuring available public facilities and the mechanisms that may be used to fund these
improvements. Policy 12 directs the City's planning efforts regarding the provision of public
facilities and services within its Urban Planning Area.
Topicll: Special Areas of Concern
a
11.2.1 ASH AVENUE SHALL BE EXTENDED ACROSS FANNO CREEK, ENABLING ACCESS
TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMERCIAL AREA WITHOUT USING PACIFIC
HIGHWAY. DESIGN FEATURES SHALL BE USED TO SLOW TRAFFIC AND MAKE
THE STREET AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE. ASH AVENUE SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS A
MINOR COLLECTOR IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER STREET PLAN.
DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL HOLD TRAFFIC
VOLUMES TO THE MIDDLE LIMITS OF A MINOR COLLECTOR.
11.2.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W. ASH AVENUE FROM S.W. HILL TO FANNO CREEK SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED AS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT
PROPERTIES. [THE] STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR COMMERCIAL SITE WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC ON
ASH. A BARRICADE SHALL BE PLACED AT HILL STREET APPROXIMATELY AT
THE END OF THE EXISTING PAVEMENT TO PROTECT [THE] NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTS FROM THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC.
I
11.2.3 METHODS OF MITIGATING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD
SHALL INCLUDE, IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF IMPROVEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION:
a. IMPROVING S.W. MCDONALD STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH OF MCDONALD TO
USE MCDONALD TO EXIT TO HALL AND/OR PACIFIC HIGHWAY;
b. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF ASH FROM HILL TO
` FREWING. THESE IMPROVEMENTS COULD INCLUDE LIMITED PARKING,
+ DELINEATION OF TRAFFIC LANES AND SIDEWALKS ON ONE OR BOTH
SIDES OF THE STREET;
C. EXTENSION OF S.W. HILL TO S.W. O'MARA AND/OR IMPROVEMENT OF S.W.
f ASH FROM FREWING TO GARRETT;
d. EXTENSION OF S.W. O'MARA TO S.W. HILL PARALLEL TO S.W. ASH;
` e. REMOVAL OF THE BARRICADE IN PLACE ON ASH AVENUE AT S.W. HILL;
f. IMPROVEMENT OF S.W. O'MARA STREET TO INTERIM MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE;
g. INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC INHIBITORS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION
OF ASH IF AND WHEN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXCEED THE MIDDLE RANGE
FOR A MINOR COLLECTOR. TRAFFIC INHIBITORS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT j
LIMITED TO PLANTING ISLANDS, SPEED BUMPS, BUTTONS, TURNING
RESTRICTIONS, LOAD LIMITS AND ENFORCEMENT.
a
11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET
I IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT AFFECT S.W.121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. j
j a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE
ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS
OF:
1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE
j STREET; AND
2. NOISE IMPACTS.
STAFF W~PORI"1'0'1'1-LL PLANNING COMMISSION
{j CPA 2008-00001 STATL•'WIDI PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 17 OF 35
I
i
f
b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW
AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET
INTERSECTIONS.
C. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL
SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC.
11.3.2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY
BOULEVARD OR SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL
ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT
UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN
I TIGARD.
11.4.1 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (I.E. THAT AREA BOUNDED BY PACIFIC HIGHWAY,
HIGHWAY 217, AND THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY), IN THE MIXED USE
{ EMPLOYMENT ZONE, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (I.E., 25
! UNITS PER ACRE) SHALL BE A USE ALLOWED OUTRIGHT.
I
11.5.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE BUFFERING AND SCREENING BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL AREAS AS A PRECONDITION
TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS:
a. ALL BUILDINGS ON INDUSTRIAL LAND SHALL BE SET BACK A DISTANCE
OF 50 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE WHICH ABUTS A RESIDENTIALLY !
PLANNED AREA,
b. THE SITE PLAN SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE LEAST INTENSIVE PROPOSED
i USES ON THE SITE IN THE AREAS WHICH ABUT AN ADJOINING
j RESIDENTIAL PLANNED AREA; AND !
c. BUFFERING AND SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE 50-FOOT
SETBACK AREA AS PROVIDED BY THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN POLICY
! 6.6.1. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS SUBSECTION TO REQUIRE THE
ENTIRE 50 FEET TO BE LANDSCAPED PROVIDED THE STANDARDS IN 6.6.1 !
{ ARE MET IN WHICH CASE A PORTION OF THE BUFFER AREA MAY BE USED
FOR PARKING; EXCEPT !
i 1. NO STRUCTURE, PAVEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT MAY BE LOCATED
WITHIN THE 50-FOOT SETBACK AREA SURROUNDING THE ROLLING
HILLS SUBDIVISION EXCEPT LOTS # 39, 40, 41, 42, AND 43; AND
2. ALL EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE RETAINED AND
MAINTAINED WITHIN THE 50-FOOT SETBACK AREA SURROUNDING
THE ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION EXCEPT BEHIND LOTS # 39, 40, 41, l
j 42, AND 43 WHERE SECTION 18.100.130, THE BUFFER MATRIX, APPLIES {
AND 18.100.080 APPLIES. !
11.6.1 DESIGNATE AS ACTION AREAS CONCENTRATIONS OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL,
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM, MEDIUM-HIGH, AND HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WHERE THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET.
a. THE AREA IS GENERALLY WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF A MAJOR
TRANSIT CENTER OR TRUNK ROUTE.
i b. AREAS WITH EXISTING USES WHICH ARE FREQUENTED BY PEDESTRIANS, i
OR VACANT LAND WHICH COULD SUPPORT USES WHICH WOULD BE
PATRONIZED BY PEDESTRIANS AND/OR TRANSIT RIDERS.
C. AREAS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED MAY BE
INCLUDED IN ANTICIPATION OF A CHANGE OF USE OR REDESIGN OF
j PEDESTRIAN WAYS TO BETTER INTEGRATE THE USE INTO THE ACTION
AREA.
11.6.2 DETERMINE PERMITTED USES THROUGH ZONING. FURTHER REGULATION OF
I USES IN ACTION AREAS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH AN OVERLAY ZONE
j WHICH LIMITS SPECIFIC AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED USES AS PERMITTED USES !
AND ENCOURAGES A HIGHER LEVEL OF USES WHICH ARE PEDESTRIAN AND
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 18 01 35
PUBLIC TRANSIT ORIENTED.
11.6.3 REQUIRE THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED IN ACTION AREAS BE
DESIGNED TO FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CENTER
AND TO TRANSIT.
11.6.4 REVIEW AND UPDATE CITY PARKING ORDINANCES TO RECOGNIZE PARKING
NEEDS IN ACTION AREAS.
11.6.5 DEVELOP A DESIGN PLAN FOR EACH ACTION AREA TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE
FOR FINANCING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INTEGRATING VARIOUS LAND
USES. PLANS FOR AUTOMOBILE, TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
{ CIRCULATION, OPEN SPACE, STORM DRAINAGE, SEWERAGE AND LIGHTING
WILL BE INCLUDED. THE CITY WILL HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
DEVELOPING THE DESIGN PLAN BUT WILL COORDINATE WITH OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRI-MET.
11.6.6 DEVELOPMENT IN THE ACTION AREAS MAY BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL
CIRCULATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS DURING DESIGN REVIEW PRIOR
TO COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN PLANS.
11.6.7 ENCOURAGE FORMATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS OR OTHER
SUITABLE PROGRAMS FOR EACH ACTION AREA TO FINANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESIGN PLANS. i
11.9.1 THE CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE
REGIONAL CENTER PLAN SHALL PROVIDE THE OVERALL GUIDING
FRAMEWORK FOR MORE DETAILED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS FOR THE AREA.
THE IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM:
a. Comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendments including transportation plan.
b. A public facilities plan for the area including a financing plan.
C. A transportation improvement plan for the area including a financing plan.
d. A parks and open space plan for the area including a financing plan.
e. A recognition of the Regional Center Boundary for the purpose of establishing local,
regional and state funding priority in order to accomplish the concepts and principles of
the plan.
11.9.2 THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF MIXED USE DISTRICTS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR
THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER. THESE DISTRICTS ARE:
a. MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (MUC). THE REGIONAL CENTER
PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT LAND AROUND THE WASHINGTON SQUARE f
MALL AND LAND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF HIGHWAY 217 BE DESIGNATED A
1 MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT IN
THESE AREAS WILL BE OFFICE BUILDINGS, RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. A
"ZONING DESIGNATION OF MUC WILL ALSO ALLOW MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AT DENSITIES OF 50 UNITS AN ACRE. MUC 1
DISTRICTS WILL ENCOURAGE LARGER BUILDINGS WITH PARKING
UNDER, BEHIND OR ALONGSIDE THE STRUCTURES.
b. MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (MUE). MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT
j DISTRICTS REFER TO AREAS WITH CONCENTRATIONS OF OFFICE,
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIAL USES. COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SUPPORT USES ARE
ALLOWED, BUT ARE LIMITED. THE ZONING WILL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT'S EMPLOYMENT
CHARACTER. LINCOLN CENTER IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN AREA
DESIGNATED MUE-1, THE HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE EMPLOYMENT
DISTRICT. THE NIMBUS AREA IS DESIGNATED MUE-2, REQUIRING MORE i
MODERATE DENSITIES.
C. MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (MUR). THE MUR DESIGNATION IS i
STAFF REPORT' TO "THE PLANNING COMMISSION
j CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 19 OF 35
i
APPROPRIATE FOR PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHERE
MIXED USES ARE PERMITTED WHEN COMPATIBLE WITH THE
RESIDENTIAL USE. AREAS WILL BE DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY (MUR-1)
OR MODERATE DENSITY (MUR-2).
11.9.3 NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TIME
TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
11.9.4 NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AS DETERMINED BY A TRAFFIC
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, SHOULD BE IN PLACE OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
11.10.1 THE CITY OF TIGARD WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF TUALATIN TO HELP ASSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE DURHAM QUARRY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA PROVIDES A HIGH
QUALITY URBAN ENVIRONMENT THAT EMPHASIZES PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIVITY.
11.10.2 THE DURHAM QUARRY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TUALATIN
WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF TUALATIN TO MAKE LAND USE AND
BUILDING PERMIT DECISIONS FOR THE PORTION OF THE QUARRY SITE
WITHIN TIGARD.
11.10.3 A UNIQUE MIXED USE DISTRICT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DURHAM
QUARRY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AREA KNOWN AS MUC-1.
11.10.4 THE MUC-1 DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT WHICH
ALLOWS A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING RETAIL, SERVICES, OFFICE AND
RESIDENTIAL. THE MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION SHOULD
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO WORK, SHOP AND
LIVE IN A COMPACT, PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED COMMUNITY.
11.10.5 NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDING SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, SHOULD BE IN PLACE, OR PLANNED TO BE CONSTRUCTED, IN
TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT.
11.10.6 NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AS DETERMINED BY A TRAFFIC
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, SHOULD BE IN PLACE, -OR PLANNED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED, IN TIME TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT.
Findings: Current Comprehensive Plan Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.4.1,
11.5.1, 11.6.1, 11.6.2, 11.6.3, 11.6.4, 11.6.5, 11.6.6, 11.6.7, 11.9.1, 11.9.2, 11.9.3, 11.9.4, 11.10.1,
11.10.2, 11.10.3, 11.10.4, 11.10.5, and 11.10.6 will be deleted and replaced in their entirety by
proposed amendment Goal 2.1 and the associated Policies (see Exhibit A). The City has found
that these policies are no longer needed as they were primarily used as guiding principles in
developing Community Development Code regulations or have been incorporated into other City
adopted plans, such as the Transportation System Plan and the Washington Square Regional
Center Plan. Removing this language from the Comprehensive Plan will help to streamline the
updated land use program, while at the same time ensuring the City is in compliance with
applicable laws, rules, regulations, plans, and programs. This update will also ensure continued
compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 2 as the new goals and policies reflect current
community conditions and values. The new goals and policies have been developed through a
citizen involvement effort, reviewed by City staff, reviewed by affected agencies, and reviewed by
the Planning Commission at a March 17, 2008 workshop.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STA"I'EWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 20 OF 35
Topic 12. Locational Criteria
12.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR HOUSING DENSITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
a. APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES;
b. APPLICABLE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA; AND
C. APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS.
The following criteria will apply to the four residential densities:
1. Low Density Residential.
A. The following areas are designated low density residential on the plan map:
(1) Areas which are committed to low density development and not shown on the "buildable
lands inventory" as vacant land;
(2) Areas where street facilities are limited to collectors and local streets;
(3) Areas having development limitations due to the topography, soil characteristics,
drainage, high water table or flooding; and
(4) Areas with limited capacity for development in terms of facilities and services such as:
j (a) Facilities:
(i) Sewer
(ii) Water
(iii) Drainage
(iv) Schools
(b) Services:
(i) Police
(ii) Fire
(iii) Health
B. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed through zoning in low
density residential:
(1) Areas which have been historically developed with large lots and which are determined
to be committed land "on the buildable lands inventory" will remain zoned consistent
with the existing development pattern;
(2) The capacity of facilities and services;
(3) Areas within walking distance of transit should be zoned for smaller lots; and
(4) Areas within close proximity to jobs, commercial areas and public facilities and services
should be zoned for smaller lots.
2. Medium Density Residential
A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for medium density on
the plan map:
(1) Areas which are not committed to low density development;
(2) Areas which have direct access from collector or arterial streets;
(3) Areas which are not subject to development limitations such as topography, flooding,
poor drainage;
(4) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development;
(5) Areas within one-half mile of public transportation; and
(6) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the
privacy of established low density residential areas;
B. The following factors will be determinants of density ranges allowed through zoning in the
medium density planned area:
(1) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development;
(2) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering
from established low density residential areas;
4
! (3) The capacity of the services; I
(4) The distance to the public transit;
j (5) The distance to neighborhood or general commercial centers and office business centers;
and
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
j CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 21 OF 35
s
i
(6) The distance from public open space.
3. Medium-High and High Density Residential
A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the
plan map:
(1) Areas which are not committed to low density development;
(2) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the
privacy of established low density residential areas;
(3) Areas which have direct access from a major collector or arterial street;
(4) Areas which are not subject to development limitations;
(5) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development;
(6) Areas within one-quarter mile of public transit;
(7) Areas within one-quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping
centers or business and office centers; and
(8) Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent open space.
B. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the medium-high I
and high density planned areas should the City adopt more than one high density zone:
(1) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering
from established low density residential areas; i
I
(2) The capacity of the services; I
(3) The distance from public transit; and
(4) The relationship of the site to existing neighborhood and general commercial centers
and office and business centers. y
i
12.2.1 THE CITY SHALL:
a. PROVIDE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE TYPE OF
USE, ITS SIZE AND REQUIRED TRADE AREA.
b. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. f
C. APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE
SCALE OF THE PROJECT.
1. Neighborhood Commercial
I
f Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to provide convenience goods and services within a
cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for i
which people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center
include convenience markets, beauty shops, barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses is
i limited to those uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area.
A. Scale 1
j (1) Trade Area. Up to 5000 people.
(2) Site Size. Two acre maximum.
I (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies.
B. Locational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least
one-half [of a] mile.
(b) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection '
or where there is no street intersection, to one side of the street.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the
! street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of C
turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive
use allowed in the zone.
(b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following:
(i) An arterial; or
i (ii) A collector street which will not direct traffic through local neighborhood
streets. f
j (3) Site Characteristics II
f
i STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 22 OF 35
i
i
l
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate [the) present and future uses,
but shall not exceed two acres.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses.
(b) Site configuration and characteristics, and relationship to the street system, shall
be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and
development plan.
(d) Associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining
non-residential uses.
2. General Commercial
General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses
classified as general commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, a combination of
retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses range
from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants
to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector
street.
A. Scale
(1) Trade Area. Varies.
(2) Site Size. Depends on development.
(3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies.
B. Locational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two
sides.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on
street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of
turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types
of uses.
(b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street.
(c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses.
(b) The site shall have high visibility.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses.
(b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of
adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and
development plan.
(d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining
non-residential uses.
3. Commercial Professional
Commercial Professional areas are intended for a diverse range of office uses and supportive uses and
to promote user convenience throughout the City.
A. Scale
(1) Trade area. Varies
(2) Site size. Varies
(3) Gross leasable area. Varies
B. Locational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) The Comprehensive Plan map fixes exact boundaries of the commercial
professional area.
STAFF REPORT TO TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 23 OF 35
I I
4
i
(b) The commercial professional area is not surrounded by residential districts on
more than two sides.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed use or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on
[the] street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit,
number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the
various types of uses.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected needs.
(b) The site shall have high visibility.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of
adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and
development plan.
(c) Associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining
non-residential uses.
4. Community Commercial
The community commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service
uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their
frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such facilities
should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from
j outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and
services at one location. It is further the intent of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities
and that the community commercial plan designation should not be located in close proximity to other
commercial areas so as to avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development.
A. Scale
(1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential and neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2
mile radius.
Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one-half
mile of a site to be designated for community commercial development shall average at
least eight units per acre (as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile
of the community commercial site. The intention of this criterion is to locate community
commercial sites within a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential
frequent users of the establishments within the commercial center. This also will
provide the residents of the surrounding area with an opportunity to provide for their
commercial and service needs within a distance that is reasonable for walldng or
bicycling. Lesser residential densities may or may exist within the assumed trade area at
further distances from the site.
(2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial floor area.
Food sales up to 40,000 square foot per establishment;
General retail sales up to 10,000 square foot per establishment as permitted uses;
Other commercial sales and services facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 square
foot in size per establishment.
I
B. Locational Criteria
j (1) Spacing and Location
(a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection.
(b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other
i sites which area designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may
also be given to providing a similar separation from non-commercially designated
sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less
than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are
developed with non-retail uses.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create
traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 24 OF 35
i
I
i
i
i
1
on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway
geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic
generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone.
(b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated
on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at
or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial
or at the intersection of two major collector streets.
j (3) Site Characteristics
j (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in
size.
! (4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses
and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and
consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a Site Development
Review application contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone
change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may
include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions
j of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but
are not limited to, any of the site building and design guidelines deemed
f appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased
landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building
design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and
safety and other building and site design standards imposed by the City in the i
plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification to the site plan, as
determined by the Community Development Code, shall be processed as a zone
change. Other modifications shall be processed in accordance with existing Code
provisions.
(b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one
unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and
landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site, however, may be 4
developed independently although the City may require that developmental
f aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review
I process.
(c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining
residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections
between community commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be 1
considered on a case-by-case basis.
The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system
shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained.
(d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so l
i as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. I
(e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan.
(f) Exterior lighting, noise, and activities associated with the Community
I Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely
affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable provisions of the i
Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise, light, and nuisances. Operating hour
restrictions may be placed on uses within the district, either through restrictions
within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan
j map amendment for a particular site.
12.3.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT:
a. SITES FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE:
(1) SEPARATED BY TOPOGRAPHY ESTABLISHED BUFFERS,
TRANSPORTATION OR OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES FROM
RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED AREAS.
(2) LOCATED IN AREAS HAVING RAIL SERVICE, ARTERIAL OR MAJOR
COLLECTOR ACCESS.
' b. SITES FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE:
s (1) BUFFERED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO ENSURE THAT PRIVACY
k
I STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
j CPA 2008-00001 STAITWIDE PLANNING GOAL. 2 PAGE 25 OF 35
i
r
AND THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA ARE PRESERVED.
(2) LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET AND THAT
INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC SHALL NOT BE CHANNELED THROUGH
RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
C. THE SITE SHALL BE OF A SIZE AND SHAPE WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR
THE SHORT AND LONG RANGE NEEDS OF THE USE.
d. THE LAND INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT SHALL HAVE AN AVERAGE
SITE TOPOGRAPHY OF LESS THAN 6% GRADE, OR THAT IT CAN BE
DEMONSTRATED THAT THROUGH ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES ALL
LIMITATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES CAN
BE MITIGATED.
e. IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT ASSOCIATED LIGHTS, NOISE AND
OTHER EXTERNAL EFFECTS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
ACTIVITIES AND USES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
f. ALL OTHER APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES CAN BE MET.
12.4.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN
A MANNER WHICH ACCORDS WITH:
a. THE APPLICABLE POLICIES IN THIS PLAN;
b. THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE AND STANDARDS
OF THE USE.
1. Minor Impact Utilities and Facilities
A. Locational Criteria
(1) Access
(a) Access to a minor impact, utility or facility may be from a local street provided:
(i) Site access will not cause dangerous intersections or traffic congestion
considering the roadway capacity, existing and projected traffic counts,
speed limits and number of turning movements.
(2) Impact of the Proposed Change on Adjacent Lands
(a) The use shall be allowed provided:
(i) Associated lights and noise will not interfere with the activities and uses on i
surrounding properties;
(ii) Large scale construction and parking lots can be buffered from the i
adjacent uses; I
} (iii) Privacy of adjacent residential developments can be maintained;
(iv) Community identity can be maintained through design and site layout
which blends the structure into the residential character of the area; and
(v) Buffering can be used to screen the project from adjacent uses.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The use shall be allowed provided:
I (i) The unique natural features, if any, can be incorporated into the design of
the facilities or arrangement of land uses;
! (ii) The land intended for development has an average site topography of less
than 25% grade, or it can be demonstrated that through engineering
techniques, all limitations to development and the provision of services can
be mitigated; (NOTE: This does not apply to parks.)
! (iii) The site is of a size which can accommodate [the] present and future uses
and is of a shape which allows for a site layout in a manner which
maximizes user convenience and energy conservation.
2. Medium Impact Utilities and Facilities
A. Locational Criteria
(1) Access f
(a) There is direct access from the site to a collector street and traffic will not be
routed through local neighborhood streets.
I (b) Site access will not cause dangerous intersections or traffic congestion f
considering the roadway capacity, existing and projected traffic counts, speed
limits and number of turning movements. ,
(c) There is public transit within one-quarter mile of the site.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING CONMSSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 26 OF 35 I~
1
i
(2) Impact of the Proposed Change on Adjacent Lands
(a) It is compatible with surrounding uses, considering scale, character and use.
(b) It will reinforce orderly and timely development.
(c) Associated lights and noise will not interfere with the activities and uses on
surrounding properties.
(d) Large scale construction and parking lots can be buffered from the adjacent uses.
(e) Privacy of adjacent residential developments can be maintained.
(f) The site layout can respond to existing community identity and street patterns.
r (g) Buffering can screen the project from adjacent uses.
(h) There is adequate area landscaping to filter the dust from the site area.
(3) Site Characteristics
i (a) The land intended for development has an average site topography of less than a
10% grade, or it can be demonstrated that through engineering techniques, all
limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated. (Note:
This does not apply to parks.)
(b) The site is of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses and is of
a shape which allows for a site layout in a manner which maximizes user
convenience and energy conservation.
(c) The unique natural features, if any, can be incorporated into the design of the
I facilities or arrangement of land uses.
3. High Impact Utilities and Facilities
A. Scale
(1) Access
(a) There is direct access from the site to a major collector street and traffic will not
be routed through local neighborhood streets.
(b) Site access will not cause dangerous intersections or traffic congestion,
considering the roadway capacity, existing and projected traffic counts, speed
limits and number of turning movements.
(c) There is public transit to the site.
(2) Impact of the Proposed Change on Adjacent Lands
(a) It is compatible with surrounding uses, considering scale, character and use.
(b) It will reinforce orderly and timely development.
(c) Associated lights and noise will not interfere with the activities and uses on
surrounding properties.
(d) Large scale construction and parking lots can be buffered from the adjacent uses.
(e) Privacy of adjacent residential developments can be maintained.
(f) Community identity can be maintained through design and site layout which
blends the structure into the residential character of the area.
(g) Buffering can screen the project from adjacent uses.
(h) There is adequate landscaping to filter the dust from the site area.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The land intended for development has an average site topography of less than a
10% grade, or it can be demonstrated that through engineering techniques, all
limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated.
(b) The unique natural features, if any, can be incorporated into the design of the
facilities or arrangement of land uses.
(c) The site is of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses and is of
a shape which allows for a site layout in a manner which maximizes user
i convenience and energy conservation.
4. Major Impact Utilities and Facilities
A. Locational Criteria
(1) Access
(a) There is direct access from the site to an arterial or freeway. Traffic will not be
routed through local neighborhood streets.
(b) Site access will not cause dangerous intersections or traffic congestion,
considering the roadway capacity, existing and projected traffic counts, speed
limits and number of turning movements.
(c) There is public transit to the site.
(2) Impact of the Proposed Change on Adjacent Lands
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 27 OF 35
i
i
(a) It is compatible with surrounding uses, considering scale, character and use.
(b) It will reinforce orderly and timely development.
(c) Associated lights and noise will not interfere with the activities and uses on
surrounding properties.
(d) Large scale construction and parking lots can be buffered from the adjacent uses.
(e) Privacy of adjacent residential developments can be maintained.
i (f) Community identity can be maintained through design and site layout which
blends the structure into the residential character of the area.
(g) Buffering can screen the project from adjacent uses.
(h) There is adequate landscaping to filter the dust from the site area.
(i) Development can support and/or be compatible with the surrounding
developments.
i (3) Site Characteristics
(a) The land intended for development has an average site topography of less than a
10% grade, or it can be demonstrated that through engineering techniques, all
limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated.
(b) The unique natural features, if any, can be incorporated into the design of the
facilities or arrangement of land uses.
(c) The site is of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses and is of
` a shape which allows for a site layout in a manner which maximizes user
convenience and energy conservation.
12.5.1 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH:
a. APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES;
b. APPLICABLE PURPOSE STATEMENTS; AND
C. APPLICABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS.
i
I
I 1. Mixed Use Commercial
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) land use designation is:
1. To create a dense mixed-use commercial district that forms the commercial core of
the Washington Square Regional Center;
2. To create a high quality, mixed use commercial district, in conjunctions with the
City of Tualatin, on the site of the former Durham Quarry. (Rev. Ord. 01-07) f
3. To provide opportunities for major retail goods and services, office employment,
and housing in close proximity, and with good access to transportation services;
4. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within the City of Tigard.
2. Mixed Use Employment
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) land use designation is:
1. To create a mixed-use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the
community and the region;
2. To provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional f
services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities;
3. To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and
minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives
within the MUE district;
4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers; j
5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with and supportive of retail
and employment uses;
j 6. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center and Employment within the
City of Tigard.
3. Mixed Use Residential'
A. The purpose of the Mixed Use Residential (MUR) land use designation is: E
1. To create moderate and high density mixed use residential districts in close
proximity to other mixed-use districts;
2. To provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and densities, and to
I
i
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION r
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 28 OF 35
f
produce that housing in ways that residents have a high degree of pedestrian
amenities, recreation opportunities and access to transit;
3. To incorporate limited commercial and service uses within mixed-use projects that
provide benefits and amenities to residents, but are compatible with residential
uses.
4. To implement the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan for areas designated Regional Center within the City of Tigard.
12.5.2 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO 2040 GROWTH
CONCEPT OR TO OTHER AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY AS APPROPRIATE FOR
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
12.5.3 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE METRO
2040 GROWTH CONCEPT.
12.5.4 THE CITY SHALL APPLY A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR AREAS SHOWN AS REGIONAL CENTER IN THE METRO 2040 GROWTH
CONCEPT.
Findings Current Comprehensive Plan Policies 12.1.1, 12.2.1, 12.3.1, 12.4.1, 12.5.1, 12.5.2,
12.5.3, and 12.5.4, will be deleted and replaced in their entirety by proposed amendment Goal 2.1
and the associated Policies (see Exhibit A). The City has found that the details included in these
policies are no longer needed. This is due to a number of factors including the amount of
developable land decreasing over the years, City compliance with state housing regulations, and i
the City's implementation of the Metro Functional Plan. Additionally, much of the detailed i
language has been implemented and is no longer valid or has been incorporated into the
Community Development Code. This update will ensure the City is in compliance with applicable
laws, rules, regulations, plans, and programs. This update will also ensure continued compliance
with Statewide Planning Goal 2 as the new goals and policies reflect current community
conditions and values. The new goals and policies have been developed through a citizen
involvement effort, reviewed by City staff, reviewed by affected agencies, and reviewed by the
j Planning Commission at a March 17, 2008 workshop.
~ I
! CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies
the applicable policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
j APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS:
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Requirements for Housing
and Employment Accommodation - use of land within the UGB efficiently by increasing !
the capacity to accommodate housing and employment.
Fps: Goal 2.1 and its associated policies (see Exhibit A), will continue to ensure compliance
with Title 3 requirements and standards. Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 clearly outline the City's
! commitment to implementing the Functional Plan thru coordination with its regional partners, and
providing opportunities to ensure the efficient use of land, particularly in Metro designated centers, I
I corridors, and employment and industrial areas. During the formulation of the Functional Plan, the f
City agreed to accommodate an additional 6,308 housing units and 17,801 jobs. Significant progress r
has been made in reaching these targets and this proposed amendment will ensure the City
continues to move forward in accommodating this uses.
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 3: Water Quality, Flood
Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat Conservation - protect beneficial uses and
STAFF REPORT 1'0 THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 29 OF 35 f
i f
i
functional values of water quality and flood management resources by limiting uses in
these areas from development activities and protecting life and property from dangers
associated with flooding.
Findings In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments to
comply with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which outlines water
quality and flood management requirements for the region. The adopted standards were based on a
unified program developed by local governments in the Tualatin Basin and implemented through
Clean Water Services (CWS) Design & Construction Standards, which provides for vegetated
stream corridor buffers up to 200 feet wide and mandating restoration of corridors in marginal or
degraded condition.
In addition, Clean Water Services, local cities, Washington County, Metro, and Tualatin Hills Park
and Recreation District, partnered on a parallel effort to develop the CWS Healthy Streams Plan
(HSP), an updated watershed plan designed to enhance the functions of the Tualatin Basin surface
water system and address the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The proposed amendment will continue to ensure compliance with Title 3 requirements and
standards. Policies 1, 2, and 3 provide clear direction that the City of Tigard feels that coordinating
with regional partners to comply with water quality regulations is very important to the community.
Additionally, Policies 10, 11, and 21 further signify the City's commitment to protecting the
resources that are critical to improving water quality and to flood management.
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6: Central City, Regional Centers,
Town Centers, and Station Communities - enhance centers by encouraging development
in these centers that will improve the critical roles they play in the region and by
' discouraging development outside centers that will detract from those roles.
Findings: Goal 2.1 and its associated policies (see Exhibit A), will continue to ensure compliance
with Title 3 requirements and standards. Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 clearly outline the City's
commitment to implementing the Functional Plan thru coordination with its regional partners, and
providing opportunities to ensure the efficient use of land, particularly in Metro designated centers,
corridors, and employment and industrial areas. The City fully understands the need to
appropriately plan land uses to reduce dependency on the automobile by ensuring access to public
transit and daily services without having to travel outside of your neighborhood. Implementing the
policies will also help to relieve pressures on expanding the UGB into neighboring farmland.
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 12: Protection of Residential
Neighborhoods - protect the region's residential neighborhoods from air and water
pollution, noise and crime, and to provide adequate levels of public services.
Findings: Goal 2.1 and its associated policies, specifically Policies 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 23, and 24, will
continue to ensure compliance with Title 12 requirements and standards. Policies 8 and 9 requite
the availability of public facilities be committed or available prior to development and outlines
mechanisms that can be used to finance them. Policy 10 requires the City to protect public safety
and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use and Policy 21 directs the City to protect
natural resources, which can help protect residential neighborhoods from air and water pollution.
Policies 23 and 24 ensure development minimizes conflicts and is compatible with the neighboring
land uses. All of these policies are intended to help ensure land use actions do not detract from the
STAFF' REPORT TO THE PLANNING CONMUSSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE. PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 30 OF 35
community's residential neighborhoods. Policy 11 outlines the tools the City can employ to
implement these actions.
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods -
conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system,
from the streams' headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with
their flooplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the
surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent water pollution for the protection of
the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the
region.
Findings The multi-jurisdictional approach undertaken by Tualatin Basin jurisdictions was used to
develop a program to meet Statewide Goal 5 requirements for inventorying riparian areas and
wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13
(the regional Nature in Neighborhood program). The Tualatin Bann Fish and Wildlife Habitat Pmgram
was developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards to
protect the beneficial uses of water (including rivers, streams and creeks) within the Tualatin Basin.
The proposed amendment will continue to ensure compliance with 'T'itle 3 requirements and
standards. Policies 1, 2, and 3 provide clear direction that the City of Tigard feels that coordinating
with regional partners is very important to the community. Additionally, Policies 10, 11, and 21
further signify the City's commitment to protecting the resources to comply with water quality
regulations, protect fish and wildlife habitat, and preserve the floodplain that are critical to the
community's well-being.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies
the applicable Metro regulations.
THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER
OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Finding This goal was met through an extensive public involvement process. A Public
Involvement Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update was developed in March 2006. This
Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the Planning
Commission. The Program outlined the information, outreach methods, and involvement
opportunities available to the citizens during the process.
Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested parties
listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open houses.
Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and attending the Planning Commission workshop.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 31 OF 35
Additionally, the interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the policy interest
teams were provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 20,
2008 issue of The Times (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). Notice
will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. The notice invited public input and
included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the
address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide
planning goals.
Findings: The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a
Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state
statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing
ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision-making process. Notice was provided to DLCD
45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. All applicable review criteria have
been addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met.
Statewide Planning Goal S - Natural Resources
j This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic
areas and sites.
I
1
j Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to protect natural resources, which can lead to improved habitat conditions. This policy
j direction is an enhancement to Goal 5 protections already in place in the community.
I Proposed Goal 2.1 and its associated policies (see Exhibit A), provide clear direction that natural
I
resources are an important component of the community and the City will continue in partnership
I with other jurisdictions to ensure regulations and standards are being met and programs being
implemented. These policies also aim to minimize development's impact upon the resources by
protecting them thru the City's land use program. j
Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state.
i
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to manage development to protect natural resources and their functions in improving the
quality of the community's environment.
Proposed Goal 2.1 and its associated policies (see Exhibit A), provide clear direction that
environmental quality is an important component of the community and the City will continue in
partnership with other jurisdictions to ensure standards arc being met and programs being
implemented. These policies aim to minimize impacts from development, particularly by planning
and constructing the appropriate public facilities to maintain or improve environmental quality.
i
Statewide Planning Goal 7. Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
STAFF Itl lPOR1' 1'O '1'I-IE PLANNING COMMISSION I
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 32 OF 35
f
i
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to manage development to protect natural resources and develop standards and regulation to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community from hazardous conditions. Proposed
Goal 2.1 and its associated policies (see Exhibit A), provide clear direction that protecting people
and property from natural hazards is an important component of the community and the City will
continue in partnership with other jurisdictions to ensure standards are being met and programs
being implemented.
Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to provide needed urban land uses that include commercial, office, mixed use, and industrial
lands. By implementing Policy 7 and designating these uses on the City's Comprehensive Plan map,
the City maintains compliance with the goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to provide needed urban land uses that include residential and mixed use lands. By
implementing Policy 7 and designating these uses on the City's Comprehensive Plan map, the City E
maintains compliance with the goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
r ~
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to plan for and manage the provision of public facilities and services for new and existing
development. Policies 8 and 9 Provide the key language that requires development to commit or
make available the appropriate facilities and services and also provides options for financing these
improvements.
Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation
i To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
I City to plan for and manage the provision of public facilities and services, which includes
transportation, for new and existing development. Policies 8 and 9 provide the key language that
requires development to commit or make available the appropriate facilities and services and also
provides options for financing these improvements or impacts upon the existing facilities from the
development.
C
Statewide Planning Goal 14: Utbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition form rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, i
to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as it provides policy direction
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
i CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 33 OF 35 i
(l
that intends to ensure the orderly and efficient delivery of public facilities and services through
proper planning and implementation. The policies also require an appropriate level of public
facilities and services to accommodate urban population and employment.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard's Building Division, Engineering Division, Current Planning Division,
Library Department, Administrative Department, Financial and Information Technology
Departments, Public Works Department, and Police Department has had an opportunity to
review this proposal and did not respond.
CONCLUSION: Based on no response from City staff, staff finds the proposed amendment
does not interfere with the best interests of the City.
SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not
respond:
City of Durham
City of Beaverton
City of King City
City of Lake Oswego
City of Portland
City of Tualatin
Clean Water Services
Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation
Metro Land Use and Planning
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1, District 2A
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
CONCLUSION: Based on no response from outside agencies listed above, staff finds the
proposed amendment meets all requirements of these agencies and does not interfere with the
best interests of the City.
STAFF REPORT" I'O'ITIE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 S'I'ATLWIDL PLANNING GOAL, 2 PAGE 34 Or 35
SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION
The proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations,
the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public
hearing process.
i
ATTACHMENT:
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
X34---- March 31, 2008
PREPARED BY: Darren W ss DATE
i
Associate tanner
i
March 31, 2008
APPROVED BY: on Bunch DATE
Assistant Community Development Director
{
f
i
f
l I
t
t
I STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00001 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 35 OF 35 j
i
i
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to approve
the March 17, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Doherty
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land
Use Planning
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 1 of 9
I:ILRPLMDoreentPC\PC Minutes 2008Itpc 00-07-08 draft minutes.coc
values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open
Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that
the Comp Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight would update the goals, policies, and
recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Staff has found that the language included in the amendment (see Exhibit A) complies with the
applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as
federal, state, and regional plans and regulations.
The proposed amendment went thru a review process that included two Policy Interest Team
meetings hosted back in February by the Planning Commission, where policy principles were
reviewed and crafted into draft language.
He noted that the Commission then held a workshop on March 17, 2008, to discuss the draft
language. A very thorough analysis resulted in the request for a few changes to be made before
bringing the CPA back for this public hearing. These changes (found at the beginning of the staff
report) included:
Policies:
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mined use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
Policy 9 was added based on discussion about Policy 8 and situations where development may be
required to pay for public facilities that will be constructed at some point in the future, but will not
construct them prior to, or concurrent with, the development. Staff felt adding this policy was a
better solution than trying to augment Policy 8 with additional language.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
PI..°iNNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 2 of 9
I:LLRPWiDoreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008itpc 04-07-08 draft minutes.doc
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, to pr-amate that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
ee
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the preteea methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and pelieies area plans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Staff's recommendation is to approve the language found in Exhibit A and forward it to the City
Council for review and adoption.
The updated goals, policies, and recommended action measures will provide Tigard a much better
foundation on which to prepare ordinances, associated plans, development standards, programs, and
intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to ensure the City's land
use planning program contributes to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
At this point President Inman asked whether anyone had questions of staff. The following
question was offered:
o Why the addition of 9 instead of rewording 8? Assistant Community Development
Director, Ron Bunch, answered. Retaining policy 8 is important but as discussed at the last
meeting, it was felt that it was important to have the option to enter into development agreements and
instead of trying to wed the topics, we felt it was more clear and would provide greater flexibility to have a
separate policy. Staff felt it was much easier to maintain clarity of concepts by adding 9 rather than
rewording 8.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the matter of policy 8 and 9. He
stated his concern about the Washington Square Regional Trail (the circumferential trail around
Washington Square) - he noted that it hasn't happened and it relies on the City of Tigard to find
staff time and money to acquire land for this. Frewing is concerned that policy #9 does not go far
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -April 7, 2008 -Rage 3 of 9
1:Y-RPLMDamentPCV'C Minutes 2008VPC 0407-08 dmft minutes.Coc
enough in terms of enforceability. He said that maybe if they put in the words "legally
enforceable" arrangements - or development agreements - maybe that would solve the problem.
He would like the words to be strengthened somehow on policy 8 or 9.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - OPPOSED:
No one spoke in opposition.
President Inman asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak either for or against but hadn't
signed up. No one came forward so she closed the public testimony portion of this hearing.
DELIBERATION:
The commissioners and staff discussed enforcement of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Caffall made the following motion that was seconded by Commissioner Fishel:
"I move that we accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 as
presented and amended by staff to us this evening."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that this was the
second meeting on the Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment. The last meeting was the March 17
workshop. He said that, due to scheduling, tree board comments weren't included in the main packet but
came in later in a separate memo (Attachment 1). He noted that the recommended changes identified by
the Tree Board are as follows:
■ Replacement of the term "associated vegetation" with "understory vegetation" throughout the
document to provide more clarity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Aptil 7, 2008 - Page 4 of 9
I:LLRPLNtDoreenlPCtPC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes,doc
■ Modification of Policy 2.2.9 (formerly Policy 16) to read "discourage" instead of "prohibit". This
was preferred to staffs proposed edits contained in the packet distributed on March 31" for
tonight's meeting.
Floyd noted that, due to the reformatting of the document, the goals have been renumbered but
that the text remains the same unless identified by either a or the new language
being bolded and underlined. He went over all the changes and recommendations in the memo
(see attachment 1).
At this point, President Inman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commission that they'd like to address. Some of the questions /comments were noted (answers
or replies are in italics):
1. Expressed concern about the word "minimizes" on Goal 2.3. Would like to see the goal read
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that yes considers the loss of existing trees etc."
Commissioner Walsh (Tree Board Liaison) spoke on behalf of the tree board on this: There
was a lot of time spent on that word - a lot of input was re ceived on this particulargoal and modifications were
made. I think there was a lot of discussion about having it read `to minimise "the loss of trees.
2. Feels the words "to consider" the loss of trees doesn't have the same impact as "minimize"
the loss of trees.
President Inman commented that, to her, it means you have to take it into account for the
application process, not that you actually have to reduce the number of existing trees that are
affected. Another Commissioner noted that the word "consider" leaves too much open as
opposed to the word "minimize."
3. Policy 1 under goal 2.3 - We should at least acknowledge the City's responsibility to make
sure that we are supporting the developers wish to be able to save trees.
4. Policy 2 - Expressed concern that "understory vegetation" is not defined appropriately
enough. Is afraid too many trees will be taken out because of understory. It seems to focus
on vegetation when. that's not entirely the intent. The emphasis here is on protecting trees through the
planting of vegetation within certain criteria. If it's not clear, perhaps this should be rephrased..
5. Regarding the definition of "understory vegetation"... we're really talking about "non shade
tolerant flowers /vegetation that happens to be under the tree" - vegetation that supports the
well being of the tree. We need to get a definition that's closer to that - I think it might help
your understanding of it if we could get a very detailed definition.
6. Expressed concern about the word "require." When the word "require" is used, we have to be
able to quantify it, and therefore we have to be able to enforce. If we (in policy 2) "require"
that you preserve the understory, plant, or replace - are we going to get into situations where
you have to mitigate understory because you kept a tree next to a sidewalk? I don't see itgoing in
that direction but we can certainly take a look at it if that's a major concern ofyours.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 5 of 9
I:U.RPLN\Don:enVC%PC Minutes 2008ttpc 0407-08 draft minutes.doc
7. Expressed concern about 2.3.2 "require preservation" - concerned that the language may be
too strong.
8. Policy #4 (2.3.4) - Commissioner likes the rewording, but having a hard time as to how it
applies to residential. Is there a way to address that? The commissioner feels it would be
harder to say we have met this policy on a residential project. There are really 4 categories of land
use that this would apply to -one certainly is commercial, then there's industrial, residential/ multi family, and
then, the other kind of employmentloffice park and public facility type of use. For
employment/ commerciallpublic facility use, certainly, these kinds of site design landscape techniques can apply.
And also for multi family residential and for attached single-family residential. In residential - good site
design, good planning would meet the criteria. This is a broad statement that could be applied across the board.
At this point, President Inman said she realized they were getting too much into deliberations and
she moved on to the public testimony portion of the hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, Tree Board chair, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said the tree board was
in support of amending the update for the Tigard Urban Forest. She noted that it's especially
appropriate as this very week is "Arbor Week" and that Tigard is being honored for the 7`h
consecutive year as a "Tree City USA". She referred to her memo of 4/7/08 (Attachment 2). She
also addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up regarding goal 2.2, Policy 9 - they
were looking at "discourage" instead of "prohibit" because the concern was how would the City
actually go in to a residential property and prohibit a particular plant. Yes - we should discourage
- but how could we prohibit it without a whole lot of work from the City. Another question was
goal 2.3 on policy #2 - she was not liking "as appropriate" because following that is the word
"require" as another part - then it would have to be quantified- so who's going to decide what's
"appropriate" - is it the individual homeowner? Is it the Planning Commission? She thinks policy
#2 should be rephrased so that it's more appropriate. She also thinks the City should come up
with another policy of addressing home mitigation in a separate policy instead of trying to blend it
into 2.3, policy #1. It should be a policy that directly deals with mitigation.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated concern with respect to the "7 day
rule" about the material that came out on April 4 and later.
Frewing expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 of Floyd's memo (page 1). He spoke about the City
of Portland's "Citywide Tree Project Issue Paper" (Attachment 3). He noted how succinct and
informative it is and that the city of Portland has many of the same concerns as the City of Tigard.
He submitted it for the record, and would like the Planning Commission to review it before the
next meeting. Frewing stated that he feels policy 3 is worthless as there is no direction provided
outside what is already required. He agreed that "understory vegetation" needs to be defined
more clearly.
Tony Tycer 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on policy 2 of goal 2.3. He said the
real "teeth" of this policy is required preservation of understory - it's not just the understory
(foliage) underneath the tree - it has a lot to do with how the tree is going to be preserved. He
said it was important to not compromise the roots, structurally, and for the good of the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 6 of 9
I:tLRPLNTOreenWCWC Minutes 2008ttpc 04-07-08 oreR minutes.doc
Commissioner Walsh asked Mr. Tycer's opinion on the word "minimize" - whether he believed
the word was too strong or not. Tycer answered that he did not feel it was too strong, but that it
was appropriate. Tycer also spoke about using appropriate incentives rather than punitive
measures.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan DeHaMport, 5740 SW Arrowhead Lane, Portland, OR 97225 spoke on behalf of the
Homebuilders Association (HBS). He said he agrees with Mr. Frewing on notice. He said he
knew of several people who wanted to testify who weren't properly "noticed" and he hoped this
hearing would continue in two weeks. DeHarpport spoke on mitigation fees being very high. He
commented about street trees. He would like to see street trees being counted towards mitigation
incorporated into the policies. He said he fears if mitigation fees increase it will, in effect, shut
down development because if type II procedures are all that's going to be allowed - as he believes
that's how this could be interpreted at the code level - it would effectively shut down
development, particularly in type II procedures which restricts subdivisions. He said that if the
priority is to preserve trees, you'd have to preserve the trees in a tract. If that's the case, the lot
sizes will be reduced on the remaining portion of the property to the point where you'll have to
do a planned development, which will result in dense development in one corner of the property
with preservation of the tract in the rest of the property.
Regarding specific concerns: On Goal 2.2 Policy 5, (scratched out 11), they'd like to add a
sentence to the bottom of that communicating, "Street trees shall count towards tree mitigation
when possible."
Regarding Action Measure i - he believes an individual has the right to landscape their yard the
way they see fit, whether it's underneath a tree or not. Regarding Action Measure iii under the
same goal - he said street trees are actually the responsibility of the city after the developer is done
with their "winter maintenance period".
On Goal 2.3 - he said he'd support "consideration" versus "minimizes." On the first policy, he
asked whether the intent is to restrict removal for individual property owners and if so then every
resident in the city who has a tree on their property should be noticed.
DeHarpport agreed that many of the policies were written at the tree board level. He said there's
a lot of weight given the tree board; however, his concern is that there is no builder/developer on
the tree board so he believes their [builders/ developers] comments and concerns aren't weighed
as heavily as they would like them to be. He said in the future there should be a
builder/developer member on the tree board and he's sure that one of them would be glad to take
on that task so their positions are weighed in as heavily as they'd like them to be.
On Policy 2 - he noted that one way to enforce that would be deed restrictions on properties. He
can see that being interpreted as requiring anyone who had understory on his or her property, or
large trees on their property, to put deed restrictions on properties. He's concerned that that's the
way that could be interpreted down the road.
On Policy 4 - He said this is "the meat" of everything from the homeowners standpoint. He
believes an appropriate way to word this particular policy is to acknowledge that properties zoned
for development are allowed to remove trees and that rights of ways (ROW) and building paths
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 7 of 9
1ALRPLN0oreeMPC%PC Minutes 2008upc 06-07-08 draft minutes.doc
should be exempted from the mitigation standards because you have to put in a ROW - you have
to put in a road. The state engineering requires that. At this point DeHarpport used the white
board to illustrate his point. He believes the trees in the ROW should be exempt from mitigation
because there is no choice for the developer. He said they believe it's important to acknowledge
property zoned for development. He noted that would be a good addition for goal 2.3. He gave
some examples from the City' of Beaverton (where he served as a former Planning
Commissioner). He wanted to make sure the policies and action measures are flexible enough so
that when it's time to get down to the code writing itself, that other ideas can at least be
considered. He believes goal 2.3 policy 4 has that possibility.
One of the commissioners asked the question - how are the mitigation funds structured and
used? Todd Prager, the City Arborist, explained their use.
Another commissioner commented that the general perception is developers don't care about
aesthetics and she would like DeHarpport to bring that back to his clients.
President Inman asked DeHarpport "Why do you feel that specifics need to be elevated into the
policy?" He answered - Those roads have to be built and to require mitigation for impervious services that are
required is a punitive measure. It's not a fair and balanced measure and that's why I believe it should be included
in the policy.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114, Tigard, OR 97223, commented. Her comments are in the form of a
letter dated April 7 (Attachment 4).
At this point, President Inman asked if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished
to speak. No one came forward.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATION:
The question was brought up; do we need to write a policy to allow the City to choose to buy land
using the tree mitigation fund? Ron Bunch said the City could administratively, through adoption
of a resolution or an ordinance, do that so it's not necessary to write a policy for that. He said an
action measure might be more appropriate if you wish to go that way.
President Inman said she feels it is very important that they get this correct so she proposed that
they have some other deliberations to give the staff a little more direction on some of the
comments that they've heard. She said she would like to continue the public hearing to the next
Planning Commission and potentially open up public testimony again then. Commissioner Walsh
stated that he would like it moved along to closure as quickly as possible but is okay with it
continuing.
At this point, President Inman and the other commissioners went over a list of things one at a
time that they would like staff to address at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: The Public Hearing on CPA2008-00002 Tigard Comp Plan
Update pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest will be continued to April 21.
PLANNING CONMESSION MEETING MINUTES- April 7, 2008 -Page 8 of 9
I:1LRPLNtDoreentPCtPC Minutes 20081tpc 04.07.00 draft minutes.doc
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
c~ ~ n G
Doreen Laughlin, Administrativ V\ci~aaliis-t III
O cL-
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 9 of 9
I:1LRPLN\0areen%PCWC Minutes 2008Vpc 0407-08 draft minutes.doc
Attachment 4
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Council Workshop - CPA2008-00001
DATE: April 18, 2008
At the May 6th City Council meeting, staff will present the proposed goals, policies, and
recommended action measures (see the end of this memo for definitions and obligations) for
the Land Use Planning (Statewide Planning Goal 2) chapter for the updated Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed language was approved and recommended by the Planning Commission
at an April 7,h public hearing. Staff will discuss the proposed language; answer questions,
and provide any requested information that will help assist Council in making its decision at
the June public hearing.
Throughout the process of working with citizens, city departments, and the Planning
Commission, staff has stressed that proposed Comprehensive Plan language must be capable of
being implemented and in the interests of the whole community. Staff has also worked to
explain the implications of certain policy recommendations and most of the time the process
has achieved a consensus outcome. In staffs role as facilitators, we presented the best
professional advice possible to all involved and did not unilaterally change language, but
continually expressed whether or not to amend citizen recommendations is the role of the
Planning Commission to recommend and the City Council to decide upon.
The Planning Commission, at a worksession, requested a few minor changes be made before
bringing the amendment back for public hearing. These requested changes are found below.
No further changes were made to the Land Use Planning chapter at the public hearing and the
language was approved as presented.
CPA2008-00001 Attachment 4
City of Tigard 1 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Policies:
The Planning Commission felt preserving natural resources is a value that has been repeatedly
expressed by the community and wanted to ensure that they are an integral part of planning
process and asked for the additional language to be added.
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
While discussing Policy 8, the Planning Commission brought up situations where a
developer will pay for future improvements, but not construct the improvements at the time
of development occupancy. The Commission asked for language to be added that would
clarify this situation and give the City the option to enter into agreements with developers.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
The Planning Commission wanted to ensure the list was not exhaustive and asked for a
clarifying statement to be included.
.12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, to promate that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
The Commission asked that this policy be deleted as they felt that this statement was
difficult to define and that Policy 1 actually served the purpose intended by this policy.
23. The Gity shftg reqttire thatnew urban development doeg not d4rAftish the quality of life in the-
CPA2008-00001 Attachment 4
City of Tigard 2 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Recommended Action Measures:
The Commission asked that the word protocol be removed.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the ptataeal methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
The Commission asked that the language simply be cleaned up a bit.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and paheies area plans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
The Planning Commission asked about implementing Policy 10 and then asked for a
recommended action measure to be added that directly addressed the policy.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Definitions and Obligations of Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures have different
definitions and impart different obligations to decision makers. They also relate differently to
one another. The following describes goals, policies, and recommended action measures in
greater detail.
Goals, policies and recommended action measures identify the intent of the City to accomplish
certain results. The goals and policies relate to one another and are obligations the City wishes to
assume. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired end, but do not
signify an obligation themselves.
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
achieve that end.
Obligation - The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
CPA2008-00001 Attachment 4
City of Tigard 3 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. To amend the Comprehensive
Plan, the City must show consistency with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment must
take place following prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise violate a
Plan policy.
Recommended Action Measures
Definition - A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard which, if executed, would
implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects,
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific issues.
These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions and
agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs, and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are
suggestions to future City decision-makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them. Neither
do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request amendments or
changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of recommended action measures is not exclusive. It
may be added to, or amended, as conditions warrant.
CPA2008-00001 Attachment 4
City of Tigard 4 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
i
AGENDA ITEM No. 2 Date: June 3, 2008
TESTIMONY
SIGN-UP SHEETS
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly
available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which
is a public record.
Due to Time Constraints
City Council May Impose
A Time Limit on Testimony
l:\ADM\Cathy\COUNCIL\CCSignup\Comp Plan at Workshop Testimony.doc
AGENDA ITEM No. 2 June 3, 2008
PLEASE PRINT
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly
available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which
is a public record.
Pro onent - S eakin In Favor O onent - (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.
AGENDA ITEM No. 2 June 3, 2008
PLEASE PRINT
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly
available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which
is a public record.
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.
b 0 n.
John Floyd From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke@europa.com] L~ r
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:01 PM ~jvs
To: John Floyd •3 / 3 '
Subject: comments on Urban Forest, etc.
Attachments: Comp Plan Land Use and Urban Forest comments 6.3.08.doc; Fw_ Meeting_ Friday at
1 pm.eml
John,
Attached are my comments on the Urban Forest and associated amendments, as well as comments I submitted for our
May 9th meeting; please distribute these to the Mayor and Council members for tonights hearing.
Thank you.
Sue
June 3, 2008
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard
RE: Comprehensive Plan 2008-00001; Amendment for Goal 2, Land Use Planning
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Our comments on the proposed changes to Tigard Goal 2, Land Use Planning are as
follows:
• Under the section for Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources, the Findings
state that the proposed amendment is consistent with the statewide goal and that the
proposed changes direct the city to protect natural resources, etc. It goes on to state
that the policy direction is an "enhancement to Goal 5 protections already in place".
We argue here that the propsed Goal 2.1 and associated policy for natural resources
under Land Use are actually weaker and less stringent than what is currently in the
Comprehensive Plan (CP), and that there will be less protections for natural resources
under the revised goals and policies. For example, under the current CP, Policy 3.4.1,
it states that the city SHALL designate significant wetlands, as well as areas valued
for their "fragile character as habitats for plants, animal.....". In addition, 3.4.2,
states that the city SHALL "require that development proposals in designated
timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to
minimize the number of trees remove....". This language in the current CP is
stronger than what is proposed, in part because it says the city shall protect fragile
areas (I would call these "sensitive habitats") as well as identifying timbered areas.
This language is not in the proposed amended goals or policies for the Natural
Resources section of the CP currently being revised and not yet adopted. There is no
language currently being suggested, except by citizens such as myself, to have a
policy in the new CP that specifically would designate and protect "fragile habitats".
In addition, there is no language in the current proposed revisions for Natural
Resources that designate "timbered or tree areas".
The proposed Policy 22, under Goal 2.1 of the Land Use section, simply states that
the city "shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program'. If the city is actually going to do that, then it must concurrently have, in
the Natural Resources section of the revised CP, goals and policies that reflect and
carry out Policy 22 above. We also highly recommend that the Land Use section of
the revised CP add additional policies that more clearly define how and when Policy
22 will be carried out.
• For the Metro Urban Growth Management Function Plan Title 13: Nature in
Neighborhoods, the Findings state that the approach undertaken by the Tualatin Basin
(TB) jurisdictions was used to develop a program to meet Goal 5 requirements. This
Y
is in part true but not entirely. Title 13 requires that streams, rivers, and floodplains
be protected in a manner that is "integrated with upland wildlife habitat...". The TB
approach in actuality eliminated protections for upland habitats in Tigard and much of
Washington County, contrary to what Title 13 requires and contrary to the wishes of
the citizens of Tigard. Tigard has failed to meet Title 13 in both its current CP as
well as in the proposed, revised language. Current, proposed revised language has
only one mention of uplands and no clear language or inventory relating to where
those upland are located in the city, what types of uplands exist (e.g., mixed conifer
forest), total acreage, etc. Until a complete inventory is finished, which it is not, it is
not possible to meet Goal 5 requirements.
• We also recommend additional goals and policies be added to the Natural Resources
section of the CP that address fish and wildlife, rare or listed species, etc., and their
protection, conservation and restoration. We have made many pages of
recommendations to the staff and Planning Commission and will not repeat them here
but refer you to the written comments submitted previously as well as comments
submitted at the Planning Commission workshop and hearing on natural resources, as
well as the attachment. If such goals and policies are added, we then believe Tigard
can truly say it is "committed to protecting natural resources".
• Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002; Urban Forest - Our
comments are as follows:
We recommend language be changed so that that the city of Tigard regulates the
"removal of trees", not only on environmentally sensitive lands and lands subject to
natural hazards, but on ALL lands within the city, as other urban cities do. This would
require all property owners to obtain a permit for tree removal from the city for example,
with a required fee.
We oppose language such as "when possible and appropriate". The city must prohibit
the use and/or retention of invasive trees and other plants because of the potential to
cause great harm to our local native flora and fauna. We request the Planning
Commission drop the "when possible and appropriate" from this policy.
We believe the proposed Urban Forest section of the revised CP fails to address several
key items as they concern and are related to the recently adopted goals, policies, and
action measures for the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces section of the Comprehensive
Plan. In particular, the proposed Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(UFCPA) fails to address the following:
We saw no language in the proposed Amendment addresses important natural resource
areas (local forests) that are unprotected and deserving of acquisition in the proposed
language. We had submitted comments to the tree board in the past recommending that
areas of high priority for protection (e.g., oak forests) be given a "special status" under
the new goals, etc. in order to protect these rare and diminishing habitats. For example,
since the oak prairie habitat is now reduced to less than I% in the entire Willamette
J
Valley and Tigard has unprotected oak prairie habitat, this should have been addressed
specifically in this proposed UFCPA. In addition, rare habitats are protected under
Statewide Goal 5, and since the UFCPA fails to address important natural resources, it
should not be adopted until it adequately meets all related goals, etc.
We saw no language in the proposed UFCPA that addresses specifically the upland
forests and the acreage remaining in Tigard, and that much of what is left is unprotected.
We ask here for new, additional language that will specifically protect all remaining
upland forests in Tigard, through stronger language that prohibits development on all
remaining upland forests in order to meet Goal 5 requirements for protection of natural
resources within the city limits. These upland forests are vital for protecting our water
quality, our wildlife habitat, our air quality, and our livability. We cannot afford to lose
any more upland forest habitat here in Tigard.
We saw no policies or action measure that specifically address urban forest in Tigard that
may harbor rare species, such as the northern red-legged frog, and what actions may be
taken to help protect them and their habitats. In the current CP, we believe these habitat
are referred to as "fragile habitats". This must be done in order to address the needs of
natural resources under this proposed amendment and how it relates to the Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces and Natural Resource sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
All of these areas are related and must address natural resources in detail and with
sufficient action measures that they sufficiently protect natural resources in Tigard. For
example, forests in Tigard that contain habitat for red-legged frogs and that is
unprotected, should have action measure(s) that ensure some amount of protection for the
long term viability of this species, since it is rare, state listed, and declining in much of its
range. There are other species that also need to be address in this UFCPA for urban
forests, and until they are, we recommended that the UFCPA as it is written NOT be
adopted.
In conclusion, I do not believe the proposed changes to the Land Use section of the
Comprehensive Plan, are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, I ask
that the City Council NOT adopt the proposed changes but rather DENY them, and
continue to work with citizens to strengthen this document until it meets both Goal 2 and
Goal 5 requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sue Beilke
Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
John Floyd
From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke@europa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:03 AM
To: John Floyd
Subject: Fw: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
Here it is.
Original Message
From: Sue Beilke r .
To: John Floyd ; 'John Frewing'
Cc: Marissa Daniels
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
John,
Here are some of the recommendations/comments/language changes I proposed at the PC workshop for Natural
Resources.
- Use "Protect, conserve and restore" where we now have "protect and restore"
= omit "where appropriate" from the entire document
7 keep in "values" but make sure it is defined in the Definitions section, and include some examples
For the Goal; we now only have one goal, I think that is "lame" considering the extent of the diversity of natural
resources we are addressing. Originally we had at least 5 as I recall. I recommend splitting 5.1 into 3 goals.
5.1: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources and the environmental and ecological services they provide.
5.2: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources in order to reach a high level of biodiversity.
5.3 Protect, conserve and restore plants, plant communities and fish and wildlife populations considered rare, or on any
state and federal species lists as a high priority.
- I do not recommend deleting Policy 2.
Somewhere in the PC meeting, the chairwoman, said something to the effect that "low impact development does not
include incorporating natural resources"? I need to have that clarified and then that needs to be addressed at the next
meeting, as she is very wrong on that one if that is what she said.
- Policy 3- this needs more work and we really need to define "sustainable" in regard to natural resources. For example, if
you put in several houses near a stream and only have a 50' buffer, this will not overtime "sustain" the wildlife that live
there. That size buffer is too small to "sustain" the birds, mammals and other species that have inhabitated it for
thousands of years.
- I recommend adding several new policies;
- Policy - The City shall create a distinct zone for open space, greenways, etc. in order to protect permanently all natural
resources.
- Policy - The City shall place a high priority on the protection, conservation, and restoration of rare plants and habitats
(e.g., oak prairie) and rare and state and federal fish and wildlife species listed as "Species of Concern, Sensitive,
Threatened, or Endangered (e.g., Northern red-legged frog, native turtles).
- Make sure we define "hydrologic regimes".
- Policy 10: 1 would have several policies covering inventories, etc. 1. The City shall conduct surveys of All natural
resources in order to establish a baseline inventory.
1
2. The City shall periodically maintain and update the Natural Resources inventory through surveys and monitoring
efforts.
3. The City shall utilize the natural resources inventory to assist with setting goals and objectives for restoration
activities.
Then under these 2 Policies I would add these Action Measures: a. Conduct surveys and monitoring of all natural
resources to establish a baseline inventory.
b. Utilize available documents such as the Oregon Conservation Strategy to help guide restoration efforts. c.
Engage citizens and volunteers to assist with surveys and monitoring. d. Identify opportunities for funding and apply for
grants to assist with restoration efforts.
We also need to make sure that "uplands" are addressed, such as in Policy 8.
I recommend adopting Metro's Title 13 as John recommended at the workshop, again so that uplands are protected, etc.
- We need to look at the CWS standards that the city has adopted in order to see if they are adequate in protecting our
natural resources, since CWS standards and regs. are set up to only address "water quality". I think it would then be in
order to establish several goals and policies that address buffers, etc. in order to further protection for habitats and fish
and wildlife.
See you at 1 PM.
Sue
Original Message
From: John Floyd
To: 'sbeilkeCaDeuropa.com' ; 'John Frewing'
Cc: Marissa Daniels; Ron Bunch
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:03 PM
Subject: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
Hello Sue and John,
Friday at 1pm seems to work for all of use. I'll go ahead and reserve a room, just come to the front counter and ask for
me.
If you could , please forward me (and each other if you haven't already) any comments you have ahead of time. If you
don't mind, Marissa Daniels would like to attend the meeting as well.
Thanks,
John
John Floyd
City of Tigard
Associate Planner I
Community Development
(503) 718-2429
johnfl@bgard-or.gov
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
2
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date June 3, 2008
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Public Hearin for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00002 - Urban Forest
Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA2008-00002) to update the goals, policies, and recommended action measures applicable to Tigard's Urban
Forest?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
update goals, policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a result of Council's direction to staff and the Tree
Board to complete a full update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies, and action measures, as it
pertains to tree stewardship and the contribution of trees to Tigard's quality of life. As part of the background research,
staff and the Tree Board considered relevant findings from past citizen surveys and the Tigard visioning project. This
ensured that the expressed values and attitudes of the hundreds of citizens who participated in these efforts were
incorporated into the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council's direction to update the Comprehensive Plan stressed the importance of garnering citizen input. Staff has done
this through Policy Interest Teams (PITs) that met several times for each chapter. For this particular subchapter, the
Tree Board acted as the host for the Policy Interest Team meetings under an interim charge statement adopted by
Council under Resolution 07-30 (Attachment 5). The Tree Board held open meetings, including two joint sessions with
the Planning Commission, to find consensus on draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures through
consideration of technical information, previously expressed values and attitudes, and concepts presented at the
meetings. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on March 17, 2008 and two public hearings
on April 7 and April 21. The Commission recommended the Council adopt the updated chapter (Attachment 1)
included in CPA2008-00002. Revisions were requested at all three meetings in response to public testimony and
deliberation by the Planning Commission.
Like all updated Plan chapters that will come before Council, it is important that the Land Use Planning chapter be
technically sound. Therefore, during the development of the chapter, Department Review Teams were involved to
determine its technical accuracy and conformance with applicable laws and rules. In addition, the updated chapter was
sent to state, federal, and regional agencies for review.
l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\G-3-O8 CC Hearing CPA2008-00002\6-3-08 AIS CC }-Tearing CPA 2008-00002.doc 1
The intent of the updated chapter is to provide Tigard a much better foundation on which to prepare tree related
ordinances, associated plans, development standards, and programs. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to
address the appropriate development and implementation of an effective urban forest protection and enhancement
program. The successful management of Tigard's urban forest is essential to a high quality of life, prosperity, and
the overall health, safety, and welfare of the community.
City Council reviewed the amendment at a May 6, 2008 meeting and had a few questions and comments on the
language recommended by the Planning Commission. In response to Council's questions and concerns, staff
developed one additional action measure and presents alternative wording for two policies for consideration at the
public hearing on June 3, 2008. This alternative language is outlined in the memo dated May 19, 2008 (Attachment
8).
At and prior to the workshop, Council received three personal communications of an informational nature
regarding the proposed amendment Qohn Frewing, Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland, and Ken
Gertz). While not a part of the official record due to their receipt outside of a public hearing, they have been
included as a courtesy to Council (Attachment 7).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt CPA2008-00002.
2. Modify the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt CPA2008-00002.
3. Remand to the Planning Commission to hold additional hearings and deliberations for future consideration
at City Council.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Complete the update and begin the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002
Exhibit A: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Tigard's Urban Forest (Statewide Planning Goal 2)
Attachment 2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission - April 7, 2008
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Memo dated April 14, 2008 (Pertaining to 2nd public hearing on CPA2008-
00001)
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 7, 2008
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 21, 2008
Attachment 6: Council Resolution 07-30 (Interim Tree Board Charge Statement)
Attachment 7: Personal Communications to Council regarding the Council Workshop of May 6, 2008
Attachment 8: Council Memo dated May 19, 2008 (Pertaining to Council workshop on CPA2008-00001)
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable
L\LRPLN\Council Matcrials\2008\6-3-08 CC I-fearing CPA2008-00002\6-3-08 AIS CC Hearing CPA 2008-00002.doc 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda Item: 5.2
Hearing Date: April 7, 2008 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGAM OREGON . t o
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE GOALS,
POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
PERTAINING TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2: LAND USE
PLANNING
FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2008-00002
PROPOSAL: The City is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend
the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
values relating to Tigard's Urban Forest.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING
DESIGNATION: All City zoning districts
COMP PLAN: All City comprehensive plan designations
APPLICABLE REVIEW .
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan
Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Public Facilities and Services, and
Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds that this request meets the necessary approval
criteria and that it RECOMMENDS that the City Council amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan as
determined through the public hearing process.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 1 OF 19
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is the primary document that guides land use decisions within the
community. It outlines goals, policies, and recommended action measures that are intended to
reflect the community's values and aspirations for a broad range of matters relating to land use
planning and growth management. It also aims to organize and coordinate the relationships
between people, land, resources, and facilities to meet the current and future needs of Tigard.
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required by State law and must conform to 12 of the 19 Oregon
Statewide Planning Goals. Land development and related activities, including the City's
development codes, also must be consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
It is now seven years beyond the year 2000 planning horizon of the City's 1983 Comprehensive
Plan. Tigard has grown dramatically since 1983, from 18,379 residents to 46,715 today. Jobs and
business activity have grown just as fast. Although minor updates have taken place over the years,
the 1983 Plan, in many ways, does not reflect current and projected community conditions. For this
reason, it is necessary to undertake a thorough update. This is important to ensure the Plan remains
a viable tool for decision-makers and citizens to use when seeking policy direction regarding land
use and Tigard's future. For this reason, the Tigard City Council has made it a goal to update the
Comprehensive Plan.
The first step in updating the Tigard Comprehensive Plan involved City staff developing a fact base
to inform the update. The result was the Tigard 2007 resource document completed in February
2007. Key findings from Tigard 2007 combined with community issues and values, form the basis
for Plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures. Community issues and values were
identified through the community's visioning process and a number of surveys completed over the
last several years.
The second step involved community volunteers and stakeholders coming together to develop
draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures. These Policy Interest Teams have been
meeting over the past several months to discuss Comprehensive Plan topics in which they share an
interest. City Department Review Teams then review and provide comment on the work of the
policy interest teams. These final draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures are then
forwarded to the Planning Commission to begin the legislative process.
The final step is the legislative process. Since each of the Policy Interest Teams are moving at their
own pace, Staff will be bringing a series of Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) through the
legislative process over the next several months. Each CPA will correspond to a Statewide
Planning Goal that is applicable to Tigard. The CPA will strike the appropriate language from the
existing plan and replace the language with an updated chapter that addresses that particular
Statewide Planning Goal.
The document before the Planning Commission tonight are Goals, Policies, and Recommended
Action Measures for the Urban Forest, to be contained in the Land Use Planning Chapter (Goal 2).
The Planning Commission hosted a workshop on March 17th to discuss the background
information and draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures that were formulated. At
the Planning Commission workshop, the following changes were requested (also found in Exhibit
A with deleted text as strikeouts and added text underlined and bolded). Please note that
portions of the Background section has been removed and will be considered by the Planning
STAFF R17PORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 2 OF 19
Commission as a separate amendment to the Tigard 2007 document. Also, policies and action
measures have been assigned to a specific goal and have been renumbered accordingly.
Policies:
4. 2.3.2 The City shall require preservation, planting, and/or replacement of
understory vegetation in order to protect
existing trees before, during, and after construction and occupancy;
shall oeeui-: in seeh a "taftner that the following funetions shall be ptesei-,~ed! priori
shall be given to the preservation of native or existing understory vegetation that
performs the following functions:
a. Maintenance of soil health, plant communities, and hydrologic regimes necessary for
the associated trees to thrive;
b. Habitat for fish and wildlife;
c. Water quality enhancement; and
d. Soil and Erosion Control.
2.3.4 4be City shall require ft!ad enfef-ee the mitigation of the fte9thetie and envirefiffiefital
t±ees and other vegewien. The City shall require and enforce site design and
landscape requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of
impervious surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
9. 2.3.5 The City shall allow and encourage consideration of appropriate flexibility in site design
to allow tree preservation and planting in areas where survival will more likely occur
and where better tree cover and canopy will result, particularly for through the use
of trees that will grow large, including long-lived evergreens and broad spreading
deciduous varieties.
4-6: 2.2.9 When possible and appropriate, the City shall prohibit the use or retention of invasive
trees and other plants through the development review process.
Recommended Action Measures:
v. 2.2.iv Inventory and evaluate street tree, parking lot and landscape area plantings that have
failed to thrive, and determine if street site conditions or management practices can
be modified, and/or if trees can be planted elsewhere ift the right of , er en
proper-ty-in order to satisfy conditions of development approval or provide
the benefits expected of the original planting..
vi: 2.2.v Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems, a publicly
accessible inventory of tree plantings, and the state of the City's urban forest.
Proposal Description
The primary intent of the proposed update is to ensure the Comprehensive Plan remains a viable
tool for decision-makers. By updating the Comprehensive Plan, the City will ensure it is in
compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, plans, and programs. As importantly, the
update will also ensure the Comprehensive Plan reflects current community conditions and
values.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 3 OF 19
This amendment is part of a series of amendments that will update the Comprehensive Plan in its
entirety. This amendment will update Statewide Planning Goal 2 with goals, policies, and
recommended action measures that will serve as the "legislative foundation" in regards to the
City's protection and management of the urban forest. Land use actions and amendments to the
Tigard Development Code will be based on the new language included in this amendment.
Below is an explanation of the terms that create the "legislative foundation":
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
achieve that end.
Obligation - The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. To amend the Comprehensive
Plan, the City must show consistency with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment
must take place following prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise
violate a Plan policy.
Recommended Action Measures
Definition - A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard, which if executed,
would implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects,
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific
issues. These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions
and agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are
suggestions to future City decision- makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them.
Neither do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request
amendments or changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of recommended action measures is
not exclusive. It may be added to or amended as conditions warrant.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 4 OF 19
SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT
Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions
• Tigard Community Development Code
o Chapter 18.380
o Chapter 18.390
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
o Newly Adopted Chapters 1, 2, 5 6, and 11
o Old Topics 1 and 3
• Applicable Metro Standards
o Title 3 and 13
• Statewide Planning Goals
o Goals 1, 2, 5, and 11
City Department and outside agency comments
SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 1$~
Chapter 18.380: Zoning Man and Text Amendments
Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map
A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be
undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.309.060G
Findings: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan would establish policies
to be applied generally throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being
processed as a Type IV procedure, Legislative Amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
Chapter 18.390: Decision-Making Procedures
Chapter 18.390.020. Description of Decision-Making Procedures
B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative
matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy.
Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions
made by the City Council.
Findings. The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed under
the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the
amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission with City Council making
the final decision.
Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the
Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the
following factors:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197;
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable Metro regulations;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 5 OF 19
Findiag,s: As indicated pursuant to the findings and conclusions that address applicable Statewide
Planning Goals and Regional Functional Plan Titles, the amendment is consistent with this
criterion.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy
the applicable review criteria within the Tigard Community Development Code and recommends
the Planning Commission forward these proposed amendments to the City Council with a
recommendation for adoption.
CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed
amendments:
Newly Adopted Comprehensive Plan Chapters
Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to
participate in all phases of the planning process.
Policy 2. The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase
of the land use planning process.
Policy 3. The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to
provide input to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff.
Findings: The proposal has complied with all notification requirements pursuant to Chapter
18.390.060 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This staff report was also available
seven days in advance of the hearing pursuant to Chapter 18.390.070.E.b of the Tigard Community
Development Code.
Additionally, a Public Involvement Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update was developed in
March 2006. This Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement
and the Planning Commission. The Program outlined the information, outreach methods, and
involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the process.
Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested parties
listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open houses.
Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and attending the Planning Commission workshop.
The interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the policy interest teams were
provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Additionally, the Tigard Tree Board met at regular meetings to provide input and develop a formal
recommendation to Council, Planning Commission, and staff consistent with Council Resolution
07-30 (Interim Charge Statement for the Purpose of Developing Comprehensive Tree Protection
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STAT73WIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE -76 OF 19
and Urban Forest Enhancement Program). Meetings were open to the public and public comment
received during the course of deliberation.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 20,
2008 issue of The Times. Notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing.
The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer
questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the
text changes could be viewed.
Policy 5. The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be
appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the
community.
Findings: As outlined above, the community was given multiple venues to get information and get
involved. This included a number of articles in the Cityscape newsletter that is delivered to every
household in Tigard. Staff also made a good faith effort to ensure a diversity of citizens and
stakeholders were involved in the policy interest team meetings by not only soliciting volunteers,
but by inviting organizations that share a common interest in that particular topic.
Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form.
Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community
and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand.
Findines: Information regarding the topics included in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment was
available in multiple locations in an understandable format for the duration of the process. This
included paper and electronic copies that were available in the permit center and also on the
website. Information was regularly sent to the project listserv and to the community volunteers
who participated on the policy interest teams.
Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters,
newsletters, the internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and
continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used.
Findings: Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested
parties listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open
houses. Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Policy 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with
community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored
boards and committees.
Findings: Outreach methods included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 7 OF 19
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and attending the Planning Commission workshop.
Additionally, the interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the policy interest
teams were provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Chapter 6: Environmental Quality
Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region.
Policy 6. The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces,
natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain their positive contribution to air
quality.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their
associated Policies [Exhibit "A"]. Policies 2.2.1 through 2.2.4,and 2.3.4 through 2.3.6. ensure that
tree removal is minimized and/or mitigated, that ample space be provided for the planting of
new trees, and City regulations are periodically updated to remain effective. Policies 2.2.5
through 2.2.7 require the City to plant new trees and maintain the City's historic investment in
trees. Similarly, policy 2.3.7 ensures cooperation with residents and outside entities in the
preservation and management of existing tree cover. This protection and enhancement of tree
cover can positively affect air quality and contribute towards meeting air quality standards.
Goal 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality.
Policy 1. The City shall require that all development complies with or exceeds regional,
state, and federal standards for water quality.
Policy 3. The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce
stormwater impacts from new and existing development.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their
associated Policies [Exhibit "A"] that require tree removal to be minimized or mitigated, that ample
room be provided for the planting of new trees, and that City regulations are to be periodically
updated to remain effective. Furthermore, 2.2.5 through 2.2.7 require the City to plant new trees
and maintain the City's historic investment in trees, while Policy 2.3.7 ensures cooperation with
residents and outside entities in the preservation and management of existing tree cover. This
layered protection of tree cover can positively affect water quality and reduce stormwater impacts
resulting from development..
Policy 4. The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural
functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution to
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 8 OF 19
water quality.
Policy 5. The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run-off from
development sites during and after construction.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their
associated Policies [Exhibit "A"] which emphasize the protection of existing trees, maintenance of
a compatible and healthy understory that controls erosion, and a continuing commitment to
protect tree cover in sensitive areas such as stream corridors and steep slopes.
Chapter 7: Hazards
Goal 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe
weather hazards.
Policy 12. The City shall encourage pervious, and minimize impervious, surfaces to reduce
storm water runoff.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.3 and it's associated
Policies 2:3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.4. The first two require the preservation of existing tree cover and the
preservation and/or installation of a compatible understory that, amongst other things, controls soil
and erosion. The latter Policy requires the City to enforce site design and landscape requirements
to reduce stormwater runoff and other environmental impacts of impervious surfaces.
Policy 13. The City shall retain and restore existing vegetation with non-invasive species in
areas with landslide potential to the greatest extent possible.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.2, and more
specifically by Policies 2.2.8 and 2.2.9 which establishes an approved tree list for various
applications and site conditions, and prohibits the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
Policy 14. The City shall work to reduce the risk of loss of life and damange to property
from severe weather events.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by Goal 2.3 and Policies 2.3.3 and 2.3.9. The first policy requires
the City to ensure tree related hazards to persons and property are addressed and abated in a timely
way. The latter requires all applications for tree removal and all tree management plans to be peer
reviewed by a certified arborist to ensure their adeequacy.
Chapter 8: Parks, recreation, Trails, and Open Space: .
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 9 OF 19
Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents,
including both:
A. developed areas with facilities for active recreational; and
B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and
enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space
systems.
Policy 19. The City shall seek to establish and manage a fully-functional urban forest.
Findings: Consistency with this policy is satisfied by Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their various related
policies [Exhibit "A"] that ensure tree removal is minimized or mitigated, that ample room be
provided for the planting of new trees, and City regulations are periodically updated to remain
relevant and effective. This commitment to the protection and enlargement of tree cover is
consistent and supportive of the establishment of a fully-functional urban forest.
Chapter 9: Economic Development
Goal 9. Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
Policy 3. The city's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptove
to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is
made available.
Policy 5. The City shall promote well-designed and efficient development and
redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands.
Policy 12: the City shall assure economic development promotes other community
qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable
economic future.
Findings: Stated Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their implementing policies (Exhibit "A") satisfy this Policy
as they strive for economic benefits through a combination of the enlargement and improvement
of the existing urban forest, while simultaneously accommodating well-designed urban
development that minimizes loss or desires planting, that is intended to result in a high quality
environment that rates high for livability and as a location to conduct business.
Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
Policy 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well-designed
and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector
investments.
Findings: Stated Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their implementing policies (Exhibit "A") satisfy this Policy
as they strive for economic benefits through a combination of the enlargement and improvement
of the existing urban forest, while simultaneously accommodating well-designed urban
development that minimizes loss or desires planting, that is intended to result in a high quality
environment that rates high for livability and supports public and private sector investment that
wishes to capture or leverage a high quality urban environment..
Chapter 10: Housing
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 10 OF 19
Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
Policy 1. The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of
its residential neighborhoods.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and implementing Policies 2.3.1, 2.3.5, and
2.2.7. More specifically, the first two require all tree removal be minimized, and encourages the use
of flexible development standards to maintain existing trees within neighborhoods. Similarly,
Policy 2.2.7 requires the City to conduct an ongoing urban forest enhancement program to
improve the aesthetic quality and economic value of existing neighborhoods.
Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or
more intense land uses on residential living environments, such as:
A. Orderly transitions from one residential density to another;
B. Protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open
space areas; and
C. Installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and implementing Policies 2.3.1, 2.3.5, 2.3.7
and 2.2.7. More specifically, the first two require all tree removal be minimized,and encourage the
use of flexible development standards to maintain existing trees within neighborhoods. Policy 2.2.7
requires the City to conduct an ongoing urban forest enhancement program to improve the
aesthetic quality and economic value of existing neighborhoods, while Policy 14 requires the use of
trees and other vegetation as buffering and screening between differential land uses.
Chapter 11: Public Facilities and Services
Goal 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water
resources, and wildlife habitat.
Policy 7. The City shall encourage low impact development practices and other measures
that reduce the amount of, and/or treat, stormwater runoff at the source.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goal 2.3, and its
implementing policies [Exhibit A]. Policies 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 reduce stormwater runoff by lowering
the volume of impervious surface coverage through aminimization of impacts to existing tree
cover, and the preservation and/or installation of a compatible understory that maintains natural
hydrologic regimes controls soil and erosion. Policy 2.3.4 also requires the City to enforce site
design and landscape requirements to reduce environmental impacts of impervious surfaces such as
increased stormwater runoff..
Old Comprehensive Plan Topics
Topic 1: General Policies
Policy 1.1.1 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT:
a. THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS ADOPTED BY
THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, THE
REGIONAL PLAN ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT;
STAFF REPORT TO TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STA'T'EWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 11 OF 19
b. ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE DESIGNED
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN; AND
C. THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE ARE KEPT CURRENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN
ORDER TO DO THIS:
1. THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED AT LEAST EVERY
FIVE YEARS.
Policy 1.1.2 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EACH OF ITS ELEMENTS SHALL BE OPENED
FOR AMENDMENTS THAT CONSIDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS OF THE
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT (MSD) OR ITS SUCCESSOR ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
CITY COUNCIL. ANNUAL AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ABOVE REGIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT
WITH ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE-OPENING OF LOCAL PLANS APPROVED BY THE
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (LCDC).
THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY LEGAL RIGHTS
WHICH THE CITY MAY HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF A REGIONAL
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PLAN PROVISION.
Findings: This update will ensure the City is in compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations,
plans, and programs. This update will also ensure continued compliance with Statewide Planning
Goal 2 as the new goals and policies reflect current community conditions and values. The new
goals and policies have been developed through a citizen involvement effort, reviewed by City
staff, reviewed by affected agencies, and reviewed by the Planning Commission at a March 17,
2008 workshop.
Topic 3: Natural Features and Open Space
Policy 3.4.2 THE CITY SHALL:
a. PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS BY
MANAGING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND CONTROLLING EROSION, AND
BY REQUIRING THAT AREAS OF STANDING TREES AND NATURAL
VEGETATION ALONG NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AND WATERWAYS BE
MAINTAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE;
b. REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN DESIGNATED TIMBERED
OR TREE AREAS BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED; AND
C. REQUIRE CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING IMPORTANT
WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE AS DELINEATED ON THE "FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITAT MAP" ON FILE AT THE CITY.
d. ADDRESS GOAL 5 RULE REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THE
PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS ONCE ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON THE
LOCATION, QUALITY, AND QUANTITY OF WETLAND SITES IS OBTAINED.
THIS GOAL 5 REVIEW WILL INCLUDE DETERMINING WHICH WETLAND
SITES ARE ECOLOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT. CITIZENS
WILL PARTICIPATE IN MAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION . OF THOSE WETLAND AREAS
DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT. THE CITY SHALL COMPLETE ITS GOAL 5
STAFF R17POIlT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 12 01 719
REVIEW OF WETLAND AREAS BEFORE THE CITY'S NEXT PERIODIC
REVIEW, BUT NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 23,1996.
Findings: This policy is satisfied by the proposed amendment through Goals2.2, and specifically
Policies 3 and 6 which implement that Goal. Policy 3 ensures the City continues to regulate the
removal of trees in sensitive areas such as wetlands, stream corridors, and riparian habitat. Policy
6 specifically applies to publicly owned land and requires the City to establish and enforce tree
protection regulations in parks and other public lands, many of which contain the sensitive areas
addressed above.
APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS:
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 3: Water Quality, Flood
Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat Conservation - protect beneficial uses and
functional values of water quality and flood management resources by limiting uses in
these areas from development activities and protecting life and property from dangers
associated with flooding.
Findingsi In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments to
comply with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which outlines water
quality and flood management requirements for the region. The adopted standards were based on a
unified program developed by local governments in the Tualatin Basin and implemented through
Clean Water Services (CWS) Design & Construction Standards, which provides for vegetated
stream corridor buffers up to 200 feet wide and mandating restoration of corridors in marginal or
degraded condition.
In addition, Clean Water Services, local cities, Washington County, Metro, and Tualatin Hills Park
and Recreation District, partnered on a parallel effort to develop the CWS Healthy Streams Plan
(HSP), an updated watershed plan designed to enhance the functions of the Tualatin Basin surface
water system and address the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The proposed amendment, specifically Goal 2.2 and 2.3 and their associated policies (see Exhibit
A), will continue to ensure compliance with Title 3 requirements and standards. The policies also
outline the City's commitment to requiring new development to protect trees, and for the City to
manage and enhance the urban forest to maximize overlapping benefits such as habitat and water
and air quality.
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods -
conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system,
from the streams' headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with
their flooplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the
surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent water pollution for the protection of
the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the
region.
Findings: The multi-jurisdictional approach undertaken by Tualatin Basin jurisdictions was used to
develop a program to meet Statewide Goal 5 requirements for inventorying riparian areas and
wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13
(the regional Nature in Neighborhoods program). The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program
was developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards to
protect the beneficial uses of water (including rivers, streams and creeks) within the Tualatin Basin.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 13 OF 19
The proposed amendment, specifically Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their associated policies (see Exhibit
A), will continue. to ensure compliance with Title 13 requirements and standards. Policies 2.2.1
through 2.2.3 provide clear direction for the city to coordinate and enhance existing and future
protections for trees across the city, including habitat areas and other sensitive lands. Similarly,
Policies 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.7 require property owners to minimize impacts to existing tree cover,
to focus preservation on native trees, and to cooperate with property owners and other
stakeholders involved in the management and preservation of wetlands, stream corridors, habitat
areas, and similar resources.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies
the applicable Metro regulations.
THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER
OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197
Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive
Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Findings: This goal was met through an extensive public involvement process. A Public
Involvement Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update was developed in March 2006. This
Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the Planning
Commission. The Program outlined the information, outreach methods, and involvement
opportunities available to the citizens during the process.
Information was distributed throughout the process via the project website, an interested parties
listserv, Cityscape articles, press releases, articles in the local paper, and two project open houses.
Outreach methods also included presentations to a number of civic organizations in the
community, personal emails sent to groups and organizations, updates to City boards and
commissions, presentations to high school students, and staff attendance at community events to
pass out information.
Involvement opportunities included two open houses, participation on a policy interest team,
submitting written comments via the website, and attending the Planning Commission workshop.
Additionally, the Tigard Tree Board met at regular meetings to provide input and develop a formal
recommendation to Council, Planning Commission, and staff consistent with Council Resolution
07-30. Meetings were open to the public and public comment received during the course of
deliberation. Additionally, the interested parties listserv and volunteers who signed up for the
policy interest teams were provided notice of all meetings held regarding the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 20,
2008 issue of The Times (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). Notice
will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. The notice invited public input and
included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the
address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning:
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 14 OF 19
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide
planning goals.
Fin_ diThe proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a
Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state
statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing
ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision-making process. Notice was provided to DLCD
45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. All applicable review criteria have
been addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met.
Statewide Planning Goal S - Natural Resources
This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic
areas and sites.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to protect and enhance the quality and functions of Tigard's urban forest that can lead to
improved natural resource functions. Proposed Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and their associated policies (see
Exhibit A), provide clear direction that enlargement, improvement, and protection of the urban
forest is an important component of the community and the City will continue in management and
protection of trees and their understory vegetation. This policy direction is an enhancement to
Goal 5 protections already in place in the community.
Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes direct the
City to manage the urban forest in a manner that maintains and improves the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Proposed Goals 2.2 and 2.3 and associated policies (Exhibit "A") are consistent with this goal in
that they aim to minimize erosion, limit stormwater run-off impacts, improve air quality, and buffer
differential land uses from one another through the maintenance and planting of trees. All of these
policies have the ability to improve air and water quality in the community.
Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed Goals 2.2. and 2.3
and their associated policies direct the city to maintain and periodically update the various codes,
regulations, standards and programs related to tree preservation, planting and management
throughout the City. This update will ensure that the variously impacted departments operate in a
unified manner towards the enhancement of a green infrastructure asset. This update will also
ensure continued compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 as the new goals and policies reflect
current community conditions and values. The new goals and policies have been developed
through a citizen involvement effort, reviewed by City staff, reviewed by affected agencies, and
reviewed by the Planning Commission at the March 17 workshop.
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 15 OF 19
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard's Building Division, Engineering Division, Current Planning Division
and Public Works Department has had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not
comment.
The Parks Division reviewed the proposal and provided the following comment:
"I like the word flexibility in [Policy 2.3.51 and maybe it could be used in [Policy 2.3.61 such
as: Flexibility should be encouraged on projects if it will yield better tree cover and
canopies."
Findings: Comment duly noted. Staff has inserted the suggested language into Policy 2.3.5 rather
than 2.3.6 in order to maintain the consistency of theme within each policy.
CONCLUSION: Based on the one response from City staff, staff finds the proposed
amendment does not interfere with the best interests of the City.
SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not
respond:
Beaverton School District
City of Durham
City of Beaverton
City of King City
City of Lake Oswego
City of Portland
City of Tualatin
Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation
Metro Land Use and Planning
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1, District 2A
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J
TriMet Transit Development
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
Tualatin Valley Water District
Oregon Department of Land Conversation and Development
Clean Water Services
STAFF REPORT TO TFIE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 16 OF 19
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the comments and subsequent
edits to the proposed amendment are in the best interest of the City and recommends inclusion
of the changes in the language of this proposal.
SECTION VIII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ernie Platt, Director of Local Government Affairs for the Home Builders Association
oxTBA) of Metropolitan Portland, submitted the comments in response to materials distributed
, and discussion at, the March 17, 2007 Planning Commission workshop. Excerpts are below,
a complete copy of these comments is attached as Exhibit "B".
"We believe [Policy 2.3.1, formerly #31, as written, will establish the mere existence of a
tree as a trigger point for the Type 3 approval process... as you know, HBA appealed the
Director's interpretation on the basis that the existence of a tree on land zoned for
development should not trigger this type of planning step. We believe this argument
holds true fore this portion of Policy 3 and ask that it be removed."
Findings: The policy, as written, leaves the City with wide latitude as to how it is implemented.
Specific procedures including quasi-judicial and legislative processes are not defined. As a result
their concern cannot be determined at this time.
"Based on alternative language offered by [Assistant Community Development Director]
Ron Bunch Policy [2.3.4, formerly #7] has improved to some extent I'm not certain, but
based on my notes I don't recall "enforce" in Ron's original draft. We believe the word
`enforce' should be removed"
Findings: The word enforce was recorded in the minutes and staff recommends its inclusion to
ensure that the city has a solid legislative basis to enforce site design and landscape standards over
the life of a development project.
"Perhaps the easiest way to deal with [mitigation] is to acknowledge or provide flexibility
so that developers have an incentive to plant more trees in developments and incorporate
existing trees into the landscape plans. The language below was offered by Alan
DeHarpport in a set of comments to the Tree Board.
"For properties that have future development potential, regulations exist in the
City Development Code that require dedication of public rights-of-way for public
amenities including streets, sidewalks, planter strips, and bike lanes. In addition,
regulations exist within the City Development Code that require clearing to
accommodate structures on building sites on properties zoned for future
development. Therefore, the City shall not require tree mitigation for right of way
dedications and for the clearing of building footprints as required by the City
Development Code."
Findings: This language was deliberated at prior meetings of the Tree Board and found to be
overly specific for a policy statement. Specific amendments to mitigation standards are more
appropriate for a coordinated and comprehensive municipal and development code review and
update called for in Policies 1 and 2 and Recommended Action Measures 1 and ix.
[Policy 2.3.5, Formerly #9] adds to the overall theme that again raises the existence of a
tree to the level of a sensitive resource, wetland, and riparian area triggering a Type 3
application.
Findings: The policy, as written, only "allows and encourages" a course of action, it does not
mandate one. Additionally, the Policy leaves the City with wide latitude as to how it is
implemented. Specific procedures including quasi-judicial and legislative processes are not
defied. As a result their concern cannot be determined at this time.
(Policy 2.3.7, Formerly #14) is the policy inconsistency with the current mitigation policy.
If the City of Tigard wants to promote and maintain the existence of street trees, than
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 17 OF 19
why can't a developer count street trees as part of the mitigation plan? It makes no sense
and provides little incentive to even plant street trees unless the trees count toward the
overall mitigation option.
Findings: Policy 2.3.7 directs the city to "continue to cooperate" with various parties to "manage
and preserve street trees, tree groves, specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation." This
policy does not conflict or prevent the City from considering amendments to mitigation
requirements as they pertain to street trees.
John Frewing attended and reviewed the materials presented at the March 17, 2007 workshop.
His comments are as follows:
"No policy addresses the multi-year practice of `thinning trees, then completely removing
them, then applying for site development without the burden of the preservation of trees'
which has been a source of great concern by Tigard citizens over the plast few years. The
new comp plan policies should include working which would provide a basis for
regulations on this specific matter"
Findings: This legislative basis is contained in Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3.
"A policy in the new Comp Plan should provide a basis for the City to use overlays to map
tracts for the special protection or development of specific tree types which are
historically important to Tigard."
Findings: This legislative basis is contained in Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3
"Wording in at least one policy should provide a basis for later development of
regulations which require "alternatives" in specified situations where tree removal is to be
minimized. Without some alternatives analysis, it is impossible for anyone to say that
tree removal has been minimized."
Findings: This legislative basis is contained in Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3
"It is important that a comp plan policy express the need and the obligation of the City to
retain records of tree protection plans and planting campaigns and mitigation plantings
so as to evaluate the success and compliance with these approved documents after
several ears time. This policy statement need not impinge on legitimate privacy needs
of individuals but the regulatory or publicly supported planting of trees should be publicly
accessible."
Findings: This legislative basis is contained in Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3, if not specifically
mentioned.
"The status of the proposed `Urban Forestry Master Plan' shold be clarified in a policy
statement in addition to Action Measure i. Without formal adoption by City Council, this
action item is without meaning."
Findings: Comment noted.
"Goal [2.3]. I thought the intent of the Planning Commission would be served by simply
adding the word `significant' in front of the word `living' in the last line."
Findings: Comment noted.
"Policy [2.3.2]. I thought the intent of the Planning Commission would be served by
simply adding the word `designated' in front of the word `protected' in the first line.
Findings: Comment noted.
"Policy [2.3.4]. Ron Bunch suggested some decent wording"
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 18 OF 19
Findings: Comment noted.
"Policy [2.3.6]. There was concern whether this was a new requirement (no). However, I
think reference should be made to the inclusion of mapped tree protection zones in the
required plan, giving a basis for what is a current requirement."
Findings: Comment noted.
"Policy [2.2.9]. I think the discussion concluded that, yes, it is a good policy to prohibit
invasives, even in wetlands. However, I think that another verb should be added to the
`prohibit' action, perhaps something like `and use other programs for removal' so that this
policy is useful in other development applications."
Findings: Comment noted.
"A policy should be included in the new comp plan which gives a legislative basis for
regulations which allow a variety of different uses of the tree removal and mitigation
funds."
Findings: This legislative basis is contained in Policy 2.2.1, if not specifically mentioned.
SECTION IX. CONCLUSION
The proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations,
the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public
hearing process.
ATTACHMENT:
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
EXHIBIT B: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY HOME BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PORTLAND (MARCH 21, 2008)
EXHIBIT C: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING
(MARCH 18)
EXHIBIT D: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING
(MARCH 18)
March 31 2008
PREPARED BY: John Floyd DATE
Associate Planner
March 31 2008
APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE
Planning Manager
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA 2008-00002 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 PAGE 19 OF 19
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Supplemental Memorandum regarding Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA2008-00002
Date: April 14, 2008
BACKGROUND
On April 7th the Planning Commission opened a Public Hearing to consider CPA2008-00002
(Tigard's Urban Forest). Rather than take final action, the Planning Commission continued the
item until April 21st to allow staff time to respond to comments and suggestions provided by the
Commission. Recommended changes, as prepared by Staff, are below. For a full discussion of this
item, please refer to the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission on April 7, 2008. A
copy of the packet material has been included for the your reference.
REQUESTED CHANGES
Requested language changes have been made to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "A", and are summarized below for quick reference.
Recommended deletions are indicated with a and new language bolded and
underlined. Please note that policy numbers were changed between the March 17th workshop and
the April 7th public hearing due to a reformatting of the document, the text remains the same unless
identified by the markings discussed above.
POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES
2.2.1 The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to
inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic
benefits.
Staff Commentary: Language was inserted to specifically require the City to maintain and
periodically update mitigation policies, regulations and standards as requested by the Planning
Commission.
2.2.2 The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating to landscaping,
site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be consistent with, and
supportive of, one another; administration and enforcement shall be regulated and
coordinated by the variously impacted departments.
Staff Commentary Language was inserted to specifically reference mitigation.
2.2.11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management
Master Plan.
Staff Commentary: This language was removed from Policy 2.2.i and incorporated into a new Policy
as requested by the Planning Commission.
2.21 Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and enhancement of
all tree and asseeiated undue vegetation related regulations, standards,
programs, and plans, itteluding the development of it eitywide Urban Farestfy
Management Master Plan that wiH establish ffieastirable gea1g, standards and guide
Staff Commentary: This language was removed and incorporated into a new Policy as requested by
the Planning Commission
2.3.1 The City shall require all development and non-development related tree removal to
minimize impacts on existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-
native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread before,
during and after construction and subsequent occupancy; r-ema a of ` ees sha
. . .1111ated, with prierfity givet.q. to the preservation of existing trees over rfiffigation.
Staff Commentary: For purposes of clarification, this language was removed from Policy 2.3.1 and
incorporated into a new Policy as requested by the Planning Commission.
2.3.1a The City shall require mitigation that is proportional to the impact, with
priorgy given to the preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
Staff Commentary: For purposes of clarification, this language was removed from Policy 2.3.1 and
incorporated into a new Policy as requested by the Planning Commission.
2.3.2 planting, The City shall pr-ateet ±e pfeser-vat-ion, shall aeettr- in stt h a ffianner that the faHawing funetions shaI4 be preserved! priority
shall be given to th L E)n of native or- exiffiftg under-ster-y -eegetatifm that,
for- the asseeiated trees to ;
7J. Habitat f fish and wRdhfe;
e. Water-quahty enhaneetnent; and
'd-Sarl-z"nzdzrysie t r..,yirffOT
The City shall, in order to protect trees during land development and
subsquent occupancy, ensure the protection or installation of compatible
understory vegetation.
Staff Commentary: There was substantial debate at the April 7 hearing regarding the meaning and
intent of this policy. Staff recommends the above language for it's clarity of meaning and purpose.
2.3.5 The City shaR allow atid eneatifage eansideration of appropriate flexibility ift
design to allow tree presen~:atian and planting in areas where sufvival will rnore likely
use of qees that wi]4 grow large, ineltiding long lived eveWeetis and broad sprea
a deeidtious varieties.
The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will
thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of
development review.
Staff Commentary: This policy was restructured by staff to accomplish two purposes. The first was to
clearly state the purpose of the policy. The second is to broadly include flexible in all aspects of
development review as the Planning Commission requested language specifying the availability of such
flexibility in both Type II and Type III procedures.
DEFINITIONS
Mitigation - A process, standard, compensatory action, or any other mechanism by
which adverse impacts can be avoided, minimized, restored, or compensated at a level
proportional to the impact.
Staff Commentary: This language was added at the request of the Commission. It is broadly inclusive
regarding means while better defining the intent.
Understory Vegetation - Any plaftia trees, shrubs or groundcover growing under a tree or
forest canopy.
Staff Commentary: The original and revised language is adapted from a broad spectrum of academic
and scientific sources that generally demonstrate a consistent simplicity and broadness. As a result
staff recommends a broadly inclusive definition or more direction from the Commission regarding their
concerns or desired applicability.
ERRATA
Please note the presence of a typo on page 18 of the Staff Report for the April 7 hearing. On page
18 several responses to comments reference policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3; this should in fact reference
Draft Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 instead.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff received an email from John Frewing on April 10, 2008 which both summarizes and
supplements verbal comments made at the April 7 hearing. Excerpts of this email and staff
responses are below:
"1) make development of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (action measure 2.2i) a policy
rather than an action measure"
Staff Response: Exhibit `A" has been revised in a manner consistent with this comment.
"2) provide a legislative basis for regulation of trees outside the development approval
process (covered by policy 2.3.1, which I did not notice until later in the meeting)"
Staff Response: Comment noted.
"3) clarify the definition of'understory' vegetation to clearly include buffer areas around
trees or tree groves where important for the protection of tree health and associated healthy
soil conditions"
Staff Response: Comment noted. Research by staff has found the term understory to generally refer to plants
under tree canopy, and not around it. In addition, the area under a trees canopy is thatpart of the root.Zone
most sensitive to change and as a result is most critically in need of protection. Areas beyond the understory
will remain subject to review under landscape plans required in Draft Policy 2.3.6
"4) include in policy 2.2.1 a mandate to create overlay zones where important tree species or
tree groves currently exist which should be more stringently preserved for the beneficial
development of a heritage urban forest for Tigard"
Staff Response: Staff recommends against the inclusion of such specificity as many regulatory choices are
available to the City, with no one particular method evaluated for its appropriateness to Tigard.
"5) provide in policy 2.2.7 a legislative basis for broader uses of tree fines and mitigation
funds to protect and develop our urban forest (an idea first put forth by Tony Tycer at most
recent workshop between Tree Board and Planning Commission)"
Staff Response: See response to comment #4 above.
"6) extend policy 2.2.2 to include the concepts discussed in the City of Portland discussion
draft regarding interdepartmental coordination of permitting actions necessary to protect
trees."
Staff Response: This request isgenerally satisfied through Policy 2.2.2 and staff's response to comment #4
above. These concepts are included in documents included in this packet as Attachment 3 to this
Supplemental Memorandum.
"a) Policy 2.3.2. Modify to read 'The City shall require preservation, planting, and/or
replacement of understory vegetation when it is important to protecting nearby existing trees
before, during and after construction and occupancy; priority shall be given to the
preservation of native or existing understory vegetation that performs the following
functions:... ' This wording ('when it is important to') provides some definition for the
purpose and extent of understory protections."
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff has provided alternative language for the Board's review, though
encourages the Commission to consider the suggested language.
"b) Action Measure 2.2.v. This action measure should be raised up to the importance of a
policy. It is a key part of the Urban Forest Management Plan, which would be impossible
without an inventory."
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff recommends against such specificity at the Policy level, with the scope
of the Master Plan left to future deliberation by the City.
"c) The word 'removals' should be replaced by the words 'permitted approvals'. Such an
inventory simply provides in one place the already public record of tree removals, thereby
not invading any person's privacy. This clarification need not include the number/name of
each tree removed, but simply the Tigard permit number under which one or more trees are
permitted to be removed."
StafResponse: Comment noted. Should the Planning Commission wish to consider this alternative
language, it would not change the underlying concern expressed by the Planning Commission on March 17th
and April 7th as permit information is already public record.
"d) Action Measure 2.2.v. The prior comp plan included protection for 'timbered areas',
which were shown on a comp plan map but never used in development approval processes.
The current plan omits any reference to 'timbered areas' but should this inventory action
measure is a good place to include this concept, perhaps as part of 'the state of the City's
urban forest'."
Staff Response: The draft Goals and Policies in Exhibit `A" do not conflict with existing policy 3.4.2. b.
"e) Policy 2.3.4 should remain as it stands. Questions were raised on April 7 as to whether
this could be applied to single family residential development or whether street, sidewalk and
building pad areas should be excluded. Concepts such as ecoroofs, permeable pavers, etc are
among the design features which could reduce impacts in residential developments."
Staff Response: Comment noted.
"o General processes. As a Type IV proceeding, it seems that 390.060A requires a pre-
application conference, which I do not see in the record, which includes a number of Tree
Board meetings. The procedural steps of 390.060 should all be followed as well as the
general requirements of 390.080."
Staff Response: A pre-application meeting was held on February 21, 2008 as required by the Development
Code. Staff has made a good faith effort to comply with procedural steps outlined in 18.390.060 and
18.390.080.
"g) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy
3.4.2.b requires that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed
through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed. The
current proposed comp plan policies do not comply with these former provisions. The
exact location of designated timbered or tree areas was shown on a map as part of the old
comp plan, but new areas are not updated and identified. The new comp plan provisions
should at least give the same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed
areas in Tigard.
Staff Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures do
not conflict with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2. b referenced above.
"h) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy
3.4.2.c requires that cluster type development be used in areas having important wildlife
habitat value. It is widely acknowledged (eg METRO Goal 5 materials) that treed areas are
important for wildlife habitat. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with the
requirement for cluster type development in these treed areas. The new comp plan
provisions should at least give the same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer)
remaining treed areas in Tigard."
Staff Response: Please refer to staff reponse to comment `g" above.
i) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.a
requires that trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses be maintained to the
'maximum extent possible'. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with this
requirement to maintain these trees and natural vegetation to the 'maximum extent
possible.' In fact, some have suggested that the new comp plan should only require
'consideration' of saving such trees. "The new comp plan provisions should at least give the
same protection of these trees as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in
Tigard."
Staff Response: The proposed language is consistent with existing policy 3.4.2 through Draft Policy 2.2.3
that supports existing regulations that enforce land use standards along natural drainage courses as required
in the existing Comprehensive Plan, and Draft Policy 2.3.1 that requires all development and non-
development related tree to removal to minimize impacts to tree cover.
"j) Consistency Review (page 18/19 in staff report). Staff response to Frewing's first
comment re the observed practice of thinning, and waiting the required year or two before
removing all trees and then applying for development with no burden of preserving trees
says that the legislative basis is in policy 2.2.1 and 2.3.3. Policy 2.2.1 simply says that Tigard
regulations will be periodically reviewed/updated and 2.3.3 relates to hazard trees neither
relates to the practice Frewing referenced and which has been widely seen and dealt with by
other jurisdictions in the METRO area. The findings by staff are not based on any facts. A
new policy should be added which clearly states that from the date of this comp plan
amendment adoption, Tigard will not tolerate the use of specified time wait periods to avoid
tree protection regulations at the time of development in the city."
Staff Response: Staff recommends against such specificity, as noted in previous staff responses above.
Additionally, this scenario would be prohibited under existing draft policies, if not specifically mentioned.
As stated in the Staff Report prepared for the April 21 11 meeting, Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 provide the
legislative basis by which existing codes can be implemented and/or amended to prevent clearcutting prior to
development. In addition, Policy 2.3.1 requires development related tree removal to minimi.Ze impacts on
existing tree cover, while Policies 2.3.6 and 2.3.9 requires all developments to prepare and implement a tree
preservation plan that must be reviewed and approved by a City employed arborists.. As a result of this
policy, clearcutting would not be allowed until the property owner had demonstrated that tree removal had
been minimised.
k) Consistency Review (page 18/19 in staff report). The same objection to staff response as
noted in comment j above is made for the staff response for Frewing comment three
(wording should provide basis for later development of regulations requiring alternative
analyses). The findings by staff are not based on any facts and do not address the subject of
the comment.
Staff Response. Comment noted. Staff recommends against such specificity, as noted in previous staff
responses above and that existing policies such as 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 provide sufficient legislative basis should
the City choose this regulatory option. It should be noted that to require the submission of multiple
alternatives may be inconsistent with state law requiring the availability of clear and objective approval
criteria, and as a result this implementation option should be carefully deliberated and crafted at the time of
implementation.
ATTACHMENT:
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (REVISED APRIL 14, 2008)
EXHIBIT B: WRITTEN MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING AT THE
APRIL 7, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (2 ISSUE PAPERS AND CITY OF
PORTLAND MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 3, 2008)
EXHIBIT C: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING
FOLLOWING THE APRIL 7 PUBLIC HEARING (APRIL 10, 2008).
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner resent: President Inman, Commissioners: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to approve
the March 17, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Doherty
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land
Use Planning
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 1 of 9
1:1LRPL14Wman1PCWC Mlnms 20084po 04-07.08 dreg minotes.aoo
values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open
Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
5, 6, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, and 14.
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that
the Comp Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight would update the goals, policies, and
recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Staff has found that the language included in the amendment (see Exhibit A) complies with the
applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as
federal, state, and regional plans and regulations.
The proposed amendment went thru a review process that included two Policy Interest Team
meetings hosted back in February by the Planning Commission, where policy principles were
reviewed and crafted into draft language.
He noted that the Commission then held a workshop on March 17, 2008, to discuss the draft
language. A very thorough analysis resulted in the request for a few changes to be made before
bringing the CPA back for this public hearing. These changes (found at the beginning of the staff
report) included:
Policies;
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential,
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
Policy 9 was added based on discussion about Policy 8 and situations where development may be
required to pay for public facilities that will be constructed at some point in the future, but will not
construct them prior to, or concurrent with, the development. Staff felt adding this policy was a
better solution than trying to augment Policy 8 with additional language.
9. The Chi y may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into develo ment
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fceg and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 2 of 9
CILRPLMDoreenWCWC Nntdes 200SUpo 01.07.08 draft mtautes.doa
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, to prernete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
23. The Gity shrA require that new utban development does not ditninish the quality of life ift the-
ee~ty
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the preteeel rnetbo-de used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and peheies area 121ns, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended tg protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Staffs recommendation is to approve the language found in Exhibit A and forward it to the City
Council for review and adoption.
The updated goals, policies, and recommended action measures will provide Tigard a much better
foundation on which to prepare ordinances, associated plans, development standards, programs, and
intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to ensure the City's land
use planning program contributes to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
At this point President Inman asked whether anyone had questions of staff. The following
question was offered:
o Why the addition of 9 instead of rewording 8? Assistant Community Development
Director, Ron Bunch, answered. Retaining policy 8 is important but as discussed at the last
meeting, it was felt that it was important to have the option to enter into development agreements and
instead of trying to wed the topics, we felt it was more clear and wouldprovide groater flexibility to have a
separate policy. Stafffelt it was much easier to maintain clarity of concepts by adding 9 rather than
rewording 8.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the matter of policy 8 and 9. He
stated his concern about the Washington Square Regional Trail (the circumferential trail around
Washington Square) - he noted that it hasn't happened and it relies on the City of Tigard to find
staff time and money to acquire land for this. Frewing is concerned that policy #9 does not go far
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 3 of 9
1APJ NZwnnlP0%PC Minmes 2008W 0407.00 *0 minutes.0oo
enough in terms of enforceability. He said that maybe if they put in the words "legally
enforceable" arrangements - or development agreements - maybe that would solve the problem.
He would like the words to be strengthened somehow on policy 8 or 9.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - OPPOSED:
No one spoke in opposition.
President Inman asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak either for or against but hadn't
signed up. No one came forward so she closed the public testimony portion of this hearing.
DELIBERATION:
The commissioners and staff discussed enforcement of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Caffall made the following motion that was seconded by Commissioner Fishel:
"I move that we accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 as
presented and amended by staff to us this evening."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metto Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that this was the
second meeting on the Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment. The last meeting was the March 17
workshop. He said that, due to scheduling, tree board comments weren't included in the main packet but
came in later in a separate memo (Attachment 1). He noted that the recommended changes identified by
the Tree Board are as follows:
■ Replacement of the term "associated vegetation" with "understory vegetation" throughout the
document to provide more clarity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apl it 7, 2008 - Page 4 of 9
1.*V"LN%DoreenWCW0 Minutes 2=11po D4-07.08 Alen minutas.0oo
■ Modification of Policy 2.2.9 (formerly Policy 16) to read "discourage" instead of "prohibit". This
was preferred to staffs proposed edits contained in the packet distributed on March 31" for
tonight's meeting.
Floyd noted that, due to the reformatting of the document, the goals have been renumbered but
that the text remains the same unless identified by either a Ito or the new language
being bolded and underlined. He went over all the changes and recommendations in the memo
(see attachment 1).
At this point, President Inman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commission that they'd like to address. Some of the questions/comments were noted (answers
or replies are in italics):
1. Expressed concern about the word "minimizes" on Goal 2.3. Would like to see the goal read
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that tomes considers the loss of existing trees etc."
Commissioner Walsh (Tree Board Liaison) spoke on behalf of the tree board on this: There
was a lot of time spent on that word - a lot of input was received on this particulargoal and modifications weir
made. I think their was a lot of discussion about having it read "to minimize"the loss of tires.
2. Feels the words "to consider" the loss of trees doesn't have the same impact as "minimize"
the loss of trees.
President Inman commented that, to her, it means you have to take it into account for the
application process, not that you actually have to reduce the number of existing trees that are
affected. Another Commissioner noted that the word "consider" leaves too much open as
opposed to the word "minimize."
3. Policy 1 under goal 2.3 - We should at least acknowledge the City's responsibility to make
sure that we are supporting the developers wish to be able to save trees.
4. Policy 2 - Expressed concern that "understory vegetation" is not defined appropriately
enough. Is afraid too many trees will be taken out because of understory. It seems to focus
on vegetation when. that's not entirely the intent. The emphasis here is on protecting trees thmugh the
planting of vegetation ndthin certain criteiia. If it's not clear, perhaps this should be rephrased..
5. Regarding the definition of "understory vegetation"... we're really talking about "non shade
tolerant flowers/vegetation that happens to be under the tree" - vegetation that supports the
well being of the tree. We need to get a definition that's closer to that - I think it might help
your understanding of it if we could get a very detailed definition.
6. Expressed concern about the word "require." When the word "require" is used, we have to be
able to quantify it, and therefore we have to be able to enforce. If we (in policy 2) "require"
that you preserve the understory, plant, or replace - are we going to get into situations where
you have to mitigate understory because you kept a tree next to a sidewalk? I don't see itgoing in
that direction but we can certainly take a look at it if that's a major concern ofyours.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 5 of 9
1.VJWLNDOreen1101PC Minutes 4008Vp0 04•07.00 Graft ntlnules.eeo
7. Expressed concern about 2.3.2 "require preservation" - concerned that the language may be
too strong.
8. Policy #4 (2.3.4) - Commissioner likes the rewording, but having a hard time as to how it
applies to residential. Is there a way to address that? The commissioner feels it would be
harder to say we have met this policy on a residential project. Thee are really 4 categories of land
use that this would appy to - one certainly is commercial, then there's industrial, residential/multi family, and
then, the other kind of emplyment/olce park and public facility type of use. For
employment/commeniallpublic facility use, certainy, these kinds of site design landscape techniques can apply.
And also for multi family residential and for attached single family residential In residential - good site
design, good planning would meet the criteria. This is a broad statement that could be applied across the board
At this point, President Inman said she realized they were getting too much into deliberations and
she moved on to the public testimony portion of the hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, Tree Board chair, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said the tree board was
in support of amending the update for the Tigard Urban Forest. She noted that it's especially
appropriate as this very week is "Arbor Week" and that Tigard is being honored for the 7`s
consecutive year as a "Tree City USA". She referred to her memo of 4/7/08 (Attachment 2). She
also addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up regarding goal 2.2, Policy 9 - they
were looking at "discourage" instead of "prohibit" because the concern was how would the City
actually go in to a residential property and prohibit a particular plant. Yes - we should discourage
- but how could we prohibit it without a whole lot of work from the City. Another question was
goal 2.3 on policy #2 - she was not liking "as appropriate" because following that is the word
"require" as another part - then it would have to be quantified- so who's going to decide what's
"appropriate" - is it the individual homeowner? Is it the Planning Commission? She thinks policy
#2 should be rephrased so that it's more appropriate. She also thinks the City should come up
with another policy of addressing home mitigation in a separate policy instead of trying to blend it
into 2.3, policy #1. It should be a policy that directly deals with mitigation.
John Frewying, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated concern with respect to the "7 day
rule" about the material that came out on April 4 and later.
Frewing expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 of Floyd's memo (page 1). He spoke about the City
of Portland's "Citywide Tree Project Issue Paper" (Attachment 3). He noted how succinct and
informative it is and that the city of Portland has many of the same concerns as the City of Tigard.
He submitted it for the record, and would like the Planning Commission to review it before the
next meeting. Frewing stated that he feels policy 3 is worthless as there is no direction provided
outside what is already required. He agreed that "understory vegetation" needs to be defined
more clearly.
Tony Tcer 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on policy 2 of goal 2.3. He said the
real "teeth" of this policy is required preservation of understory - it's not just the understory
(foliage) underneath the tree - it has a lot to do with how the tree is going to be preserved. He
said it was important to not compromise the roots, structurally, and for the good of the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apri17, 2008 - Page 6 of 9
LVLMNQoreenWV1C Mlnuroa 200aV,a 04-07.00 0ra0 minmuioo
Commissioner Walsh asked Mr. Tycer's opinion on the word "minimize" - whether he believed
the word was too strong or not. Tycer answered that he did not feel it was too strong, but that it
was appropriate. Tycer also spoke about using appropriate incentives rather than punitive
measures.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan DeHagVort, 5740 SW Arrowhead Lane, Portland, OR 97225 spoke on behalf of the
Homebuilders Association (HBS). He said he agrees with Mr. Frewing on notice. He said he
knew of several people who wanted to testify who weren't properly "noticed" and he hoped this
hearing would continue in two weeks. DeHarpport spoke on mitigation fees being very high. He
commented about street trees. He would like to see street trees being counted towards mitigation
incorporated into the policies. He said he fears if mitigation fees increase it will, in effect, shut
down development because-if type II procedures are all that's going to be allowed - as he believes
that's how this could be interpreted at the code level - it would effectively shut down
development, particularly in type II procedures which restricts subdivisions. He said that if the
priority is to preserve trees, you'd have to preserve the trees in a tract. If that's the case, the lot
sizes will be reduced on the remaining portion of the property to the point where you'll have to
do a planned development, which will result in dense development in one corner of the property
with preservation of the tract in the rest of the property.
Regarding specific concerns: On Goal 2.2 Policy 5, (scratched out 11), they'd like to add a
sentence to the bottom of that communicating, "Street trees shall count towards tree mitigation
when possible."
Regarding Action Measure i - he believes an individual has the right to landscape their yard the
way they see fit, whether it's underneath a tree or not. Regarding Action Measure iii under the
same goal - he said street trees are actually the responsibility of the city after the developer is done
with their "winter maintenance period".
On Goal 2.3 - he said he'd support "consideration" versus "minimizes." On the first policy, he
asked whether the intent is to restrict removal for individual property owners and if so then every
resident in the city who has a tree on their property should be noticed.
DeHarpport agreed that many of the policies were written at the tree board level. He said there's
a lot of weight given the tree board; however, his concern is that there is no builder/developer on
the tree board so he believes their [builders/developers] comments and concerns aren't weighed
as heavily as they would like them to be. He said in the future there should be a
builder/developer member on the tree board and he's sure that one of them would be glad to take
on that task so their positions are weighed in as heavily as they'd like them to be.
On Policy 2 - he noted that one way to enforce that would be deed restrictions on properties. He
can see that being interpreted as requiring anyone who had understory on his or her property, or
large trees on their property, to put deed restrictions on properties. He's concerned that that's the
way that could be interpreted down the road.
On Policy 4 - He said this is "the meat" of everything from the homeowners standpoint. He
believes an appropriate way to word this particular policy is to acknowledge that properties zoned
for development are allowed to remove trees and that rights of ways (ROW) and building paths
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 7 of 9
1:1LRPLM0ameMPC7C Mingles 2OMpa 0e-07-08 dmft minOmdoc
should be exempted from the mitigation standards because you have to put in a ROW - you have
to put in a road. The state engineering requires that. At this point DeHarpport used the white
board to illustrate his point. He believes the trees in the ROW should be exempt from mitigation
because there is no choice for the developer. He said they believe it's important to acknowledge
property zoned for development. He noted that would be a good addition for goal 2.3. He gave
some examples from the City' of Beaverton (where he served as a former Planning
Commissioner). He wanted to make sure the policies and action measures are flexible enough so
that when it's time to get down to the code writing itself, that other ideas can at least be
considered. He believes goal 2.3 policy 4 has that possibility.
One of the commissioners asked the question - how are, the mitigation funds structured and
used? Todd Prager, the City Arborist, explained their use.
Another commissioner commented that the general perception is developers don't care about
aesthetics and she would like DeHarpport to bring that back to his clients.
President Inman asked DeHarpport "Why do you feel that specifics need to be elevated into the
policy?" He answered -Those roads have to be built and to require mitigation for impervious services that are
required is a punitive mea m It's not a fair and balanced measurr and tbat's why I believe it should be included
in the policy.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114, Tigard, OR 97223, commented. Her comments are in the form of a
letter dated April 7 (Attachment 4).
At this point, President Inman asked if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished
to speak. No one came forward.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATION:
The question was brought up; do we need to write a policy to allow the City to choose to buy land
using the tree mitigation fund? Ron Bunch said the City could administratively, through adoption
of a resolution or an ordinance, do that so it's not necessary to write a policy for that. He said an
action measure might be more appropriate if you wish to go that way.
President Inman said she feels it is very important that they get this correct so she proposed that
they have some other deliberations to give the staff a little more direction on some of the
comments that they've heard. She said she would like to continue the public hearing to the next
Planning Commission and potentially open up public testimony again then. Commissioner Walsh
stated that he would like it moved along to closure as quickly as possible but is okay with it
continuing.
At this point, President Inman and the other commissioners went over a list of things one at a
time that they would like staff to address at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: The Public Hearing on CPA2008-00002 Tigard Comp Plan
Update pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest will be continued to April 21.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 8 of 9
I:LLRPLMDoraonVY,W Mmin 20MOO 04-07.08 draft mindo.doo
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Ulf-
Doreen Laughlin, Administrativ cialist II
v ~
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 9 of 9
I:LLRPLN0oreeaWGM MLIM03 2=%tpo 06-07-0E dnll Mm"v.doe
ATTACHMENT 5
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman,
Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Anderson
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI [Committee for Citizen
Involvement] meeting earlier in the month and that the City now has four neighborhoods up
and running with their "neighborhood website." He said the City webpage has details on these
neighborhood websites and that more are to come. He encouraged people to check out the
website to see if their neighborhood has a webpage.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve
the April 7, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Muldoon, Vernlyea
EXCUSED: Anderson
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 1
IILRPLWCouncil Materalst200818.3.08 CC Hearnq CPA2008-0000208 Attachment 4_ CC Workshop CPA200&00002.doc
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can
be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
President Inman opened the public hearing, explained that this meeting was a continuation
from the last hearing, and went on to explain the process. She noted that public testimony
would be reopened and that there is a 3 minute limit for individuals and a 20 minute limit for
people speaking on behalf of a group.
John Floyd, Assistant Planner, gave his report on behalf of the City. He went over changes that
had been made by staff since the April 7 meeting. He noted that there were basically four
changes and that his PowerPoint presentation would cover these changes.
Following are those changes (in brie:
1. Eight (8) policies and recommended action measures were amended, rewritten, or
recreated as a result of direction from the Planning Commission at the last meeting;
2. Two definitions were changed - one is new, one is substantially rewritten;
3. Staff wanted greater clarification as to Planning Commission's preference in policy 2.2.9
(which he would explain in more detail later in his presentation); and
4. Two pieces of public comment had been received by staff since the last hearing
[Attachments 1 & 2] for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Floyd explained these changes in detail in his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3).
After Floyd's report, President Inman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of
staff regarding this. There were none.
At this point, President Inman opened up the meeting for public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223 (Chair of the Tree Board) said the
Tree Board had met again since the last Planning Commission meeting and went over the
issues that they considered particularly important [Listed in attachment 2].
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in support of the policies
and action items also - specifically, recommended action measure 2.2.v (page 5 of Floyd's
memo of 4/14) where the word "removals" is replaced by the words "permitted removals."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 2
I:LLRPI-MCouncil Matertals12008%A-3.08 CC Heating CPA2008-000021548-08 Attachment 4_ CC Workshop CPA2008-00002.doc
He also spoke about the definition of "understory" - that it should say "immediately under
or immediately adjacent to trees or canopies."
Kandace Horlings, 14525 SW Chesterfield Ln., Tigard, OR 97224, identified herself as a
Tree Board member. She said that committees can never make everyone happy. She said she
works as a landscaper and she spoke about rules. She said as a landscaper she has to get
permits at times. She doesn't believe the Tree Board is working against developers. She said
what's in place is not going to work 30 or 40 years from now. She noted that this is a broad
document. She wants the HBA members and public citizens to sit down with the Tree
Board. She reiterated that this is a starting point. They are willing to listen.
Tony Tycer, 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke about understory vegetation.
He said his concern is more aimed towards the soil as he believes that's more relevant. He
said these policies are very broad - deliberately.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan Deharpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, Beaverton, OR 97225, was concerned
about the wording. He wants to add to the following language as a recommendation on
2.3.4: "...while minimizing the financial impact to the property owner." He said there are
hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree mitigation fees that the underlying property owner
typically pays. He said that's a straightforward addition to the language that would allow the
writers of the code to come up with a mitigation standard that would not be onerous to the
underlying property owner. Also, he was concerned that the definition of mitigation came
within a week's notice of the vote - he thought that was too fast for everyone affected by this
to make a judgment. He requested another continuance to take into account the people who
would be affected by these policies. He expressed concern about mitigation fees. He noted
his concern that citizens were not notified. He also noted that the wording "proportional to
the loss" is nebulous. He wondered what proportional means... does it mean tree for tree?
Inch for inch?" He expressed concern about the wording of the document. He said the
code writers should have leeway.
Bill McMonagle, 8740 SW Scoffins St., Tigard, OR 97223, gave a scenario where a
property was devalued simply because it had trees on it. He believes that's wrong. He said
trees are going to be the dictator of the functional use of land. He was concerned about the
understory issue. He believes the City should not be "in their backyard."
Kevin Luby, 16497 SW 103~d, Tigard, OR 97223, said there is a dichotomy between
developers and subsequent occupancy. He discussed the developer's side. He agreed with
previous testimony that the mitigation fee schedule is unfair. It doesn't take into account the
realistic life expectancy of trees. As far as "subsequent occupancy" - he said his ability to
decide when the useful life of his own trees is done and when he wants to replace those trees
should be his own decision. He was further concerned about requiring permits to take down
trees, he said the City would have the right to deny that permit and he has a problem with
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 3
I:%LRPLN%Council Malerialst2008t8-3-08 CC Hearing CPA2008.00002t5-8-08 Attachment 4_ CC_Workshop CPA2008.00002.doc
that. Among other things, he expressed concern over the vagueness of the definition
"understory vegetation" and also was concerned about the idea of mitigation fees on private
property. The question was asked if he had any suggestions on how to improve on the idea
of "understory." He said "Delete it."
Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, OR 97007, identified himself as an arborist
& forester of 47 years. He spoke specifically to the question of "understory". He
encouraged the City to drop all references to it because it has no "handles" that can be
scientifically supported.
Ken Gerts, 19200 SW 46`h Tualatin OR, introduced himself as a long-time Oregonian. The
written form of his comments is Attachment 4.
James McCauley, 15555 Barley Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, of the HBA
(Homebuilders Association) stated that he believes a major error regarding the Tree Board is
that there does not appear to be a broad range of interests represented. He said he believes
policy 2.3.1 is a horrible piece of language from a private landowner's point of view. He
spoke to the issue of "understory" - he agreed that there is no scientific evidence regarding
this. On policy
2.3.4 - he believes "balance" is a better word than "minimize."
Craig Brown, 16074 SW 103~d, Tigard, OR 97224 expressed concern over policy 2.2.4 - he
said the intent wasn't clear. In recommended action measure 1.1.iv - he wonders whether
the City will be doing our landscaping now. He doesn't understand what the provision
implies. 2.3.1 - believes it's overreaching. 2.3.1a - he wonders whose standard this is going to
be. What is proportional impact? It's very subjective and he's concerned how that will be
applied. 2.3.2 with regard to "subsequent occupancy".. he's concerned about the city going
into people's yards changing things. He questioned the definition of mitigation. He
questioned the term "understory vegetation". He said if property is zoned residential... it's
residential. If you add penalties and punitive policies, that keeps it from being developed that
way, and you are not providing for reasonable development.
Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, identified himself as a land-
use planner and said he was speaking in support of the changes of the builders. He
encouraged the City to be very careful in adopting policies and to pay attention to the fact
that these policies have a great effect on the citizens. When you adopt policies be very careful
- it may start to infringe on private property owners rights.
Roger Anderson, 10120 SW Kahle, Tigard, OR 97223, said he'd only heard a week or so
ago that the City was working on this tree thing and that it would affect every citizen in
Tigard who own houses and trees. He was especially concerned about "non-development
trees" and "subsequent policies". He suggested the City take these two phrases completely
out of the policy wording. He said he believes this is overkill. He wondered why the City
cares about private homeowners trees. He believes the ordinance is ridiculous. He thinks it
would actually cause people to hate trees since they'll have no control over them. And then
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 4
I:%LRPLN%Council MaterialsVOOM&3-08 CC Hearing CPA200&00002\5-8-08 Attachment 4_ CC_Workshop CPA2008-00002.doc
they'd have to pay for a permit to take trees down on their own property. He believes if the
city wants to control his property then they should buy it.
Steve Roper, 196 SW Hall Blvd. #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, said the others who had
spoken in opposition had pretty much said what he believes as well. He spoke about
affordable housing. He said adding tree mitigation adds to the price. He spoke about the
lack of developer input into the Tree Board. He felt the Tree Board wasn't really interested in
his take.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
There was a 5 minute break.
DELIBERATION: 9:53PM
President Inman explained that the deliberation time is a time for the Planning
Commissioners to deliberate and that they would not be taking any questions or comments
from the audience. The public testimony time had officially closed.
After much deliberation, the Planning Commission came up with the following revisions (not
in order of the text) to be taken into consideration of the motion that follows:
1. Strike all reference to the term "understory vegetation" throughout the
document and remove the definition.
2. 2.3.1- strike reference to "all development and non-development related tree
removal" and substitute the language "The City shall develop and implement
standards and procedures designed to minimize impacts on existing tree
cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long
lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread."
3. 2.3.1a - "In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to preservation of existing trees and shall consider the
financial impacts of mitigation."
4. Changed definition of mitigation. Everything is the same except after the
word compensated - strike everything - and put "as appropriate".
5. 2.3.2 changed to "The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to
protect trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development." °
6. 2.3.4 - remove the word "require" and substitute "develop."
7. 2.2.9 - use the word "discourage."
8. 2.2.v - The word "removals" was struck but will be reinstated as "permitted
removals."
9. Definition of a "hazard tree" will be reviewed in the ISA definition and will be
held open until the next meeting for potential amendment at that time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -April 21, 2008 - Page 5
0IRPLN1Council Matedalst2008t8-3-08 CC Hearing CPA2008-0000215-8-08 Attachment 4_ CC_Wodcshop CPA2008-00002.doc
Commissioner Walsh made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council on application case number CPA2008-00002 for the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan update pertaining to Tigard Urban Forest and adoption of the
revisions that the group just reviewed [above] and approval of the staff report and
public testimony presented and received. I further move that the definition of
"hazardous tree" be revised based upon ISA definition and that that issue be left
open for future review and,approval by the Planning Commission."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Anderson
6. OTHER BUSINESS -
President Inman reminded the commissioners that this issue would go to City Council for a
May 6 workshop and a June 3 hearing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:48p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 6
I:LL.RPLN1Council Matedals120081&3.08 CC Hearing CPA2008-0000215-8-08 Attachment 4_ CC_Wodushop CPA2008-00002.doc
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUN IL
RESOLUTION NO.07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN INTERIM TREE
BOARD CHARGE STATEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A
COMPREHENSIVE TREE PROTECTION AND URBAN FOREST ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the current charge of the Tree Board (Council resolution 01-02) requires it to, "develop and
administer a comprehensive tree management program for the maintenance, removal, replacement and
protection of trees on public property"; and
WHEREAS, the Board's current charge does not provide the latitude for it to undertake other important
community tasks related to stewardship of Tigard's tree resources; and
WHEREAS, the City is engaged in update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Board's services
are needed to address the important matters of tree stewardship and enhancement of the City's urban forest,
because:
a. Urban development has resulted in loss of trees;
b. Trees and other natural resources contribute to Tigard's quality of life and overall environmental
quality;
c. Urban density, unless well designed, results in loss of trees and private open space;
d. An attractive, treed environment is a component of an economically prosperous community;
e. A balance is needed between tree stewardship and the need for efficient use of valuable urban lands;
f. A sound technical basis is needed for useable and up-to-date tree codes and standards;
g. Tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement provides civic engagement opportunities; and
h. A healthy urban forest and its associated benefits require active management.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: For the purposes of developing a comprehensive City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest
Enhancement Program, the Tree Board shall have the following responsibilities in addition to
those spelled out in its existing mission statement
a. The Tree Board shall work with the Planning Commission to update the City's
Comprehensive Plan by developing Comprehensive Plan background information
(findings) and goals, policies, and action measures pertaining to tree stewardship and
the contribution of trees and other vegetation to Tigard's quality of life.
b. The Tree Board shall recommend updated goals, policies, action measures, and
background information to the Planning Commission. The Board shall participate mi
the Commission's joint work sessions to review/discuss the same. These
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to Planning Commission public
hearings and recommendation to the City Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -
Page 1
C. The Tree Board shall propose a tree stewardship program for Planning Commission
consideration which shall consist of municipal code and land use regulations to
implement the above "Trees and Vegetation" Comprehensive Plan goals, policies,
and action measures. Proposed Municipal and Development Code amendments shall
be subject to review by the City Attorney. Proposed land-use code changes shall be
subject to public hearings and recommendation to Council by the Planning
Commission. The Tree Board shall participate with the Commission in work sessions
to review/discuss the same.
d. The Tree Board may also make other general recommendations to enhance urban
forest resources for City consideration such as public education, incentives, tree
planting programs, and arboriculture practices, etc.
e. The Tree Board shall review recommendations from staff to develop specific interim
tree code standards intended to prevent tree removal during the period it takes to
develop the City's tree stewardship program. The Tree Board shall participate in
work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to the Commission holding
public hearings to recommend the interim standards to Council.
f. The Tree Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission and Committee for
Citizen Involvement, shall develop and implement a public information and
involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree
stewardship and urban forestry enhancement in Tigard. In addition, the Tree Board
shall prepare a citizen involvement report as part of the record of its proceedings.
g. Every three months the Tree Board shall forward a report of its progress to the City
Council and Planning Commission. Initially, the Tree Board shall prepare a schedule
and scope of work as the first step to implement this mission.
SECTION 2: Upon adoption of the Tree Protection Program, the Tree Board's charge statement shall be
reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural
resources as seen fit by the City Council
SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2007.
Mayor - ity of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 07 Page 2
ATTACHMENT 7
John Floyd
From: Tom Coffee
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:43 AM
To: Ron Bunch; John Floyd; Darren Wyss; Todd Prager; Dick Bewersdorff
Subject: FW: Comp Plan Workshop on Managing Tigard's Urban Forest, May 6, 2008
fyi
From: Craig Prosser
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 8:15 AM
To: Tom Coffee
Subject: FW: Comp Plan Workshop on Managing Tigard's Urban Forest, May 6, 2008
From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 07:41 PM
To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail
Subject: FW: Comp Plan Workshop on Managing Tigard's Urban Forest, May 6, 2008
From: John Frewing[SMTP:JFREWING@TELEPORT.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:42:45 PM
To: Craig Dirksen
Subject: Comp Plan Workshop on Managing Tigard's Urban Forest, May 6, 2008
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council Members,
I was told on Tuesday evening that no public comment will be allowed on May 6, but my written views would be
considered. Just a bit ago, I see in an email from Craig Prosser that some public comment will be allowed. I don't know
which is true, but I made plans which prevent my attending next Tuesday evening. Please consider the remarks below as
if read at your workshop; please consider each of them. John Frewing
On Tuesday, May 6, you will have a workshop considering portions of Tigard's new comp plan dealing with
our `urban forest'. I am concerned that the material being presented does not reflect the community values nor
the work of the Tree Board and different citizens over the past year, but in a number of specific regards, reflects
the much narrower wishes of the home building community as presented to the Planning Commission on April
21.
As you seek to work toward a new comp plan, one of the pervasive issues is that of an appropriate degree of
SPECIFICITY on different issues. The comp plan must have enough specificity to mean something, to set
policy direction in a distinctive way, and to disallow subsequent code writing in some directions. The Tree
Board wrestled with this issue in a number of cases, but the Planning Commission, in responding to the
arguments of the home building community on April 21 did away with some specificity and added other
specificity which unduly directs code writing toward their desires to avoid any interference with their practice
of clearing and leveling lots to put in a standard variety of house (which design is in no short supply in Tigard).
t
The home building community interests are clear, yet the values of Tigard citizens and the needs of our
community, as it is mostly built out - are quite different today than in 1983 when the earlier comp plan was
drafted. I ask that your comments and actions reflect the values of Tigard citizens and their needs more directly
than the proposed document suggests. The several surveys conducted by the city over the past couple years is a
good starting point to determine Tigard citizen views. I will point out examples of where change is needed to
reflect my reading of these surveys. As I understand it, there is no state `rule' which directs the level of
specificity which should be included in a comp plan policy - it is simply a matter of the city council deciding
what is important enough to be stated as a policy.
CHANGES AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
During the past year, staff and the Tree Board have introduced into comp plan language the concept of an
`urban forest', recognizing that trees have value, not only in an environmental sense, but in maintaining
property values, attracting residents and businesses and supporting other amenities of a successful and
sustainable city. Adjacent cities have strong language protecting, enhancing and maintaining their urban forest.
Simply as a comparison and as a matter of competition, Tigard should have no less. One important element of
promoting an urban forest is the regulation of some practices outside of the `development' process (ie
subdivision) itself. At the pleading of the home building community, reference to regulations outside of
the development process was eliminated. The Tree Board was appropriate in not specifying at the comp plan
policy level exactly what regulations outside of the development process might evolve, but noted that SOME
actions in this regard were desired. The Tree Board over the past year noted what some considered extreme
measures in Lake Oswego regulations, but agreed that some kinds of actions, regulatory in nature as well as
educational, promotional and advisory in nature would be appropriate.
i
Information presented to the Tree Board, eg from Atlanta, GA, discussed the nature of an urban forest, noting
it's 'variety in age and species, protection of unique or exemplary stands, and complementary plantings. In
Tigard, one of the complementary elements of our urban forest is its understory. The Tree Board discussed how
to deal with this element, noting that a forest understory not only adds to the habitat value of trees, but also
provides protection and promotes the health of soil beneath trees: it is part of a FUNCTIONING urban forest.
The Tree Board acknowledged that not every tree must have a native understory beneath it, but saw our native
understory as an important part of our urban forest. At the pleading of the home building community, any
reference to protection of forest understory was eliminated. Again, detailed regulations or other city actions
are yet to be worked out, but by eliminating this concept, the homebuilding community established a record for t
opposition at a later date. You should restore words in comp plan policy to protect our forest understory for all
its values to the city. Additionally, without understory regulated in this section of the comp plan, its only
protection exists in the Goal 5 section of the comp plan which has procedural difficulties, eg, the need for ESEE
analyses, which city staff knows it is avoiding by placing tree protection under Goal 2 - Land Use.
Mitigation for the loss of trees in our urban forest has long been a concept in Tigard's regulations. The nature
and amount of mitigation have always considered a variety of factors such as availability of mitigation sites,
cost, type of trees to be established, etc. The home building community sought successfully to weaken city
policy regarding mitigation. The Tree Board had developed wording that included the concept of
`proportionality' in mandating mitigation. Such wording recognized that loss of a non-native, small tree might
not deserve the same mitigation as loss of a large native tree not otherwise in the vicinity. At the pleading of
the home building community, the word `proportional' was stricken from comp plan policy endorsing the
concept of mitigation. The homebuilding community further asked that Tigard's mitigation policy
should `minimize cost to the developer'. While such a request might be expected from these folks based on
their narrow economic interests, and certainly must be considered, any wording to minimize costs is in essence
a policy to not enforce mitigation. The Planning Commission, yielding to the presence of 12 representatives,
who had but once appeared during the year of policy development by the Tree Board, added wording explicitly
noting that cost was a major factor in developing mitigation regulations and programs, not noting the variety of j
2
E
i
other factors related to mitigation. This is an instance of adding one type of specificity at the expense of other
considerations, and it should be stricken or all other factors affecting mitigation should be listed.
ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED
Because the home building community had 12 persons present and took up the greatest portion of time (at a
meeting that went to 11:30PM), a variety of comments, both new and old, were not discussed at all on April 21.
I offer some of them below with the request that either you, the City Council, address them, or ask the Planning
Commission to address them before returning proposed comp plan policies to the City Council for action:
A The city should have a policy of identifying (at a useful scale) significant treed/timbered areas remaining in
the city as part of a map in the comp plan (same as the zoning map is part of the comp plan, or same as the US
Army Corps flood plain map is a part of the comp plan). Of particular importance are the remaining few stands
of native trees in our uplands. The Tree Board has heard over the past year that a canopy map is or soon will be
available through METRO and PSU work, but its presentation has been repeatedly delayed. It is a very
important tool in managing Tigard's urban forest. The prior comp plan made reference to and the associated i
factual background material included a map of timbered areas. Those significant treed/timbered areas (eg ash,
valley ponderosa, white oak) should be more stringently zoned, and some measures developed for special
protection of significant trees or groves. Other adjacent cities utilize this information to define `resource zones'
with different tree protection requirements. Details can be left to the code writing effort to follow. The staff I
background information discusses in very general terms the importance of maintaining tree canopy - more
specific local information is available: In City of Portland (little loss in tree canopy over last 40 years), the
average summer temperature has increased 2.18 degrees F (73-82 versus 97-06 decades). In Portland's western
suburbs (eg Tigard), the average summer temperature has increased 3.48 degrees F. Thus, we locally have seen
a 60 percent higher temperature increase than our more urban neighbors to the northeast - tree canopy loss is
acknowledged as a major factor in summer temperature increases. (NOAA - Portland data).
B Policy 2.2.2 addresses coordination of tree management among the departments of the City of Tigard which j
issue permits and take direct action themselves; it (and its associated material in the background statement) falls
far short of recognizing either the problems or the needed policy to improve the present situation. Depending j
on the scale of development, requirements for utility and other infrastructure improvements may be limited (i.e.,
electrical, plumbing, mechanical trades). For some of these situations, a site plan or tree plan is NOT required.
Applications do not include information if trees or tree roots will be affected. Further, these simpler permits are
typically not reviewed by planners to determine whether any tree preservation requirements apply to the site.
For more extensive applications and permits, the location of utility easements and excavations again are not I
typically not shown (eg for phone, gas, cable and electric trenching on individual lots) or compared to tree
preservation requirements, and this deficiency continues for details of site preparation work in the field. The
private utility companies and contractors are typically not aware of the tree protection requirements and may I
trench through a root zone, adding further stress to trees that were intended to be saved. Finally, when lots have
been platted and utility infrastructure installed, the building permit presents another hazard to trees - the
applicant (different than developer) may omit a `save' tree from the plan or mislocate a tree on the plan. The i
root zone may be shown incorrectly if at all, or be given no buffer against a foundation wall or other structure.
At the comp plan policy level, these kinds of tree protection measures need more than a simple `coordinate'
order. These issues call for a policy that mandates 1) a tree specialist in the city to review drawings for the
lesser developments and for the later stages of site development in a subdivision, 2) collaboration meetings
regarding tree protection on major or complex projects, 3) require a composite plan sheet showing tree
protection and all work on a site, and 4) combination of public infrastructure and private site work permit
applications.
C The comp plan should provide a legislative basis for broadening the allowed use of tree fines and mitigation
funds to protect and develop our urban forest. This would be a major policy change from present practice, yet
3
l
I
i
staff reply to this comment ( which was initiated by a Tree Board member) was simply to say it was too 4
specific, and `many regulatory choices are available to the City
D Several of the proposed policies, by the omission of corresponding words, conflict with existing comp plan
policies, namely, existing Policy 3.4.2, that calls for PD review in timbered areas, calls for maintenance of trees
and natural vegetation `to the maximum extent possible', and that calls for clustered housing in areas having
important wildlife habitat. The protections included in our comp plan which was written 25 years ago should be j
continued for the current update - the need is more severe with fewer treed sites existing in the city. Proposed f
findings for these weaker provisions are not based on facts in the record.
E There exists in the proposed comp plan policies and action measures no legislative basis for City of Tigard to
require, in appropriate cases, "alternative analyses", necessary to allow a staff or hearing officer decision
finding that a particular arrangement results in `minimizing' tree removal. Without at least one alternative to be
shown by applicant, the city is left to devise an alternative itself or `take it or leave it'.
F Tigard has seen significant tree removal over the last decade by the developer practice of thinning trees,
removing all trees, waiting a year or so, then applying to build on a bare piece of ground, with no need to
mitigate trees. This has been a major source of citizen outrage, perhaps a major factor in Bull Mountain
residents resisting annexation, and of course a cause of reduction in our urban forest. This practice should be
addressed specifically in the comp plan. When raised in discussion so far, the staff response has been that it is
too specific a matter to be addressed here, and that this practice "would be prohibited under existing draft
policies, if not specifically mentioned." My view is simply that if it is not mentioned, it is not prohibited.
I
G Our comp plan is a formal statement of the existing conditions and policies going forward. As a statement of i
city actions, the background material should include specific information on enforcement efforts in recent years,
financial aspects of tree protection in Tigard (fines, mitigation fees, account balances, etc.) and mitigation sites
currently growing new trees. Such information is key to later comparisons of ongoing city efforts in tree
protection.
The above comments, A through G, are all in the record of the Tree Board and its deliberations over the past
year. Please consider each of them as if read individually to you in your workshop.
Sincerely,
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223 503-245-5760 jfrewing@teleport.com
4
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
May 6, 2008
To: Tigard City Council
Fr: Alan DeHarpport on behalf of Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBA)
Re: Worksession regarding Tigard's Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Councilors,
There are several key issues with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) that I would like to raise. The key issues can be summed up in four
areas: property values, tree mitigation cost, builder/developer engagement, and
application of the CPA on the tree code. Property values are decreased under the current
tree code. The high cost of tree mitigation in Tigard is exorbitant. The builder/developer
stakeholders have not been properly engaged in the process since the tree board was
placed in charge of this policy development. While myself and other builders have had a
chance to offer comments to the planning commission, and the tree board it would have
been better to form an advisory group that included diversity that placed builders and
developers on an equal footing as the members of the tree board. HBA believes that
passing the current language included in the CPA before a tree code is in place increases
the potential for punitive aspects of tree mitigation in the existing tree code for the city of
Tigard.
Property Values
There are many variables working together that require attention. We heard from one
Planning Commissioner that perhaps mitigation fees are too low since it doesn't seem to
be stopping tree removal on properties when developments are built. What's important to
consider here is that we are talking about developable land and this conversation is not
about the protection of tree resources associated with water quality, wetland protection or
other sensitive sites. When development occurs on property that is treed and zoned for
development the trees must be removed for a variety of reasons including: requirements
for density overlays from Metro and the City's own engineering manual.
i
It is simply not possible to maintain property values, save the trees, and put in the streets
and houses-particularly when the zoning is for small lots which requires a higher
percentage of the land to be disturbed in all cases. If mitigation fees are raised, it will
only decrease property values further. We also were asked why can't less lots be j
developed and trees saved? Fewer lots could be developed, but again builders have
minimum density requirements that have to met so we are limited on this option. More
importantly, further restrictions also have an impact on the landowner's value and can
significantly de-value the property owner's land value.
1
I
I
If we go the other direction and reduce the size of the lots, we are limited by home design
available for smaller lot size and therefore a reduction in land value is also the end result.
Also of importance under this pathway is the compatibility of the existing neighborhoods
where you could have and existing neighborhood with a R4.5 zone averaging 7,500 ftZ
lots adjacent to a new development with 3,000-5,000 ft2 lots. Under the Planned
Development (PD) process we know for certain the immediate neighbors would object to
the higher density.
The highest and best use of the land slated for urbanization is not tree preservation. From
RBA's perspective the highest and best use of this developable land is urban
development and the fairest method to achieve tree protection is to offer the landowner
developer some reimbursement for the lost value of the property due to the mitigation
standards. Anything less, approaches a potential conflict with "takings" and could well
move the city closer to legal challenges from citizens, which should not be a desired
outcome.
As an alternative language should be added to the CPA that recognizes the financial
impact of tree mitigation by requiring that devaluation of property zoned for future
development be minimized.
Secondly, tree mitigation costs are extreme, and there are no public lands where trees can
be planted for developers to mitigate upon. The code currently allows developers to
either pay the mitigation fee, or mitigate. However, since there is no land to mitigate on,
the developer is left with the option to find an owner who will allow mitigation trees to
be planted on their property, buy land to mitigate on, or pay the fee. The fee is the most
costly option, but it also usually the only option. Thus, the current mitigation regulations
create a system where a landowner with property zoned for development taxed in order to
meet a combination of on-site planning requirements.
The current tree fund has nearly $2 million collected in the past 8 years, yet the City
spends only $50,000 per year on tree planting. At current rates, it will take 40 years to go
through the $2M currently on hand; however, the fund will continue to grow even larger
unless things are changed. Language should be added to the CPA that acknowledges
current mitigation fees do not reflect the current need, are too high and require the tree
code to reduce the mitigation fees to be more in step with the identified need. Under a
system of SDCs the tree mitigation for Tigard is no different from a municipality
charging SDC well in excess of the project list for transportation or to build a sewer
system with pipes that are gold plated.
Public Process
As we commented in the summary, the development community has not been fully
engaged in this "public" process. The only reason the builder/developer community was
engaged at all is due to a phone call between Tigard City staff and Jay Harris at Harris-
McMonagle Engineering approximately one year ago.
2
I
Tigard staff mentioned to Mr. Hams that the Tree Board had been working on the comp
plan amendment for over a year at that time. Apparently there was one builder who was
an alternate on the tree board, but that individual stopped attending the meeting. No one
from the City or the Tree Board attempted to contact the HBA or any other member of
the development community about the City's plan to amend the comprehensive plan. As
a result, the proposed language is coming from the very stakeholder group responsible for
implementing the tree code. It should not come as a surprise to the City Council that
there is a general feeling amongst the developer/builder community that we are not
supporting elements of this proposed language.
This perception is supported by the comp plan amendment itself on a wide variety of
levels. For example, nowhere in the proposed Comp Plan Amendment is it stated that
there is a general perception from the developer/builder community that the current
ordinance creates financial hardship for those properties that have trees upon them and
are zoned for development. Nowhere in the document does it state that the ever-growing
$2M mitigation fund may possibly be over funded based on annual outlay of $50,000 per..
year, and as such, perhaps a re-evaluation of the tree mitigation fees should be
considered. Nowhere in the document does it recognize that the right to develop private
property should even be considered.
Most importantly, the document does not recognize the City's own engineering and
building codes conflict with many aspects of tree retention, such as the most basic
requirements that streets be built, utilities installed, and building pads be cleared for
structures. The document does not recognize that over time, residential development has
added to the tree canopy as landscapes naturally mature. From a planning perspective the
document does not acknowledge Metro has determined that infill development on smaller
lots is more desirable than expanding the urban growth boundary, and that these smaller
lots require a larger percentage of any site to be cleared for construction.
From a public policy process I have seen better processes. There is a level of culpability j
from builders and developers not participating throughout this entire process, but quite
honestly by running this process through the tree board we collectively never felt our
comments were much more than window dressing. To effectively construct this work a
group representing a wider range should have been established and this clearly should j
have including representatives from the builder/developer community. We can't change
the clock back at this time, but we can offer some final thoughts on the language in front
of you this evening.
Proposed language
You might be surprised that builders are generally fine with the majority of the work
contained in this document. There in fact are only seven remaining issues to comment on.
We appreciate the planning commission's willingness to move on some of these items
and offering the following comments for the remaining work.
I
i
3
j
Public Attitudes
We encourage you to take time to review the details of the community attitudes survey.
Of particular note, the survey page 29 of the question: "I would support regulations
protecting existing trees" 6% strongly disagree, 9% somewhat disagree, 30% somewhat
agree, and 54% strongly agree. 2% were undecided.
Page 2-11 - The proposed CPA, the long-range planning staff indicated "that 84% of
Tigard Residents supported regulations to protect existing trees." First, this survey only
asked 400 random persons not all "Tigard Residents." Secondly, "regulations protecting
trees" was not defined. A more accurate question would be '7 would support regulations
that devalue private property while protecting trees. " This question is not addressed at
all in the study and is of paramount importance to the builder/developer community's
concerns. We recommend that this question be posed to the same 400 persons who took
the first survey before any decision is made about this proposed CPA. Regulation is
supported, but at what cost to the underlying property owner? We feel that a comparable
survey putting the financial impacts to property owners would yield significantly
different responses.
Page 2-12 - The proposed CPA staff states that "there is general feeling among residents,
developers, and other stakeholders that the existing regulatory structure is not adequate
and hinders both the strategic protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the
City." Based on internal conversations with developers, builders, arborists, planners and
engineers, there is no one who feels that that "existing regulatory structure is not
adequate." In fact, every builder/developer that has raised concerns consider the current
tree code onerous and more than "adequate" in every way. We recommend that a
statement indicating that language include:
`A significant number of builders/developers have voiced strong opposition to the
current tree code stating that it is punitive, devalues private property, and has
created a mitigation fund that is disproportionate to the actual value of the loss of
trees. "
Page 2-12 and the top of 2-13 - The proposed CPA, it states "As a result, the existing
regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of trees across the city,
which may be removed by the property owner without City consultation or permit." This
implies that the upcoming code revisions should provide regulation for tree cutting on
residential landscaping. We recommend that an additional sentence be added stating:
"The City will continue to recognize that individuals have the right to cut trees on
their property without a permit when there is no intent on behalf of the property
owner to develop their property. "
4
Page 2-13 - The key findings do not address any of the concerns raised by the
builder/developer community during the "public" process. An additional bullet should be
added stating:
"The builder/developer community has expressed concern regarding the cost
of mitigation and the devaluation of property values due to the high cost of
mitigation. "
Goal 2.2 - Does not acknowledge that development is affected by tree regulation. We
recommend the goal be changed to:
"To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological and social benefits of both trees and infrastructure
development within the City. "
Goal 2.3 - Does not acknowledge that land development is affected by tree regulation.
We recommend that the Goal be changed to:
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed
urban development that balances the loss of existing trees with infrastructure
development to create a living legacy for future generations. "
Goal 2.3.5 - the language "The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape
requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces
through the use of trees and other vegetation." One of the builder/developer
community's main concerns was that City-required improvements such as street right of
way and building pads are currently required to be mitigated. There is no way to develop
a site without these required improvements. Thus, HBA recommends that this policy be
changed to:
"The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to
reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of development through the use of
trees and other vegetation. City requirements for development of right of ways
and building pads shall be exempt from mitigation "
It is RBA's concern that the proposed CPA will result in a revised tree code that does not
acknowledge development rights, ignores the financial repercussions of tree mitigation,
and will increase the severity of tree mitigation to Tigard property owners of
development, treed land. j
I have spoken with a wide range of people who depend on residential development as i
part of their livelihood including bankers, lawyers, insurance agents, title insurance and
escrow companies, realtors, contractors small and large including home builders, utility
contractors, paving contractors, building materials suppliers, lumber brokers, excavators,
cement workers, framers, mechanical contractors, electricians, plumbers, siding installers,
roofers, drywall installers, painters, finish carpenters, cabinet makers, tile setters, window
manufacturers, fence builders, nursery owners, arborists, and landscapers.
i
It is RBA's sincere belief that people, jobs, and economic growth can be balanced with
tree retention, planting, and an appropriate level of mitigation. We are hoping that you
f
5 fE
i
will consider our thoughts and ultimately modify the proposed language to reflect a more
balanced approach to the proposed CPA.
Regards,
Alan DeHarpport
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
Member, Government Affairs and Legal Action Committee
6
1 e-r.- t z-- ,
Since 19
19200 S.W. 46th. Ave.
Tualatin, Oregon 97062-8770
Phone: ( 503 ) 692-3390
Fax: ( 503 ) 692-5433
May 6, 2008
Tigard City Counsel
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Tigard's Urban Forest Background Statement and Goals,
Policies, and Action Measures
I am sorry, I cannot support the Plan amendment for Tigard's Urban Forest. It is 95% there, but in it's
current for is still unacceptable.
The Land Owners, Development Community and HBA has made it clear that the property owner's rights
need to be protected as well as the trees. We have consistently asked that one of the primary goals be, to
preserve the right of the private property owner to develop their property to the current Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning. Thus far, our expectations have fallen on deaf ears and I feel the current plan is a thinly
veiled attempt to stop development. A clear and explicit goal needs to be added to preserve these rights. I
would direct you to reject this plan until this goal is incorporated.
I: Restricting a private landowners development because of trees, creates a separate class of people
that are penalized for the mere fact they have trees on their property. I believe this is unconstitutional and
at the very least reprehensible.
2: A great deal of expertise, time and money has been spent to develop the current zoning and limit
urban sprawl. The current thought seems bent on throwing this work out and adding to Urban.Sprawl.
Every building, parking spot, home or apartment unit that is not developed to plan, is another unit that
needs to be built on farm land at the edge of the UGB, and results in a greater distance people have to
commute. The demand for growth does not stop. This plan in its current form is contrary to the logical
plan of the UGB and of both energy and natural resource consumption. The more we spread out, the more
farming land, forest, watershed and wildlife are impacted.
3: Reducing development also reduces Tigard's Tax Base and increases the cost per capita cost for all
city services.
I suggest including as one of the primary goals under Goal 2.2.12
The City shall require mandatory developing of urban property to its reasonable maximum
potential.
Additionally, the following are the exact instances that will make land development impractical.
GOAL 2.3: Policies
8. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that prioritize the
retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves instead of isolated specimens.
"In cohesive and viable stands and groves' 'has the potential to stop any development with
more than one tree standing on it.
I would like to give you an example:
Your 75-year-old mother has 2/3 of an acre and an old house that can be developed
into 3 lots, she could sell it for $300,000 to $400,000, which she could use to pay for her
living at a nice retirement apartment. However, a grove of trees would ender it
undevelopable, and she would have just one lot and an old house with little value. Don't you
think she deserves compensation for her property? I do.
If your going to take people's property for the benefit of the public, then the public should
reimburse the owner just as in a case of Condemnation for Public Improvement.
Policy 8 has the ability to render ANY property with any trees undevelopable or at the very
least developed at a sub standard which would:
A: Cause monetary injury to the Land Owner by instantly reducing the lands value.
B: In the case of "Density Shifting" create an undesirably high-density development in
what would have been a compatible density area, which could be reforested in a safe and
prudent manor. We are already experiencing this with the normal density. Neighbors will
really go berserk if we put 4,500 Sq Ft lots in 6,000 to 7,500 Sq Ft areas.
Hazardous Tree Definition as proposed by Staff:
Hazardous Tree - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound,
suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree
that it is clear the tree is likely to and injure persons or property and where pruning or other
treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard
This definition was written for use around existing structures.
I believe the words "imminent damage or injury to either existing or planned improvements"
are key requirements in order to avoid a future debate.
Specifically, a tree falling on a vacant lot would not necessarily meet that definition of a
hazard, while the same tree after development would surly be a hazard, therefore, it should be
deemed a Hazard Tree. Your proposed Hazard Tree definition could potentially mandate
that all trees are not hazardous, as they do not pose any immediate risk of damage of injury. I
suggest a revision is in order.
As a Builder, we do not want to save a tree that has the potential to fall and injure people or
property
Hazardous Tree (Revised) - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally
unsound, suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or
impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is imminently likely to fail and injure persons
or property either existing or planned improvements and where pruning or other
commoner accepted arboricultural practices treaterrts -will not significantly alleviate
the hazard.
Commo& accepted arboricultural 12racdces was under the suggestion of a local Arborist.
Thank you.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Construction Co. Inc.
014% LAND USE PLANNING
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant, site appropriate, and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries, landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii. Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous varieties, and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects, such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City, promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, and shall consider
the financial impact of mitigation.
2-16 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review
7. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses,
other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian
areas, tree groves, specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
RECOMMENDED AC'rION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that exceeds the requirements of the Development Code.
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
Comprehensive Plan Cihr of Tigard 2-17
04%
LAND USE PLANNING
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands, and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys, workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
2-18 City of Tigard I Comprehensive plan
ATTACHMENT 8
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
FROM: John Floyd, Associate Planner
RE: Recommended Language Changes and Draft Definitions related
to Council Hearing on June 3, 2008 regarding CPA 2007-00002
DATE: May 19, 2008
At the June 3, 2008 City Council meeting, a public hearing will be held for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)2008-00002. The amendment creates goals,
policies, and recommended action measures for Tigard's Urban Forest (Statewide
Planning Goal 2). City Council reviewed the proposed language at a May 6, 2008
meeting and had a few questions and comments on the amendment language. At
Council's direction, staff developed alternative language to address the questions and
comments for the Council to consider at the public hearing on February 5, 2008. The
proposed changes are outlined below:
The following policies and action measure were amended to address issues of clarity and legibility as
expressed by Council.
Policy 2.2.10
The City shall require, , the anuropriate use of trees and other
vegetation as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
Policy 2.3.2
In prescribing mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give priority to
the protection of existing trees, an sha nsider taking into consideration the
related financial impact of mitigation.
1
Recommended Action Measures 2.3.i
Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to encourage
developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjustments necessary to preserve
trees and natural open space in a manner that emeeeds the -11 . --ftts of the
Development Gade optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Council expressed a desire to see a more pro-active approach to the abatement of hazard tree outride
of the development review process. WIbile staff is confidant that existing Policy 2.3.4 enables a pro-
active abatement policy, the following Recommended Action Measure was added to more specifically
address the concerns voiced by Councilor Buehner.
Recommended Action Measure 2.3.v
Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related hazards
on both public and private property.
In addition to the recommendations above, staff wishes to make Council aware of the
Draft Definitions developed by the Tree Board and Planning Commission. While
not under formal consideration at this time (to be returned as part of the finished
glossary), they may inform your decision making at the June 3, 2008 public hearing.
These definitions are as follows:
Hazardous Tree - A tree or tree part that is likely to fail and cause damage or injury,
and the likelihood exceeds an acceptable level of risk.
Invasive Species - Plants, animals, and microbes not native to a region, which when
introduced either accidentally or intentionally, out-compete native species for
available resources, reproduce prolifically, and dominate regions and ecosystems.
Because they often arrive in new areas unaccompanied by their native predators, they
can be difficult to control. Left unchecked, many have the potential to transform
entire ecosystems, as native species and those that depend on them for food, shelter,
and habitat disappear.
Mitigation - A process, standard, compensatory action, or any other mechanism by
which adverse impacts can be avoided, minimized, restored, or compensated as
appropriate.
2
Urban Forest - Broadly defined as all the trees within the City collectively.
Urban Forest, Diverse - An urban forest that contains a variety and abundance of
differing composition, structure, and function. Diversity in composition means
variation in species, genetics, abundance and age. Diversity in structure means
variation and abundance of vertical and horizontal arrangement, heterogeneity, forest
density, micro-climates, and visual quality. Diversity in function means variation and
abundance of ecological services, stages of succession, and value as green
infrastructure.
3
AGENDA ITEM No. 3 Date: June 3, 2008
TESTIMONY
SIGN-UP SHEETS
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE -
GOAL 3: URBAN FOREST
(SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly
available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which
is a public record.
Due to Time Constraints
City Council May Impose
A Time Limit on Testimony
1:\ADM\Cathy\COUNCIL\CCSignup\Comp Plan at Workshop Testimony060308 Item 3.doc
AGENDA ITEM No. 3 June 3, 2008
PLEASE PRINT
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly
available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which
is a public record.
Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
ALAN 190AP-?Pa2 Doi Lf1
5-74D 50 Agf-OW
Poe--r 14mD1 og glazs
ZAAVC-RTO,v W4-5 POTMD 14
~p~dlo iti5 M/NI,CT~S .
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Add s & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
-3'0 EYAf--' L-
11)10 5y-/ W
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.
l
l
~ l ~
I J
STSTY) 0a
John Floyd From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke@europa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:01 PM
To: John Floyd
Subject: comments on Urban Forest, etc.
Attachments: Comp Plan Land Use and Urban Forest comments 6.3.08.doc; Fw_ Meeting_ Friday at
1 pm.eml
John,
Attached are my comments on the Urban Forest and associated amendments, as well as comments I submitted for our
May 9th meeting; please distribute these to the Mayor and Council members for tonights hearing.
Thank you.
Sue
1
John Floyd
From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke@europa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:03 AM
To: John Floyd
Subject: Fw: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
Here it is.
Original Message
From: Sue Beilke
To: John Floyd ; 'John Frewing'
Cc: Marissa Daniels
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
John,
Here are some of the recommendations/comments/language changes I proposed at the PC workshop for Natural
Resources.
- Use "Protect, conserve and restore" where we now have "protect and restore"
- omit "where appropriate" from the entire document
- keep in "values" but make sure it is defined in the Definitions section, and include some examples
For the Goal; we now only have one goal, I think that is "lame" considering the extent of the diversity of natural
resources we are addressing. Originally we had at least 5 as I recall. I recommend splitting 5.1 into 3 goals.
5.1: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources and the environmental and ecological services they provide.
5.2: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources in order to reach a high level of biodiversity.
5.3 Protect, conserve and restore plants, plant communities and fish and wildlife populations considered rare, or on any
state and federal species lists as a high priority.
- I do not recommend deleting Policy 2.
Somewhere in the PC meeting, the chairwoman, said something to the effect that "low impact development does not
include incorporating natural resources"? 1 need to have that clarified and then that needs to be addressed at the next
meeting, as she is very wrong on that one if that is what she said.
- Policy 3- this needs more work and we really need to define "sustainable" in regard to natural resources. For example, if
you put in several houses near a stream and only have a 50' buffer, this will not overtime "sustain" the wildlife that live
there. That size buffer is too small to "sustain" the birds, mammals and other species that have inhabitated it for
thousands of years.
- I recommend adding several new policies;
- Policy - The City shall create a distinct zone for open space, greenways, etc. in order to protect permanently all natural
resources.
- Policy - The City shall place a high priority on the protection, conservation, and restoration of rare plants and habitats
(e.g., oak prairie) and rare and state and federal fish and wildlife species listed as "Species of Concern, Sensitive,
Threatened, or Endangered (e.g., Northern red-legged frog, native turtles).
- Make sure we define "hydrologic regimes".
- Policy 10: 1 would have several policies covering inventories, etc. 1. The City shall conduct surveys of All natural
resources in order to establish a baseline inventory.
1
2. The City shall periodically maintain and update the Natural Resources inventory through surveys and monitoring
efforts.
3. The City shall utilize the natural resources inventory to assist with setting goals and objectives for restoration
activities.
Then under these 2 Policies I would add these Action Measures: a. Conduct surveys and monitoring of all natural
resources to establish a baseline inventory.
b. Utilize available documents such as the Oregon Conservation Strategy to help guide restoration efforts. c.
Engage citizens and volunteers to assist with surveys and monitoring. d. Identify opportunities for funding and apply for
grants to assist with restoration efforts.
We also need to make sure that "uplands" are addressed, such as in Policy 8.
recommend adopting Metro's Title 13 as John recommended at the workshop, again so that uplands are protected, etc.
- We need to look at the CWS standards that the city has adopted in order to see if they are adequate in protecting our
natural resources, since CWS standards and regs. are set up to only address "water quality". I think it would then be in
order to establish several goals and policies that address buffers, etc. in order to further protection for habitats and fish
and wildlife.
See you at 1 PM.
Sue
Original Message
From: John Floyd
To: 'sbeilke(cDeuropa.com' ; 'John Frewinq'
Cc: Marissa Daniels; Ron Bunch
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:03 PM
Subject: Meeting: Friday at l pm
Hello Sue and John,
Friday at ipm seems to work for all of use. I'll go ahead and reserve a room, just come to the front counter and ask for
me.
If you could, please forward me (and each other if you haven't already) any comments you have ahead of time. If you
don't mind, Marissa Daniels would like to attend the meeting as well.
Thanks,
John
John Floyd
City of Tigard
Associate Planner
Community Development
M x
(503) 718-2429
~ p johnfl@6gard-or.gov
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
i
2
June 3, 2008
Tigard City Council
City of Tigard
RE: Comprehensive Plan 2008-00001; Amendment for Goal 2, Land Use Planning
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Our comments on the proposed changes to Tigard Goal 2, Land Use Planning are as
follows:
• Under the section for Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources, the Findings
state that the proposed amendment is consistent with the statewide goal and that the
proposed changes direct the city to protect natural resources, etc. It goes on to state
that the policy direction is an "enhancement to Goal 5 protections already in place".
We argue here that the propsed Goal 2.1 and associated policy for natural resources
under Land Use are actually weaker and less stringent than what is currently in the
Comprehensive Plan (CP), and that there will be less protections for natural resources
under the revised goals and policies. For example, under the current CP, Policy 3.4.1,
it states that the city SHALL designate significant wetlands, as well as areas valued
for their "fragile character as habitats for plants, animal.....". In addition, 3.4.2,
states that the city SHALL "require that development proposals in designated
timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to
minimize the number of trees remove....". This language in the current CP is
stronger than what is proposed, in part because it says the city shall protect fragile
areas (I would call these "sensitive habitats") as well as identifying timbered areas.
This language is not in the proposed amended goals or policies for the Natural
Resources section of the CP currently being revised and not yet adopted. There is no
language currently being suggested, except by citizens such as myself, to have a
policy in the new CP that specifically would designate and protect "fragile habitats".
In addition, there is no language in the current proposed revisions for Natural
Resources that designate "timbered or tree areas".
The proposed Policy 22, under Goal 2.1 of the Land Use section, simply states that
the city "shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program'. If the city is actually going to do that, then it must concurrently have, in
the Natural Resources section of the revised CP, goals and policies that reflect and
carry out Policy 22 above. We also highly recommend that the Land Use section of
the revised CP add additional policies that more clearly define how and when Policy
22 will be carried out.
• For the Metro Urban Growth Management Function Plan Title 13: Nature in
Neighborhoods, the Findings state that the approach undertaken by the Tualatin Basin
(TB) jurisdictions was used to develop a program to meet Goal 5 requirements. This
is in part true but not entirely. Title 13 requires that streams, rivers, and floodplains
be protected in a manner that is "integrated with upland wildlife habitat...". The TB
approach in actuality eliminated protections for upland habitats in Tigard and much of
Washington County, contrary to what Title 13 requires and contrary to the wishes of
the citizens of Tigard. Tigard has failed to meet Title 13 in both its current CP as
well as in the proposed, revised language. Current, proposed revised language has
only one mention of uplands and no clear language or inventory relating to where
those upland are located in the city, what types of uplands exist (e.g., mixed conifer
forest), total acreage, etc. Until a complete inventory is finished, which it is not, it is
not possible to meet Goal 5 requirements.
• We also recommend additional goals and policies be added to the Natural Resources
section of the CP that address fish and wildlife, rare or listed species, etc., and their
protection, conservation and restoration. We have made many pages of
recommendations to the staff and Planning Commission and will not repeat them here
but refer you to the written comments submitted previously as well as comments
submitted at the Planning Commission workshop and hearing on natural resources, as
well as the attachment. If such goals and policies are added, we then believe Tigard
can truly say it is "committed to protecting natural resources".
• Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-00002; Urban Forest - Our
comments are as follows:
We recommend language be changed so that that the city of Tigard regulates the
"removal of trees", not only on environmentally sensitive lands and lands subject to
natural hazards, but on ALL lands within the city, as other urban cities do. This would
require all property owners to obtain a permit for tree removal from the city for example,
with a required fee.
We oppose language such as "when possible and appropriate". The city must prohibit
the use and/or retention of invasive trees and other plants because of the potential to
cause great harm to our local native flora and fauna. We request the Planning
Commission drop the "when possible and appropriate" from this policy.
We believe the proposed Urban Forest section of the revised CP fails to address several
key items as they concern and are related to the recently adopted goals, policies, and
action measures for the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces section of the Comprehensive
Plan. In particular, the proposed Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(UFCPA) fails to address the following:
We saw no language in the proposed Amendment addresses important natural resource
areas (local forests) that are unprotected and deserving of acquisition in the proposed
language. We had submitted comments to the tree board in the past recommending that
areas of high priority for protection (e.g., oak forests) be given a "special status" under
the new goals, etc. in order to protect these rare and diminishing habitats. For example,
since the oak prairie habitat is now reduced to less than 1% in the entire Willamette
Valley and Tigard has unprotected oak prairie habitat, this should have been addressed
specifically in this proposed UFCPA. In addition, rare habitats are protected under
Statewide Goal 5, and since the UFCPA fails to address important natural resources, it
should not be adopted until it adequately meets all related goals, etc.
We saw no language in the proposed UFCPA that addresses specifically the upland
forests and the acreage remaining in Tigard, and that much of what is left is unprotected.
We ask here for new, additional language that will specifically protect all remaining
upland forests in Tigard, through stronger language that prohibits development on all
remaining upland forests in order to meet Goal 5 requirements for protection of natural
resources within the city limits. These upland forests are vital for protecting our water
quality, our wildlife habitat, our air quality, and our livability. We cannot afford to lose
any more upland forest habitat here in Tigard.
We saw no policies or action measure that specifically address urban forest in Tigard that
may harbor rare species, such as the northern red-legged frog, and what actions may be
taken to help protect them and their habitats. In the current CP, we believe these habitat
are referred to as "fragile habitats". This must be done in order to address the needs of
natural resources under this proposed amendment and how it relates to the Parks,
Recreation and Open Spaces and Natural Resource sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
All of these areas are related and must address natural resources in detail and with
sufficient action measures that they sufficiently protect natural resources in Tigard. For
example, forests in Tigard that contain habitat for red-legged frogs and that is
unprotected, should have action measure(s) that ensure some amount of protection for the
long term viability of this species, since it is rare, state listed, and declining in much of its
range. There are other species that also need to be address in this UFCPA for urban
forests, and until they are, we recommended that the UFCPA as it is written NOT be
adopted.
In conclusion, I do not believe the proposed changes to the Land Use section of the
Comprehensive Plan, are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, I ask
that the City Council NOT adopt the proposed changes but rather DENY them, and
continue to work with citizens to strengthen this document until it meets both Goal 2 and
Goal 5 requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sue Beilke
Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
June 3, 2008
To: Tigard City Council
Fr: Alan DeHarpport on behalf of Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBA)
Re: Proposed Tigard's Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Councilors,
At the April 21 Planning Commission public hearing 10 individuals testified in opposition to the .
proposed Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment. After much deliberation, the Planning
Commission made several key changes to the language that added more balance to the
comprehensive plan amendment. I have attached pages 3, 4 and 5 of the minutes from that
hearing for your perusal prior to a vote this evening.
In addition, there are still several key concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
that have not been addressed. They have been broken down into seven items. We urge you to
consider these suggestions prior to a vote.
1. Page 2-11 - The proposed CPA, the long-range planning staff indicated "that 84% of Tigard
Residents supported regulations to protect existing trees." First, this survey only asked 400
random persons not all "Tigard Residents." Secondly, "regulations protecting trees" was not
defined. A more accurate question would be "I would support regulations that devalue private
property while protecting trees. " This question is not addressed at all in the study and is of
paramount importance to the builder/developer community's concerns. We recommend that this
question be posed to the same 400 persons who took the first survey before any decision is made
about this proposed CPA. Regulation is supported, but at what cost to the underlying property
owner? We feel that a comparable survey putting the financial impacts to property owners would
yield significantly different responses.
II. Page 2-12 - The proposed CPA staff states that "there is general feeling among residents,
developers, and other stakeholders that the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and
hinders both the strategic protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City." Based on
internal conversations with developers, builders, arborists, planners and engineers, there is no one
who feels that that "existing regulatory structure is not adequate." In fact, every
builder/developer that has raised concerns considers the current tree code onerous and more than
"adequate" in every way. We recommend that a statement indicating that "a significant number
of builders/developers have voiced strong opposition to the current tree code stating that it is
punitive, devalues private property, and has created a mitigation fund that is disproportionate to
the actual value of the loss of trees. "
III. Page 2-12 and the top of 2-13 - The proposed CPA, it states "As a result, the existing
regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of trees across the city, which may
be removed by the property owner without City consultation or permit." This implies that the
upcoming code revisions should provide regulation for tree cutting on residential landscaping.
We recommend that an additional sentence be added stating "The City will continue to recognize
that individuals have the right to cut trees on their property without a permit when there is no
intent on behalf of the property owner to develop their property. "
IV. Page 2-13 - The key findings do not address any of the concerns raised by the
builder/developer community during the "public" process. An additional bullet should be added
stating:
■ The builder/developer community has expressed concern regarding the cost of
mitigation and the devaluation of property values due to the high cost of
mitigation.
V. Goal 2.2 - Does not acknowledge that development is affected by tree regulation. We
recommend the goal be changed to:
"To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic,
ecological and social benefits of both trees and infrastructure development within the
City.
VI. Goal 2.3 - Does not acknowledge that land development is affected by tree regulation. We
recommend that the Goal be changed to:
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that balances the loss of existing trees with infrastructure development to
create a living legacy for future generations. "
VII. Goal 2.3.5 - the language "The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape
requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces through
the use of trees and other vegetation." One of the builder/developer community's main concerns
was that City-required improvements such as street right of way and building pads are currently
required to be mitigated. There is no way to develop a site without these required improvements.
Thus, HBA recommends that this policy be changed to:
"The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce
the aesthetic and environmental impacts of development through the use of trees and
other vegetation. City requirements for development of right of ways and building pads
shall be exempt from mitigation "
We fully acknowledge and understand that consideration of these changes will require a
continuance of this agenda item. It is our concern that if a continuance is not granted, the
proposed CPA will result in a revised tree code that does not acknowledge development rights,
that minimizes the financial repercussions of tree mitigation, and will increase the severity of tree
regulations to Tigard property owners of development, treed land. As we discussed at the work
session on May 5, it is unfortunate that we have come to this point in the process without having
these issues resolved. It is partially the fault of the builder/developers who were recruited by
Councilor Buehner who refused to participate. But there is also a certain amount of culpability
on behalf of City staff and the tree board who chose not to engage the HBA or a
builder/developer living outside the City limits. We urge you to review these seven items prior to
a vote.
Thank you for your time.
./i~~ ~C J1~ d✓~
Alan DeHarpport
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman,
Muldoon, Verm lyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Anderson
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI [Committee for Citizen
Involvement] meeting earlier in the month and that the City now has four neighborhoods up
and running with their "neighborhood website." He said the City webpage has details on these
neighborhood websites and that more are to come. He encouraged people to check out the
website to see if their neighborhood has a webpage.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve
the April 7, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Muldoon, Vermilyea
EXCUSED: Anderson
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002 j
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 1
L"Pl-NO-nVIC1 Mlnules 2008W41.08 Planning Commlcsion Mlnutes.doc
1
I
I
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can
be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
President Inman opened the public hearing, explained that this meeting was a continuation
from the last hearing, and went on to explain the process. She noted that public testimony
would be reopened and that there is a 3-minute limit for individuals and a 20-minute limit for
people speaking on behalf of a group.
John Floyd, Assistant Planner, gave his report on behalf of the City. He went over changes that
had been made by staff since the April 7 meeting. He noted that there were basically four
changes and that his PowerPoint presentation would cover those changes.
i
Following are the changes (in brieo:
I
1. Eight (8) policies and recommended action measures were amended, rewritten, or
recreated as a result of direction from the Planning Commission at the last meeting;
2. Two definitions were changed - one is new, one is substantially rewritten;
3. Staff wanted greater clarification as to Planning Commission's preference in policy 2.2.9
(which he would explain in more detail later in his presentation); and j
4. Two pieces of public comment had been received by staff since the last hearing j
[Attachments 1 & 2] for the Planning Commission's consideration. I
i
Floyd explained these changes in detail in his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3).
After Floyd's report, President Inman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of
staff regarding this. There were none.
At this point, President Inman opened up the meeting for public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
I
Janet Gillis, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223 (Chair of the Tree Board) said the
Tree Board had met again since the last Planning Commission meeting and went over the
issues that they considered particularly important [Listed in attachment 2].
i
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in support of the policies
and action items - specifically, recommended action measure 2.2.v (page 5 of Floyd's memo I
of 4/14) where the word "removals" is replaced by the words "permitted removals." He also
PL.'1NNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apd] 21, 2008 -Page 2
INAP1,140-MPOPC Mlnutea 200SU-21.03 Planning CammlWon Minmes.dw
I
spoke about the definition of "understory" - that it should say "immediately under, or
immediately adjacent to, trees or canopies."
Kandace Horlings, 14525 SW Chesterfield Ln., Tigard, OR 97224, identified herself as a
Tree Board member. She said that committees can never make everyone happy. She said she
works as a landscaper and she spoke about rules. She said, even as a landscaper, she has to
get permits at times. She does not believe the Tree Board is working against developers. She
commented that what is in place now is not going to work 30 or 40 years from now. She
noted that this is a broad document, by design. She would like to see the HBA (Home
Builders Association) members and interested public citizens sit down with the Tree Board.
She reiterated that this is a starting point and the Tree Board is willing to listen.
Tony Tycer, 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke about understory vegetation.
He said his concern is more aimed towards the soil, as he believes that is more relevant. He
commented that these policies are deliberately very broad.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan Deharpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, Beaverton, OR 97225, was concerned
about the wording.. He wants to add to the following language as a recommendation on
2.3.4: "...while minimizing the financial impact to the property owner." He said there are
hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree mitigation fees that the underlying property owner
typically pays. He said that's a straightforward addition to the language that would allow the
writers of the code to come up with a mitigation standard that would not be onerous to the
! underlying property owner. In addition, he was concerned that the definition of mitigation
came within a week's notice of the vote - he thought that was too fast for everyone affected
by this to make a judgment. He requested another continuance to take into account.the
many people who would be affected by these policies. He expressed concern about
mitigation fees. He noted his concern that citizens were not notified. He also noted that the
wording "proportional to the loss" is nebulous. He wondered what proportional means...
does it mean tree for tree? Inch for inch?" He expressed concern about the wording of the j
document. He said the code writers should have leeway.
i
i
Bill McMonagle, 8740 SW Seoflins St., Tigard, OR 97223, gave a scenario where a i
property was devalued simply because it had trees on it. He believes that's wrong. He said I
trees are going to be the dictator of the functional use of land. He was concerned about the
understory issue. He believes the City should not be "in their backyard."
Kevin Luby, 16497 SW 103'd, Tigard, OR 97223, said there is a dichotomy between
i
developers and subsequent occupancy. He discussed the developer's side. He agreed with
previous testimony that the mitigation fee schedule is unfair. It doesn't take into account the
realistic life expectancy of trees. As far as "subsequent occupancy"- he said his ability to
decide when the useful life of his own trees is done and when he wants to replace those trees
should be his own decision. He was further concerned about requiring permits.to take down
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apri121, 2008 - Page 3 j
1:1LRPLN%Domn%PCWC Minutes 2008W.21-08 Planning Commission Mlnutas.doc
ii
f
trees, he said the City would have the right to deny that permit and he has a problem with the
City having that kind of control over his property. Among other things, he expressed
concern over the vagueness of the definition "understory vegetation" and was concerned
about the idea of mitigation fees on private property. The question was asked if he had any
suggestions on how to improve on the idea of "understory." He said, "Delete it."
Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, OR 97007, identified himself as an arborist
& forester of 47 years. He spoke specifically to the question of "understory". He
encouraged the City to drop all references to it because it has no "handles" that can be
scientifically supported.
Ken Gerts, 19200 SW 46th Tualatin OR, introduced himself as a long-time Oregonian. The
written form of his comments is Attachment 4.
James McCauley, 15555 Barley Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, of the HBA
(Homebuilders Association) stated that he believes a major error regarding the Tree Board is
that there does not appear to be a broad range of interests represented. He said he believes
policy 2.3.1 is a horrible piece of language from a private landowner's point of view. He
spoke to the issue of "understory" - he agreed that there is no scientific evidence regarding
this. On policy 2.3.4 - he believes "balance" is a better word than "minimize."
Craig Brown, 16074 SW 103d, Tigard, OR 97224 expressed concern over policy 2.2.4. He
said the intent was not clear. In recommended action measure 1.1.1v - he wondered whether
the City will be doing our landscaping now. He does not understand what the provision
implies. 2.3.1 - believes it's overreaching. As to 2.3.1a - he wonders whose standard this is
going to be. What is proportional impact.? It's very subjective and he's concerned how that
will be applied. 2.3.2 with regard to "subsequent occupancy." He's concerned about the City
going into people's yards changing things. He questioned the definition of mitigation. He
questioned the term "understory vegetation". He said if property is zoned residential, it's
residential. If you add penalties and punitive policies, that keeps it from being developed that
way, and you are not providing for reasonable development.
Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, identified himself as a land-
use planner and said he was speaking in support of the changes of the builders. He
encouraged the City to be very careful in adopting policies and to pay attention to the fact
that these policies have a great effect on the citizens. When you adopt policies be very careful f
- it may start to infringe on private property owners rights.
Roger Anderson, 10120 SW Kahle, Tigard, OR 97223, said he'd only heard a week or so
ago that the City was working on this tree thing and that it would affect every citizen in
Tigard who own houses and trees. He was especially concerned about "non-development
trees" and "subsequent occupancy". He suggested the City take these two phrases
completely out of the policy wording. He said he believes this is overkill. He wondered why
the City cares about private homeowners trees. He believes the ordinance is ridiculous. He
thinks it would actually cause people to hate trees since they will have no control over them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -April 21, 2008 - Page 4 j'
IN-RPLMDomeMPOPC Minutes 200"-21-08 Plennin0 Commission Minues doc
I
I
f
And then they'd have to pay for a permit to take trees down on their own property. He
believes if the City wants to control his property, then they should buy it.
Steve Roper, 196 SW Hall Blvd. #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, said the others who had
spoken in opposition had pretty much said what he believes as well. He spoke about
affordable housing. He said adding tree mitigation adds to the price of those homes. He
spoke about the lack of developer input into the Tree Board. He felt the Tree Board wasn't
really interested in his take on things.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
There was a 5-minute break.
DELIBERATION: 9:53PM
President Inman explained that the deliberation time is a time for the Planning
Commissioners to deliberate and that, at this point, they would not be entertaining questions
or comments from the audience. The public testimony time had officially closed.
i
After much deliberation, the Planning Commission came up with the following revisions (not
in order of the text) to be taken into consideration of the motion that follows:
1. Strike all reference to the term "understory vegetation" throughout the
document and remove the definition.
2. 2.3.1- strike reference to "all development and non-development related tree
removal" and substitute the language "The City shall develop and implement
standards and procedures designed to minimize impacts on existing tree
cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long
lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread." f
3. 2.3.1a - "In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City !
shall give priority to preservation of existing trees and shall consider the
financial impacts of mitigation."
4. Changed definition of mitigation. Everything is the same except after the
word compensated - strike everything - and put "as appropriate".
5. 2.3.2 changed to "The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to
protect trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development."
6. 2.3.4 - remove the word "require" and substitute "develop."
7. 2.2.9 - use the word "discourage."
8. 2.2.v - The word "removals" was struck but will be reinstated as "permitted
removals."
9. Definition of a "hazard tree" will be reviewed in the ISA definition and will be
held open until the next meeting for potential amendment at that time. E
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 5 1
I:0-RPLMDOreen%PC1PC Mlnu[ee 200MA-21-00 Planning Commission Minutes.=
{
Commissioner Walsh made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council on application case number CPA2008-00002 for the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan update pertaining to Tigard Urban Forest and adoption of the
revisions that the group just reviewed [above]. and approval of the staff report and
public testimony presented and received. I further move that the definition of
"hazardous tree" be revised based upon ISA definition and that that issue be left
open for future review and approval by the Planning Commission."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Anderson
6. OTHER BUSINESS -
President Inman reminded the commissioners that this issue would go to City Council for a
May 6 workshop and a June 3 hearing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:48p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Administrative pecialist II
ATTEST: President)odie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Aprd 21, 2008 - Page 6
I:LLRPLN\D0roen1PC1PC Minutes 2008\4•21-08 Plenllln0 Cowtulon Mlnules.ooc
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 08- c id
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2008-00002
TO ADD GOALS, POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES PERTAINING
TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2: TIGARD'S URBAN FOREST. As A mEiV D E7D
WHERE-AS, the. Tigard City Council directed staff to complete a full update of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan, including a process for garnering citizen input; and
WHEREAS,. the Tigard visioning reports, community surveys, Tigard Tree Board. meetings, and policy
interest team meetings were utilized to develop draft language for die update of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has proposed an amendanent to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Chapter by
updating Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action. Measures corresponding to Statewide Planning
Goal 2; and
WHEREAS, die Tigard Planning Commission held. a public meeting on April 21, 2008, and
recommended approval of the proposed CPA2008-00002 by motion and with unanunous vote; and
WHEREAS, on May G, 2008, dle Tigard City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Commission's recommendation on CPA2008-00002, hear public testimony, and apply applicable
decision-makin&criteria; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted CPA2008-00002 by motion, as
amended pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations; and
WHEREAS, Council's decision to adopt CPA2008-00002 is based on the findings and conclusions
found in the City of Tigard staff report dated April 7, 2008 and the associated record, which are
incorporated herein by reference and are contained in land-use file CPA2008-00002.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Comprehensive Plan is amended to include new text and to rescind existing
teat as shown in "EXHIBIT A"; and
SECTION 2: 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 uncc►`1,n` Lnks Vol of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this j: ~ day of t -r , 2008.
ORDINANCE No. 08-
Page 1
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 3 4ol7tA-A-%-~ , 2008. Approved as to form:
City Attorne
CA
ORDINANCE No. 08-
Page 2
LAND USE PLANNING EXHIIi IT A
04% T
Section 2: -Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland, Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of natitie forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings;. roads and other elements of the urban environment. 'rhe
protection, management, and enhancement of dus resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place, but for the social, ecolog-
ical, and economic services it provides to the corn unity.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the duality of Tigard's
aesthetic, economic, and natural environments. plants proiridc variation in, color,
texture, line and form that softens the hard geometry of die built cm ironmcnr:
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from die sun and wind, providing habitat for birds and wildlife, enhancing
community attractiveness and investment, improving water quality and soil
stability, and promoting human health and well-being
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant: disrup-
Lion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in die 19th century, and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy, reed canary grass, and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive. However, remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities, acid functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries, and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest, Tigard possesses a large number of
2-10 City of ligard Comprehcnsivc !'tan
.t
LAND USE PLANNING
mature and outstanding specimens of nature and non=native trees planted when
the area ,,,-as rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's, many of which sun-ive to this day.
Commuuuty attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value.. on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources: Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat, a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found "the protection of trees and natural resource areas" as rating
the highest of all "livability" characteristics posed to the respondentsi scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability- index than neighborhood traffic (83), maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8), pedestrian and bike paths (7.7), and compatibility between
existing and new development (7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that.84 of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees, with only 6° o strongly disagreeing and 9'.16 somewhat
disagreeing. In addition, 90040 of Tigard residents thought the Citti should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain, or have begun significant updates to, their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City, USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water SerVices,.the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality, reduce
erosion, and provide shade, structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplams and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years •'_001-2011). Through volunteer projects, cooperative efforts with
non-profits, contract services, and the labor of Public Works crews, thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects, the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public land's, distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Street Tree Program, and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
Comprehensive Plan CiLy of Tigard 2-11
LAND USE PLALNNING
Native species arc given preference and are regularly planted along trails, riparian
areas, and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees, particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and nest to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older, the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year xvill continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the. maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
T igard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City-has csperienced a significant loss of tree
canopy, and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat, erosion control,
slope stability, water quality, air-quality, and'community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use,regulations, failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditionns resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983, turther challenguhg the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally, the City does not
currently have a comprehensiere' tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents, developers, and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property; particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slope,S wetlands, and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed, and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands, riparian corridors, and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program. These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas, and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending, or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for htture protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city, which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally, because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard 1 Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system, protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest, a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
Cit}:
■ This urban forest provides social, economic, and ecological services that
create public and pri,%^atc value to residents, businesses, and visitors.
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting, tree tn:uni
tenance, and outreach activities. Additionally, new development is required .
to install street trees, landscape trees, and trees for nvtigauon.purposes.
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through, the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughou* t.the code; applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner, and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of Bevel-
oprient permit rc-,ticw. Furthermore, landowners arc not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their,property.
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees witlvn the community, that they are concerne&about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources, and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
GOAL:
2? To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations
and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss oC and
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-13
04% LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
em7ronmental, aesthetic and economic benefits:
2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating
to landscaping, site development, mitigation, and tree management
shall be consistent with, and supportive of., one another; administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The Cih shall continue to regulate the removal of trees, Urithin environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
=1. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees, unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects: Trees should be planted -%rithin planter strips, or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prolvbit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in.parks, within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve die aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees,
parking lot trees, and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of mi vasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall rc9aire the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11. The City sliall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
n
LAND USE PLANNING a1
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations, standards, programs, and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection-and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion.required by development approval, with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related' tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees, street trees, and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree, parking lot and landscape area
pantings that have failed to thrive, arid determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified, and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere.in order to satisfy- conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings, permitted removals,
and the state of 'the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials sand programs regarding
City policies, regulations, and good arboricultural practices for the
general public; developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance, and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar evith the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Man I City of Tigard 2-15
a
LAND USE PLANNING
and the installation. of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant, site appropriate, and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries, landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii. Utilize approved. tree and planclists that emphasize long lived
evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous varieties, and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable foe local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
IX. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projectsi such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list.of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propaga-
don of these plant, materials within the City; promote their removal,'
and prevent their reestablishment or.expansiom
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, With priority
given to native trees. and non-native variepals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, taking into consid-
eration the related financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
2-16 City of Tigard 1 Comprehensive PLin
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and emrironmental impacts of impervious.
surfaces through the use of trees and other.vegetation.
6. The City shall, in order to preserv.re existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
7. The City shall require all development, including City projects,. to prepare.
and implement a, tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the. chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. 'File City shall continue to. cooperate with property owners, businesses,
other jurisdictions, agencies; utilities, and non-governmcilu l entities to
manage and preserve street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian
areas, tree grog*es, specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation stratevies that
11
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves,
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree. management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-17
04% LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
in.assessing teesor compelling compensatory action resulting from
etiolation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands, and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential:
iii.. Conduct surveys, workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies
to-idendfy and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jtuisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a .tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v: Develop standards and procedures to identih- and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private propert%C_
2-18 City- of Tigard Comprehensive Phin
To: Liz Newton/'
From: Cathy Wheatley
Date: June 6, 2008
Summary
Council compensation discussion and direction from 6/3/08:
➢ Liz: suggested don't need the last sentence in Section 1 of the ordinance.
➢ Section 2: Define responsibilities and the term (i.e., might be 3-years); set
compensation more generally. Specificity would be set by the City Council.
➢ Craig P.: Need to add the hours to be worked up to an average of 20 hours a week
to limit to the 20 hours
➢ Councilor Buehner and Councilor Sherwood spoke to how this came about
through the task force. Re: goal to be more effective regionally if able to attend
meetings - more attn. paid if the mayor attends and ability to get more resources
and attn for the City of Tigard
➢ Stressed: invite public comments on this. Councilor Wilson not about City
Council compensation, but having the Mayor being more available. Recognize
trade-offs where it is good to have citizen representation to understand the needs
but at same time governance is very demanding and could get more benefits with
a Mayor more engaged.
➢ Councilor Wilson: Doesn't see a real hurry on this. The Budget Committee ok'd
funding so this could be done. Now, we're considering what that mechanism
might involve. Wants a chance to do this.
➢ Mayor Dirksen suggested that people send in recommendations to Liz so she
could craft another draft for the City Council to review. If have a consensus
between now and the next meeting, then bring it to the business meeting. If we
haven't reached a consensus then we could bring it to a workshop for further
discussion.
➢ City Manager Prosser noted next meeting is June 10 and said was concerned
about having a draft available for public review before that.
➢ June 24 is next business meeting and at this time, looks like there is time
available. Agreed to review at that time.
➢ Mayor Dirksen said he thought it was a good idea for the City Council to approve
the term for the compensation.
➢ Liz: Also have the city attorneys take a look at whether really need that language
or if the existing language accommodates what we're trying to do.
➢ For now get input from the City Council. Schedule ordinance for consideration
on June 24. If need to can also get more input at the June 17 workshop.
Draft Ordinance is attached.
IAADM\Cathy\CC 4\2008\Excerpts\080603 Excerpt • direction on ordinance for council compensation.doc
Item No.
For Council Newsletter dated U)- 0V
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder C CL
Re: Mayor/Council President Compensation
Date: May 30, 2008
Council is scheduled to discuss implementation of additional compensation to the Mayor or the
Council President at its June 3, 2008, Special City Council meeting. On May 27, 2008, the City
Council received an outline of some of the questions to be considered.
Staff requests the Council's review of the attached draft ordinance and advise if the language needs
to be amended. Once reviewed, the ordinance will be scheduled for formal Council consideration
at a later date.
Attachment
IAADM\Cathy\PROJECTS\Council Service Task Force 2008\memo for june 3 council discussion.doc
. _
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 08-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.44.010 -
COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted Resolution `No. 08-09 establishing and
appointing members to the Council Service Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the Council Service Task Force was requested b, the Tigard C7ty Council to review and make
recommendations on procedural changes to attract Mayor„and Council candidates; and
WHEREAS, the Council Service Task force reviewed be..level of co ,pensation for dent Council members
and recommended that the Mayor or a Council member be compensaedfor up to an avcxage gf 20 hoots per
week to assume specific additional Council duties. 44~ ;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGAR-D ORDAINS AS I MLOWS:
SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code Section 2.4*010, Compensaii"Os,hereby amended as follows
(underlined text is added):
Fot atcndaiice at regularly scheduled meettA-bris'of the city council and meetings for
,._ptvr, overnm- 'ifia1 board, committee, or agency, each duly appointed or elected
COMO! ;membe <and the mayor shall be entitled to compensation. The amount of
4c . ~.x'bF. Xcompev onji a reviewed Aj - sdt annually by resolution of the City Council as
art of the=bpi ' etc cycle. AnnualL-- the Citv Council will conduct a vote authorizing
~m ensationtfor'.up to anM average of 20 hours per week for either the Mayor or the
CoWl:Preside i , Y
SECTION'2Annually, thrr NCity CoLuiQil will define the assigned duties and authorize the
compensation'ftuding level by entering in to an agreement with either the Mayor or the
g2uncil President?
z£~
SECTION 3: This; c;idinance s be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayoi, aM jUting by the City Recorder.
F.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this day of , 2008.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
ORDINANCE No. 08-
Page 1
.
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 2008.
Craig Dirksen, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attomey
H'1
Date
ag~
'a
V
•Yy ,
14,
sr
`r1
t
ORDINANCE No. 08-
Page 2
To: Liz Newton From: Cathy Wheatley
Date: June 6, 2008
Summary
Council compensation discussion and direction from 6/3/08:
➢ Liz: suggested don't need the last sentence in Section 1 of the ordinance.
➢ Section 2: Define responsibilities and the term (i.e., might be 3-years); set
compensation more generally. Specificity would be set by the City Council.
➢ Craig P.: Need to add the hours to be worked up to an average of 20 hours a week
to limit to the 20 hours
➢ Councilor Buehner and Councilor Sherwood spoke to how this came about
through the task force. Re: goal to be more effective regionally if able to attend
meetings - more attn. paid if the mayor attends and ability to get more resources
and attn for the City of Tigard
➢ Stressed: invite public comments on this. Councilor Wilson not about City
Council compensation, but having the Mayor being more available. Recognize
trade-offs where it is good to have citizen representation to understand the needs
but at same time governance is very demanding and could get more benefits with
a Mayor more engaged.
➢ Councilor Wilson: Doesn't see a real hurry on this. The Budget Committee ok'd
funding so this could be done. Now, we're considering what that mechanism
might involve. Wants a chance to do this.
➢ Mayor Dirksen suggested that people send in recommendations to Liz so she
could craft another draft for the City Council to review. If have a consensus
between now and the next meeting, then bring it to the business meeting. If we
haven't reached a consensus then we could bring it to a workshop for further
discussion.
➢ City Manager Prosser noted next meeting is June 10 and said was concerned
about having a draft available for public review before that.
➢ June 24 is next business meeting and at this time, looks like there is time
available. Agreed to review at that time.
➢ Mayor Dirksen said he thought it was a good idea for the City Council to approve
the term for the compensation.
➢ Liz: Also have the city attorneys take a look at whether really need that language
or if the existing language accommodates what we're trying to do.
➢ For now get input from the City Council. Schedule ordinance for consideration
on June 24. If need to can also get more input at the June 17 workshop.
Draft Ordinance is attached.
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\Excerpts\080603 Excerpt - direction on ordinance for council compensation.doc