The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 10/20/2009 City of Tigard Tigard Workshop Meeting -- Agenda g p .7?..727"1 11,. ,:t=2L^;4i "&e.,c -�'?" Ma.. :...". x , .;. as",.= ,.imz .,=..,,W L moz. .- visa "A x.,. - A"??':.«"'" e... m , x m 'a ,. r..vsasztA�'v TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CODA) MEETING DATE /TIME: October 20, 2009 — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 -639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30 • Every Sunday at 11 a.m. • Every Monday at 6 a.m. • Every Tuesday* at 2 pm (*Workshop meetings are not aired live. Tuesday broadcasts are a replay of the most recent workshop meeting.) • Every Thursday at 12 p.rn. • Every Friday at 3 a.m. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — JUNE 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 1 www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 3 l ' City of Tigard M IN 74 , Ti and Iorksho Meeting — Agenda p e g 3 . 7ci: ` An+' :a' : 2r..'."s.: 2Z7V..�.r.. '.:,..,y..." _4 - ,..Y'.*v,. : ",'. . 's.'a ' ' .i w. ,z ,,'�v:.'.,==.- -"�`�"�.;."LL' mn. w • ...w.- gym -': TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CODA) MEETING DATE /TIME: October 20, 2009 — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 p.m. • > 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. 1. WORKSHOP 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 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR UPDATE ON PRIOR AND CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AND TO SEEK DIRECTION ON NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET • Staff Report: Financial and Information Services Department Recess City Council Meeting (Motion by Council) Convene City Center Development Agency (CCDA) Meeting 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CCDA BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR UPDATE ON PRIOR AND CURRENT YEAR CCDA BUDGET AND TO SEEK DIRECTION ON NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET • Staff Report: Financial and Information Services Department Adjourn City Center Development Agency (CCDA) Meeting (Motion by CCDA) Reconvene City Council Meeting TIGARD C ITY COUNCIL /CCDA AGENDA — OCTOBER 20, 2009 Ci ty of Tigard ard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.Tigard, OR 97223 1 503- 639 -4171 1 www . ti tigard- .. o � or.gov 1 Page 2 of 3 4. WORKSHOP ON DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS CPA 2009 -00003 • Staff Report: Community Development Department 5. WORKSHOP ON URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN • Staff Report: Community Development Department 6. BRIEFING #3 ON TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE • Staff Report: Community Development Department 7. ADJOURNMENT I: \AOM \Cath \CCA \2009 \091020P.workshop.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /CCDA AGENDA — OCTOBER 20, 2009 City ofTigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503 - 639 4171 1 www.tigard- or.gov 1 Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item # Meeting Date October 20, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Budget Cotrnn Up date on prior and current year budget; seek direction on next year's budget Cycle Prepared By: Carissa Collins Dept Head Approval: ' i (.../ City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Provide updates regarding the prior year and current year budget; and seeking direction on next year's budget cycle. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff will provide updates concerning the prior year and current year budgets. In addition, staff will seek direction from the Budget Committee regarding the preparation of the FY 2010 -11 budget cycle. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has experienced major changes in operations that have had an impact on the FY 2009 -10 budget. These changes include ratty forwards from the 08 -09 budget into the existing budget associated with obtiined federal stimulus dollars as well as changes in costs associated with the Engineering Reorganization. • For the upcoming budget cycle, one of our goals is to get the adopted budget documents to operating departments earlier. We are malting internal improvements to accomplish part of this. In addition, staff is interested in setting an earlier adoption date for the budget in order to distribute final budgets sooner in the budget cycle. Therefore, staff requests direction from the committee concerning this issue and others regarding the preparation of the 2010 -11 budget cycle. Attachment #2 has the meeting dates and times that are being proposed to accomplish our goal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Agenda Attachment #2: Budget Calendar Exhibit A: Chart of Transportation Funding FISCAL NOTES N/A Attachment 1 City of Tigard Budget Committee Meeting Agenda October 20, 2009 - 6 :30 PM 1. FY 2008 -2009 Budget Wrap Up 2. FY 2009 -10 Post Budget Adoption Changes a. Transportation Funding - Exhibit A • State Transportation Bill • City Gas Tax • Burnham Street • Street Maintenance Fee b. Engineering Reorganization • Changes to organization • Changes to CIP - current year - next year c. Budget Amendments • Engineering Reorganization - Move - Contingency Fund • Omnibus -Carry Forward -Clean Up • ARRA Money 3. Preparing for the Next Budget Cycle (seeking direction from Committee) • Changes to the Budget Calendar (see Attachment 2) • Updated budgeting system Adjourn meeting until December, 2009 Attachment 2 ApriI Sun Man Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 Budget to Budget Committee 4 5 6 7 8 9 so 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Budget Couim ttee hear - ing -Town Hall 6:3Opm 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Budget Committee hear- ing-Town Hall 6:30pm 25 26 27 28 29 30 Budget Committee hear- ing -Town M3116:3013;7? City of Tigard N Ni TiGARD M Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Budget Committee hear- ing-Town Hall 6:3opm Of needed) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2,3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City Council votes on FY 2010 -11 Budget and CCDA Budget City of Tigard I g FY 09110 FY 10 /11 ` FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 18/19 Const Mngt I BId Loan Amt Annual Pmt. Yrs Paid, Eli Adopted 4,316,054 522,718 (261,661) (1,102,067) (1,984,482) (7,016,461) 500,000 7,606,463 6,350,000 509,540 20 J'.I€ Adopted w/ State Trans Bill 4,511,654 1,393,138 1,567,198 1,704,792 1,800,377 1,658,396 500,000 7,606,463 6,350,000 509,540 20 2JY Adopted w/ State Trans Bill & Base Project 2,252,325 1,332,243 1,545,817 1,722,924 2,328,049 4,733,770 500,000 2,536,871 1,280,000 470,027 3 bf.) Adopted w/ State Trans Bill & Base + Option 81 2,407,206 1,341,298 1,563,528 1,749,291 1,893,045 4,298,766 500,000 2,892,472 1,636,000 461,371 4 Elf Adopted w/ State Trans Bill & Base + Option 41 & €€2 2,882,696 1,264,248 1,409,794 1,518,873 1,585,943 2,915,554 500,000 3,987,838 2,731,000 538,055 5 Gas Tax Ending Fund Balance: Impact of Burnham /Ash Project Options 6,000,000 - — 1 4,000,000 2,000,000 '---7 ilk FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 18/19 (2,000,000) (4,000,000) - IL 7"` - (6,000,000) — - (8,000,000) • n Adopted Adopted w/ State Trans Bill r Adopted w/ State Trans Bill & Base Project a Adapted w/ State Trans Bill & Base + Option € €1 ✓ Adopted w/ State Trans Bill & Base + Option 81 & 82 Agenda Item # Meeting Date CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide CCDA Budget Committee Update on prior and current year budget seek direction on next year's budget Cycle Prepared By: Dept Head Approval: -4 : 1--- ----- - Cite Mgr Approval (g ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Provide updates regarding the prior year and current year budget; and seeking direction on next years budget cycle. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff will provide updates concerning the prior year and current year budgets. In addition, staff will seek direction from the Budget Committee regarding the preparation of the FY 2010 -11 budget cycle. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff will discuss the status of the prior year end and current year status. Since the CCDA budget cycle follows the City's budget cycle, the same changes to the City's budget cycle will apply to the CCDA. The budget calendar is restated for the CCDA as Attachment #1. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Budget Calendar FISCAL NOTES N/A • Attachment 1 ri Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 CCDA Budget to Budget Committee f 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Budget Committee hear- ing -Town Ha116:3opm 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 Budget Committee hear- ing -Town Hall 6:3opm 25 26 27 28 29 30 Budget Committee hear- ing -Town Hall 6:3opm City of Tigard IN - - . - . '. . .. M ... . i✓ Sun Mon T ue Wed r Sat T hu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Budget Committee hear- ing -Town Hall 6:3opm (if needed) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 29 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 city Council votes on FY aoxa -xx B and CCDABudget E City of Tigard 11 11'41 11 ItTIVAAPZ Agenda Item # �J Meeting Date October 20, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Workshop #1 on Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards CPA 2009 - 00003 (Council Goals # 1a and 2b Prepared 13y: Sean Farrell Dept Head Approval: M uni/ City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The first of two workshops has been scheduled with Council to review and discuss the draft Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards. The second workshop will be held on November 17`'`. At a public hearing scheduled for December 8, 2009, Council will be requested to consider adoption of the new Downtown code and zoning. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review, discuss and provide feedback on the Downtown Code Amendments, Zoning designation, and Design Standards to facilitate the Council Public hearing on December 8, 2009. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY One of the recommendations of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan was to revise and update the land use regulations for Downtown. The proposal would also implement several policies of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 15: Special Planning Areas- Downtown. In the summer of 2007, staff, working with a joint subconnunittee of the Planning Commission and the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC), began work on the draft code and map amendments. A State Transportation Growth Management Code Assistance grant provided funds for the draft code to be reviewed by land use and architecture consultants. Graphic illustrations were created for many of the design standards. These consultants also did an innovative exercise applying the draft development standards (height limits, setbacks, etc.) to three Downtown sites. This led to several revisions and subsequent confirmation of development feasibility under the new code. The full CCAC reviewed the draft code and, after making several revisions, endorsed the draft code. The Planning Commission held two workshops reviewing the draft and will make a recoinrendation to Council at a public hearing on October 20. Open Houses were held in July, 2008 and July, 2009, attended by a total of 80 property owners, business owners and other stakeholders. Notices of public hearing with a summary of the proposed changes have been sent to the 237 affected property owners. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan a. Update Tigard zoning maps based on Comprehensive Plan Update In support of Council Goal la, the proposed Development Code Amendments would implement the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 15: Special Planning Areas: Downtown 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 anodes 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. Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban. Renewal b. Complete land use regulations and design standards for the downtown. . Long Term Goals: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo to Council regarding proposed Downtown Code Amendments dated October 5, 2009 Attachment 2: Matrix Comparing Existing Development Code to Proposed Downtown Code Attachment 3: Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments Draft #5.1, dated October 7, 2009 FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable • Attachment 1 City of Tigard Memorandum TIGARD - - To: Mayor Craig Dixksen and the Tigard City Council • From: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner R Proposed Downtown Code Amendments Date: October 7, 2009 The Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments are scheduled for a Public Heating before the Planning Commission on October 19, 2009 and before Council on December 8, 2009. The code amendments would implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and the Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. General Approach The Downtown Tigard Code Amendments have incorporated some "form -based code" elements into the framework of the existing Tigard Development Code. (Form -based codes are land use codes which emphasize the physical form of development to create a cohesive and'attractive design within the "public realm ".) The code amendments are intended to maximize flexibility in the location of land uses while requiting high quality architectural design for commercial, residential, or mixed use development. To take advantage of the Downtown's excellent suburban transit service, the code will encourage a more intensive form of development than is perrnitted elsewhere in Tigard. Maximum density in the MU -CBD zone is proposed to be 50 units an acre, with 80 units an acre potentially allowed in an overlay zone centered around the Commuter Rail Station. The current CBD zone permits a maximum of 40 units /acre. Summary of New Downtown Land Use and Design Regulations Below is a summary of several code provisions. Page numbers refer to the Proposed Downtown Code Amendments Draft #5. MU -CBD Zone and Comprehensive Plan Des g,nation The new Mixed Use- Central Business District (MU -CBD) zone will encompass the entire Urban Renewal District and seven adjacent properties. These properties are currently zoned CBD (Central Business District), CBD (PD) (Central Business District- Planned Development Overlay), C -G (General Commercial), C -P ( Commercial Professional), R -25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), R -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential 1), R -12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre- Planned Development Overlay.) (see Maps A and B.) The properties outside of the URD boundaries include two properties associated with the "Fanno Creek House" on Hail Blvd. Additionally, the Main Street Village Apartments site, and four adjacent properties currently zoned CBD (PD), will be rezoned MU -CBD (PD). 1 • MU -CBD Land Use Table p. 11 -12 Like the existing CBD zone, a wide range of uses (retail, office, and residential) will be permitted. Mixed use development would be permitted on the north side of the Hall Blvd. and 99W intersection where currently only commercial development is permitted (General Comrnercial zone.) Consistent with the current CBD zoning, new industrial uses and most auto - oriented uses will not be permitted. Those that exist at the time the code is adopted can continue. The code seeks to reduce the creation of additional non - conforming uses as they can create difficulty for businesses in financing, insurance, etc. Land uses that are no longer permitted outright have been in most cases classified as "Restricted" specifying that if the use existed on a property before the adoption of the new code it can continue as a conforning use, but new uses of this kind elsewhere in the district could not be established. Non - conforming Uses and Development p.17 For uses that are already non - conforming (such as light industrial uses), provisions call out that all existing development may continue (and, if destroyed, be re- established, built to new code standards within one year). This differs from the existing Development Code which in most cases requires a discontinued non - conforming use to be reestablished within six months,. If a renovation is planned for an existing building, only the renovated portion would be required to meet the new design requirements. So an addition to an existing development would have to meet the design standards, but the rest of the structure would not have to be brought into compliance. Design Standards Sub -Areas p. 19 -20 • While the range of allowed uses is uniform throughout the district, development standards such as building • height, landscaping, and setbacks are defined by the sub - areas. Map 18.610.A and Table 18.610.1 (pp.19 -20) display the sub- areas. The sub -areas are centered around streets, so that both sides of the street will have a similar feel. lYlain Street sub-aria has a 3 story height maximum, and allows 100% site coverage and no required landscaping (except in parking lots.) 9911 Corridor sub-area. Up to 8 -story buildings are permitted. Properties that have frontage on Hwy 99W have a 10 foot minimum front setback. Scour/ Commercial .rub -area permits up to 6 -story development. Fanno /Ilrrrnham .rub -area allows 5 -story development, but has a limit of 3 stories within 200 feet of the boundary of Fanno Creek Park. This is to prevent development that would overwhelm the Park. It also has a 80% site coverage minimum and 20% minimum landscaping for a less intense pattern of • development. The minimum density in this sub -area is 15 units an acre (rather than 25 units an acre in the other sub - areas) which would allow the opportunity for attached single family units. Clear and Obective Buildin. and Site Des Standards p. 24-32 The proposed new chapter contains design regulations for development that are much more comprehensive than are found in the other areas of the City with design standards (Tigard Triangle, Washington Square Regional Center, and Durham Quarry (Bridgeport Village)). The standards apply throughout the district, but • have different levels of detail depending on whether the development is a commercial /mixed use development or a residential development. The highest level of architectural standards is for • • commercial /inixed use developments. The standards require storefront features (window coverage, primary entry, etc.). Residential only development would have less detailed standards, but require buildings to be oriented to the street. The standards are organized under these general headings: A. Create Vibrant Ground Floors, Streetscapes and Rights-of--Way; Provide Weather Protection; and Promote Safety and Security (entry, window coverage, weather protection) B. Cohesive architectural facade standards (architectural bays for commercial and mixed use) C. Integrated building facade standards (tri- partite facade appearance for commercial and mixed use, roof forms) D. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity (entry or special feature at corner) E. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability (materials) F. Open Space /Public Plaza (private and shared open space) The use of diagrams to illustrate many of the clear and objective standards will be user - friendly for developers, staff, and the public. Discretionary Design Review and Design Review Body p. 34-37 Discretionary design standards will provide a "safety valve" for well- designed projects that can't meet the clear and objective standards. The review criteria are broad statements that could be achieved in multiple ways. Photos are provided that show development that exemplifies the design objective. This process allows a design review body discretion in deciding whether an application met the criteria. A separate Design Review Board to handle this function will eventually be created. In the interim, the duty may be assigned to a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Proposed Code Provisions That Differ Significantly from Existing Development Code Multi- Family Development Private and Shared Open Space: p.32 The amount of private and shared open space for multi- family units, will be reduced from what is currently required by the Site Development Review chapter of the Development Code. This would allow a more urban form of development in the Downtown. See below table: I Existing Requirements Proposed for Downtown Multi - family All units provide 48 s.f. of 80% of units provide a minimum of 32 s.f. Development Private private open space of private open space Open Space Multi - family 200 -300 s.f, per unit (depending 10 %g of site. Development Shared on unit size) • Up to a 50% credit for providing Open Space additional private open space • Up to a 50% credit for properties directly adjacent to public park • Fee in lieu of providing shared open space option — Parking Lot Landscaping Standards p. 23 In addition to the existing Landscaping and Screening requirements of Chapter 18.745, the proposed code has additional requirements for trees (minimum island dimensions with soil volume requirements, and irrigation requirements). These changes are intended to improve the viability of trees in parking lots and enable a tree canopy to develop that will mitigate negative impacts. 3 Minimum Off - street Parking Requirements p38 Tigard's development code contains some of the higher minimum off-street parking requirements in the region. Reduced minimum parking requirements are proposed for the Downtown for a number of reasons: to encourage a more urban form of development and to remove a potential battier to development; and the availability of a significant supply of on -street parking and alternates modes of transportation in the Downtown. Existing parking requirements for Multi- Family Buildings have a sliding scale depending on the size of a unit up to a minimum of 1.75 spaces for a 3- bedroom unit, The new code proposes a flat minimum of 1 space per unit. For all other uses the minimum required off -street parking would be reduced 25% from Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements Table 18.765.2. In addition, the Main Street sub -area is proposed to have a further reduction. New commercial buildings up to 20,000 s.f. would not have minimum required off - street parking. Buildings over this square footage would have a minimum parking requirement for the square footage over 20;000 sf. Residential units would have to meet the Downtown minimum parking requirement. This is based on an existing code provision that allows new buildings on Main Street with the same square footage of the building it replaces not to provide additional parking. This will also help preserve a continuous "street wall" on Main that is not interrupted by parking lots and driveways. Staff will monitor parking in the Downtown as development occurs and adjust as needed. 4 MAP A y , .. ,.......„.., ..... ....., a a I fl I !! 1 ii W ( 1 Iii i I brand Use u, i 1 1 r ♦ t_ NO rw � � ��I�i�= L F '! � . DesigCitynaTigard tions AL4 lin i *a � r Ain •=�� i * � ! � �� Oregon of ■ `` 7 - Il kfi l � . P ♦ , '+�'�� ■l111� �� j�� # C-C Commonly Classifications l7 � // r��- � #• ' -1�� r■ . _ C-G ity Cammerool AIIUU� . ." �•�F•• ice ' I, -G G+G Snowed Coma-wad \ \ will le • - :! f real L�a�uv :v ` jo Neighb+aCrnmr l 11111111110 '�" ■ Central Psa[hire! \ Han lnai nduslrtal MUC Wed Wed US 4 • UE - Maud Use Employment 2 44 MUE M ilan Use Employment M used Use Employment M2 / /- �•�. � � MUR -1 Mlsed Uso Rasldeneel1 IA si y /� i \ ]� y \\ MUR -2 Mmed[ho Residential?! ;,J `. il R -7 '..a.WO Sq FI IA In LUt Efz ► - � R - 2 20 000 Sq Ft Min Lot 5lx / \� � :R .._ .47 3 , . : 5 70. 000 E FI Mtn La1 9_a i . , / -75 7 5 00 5q Fl Ain LOt SIZ• �� `4 e' °� , ♦a ♦� '� \ f / \J l gi „,,,„94 / 1 3 U00 FIIknLctS ( 1 3 , 05ft 5q FI bin Lot 61ze ' ,� , , 1� ;!• R - 2 1.3505q FC b Lot Slzo \ .,,\:,.,,,,,,--,- � / � R 5G Units Po r 1 e / {FD] Banned Oo:1:::: pnent CVCdny { \ d IROI rata aosloeelaY O r C � \ �,C Y ` `� \* Comprehensive Pn Designations ': * + #� �` 1 .,\. Y [� Ccnlra! L'usi,L. Usitic4 0. #� , Iy` w ` •.i / r, !!�l �l Cammunily mmefoal - '� 4 Gonetal COmmmdY Tualatin Valley ` (( \ \1�/ NNOnoaitwadCammacal W ^• Fire /`\ ` ProlesslaialCmnmerdal . . .. ° , - C B Q > . ` Reacts., /-\ �• LiOM Vnd:lslnal tiott \e5 '\ ` \\ Lmv Density Revdsneal � { \ Medan ocnady Residendml G c C � (• { �} , I > � \ \\ \ \\ Mariam-High Oonzty Reslden.sl �� >\,..\4\..._ '''''\\`\ \ Fi4h PenvM Revd/foe.' A .��/ ' f •� \ \ `\ � b5srd Use C 0.- :S trrCial \ ��•\ MI !Axed Use Employmer8 R - p ..ii ee7�� //�\ \ `\ \ Ikacd Use Employment `•� � RAIL IT _T \ \ \ . !Axed lka Emlioymerrl2 1 �I* • (PD) Tigard \ \ \ \ ® IaRed USOResldantidt M1 City \ I.tiaaC Use Residential 2 w e; \ Open Space N 'UK � # 1 �► � Hall \ �� P U.Insttaean 0 y "�,• lipid Cory Lomas \ \\ \ \\ T.„.6ounduy v o . \ * ;� ,a \� ` �e;ar ar 4 \ \ An 3Q 7071 cen ere hmW:es n,• asl,na, I \ \\ ,rmm kv? ,o,LS Lb ossnn Ndv�m r � . , $ � , Tigar d • : IIIt�� 11 Ill.. _ _ _ _ tt ,rle . _,.., ■ +►tea ,� • _.,...._. / li ll Mg e' WUIR `��I' 51!; 1 , -25 e - Proposed ' '' X11: i L Land Use r . � im L M' Designations in e. , we ila�1 up - ■ , • N g WANK + ��I ,�� ' : . = , � 1 ,w�! . City of Tigard FIAIIIM >r,,a 1 ►1� � Oregon ;1 MU -CBD r i�NA �r- \ Wei ' I , _ Zoning Classifications i Ot t C -6 C-C Communlly Commercial unn 111'11 �► \\ ` M174741,~ Elk . . ; {' " / 1y/ C - ti Neigh G neraY CnmmercJnl � C 4, c-whoad Commercial �i �` �� , -. C-P Prolesslonal Commercial ilk _ ! \ txcd U. Centel Bus rims 6sincl 1 �1i� ► % /�J�/ \ I -H Heavy industrial 711. - �� _ /f� Oi 1.1_ Ughl Industrial d �_' ♦ 1 P lodustnal Palk r- 1 _ 1. . MO Limed Use Commercial W i "-. 2 { � I bIVG1 Aixetl the COmmeccudl ,('J" � \ M `\ -/ MUE Maed Use Empfopmant 1 � MITE -1 1 Mixed Usa EmpoYmcrN1 � / t� {. i hWE,2 M lUs E Ftornant 2 1P Y i " \ 'G 1 MUR -1 Mixed Usa Residential 1 �� )11114\ MUR -2 Mixed Usa Rpldenhal2 „� J R - 1 30.400 Sq F1 Min Lct Size . i� ` / /\ R -2 20,400 Sq FI r.1in Lol Size 1 t � � , ` � - R.2.5 10,400 Sq FI Min Lot yen l 4 �i.' s S / R-75 15011 q Ft o f Ld Size •` . / i1,, R -7 q Ft MGn Loh Slzo _ , *q . ; � �. , l - R -72 q Fi F LOi 5lx e . ' / , R -25 q F[ P L ot Sica VW ,.e. / R ng Par Acro �• � op \� MU -CBD � iii c 7nvclopne n:. Di � V `, (ND} Di evel op etlay 10 s.` ♦� � � < P rrre _ - () /fs t \ + I r — P \ Compree Plan Desienalion$ Lt# 4414 0 OP 7 0 ofr . \ ( L \ \\ :\' �� se ccntlal 8uslness Qisldcr /1 nity Cam Tualatin. Valley. cenedcamme F VP nu Neighborhood Commercial r40 7 . r , 411riar I M U -C B D - , / ee 0 ' ' t Professional Commercial �� Rego x \ . \ I -L l Heavy Ind Bawl � i` �� ,, • ` � � � �+� Low Density Residenhal ' \ Madam Deftly Basilicata! r .tr / / \ , / .` h \ . . as ` ` �/ \ CC � = — 411110 ��4 � Hall C _+ .\ \ ® Mead Use ResldanSW2 a 1 � ♦ IS 1•17 Puhliu I 40 i 4 4 1 �� \ � ` Open Specie 41 "Tigard C.ty Units \\ rsalueon 6 0.""1 )1,, t06111 ,0 I" \ Taint Boundary . ter ,1 1 � `� ' ► � ' � # y ►�'� 1 Cen " Tigard I -P a unrcurI.a. dm �aa rtHnmtn A , / rt, .__..,„ 1 ,—.. . 41 A •. nil... 4-:.^ � A , I �1'YPLL+^�� I -L `M1\\ t yet. ■■ . �1►�� = _ ♦ n 1 _ _ . _ �.� ■ ►1 III ' R-12 /11 \ b „„............,........, ........_ Attachment 2 Matrix Comparison of Existing Development Code with Proposed Code for Downtown Tigard MU -CBD Zone Existing Development Proposed Code Code Maximum CBD: 80 ft. commercial , 60 Determined by sub -area building height ft. residential • 3 stories: Main St., Adjacent to Fanno C- G /C -P: 45 ft. Creek Park • Elsewhere 5 -8 stories Maximum CBD and C -P : 40 units per Up to 50 units per acre. Station area overlay= Density acre permits up to 80 units per acre. C -G: residential not permitted MUR -1: no limit Minimum Multi- family residential: Multi- family residential: ' parking Studio: 1 space/ per dwelling 1 space per dwelling unit requirements unit 1 BR: 1.25 /DU Other development: 2 BR: 1.5 /DU Other minimums 25% reduction from existing 3BR: 1.75/DU Code. Main Street: Adjustments: No required parking for commercial 20% adjustment in minimum development under 2Q000 s.f. parking can be applied for Adjustments: 40 %n additional reduction available Design Standards None in Downtown Extensive standards encouraging pedestrian oriented development Required 15 % -20% Determined by sub area Minimum • 20 %- Fanno /Burnham Landscaping • 10% 99 -Hall and Scoffins- Commercial • 0 %- Main St • Re uired landsca■in. can be on roof. Projections in the Not permitted Awnings, etc. up to 4 feet (10 feet minimum ROW clearance) Required private 48 sf per unit 32 sf per unit (minitnum of 80% of units) open space Required shared 200 sf per unit • 10% of site area. open space 300 sf per 3 BR units • Can be reduced by increased private open space and /or paying fee in Lieu. Signs • Freestanding signs: Same as existing regulations, except: maximum 70 sf. with • Freestanding signs : 70 sf absolute (increased setback up to maximum 90 sf.) • gall /awning /projecting signs: Max 15 • Wall signs: Max 15% of % of wall area (can't be increased.) wall area (50 %° increase • Add blade signs regulations (one 4.5 sf) with review.) Required Required between • Within zone: Only required for parking Landscaping commercial and residential lots. Buffer uses within the zone • Required if abutting residential zone Non - conforming If discontinued, must be If discontinued, must be reestablished within 12 uses reestablished within 6 months months. Attachment 3 1, li Proposed Downtown Tigard TIGARD Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 4 • All .41111, ti 444rwi !re , a , , . . Z ni _110 -____, ., .._..„-__........,.__ - i ii 441 A 9 z_.... d. - It 1.1 I :i I �111 i11ntWilWU�; -_, EU W Q `4 0.1 G ®@ , ,., ' Cn j / Ming '� 111111111111 { 111 0.S ]4!!1!r!!!L - / i I " . i il,Vii 1 - .— ' I Nliviri larva; K. "-.10416-',14-__--- , -----_- , -.4 .-- _,..„---_:,---- -- 4.---%-- --- --- , -- rivigo v,:-. _ 1 ,, ,. A 1 6. 1 03110.- .1 ...-----•---,------- iit. ..• ,0 4 " .-.° 0 /I- ■ .L.,, - _ :k tl ` � `' � mo i� s 1. \, , i . ' '::::\ ' . . , ....-44 1 X I Introduction The proposed Code Amendments are intended to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The Special Planning Areas - Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive PIan establishes the policy framework for necessary code amendments. Plan policies and concepts will be implemented by amendments to the Community Development Code. Development code amendments fall into two basic categories: 1. Amendments to the existing code section: Decision - Malting Procedures (18.390) The proposed amendments establish 3 new decision making procedures: Design Review Compliance Letter (Type I), Downtown Design Administrative Review (Type II) and Downtown Design Review (Type III -C). Commercial Zoning Districts (18.520) The proposed amendments modify Commercial Zoning Districts (Chapter 18.520). These changes establish a Mixed Use - Central Business District (MU -CBD,) It would replace the Central Business District (CBD) zone and expand the zone boundaries to include all properties in the Urban Renewal District — which are currently zoned Central Business District (CBD), General Commercial (C -G), Commercial and Professional Commercial (C -P), R -12 (PD), 3 MUR -1, and R-4.5. The zone will also encompass seven properties adjacent to, but outside the URD - zoned CBD (PD) and R -12 (PD.) The following chapters will be updated as they apply to the new zone: 18.120 Definitions 18.130 Use Classifications 18.310 Sununaiy of Land Use Permits 18.745 Landscaping & Screening 18.765 Of Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.780 Signs 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 2. New code section: Tigard Downtown District Site and Building Design Standards and Objectives (18.610) The Tigard Downtown District Site and Building Design Standards Chapter is a new section of the development code. The chapter includes a map designating the four design sub -areas of the larger MU -CBD zone and their corresponding development standards (building height, setbacks, density, etc.) The chapter also includes building and site design standards, requirements for special areas and sites, and provisions for adjustments for specific conditions. The site and design standards are triggered when application for new development is made. Deleted section indicated by cross -outs. Sections added to existing chapters indicated by underlined and bold. Staff commentary appears in shaded box on right side. DRAFT 45.1 1 REVISED 10/7/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 1 • I■ Part 1: Amendments to the Existing Code Sections Chapter 18.3 90 DECISION- MAKING PROCEDURES SECTIONS: 18.390.010 Purpose 18.390.020 Description of Decision - Making Procedures 18.390.030 Type 1 Procedure 18.390.040 Type II Procedure 18.390.050 Type III Procedure 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure 18.390.070 Special Procedures 18.390.080 General Provisions 18.390.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a series of standard decision- maldng procedures that will enable the City, the applicant, and all interested parties to reasonably review applications and participate in the local decision - making process in a timely and effective way. Each permit or action set forth in Chapters 18.320 — 18.385 has been assigned a specific procedure type. 18.390.020 Description of Decision - Making Procedures A. General. All development permit applications shall be decided by using one of the following procedure types. The procedure type assigned to each action governs the decision- making process for that permit, except to the extent otherwise required by applicable state or federal law. The Director shall be responsible for assigning specific procedure types to individual permit or action requests, as requested. Special alternative decision - making procedures have been developed by the City in accordance with existing state law, and are codified in Section 18.390.070. B. Types defined. There are four types of decision - maldng procedures, as follows: 1. Type I Procedure. Type I procedures apply to ministerial permits and actions containing clear and objective approval criteria. Type I actions are decided by the Director without public notice and without a public hearing; 2. Type II Procedure. Type II procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and actions that contain some discretionary criteria. Type Unctions are decided by the Director with public notice and an opporuinity for a hearing. If any party with standing appeals a Director's Type II decision, the appeal of such decision will he heard by the Hearings Officer; 3. Type III Procedure. Type III procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearings Office (Type III -HO); or the Planning Commission (Type III -PC), or Design Review Board (Type III C) with appeals to or review by the City Council; 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. C. Summary of permits by decision - making procedure type. Table 18.390.1 summarizes the various land use permits by the type of decision - making procedure. ^4. 2 i Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED10/7109 Table 18.390.1 SUMMARY OF PERMITS BY TYPE OF STAFF COMMENTARY DECISION - MAKING PROCEDURE TYPE PERMIT /LAND CROSS - REFERENCE(S) I (18.390.030) Accessory Residential Units 18.7I0 Development Adjustments 18.370.020 B2 Design Review Compliance Letter (Track 1) 18.610 Horne Occupation/type I 18.742 Landscaping Adjustments • Existing Street Trees 18.370.020 C4a; 18.745 • New Street Trees 18.370.020 Cob; 18.745 Lot Line Adjustment 18.410.040 Minimum Residential Density Adjustment 18.370.020 C2; 18.430; 18.715 Nonconforming Use Confirmation 18.385.030A; 18.760 Parking Adjustments • Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5c; 18.765 in Existing Developments/Transit Imp. • Reduction in Staclang Lane Length 18.370.020 C5g; 18.765 Signs • New 18.780 • Existing 18.780 Site Development/Minor Modification I8.360.090 Temporary Uses • Emergency Uses 18.785 • Seasonal/Special Uses 18.785 • Temporary Building 18.785 • Temporary Sales Office/Home 18.765 Tree Removal • Removal Adjustment 18.370.020 C7; 18.790 • Removal Permit 18.790 Wireless Communications Facilities — Setback 18.370.040 C8b; 18798 from Other Towers II (18.390.040) Access/Egress Adjustment 18.370.020 E3b Conditional Use/Minor Modification 18.330.030 Downtown Design Administrative Review 18.610 (Track 2) Historic Overlay • Exterior Alternation 18.740 • New Construction 18.740 • Demolition 18.740 Home Occupation/type II 18.742 DRAFT 45 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 3 TYPE PERMIT /LAND CROSS - REFERENCES) Land Partitions` 18.420.050 STAFF COMMENTARY Parking Adjustments • Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5a; 18.765 • Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5b; 18.765 in New Developments/Transit Imp • Increase in Maximum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5d; 18.765 • Reduction in Bicycle Parking 18.370.020 C5e; 18.765 • Alternate Parking Garage Layout 18.370.020 C5f; 18.765 Sensitive Lands Permits • In 25 %+ Slope 18.775 • Within Drainageways 18.775 • Within Wetlands' 18.775 Sign Code Adjustment 18.370.020 C6; 18,780 Site Development Review • New Construction 18.360.090 • Major Modification 18.360.090 Subdivision Without Planned Development' 18.430.070, Variances 18.370.010C Wireless Communication Facilities — 18.370.020 C8a; 18.798 Adjustment to Setback from Residences Appeals to Hearings Officer 18.390.040E HIA Conditional Use (18.390.050) • Initial 18.330.030 Hearings Officer • Major Modification 18.330.030 Sensitive Lands — Within 100 -Year Floodplain 18.775 • In 25 %+ Slope' 18.775 • Within Drainageways' 18.775 • Within Wetlands' 18.775 IIIB Historic Overlay— District Overlay — 18.385.010A; 18.740 (18.390.050) Removal of District Overlay 18.385.O10B; 18.740 (Planning Planned Development — With Subdivision — I8.350.100; 18.430 Commission) Without Subdivision 18.370.100 Zone Map/Text Change/Quasi-Judicial 18.380.0308, IIIC (Design Downtown Design Review (Track 3) 18.610 Review Board), (18390.050) N Annexation 18.320 (18.390.060) Zone Map/Text Change/Legislative 18.380.020 'These may be processed as either Type H or HI procedures, pursuant to Section 18.775.020 DandE. [The rest of Chapter 18.390 is unchanged] 4 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISEn1 on /09 Chapter 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS STAFF COMMENTARY SECTIONS: 18.520.010 Purpose 18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.520.030 Uses 18.520.040 Development Standards 18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses 18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines 18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts A. C -N: Neighborhood Commercial District. The C - zoning district is designed to provide convenience goods and services within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Convenience goods and services are those which are purchased frequently, i.e., at least weekly; for which comparison buying is not required; and which can be sustained in a limited trade area. Such uses include convenience markets, personal services and repair shops. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to restaurants, gas stations, medical centers, religious institutions, transit - related park -and- ride Tots and facilities with drive -up windows, are permitted conditionally. B. C - C: Community Commercial District. The C - zoning district is designed to provide convenience shopping facilities which meet the regular needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. With a service area of about 1.5 miles, such commercial centers typically range in size from 30,000 - 100,000 gross square feet on sites ranging from 2 - 8 acres. Separated from other commercially -zoned areas by at least one -half mile, community commercial centers are intended to serve several residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two or more collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and collector street. Housing is permitted on or above the second floor of commercial structures at a density not to exceed 12 units/net acre, e.g., the maximum density permitted in the R -I2 zone. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to car washes, gas stations, religious institutions, and transit - related park- and -ride Tots, are permitted conditionally. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the C -C zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian - friendly. C. C - G: General Commercial District. The C -G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City -wide and even regional trade area. Except where non- conforming, residential uses are limited to single - family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini - warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment; and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. D. C - P: Prof essional /Administrative Commercial District. The C - zonilig district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/net acre, i.e., equivalent to the R - 40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments in the C -P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more - intensive commercial and industrial areas. :: -i ' ' ' - DRAFT 45 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 5 •* - .. . ,.1. .i. 1 . i 11 -, ;1' :1 ' STAFF COMMENTARY 11 1 1 • 7 1 •' . 1 f l • f -- f "it .: 1 1 1 i ' • 1 t , •. - • I` 1 . 1 1 ., •. . 11 _ 11 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 - 1 • , 1 • 1 , . •; 1 1 • — 1 1 ''[ 1 7 . ' 1 .. , ,1 - -'./ 11e�h • i - , • 1 - 1 1 1 11 1 i 11 E. MU -CBD: Mixed Use - Central Business District. The MU -CBD zoning district is Section E: designed to provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard. The Central Business District (CBD) A wide variety of commercial, civic. employment, mixed -use, multi - family zoning district will be replaced by and attached single family residences are permitted. New development and the Mitred - Use Central Business redevelopment is required to conform to the standards of Chapter 18.610. District (MU The new land E MUE: Mixed - Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a use categories for the MU -CBD will majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed -use employment district be inserted into Table 18.520.1, bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1 -5. This zoning district permits a the "Use Table. "For Table 18.520.2 wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, Commercial Development Stan - civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi - family housing at a maximum density of 25 darns, the CBD column will be units /acre, equivalent to the R -25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not replaced by a column for MU-CBD limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, with an asterisk directing the user utilities and transit - related park- and -ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is to the Downtown Design Standards recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the chapter for specific development Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation'to the greatest standards for the sub -areas of the extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate infra- district pedestrian and zone. transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied elsewhere in the City through the legislative process. G. MUE - 1 and MUE - 2: Mixed Use Employment Districts. The MUE - 1 and 2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE - I, the high density mixed use employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE -2 requiring more moderate densities. H. MUC: Mixed Use Commercial District. The MUC zoning district includes land around the Washington Square Mall and land immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses permitted include office buildings, retail, and service uses. Also permitted are mixed -use developments and housing at densities of 50 units per acre. Larger buildings are encouraged in this area with parking under, behind or to the sides of buildings. I. MUC - 1: Mixed Use Commercial — 1. The MUC -1 zoning district, which is designed to apply to that portion of the Durham Quarry site within the City of Tigard, is a mixed -use commercial district bounded by 72nd Avenue, Findlay Street and the Tigard, Tualatin and Durham city limits. This site is the subject of an intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Tigard and Tualatin. Pursuant to that agreement the City of Tualatin shall furnish all planning, building and associated development review /permit services for the property. This zoning district is intended to mirror the City of Tualatin's Mixed Use Commercial Overlay District (TDC, Chapter 57). It permits a wide range of uses including comm4cial lodging, general retail, offices and housing; the latter includes multi- family housing at a minimum density of 25 units /acre and a maximum of 50 units/acre. Additional uses, including but not limited to major event entertainment and motor vehicle retail fuel sales, are permitted conditionally. In addition to the standards of this chapter, development within this zone is subject to the standards of Chapter 18.640. J. MUR: Mixed Use Residential Districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed -uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. A high density (MUR -1) and moderate density (MUR-2) designation is available within the MUR zoning district. (02 -33) 6 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REVi5ED10/7 /09 18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines t - - - A. Development/design guidelines in the C -C zone. STAFF COMMENTARY 1. The following design guidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C -C district. Conditions of approval of the development plan may include, but are not limited to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. Existing Code. a. Building design guidelines: (1) The design of buildings within a community commercial development should incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color schemes, special art and other features, which are sensitive to and enhance the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in the city; (2) All buildings within a multi- building complex should achieve a unity of design through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, colors and window pattern; (3) Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows and doors, on all sides of the building to achieve a unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street should include public entrances to the building and windows to provide visual access to the activity within the building. The sides of a building which face toward an adjoining property, but not toward a public street, should include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to provide visual interest and prevent the development of a long continuous blank wall. b. General site design guidelines: Loading areas should not be located on the side of a building which faces toward a residential use. Loading areas, if located between the building and the street, should be oriented away from the street and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. 2. Design standards: The following mandatory design standards apply within the community commercial district: a. Internal Walkways. (1) Walk nays, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right -of -way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points of pedestrian activity such as transit stops and street crossings to the major building entry points; (2) Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated internal walkway system along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. (a) Walkways shall be provided along the full length of the building on any side which provides building access to the public or where public parking is available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to' the building; (b) On the sides of the building which provide public access into the building, the walkway should be wide enough to allow for sidewalk Aeating areas as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be provided at a minimum at the entrance area and, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. (3) Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low - maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. b. Other site development standards: (1) All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut -off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties; DRAFT ;t5 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown ligard Code Amendments 1 7 (2) Mechanical equipment, if located on the building, shall be located within the roof form of the building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design STAFF COMMENTARY of which is consistent with the design of the building; (3) Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be screened from views from the public street, sidewalk and properties outside the district with a durable, solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the above; (4) Al! refuse and recycling containers within the district shall be contained within structures enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest container within the structure; (5) Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall be provided for developments having 100 or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Section 18.765.050. For each 100 additional stalls, facilities for five additional bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways. It is strongly encouraged that bicycle parking areas be covered; (6) The site development plan shall incorporate a special feature at the corner of the site. A special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or water feature. The feature shall provide a visual landmark and some amount of seating area; (7) Parking areas shall be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Parking area landscaping shall be used to define and separate parking, access and pedestrian areas within parking lots; (8) The landscape design for the site shall include plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site; (9) Site features such as fences, walls, refuse and recycling facility enclosures, light fixtures shall be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural design of the primary structure(s). Such site features shall be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development; (10) In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building location shall be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent properties. Consideration should be given to locating buildings closer to the public street with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk, with no intervening parking or driving area. Corner locations are particularly appropriate for this treatment; (11) Opportunities shall be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters and layover areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated into the site development. c. Sign design standards: All signage shall be an integral part of the, architectural design. t1 • • K.' .; . . t • i - - 1 t i ■ ■ ' - • r - } i i • rit3ttesTu"rrdt. n1115t bc.a.■ �.'.1. /!-! 1 ■1 1; - r, !• 1' et' i• ■ i p� l p [(' a ell t- nee�11rt.[, 1 1 l , • ; q■ •. ■ t�1LDi1 eto1. -r�a.. adoptio11re1 -th 1 a1 1 t • • •• 1 1 f virtg-obj-ettivc -(1--)--The—devekr 1 1 1 1 1' • 1 , 1 1 1 - t .. t 1 � 1 - ' I 1 1 1 • ' Ot tl atnsii StOrr • , p er. • �nt . 1. - Y f e 1 •/ 11. 1■ • I " ■ 1 i 1. 8 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED-10/7/09 STAFF COMMENTARY paths shall be nrariced-for-pedestriatts, Section B.1: - : r - 1 ■- - 1 : 1 : .� ' , r. ; - ; 1 : - :: 1 ' : i The language of Section B.1 will be • - 're [ ' i r: ' deleted as the new Chapter 18.610 (d) Av idiog tht. • : -rc.d parltirtg areas by allowing adjacent replaces it. devc'lapmen-ts-t-0--ttse-S 1 1 ' 1 • 1 ; : : : ; 1 1 " ■ 1_ strueturc parking; Section B.2: (2) The -tie :: r; [ ' ■ ` ' , 1' 1 ; : ' ' In the current Code, lratef ?n `[E . ' [ 1 r r • : FP r [ 'd green= six properties are specified to be al- : y . : ■ • : 1 : lowed to continue to be utilized for ' : •' : r .. " , �destrian end I -P Industrial uses after the noncoll- bicycle transit circular, . , - r :: .tittirirtg forming use limit of six months: this 1 . : ;1 ■ : r ' ; 1 i ■ - •; r ■' ° ■ • '1 • will continue, with the exception 1 e .• ' .: -: - 1' : 1 r , i r - r of 2S 1 2AA tax lot 4700, which has 1 . : . • r : . 1 1 - : - r ; . ' : ' r . ■. • 'tedintoitiraccount changed uses from 1 - Industrial to 1 1 1 . " . . 1 ` 'r . - " , commercial (cur'rentya ballroom "(Ir) -et) ration uf autu and track cir culation, aetiritie's from peth;striair areas;- dance hall.) These properties will : ' - ■ 1 " r , 1' • •• . 'e1 ( retain their status and this section , 1 . . . .- i • - `11 -• 1 ' 111 '11 1 1 ' will be moved to Chapter 18.610. buildu 1g, (d) Provision of bicycle p;1 , [ • ; : • •...; ;, The tax lots are the home of lrerizon, and- Magno- Humphries, B & B Printing, {)— Ensure tdc matt nutcfuur 14, ; : 1 • I 1 Ferguson Enteiprises, and KEI circutaGort a1tas. Embroidering. (3) Coordination of dc' - - ': • ' !: • . "A 11i • ; 01 1 1 ; [ ; 1 , 11, [ : , 1 [ ; 1 ,c 'SS, 1,ulslre be 6rOtlpt1 i ' 1 . .1 I i ° ; VI :1 1 � ' r - v : - 1 . i i r 1 '; 1 1' [ ; :. it .1 1 1. `1 r . .1 • •■ 1' Oran adopted plan. SLR et [ [ n ■ 1 r 1 -view: ,i -_ '[1 [ -, ' -■[ '[1 1 - 1 '- - - tl_ -' 1• t -■ •[ - 1 l; 1 � "1 1 1 VA ate r. B. MU -CBD (Downtown) See Chapter 18.610 for additional development and design objectives. . ' 1 :- : - 1 1 1 1 1 [ l 1 1 1 [ r 1 ' 1 1 f : I 1 11 . : - r1' [11 1 1 - : . 1 r, • 2S-1 {B- -ktrt 100, and Map 23 1 2DA tax lot 300. C. Washington Square Regional Center. See Chapter 18.630 for additional development and design guidelines. DRAFT 115 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 9 -ti migit J 1 Itt lin & , ''1 •,tz � :�` � " `- � 1 STAFF COMMENTARY 1 • IT ,� . , The zone encompasses all of the / ' ,} y i F ,- Urban Renewal District, plus those rap � �` '�►- ;� - otherperiies that are currently 4 tit /4•� �Q, .; U zoned CBD -PD and the two properties of City -owned Palazzo Creek House. �\ A4 * ) ' � al ca w ll require e 4,,, CBD toil 4 adoption e of h a n nge en map rritla th new � �i ___J . Comprehensive Plan designation ► Mixed Use Central Business District. e I4 • y A \ Zoning Classifications 1=1 Urban Renewal esimd■ry 'Urban Reuetval:arefl n 'Limn Boundaries City of Tigard Oregon Existing Zoning 111 -' • 1 L,'- -1 -1 I ' I j 1 -.:-.1,- c Ir. MU -CBD +f`- 6. . . . , r . ,. , , . \ 1 \\:. i Proposed Zone 10 1 Proposed Downtown'ligard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED10f7 /09 Proposed Land Use Table — MU -CBD ZONE + (to be integrated with Table 18.52 0A) STAFF C O M M E N T A R Y Use Category Present Present Present Proposed The table displays the three CBD Zone C-G Zone C -P Zone MU -CBD Zone* existingcosnmercialzoneswithin the Urban Renewal District and Residential compares their permitted uses Household Living R ''r R ( EL ) R (i.sr p with the new MU - C,BD zone. Group Living P C N P Transitional Housing C C N C Home Occupation R R R R Housing Types Single Units Attached P N/A N/A P Multi - family Units P N/A N/A P Manufactured Units P N/A N/A P Mobile Horne Parks, Subdivisions P N/A N/A It Lu Civic (Institutional) Basic Utilities C N C C Colleges N N N P Community Recreation P N N P Cultural Institutions P P P P Day Care P P P P Emergency Services P P P P Medical Centers C C C C Postal Service P P P P Public Support Facilities P P P P Religious Institutions P P C P Schools N N N P Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges P P P P A new use category, t,ustoM and Commercial Craft work, was added because the Custom Arts and Crafts - - - P Tigard Development Code includes Commercial Lodging P P R 041 P production of artwork and musical Eating/ Drinking Establishments P P R t P instricrnents in the definition ofLight Entertainment Oriented Industrial use. This new use category Major Event Entertainment C C N C distinguishes small scale art and Outdoor entertainment P P R 05) C craft production from tinge scale Indoor Entertainment P p p P industrial type production. Adult Entertainment C C N , N General Retail Sales Oriented P P R (U> f P Personal Services P P P 1 P Repair Oriented P P N P Bulk Sales N P N R Ili Outdoor Sales N P N N Animal - related N N N N Motor Vehicle Related Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental C P/C 11=1 N R, eu Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair R t18] P/C I''] N C Vehicle Fuel Sales C C N Li tx.i Office P P P P DRAFT t15 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 11 Use Category Present Present Present New MU -CBD J Zoning CBD Zoning C -G Zoning C -P Zone* STAFF COMMENTARY Self - service Storage N C N R Exl Non - Accessory Parking P P P P Industrial Industrial Services N N N N Manufacturing and Production Light Industrial N N N N General Industrial • N N N N Ileavy Industrial N N N N Railroad Yards N N N N Research and Development N N N C Warehouse/Freight Movement N N N N Waste- Related N N N N Wholesale Sales C N N N Other Agriculture /Horticulture N N N N Cemeteries N N N N Detention Facilities C C N C • Heliports C C C N Mining N N N N Wireless Com. Facilities P/R lit P/R 131 P/R 131 P/R 1 Rail Lines/Utility Corridors Other C 1191 C NA RL Footnotes: "* Ml development subject to Chapter 18.610 Downtown Urban Renewal Standards and Map 18.610X 131 See Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication facilities 111] A single-family unit providing that it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional use in and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or conditional use. Multi- family housing is permitted as part of a PD [12] Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and light equipment is permitted outright; sales and rental of hoary vehicles and faun equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and boats permitted conditionally. [ 13] Multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, only in the C -P District within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road 1141 Restaurant permitted with restriction in size in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a commercial lodging use. [ 15] As accessory to offices or other permitted uses, the total space devoted to a combination of retail sales and eating /drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20% of the entire square footage within the devel- opment complex. [ 16] May not exceed 10% of the total square footage within an office complex. 117] Single - family attached and multi - family residential units, developed at R -40 standards, except (R -12 PD) [ 18] Motor vehicle cleaning only 1 19] Drive -up windows are permitted to continue if the property had one lawfully in existence prior to the adoption (idle MU -CBD designation. Otherwise, not permitted. [X] tlnly for properties that were lawfully in existence (as permitted, conditional, or Planned Development) prior to the adoption oldie MU -CBD designation. [xxl New retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area in all subareas except 99W/Hall Corridor sub -area. See Map 18.610.A . Table 18.520.2 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MU -CBD zone will have footnote "see Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards" 12 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REVISED' 0/7/09 I Part 2: New Chapter STAFF COMMENTARY This is a new section. For readability, text is not underlined. Chapter 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN Development and Design Standards STANDARDS are intended to provide greater flexibility in the types of uses that 18.610. 010 Purpose and Procedures may be allowed through the tradi- A. Purpose. The objectives of the Tigard Downtown Development and Design Standards are tional zoning code. The reasons are to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Urban to: Renewal Plan and ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown. • Provide a greater range of land The regulations are intended to: use opportunities anywhere in 1. Facilitate the development of an urban village by promoting the development of a higher the downtown. Tigard's of jec- density, economically viable, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian oriented downtown tiveistopromoteredeveloprrrent where people can live, work, play and shop for their daily needs without relying on the of the downtown and wishes automobile. The quality and scale of the downtown urban environment shall foster social to ensure that a wide range interaction and community celebration. of compatible uses can locate 2. Encourage the integration of natural features and the open space system into Downtown anywhere within the MU -CBD by promoting development sensitive to natural resource protection and enhancement; district addressing the relationship to Fanno Creek Park; and promoting opportunities for the • Benrore responsive to the real creation of public art and use of sustainable design. estate market. 3. Enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians by guiding the design of the • Create a functional, well - building "walls" that frame the right -of -way (the "public realm ") to contribute to a safe, designed, and economically high quality pedestrian - oriented streetscape. Building features will be visually interesting viable Downtown district. and human scaled, such as storefront windows, detailed facades, art and landscaping. • Establisha unified and cohesive The impact of parking on the pedestrian system will also be limited. The downtown design character streetscape shall be developed at a human scale and closely connected to the natural • Provide options to develop environment through linkages to Fanno Creek open space and design attention to trees a wide range of business and landscapes. enterprises and housing 4. Promote Tigard's Downtown as a desirable place to live and do business. Promote opportunities development of high - quality high density housing and employment opportunities in the Downtown. 5. Provide a clear and concise guide for developers and builders by employing greater use of graphics to explain community goals and desired urban form to applicants, residents and administrators. B. Conflicting Standards. The following standards and land use regulations apply to all development within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District. With the exception of public facility and street requirements, if a design standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, the standards in this section shall govern, even if less restrictive than other areas of the code. C. Applicability. 1. New Buildings and Redevelopment: All applicable Design Standards apply to new buildings and related site improvements. 2. Expansion, modification and site improvements to existing development: An addition, expansion, enlargement, modification, and/or site improvements associated with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed provided the applicant for such proposed project moves toward compliance with the applicable development code standards. Only those Downtown Building and Site Design Standards applicable to the proposed expansion, modification or site improvements to the existing development shall be applicable. DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 9/2 /09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 13 • 3. Design standards do not apply to the following projects: I, • Maintenance and repair of a building, structure, or site in a manner that is consistent S T A F F COMMENTARY with previous approvals and/or necessary for safety; Section D: • Projects undertaken to bring an existing development into compliance with the There are three potential approval Americans with Disabilities Act; processes or tracks "for an applica- • Exterior painting; lion to get reviewed. Track 1 and2 • Any exterior project that doesn't require a building permit; use the clear and objective Design • Interior remodeling; Standards as the approval crite- • Temporary structures/uses (as defined in Chapter 18.785); a ia. Tr•tck 3 uses the discretionary • Any project involving.a pre - existing single family residential building or duplex (that Design Objectives as the approval is not being or already been converted to a non - residential use). criteria. D. Downtown Design Review Approval Process 1. To achieve the purpose of the Downtown Site and Building Design Standards, there are Sp ecified renovation projects may three methods or "tracks" to apply for approval : use Track 1, an Administrative a. Track 1. Design Compliance Letter provides for a Type I review process, using the clear review, which is similar to the and objective Design Standards. It is intended for smaller building and site renovation existing Minor iifodiftcatiottprocess. projects, which meet the threshold of 18.610.010.E.1, b. Track 2. The Administrative Review track provides for a more complex process (Type larger renovation projects and new If) that requires staff review utilizing clear /quantifiable standards. It applies to new building construction may use Track development and renovation/remodeling projects listed in 18.610.010.E.2. an c. Track 3. The Design Review Board Track provides for a Type III review process 2, the Administrative review similar through which a Design Review Board determines compliance with the Design to the jorMadifcatton process. Objectives. After or concurrently with receiving design approval, a project will be The Track 3 process provides the administratively reviewed as a Type H decision for all other applicable standards (Type opportunity for well designed 11I if a Conditional Use) projects, which cannot meet the 2. Designing a project to the Design and Development Standards would result in an clear and objective standatxls administrative review process. However, the applicant, at their option, may choose to j ©a building and site design. The use Track 3 with the Design Review Board. An applicant can address design review discretionary design objectives are requirements through a combination of satisfying certain Design Standards, and in tvritteat as qualitative statements. instances where they elect not to utilize Design Standards, satisfy applicable Design Unlike the clear and objective design Objectives. In such a case, the public hearing and decision will focus on whether or not standards, there are typically many the project satisfies the requirements of the applicable Design Objectives only. acceptable ways to nasal each design E. Procedures objective. Projects would need to 1. Track 1: Design Review Compliance Letter using Design Standards meet the Development Standards. a. Applicability: The decision making authority is the (1) Addition, elimination, or change in location of windows that does not decrease Design Review Board After Design the minimum required window coverage. (2) Addition, elimination, or change in location of entry doors and loading doors. Review Boated approval or with a (3) Addition of new and change to existing awnings, canopies, and other mounted concurrent application, a type II structures to an existing facade review is necessity for compliance with additional chapters listed in (4) For commercial and mixed use developments, modification of up to 15 percent 18.610.025. on -site landscaping with no reduction in required landscaping. ' Modification refers to changing the hardscape elements and the location of required landscape An applicant can address design areas and or trees. ' . review requirements through a (5) Modification of off- street parking with no reduction in required parking spaces or combination o f sans aaa g certain increase in paved area. Design Standards, and in instances (6) Addition of new fences, retaining walls, or both. where it elects not to utilize Design (7) Changing of existing grade. (8) An increase in the height of the building(s) less than 20 %; Standards, satisfy applicable Design Objectives. In such a case, the public (9) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site hearing and decision will focus on traffic would not he affected; whether or not the project satisfies (10) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by less than 10% the requirements of the applicable or under 5,000 sq; Design Objectives only. (11) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open 14 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 [ REVISED10/7 /09 space which does not reduce the open space area below the minimum required — by this code or reduces the open space area by less than 10 %; STAFF COMMENTARY b. Process and Procedure Type: The Type I procedure, as described in Section 18.390.030 of this Code, shall apply Section R.1 and E.2 to an application for Design Compliance Letter. The decision making authority is Adopted from Site Developrraent the Director. The applicant must show compliance to the Design Standards prior to Review Chapter 18.360 major issuance of the Design Review Compliance Letter. modification evaluation criteria. c. Process and Approval Criteria: Removed the follotving types of The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on projects: finding that the following criteria are satisfied: the applicable Building and Site Design 1 An increase in dwelling unit Standard(s) for the project (Section 18.610.30) and/or the applicable Additional density, or lot coverage for Standards (Section 18.610.035.) residential development; 2. Track 2: Administrative Review with Design Standards 2. A change in the ratio or number a. Applicability: A Track 2 review will be required for one of more of the following: of different types of drvellirrg (1) All new Development except those listed in Section 18.610.010.E.1 units (2) A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter 7 An increase in vehicular traffic 18.765; to and from the site and the (3) A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the State increase can be expected to Building Code; exceed 100 vehicles per day; (3) An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 %; 10. A reduction ofproject amenities (5) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site below the minimum established traffic would be affected; by this code or by more than (6) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10% 10% where specified in the site excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; plan: (7) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open a Recreational facilities; space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this b. Screening; and /or code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 %; c. Landscaping provisions. b. Procedure Type: The Type H procedure, as described in Section 13.390.040, shall apply to an application using the Building and Site Design and Development Standards. The decision making authority is the Director. Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the design standards, through architectural drawings, illustrations, graphics, photographs, a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate how the proposed development implements the intent of the design standards. c. Process and Approval Criteria: The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards and Additional Standards 18.610.035. 3. Track 3 Discretionary Design Review Using Design Objectives a. Applicability: (1) Any project, at the applicant's option. The applicant may also clioose this track if a project is unable to meet a clear and objective standard. b. Procedure Type: Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the intent statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings, illustrations, graphics, photographs, a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate how the proposed development implements the intent of the design standards. The Type III procedure, as described in Section 13.390.050, shall apply to an application using Discretionary Design Objectives. The decision making authority is the Design Review Board. Projects receiving approval must also undergo review for land use, engineering, and building approval. c. Process and Approval Criteria: The Design Review Board shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an DRAFT ;:5 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments j 15 application based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 18.610.050 ! — Building and Site Design Objectives. STAFF COMMENTARY 4. Adjustments and Variances a. Variances and adjustments as outlined in Chapter 18.370 may be granted for the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards 18.610.020, and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035) Variances cannot be granted for building and site design standards in Section 18.610.030. Instead, A limited rnsmber of exceptions to applications unable to meet a standard should use the Track 3 Discretionary Design the standards that may be granted Review using Design Objectives. are listed in 18.610.045. b. For applications using Track 3, variances and adjustments may be only be granted for the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards (18.610.020), and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035), not for the Design Objectives themselves. E Downtown Design Review Submittal Requirements: 1. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, or for a Type III procedure , as governed by Section 18.390.050. 2. Additional information. In addition to the submission requirements required in Section Sections F through !i adapted from 18.390, Decision - Making Procedures, an application must include the following additional Section 18.360 Site Development information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of Review. Currently, projects in the the specific information to be included in each of the following: Tigard Triangle and Washington a. An existing site conditions analysis; Square undergo Site Development b. A site plan; Review and review with the design c. A grading plan; overlay standards, Projects in the d. A landscape plan; Downtown will meet the standards e. Architectural elevations of all structures; and of this Section (and the additional f. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. chapters listed in 18.610.025, but 3. All drawings submitted with applications for development using Tracks 2 and 3 shall be need not undergo Site Development stamped by a registered architect. Applications for landscaping projects only may be Review. stamped by a registered landscape architect. Applications that require engineering or transportation reports must be stamped by the appropriate specialist. G. Approval period. Approval by the Director or Design Review Board shall be effective for a period of 1 -1 /2 years from the date of approval. The approval shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one - and - one -half years period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. H. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: 1. No changes are made on the plan as approved by the Director or Design Review Board; 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one year extension period; and 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. I. Phased development 1. If the development of a site takes more than one year, the applicant shall submit a phased development time schedule for approval by the Director. In no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for design review. 2. The criteria for approving a phased development proposal is that all of the following are satisfied: a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners 16 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISEO1 O/7 /O9 to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development 1------ - t proposal; and STAFF COMMENTARY d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.390.040.G. No notice need be given of the Director's decision. J. Bonding and Assurances 1. Performance bonds for public improvements. On all projects where public improvements are required the Director shall require a bond in an amount not greater than 100% or other adequate assurances as a condition of approval of the plan in order to ensure the completed project is in conformance with the approved plan; and Section 18.610.015: 2. Release of performance bonds. The bond shall be released when the Director finds the SectionA is based on the Washington completed project conforms to the approved plan and all conditions of approval are Square Regional Center Design satisfied. Standards (Section 18.630.030).The 3. Completion of landscape installation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of section addresses nonconforming occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of the landscaping as determined by uses and structures in the Down - the Director is filed with the City Recorder assuring such installation within six months town district. It has some differences after occupancy: with Section 18.760, Nonconform- a. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond payable to the City, cash, certified ing Situations. Additions and check or such other assurance of completion approved by the City Attorney; and modifications of existing noncon- b. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six -month period, the forming structures are permitted As security may be used by the City to complete the installation. the proposed development standards K. Business Tax Filing . . would create many nonconforming The applicant shall ensure that all occupants of the completed project, whether permanent developments, the proposed code or temporary, shall apply for and receive a City of Tigard business tax prior to initiating requires only the addition or modi- business. fication to Me structure conform to the new code requirements. For 18.610.015 Pre - Existing Uses and Developments within the example, for an application to add Downtown District windows to the facade of an existing A. Applicability. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18,760.040 (Criteria for building would only have to meet Nonconforming Situations), hand uses and associated development in the MU -CBD District the window standards (window coy- that were lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of these standards may continue as erage, trim, etc,) and not the other lawful uses and developments. facade standards (awnings, etc.) 1. Land uses and associated development that were in existence at the time of the adoption of the MU -CBD district and Chapter 18.610 may continue on the property. Additions, The proposed code also permits expansions, or enlargements to such uses or developments, shall be limited to the nonconforming uses and structures property area of said use or development lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of to continue if destroyed, as long this ordinance, , 2009. as it is reestablished within one 2. If a pre- existing structure or use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other act of God, or year. Section 18.760 permits only otherwise abandoned then the use will retain its pre - existing status under this provision 6 months. Washington Sq. specifies so long as it is substantially reestablished within one (1) year of the date of the loss. The 3 years to reestablish, but only new structure would have to conform to the code. f destroyed by fire, earthquake, B. Standards for Projects Involving Existing Single Family and Duplex Dwellings or other act of god. The proposed 1. Existing single family buildings and duplexes used for residential purposes are exempt language would allow up to a year from the standards. to reestablish an abandoned use. 2. For projects involving preexisting housing units used for non - residential uses the The reason for the more per missive applicable standards are: 18.610.020.Building and Site Development Standards, including standard is to lessen the likelihood the applicable sub -area from Map 610.A, 18.610.030. Building Design Standards for that buildings would stand empty non- Residential Buildings and 18.610.035 Additional Standards, and unused during the expected C. Existing nonconforming industrial structures transition of downtown. Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the following locations may continue to be utilized for I -P Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six months: Map 25 1 Section C carries over from the 2AA tax lot 4700, Map 25 1 2AC tax lot 100 and 202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 25 1 existing CBD regulations, with one 2DB tax lot 100, and Map 25 1 2DA tax lot 300. previously listed property removed (the property where the Ballroom Dance Facility is now located.) DRAFT 415 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 17 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards A. Sub - Areas: The four sub -areas located an Map 610.A and described below have different STAFF COMMENTARY setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. I. Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard Corridor sub -area is intended to create a "pulse - point" along the highway 99W corridor. Located at the intersection of 99W and Hall Blvd., the area has the high traffic and visibility to draw potential retail customers from the region. It will also serve the potential for future high capacity transit in the corridor. The area will accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, while maintaining a pedestrian scale at the ground -floor level of buildings. It would allow development of mixed use and retail buildings that could vary in scale from one -story retail -only buildings, to mixed use buildings up to eight stories tall with retail on the ground floor and residential and/or office uses above. 2. Main St.— Center St.: The sub -area is centered on the City's historic downtown Main Street. It is intended to be pedestrian oriented with smaller scale development that would function like a "traditional Main Street." A pedestrian environment would be improved with a continuous building wall broken only intermittently. New buildings in the sub- area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features. Residential and commercial uses are permitted on upper floors. 3. The Scoffins St.— Commercial St. sub -area is intended to provide an opportunity for higher density residential as well as an employment base comprised. of civic, office and commercial uses in the areas of Commercial Street and Scoffins. Residential only buildings, office/commercial buildings, and mixed use developments are all permitted. 4. The Fanno — Burnham St. sub -area provides an opportunity for medium scale residential or mixed use development . Compatible mixed -uses (live -work, convenience retail, office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek Park. Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to overwhelm or cast shadows on the park. 18 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REVISEt]10/7 /09 Map 18.610.A — _ I STAFF COMMENTARY �C . ° 1 I I_- c I - ,lI iL ■ i, i _ I ",,, , Map 18.610.A shows the location of .� �� ' J._. . ' ', , I ' i ' �, - =; the sub - areas. Each sub -area has 'i " IM 1 ' distinct height limits and setbacks. a i ■ I %► �`'.1 , _ The development standards are y �� ;. ► - '-' - f• - .-0111 listed in Table 18.610.1 below. The :::,...z4----:.,/ l^ ` . 7-- - '^ 1 t 4 j sub are:lb ar ce))ter'ed oP1 e istnzg '- _ ''i >• `; -- stree ct A lso accor�nt faP' the 1 . � / !' - -1 _ . ' poten tideve lop)r)e)) toffzrtrare - e °`` III streets. ..... II } All of the uses displayed in the ~" t "•i + +O ` - - 18.520.1 land use table are ' ��. � � a • . �••4:a•4 "•:s• *:• * • * i •fie . ; " - / + 6. +•i "• ;•:"O *i "w•.`.'� • jj - eYl))itted in all Of the sub -areas. /f .y�4 * *. •i 'r "* "r`i y1• * *��1 *4*. r` . MU - CRD ,; yti . ^, Proposed .' , ' Mll-CBD 1 `- Sub -Areas l` - i 1 =wt.., tienrxat Dishret �" = COW -Hall ` t'/ ' '',r ) W I 7 I n Sm{:ms-Ca ` r t � E F..,1-..-...h.., , "r V - a $ 20 Station Arta Overlay < l J'I fir '+ L- 47,7 i, _ fly S ti 1_ � r I L - 1 ~- l TIGARD OREGON _ 1 �- -' ( f 0- I \\ J �`ts 1 : �' I �l ntaewwrane ty.v,wsna } Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza B. Development Standards. Development Standards apply to all new development in the MU -CBD zone, including developments utilizing the Track 3 approval process. Variances or Adjustments may be granted if the criteria found in Chapter 18.370 is satisfied. 1. Development standards matrix. See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610,A DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 912109 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 19 Table 18.610.1 i_ . -1 MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix " 2 STAFF COMMENTARY STANDARD SUB- AREAS Main Street 99W /Hall Scoffins/ Fenno/ (MS) Corridor Commercial Burnham (99H) (SC) (FB) Front Setback . Minimum 0 ft. 0/10 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. (10 ft. for frontage on 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sidevard • Minimum/Maximum N/A N/A N/A ' N/A ' Rear Setback Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Building height Maximum height is provided in Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. stories and feet. The limit shall Maximum (stories /feet) 3 stories 8 stories 6 stories 5 stories be in stories, however having the (45 ft.) (120 ft.) (90 ft.) (75 ft.) maximum expressed in feet allows (3 stories/45 ft. for flexibility in actual story heights, within 200 ft. of while providing a hard cap. Fanno Creek Park boundary (see Map 610.A) or within 50 ft.of low or med. density residential district.) Ground Floor Height Minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. none none Site Coverage Maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum Landscaping'' 0 % 10% 10% 20% Minimum Building Frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential Density (units per acre) Minimum Density applies to residential -only development (not mixed use) Minimum 25 7 5 � . 15 Maximum 50 50 50 50 1 This table does not apply to existing development. All New Buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 2 For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Require- ments for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards in the Mll -CBD zone. 4 In the MU -CBD zone, required landscaping can he provided on roofs. 5 t.andscaing/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre (See Map 18.610A) 20 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISEDI0/7 /09 STAFF COMMENTARY 2. Parking Location: a. Parking is allowed on the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, the parking area shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of the site. b. Parking is set back a minimum of 10' from the front property line. c. When abutting a public street, parking areas must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L -1 standard. d. Where a parking lot shares a property line with an adjacent parking lot, the landscape requirement along the shared property line is not required. 1iv r v MOM 0111 MOM vriO ■oO:0o i O ILOOP b :P• 1 0 • • As 4 I • p Q 0 • I • • • 0 a j 0 I • r � a 0 I I • Building a r • I � • l i I 0`4 11 _ 4 !I e Parking on the side or rear of buildings © L -1 landscape standard O Max. 50:& of site frontage ® Landscape not required along shared prop. line © Min. 10' setback 0 See 01.18.745 for screening and 4andscaping requirements B.2 Parking Location DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 912109 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 21 • 3. Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening L-- — - a. The following rooftop equipment does not require screening: STAFF COMMENTARY (1) Solar panels, wind generators, and green roof features (2) Equipment under two feet in height b. Elevator mechanical equipment may extend above the height limit a maximum of 16 feet provided that the mechanical shaft is incorporated into the architecture of the building. c. Satellite dishes and other communications equipment be shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and screened from public view to the extent possible. d, All other roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall be shall be limited to I0 feet in height, shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and be screened from public view and from views from adjacent buildings by one of the following methods: (1) A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; (2) Green roof features or regularly maintained dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted. 1 l i ,! o 10 feet mac. equipment height o Equipment set Cock min. • feet A B.3 Rooftop Features /EqulpmentScreening to w F 7 y. i r I o Seem made of primary ektcrlor finrsh material, wood. or masonry B.3.d.(1) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (architectural screen) 22 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED10f7 /09 t.. '� STAFF COMMENTARY • n yfF `' t � I 0 Green roar features win evergreen fa4age B.3.d.(2) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (vegitative screen} 4. Other Exterior Mechanical Equipment. Other exterior mechanical equipment on the site (electrical boxes, etc.) shall be screened from view from adjacent ROW,.public spaces, and parking areas by one or a combination of the following: a. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; or b. Setback from the street facing elevation so it is not visible from the public ROW; or c. Dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted that will be regularly maintained. 5. Landscaping and Screening. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.745 the following shall also apply to the screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be four feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. b. Landscape islands shall provide a minimum of 1000 cubic feet of soil volume per tree. This may he achieved through open soil (see definition) area, root paths (see definition) to open soil areas, or covered soil areas (see definition) specially designed to support root growth. Soil depth will be assumed to be three feet. c. Tree species shall be large stature/broad spreading at maturity and chosen from the Tigard Street Tree List unless otherwise approved by the City. If the use of large stature trees/broad spreading trees is precluded by building lines, trees shall be the largest size possible given the available space. d. Irrigation shall be provided for all parking lot trees and landscaping via an automatic irrigation system. e. Soil volume calculations (see definition) shall be provided for each tree. Soil specifications (including amendments and composition of importdd soils) and irrigation details shall be provided on plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect. f. Prior to final approval, the project landscape architect shall certify that parking and loading areas have been planted per the approved landscape plan and the provisions of this Section. DRAFT tt5 1 REVISED 9/2/99 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 23 STAFF COMMENTARY 18.610.025 Street Connectivity Section 18 610 - 025 A Downtown Circulation Plan will be Section to be held until completion of Downtown Circulation Plan. adopted together with the TSP update (in progress.) The Circulation Plan will include a map with designated new streets and bicycle/ pedestrian connections, which new development will be required to provide for: The Plan will laso include special street sections for the MU -CBD zone. • 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards A. Create Vibrant Ground Floors, Streetscapes and Rights -of -Way; Provide Weather Protection; and Promote Safety and Security. Intent. Design standards in this section are intended to foster vibrant, inviting streetscapes and sidewalk- facing ground floors and entryways. They are also intended to create buildings that are easily accessible to and provide protection from the elements for pedestrians. They also will help ensure that the ground floor promotes a sense of interaction between activities in the building and activities in the public realm. Building and site design should also address crime prevention through defensible spaces lighting, and features that allow observation and "eyes on the street." 24 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REVISED10/7 /09 1. Street Facade a. Street- facing facades shall be built in proximity to the street. This standard is met when STAFF COMMENTARY at least 50 percent of the ground floor front building elevation(s) is located no further from the front property line than the maximum front setback standard established in Table 18.610.I; and, where maximum street- facing side setbacks are required within the Main Street Subarea, at least 50 percent of the ground floor street - facing side building elevation(s) is located no further from the street - facing side property line than the maximum street- facing side setback standard established in Table 18.610. Enctum0 Om410+kiffup0 1 6{7 1 0 0'0 O • • Q 4 0 0 o 0 o b 0 ii r • • O. i 0 0 Building • p I is • • e — . — oo dn'>��. .- ._ —. --• —• o Maximum sedmdcrare Latrtvrtbge Q M in_ 5Q% dsneet#aiig MR froreiga amvied by baling g facade nt mtbeck he A.i(a) Sheet Facade b. Buildings more than 3 stories are required to step back six (6) feet from the building facade at the beginning of the fourth Rh) story. o 1 o Min 6'serhnck Ai(b) Street Facad DRAFT 115 l REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 25 2. Primary Entry l _ a. For Comniercial/Mixed Use Buildings STAFF COMMENTARY (1) At least one entry door is required for each business with a ground floor frontage. (2) Each entrance shall be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. (3) All primary ground -floor common entries shall be oriented to the street or a public space directly facing the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. b. For Residential Buildings (1) Entry Door: The primary public entrance to each building unit shall be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. (2) All primary ground -floor common entries of multi-family buildings and individual unit entries of attached single family units that front the street shall be oriented to the street or public right -of -way, not to the interior or to a parking lot. 3. Windows a. Ground Floor Windows for Non - Residential and Mixed Use Buildings: (1) 60% minimum ground floor window coverage for street-facing wall (Minimum window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) (2) Ground Floor Window Transparency. All buildings with non - residential ground floor windows must have a Visible Transmittance (vT) of 0.6 or higher, with the exception of medical and dental offices which may have tinted windows. b. Ground Floor Windows for Residential Buildings: (1) 30% minimum ground floor window coverage for street - facing wall (Minimum window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) c. Upper Floor Windows/Doors for All Buildings: (1) 30% minimum upper floor window coverage for each floor of the street - facing wall. (Minimum window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) (2) The required upper floor window /balcony door percentage does not apply to floors where sloped roofs and dormer windows are used. (3) Upper floor windows shall be vertically oriented (a minimum vertical to horizontal dimension ratio of 1.5:1.) d. Window Shadowing for All Buildings: Windows shall be designed to provide shadowing. This can be accomplished by: recessing windows 3 inches into the facade and/or incorporating trim of a contrasting material or color. 4. Weather Protection For Non - residential and Mixed Use Buildings: a. A Projecting Facade Element (awning, canopy, arcade, or marquee) is required, on the street facing facade of the street with the highest functional classification. b. Awnings/Marquees /Canopies may project a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 6 feet from the facade (a maximum of 4 feet into the public right of way)' c. The element shall have a minimum 10 feet clearance from the bottom of the element to the sidewalk. ,. d. Awnings must match the width of storefronts or window openings. e. Internally lit awnings are not permitted f. Awnings must be made of glass, metal, or exterior grade fabric (or a combination of these materials) 26 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REMEDW 0I7ID9 , +anvwr vx emu. i - -. -- --- - -_ _ _ ... -- - ___ITI C r•a. +a.T FRAM rtE2,c FiEALM CEVELCPMENT FINKEL ROJO REALM I STAFF COMMENTARY I I l o b 0-- ' . 1 1L g r I � =WV ,_ 1 ° I l , 1 15 ,. a = - t _ 1 _ .1 b e Primary entry doors oriented to street or public space 0 Primary entry door oriented to street or public apace e Entrance is covered and /or recessed behind facade 0 Entrance is covered and/or recessed behind facade Q Max 6' balcony /deck projection 0 Min 3': Max 6' projection 0 Min 10' clearance 9 Max 6' balcony /deck projection © Min 30% windows 0 Min 10' clearance 0 Upper windows vertically oriented 0 Min 60% windows 0 Min 30% windows A.2 -4 Residential (Only) Building 0 Upper windows vertically oriented A.2 -4 Commercial/Mixed-Use Building , V. DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 912109 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 27 B. Cohesive architectural facade standards. Intent. Build and expand upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by incorporating STAFF C O M M E N T A R Y cohesive and repetitive architectural elements into the ground floor of street facing facades. 1. Architectural Bays for Non - Residential and Mixed Use Buildings Divide the street facing ground floor of commercial/mixed use storefronts into distinct architectural bays that are no more than 30 feet on center. For the purpose of this standard, an architectural bay is defined as the zone between the outside edges of an engaged column, pilaster, post, or vertical wall area. lili jj ..J J [ 1I II I1 IL a� [ 1 e 1 1 i • f r , ° t _t_____ „,,,, \ NI =am= , . d , Q , 0 Archileetural buy (30 ' rnaw on center] ® Building lighting 0 Transom xrndnws 0 Ground flow vundonsill e Cclumryrni luster/post U Btude s]gn 0 Sign h.nnd/stom!ront Enure B.1 Architectural Bays 28 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.1 1 REVI5ED10/7 /09 C. Integrated building facade standards. — 1 Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive STAFF COMMENTARY and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, and creates visually interesting facades and roofs. I. Non - residential and mixed use building facades a. Non - residential and nixed use buildings Tri- Partite Facades Non - residential and mixed use buildings two stories and above shall have three clearly defined elements on the street- facing facade(s); a base (extends from the sidewalk to the bottom of the second story or the belt course/string course that separates the ground floor from the middle of the building).; a middle (distinguished from the top and base of the building by use of building elements); and a top (roof form/ element at the uppermost portion of the facade that visually terminates the facade). A tripartite facade creates a unified facade and breaks up vertical mass. o 1 J Il 1 J 11 1 l 1 1 ! _1 Fil —I _ i ` I 1 P e Taw y Bell course/51 guru. O •A1ddI v,orecung cnm celPa,apel 0 -Too - C.1 Integrated Building Facade {Commercial /Mixed -Use Building} DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 0/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 29 2. Residential Building Facades ►— - -! a. Unit definition. Each street facing dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a STAFF COMMENTARY roof dormer or bay windows on the street - facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch or balcony that faces the street. b) Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure's elevation (s) . v �llt Illr�.t I. illac rt+ a{III!s. W 4,i _ on � — = �' H .-- : – ICI X11 1 I I 11_ 1 1 fr�lt�Cl Ifllt`i i_; [ 1; i *1 * I• 11R, ni i • icell _ r--1 a fib. � 111 .._ 6 as [r.::._ unit unit s_ o strict. &Id rig tar xird7. 0 str:attaong;orrr a Strcatraong, tal_a-w 0 Um +nna r;c ai rct Iran prim. atndan nn]rcnr•. C.2 Integrated Building Facade {Residential Only Buildin l 3. Roof Forms a. The roof form of a building shall follow one (or a combination) of the following forms: (1) Flat Roof with Parapet or Cornice (2) Hip Roof (3) Gabled Roof (4) Full Mansard Roof (5) Dormers (6) Shed Roof b. All sloped roofs (other than hill mansard roofs) exposed to view from adjacent public or private streets and properties shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch. c. Sloped roofs, shall have eaves, exclusive of rain gutters, that must project from the building wall at least twelve inches. d. All flat roofs or those with a pitch of less than 5/12 shall be architecturally treated or articulated with a parapet wall that must project vertically above the roof line at least twelve inches and /or a cornice that must project from the building face at least 6 inches. e. When an addition to an existing structure or a new structure is proposed in an existing development, the roof forms for the new structures shall have similar lope and be constructed of the same materials as the existing roof. f. Green roof features and/or rooftop gardens are encouraged. As part of the development permit, applicant shall execute a covenant ensuring the maintenance of any green roof. The covenant shall be approved by the Director on City provided forms. 30 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED10I7 /09 , Flat roof Hip wof Gabled roof Full mansard roof Dormers. Shed roof t 1 X ._ i a. 41111 STAFF COMMENTARY .— �. I " I ''' ;Mks, a o a .� f\ /' o ParapeVcomrca rnust preiecI min. 12" Vonccaaf 0 Envrs must project man. 12" nom race Ed hmlmnyr Q Paraaer/Carmce meSS prpjrcl nun. G' tronr face nr building Q Ian. 5/32 path on sloped mole C.3 Roof Forms D. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity Intent. Create a strong architectural statement at street corners. Establish visual landmarks and enhance visual variety. 1. For non - residential or mixed use buildings at the corner of two public streets or a street and public area, park or plaza (for the purposes of this standard an alley is not considered a public street) incorporate one of the following features: a. Locate the primary entry to the building at the corner. b. A prominent architectural element, such as increased building height or massing, a cupola, a turret or a pitched roof at the corner of the building or within 20 feet of the corner of the building; c. The corner of the building cut at a 45 degree angle, or a similar distension "rounded" corner. d. A combination of special paving materials, street furnishings and, where appropriate, plantings, in addition to the front door. ,1 r �' J - - - � 4 Iii i. ____Ac . -L k.. oil ,II! 7 L - 1_, /--1/4---:-.-_ rlIl ----- " l "V^E 0 Primary entry door to the building located at corner r 0 Prominent architectural element within 20' of the F t ► t n • comer of the building l ` . � Corner min 10' from street corner and cut at s - _ ' 1 P . - Q ' 45 de angle 10' i`— Y 0 Special paving patterns, street furnishings, and a l plantings near front door r 0 k2 -4 Commercial /Mixed -Use Building • DRAFT 4:5 1 REVISED 9 /2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 31 E. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability Intent. Use building materials that evoke a sense of permanence and are compatible with STAFF COMMENTARY Downtown Tigard and the surrounding built and natural environment. 1. Building Materials a. The following exterior building materials or finishes are prohibited: (1) Vinyl siding (2) T -111 or similar sheet materials (3) Plain concrete block (not including split faced, colored, or other block designs that mimic stone, brick, or other masonry.) Foundation material may be skim coated concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. (4) Mirrored glass F. Open Space/ Public Plaza Intent: Assure adequate public, private and shared outdoor space Section F 1. Mixed use and Commercial Developments greater than 60,000 sf. The required open space for multi - a. Development projects with site areas greater than 60,000 sf shall include at least one family projects have been changed public space with a minimum size of 600 sf. from the existing SDR standards b. Public spaces shall be abutted on at least two sides by retail shops, restaurants or (Chapter 18.360) to allow a more services with windows entrances fronting on the space. urban form of development. 2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi- Family Developments 80% of multi family units in a a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential only buildings and mixed use buildings with development are required to provide more than 4 residential units: private open space, which allows (1) A minimum of 80% of the dwelling units in a development shall have private more flexibility in the design of open space, such as a private porch, a deck, a balcony, a patio, an atrium, or multi family buildings. other outdoor private area. The private open space shall be contiguous with the 32 sq. ft. ofprivate open space is unit in a single area. required, reduced from the SDR (2) A minimum of 32 square feet of private open space is required. The open space requirement of 48 sq. ft. must have a minimum depth of 4 feet. (3) Balconies may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. (4) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit. b. Shared Outdoor Space for Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Multi- Family Buildings: In addition to the required private outdoor space, multi- family buildings and mixed use buildings with more than 4 residential units shall provide shared open space (e.g., courtyards, roof decks or garden, play areas, outdoor recreation facilities, indoor recreation room, and/or similar space) that is equal to or greater than 10% percent of the development site, except as follows: Minimum required shared outdoor (1) Credit for Private Open Space. Up to 50% percent of the shared open space space will be 10% of the site area, standard may be met by providing additional private open space, such as rather than 200 or 300 sq. ft. per balconies, porches and patios(above what is required in 18.610.030.E2). unit as required in Chapter 18.360 (2) Credit for Proximity to a Park. A shared open space credit of 50% percent Site Development Review. may be granted when a multiple family development is directly adjacent to an improved public park. (3) Credit for up to 100% of the shared open space standard may be met by paying a fee -in -lieu. The fee will fund parks and/or plazas within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. v. (4) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime prevention and safety. 3. Private Open Space for Single- Family Attached Dwelling Units: a. A minimum of 100 square feet of private open space per unit such as a private porch, yard, a deck, a balcony, a patio, or other outdoor private area is required. G. Additional Requirements for Single - Family Attached Dwelling Units 1. Garage entry garages and carports shall be accessed from alleys, or otherwise recessed behind the front building elevation (i.e., living area or covered front porch) a distance of 7 feet or less or 18 feet or greater. 32 [ Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments GRAFT #5.1 j FIEVISED1 O/7 /U9 18.610.035 Additional Standards Applications must conform to all applicable standards in the following chapters: STAFF COMMENTARY • Access Egress and Circulation see Chapter 18.705 • Environmental Performance Standards see Chapter 18.725 • Exceptions to Development Standards see Chapter 18.730 • Landscaping and Screening see Chapter 18.745 • Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage see Chapter 18755 • Off- Street Parking and Loading Requirements see Chapter 18.765 • Sensitive Lands see Chapter 18.775 • Signs see Chapter 18.780 • Tree Removal see Chapter 18.790 • Visual Clearance see Chapter 18.795 • Wireless Communication Facilities see Chapter 18.798 • Street and Utility Improvement Standards see Chapter 18.810 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza The Urban Plaza is listed as a catalyst project in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and These requirements are a'floating Urban Renewal Plan. Developments on the parcels that directly abut the location of the new zone" that will take effect when plaza will expected to be in keeping with the character of the plaza New development that is the property for the Urban Plaza is built concurrently or subsequent to the construction of the plaza will need to conform to the secured. following standards (in addition to the other applicable standards in this code): • The building must be minimum of two stories and a maximum of four stories . • No parking lot may abut the plaza • The buildings shall follow the building and site design and development standards for Commercial and Mixed Use buildings in the Main Street Sub -area. 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards A. Exceptions to setback requirements. The Director may grant an exception to the yard setback requirements in the applicable zone based on findings that the approval will result in the following: 1. An exception which is not greater than 20% of the required setback; 2. No adverse effect to adjoining properties in terms of light, noise levels and fire hazard; 18.610.045 adapted from Chapter 3. Safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and on -site; 18.360 Site Development Review 4. A more efficient use of the site which would result in more landscaping; and 5. The preservation of natural features which have been incorporated into the overall design of the project. B. Exceptions to parking requirements. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the off - street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zoning district based on the following findings: 1. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature, e.g., senior citizen housing, and which has a demonstrated low demand for off-street parking; 2. There is an opportunity for shared parking and there is written evidence thaLthe property owners have entered into a binding agreement to share parking; or 3. There is community interest in the preservation of particular natural feature(s) on the site, public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses, therefore the public interest is not adversely affected by the granting of the exception. C. Exceptions for private or shared outdoor area. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the private outdoor area and shared outdoor recreation areas requirements, provided the application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature (for example, senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate a reduced demand for a private outdoor recreational area based on any one or more of the OAAFT as 1 REVISED 912/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments [ 33 • following findings: t - - - - 1 1. The development operates a motor vehicle which is available on a regular basis to STAFF COMMENTARY transport residents of the development to public open space or recreation areas; or 2. The required square footage of either the private outdoor area or the shared outdoor recreation area may be reduced if together the two areas equal or exceed the combined standard for both. D. Exceptions to landscaping requirements. The Director may grant an exception to the landscaping requirements of this code, Section 18.745, upon finding that the overall landscape plan provides for at Least 20% of the gross site to be landscaped. 18.610.050 Track 3 is available as an alternative 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to he used with way of review that ensures projects Track 3 Approval Process) that are unable to meet the design A. Applicability standards will have good design All development using the Track 3 Approval Process must demonstrate compliance with the principles. design objectives listed in 18.610.050.0. The development must also meet the development standards of Table 18.610.1. The Building and Site Design B. Approval Criteria objectives are qualitative Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the intent statements, with multiple ways statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings and a narrative. of accomplishing. They are based The design review body will make findings that the intent of the design objective has been met. on the intent statementsfrom Applications using the Track 3 process must also show compliance with the development the Design Standards section. The standards set forth in Section 18.610.020 and Table 18.610.1 application would address each Concurrently or after Design Review Board approval, the application will be reviewed for applicable objective through a compliance with the other relevant chapter sections, as listed in 18.610.035, narrative graphics, and architectur- C. Design Objectives al drawings. The decision making Each design objective has an intent statement followed by photographs of development process is Type 11! with the Design exemplifying the objective. Review Board as the decision mak- I. Create Vibrant Streetscapes and Rights -of -Way; Provide Weather Protection; ing authority. and Promote Safety and Security Intent. Foster vibrant, inviting streetscapes and sidewalk- facing ground floors and entry Concurrently, or after Design Review ways. Create buildings that are easily accessible to and provide protection from the Board approval, the application will elements for pedestrians. Ensure that the ground floor promotes a sense of interaction be reviewed for compliance with the between activities in the building and activities in the public realm. Building and site other relevant chapter sections: land design should also address crime prevention through defensible spaces, lighting, and use, street, utility, issues, etc. features that allow observation and "eyes on the street." A Design Review Board may consist of a new volunteer board, appointed . •, . • - IT. :,. - 7 . III by Council or a subcommittee of the .t , ' -` I ` Planning Commission. A potential ` `� i � dQ configuration is five members with ' • - 4. - £ t tl i i at least three involved in architec- i' ,. t tut e, landscape architecture, or a , i , ,t.. �,, design specialty. .11041 , l et ,_ ..--, ' , it'll - 1 l‘ — - . j ,. a , ti ' � . h • 5: .; . The photos are included as examples • i 1 - 4 ,€ • % r ° ' y of developmen that exempli, ) the • ,t � t , • objective. r ' , 2; 7., 7 4. ,. , L . 34 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DF1AFT #5.1 1 AEVIsE014f7 /09 2. Create Cohesive Architectural Facades t I Intent. Build and expand upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by S T A F F COMMENTARY incorporating cohesive and repetitive architectural elements into the ground floor of street facing facades. Relate to the horizontal facade articulation and massing of sur- rounding development and/or utilize building and site design elements that connect Fauna Creek Park or extend natural elements to the Downtown. j - olat ompiampliammiwilimeam . :. n . ___. _ __ rat MK r - . H u .. �t iim .. J , - .r 1.— Ill ' ,1 h, y a 3. Design Buildings with Integrated Facades Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, creates a visually interesting facades and roofs. L '' , ' t ' , , .iiii.-. 11,01011 lI� ' et -- .1 .� 1 i it 1 !- : r 1 li 11/ 11111 Il!11'l �i , f i ![tltll ll' ip 11 ll Ili/ ll I l l E /' 1 ) .1 1 -'-- ' I :. Itili. ii. s 1 i. ' . �` - DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 35 lid :., ' / - t " ' ' , STAFF COMMENTARY 11 ‘.::1 *", -. ,1.- - "k t , ' �j L - ' " i 11 F. ,:,. ,,-.,1 4:„N 4.,i0, ,. -_/- 4 j. II I iiii , , , 4 ' 1 f i rejoir- . j; - ot 1 -• - . w_=_-_1_-.-21 1. \, i j , Ai I.\ . __,.._ 1 . , _ ., ., ----- - „...- .-- _________ _!n om v !` 4. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity Intent. Create a strong architectural statement at street corners to create a strong identity and opportunities for activity. Establish visual landmarks and enhance visual variety t tt i i _ ----- . ,,, 1 1 1NX 2,. - • 1 . m ____; - . 1, '4 I_ - 44444): ill ' ii , , I 1 atm 4 4 . 1 F la y v �. a �` L � J 4 , ` 1 ..-' -- - "%.._. -`4` y "cwt .1. ■ i r 3, 36 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT ;:5.1 1 REVISED10/7 /09 5. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability 1._ — t Intent. Use building materials that evoke a sense of permanence and durability and are STAFF C 0 M M E N Ti A R Y compatible with Downtown Tigard and the surrounding built environment. Windows, doors, roofs, and weather protection shall appear to be an integral part of the building design. x ,... IIII ....A Wit . ....••■• .,,.. ''''41.4 44 I:IT\ , ., '..% 411 ........ ' '".. .._. ,., f p pi ,_ r 1 LEI' 111,, ,; . _. fi i r a 0 .s 1 ` - . j -� �a ; ..sir _ Si. 4 } '. 1:11 1 ! } r . - � •, 11.4__.- _ = i t __ i a ! 4 6. Provide Adequate Outdoor Spaces Intent: Assure new residential units have adequate private and shared outdoor space. -4. DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 912109 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 18.610.046 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development STAFF COMMENTARY Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the MU -CBD zone shall meet the sign requirements for the R -40 zone 18.780.130B; non - residential developments 18.610.46 Signs within the MU -CBD zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, Most existing CBD and C -G sign 18.780.1300, and the additional requirements below. regulations are retained with some 2. Sign area limits — The maximum sign area limits are: exceptions. a. Freestanding signs: 70 square feet per sign face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. b. Wall Signs: shall not exceed in gross area 15 percent of nay building face on which the sign is mounted. c. All other signs area requirements shall follow 18.780.130C. 3. Height limits — The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 20 feet 4. Sign location — Freestanding signs within the MU -CBD zone shall not be permitted within required L -1 landscape areas. 5. Blade Signs a. One blade sign (above the walkway and under weather protecting awnings, marquees, and parapets) placed at each entrance to a building is allowed. b. Vertical dimension of a blade sign shall not exceed 1.5 ft and the width may not exceed 90 percent of the width of the weather protection, for a maximum sign area per sign of 4.5 sq. ft. 18.610.047 Of Parking c. Height of Sign: The distance from the sidewalk or grade up to the bottom of the sign Requirements shall be at least eight feet. Development in the MU-CBD have d. Illumination: The blade sign may be indirectly illuminated. significantly reduced parking 6. Projecting signs — A projecting sign not greater than 32 square feet per face or a total minimums in expectation that other of 64 square feet for all sign faces can project up to four feet into the public right -of -way modes will be increasingly used. with a 10 foot clearance of the right -of -way. Properties in the Main St and Center 18.610.047 Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements Sub - area will have no minimum A. Parking Standards. New development in the Downtown must conform to the requirements required parking to preserve the of Chapter 18.765 with the following exceptions. existing street wall on these streets. 1. Multi- family Units: In the MU -CBD zone the minimum parking requirement for all multi- family units shall be 1.0/DU. Adequate provisions for barrier free parking shall be as In addition, in the existing Chapter required by the State Building Code. No visitor parking is required. Bicycle parking 18,370 Variances and Adjustments, requirements shall not be reduced. an additional 40% adjustment in the 2. All Other Uses: For all other uses the minimum off-street vehicle parking requirements minimum parking requirement may shall be 75% of the total computed from Table 18.765.2. Bicycle parking requirements be authorized if : shall not be reduced. (1) Use of transit, demand 3. Main Street - Center Sub -area: New commercial development up to 20,000 square feet management programs, and/or in the Main Street - Center sub -area (shown on Map 18.610.A) shall have no minimum special characteristics of the vehicle parking requirements, except that any multi-family units shall have a minimum of customer, client employee or resident 1.0/DU. population will reduce expected 4. Fractional Space Requirements: In the MU -CBD zone, when calculating the total vehicle use and parking space minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Table 18.765.2. fractional space demand for this development, as requirements shall not he counted as a whole space. compared to standards Institute 5. Motorcycle/scooter parking may substitute for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required of Transportation Engineers (ITE) automobile parking, whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle/scooter parking spaces vehicle trip generation rates and provided, the automobile parking requirement is reduced by one space. Each motorcycle rrlinimum ciO parking requirements, space must be at least 4 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Existing parking may be converted to take and advantage of this provision. (2) A reduction in parking will not 6. Further Adjustments: As provided for in Section 18.765.070.E further adjustments to have an adverse impact an adjacent parking standards can be applied for. uses. 38 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 05.1 1 REVISED1017r09 • 18.120 Chapter Definitions Design Related Definitions STAFF COMMENTARY 1. Arcade — An exterior covered passageway along a building facade that is open to the street frontage. These definitions were largely adapted 2. Awning — An overhead cover extending above the sidewalk (usually above windows from the City of Canby's design code. and doors) as a shelter and/or sunshade. They will be integrated into the ' Band — Any Horizontal flat member or molding_ or group of moldings projecting existing Definitions Chapter, slightly from a wall plane and usually marking a division in the wall. 4. Bay — (a) Within a structure, a regularly repeated spatial element defined by beams or ribs and their supports (h) A protruded structure with a hay window. 5. Belt Course — A horizontal hand or molding set in the face of a building as a design element (also called a string course). 6. Canopy — A covered area which extends from the wall of a building, protectinn entrance or loading dock. 7. Chamfer — To cut off the edge or corner of. S. Column — In structures, a relatively long, slender structural compression member such as a ost filar or strut• usuall vertical su ortin _ a load which acts in or near the direction of its longitudinal axis. 9. Cornice — Decorative projection or crown along the top of a wall or roof. 10. Eaves — The lower edge of a sloping roof: that part of a roof of a building which, projects beyond the wall. 11. Entry - 1 The space comprising a door and any flanking or transom windows associated with a building. 12. Frieze — A decorative horizontal hand, as along the upper part of a wall in a room; often used for signage in modern buildings. but derived from classical architectural principles. 13. Marquee — A permanent roof -like shelter over an entrance to a building. 14. Medallion -- A decorative element set into the upper portion of a building fa ade periodically, typically aligning with columns or pilaster. 15. Parapet — A low, solid. protective screening or decorative wall as an extension of exterior building walls beyond the roof or deck level. 16. Pilaster -- An ornamental or functional column or pillar incorporated into a wall. _ 17. String Course -- A horizontal band or molding set in the face of a building as a design element (also called a belt course). 18. Transom — A horizontal glass plane, typically encased in a wood or metal frame that separates the storefront front the upper facade. 19. Turret — A very small and slender tower attached to a larger building. 20. Visible Transmittance — A measure of the amount of visible light transmitted through a material (typically glass). information about visible transmittance typically is, or can he, provided by window manufacturers. Landscaping related definitions: 2I. Open soil — An unpaved area of soil surrounding a tree, which contains existing. new or amended soil. 22. Root aths --• Constructed aths that use aeration or draina Te stri s f ive roots a way to grow out of the tree space and under pavement in order to access better planting soils. Root paths can connect tree spaces and adjacent green spaces. 21. Covered soil area — An area of soil that is under pavement and specially designed to accommodate tree root growth. Design methods include structural soil. sidewalk support and soil cells. 24. Soil volume calculations — Sum total of soil volumes from each design method used for a tree. A soil depth of 3 feet is assumed. Soil Volume (cubic feet) = Open soil area (length x width x depth) (feet) + Covered soil area (length x width x depth) (feet) + Root At length (feet) x 0.24 + Green space area (length x width x depth) (feet). *Include only applicable soil areas and design methods for each tree. DRAFT 145 1 REVISED 9!2109 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 39 Use related 25. 25. Custom arts and craft work -- Manufacture of crafts, art, sculpture, pottery, stained STAFF COMMENTARY glass. musical instruments and similar items produced without the use of a mechanized assembly line. • 40 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 115.1 1 REVISE91 a/7 /S9 Chapter 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STAFF C O M M E N T A R Y Table 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX In keeping with a mixed use c2J downtown, different uses will a generally not need to be buffered from each other, with the exception y ofparking lots. • Q, riS a c a .'"4" 4 m v i . CO CO � ,� O 1L! y g d Co C O p C+ a, aj • EXISTING /ABUTTING USE 4 4 co e Q. a Detached Single Units, Manufactured Units — A C C D C CE F C D Attached Single Units and Multifamily, 1 -5 Units, Duplexes A — B C D C CE F CD Attached Single Units and Multifamily, 5+ Units A A — C D C CE F CD Mobile Home Parks A A B — D C CE F CD Commercial Zones (CC, CG, CP, EBB) C C CC— A A D D —— Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN) C C C C A — A D D —— Mixed Use Employment Zone (MUE) C C C C A A -- D D — — L i g h t Industrial Zones ( I P , IL) D D D D A A A — D — — H e a v y Industrial Zone (IH) D D D D D D D D — —— Parking Lots C C C C Arterial Streets A A A A— — — A D -- , Note 1: See Table 18.745.2 for alternative combinations for meeting these screer}i requirements. Note 2: For projects within the MU -CBD zone the following buffering is required: A) Proposed parking lots must have a buffer to level "C" (Parking lots abutting parking lots do not need a buffer). B) Proposed uses in the MU -CBD zone that abut a residential zone must have a buf to level "C." GRAFT #5 [ REVISED 9!2!09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 41 Chapter 28.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS STAFF COMMENTARY Table 18.765.2 MAXIMUMI I In addition, in the existing Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments, MINIMUM Zone A Zone B Bicycle an additional 40% adjustment in the Multifamily Units DU<500 sq ft: none none 1.0/2 DUs except minimum parking requirement may 1.0/DU (M) elderly, which is be authorized if 1 bedroom: 1.25/DU (M) 1.0/20 DUs 2 bedroom: 1.5/DU (M) (1) Use of transit, demand 3 bedroom: 1.75/DU (M) management programs, and/or [X] special characteristics of the customer,. client employee or resident population will reduce 7] Please see Cha ter 18.610.04 off street vehicle arkin _ minimum re invents expected vehicle use and parking in the in the MU - CBD zone. space demand for this development, as compared to standards Institute r "'.+ ' 11 .�. 01 s .. r ' r i ' s. c.r s _ . it -"r of Transportation Engineers i '� ' • i s " i • `s ; • • r r r r i "+; r ... ' ;S (ITE) vehicle trip generation • ` r r s - ' i " ' . • r ' r r . x r ! . ' i ' or r • .; rates and minimum eh) parking • r i r 'sr . i i■'.. i' .� r �; , ". ". r ; requirements, and oI• r1.,.'! • ,`; .. r ". i s; '' s • ra r: i - r ° 18.7G5.2. (2) A reduction in parking will not have an adverse impact on adjacent [x] IntheMU- CBDzonetheminimumparkingrequirementsforallmulti- familyunitsis uses. 1.0/DU. 18.765.070.I. Developments in the MU -CBD Zone Please see Section 18.610.047 off - street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the in the MU -CBD zone. v . 42 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.1 1 REVISED STAFF COMMENTARY Chapter 18.780 SIGNS Change reference from CBD to MU -CBD DRAFT #5 1 REVISED 9/2/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 43 Agenda Item # Meeting Date October 20, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Urban Forestry Master Plan Workshop (CG #1.b) Prepared By:, Todd Prager Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: d ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Provide feedback to staff on the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan so that any necessary revisions can be made prior to Council action on November 10, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide any necessary feedback to facilitate acceptance of the Urban Forestry Master Plan at Council's November 10, 2009 meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In June 2008, Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.2.11 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan." In October 2008, Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) comprised of the Tree Board plus additional technical experts to undertake this task. The CAC has met every other month since November 2008 and provided guidance to staff in the development of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP). The content of the UFMP was developed by studying Tigard's past and present urban forest conditions, conducting statistically valid community surveys, reviewing the City's existing natural resource policies and programs, and interviewing diverse stakeholders such as developers, arborists, natural resource experts, and landscape architects. The main goals of the Plan include: 1. Revise Tigard's tree code, (Chapter 18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation). 2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees). 3. Develop a tree grove protection program. 4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. 5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program. 6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program. The Plan contains 51 specific recommendions that are intended to implement the above goals and guide the future tree code revisions and urban forestry program. The recommended changes are outlined in the "Implementation Matrix" on pages 3 -8 of the UFMP. The items in the Implementation Matrix were developed to be consitent with and supportive of the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. To ensure consistency, a detailed review of the Urban Forest subsection policies, as well as a general review of the other sections of the Comprehensive Plan was completed by the UFMP CAC, staff, and Planning Commission. On October 5, 2009 Planning Commission passed a unanimous motion recommending Council acceptance of the UFMP on the basis that it is consistent with and supportive of the Comprehensive Plan. The UFMP has been developed through an open, public process involving review of existing conditions, stakeholder input, goal setting, and implementation planning. A diverse group of citizens has achieved consensus on the UFMP, and Planning Commission has found the document to be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. More details about the process to date can be found on the City's website at: http: / /www.tigard- or.gov /community /trees /Inaster, plan.asp On October 20, 2009 Council is being asked to review and provide feedback on the UFMP on October in a workshop setting so that any necessary revisions can be made prior to Council action. A representative for the Planning Commission, UFMP CAC, and Tree Board will speak briefly in support of the UFMP after staff's presentation. Since the UFMP is not an "implementing ordinance" for the Comprehensive Plan, it will be presented for Council action through a Resolution. In addition, the development, review, and acceptance of the UFMP does not need to follow the prescribed public process for a land use decision. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N /A. CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1.b Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan, ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan. FISCAL NOTES Implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is dependent on decisions made in the annual budget process. The Plan does not mandate or require annual expenditures. However, rough estimated costs for implementation have been compiled on pages 3 through 8 of the Plan. T I GARD City U r b an Forestry Master Plan of Tigard f+ ` i f 2 itr 4 N. ,r- I R AC d a Kit 1 �` A P Draft 5 I August 2009 IIII e T I GARD City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen, Council President Nick Wilson, Councilor Gretchen Buehner, Councilor Marland Henderson, Councilor Sydney Webb, Councilor Urban Forestry Matt Clemo Mort Ettelstein Master Plan Janet Gillis Phil Hickey Citizen Advisory Committee Morgan Holen Dennis Sizemore Tony Tycer David Walsh City of Tigard Craig Prosser, City Manager Ron Bunch, Community Development Director Brian Rager, Assistant Public Works Director Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Todd Prager Associate Planner /Arborist Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner John Floyd, Associate Planner Nathan Shaub, GIS Analyst Patty Lunsford, Planning Assistant Sam Tilley, Intern Stakeholder Participants Chad Burns, Portland General Electric Alan DeHarpport, Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Maryann Escriva, Tigard Tualatin School District Terrance Flanagan, Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Peter Guillozet, Clean Water Services Troy Mears, Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Ernie Platt, Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Steve Schalk, Oregon Department of Transportation Tigard Tree Board Members (2009) Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers Phil Wentz, Tigard Tualatin School District [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan Table of Contents 44` no R : - Executive Summary 1 0- ` .: Implementation Matrix 2 C Basis for Decision Making 9 +fi p �, # 1 "_, -, �- ... . � + t ,t Chapter 1: Development Regulations and Mitigation Requirements 11 .. g . , ° i., M ' y ` Chapter 2: Landscaping Requirements 13 . a. .Yr , X Chapter 3: Tree Grove Protection 15 1 .,I "-- Chapter 4: Hazard Trees 19 Chapter 5: Urban Forestry Program Management 21 Chapter 6: Stewardship 23 1 r ''. I ° Glossary 29 ti ;� y O V '- APPENDICES Appendix A: Urban Forestry Survey Results al t -� -� Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16 f PIP Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24 `" a j t . Appendix D: City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a39 . Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a46 + Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a55 ' " vf s '- Appendix G: Review of Current Federal /State /Regional . . j - " Urban Forestry Policy Framework a56 SSii , * , Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard `; -' ` j -4 4- Urban Forestry Policy Framework a63 iii [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan Executive Summary it This Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) sets a course of action for the �Y . City of Tigard's urban forestry program from the time of its acceptance by Council until the year 2016. The Plan has been developed through a I public process involving community outreach and surveys, urban forestry stakeholder interviews, departmental coordination meetings, and review ft • • of current City policies and programs. Based on the information received throughout this process, the UFMP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) recommends the following implementation goals: 1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes development i •41 • 0 regulations and mitigation). 2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees). 3. Develop a tree grove protection program. 4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. 5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program. 6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program. It is further recommended that the achievement of the above ‘‘ implementation goals occur through a series of sub -goals and action measures which are outlined in the implementation matrix. Implementation goals, sub- goals, and action measures are intended to Tigard's urban forest is valued frame future urban forestry code and program development and set a and protected by City residents timeline for both. Tigard's Tree Board will be charged with overseeing the implementation of the UFMP as part of their annual work plan. as a thriving interconnected ecosystem managed to improve quality of life, increase community identity, and maximize aesthetic, economic, and ecological benefits. '? 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 Implementation Matrix The following implementation matrix contains all six UFMP implementa- tion goals (highlighted in orange), their associated sub -goals (e.g. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3...), and a series of action measures with the necessary level of detail needed to implement the goals and sub - goals. For each action measure the lead City division, applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, staff and financial resources required, and implementation schedule are included. Through implementation of the goals, sub - goals, and action measures in this Plan, progress will be made towards the adopted vision of the UFMP CAC: T , .. Urban Forestry Master Plan t 3 'r " i Ci • t k .- iiii Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by City residents _ P -,, ' as a thriving interconnected ecosystem managed to improve • quality o life, increase community identity, maximize 4. g t y f t y t y� =,.. aesthetic, economic, and ecological benefits." 2 Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan m ti) C d to 4.# 4.0 d E ° o. . ° ' to 3 a is C y C Q. y C Implementation Goals N fl ° J CI U a U U U ° U E 1. Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation). 1.1 Revise tree code to allow for more flexibility and ensure a qualitative approach to tree preservation. a. Determine the most appropriate placement for Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011 future tree code provisions within the Tigard Planning 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.6, Development and Municipal Code chapters. 2.3.7, 2.3.9, 2.3.10, 2.3.11 b. Modify code to focus less on mitigation and Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.9, High $$ 2010 2011 more on preservation of long -lived evergreen and Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, broad -leaf deciduous tree species, native and 2.3.4, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, indigenous trees, and other trees identified as of 2.3.9, 2.3.11 high importance. c. Require private arborists to be involved in the Long Range 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011 development process from site planning through Planning 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, landscape installation. 2.3.9 d. Develop and implement regulations, standards, Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, High $$ 2010 2011 and incentives for transferring density and seeking Planning 2.3.3, 2.3.6, 2.3.8, variances and adjustments to preserve trees 2.3.9, 2.3.11 identified as being of high importance. e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011 diameter trees that have a higher ability to Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, withstand development impacts. 2.3.4, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.9, 2.3.11 f. Ensure invasive trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011 preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.3.1, of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 g. Develop standards and procedures for tree code Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011 enforcement. Planning 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.11 h. Develop procedures detailing when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $ $ 2011 2012 protected trees will be inventoried and permit Planning activities tracked. i. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing permit systems, a publicly accessible inventory of Planning protected trees. j. Create a tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.8, High $$$ 2010 2011 specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, inventory and protection standards, and 2.3.3, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, preferred species /tree types for preservation. 2.3.8, 2.3.9 * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time *High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ = <$1,000 ** $$ = $1,000 — $10,000 ** $$$ _ $10,000 — $50,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 3 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 c C W � O N y , C d C O. y C Implementation Goals N °' ° � Ua U U m ° U E 1.2 Revise tree code so that standards do not solely impact those property owners with trees. a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, High $$ 2010 2011 for all lots to be met by either preserving existing Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, trees, or planting new trees. 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.9, 2.3.11 b. Investigate possible funding mechanisms Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012 to help support an ongoing tree and urban Planning 2.3.8 forest enhancement program. 2. Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees). 2.1 Revise street tree planting, maintenance, and removal requirements. a. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011 incorporate stormwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.10, and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 b. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish a Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011 permit system for planting, removal, and Planning 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.8, replacement of required trees. 2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.3.5, 2.3.7, 2.3.10, 2.3.11 c. Incentivize the use, retention, and replacement Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011 of long lived evergreen and broad -leaf deciduous Planning 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, tree species, native and indigenous trees, and 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.2.10, other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.1, 2.3.5, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 d. Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011 mitigation, canopy cover, and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, standards. 2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.3.5 e. Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011 landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10, 2.3.5, 2.3.7, and/or size. 2.3.11 f. Create a design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011 drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, planting, and maintenance. 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.2.10, 2.3.5, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 g. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011 right -of -ways (Highway 99W, Highway 217, and Planning 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, Interstate 5). 2.2.8, 2.3.5, 2.3.8 * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time * High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ _ <$1,000 ** $$ _ $1,000 — $10,000 ** $$$ = $10,000 — $50,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 4 Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan a w d L * 4l ° Q .� to 3 m* C N C Q y Implementation Goals w ° C U .4c CC . U CO ` U - 4-++ h. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing prohibitive. Planning 2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings, removals, and replacements. a. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012 be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning b. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing and permit systems, a publicly accessible inventory Planning of tree plantings and permitted removals. 3. Develop a tree grove protection program. 3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees. a. Establish standards and procedures for identifying Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, High $$$$ 2010 2011 and inventorying large groves of native trees. Planning 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.11 b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012 and procedures for tree groves identified for Planning 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, protection. 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.11 3.2 Develop a flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners. a. Reach out to property owners with identified tree Long Range 2.3.8, 2.3.11 Med. $ $ 2010 2012 groves early in the process to allow them ample Range opportunity to participate in the development of regulations. b. Ensure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012 flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 4. Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. 4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols. a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing assessment. 2.3.8 b. Develop and implement a formal emergency Streets 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8 c. Develop and implement a formal emergency Parks 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing response system for tree hazards in City parks/ 2.3.8 greenspaces. * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time * High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ = <$1,000 ** $$ = $1,000 — $10,000 ** $$$ = $10,000— $50,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 5 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 co m m d N 4-) Ri i * E E C.. C Implementation Goals ° do 1. uc u m ° u ° 4.2 Establish a City program to facilitate tree hazard identification and abatement on private property. a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1, 2.3.4, 2.3.8, High $$ 2010 2011 to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11 property tree hazards. b. Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2 Med. $$ 2010 201171 constitutes a tree hazard using the Tree Risk Planning Assessment methodology developed by the PNWISA. c. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011 abatement and risk mitigation. Planning 2.3.11 d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4, 2.3.11 High $$$ 2010 2011 including assigning responsibility. Planning e. Make information about hazard tree Current 2.3.4, 2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011 indentification and abatement program available Planning to the public. 5. Improve management of the City's urban forestry program. 5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventory. a. Develop procedures for when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012 protected trees, tree groves, street trees, Planning heritage trees, and required landscape trees will be inventoried and permit activities tracked. b. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing permit systems, a publicly accessible inventory Planning of protected trees, tree groves, street trees, heritage trees, and required landscape trees. c. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing system, a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning where urban forestry fees are being utilized. Link sites with the City's accounting system so detailed analyses of urban forestry expenditures can be obtained. 5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests. a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011 divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4 acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits can be identified and evaluated. * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time * High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ = <$1,000 ** $$ = $1,000 — $10,000 ** $$$ = $10,000— $5o,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 6 Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan c to y c m C a m a°, L 4, E W E o 0- . N 7 to is C N C 0 N C Implementation Goals ° -I0 u ' cu ce u ti m 4 -, t) 4-) b. Create a greenspace coordinator position to Parks 2.2.1, 2.3.4, 2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011 manage City owned natural areas and develop a proactive hazard tree identification and abatement program for those areas. c. Develop a written set of urban forestry Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012 standards and specifications for City projects. Planning 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.7, 2.3.9 d. Identify and secure long term funding sources for Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7 Low $ 2014 2016 urban forestry projects as mitigation funds decline. Planning e. Designate City Arborist as lead coordinator for Current 2.2.2, 2.2.6, 2.2.11, Low $ 2010 Ongoing implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Planning 2.3.4, 2.3.7 6. Develop an urban forestry stewardship program. 6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry outreach materials. a. Provide Tigard citizens with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7, 2.3.8 Med. $$ 2012 2013 forestry outreach information such as workshops, Planning flyers, online tools, "ask the arborist" service, etc. b. Maintain a list of invasive trees and other plants, Current 2.2.1, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, Low $ 2012 2013 discourage their sale and propagation, and Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.8, 2.3.11 promote their removal. 6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners. a. Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7, 2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2014 tree planting and urban forest management on Planning public and private property and public right -of -way. b. Present a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup Current 2.2.7, 2.3.8 Low $ 2013 2013 program for Council's consideration. Planning 6.3 Prevent pre - development clearing of lots. a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011 permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.8 number of trees per year. * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time * High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ = <$1,000 ** $$ = $1,000 — $10,000 ** $$$ = $10,000 — $50,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 a m c , c d v, L E m E ° a.°_' a 3 �* c m= am c Implementation Goals c ° 6.4 Regularly update the Urban Forestry Master Plan, set achievable goals, and continually monitor progress. a. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7, 2.2.11, 2.3.8 Low $ 2015 2015 canopy from 2007 -2015. Planning b. Strive to achieve 32% citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7, 2.2.11, 2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027 2027 Planning c. Strive to achieve 40% citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7, 2.2.11, 2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047 2047 Planning d. Update Urban Forestry Master Plan every 5 -7 Current 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.11, High $$$ 2015 2016 years. Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.8 * Low = 0 -8 hours of staff time * Med. = 8 -40 hours of staff time * High = over 40 hours of staff time ** $ = <$1,000 ** $$ = $1,000— $1o,000 ** $$$ = $10,000 — $50,000 ** $$$$ = >$50,000 8 Basis for Decision Making The following information was used as the basis for decision making when formulating goals, sub - goals, and action measures for the UFMP. Urban Forestry Survey An independent, scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected citizens about their attitudes towards existing and potential urban forestry policies and programs was completed by Steve Johnson and Associates • :' ` , in December of 2008. The survey was funded in part by a grant from the Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service. • The purpose of the survey was to gain a more detailed understanding of community attitudes towards urban forestry issues in Tigard. Exact questions and complete results from the survey are included in Appendix A. Canopy Analysis In cooperation with Metro, Tigard's tree canopy from 1996 and 2007 was T identified and mapped using aerial photography. This has allowed for , easy identification of where the urban forest is increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same. It will also allow for continual tracking of canopy change in the future as Metro runs the software that can detect ..4 the presence of tree canopy cover every two years. Using the results, management decisions were made such as where preservation and planting efforts should be targeted. Full results of the canopy analysis are in Appendix B. Stakeholder Interviews City staff interviewed major community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions that regularly contribute to and /or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest. The full stakeholder interview notes are included in Appendix C. City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meetings The City of Tigard has multiple departments, divisions, boards, and committees that administer and implement the City's urban forestry 9 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 program. Key City staff members with roles in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs, policies, and codes met to discuss urban forestry coordination needs and to identify solutions. The purpose of this coordination is to provide for more effective administration of the urban forestry program and to inform recommendations made in the UFMP. Full results of the internal coordination meetings can be found in Appendix D. Review of Current and Historical Urban Forestry Codes, Polices, and Programs City staff interviewed major A thorough review and analysis of urban forestry related laws, codes, community stakeholder groups policies, and programs was undertaken to inform recommendations in the UFMP. Particular attention was paid to the Urban Forest Section of the and jurisdictions that regularly Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) which contains the goals, policies, and contribute to and /or are affected action measures that guide Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix E also provides examples of the social, ecological, and economic benefits of by the management of Tigard's urban trees and forests. urban forest. The full stakeholder Appendix F contains a historical timeline relative to urban forestry in interview notes are included in Tigard. Appendix G contains a review and analysis of the major Federal, Appendix C. State, and Regional policies that provide a framework for Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix H is a review and analysis of current urban forestry related City codes. 9, UFMP CAC The UFMP CAC was comprised of the Tree Board plus four additional residents /business interests at large including two certified arborists, one homebuilder, and one resident with expertise in public administration. They met every other month to receive information as it was being collected and advised staff on Plan development. 10 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 1: Development Regulations and Mitigation Requirements Implementation Goal 1: Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation). Revising Tigard's tree code is purposely listed as Goal 1 due to strong dissatisfaction with the existing code by those both inside and outside of the development community. Tigard's existing tree code is located in Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code. This Code requires certain types of development projects to prepare a tree plan and identify trees to be preserved and removed during construction. Tree replacement, or mitigation, is required on an "inch for inch" basis. This means that if a tree with a trunk that is 12 inches in diameter is removed, it needs to be replaced with 6, 2 -inch diameter replacement trees. If a developer chooses not to replant trees, then the City requires a "fee -in -lieu payment" to the Tigard Tree Fund at the current rate of $125 per diameter inch (2009). Some of the criticism of the tree code from stakeholders is that the mitigation structure promotes overplanting, it does not require preservation of quality trees, and it encourages the retention of large diameter trees that are less likely to survive development impacts. The Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) position is that the fee -in -lieu of mitigation is excessive and that the tree code does not adequately reward the preservation of high quality trees. The HBAMP and other stakeholders agree that the tree code unfairly penalizes those property owners with existing trees more than those owners without trees. For the City, the tree code is also administratively difficult to implement because it is challenging to track protected and replacement trees in the years and decades following development. The previous tree code that went into effect in 1983 was more preservationist than today's code because it required a permit prior to the removal of any tree on all undeveloped land, developed commercial and industrial land, and public land. In 1997 Tigard's tree code was revised to 11 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 its current form. The code currently allows any or all trees to be removed as long as they are replaced. Due in part to dissatisfaction with the existing tree code, the Tigard Tree Board was charged with developing a "City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program" in 2007. Following over a year of work by the Tree Board, a comprehensive plan for the urban forest was developed in 2008. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) contains two goals to be implemented by 22 policies. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan guide the recommendations made in this Plan. Would you strongly support, support, While many are unhappy with the current tree code, the UFMP community oppose, or strongly oppose tree survey confirmed Tigard residents want the City to require some trees are removal regulations during property preserved and new trees planted during development (-88% support). development, even when they limit the A majority of respondents say they support new development size and extent of potential buildings 1 (� 57 % ) p y Y pp or profits? regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. Approximately 32% of respondents oppose tree regulations 60 •Somewhat limiting development. (See Figure 1 at right). • Strongly 50 Protecting Tigard's urban forest on developable land must be balanced with 40 State, Metro, and City planning goals and regulations which favor density EMI in urban areas. Specifically, development regulations must be clear and 30 objective, and not discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost I ■ or delay according to State law. Only 7% of Tigard's land area and 12% of 20 its citywide tree canopy are on developable property so a comprehensive , ■ urban forestry code and program must address areas outside of 10 development. 0 I ■ Direction received from the community and stakeholders regarding tree Support Oppose code revisions have been folded into several sub -goals and implementation FIGURE 1 measures. Major recommendations include: • Determining the most appropriate placement for future tree code provisions to improve administration and address situations outside development; • Less focus on mitigation and more on preserving high quality trees; • Revising tree preservation incentives so that they are more attractive to developers; and • Not unfairly penalizing those property owners with trees. Also included in the recommendations are steps the City should take to better track protected and replacement trees after development is complete. 12 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 2: Landscaping Requirements G ` Implementation Goal 2: Revise Tigard's landscaping code (includes street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees). Stakeholder interviews highlighted the need for requirements Revising Tigard's landscaping code is the second goal of the UFMP. The addressing the planting of high intention of the revisions is to improve the quality and protection of the City's streetscapes and commercial and industrial landscapes. quality trees and ensuring that Tigard's existing landscaping codes are scattered throughout the design and maintenance of areas Development and Municipal Codes. Many of the provisions in such as parking lots and street the landscaping codes lack specificity, are conflicting, and present administrative challenges for the City. Also, the City's standards and design side plantings are sustainable and guidelines do not specify industry accepted installation and maintenance aesthetically pleasing. requirements for trees. Stakeholder interviews highlighted the need for requirements addressing ,, the planting of high quality trees and ensuring that design and maintenance of areas such as parking lots and street side plantings are sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. The Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (OASLA) suggested Tigard create a tree and landscape design manual with drawings and specifications so that landscape architects have a clear idea of the City's overall tree and landscape vision. Such a tree and landscape design manual could also address the Tree Board's request to translate Code revisions into something the public can understand. Internally, the lack of a comprehensive tree inventory has led to difficulty tracking street trees and required landscape trees. Although the UFMP community survey revealed that Tigard citizens are highly satisfied with the current overall state of Tigard's urban forest, 74% of respondents believe more street trees will be good for the City. Tigard's canopy analysis supports this, as street trees currently provide only 9% canopy in City street right -of -ways. The canopy analysis also found that the City's parking lot tree standards are not effective due to the relatively low tree canopy in parking lots. (See Figure 2 on next page.) Direction for revising Tigard's landscaping code is included in the sub -goals and implementation of section two of the matrix. Specific 13 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 recommendations include developing a landscape design manual with drawings and specifications, improving parking lot design, establishing a permit system for the planting, replacement, and removal of required trees, and improving the tracking and inventorying of street trees and other required landscape trees. s'. ,�► , y v Based on a f" # ` . random sample, - - . ii, t " . c r -: Tigard parking 44 :a- 1 1.Of ' - lb- * • ,, �, lots (outlined ' * +! f 4 , in yellow) are IP �' _ :, + ► + er - x 1 Y t , x - . �"' , a" covered b y } I r ,,. - .. approximately 1 1 O. xa 20 de �+ 6% tree canopy ;i Simple (areas highlighted Circle • • in green). 4. di W. ^+ `" - - t ®` -, i i1 r i i i 4 1pr 0 t. ;' - rkiny Lint I r' Lleline:rlion ? l — r g . Tre ef� � , T w . sample F'uint z luletro`s 2[lili 1 11\ ' % ' } _ I ' k `� �ii r -..- ,` ! \\11 -- - -. _ ; } ,gi g i - — . S Irm 0,-. ° a . 4, if Y '�' e = or - Alt = FIGURE 2 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 3: Tree Grove Protection ■,�� # i Implementation Goal 3: Develop a tree grove protection program. 1,0 ' + ' The third goal of the UFMP is to develop a tree grove protection program which creates mechanism for protecting Tigard's remaining groves of - r native trees. ilk I Many tree groves in Tigard are currently afforded some level of protection due to their location in sensitive lands (stream corridors, steep slopes, significant habitat areas, wetlands, and floodplains) as defined by the Tigard Development Code. Tigard's Development Code limits the type and intensity of development within sensitive lands, and requires permits for ,.,. tree removal in these areas. However, the Development Code does not explicitly protect tree groves in sensitive lands, and tree removal permits are automatically issued if an erosion control plan is provided. Also, currently there are no protections for tree groves located outside of sensitive lands. Prior to enacting any regulations protecting tree groves, the City must comply with Federal, State, and Regional regulations (see Appendix G). Particular attention shall be paid to State laws including the requirements for an economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis prior to protecting "Goal 5" (natural) resources. Some of the stakeholders interviewed for the UFMP such as the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (PNWISA), the OASLA, the Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services, support the City's efforts to preserve and maintain native trees and groves in Tigard. Multiple stakeholders also suggest the City take a leadership role in tree grove protection by hiring a greenspace coordinator to provide long term maintenance of City -owned natural areas. The HBAMP suggested affected property owners be directly notified about regulations and incentives proposed for incorporation into any City code calling for the preservation of tree groves. The UFMP community survey shows that Tigard residents support future regulations to protect native tree groves. Most residents ( -55 %) would like to see regulations focused on larger groves of native trees as opposed to individual trees of significant size (-28% support). In addition, 37% of respondents said they prefer to see new tree regulations focused on 15 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 natural areas as opposed to ornamental trees (-3% support). However, approximately 48% said they would like to see regulations applied to natural If the City were to enact new tree areas and ornamental trees equally. (See Figure 3 at right.) 73% of respondents protection measures, would you like to see them focused on natural areas, said the decision of whether to preserve trees should not be left solely to the ornamental landscape trees, both types developer, and a majority (57 %) said they support tree regulations even if equally, or on something else. they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits. 60 While residents prioritize grove protection, the canopy analysis revealed 50 that Tigard's tree groves are disappearing. In 1996, there were 63 canopy clusters greater than 5 acres in size within the City limits. In 2007, there 40 were 48 canopy clusters greater than 5 acres in size. This represents a 24% 30 decline in large sized canopy clusters in eleven years. (See Figure 4 on next 20 page.) so As a result of trends shown in the canopy analysis, community preference, and stakeholder input, the UFMP develop a number of sub oals and — 0 p � p g Natural � Ornamental Both action measures to guide the development of a tree grove protection Areas Trees Equally program that is compliant with Federal, State, Regional, and Local FIGURE 3 requirements. Included are recommendations to contact all property owners that would be impacted by a tree grove protection program and providing grove preservation incentives. 16 Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan HART RD 1996 Canopy Clustering ,,o 200 O� O� pCKMAN ST O� 5 ' Legend s p ST O`'ES e ■ N4 <, r ile , Canopy Cover 11'614, WEIR RD _/ 0 y 7- Less than < / Acres i _� =a ,r m OU BS , VE RRV'RD" 1 .5 VS . FE,o -RD --- i BPpeJE 5 G N cv.+. ti ': t r b /a 0.5 - 0.99 S c ND i s 4 y � , '0 P 6 '0 a `vl I.0 - 1.99 / `lr° ' ! >i `" 9 2.0 -4.99Q L RRO ah M1� '�' ' � m 5.0 or more k "1- ,_sw �' d .... _ M P S \ � © _ '8 'e'- NP N 1, .I ' ¢ {' 11 Ti gar d Ci ty Limier pay tF o }� : z 'Pike DE ST MCDO NALD GAp ROE ST MC DO NAL'D - Tj,�, KRUSE BULL M UA 1 '' L ti yry OLL MOU NTA� _ ,. 3J ', n w q�N RD '*v BO NITA RD w R GAAR i D $ "` '! ff BONITA RD ,DR 3 1 �,i� I° Air L k la., Q I I I JrI1L� IS.'1 vw.�K t,.t PRS'P BEEF BEND RD " " "" -'� DURHAM RD ' BEEF BEND RD j DU R RD t J) t * l = 5- : Z 0 0 14,,, r7 ?�GARj w . " o ® TUALATINp I Y G TUA LATIN ©� Y o„ O a ' -- 503 639 dln 0 ons o CHILD Map created: August 13, 2009 Canopy Clustering Summary 1996 2007 Canopy Cluster Total Acres as a No. No. of Total Acres as a No. No. of Size Class Acres of % of Total of Clusters Acres of % of Total of Clusters Canopy Canopy Clusters as a % Canopy Canopy Clusters as a i Cover Cover ^ I of Total Cover Cover of Total Less than .5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86% 0.5 to .99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14% 1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70% 2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67% 5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62% Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% FIGURE 4 17 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Cary of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 4: Hazard Trees Implementation Goal 4: Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. The fourth goal in the UFMP is to develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program that adequately addresses tree hazards on both public and private property. Currently Tigard's Municipal Code prohibits hazard trees, but there is a lack of specificity on what constitutes a hazard and what the mechanism is for abating hazards in a timely manner. There is also no formal process for identifying and abating tree hazards on City property. Currently, if there is a dispute between During the stakeholder interviews the Tree Board suggested that the neighboring property owners regarding a potentially hazardous tree, the City City increase communications between departments. Interdepartmental does not get involved, and instead communication is integral to effectively addressing tree hazards in a timely directs the neighbors to work out a manner. Other stakeholders suggested that the City hire a greenspace solution through civil means. Would coordinator who could provide proactive management of tree hazards you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose the creation of a in City parks and greenspaces. The HBAMP said the City should allow program where the City would become private property owners to manage their land as they see fit, which implies involved in disputes between neighbors the City should have no involvement in private property tree hazard issues. regarding hazardous trees? As a result of the City's internal coordination meetings, specific methods 70 for responding to public tree hazards were developed and are detailed in ■ Somewhat 60 ■Strongly Appendix D. The Parks Division echoed the stakeholders by highlighting the need to hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage tree 50 hazards on City property. 40 The community survey results indicate public support for a hazard tree identification and abatement program. Approximately 76% of residents 30 think more resources should be directed to better maintain and protect 20 existing trees. A majority of residents said they would support additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more 10 comprehensive tree program in Tigard parks and open spaces (-56% support, --39% oppose). A portion of that funding could be used by the 0 City for a hazard tree program. Finally, a majority of residents said they Support Oppose would support the creation of a program where the City would become FIGURE 5 involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees on private property (60% support, 38% oppose). (See Figure 5 at left.) 19 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 The sub -goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP F. support the creation of a hazard tree identification and abatement program P Bpi for public and private property The recommendations include formalizing r ,' r 42' ,z,.. the City's hazard response protocols, hiring a greenspace coordinator m. l gTow to help manage tree hazards on City property, and developing a process R A whereby the City would have authority to become involved in tree hazards , " , �. '' on private property. In order to provide consistency in tree hazard .: j ,�- ..,.� ? identification and abatement, it is recommended that the City adopt the : F A, PNWISA Tree Risk Assessment methodology as its standard. �: f _ s a- iF � S /pa. .ty 20 Ell City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 5: Urban Forestry Program Management G/ Implementation Goal 5: Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program. The public showed a preference for urban forestry efforts to focus Implementation Goal 5 was developed to improve the coordination and management of the City's urban forestry program. on streamside trees and other Tigard's urban forestry program is currently implemented by multiple City natural forested areas. departments and divisions. In addition, code provisions relating to urban forestry are scattered throughout the Municipal and Development Codes. ?' Management of City -owned tree and forest resources has been declining as more land is acquired without additional funding for maintenance and proactive management. Improved communication between City departments and divisions, unifying urban forestry related Code provisions, .,; and providing adequate staffing is needed for more effective management , : ,�' of the City's urban forestry program. Also, securing a sustainable funding source will be necessary to provide long term support of the urban forestry program as the Tree Fund declines due to less future development. L- Stakeholders such as the PNWISA and Clean Water Services suggested that the City hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage City tree and forest resources. The Tualatin Riverkeepers said the City needs to establish a sustainable source of funding for its urban forestry program to assist in the long term management of invasive species. The Tree Board suggested that there needs to be more coordination between City departments and divisions when administering the urban forestry program. Although a minority view, .–'-" ''mo 1, � -- ,";y, the HBAMP's position is that there should be no urban forestry program °' e because the costs outweigh the benefits of such a program. ' The City's internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for more — communication between departments and divisions. More communication v ' would improve the management of tree hazards, ensure City development projects are adhering to applicable Code requirements, improve the tracking of trees after development, and provide more transparency as to how and where the Tree Fund is being utilized. The internal coordination . meetings also highlighted the need for a written set of tree protection 21 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 and replacement standards for City projects so that the City can take a leadership role in urban forestry. Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional The community survey results demonstrate public support for increased funding from increased City fees, funding through fees and taxes for the City's urban forestry program charges or property taxes to fund a �� 56% support, --'39% oppose). Figure at right.) The public showed more compre tree planting and su pp � pp �' � See Fi 6 i g g � p maintenance program in Tigard parks a preference for urban forestry efforts to focus on streamside trees and and open spaces? other natural forested areas. These results indicate that residents would support the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to directly manage the 60 ■Somewhat nearly 180 acres of City -owned tree canopy in Tigard. ■strong�v so The sub -goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP to support the goal of improved City management include developing 40 methods for inventorying and tracking trees and urban forestry related expenditures, developing a written set of urban forestry standards for 30 City projects, securing a sustainable funding source for urban forestry, and hiring a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's natural areas. 20 10 0 Support Oppose FIGURE 6 22 M City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan CHAPTER 6: Stewardship Implementation Goal 6: Develop an urban forestry stewardship program. Urban Forest stewardship has been a vital component of life in the area now known as Tigard for thousands of years. 3,500 years before present, At Kalapuya (Native Americans) began managing the forests of the Willamette Valley using fire (pyroculture). At about the time of European settlement in 1851, canopy coverage within the current City limits of Tigard was estimated to be 52.4% (3,966.9 acres). The predominant tree species were Oregon ash, red alder, bigleaf maple, willow, black cottonwood, Oregon r white oak, western red cedar, and Pacific dogwood in the riparian and wetland areas. The upland areas were dominated by Douglas -fir, bigleaf maple, grand fir, Pacific dogwood, western hemlock, Oregon white oak, red alder, western red cedar, and ponderosa pine. (See Figure 7 below.) OFHC'. OFZHU Forest types/ / vegetation FF CHOW circa FFHC' - _ ,. j' 1851.' l l �� Estimated 1851 ( i canopy cover — \ l within 2008 Z ' l Tigard city limits In 2007, Tigard had 24% citywide OF ' 'mo (MAC � FF (outlined in red) based on forest l tree canopy which is well below 1 _�_, } , 'w ; _ types is 52.4 %. mica 1—, \ OFOZ - American Forests' target ` �� ' •Y Fns i recommendation of 40% for ~ '; N ! - - --7 f ' c Peu OFOZ _ / - FFO' - ,.. Pacific Northwest cities. ` • ( -� ,..� A OFOPZ FFp ti OFZ MAC `� • FIGURE 7 '9 'Hulse, D., S. Gregory, and J. Baker, eds. 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change. The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 'Johnson, B.R., 2008. Personal communication on November 12. Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon. Eugene, OR. 23 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 Abbreviation Forest Type Vegetation Type FF Closed forest; Upland Douglas fir forest, often with bigleaf maple, grand fir, dogwood, hazel, yew. No other conifers present. No Oak. OFZ Woodland Douglas fir woodland or "timber" often with bigleaf maple, alder or dogwood. No oak, hemlock or cedar. Brushy undergrowth of hazel, vine maple, young Douglas fir, bracken etc. OFOPZ Woodland "Scattering" or "thinly timbered" Douglas fir -white oak - ponderosa pine woodland, with brushy undergrowth of hazel, bracken, etc. May include small openings. FFP Closed forest; Upland Douglas fir - ponderosa pine forest; no oak, includes ash, red alder, hazel, Oregon grape, vine maple. FAUN Closed forest; Riparian Ash - alder - willow swamp, sometimes with bigleaf maple. & Wetland Often with vine maple, ninebark, hardhack, cattails. Ground very soft, mirey or muddy, usually with extensive beaver dams. OFOZ Woodland Scattering or thinly timbered Douglas fir - white oak ' woodland. May contain bigleaf maple; brushy understory of ; hazel, young oaks, oak brush, young fir, bracken. No pine.'* 4' . FFHPP Closed forest; Upland Mixed conifer forest, with ponderosa pine. May include I i Douglas fir, red cedar, western hemlock, bigleaf maple, white oak, red alder, dogwood, vine maple. � OFHC Woodland Conifer- dominated woodland; various combinations of Douglas fir, red cedar, hemlock, bigleaf maple, white oak, red alder, dogwood. No ash present. Logging in Tigard area — 1904 FFHCBu Closed forest; Upland FFHC, but burned, often with scattered trees surviving fire. FFHC Closed forest; Upland Mesic mixed conifer forest with mostly deciduous under - story. May include Douglas fir, western hemlock, red cedar, _- grand fir, bigleaf maple, yew, dogwood, white oak, red alder ?. FFO Closed forest; Upland Douglas fir -white oak (bigleaf maple) forest, with brushy understory of hazel, young oak, oak brush, oak sprout, :4111_4;.>4. bracken, briars, sometimes willow, FFA Closed forest Riparian Ash -mixed deciduous riparian forest with combinations f i & Wetland of red alder, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, white oak, a dogwood. Conifers may be present in small quantities. y ft; The Hunziker Dairy Farm near Garden Home. Mr. Hunziker is in center of As Tigard became settled, native forests were cleared for agricultural uses picture wearing hat and coat. and timber to help support development. After Tigard was incorporated in 1961, the City began passing codes to manage the urban forest beginning in 1967 with street tree planting requirements, and continuing in 1983 and 1997 with the passage of codes that regulated tree removal. The City hired its first urban forester in 1998 and created the Tree Board in 2001. The City of Tigard has been named a Tree City USA every year since 2001 and was awarded the Tree City USA Growth Award in 2009 for its expanded urban forestry efforts. In 2007, Tigard had 24% citywide tree canopy which is well below American Forests' target recommendation of 40% for Pacific Northwest 24 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan ‘® cities. An analysis of existing tree canopy combined with plantable • locations confirmed that 40% citywide tree canopy cover is achievable in Tigard. While citywide tree canopy is currently stabilized (1% decrease The City of Tigard has been from 1996- 2007), it is becoming increasingly fragmented (larger groves are being replaced by individual trees). (See Figure 8, next page.) Because named a Tree City USA every 78% of Tigard's tree canopy is on private property and only 7% of year since 2001 and was awarded Tigard's land area is on buildable lands, it is critical to develop an urban the Tree City USA Growth Award forest stewardship program that includes all residents and property owners in the City. in 2009 for its expanded urban forestry efforts. G TREE CITY USA 25 Urban Forestry Master Plan 1 City of Tigard Draft 5 Canopy By Property Ownership 0.1 . ... 0 ' T�cAR ' . ' 13135 SW Hall Blvd i Tigard, Oregon 93333 w - - Ir. v ` I C E 503.639.41]1 � ! _ �i I .. www.t.gar or.gov I IV 1 � ) 11111111 y Map Creeled' August t3. [Og8 ' ( y, �"^ ,A " \ f . I • _ _r 2- ...._...1111119WIP ..:. : i . • 1,C,9'f-ji--Ali j ' 4 : : ;. 1 'H ' ,-,fl i - ';':1' ' " ':.:: .."-i7 7; -•:' .7' , .."' 7 .:-, r '„7- .- ( �7 �� 2 ... si -�0 ' ''y�..�. � -,� � .Y' � � � ,� " F °' � � S 's�,tf �l , , ,,,. _ __f 4r:s7 4 ., .:,,,„,,,,,.•,, ,,,,, .:::„ , „,,,,, „ :: , ,, , .„ ,, ,,,,:::,.- 0 ,,:„.„,,,....., ,., „ILI I 1 , 41 '4.'1 . 44 L, , 41 1 i , ..„,,,' 4 i';1.,Vx4 .., ....... ,,,,.,.., . ,.-.7z-____,..,. u,},,, { , .0,C - 1 � 1 S 1 ' { r -4; . { 2 i 6 "� „ �; e ,,,,,,, • ' . 11' pri'l ;A• 'we' ,— . 7 s - • - • 011 ' 1 tPlf:' ' '. rrP. : .•-- , .?:,:.;„:„., , -,:',W re:. ', • .--,----t.,.;_:'.;,. ,. ww, • ' — 1 i , :. _ : 1 ' .111111$11.1ifild .r :':,: 2 ;' , L , '. A .:•' ,,,- filfi. , A11 - ' .-..Z.'2. 7 21±n'''''. ,:::-.4- -- ;4 , -,, -Irr '!" ,. -. '' ' ... . ::,',.' ' 1 1 ...IL- 6 4 © J f ,. *. ( mi l w s Sr, _ r ' I I ` 115 s- . ,J, Legend �'* ,,11„,„:,5.$, � T . - r ,' i Cit of Tigard T � � '` e ` 7� .. � ' r `` Public Right -of -Way �, ` ! Other Public Entities MI . i 4 Private Land Canopy Cover r 1 Tigard City Limits v , Canopy /Property Ownership Summary May 13, 2008 Taxlots 2007 Canopy Cover Taxlot Ownership Number of Taxlots Total Acres Acres of Canopy Percent Canopy Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007 City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13% Public Right -of -Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12% Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.1 24.35% Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63% Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52% FIGURE 8 26 Draft 5 City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan Most stakeholder groups support the goal of developing and participating in an urban forest stewardship program. The Tree Board wants future It would benefit the City if more urban forestry codes to address areas outside development and provisions resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. translated into something the public can understand. They also want more community education on urban forestry issues, and for the City to 90 ■Somewhat continually measure progress on canopy changes and community attitudes 80 ■Strongly so that policy effectiveness can be easily evaluated in the future. 70 Portland General Electric and the Tigard - Tualatin School District have offered to partner with the City on tree planting and maintenance projects. 60 The Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services would like more focus 50 on managing invasives in natural areas and have offered to assist the public 40 on long term resource management. 30 Although there is a high level of satisfaction with the current state of 20 Tigard's urban forest, survey results show the public would support an urban forest stewardship program with 76% of residents wanting more 10 resources directed towards maintaining and protecting existing trees. (See 0 Figure 9.) Many would be willing to become directly involved with 52% of Support Oppose residents saying they would prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees FIGURE 9 rather paying a fee to the City to do it. Residents also want to protect the trees in their existing neighborhoods with 75% saying they would support regulations for developed private property that would protect large, healthy trees. (See Figure 10.) The sub -goals and implementation measures in the UFMP that support the Would you strongly support, support, goal of developing an urban forest stewardship program include increasing oppose, n s that would ld oppose city g P g P P g g regulations that would provide some urban forestry outreach materials, utilizing funding for tree planting and level of protection for large, healthy maintenance on public and private property, and developing regulations trees on developed private property? to prevent clear cutting. Also, long term objectives include periodically This would apply to all current private property. updating the Urban Forestry Master Plan in order to track progress and set new goals, achieving not net loss of tree canopy between 2007 and 80 ■Somewhat 2015, and achieving 32% and 40% citywide tree canopy by 2027 and 2047 respectively. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Support Oppose FIGURE 10 27 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] City of Tigard 1 Urban Forestry Master Plan Glossary Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) — The Tigard BLI defines buildable ' ` M land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant; or 2) larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with 1 /4 acre or greater of the taxlot t ° '''' - ;r vacant. Additionally, publicly owned land, sensitive lands, water quality a , tracts, and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions are not included. Platted, vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable 411 o until development has occurred. Canopy Cluster — contiguous area of canopy cover created by a group of trees. Using Feature Analyst software on aerial photos of Tigard, +;� % F ' a canopy layer was created in Tigard's GIS database. This layer was used to �� analyze the size and location of canopy clusters in Tigard. S' Canopy Cover — The area above ground which is covered by the trunk, – 1 branches, and foliage of a tree or group of trees' crowns. �, GIS (Geographic Information System) — An integrated collection of computer software, and data used to view and manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial processes. A GIS provides a framework for gathering and organizing spatial data and related information so that it can be displayed and analyzed. , Invasive — Species that spread at such a rate that they cause harm to human health, the environment, and /or the economy. '14. Ornamental Trees — Trees cultivated primarily for aesthetics and other s ' 41 direct human benefits. Sensitive Lands — As defined by the Tigard Development Code, lands Y g p , �� potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: / 1. The 100 -year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2. Natural drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map "; 4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and 5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map." 29 Urban Forestry Master Plan I City of Tigard Draft 5 Tree Density — The number of trees per unit area. Tree Fund — A fund created by the City of Tigard for the purpose of replacing trees that are removed during development activities. It is funded by development projects that do not plant replacement trees, and is used by the City to cover its costs of planting an equivalent amount of trees elsewhere. Tree Grove — A group of trees, often with contiguous crowns, which form a visual and /or biological unit. Tree Hazard Assessment — A systematic process of identifying tree hazards. Tree Risk Assessment — A systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. 30 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix Appendix ; „” . # ' APPENDICES . • - _ 4 e _ 7 — Appendix A: Urban Forestry Survey Results al 4 1 " 'A e\ t T ', r } s Y ' u I{ Appendix B: Canopy Analysis a16 til_,. k _iii , Appendix C: Stakeholder Interview Notes a24 1 d' i 1t Appendix D: City of Tigard, Internal Coordination Meeting Notes a39 ,...rg ' ,li ii 4 ' / ` ' Appendix E: Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan a46 ` !. a o Appendix F: Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline a55 j G, Appendix G: Review of Current Federal /State /Regional l' Urban Forestry Policy Framework a56 Appendix H: Review of Current City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework a63 L +4 itir I 4 Y i . • '',.. a [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A CITY OF TIGARD 2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY STEVE JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES * P. O. BOX 3708 * EUGENE, OREGON 97403 TOPLINE FREQUENCIES * *Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories, and the number and percent of responses in each category. All questions include categories for Refused (7 or 97), Don't Know (8 or 98) and No Answer (9 or 99). In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," `I can't think of anything, " and "no comment" have been removed from the document. The "open answers" are recorded verbatim. They have been corrected for spelling but not grammar. HELLO! Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. They have asked us to conduct a survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now. [INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL] PRESS START TO BEGIN — OR — PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK *INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard that we began earlier. Is that (you/person available)? SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First, what about the trees on your street? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees on your street? 1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75% 2 SATISFIED 246 61.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 32 8% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7REF /8DK/9NA 9 2.25% 400 100% SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in your neighborhood? City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 1 al Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A 1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26% 2 SATISFIED 242 60.5% 3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 6 1.5% 400 100% SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole? PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the city as a whole? 1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25% 2 SATISFIED 251 62.75% 3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75% 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 19 4.75% 400 100% HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve its appearance and environmental quality? 1 YES 101 25.25% 2 NO 294 73.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% IMPORT! Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees. For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. First, trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25% 2 AGREE 138 34.5% 3 DISAGREE 10 2.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25% 7REF /8DK/9NA 2 0.5% 400 100% IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 2 a2 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A 2 AGREE 148 37% 3 DISAGREE 28 7% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1% 7REF /8DK/9NA 2 0.5% 400 100% 1MPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50% 2 AGREE 170 42.5% 3 DISAGREE 19 4.75% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 8 2% 400 100% IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25% 2 AGREE 205 51.25% 3 DISAGREE 45 11.25% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 22 5.5% 400 100% IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25% 2 AGREE 202 50.5% 3 DISAGREE 62 15.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 30 7.5% 400 100% IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain and protect existing trees. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 3 a3 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A 2 AGREE 203 50.75% 3 DISAGREE 50 12.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 35 8.75% 400 100% IMPORT? The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on sites that are being developed. PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40% 2 AGREE 193 48.25% 3 DISAGREE 30 7.5% 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 8 2% 400 100% FOREST1 All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10 years? 1 INCREASED 73 18.25% 2 DECREASED 166 41.5% 3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 44 11% 400 100% FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to increase, decrease, or stay the same? 1 INCREASED 113 28.25% 2 DECREASED 126 31.5% 3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 23 5.75% 400 100% FOREST3 On a scale of 1 -10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent , how would you rate the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard? LONE 3 0.75% 2 TWO 0 0% 3 THREE 14 3.5% 4 FOUR 11 2.75% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 4 a4 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A 5 FIVE 61 15.25% 6 SIX 48 12% 7 SEVEN 96 24% 8 EIGHT (GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75% 9 NINE (GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75% 10 TEN (GO TO TAXI) 24 6% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 5 1.25% 400 100% FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard? OPEN ENDED — RECORD EXACT RESPONSE Not cut them all. They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require developers to keep some of the existing trees. Better maintenance. More variety. They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized trees. Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that. Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should. More maintenance, I say plant more, just preserve the ones that are there. Certain areas. Save certain trees. Taken care of the trees. I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees. Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done building. In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars. It would help with gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot. Public awareness. Developers not remove existing trees as much. One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid. Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities. Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers' money on trees that can take care of themselves. High quality maintenance. Let the trees get older. You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work. Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street. More fir trees or pine green trees. Plant more, I guess. I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees. Plant more trees; take care of them. They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 5 a5 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A Maintenance More maintenance from landowners and the city. Better protection of the exciting trees in areas. Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them. Quit cutting them down I think. They could be taken care of Trimming. Quit cutting them down. They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees. Plant more trees. Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees. They could put the areas back that used to be there, that are gone. Plant more. I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots. Ones left are well maintained, pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers. To trim them. Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road. Not letting people cut them down. Grow more. There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none, trees should be everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to shield them from their neighbors. Streets be lined with trees. Leave them alone. Basic maintenance. I think if there is some sort of a plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals. In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on. Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area. Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development. Maintenance around power lines. More trees. Nothing else. Trees aren't taken care of well, trees in vacant lots should become less neglected. Fertilize. Find a way to keep away all the leaves. Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better. More volunteers to maintain them. Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees. I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have more trees we will have a better community. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 6 a6 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown. They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees. Don't put them there for no reason. Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain. Probably the amount. There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road. Plant more trees. More placed in better locations, not be so messy. Add more trees, keep the exciting trees. Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly. Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way. Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their trees probably. If we are going to have trees, they need to be maintained. Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing. Don't know, maintain them. Get the city counsel in the city forest, they should be running the city not the trees. Maintain damage is done. Leave them standing, pruning assisting their health. Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones after they have built homes or buildings. Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos. I wish people would take care of trees better. They could have more trees where there are no trees. More street trees. Don't think anything should be done. Trim them. Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious. Plant more trees, when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be a law to plant trees. Provide good maintenance. Downtown area needs more trees. Old trees be cut down, plant new ones. Preserve during development. Better overall maintenance. Better maintained. Pick up more leaves. I don't have a problem with it, so nothing. Need more trees in old town. Cut them all down, too many large trees, they are blocking the view of everything. They need to at least be trimmed. Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot. A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees. More of them along the main streets. They could be preserved. Planting the right trees. And more of them. Trimming and landscaping around trees. Like the downtown, they made it look all cutesie. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 7 a7 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit, they cut down beautiful trees for that. Improve the city council decisions. Pruning. A little bit of pruning. There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of death that needs to be maintained a little bit better. More trees on busier streets. Plant more of them, take care of them, and cut their branches and everything. First of all plant more trees if there is the space. Largely, plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones. Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that have trees and preserve them. Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain, they should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth. I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks. Maybe more trimming on trees. Plant more. Expert looking at the issue. Old ones let go. Cleaned up. By preserving existing trees. Better maintenance. Leave them alone. Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services. Downtown could plant trees. Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I live there are many trees in the community. More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and appearance. Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth. Plant more, rip up cement and plant trees. In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them. And more yard debris pick -up, so that people are not afraid to have trees. Anything that would make having a tree easier would be good. I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker. If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better. They put up some new dinky trees. And they just don't look as good. It's too late. Maybe better maintained and kept trees. Maintain existing trees. Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced. Cut down dying trees, take care of trees next to main roads. Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down, requires two of three tree in their place. Adding variety. More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 8 a8 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas. Add some along 99. Better trimming and maintenance. Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking about some trees are planted too close to the street, and that causes problems with leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots. Maintenance Maintenance and replanting with trees that die. Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have. And not cut them down unnecessarily. Pruning. In the greenway, we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees. Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the parks. I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that. I don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek. Stop chopping down trees. More maintenance and planting more trees. Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring. More evergreens. The big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall. More red maples. Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying. They're in pretty good shape. Maintain the one we have, and plant more. Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff. Replace trees as they are taken out. Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged looking. Better up keep. Get rid of the old ones that are dying. Just clean up. Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees. I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen. So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves. Need to be more proactive. I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are important. Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments. Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem, they make a mess. Nothing I think they are fine. Take down the trees that drop leaves. I'm not sure we need more trees. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 9 a9 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees, build where they do not have to remove trees. Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees. More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas. Plant more trees. Better maintaining by replanting. More planting. Plant more. I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree. Stop building houses. Cutting them back and some pruning them. More planting. Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to. I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees. More development of downtown, Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping. Better management by the city and government. When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been taken down to build a new house. Regular maintenance. I think there should be more, plant more. I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that. They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest. I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved, too many businesses. I think they are okay. I don't have an opinion on it. Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to do it. More trees. Better upkeep. Not cut them down. I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location where they fit size wise. Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want. Some of them need to be shaped better. The ones on the road. I don't know, just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become available. They are properly cared for and planted more of them. Better maintenance. Better care and clean up. Variety and maintenance. I would presume plant more. We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park, we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are diseased and prune them, or remove them. Quit cutting them down for new developments. Planting more trees. City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 10 a10 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A Just constant vigilance. More and just more. Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees. Leave them alone. Better maintenance. Plant more. TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their property. Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose a program that transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25% 2 SUPPORT 128 32% 3 OPPOSE 136 34% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 33 8.25% 400 100% TAX2 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25% 2 SUPPORT 151 37.75% 3 OPPOSE 132 33% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 29 7.25% 400 100% TAX3 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces? PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard, not just on streets. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8% 2 SUPPORT 190 47.5% 3 OPPOSE 104 26% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 21 5.25% 400 100% TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City to do this? PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer? City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 11 all Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard APPENDIX A 1 PLANT 208 52% 2 PAY 106 26.5% 3 IF VOL — NEITHER 61 15.25% 7REF /8DK/9NA 25 6.25% 400 100% CHOICE! Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant more trees? (PROBE FROM LIST) 1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75% 2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5% 3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75% 4 IN PARKS 79 19.75% 5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 32 8% 400 100% CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about trees. 1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32% 2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED, REPLACE THEM 129 32.25% 3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15% 4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75% 5 IF VOL — NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 11 2.75% 400 100% HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a potentially hazardous tree, the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5% 2 SUPPORT 185 46.25% 3 OPPOSE 101 25.25% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25% 7REF /8DK/9NA 11 2.75% 400 100% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 12 al 2 Draft s City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A REG1 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits? 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75% 2 SUPPORT 168 42% 3 OPPOSE 99 24.75% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 42 10.5% 400 100% REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting afterwards? 1 YES 264 66% 2 NO 97 24.25% 3 IF VOL — IT DEPENDS 14 3.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 25 6.25% 400 100% REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer? 1 YES 80 20% 2 NO 293 73.25% 3 IF VOL — IT DEPENDS 17 4.25% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 10 2.5% 400 100% REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures, would you like to see them focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something else. 1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25% 2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75% 3 BOTH 192 48% 4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 23 5.75% 400 100% REG5 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property? PROBE: This would apply to all current private property. 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 13 al 3 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX A 2 SUPPORT 224 56% 3 OPPOSE 60 15% 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 18 4.5% 400 100% REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size. 1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25% 2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25% 3 IF VOL — BOTH 31 7.75% 4 IF VOL — NEITHER 18 4.5% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 17 4.25% 400 100% AGE In what year were you born? Coded Categories: AGE 18 -24 3 0.75% AGE 25 -34 23 5.75% AGE 35 -44 59 14.75% AGE 45 -54 106 26.5% AGE 55 -64 91 22.75% AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5% 7 REF/ 8 DK/ 9 NA 0 0% 400 100% GENDER Are you male or female? 1 MALE 160 40% 2 FEMALE 240 60% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 0 0% 400 100% RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent? 1 OWN 344 86% 2 RENT 49 12.25% 7 REF/ 8DK/9NA 7 1.75% 400 100% City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 14 al 4 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX A STREET What neighborhood do you live in? PROBE: What is your closest elementary school? PROBE: What is your closest cross street? OPEN ENDED — RECORD EXACT RESPONSE END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard, we would like to thank you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye. NOQAL I'm sorry, we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice (day /evening). City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey — 2008 Topline Frequencies Page 15 al 5 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard ' Draft 5 '' r N DIX B ■ 1 Canopy Change (1996 to 2007) vz . x 13115 SW Hall Blvd ` t t ,i. Z ■ 1J . 1 'f:-5.'s . e N T ., -^ d . Tigard, Ore 97113 t �� t - 7 - ' ` R+. a . . ' 4 _ "' 503 639 4171 .. .j ,,P7 T f www. tigar d- or.gov ifGARD hr p 5 t n� ; Map Crealotl'Aa9us!)3. [009 t _ �' P •� ^J ` r `� —A• 1_ Y �.�fE�ry9 q'��, y�'jj {6 f'�F ,�j`j 1 'ri "T P',�,�, r�tsp,nG Y c�'-.i i ap r� _"w¢�t' C:1�+3'vJ:t a ��{ xif�= °s'�� >� '!� i *' 1 � vea ; $��, K 1 r`'� T k� ' `. ��F+� t l" .� ai; W ,r" >s,r �-t ..��++ i ` : ' - ^N . S _ ; .-• C r •-' 1 Yiv ,*'� l �' . z '*' {q II'� t �;- ^ � �y iii ' C i s t i a : •t �}'� iy- __® �iF * },I 4 *. �r"iT'�`-i- u v � ,''. .•r - t.��* t 7 ,° .Y� '�i�' � { ' - f/ sc y�� ,�r�r �cl �'« n: � .�Z T �;ti`' �..' T &S71 t tiw?' 1• # - „i- { iy T g�,g ~' Xv 7 y� i�,a �,wy ,a' •4 S „ .4 �.t.,.r :;' , _ � � '� �, � to r ...t , Y rat 7 „s: r 0, - :i t' P ,,, ... ,i „. #y 'r z • • * ' fi - 9 y ti� t4 µ � 1 � t - A A - .∎; . -. Y • 1 ..1 't i k s � a }} '. a° # 4 pg 4 �„` 1 5 -i q „ t i � T � 1 r 4 r y .,b ^•' ! ' i t, 'i'” :t \ � f r , � t . Q * 'F Xk I ,. ' . , 2 k *ma ' ,„ I �y,� l} / :�' e .�` 1 'F � :. 4 1 - 4l$ 4, 166 1� :1Y,. n S 37. �'r,'[, 1t 5 , , , ), i v X _ li 7, J 5 V` • 't 4 ' ., ' " ttlit � � _ . •� ..,, d- 4: . i 5 . • 6 i '. n 8 r Legend -' p .1 3 ' 4` .. �" - I ' a . £ kp 1 .. } _ , I - i 'M • j �, ��" i� J - Canopy Lost F� � 6 Canopy Gained rT Canopy Preserved u. ca Tigard City Limits / r l t Citywide Canopy Change Summary 1996 2007 Acres Percent * Acres Percent * Tigard's Total Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52% * of June 2008 city limits ♦ 1 ( HART RD I • 1996 O a Canopy Clustering � 200 O O� 0.S J 0. B+ OCKMAN ST j' O ff' Legend mB * O CKMAN S O y N q< ( Canopy Cover g q4t �< cc WEIR RD / ^ N > 0 ® A cres F ® - ,, - RD -. 1 Less than . R R Y 8t O P0 O VS 0. 0.RY S R0. 8 , _ . gG v V.S- .y _- . ?4%' ;'1, -- I n 4 0.5 - 0.99 GA ` , (' -, r- e Bs n I.0 - 1.99 / A." . u` w , m w, � m Q 9sw ,p 4 , 0 20- 4.99 > ® � t 4 siln : ... 't' '�' 4( • -, • �� 5.0 or more q P y i YV ,,,\N\ ,s ,- t t`� ,.- `°'� ' `" MP i y . i ' i ,© t a s " ' > Q in ...: ,, � "y"" "i + ^o. `/ o Tigard City Limits , # �� ` ' _ Awl• ` O w . z \ z { a ;� , °9 GA T MC DO NA L D sT d� 1 n L GAA. T MC DONA UST ^ _ N KRUSEI BULL M O UN { e \ BULL MO U�NT ,.� { w + r T �N RD ,p f TA N I RD ly A r RD $ A C DR > 1 '�' l�e ' . :` 80N ITA RD 1f . > i 4 w-.t 3 t U 11 p0. U BEEF B END RD DUR, HAM RD y � \ Jam BEEF BEND RD , DUR AM RD , /��, Z Y -,e +y R ry... w.. 1214. a z W I� " ' -may,, 0 �` ° � ' �# ' ?j 4I P S 4t n roues ©� Z OA i1GAlU1 ©0 t Z `. TUALATIN TUALATIN A Y 13115 5W Hall Blvd A Y J J d Tig 503 639 4 91113 0 0 375 0.15 y 503.639.41)1 ✓✓ a CHILD! t/Q w rigard -o r.gov J Map Created: August 13. 2009 F-s Canopy Clustering Summary PI 1996 2007 ■rj O Canopy Cluster Total Acres of Acres as a Percent of No. of Clusters as Total Acres of Acres as aPercnt of No. of Clusters as No. of Clusters No. of Clusters co Size Class Canopy Cover Total Canopy Cover a Percent of Total Canopy Cover Total Canopy Cover a Percent of Total Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.3 31.54% 7231 93.86% 0.5 to .99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14% P to 1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70% F ■-s 2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157 8.47% 52 0.67% rb 5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62% Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100% m D z v = co V Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard APPENDIX B 1 Canopy Change i Within 1996 BL1 (1996 to 2007) G e � - ® TiGi1R MgPS cd j . n= ° ; tzvg 13115 5W Hall Blvd --- 57‘ rA q ca igar6, Oregon 97113 1.` _ a P _ 503.639.4171 ['] p ww a gov iIGAR➢ `/ �` pl! 1 r PAap Crea,etl Au9usf 2. r + b _ ?' °a 1 sd Q ° 93 Vf © �I a ® � ❑ 6 0� 99w . 1 � CP LLJJ CP ° -. et.' 6 6® ,,,, e J. 9 � L a. s, \ f N -1.9, 7.''' ° 7 lb N I 1° ir ,,, ,,,, 2 f 1 .a� ° �J — ® o ° ° i� e lr� 0 6 �� 0 - 0 i --- DDr .. 1 E:1 0 ©( 9 13 a . riplal'ili It.....iil � YQ n J ti" e . Q >u _egend Alma n Canopy Lost e % ' Canopy Gained at / - Canopy Preserved gr 1996 Buildable Lands Inv �./ { I I Tigard City Limits ® %. i / 1 ( --- o# Citywide Canopy Change Within 1996 BLI Area Summary 1996 2007 Acres Percent Acres Percent Percent Change Tigard's Canopy Cover within 1996 BLI (1423.32 acres) 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79% - 10.63% Citywide Canopy Cover Within BLI Summary 1996 2007 BLI Acres of BLI Acres of Acres Canopy Cover Percent Acres Canopy Cover Percent Tigard's CanopyCover within BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 528.75 226.26 42.79% al8 Draft City of Tigar I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX B Canopy By Property Ownership J j , a E 4 ^ 0 TIGA AP . 1 it t 1' \ 13125 SW Hall Blvd _ 11 14 Tigard, Oregon 9]223 xY�, ' 503.639.41]1 I • �. . a,,, www t,gard or. gov i 1GARD ,^� " yM \ ' o a,ed 9 ,3 zoo9 �� -1 t -, r-... , - �,, Y t � f i �• a4_.J r �II C I �� ' L � �� v 4� � r � r � �\ � r' � roe IL : , v ' - 7,,.. -- 2 ,,. ti '•' ' IllEk' '''' ; . ---4-,,,-;;‘,...,),,,i''' -,,.: ,Y '', - o ,. ., .:i - ' - eu c kt + ` , may+_ n cc ' fr�JJ w . t � ?� tr L__ r' • � � � d�I � c �' m`�' ' i �' '�� v - s� �� a � � �lr'�• , / � 'Ss r� _ .,... , ;,.,..,:....,...... Legend o a r fl -. ' .'' ---.. • --"'"'-'' tN-'2. irm..; ,) '`:= '.,.. ,;/-''.- ri,'I''..'7':, ,. ,,,.;-- ',\ 7 :- '\' ,,,, ,, j , ,' . q - .:Os. %Ii: ,):„-:- .1.1; , ., - .- --: , -. :1:11 ., ,z,,T ,,,._,.. ,, ,, -. i. ,,, .. \ ‘ :i _ .7., ,,Xeltjf, L_, 4. ,:- . . - - ..4),..,.,7; . 4), - - • - -:. 7 ' , Nljt:VB - 7 , 14'"''' I r.N ...'' ' 1_ . i i . . . .....„.• ..., ,:..„...,, .0.„.• • , „.0,..0, 0 sr. I A i,:,,,,4;: ::„.7-aillit''-- -3.JULT,ME, '0,.:7 7-...?"..., ',,,_-', /, R.L.,.7,7-_,,,.,.._,..,__„,,,..,,...._,,„,_...., „_ ...,,,, Ili ,. I / � � a . City of Tigard Y P , -7 R 0 ' a Public Right -of -Way '' '16,410 1: Other Public Entities - 11 _ \ 1 r Private Land / = Canopy Cover r 3 Tigard City Limits • Canopy/ Property Ownership Summary May 13, 2008 Taxlots 2007 Canopy Cover Number of Awes of Canopy Percent Canopy Taxlot Ownership Total Awes Taxlots Cover in 2007 Cover in 2007 City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13% Public Right -of -Way n/ a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12% Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.1 24.35% Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63% Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52% Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard . aft 5 APPENDIX B e Canopy Change in Sensitive Lands (1996 to 2007) I CWS FEMA 100 r Local Wetland i Year Flood Plain Inventory . a zw' r �r ,_ , :, , r _ L gl \ u G' . - 1, 3 r 7 I T 0 CWS Vegetated I Slope > 25% Corridor 413111 1 4 4:ro .// , , , wr . , �' k f Legend TICARu APS ilp 7 . Canopy Lost ncn RO Canopy Gained 13125 SW Hull Blvd Canopy City b rI i d 99 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503 .els st CP ei = Tigard Ciey Limns w �gur gov Map Created: August 2009 Citywide Canopy Change Within Sensitive Lands Summary 1996 2007 Sensitive Canopy Percent Percent of 1996 Canopy Percent Percent of 1996 Land Acres Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Acres Canopy Canopy Cover Percent Change Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 145.98 50.18% 7.48% 116.01 39.88% 6.26% - 10.30% CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 348.16 49.40% 17.83% 302.85 42.97% 16.35% - 6.43% FEMA 100 - yrFloodp lain 592.6 213.17 35.97% 10.92% 188.05 31.73% 10.15% - 4.24% Slopes> 25% 195.51 130.28 66.64% 6.67% 129.64 66.31% 7.00% - 0.33% Total 1783.8 837.59 46.96% 42.89% 736.55 41.29% 39.76% -5.66% a20 Draft City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan PENDI B Canopy Change by Zoning (1996 to 2007) L r ; 0 T�GARMAPS � Y w �� .3115 SW Hall Blvd :07c.:7, g d Oregon 97223 `✓ yTe'�4 ;Y r , Y . 503 639 4171 yy "`, -i E Td`�'uf�„Y',ai_, 4 Ti ART/ l t ' _ 'L` 7 Y ft 7 R C V�� '• � �' 4' ? • c�' t .D3 " R Y R i s 7 .� p f1NE1` 4 4 '' '''": :- Z . a � • #t . a . ..' ? 4, € x,, x4 r i ? , ‘4:', _ ," � c ,,,,, � .,, >r+ Y 14:`441;4 ' 1 _ ' I -a s Y. ,a w.L �. Y F� ,� ,r� ''t3 „.a? .� ! - y am , ' . ,. i F * _ � 1 —' ... ;�' � ' �L ",� �, ' tl% s .s�- i w 0. >. , a' Fs fir- 3 ,� a s t' # s'. - '„fin -r` . T�. 1 t �1 l ' le x .,' to-aw r/' T a " 4 � .� -.X K `'x' ',n3 , �,, • ,,q �T 4 :1' �rx„2+z;'t ^, 'Y^ ` f K � 2 j ♦. I .5* � ' ,� 5 *,: C�` ,, a 7ta 1 4:. „+ .4-? -. s^} -S'?b f., � # yx L +�iv`. , u, ''.'''Vi, • w.r i ‘;' ` fi' i fi r I -� N 3• �; { i j( - "! ] MSS Y t t . ip ,d. 1 r i ° A ". r r ' t iR t/ - 6 YIz s ie r.`E'd r I ,_ °� . Legend , ; ,s 4 °, `-: ;, ; ' , ,, . °° .� t- � "� � - ! s . .5 � 4 . Canopy Lost t�� "i f � * e ° �r P a I w� f ' mot t Canopy Gained �y w � F . '! �! �F - Canopy Preserved fy + Zoning Type ,. I q _- Commercial I'' 1 ��, 'D.. Industrial Mixed Use ' " m � '. f Residential r "E A / L— Tigard City Limits v Citywide Canopy Change By Z oning Summary 1996 2007 2008 Percent Zoning Total Acres Armes Percent Acres Percent % Change Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% 15.9 0.95% Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 4 Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% - 7.21% Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76% Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -132% a21 13 Cr m p Z PI po �@I S ash Pek v O J BROCKMAN ST 0 F Possible Percent Greenway Bark i 1 N 4z e( p ■ < TAVLORS FERRY RD T (�J Canopy ,y o W Seu[krmg< a ,� 0 0 2 To .• ® ®� r i ■ , Q F Q I-S Zr I, i#1 tritr, PI 13115 SW Hall Blvd • `` SCNO� FERpV RO K , - , , 1 ; w , ' / BPRRU ' /an a �, g d O g 91113 ■ V A l ■ n ` h= 5°3 4 9 dl 8 T1 RD ' • yam} p _ _ , P aP Gq F N BURG I ' ^' les ark � 1 f � L )' �. • / �' e RO 99wi I ■I 11 II . . l • ,: 111111 I I / ts s KE RB RO ilik ip y / h '4 LNUT STS . . , .'' - . i�_ ►r \AS S . A RT MOUTH ST 1 � .,. _ —R� —_ rd , / �q 1 �V 1 ` 4� ' ■ sr , 'keR sT o mr _ 1 , ), , F � 4■ - / I ' 1 ' I � ..4 y. 4'+ W MELROSE ST L `k N L ✓ I I I ri ri I ! --9 �� I �� G AARDE 5T • • MCDONA ST r - L ", KRUSE WAY Md BULL MOUNTAIN I ROI . Ir� 0' # - \ . ■ e • ' \ \\ /1 _ ■ e T . I L - . ' ■ Pr r y • • • •. ■t ■ BONITA RD • L Y ® - ,,, S e c AN i_l I _tea 'al P 9 i r t3I e � � ... Legend BEEF BEND RD ■ _ r OLLRHAM RD t I of \ Tigard City Limits Citywide Possible Percent Canopy r T�ab� � ' e� ° � OP' — N FL W Possible Percent Canopy • Non-Residential Taxlots 44 °/p ua I o z )f o - zo °i Residential Taxlots 39%o R / zo -4or - ao so --- -80 100 °i Overall 41% � 1., 1 / 99w » \ / • Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX B MI Alr,„ . ... ,,,' - 41 ;, - . ''. 71 '. : ' l:: / _ ample `x"' e. 111110:1 '": \.:,..C, - '''' - — - `I Circle .. : _ . . v f • ti y ki d ' i • e \ 6 : ji- .- 41 * Kiii it j � . Ilarlilrl g I. Ike _ yy ' fi IJI IIF LJ1IUrl T. V: 4 it / •, * y f . , � rraµl Point Metro's 2007 1 . 4 � C8rI0p}f Layer r P Fr .1 I ,,,\ , 4 a '."'r 1 ii ' . 4 , \ , .... i s I • s{� 1 1 . C- i • q f b� v . II _ \ _- . _ % . . i ' 41111%. ' —' r , ‘,... s. - . .. _ . e 't 1 Pt yr as *6 4 C - , 6.. %' - '. !I ' • • ‘• fi ACL * lump, —,..=.0011iik . - Parking Lot Sample Acreage: 508.77 acres Parking Lot Sample Acres covered by canopy: 30.72 acres Percent Parking Lot Sample Canopy Coverage: 6% a23 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • The 1000+ members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It is in the interest of the membership to develop land and create building sites for new homes. Land development requires tree removal on sites that have trees and are zoned for development. • Applications for land development are currently required to include tree preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard Development Code requirements. • Under the current code section 18.790, applicants may pay a fee in lieu of mitigation or are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement trees within the City. • HBAMP members have attended Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. • The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place. • The City's overall goal of preserving trees. • Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists when evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site development. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are unreasonable and punitive. • The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2 (a -d) is unreasonable because it is not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on sites zoned for medium to high density residential development (5 units per acre or more). There has likely never been a development in Tigard with 75% or greater retention on property zoned R4.5 or higher. Heavy equipment, grading, roads, and utilities are very disruptive to trees. Significant amounts of grading must take place outside the right of way when driveways are cut in, sidewalks are poured, and building footprints are cleared for structures. This results in tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites. • The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will cause potential future hazards. For example, trees over 12" in diameter have root systems and canopies that extend at least 10' from the trunk. Larger trees have larger areas around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not practicable is high density situations. a24 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C Even if a younger but potentially large tree species such as Doug. -fir is able to be retained, it often makes sense to remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future. • The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far exceeds the actual cost to plant trees. For example, a recent mitigation project to plant trees in Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the developer $20,000 to complete. However, the City required the developer to submit a bond for $106,000 or $110 per caliper inch as assurance and to cover the City's cost of planting should the developer fail to mitigate. • The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example, the density bonus incentive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover retained. This bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very large. For a site that is 10 lots, it would take 20% retention for a 10% density bonus to add just one unit. Moreover, by adding another unit and decreasing the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots that are significantly smaller than zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict with lot size requirements in section 18.510. • Finally, it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any development project. In addition, Tigard's current program is divisive and creates legal conflicts in the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals for tree related issues. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property owners should be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the establishment of Tigard. This "hands off' approach has successfully been done for decades with virtually no loss (and perhaps even some gain) in tree canopy. Trees are not community property and belong to the owners of the land. • Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over $1,000,000 in the tree mitigation fund. It is expected to grow to over $2,000,000 within the next year. This fund can only be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for tree planting was $50,000. There is little available land within the City where future trees can be planted. • If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should only be required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal. • The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous trees. • The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of planting trees. • Revise incentives to create higher motivation for developers to utilize the incentives. • The City forestry program should be balanced with the right to subdivide and develop private property. The cost of an urban forestry program should not outweigh the benefits. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C • HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that their views are understood by the City's decision makers. • It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process that the HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and one extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple to achieve "consensus" when everyone in the room shares the same view. The key to real and balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people who have concerns about the forestry program and openly discuss the views of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue. The HBAMP has received virtually no feedback from City staff, the Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's representatives have provided at meetings, public hearings and worksessions. This needs to be addressed. • By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal, it is the view of the HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree Board and City Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of property owners. This is unacceptable. • City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners who have the most potential impact under the current and future tree code. These owners should be contacted and advised of the financial impact the current tree code could have on their property values. These are the single most impacted stakeholder group, yet they have never been invited to any meetings. This needs to be addressed. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a program do not outweigh the costs. • Do not regulate trees on private property, and allow owners to manage their land as they see fit. • However, if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following should be included/excluded from the program: o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to mitigate for unnecessary tree removal. o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree replacement. o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous trees. o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to utilize the incentives. o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property owners in the process. Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? a26 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C • Watershed Management Department manages revegetation projects in Tigard's stream corridors. • Partnered with urban forester (currently unfilled) on many acres of tree planting in Tigard's stream corridors including Englewood Park, Fanno Creek Park, and Cook Park. These projects were funded by Surface Water Management (SWM) fees which come from sewer system ratepayers. • Development Services issues Service Provider Letters (SPL) for development projects with potential impacts on stream corridors. • CWS inspectors monitor Vegetated Corridor work of private developers to ensure compliance with CWS standards. • Some stream restoration projects require City of Tigard tree removal permits and tree protection plans. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Tigard Public Works is effective at using volunteers for planting projects. • In theory, the tree mitigation fund works well (if the money is actually used for tree planting) . • Tigard has worked well with Clean Water Services on tree planting projects and meeting "Tree for All" planting goals. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in stream corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas dominated by non- native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree planting. • Invasive and non - native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should not be protected and/or require a tree removal permit. Protecting invasives and non - natives is a barrier to restoration. • Vegetated Corridor and other natural area plantings require long term maintenance beyond the two -year maintenance period typically required of developers. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • The City should be more diligent about taking a proactive approach to inspecting Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban Forestry Program includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements. • Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should be exempt from tree survey and protection requirements. • Tigard needs to adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt the removal of invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from permit requirements. • There needs to be more focus on long term maintenance of private and public riparian plantings. This could be addressed through a combination of Code requirements, SWM a27 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C funds, and tree mitigation funds. The City should secure a stable source of funding for vegetation maintenance. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • Continue stewardship of "Tree for All" sites even after the program ends. • Coordinate public outreach about invasive plants and the responsibilities of streamside property owners. • Ensure City of Tigard and Clean Water Services regulatory requirements are coordinated in future. Allow Clean Water Services to review /comment on Code changes that affect stream corridors prior to adoption. • Continue partnering to co- implement Stormwater Management Permits. • Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements. • Exempt invasive and non - native tree removal in stream corridors from permit requirements. • Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from permit requirements. • Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions, SWM funds, and tree mitigation funds. • Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management. • Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is provided for riparian vegetation management. • Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects continue /expand in the future. • Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water Services standards. • Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan in cooperation with Clean Water Services. Oregon Department of Transportation Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • During development, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviews street tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with ODOT specifications. • ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT right of ways (99W, Hall Boulevard, Highway 217). a28 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • No comment. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Street tree planting under powerlines causes conflicts because traffic lanes are closed for ongoing maintenance issues. • Some trees cause damage to infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, streets). • Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to root interference. • Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with ODOT requirements (root barriers, site distance, clear distance, limb clearance) 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate tree planting that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General Electric for review. • Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts. • Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top of existing utilities. • Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans to Portland General Electric for review. • Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts with hard features. • Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT and City review. • Clarify jurisdictional requirements in ODOT right of ways: o ODOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements. o ODOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements. o ODOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements. o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in ODOT right of way (ODOT permit required). a29 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard APPENDIX C The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Stakeholder Interview Notes The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23, 2009 meeting. Portland General Electric (PGE) Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to provide for the safe, reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the needs of commercial and residential customers. • PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in terms of establishing approved street tree lists, encouraging appropriate and responsible plantings, approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree program and having the long term vision to develop and maintain an urban forestry program. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • As a whole, Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is very qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard. • Several potentially hazardous tree /utility conflicts in the City of Tigard. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Remove and replace inappropriate street trees. • Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment necessary. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites. • Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a factor. • Attend monthly City coordination meetings. • Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works well and what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities. • Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree /right place programs. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? a30 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C • Future programs need to recognize the conflict between a static overhead distribution system of electricity and the dynamic nature of vegetation management around PGE facilities. • Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings. • Route tree plans to PGE for review. Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects. • Assist private property owners with tree management outside the development process. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal requires increasing mitigation and associated costs. • Bi- weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project oversight and tree plan implementation. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those with un- treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the effect of precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard Triangle that are zoned for dense development. • Mitigation standards encourage overplanting of trees or planting of small stature trees to meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a caliper inch basis may not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to overplanting. • No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a stable funding source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized for tree maintenance, not just tree planting. • Bi- weekly arborist reports can be hard for the City to track, especially during the transition from site development to building phase. • Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist reports with false or misleading information. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City of Vancouver, WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil volumes for lots of various sizes with trees. a31 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C • Allow required trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for mitigation. This will help alleviate overplanting of mitigation trees. • Provide incentives for planting of natives and large stature mitigation trees. One incentive could be to offer more mitigation credit for planting natives and large stature trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the planting of trees that offer the most environmental benefits. • Develop spacing standards based on the mature size of trees to improve long term growth and health. • Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such as stormwater fees, permit fees, transportation fees, etc. This will also allow for the urban forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance. • Bi- weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The City should require a copy of the contract for bi- weekly reports and require the project arborist to send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated. If a different arborist is to provide bi- weekly reports, then the original project arborist should have to sign off prior to the new arborist amending the tree preservation plan. • The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to discourage false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking business licenses and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal accountability when providing false or misleading information. • An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the City to hire a third party the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi- weekly inspections. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions. • ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • Require mitigation based on stocking levels, not on a caliper inch basis. • Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large stature trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required landscape trees and street trees to count towards mitigation requirements. • Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have trees that are overcrowded and not in good condition. • Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees. • Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long term maintenance of trees, not just tree planting. • Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as possible. • Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code updates, not the project engineer. a32 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C • Require metal fencing in future code updates. • Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints, and don't penalize developers for removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5' -10' or 3 to 5 times the diameter of the tree. However, site and species characteristics should be considered when crafting code revisions. • Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and sidewalks. • Require utilities to be under the street, not in the planter strip where trees should be. • Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's greenspaces. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes On March 9, 2009, I spoke with Christopher Zoucha, Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Christopher informed me that urban forestry has not been an issue for the Chamber members, and therefore declined providing input as a stakeholder group for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Tree Board Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its urban forestry program. • The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due to lack of communication. • Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not unified. • The Tree Code is too focused on development. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • More communication between City departments. • Unify tree related provisions in Code. • Focus future Code on areas outside development, and fix the mitigation issue. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest. a33 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C • The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban forest. • The Tree Board can help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds can be used to implement the plan. • The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the plan. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • Increase communication between City departments. • Unify tree related Code provisions. • Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development. • Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can understand. • Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland outreach materials as a model. • Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community attitudes. • Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits. Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances. • Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape and mitigation requirements. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not. • Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and work out solutions. • The Urban Forestry Master Plan will result in a more comprehensive approach to future tree and landscape ordinance updates. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Replanting on a caliper inch basis does not work because it incentivizes overplanting. • Site planning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting. • Landscape architects do not have enough flexibility in landscape design because landscape code requirements are overly specific. • Street tree list is outdated, and many of the species are no longer appropriate or relevant. a34 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C • Street trees and streetscapes are non - uniform. Different development projects choose different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street trees. • Many parts of the tree code are overly vague, which creates loopholes and a wide variety of interpretations. For example, there are no spacing, species, or nursery stock quality standards with respect to mitigation trees. • Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If preservation requirements are increased, then mitigation could occur on a tree for tree basis rather than inch for inch. • Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by focusing more on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into the building design. Also, landscape architects should be required to collaborate more with project arborists in order to identify which trees are appropriate for preservation, and how to adjust grading to preserve trees. Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans between the landscape architect and project arborist. • Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates. Require landscape architects to be part of the design team, and sign off on planting before, during, and after installations. • Update street tree list. • To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey the street trees in a 4 -5 block radius and choose trees that complement existing plantings. • The tree /mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem has a detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and specifications that are referred to in their development code. This allows for more clarity as to what is expected of the development. • When advertising Tree Board vacancies, specify that you are looking for members with tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local professional organizations. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to ASLA for review and comment. • Contact ASIA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes and design handbooks. • Hire ASIA members to help develop code and design guidelines. • Share example codes that require maximum preservation of existing trees. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • More focus on preservation through improved grading plans, less focus on mitigation. The City needs to take a leadership role in this. a35 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C • More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees, but trees that are appropriate for site conditions. • Need detailed design/preservation manual with illustrations. • Need to have a warranty period for required landscaping to ensure establishment. • Need to require powerlines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future overhead utility conflicts. • Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team. Tigard Tualatin School District Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • Somewhat limited. • Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study. • Manage trees on School District property. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment. • City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. It is important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term maintenance issues can be addressed prior to planting. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a tree planting project. 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting funds. • Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation opportunities for the City. • Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees and planting layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District. • School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are required for tree removal and/or planting. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? a36 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX C • Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree planting projects on School District properties. • Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low leaf litter. Tualatin Riverkeepers Stakeholder Interview Notes 1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? • High level of involvement. • Work closely with the City and Metro on restoration projects in Tigard. • Provide comments on municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits. • Provide comments on City of Tigard Parks plans and occasionally on private development applications. • Participated in the development of the Healthy Streams Plan by Clean Water Services. • Member of Oregon Community Trees, a non -profit organization that promotes urban and community forestry in Oregon. 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? • Mitigation fee structure provides an adequate budget for tree planting. 3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? • Trees could be better utilized for stormwater management in developed areas such as along street and in parking lots. • Urban forestry funds could be collected and utilized more strategically. An example would be to use stormwater management fees to fund restoration programs. • The City of Tigard could make more of a public commitment to sustainability efforts such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. 4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? • Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment features and more tree canopy. • Retrofit existing parking lots to improve stormwater treatment and tree canopy using grant money and other funding sources. • Encourage /require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and streets so that the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the winter rainy season. • Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees, development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more than just tree planting. a37 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX C 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest? • Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry projects. • Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of environmental stewardship through camp and recreation programming. • Tualatin Riverkeepers can help identify potential restoration sites. • Tualatin Riverkeepers can provide training to Planning Commission, City Council, City staff, and others on low impact development techniques. 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs? • Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment and more tree canopy. • Increase stormwater incentives /requirements for development such as the "no runoff" provisions as in Lacey Washington. • Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees, development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be used for more than just tree planting. • More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. • More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private landowners to remove invasives. Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX D City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results On January 21, 2009, a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that have a role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs, policies, and ordinances. Meeting attendees included representatives from a range of City departments (Community Development, Public Works, and Financial and Information Services) and divisions (Capital Construction & Transportation, Current Planning, Development Review, Information Technology, Public Works Administration, Parks, Streets, Wastewater /Storm, and Water). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss urban forestry coordination issues, and identify those areas where coordination could be improved. As a result of the meeting, the following list was generated that identified areas where urban forestry coordination efforts could be improved. 1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT /GIS); 2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no long term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering, Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT /GIS); 3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT /GIS); 4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after development (Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT /GIS); 5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist, IT /GIS); 6. No inventory of street trees (Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT /GIS); 7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially regarding hazard trees) ( Planning/Arborist, Public Works); 8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions (Planning, Building) ; 9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); 10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); 11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks /greenspaces (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks, Risk); 12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist, Public Works /Streets); 13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks /greenspaces (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks); 14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is awareness of this Code provision (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); 15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting (Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT /GIS, Finance); and 16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees (18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist, Engineering) . 17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb /root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets). After the list was generated, a series of meetings was held with representatives from the groups affected by the coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group meetings was to discuss the coordination issues a39 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX D and formulate possible solutions that could improve coordination efforts. The following list identifies possible solutions for the coordination issues that were formulated after the group meetings. 1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT /GIS); • Make note on record drawings that actual street tree locations may vary, see street trees in GIS for actual locations. • Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. • Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. • Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS street trees. 2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no long term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering, Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT /GIS); • Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after planting, and after a defined maintenance period (usually two years) to ensure compliance with Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements. • If the vegetated corridor becomes City property, then the Wastewater /Storm Division of Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance. • If the vegetated corridor is privately owned, the City of Tigard does not currently have a program to inspect/enforce long term vegetation maintenance. The City will clarify with CWS what agency is responsible for ensuring long term maintenance of vegetated corridors. 3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT /GIS); • Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS locations of deed restricted trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. • Information on deed restricted trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date inventoried, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. 4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after development (Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT /GIS); • Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of required landscape trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. a40 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX D • Information on required landscape trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. 5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist, IT /GIS); • Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of mitigation trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. • Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. 6. No inventory of street trees (Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT /GIS); • Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. • Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing street trees outside development process. • GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting program. • Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. • Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS street trees. 7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially regarding hazard trees) ( Planning/Arborist, Public Works); • Create budget sheet to track personnel, material, and service costs associated with greenspace acquisition. • Budget sheet should detail first year costs as well as costs for years two through five. • A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation, connectivity, and other potential benefits. • The budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and divisions for input before it is finalized. • There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects that may be used as a template (contact Carissa) . • If hazard trees are an issue during land acquisition associated with development projects, require developer's arborist to conduct a hazard assessment for review and inspection by City Arborist. a41 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX D 8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building additions (Planning, Building); • This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates. • However, for deed restricted trees, the City can require a protection plan for building additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the development project. • For trees in sensitive lands, the City can restrict access/building within the driplines of trees through the use of tree protection fencing. Section 18.790.060 prohibits damage to a protected tree or its root system. 9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private development (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); • City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable City rules and regulations. • Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion. • Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend that the City hire a project arborist. • Work with the Tree Board and Community Development Director on developing a set of standards for City projects to follow. 10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); • City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable City rules and regulations. • Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to completion. • Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend the City hire a project arborist. 11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks /greenspaces (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks, Risk); • Budgeting has eliminated non - emergency management and evaluation of hazards in parks /greenspaces due to the transfer of the greenspace coordinator (urban forester) position from Public Works to the associate planner /arborist (city arborist) position to Community Development. • Proactive evaluation and management of City owned parks /greenspaces would be best accomplished through the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to fill the position vacated in Public Works. a42 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX D • A greenspace coordinater could develop a program based off of protocols developed by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture. • Alternatively, the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard evaluation and management program. 12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets); • When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on a City street, they should be forwarded to the Public Works front desk (503 -639- 4171). • Operators at Public Works will route the call to the Streets Division manager, who will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint. • If the tree clearly is not a hazard, the Streets Division will contact the citizen and close the case. • If the tree is already down or is clearly an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will coordinate traffic control, contact other impacted agencies (such as PGE if power lines are involved), and remove the tree from the street and sidewalk right -of -way using the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the owner's property, and debris disposal will occur at the owner's expense. • If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a determination whether the tree should be retained, monitored, removed, or further investigated by the contract arborist. • If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time, he will write a letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific period of time to abate the hazard. If the deadline is not met, the responsible owner will be cited through Code Enforcement. • If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after -hours number (503 - 639 - 1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division for follow up the following business day if the hazard is not immediate. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined above. 13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks /greenspaces (Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks); • When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on City property, they should be forwarded the Public Works front desk (503 -639- 4171). • Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division manager, who will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint. a43 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX D • If the tree clearly is not a hazard, the responsible division will contact the citizen and close the case. • If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard, the responsible division will contact the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) to abate the hazard immediately. • If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a determination whether the tree should be retained, monitored, removed, or further investigated by the contract arborist. • The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one "borderline" call per week on average. If the time commitment is significantly more, the process may need to be reevaluated. • If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after -hours number (503 - 639 - 1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the appropriate division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day. The responsible division will then follow the same process outlined above. 14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is awareness of this Code provision (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works); • City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable City rules and regulations. • Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section 18.790.050 are applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands (including City projects) . • Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works /Capital Construction and Transportation coordination meetings. • Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all divisions /departments. • Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from tree removal permit requirements. 15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting (Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT /GIS, Finance); and • GPS actual ocations of mitigation trees /areas. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking. • Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date, tree ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future. • Link mitigation trees (via a GIS point layer) and mitigation areas (via a GIS polygon layer) with IFIS (accounting system) so that expenditures can be directly related to specific projects. a44 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX D 16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees (18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist, Engineering). • The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in the Tigard Development Code in all cases, regardless of existing trees. • However, during the development review process, when a healthy and sustainable tree in the right of way is identified by the project arborist and/or City Arborist, Development Engineering will allow adjustments to planter strip and/or sidewalk standards on a case by case basis. • The City does not currently have the authority to require private developers to preserve trees if they choose not to. 17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb /root clearance and removal (Planning/Arborist, Public Works /Streets) . • If the street tree is the responsibility of the City, the corresponding division will maintain the clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal Code. • If a citizen complaint is received, the Streets Division will investigate. • If there is an immediate hazard (e.g. blocked stop sign, hanging limb, etc.), the Streets Division will prune the tree immediately. • If there is not an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will contact the responsible party directly and explain the Code requirements, or gather the information and forward to Code Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive. • If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after -hours number (503 -639- 1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined above. • When tree roots are impacting City streets or utilities, the responsible division will investigate and, if needed, contact the City Arborist for root pruning advice. • If the City Arborist decides the tree can be safely root pruned to make the necessary repairs, the responsible division will absorb the cost of root pruning. • If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed, the City will absorb the cost of removal, but the property owner will be responsible for stump removal and replanting. Prior to removing a street tree, the City Arborist shall be contacted. a45 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX E u u i 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 identify 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 realm 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 a46 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX E Li u LAND USE PLANNING 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 1940's 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% of Tigard Residents supported regulations to protect existing trees, with only 6% strongly disagreeing and 9% 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 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 floodplains 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 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 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 a47 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX E uu 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 City 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 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 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 a48 Drag 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX E Li u LAND USE PLANNING 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 City. • 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 property. • 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: 2.2 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 -13 a49 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX E u 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 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 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 citywide Urban Forestry 2 -14 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan a50 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX E u u LAND USE PLANNING 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 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 a51 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX E u u 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 a52 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX E LAND USE PLANNING 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 a53 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX E uu LAND USE PLANNING ii. Develop tree - mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City 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 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan a54 * „ € ', f R 9 Ur rdn For boric l noe ' Sketch of Kalapuya man 4 1',, 3500 years before present Kalapuya drawn by / (Native Americans) began managing • Alfred Agate, ' the forests of the Willamette Valley a member of the Wilkes using fire (pyroculture) (Gray, 2008). I In 1851, canopy coverage Expedition ,�. within the current city in 1841. • limits of Tigard was estimated to be 52.4% (3,966.9 acres). 5 { C ,s.1_, / 4.1 ®, 74 ,4 In the early 1850s, Tigard was I 1 , ''' settled by several families of — European descent including the In 1910, the Oregon Electric - 1 - - - - Tigard family headed by Wilson Railway arrived, triggering more _ - a:: .,:, • t M. Tigard. Native forests were —• rapid development at the rail cleared for agricultural uses and I stop near Main Street. Fruit and -----Ali 1 pm_ lailwriPporiPPROF; .14: timber help support development nut packaging and canning `-� - " Y } " -^ F in the area (City of Tigard, 2009). plants and lumber mills set up , - I n One Cloud Surveying Crew — shop at that point to capitalize ! _ � - — o 1903 - 1905 on the agriculture and logging y Survey crew of Oregon Electric Co. activity (City of Tigard, 2009). ° ac P Railroad (from Charles F. Tigard) ¢ Downtown Tigard — _ - . . Left to right: Mrs. P.E. Lewis' Dry Goods Store, Bolens (later Schubring & Biederman's) Grocery Store, Krueger's Pool Hall and Barber Shop '" and Rickert's Plumbing Shops. Az =_ �, ; r. a ' In the 1940s, the population = Notice unpaved street and no walksways between buildings. Circa 1911. was about 300 people even 'TJ ' after the arrival of the o Capitol Highway (99W) Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961. There were 1,749 residents and (Burrows, 2009. 572 occupied residences at the time of incorporation (City of Tigard, 2008 .- . L9 ( ) p p ( Y 9 2008). <-- t^? y >. "� • T he biggest boom period took place in the 1960s, averaging 26% population growth (City of Tigard, 2008). In 1967, Tigard adopted its first zoning ordinance. The only mention of In 1972, the Municipal Code contained provisions to protect the public from trees in the zoning ordinance was in Section 180 -7, which required trees in : T .� dangerous trees and branches blocking streets and sidewalks. Planned industrial developments to provide a buffer for streets and residential zones. ■ Z '� • developments were required "to the maximum extent possible... to 0 m assure that natural features of the land are preserved" and to provide "a i=i- en en In 1982, Tigard adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with several policies I preliminary tree planting plan (with)... all existing trees over six inches in 7 X '1 ' that call for the preservation of stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, • diameter and groves of trees. tree and timbered areas, and wetlands. I In 1983, the Community Development Code was revised to comply with the Comprehensive Plan The Tree Removal section ofr the new Code required In 1983, the Landscaping and Screening Chapter was also established a City permit prior to tree removal for all undeveloped land, developed and required street tree planting, protection, and replacement during : commercial and industrial land, and public land. development. It also required trees to be used as a buffer between differing I land uses and for shading of parking lots. In 1985, the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Community Development Cotle In 1987, the Tigard Municipal Code was expanded to prohibit dead or • prohibited development in or in close proximity to significant wetlands. hazardous trees that pose a threat to the public and private property owners • (Section 7.40.060). I In 1997, the Tree Removal Chapter was significantly revised. Tree plans • were required for development, mitigation standards were established, and tree removal permits were required for trees in sensitive lands. In 1998, the City hired its first Urban Forester. • I In 2001, the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the Community Develop - . ment Code established additional landscaping and screening requirements ' for the Tigard Triangle (the area bound by Highways 5, 99, and 217). In 2001, the Tree Board was established to develop and administer a • comprehensive tree management program for trees on public property. d h ba a City A the Tigar National as Arbor een n Day med Foundation Tree every US by 411% In 2002, the Tigard Municipal Code was revised to increase protections for 0 . year since 2001. trees on City property. TREE CITY USA In 2002, the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards and the • Durham Quarry Design Standards established additional landscaping and In 2002, the Sensitive Lands Chapter was significantly revised in order screening requirements in the Washington Square and Bridgeport areas to implement "Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction • respectively. • Standards ", the "Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan," and I "Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources)." In 2006, the Heritage Tree program was established so that trees of • landmark importance could be officially recognized and protecte 1 In 2007 the Tree Board's mission was expanded to develop a "City Tree • Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program" in part to ensure tree ' code revisions occurred in a comprehensive manner. In 2007, the City adopted a "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which expanded • the lands where tree removal permits were required. I In 2008, an Urban Forest section was added to the Comprehensive Plan following over a year of work by the Tree Board. The Urban Forest section 6rp A �ar • of the Comprehensive Plan contains two goals to be implemented by 22 In 2009, Tigard received a • policies. Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The City ,e- ' Tree City USA growth award for its • shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan." This Plan is intended to meet this policy requirement. expanded urban forestry efforts. P Y q TREE C1TY USX I Burrows, T. 2009. A Short History of Tigard, Oregon. Accessed via the World Wide Web < http: // tom. mipaca .com /Oregon/TigardHistory.php> on March 25, 2009. City of Tigard. 2008. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. City of Tigard, OR, Community Development Department, Long Range Planning Division. 60p. City of Tigard. 2009. Tigard Downtown Future Vision. City of Tigard, OR, Community Development Department, Long Range Planning Division. 29p. Gray, S. 2008. The Kalapuya People: Stewards of a Rich Land and Culture. Accessed via the World Wide Web: <http://www.washingtoncountymuseum.org/localhistory/index.php> on November 5, 2008. Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX G Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal, State, and Regional requirements when managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities that further progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent major Federal, State, and Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban forest management in Tigard: Oregon Department of Forestry The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) is responsible for administering the Forest Practices Act (FPA). The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and ensure that forests remain healthy and productive. The Oregon Legislature has given cities the authority to regulate forests in place of having ODF administer the FPA as long as the local options meet the FPA's minimum standard (Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development, 1999). To meet the standards, local forest practice regulations must: • Protect soil, air, water, fish and wildlife resources; • Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals; • Be developed through a public process; • Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices; and • Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (Oregon Department of Forestry, 2008). Oregon Department of Transportation The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) manages approximately 283 acres of right -of -way in the City of Tigard including Hall Boulevard, and Highways 217, 5, and 99W. ODOT Bulletin RD06 -03(B) provides specifications for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT right -of -ways. These specifications are intended to balance the need for safety along State roadways with trees, and supersede Tigard street tree requirements within City limits. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administers Oregon's Statewide Land Use Planning Program and ensures that the comprehensive plans of Oregon cities comply with Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with 12 of the 19 Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. The following statewide planning goals directly relate to the urban forestry in Tigard: a56 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX G spaces." This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including fish and wildlife habitats, stream corridors, and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies can further progress towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analyses are required to protect Goal 5 resources. Goal 6. "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." It is well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality improvement. Goal 7. "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Trees roots, canopies, and leaf litter in natural hazard areas help to prevent erosion and flooding (Portland Urban Forest Management Plan). Goal 10. "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state." This goal requires the City to balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban land. Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and coordinated with relevant Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan which is described in more detail below. DLCD has approved or "acknowledged" the City's Comprehensive Plan (including the Urban Forest section) as being in compliance with statewide planning goals, and consistent with Metro requirements (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 2009). Oregon Division of State Lands The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) establishes criteria and procedures for the identification of wetlands. In 1997, Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory was approved by DSL. Approval by DSL means that the inventory meets State standards, and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands Inventory and must be used in lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). Development in these areas is regulated by a variety of federal, state, regional, and local laws. Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) contains specific provisions to protect wetlands from development and requires concurrent approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, and Clean Water Services. As a result, trees and native vegetation in Local Wetlands gain a highly protected status. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for protecting Oregon's air quality by issuing permits, developing programs, and monitoring air pollution to ensure communities meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to protect Oregon's pristine views. Air pollutants a57 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX G identified in the 2005 DEQ Air Quality Report as the greatest concern in Oregon are: Ground -level ozone, commonly known as smog; Fine particulate matter; Hazardous air pollutants; and Carbon monoxide (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). Regional efforts have been established to monitor and plan for pollutants. The City of Tigard is part of the Portland Area Airshed (PM), which is defined by the Metro service boundary. The DEQ is responsible for ensuring the PM meets the national standards, and for developing the necessary plans to continue compliance. Currently, the PM meets all NAAQS standards. However, DEQ is required to develop maintenance plans for carbon monoxide and ozone to ensure continued compliance (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009) . Trees have a natural ability to convert and sequester compounds that contribute to air pollution. Trees also offset power plant emissions by shading and sheltering buildings from sun and wind (McPherson et al., 2002). At the local level, the City can protect existing natural areas and mature trees, and promote and participate in tree planting efforts to improve air quality and decrease building energy usage. Within urban areas, air quality is often much worse along major roadways. Trees strategically planted along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants and improve air quality before exhaust is released in the atmosphere (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). DEQ is also charged with establishing standards, regulating, and monitoring Oregon's waters for compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (COMP PLAN) . Within Tigard, run -off from impervious surfaces, pet waste, and erosion/ sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution. Planting and maintaining tree canopy, water quality facility construction and maintenance (vegetated swales and retention basins), and stream corridor and wetland enhancements are all urban forestry activities that help to improve water quality and meet State and Federal requirements (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). Oregon Public Utility Commission The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulates utility industries to ensure that customers receive safe and reliable services at reasonable rates. In order to ensure safety, the PUC requires Portland General Electric to maintain zones surrounding overhead utility lines clear of trees for safety and in order to help prevent outages. The result is increased maintenance costs and trees that become eyesores as a result of heavy pruning. Portland General Electric spends approximately $500,000 annually pruning trees away from the utility lines (Chad Burns, PGE, personal communication 10/6/08). These costs are passed on to utility ratepayers. The urban forestry program can help to decrease maintenance costs and improve the aesthetic quality of local trees by aiding in the selection of appropriate trees near overhead lines (Oregon Public Utility Commission, 2009) . a58 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX G Metro Metro helps the region's cities implement Statewide Planning Goals through the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (functional plan) . Metro cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans and implementing regulations that correspond with the titles and policies in the functional plan. The functional plan contains 13 titles, some of which directly or indirectly impact urban forest management in Tigard. DLCD has acknowledged Tigard's Comprehensive Plan as being in compliance with statewide planning goals, and consistent with Metro's functional plan (Metro, 2009) . The following excerpts from the functional plan have significant impact on urban forestry in Tigard: Title 1 of the functional plan is intended to meet Statewide Planning Goal 10, and focuses on increasing housing capacity in order to use land within Urban Growth Boundaries (an invisible line that separates rural areas from suburban) efficiently. To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80% of minimum density requirement for development in 1998, which means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). The Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) and others have cited this requirement as a significant impediment to preserving trees in urban areas, particularly for those properties that are zoned for high density. Title 3 protects the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating development impacts on these areas. The areas subject to these requirements have been mapped and adopted by the Metro Council, specifically, the FEMA 100 -year floodplain and the area of inundation for the February 1996 flood. Title 3 also protects rivers and streams with buffers that are typically 50 feet wide, requires erosion and sediment control, planting of native vegetation on stream banks when new development occurs, and prohibits the storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in significant protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams and floodways. Finally, Title 3 establishes performance standards to protect regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas to implement Statewide Goal 5 (Metro, 2009) . Title 12 of the functional plan protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from increasing density in certain areas and requiring easy access to parks and greenspaces for City residents (Metro, 2009) . Title 13 is intended to "(1) 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 floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and (2) to control and prevent water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region" (Metro, 2009) . a59 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX G One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat designated as "highest" value (i.e. Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor). An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat situated outside the Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor are designated as "moderate" value. In addition, 422 acres of non -Class I and II riparian resources within the City are designated as "lowest" value, including both upland forests and lower -value riparian habitat areas. The highest and moderate value habitat are currently protected through other regulatory processes and agencies such as CWS. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is currently vulnerable to development. Additional ESEE analyses would be required to protect lower value habitat and additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the future (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). At the time of the writing of this document, the City of Tigard has proposed budgeting funds in FY2009 -10 to protect additional upland tree resources. Clean Water Services The City collaborates with Clean Water Services (CWS), the surface water management and sanitary sewer system utility for urban Washington County, to protect local water resources. Through CWS Design and Construction Standards, local governments in the Tualatin Basin (including Tigard) developed a unified program to address water quality and flood management requirements for Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009) . In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within, and adjacent to, sensitive water resource areas, including streams, through standards in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers, ranging from 15 to 200 feet wide, and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition. Native trees over 6 inches in diameter in vegetated corridors are protected, and their removal requires replacement on a tree for tree basis. In addition, land -use applicants proposing development near streams and wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior to submitting a land use application to the City (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS' Healthy Streams Plan (June 2005). The goal of this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for community benefit by recommending a number of policy and program refinements, as well as outlining a capital projects program. The capital projects focus on stream preservation and enhancement, flow restoration, community tree planting, stormwater outfall and culvert replacement. Tigard's Public Works Department is instrumental is achieving the goals of the Healthy Streams Plan through its Surface Water Quality program (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). Many of goals of the Healthy Streams Plans are met through proper urban forest management activities such as invasive species control and streamside tree canopy restoration. Large municipalities typically have NPDES permits for their wastewater treatment facilities and for stormwater runoff, called a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. In urban Washington County, which includes the City of Tigard, the permits have been combined and are held by CWS. The a60 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX G combined permit was issued for the entire Tualatin River watershed to guide a basin -wide effort to improve water quality. It requires CWS to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and a Wastewater Management Plan to DEQ. These two plans outline the best management practices that CWS, its member cities, and Washington County commit to employ to reduce pollutant discharges, regulate temperature, and comply with any Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) levels that have been established (City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, 2009). Trees and urban forests are excellent stormwater managers and contribute to the achievement of water quality goals, yet are not typically addressed in Stormwater Management Plans. Constitutional Takings Issue In response to the question of whether a tree preservation ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking, the City Attorney has provided the following response: Oregon courts recognize that regulation of real property can go too far and become tantamount to a government appropriation of property. A regulation which goes too far results in a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, in violation of Article I, section 18 of the Oregon Constitution. See Coast Range Conifers, LLC v. State, 339 Or 136, 117 P3d 990 (2005); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185, 935 P2d 411 (1996); Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 855 P2d 608 (1993). The approach of courts under the Oregon Constitution "has been to ask whether the regulation leaves the owner with any economically viable use of the property." Coast Range Conifers. "Additionally, the court has recognized that regulations that deny an owner the ability to put his or her property to any economically viable use will result in a taking and entitle the owner to compensation." Id; see also Dodd (phrasing test as whether property retains "some substantial value "). Whether there remains any economically viable use of property is based on the effect of the regulation as specific to the characteristics of any property at issue. Therefore, it is imperative that when utilizing the Urban Forest Master Plan as a tool to guide the drafting of regulations, that the City Attorney be consulted regarding the constitutionality of the specific regulations in light of any new jurisprudence on the topic. Burns, C. 2008. Personal communication on October 6. Western Forester, Portland General Electric Company. Portland, OR. City of Tigard. 2009. Comprehensive Plan (as of April 22, 2009). City of Tigard, OR, Community Development Department, Long Range Planning Division. 230p. Metro. 2009. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Accessed via the World Wide Web: <http: / /www.oregonmetro.gov /files /about/chap307.pdf> on March 31, 2009. Oregon Department of Forestry. 2008. Forest Facts: Urban Growth Boundaries and the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Accessed via the World Wide Web: < http: / /www.oregon.gov /ODF/PUBS /docs/ForestFacts/ Forest_ Facts_Urban_Growth_Boundaries.p df> on March 25, 2009. a61 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX G Oregon Department of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development. 1999. Guidelines for Developing Urban Forest Practice Ordinances. State of Oregon, Department of Forestry and Department of Land Conservation and Development. 16p. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2009. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Homepage. Accessed via the World Wide Web: < http: / /www.lcd.state.or.us /> on March 26, 2009. Oregon Public Utility Commission. 2009. Oregon Public Utility Commission Homepage. Accessed via the World Wide Web: <http: / /www.puc.state.or.us /> on March 26, 2009. a62 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX H City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program. Comprehensive Plan The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's "land use constitution." It is the document that provides the broad policy basis for Tigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions relating to the use of land in the City. The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will implement state and regional requirements, including Oregon's land use planning goals and related laws, state administrative rules, and applicable Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan contains goals, policies and recommended action measures that identify the intent of the City to accomplish certain results. The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two (2) goals, 22 policies, and 11 action measures specific to urban forestry in Tigard. The goals and policies are obligations the City wishes to assume. The City must follow relevant goals and policy statements when developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. Therefore, the Urban Forestry Master Plan and future revisions to the tree ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired end, but do not signify an obligation themselves. The discretion to what degree Plan policies are implemented belongs primarily to the City Council. Zoning Map The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City. Zoning determines the type and intensity of development, as well as applicable Code provisions such as density requirements. As a result, zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a given site. Code Provisions The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and urban forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code provisions, as well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges. Chapter 7.40 (Nuisances) requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight (8) feet over sidewalks and ten (10) feet over streets (section 7.40.060.A). It also prohibits owners from retaining dead or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property (section 7.40.060.B) . However, there is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that are in imminent danger of falling. a63 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX H Section 7.40.050 (Noxious Vegetation) requires property owners to maintain vegetation and weeds so that they do not become unsightly or a hazard. However, it is unclear if invasive species control is required by this Code provision. Section 7.40.090 (Greenway Maintenance) establishes standards for greenway maintenance and prohibits the removal of non - hazardous trees over five (5) feet in height in greenways. However, the term " greenway" is not well defined. Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property) regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees on City property including parks and public right -of -ways. It also authorizes Council to adopt by resolution a Tree Manual that provides detailed tree related standards and the City to create an approved Street Tree List. The Chapter defines a "tree" as a standing woody plant with a trunk diameter of two (2) inches at 4.5 feet above ground level. Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) defines a "tree" at six (6) inches in diameter at four (4) feet above ground level. Section 9.06.030 (Tree Planting) requires written permission from the City prior to planting street trees or trees on public property. Section 9.06.050 (Tree Protection) requires development projects on City property to protect trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060 (Removal of Hazardous Trees from City Property) obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City property and prioritize their removal based on the level of hazard. Section 9.06.070 (Removal of Trees from City Property) requires written permission for tree removal from City property and right -of -way, and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual. The Tree Manual, which was adopted in 2002, provides detailed specifications for Chapter 9.06. However, administering the provisions in the Tree Manual are challenging because there are some conflicts with Code provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example, street tree planting specifications in section 030 of the Tree Manual are different than the street tree planting specifications in Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). Also, the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally, referencing the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of the Manual does not correspond with the sections in the body. A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual, but there it is unclear what triggers the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be. Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains the requirements for the City's Heritage Tree Program. The Chapter recognizes and protects trees or stands of trees on public or private property that are designated to be of landmark importance due to age, size, species, horticultural quality or historical importance. Participation in the program is voluntary and administered by the Tree Board, City Council, and staff. a64 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX H Title 18 (Community Development Code) defines a tree as a standing woody plant with a trunk that is two (2) inches in diameter at four (4) feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definitions of tree in Chapter 9.06 and 18.790 of the Code. Chapter 18.330 (Conditional Use) authorizes the hearings officer to require conditional use developments to improve landscaping and increase tree and habitat preservation as a condition of development approval. Chapter 18.350 (Planned Developments) states as one of its purposes "to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site ". Specific provisions in the Chapter require plans that identify areas of significant natural resources and methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Planned Developments are approved by a Type III process by the Planning Commission. Therefore, Planning Commissioners have discretionary authority to require that sites are developed in a manner that trees and other natural features are incorporated into the project design. However, the Home Builders' Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) and others have commented that the Planned Development provisions are in need of revision because they are not conducive to infill development. The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090, includes many provisions requiring the preservation of trees and natural areas. For example, approval criteria A.2.a requires buildings to be "...located to preserve existing trees...where possible based upon existing site conditions ". The approval criteria also requires trees to be preserved to the extent possible (A.2.b) and the use of innovative methods to preserve fish and wildlife habitat located on the "Significant Habitat Areas Map ". Site Development Review applications are reviewed and approved by staff through a Type II process which limits the amount of staff discretion. Therefore, the non - specific approval criteria above does not provide the tools needed to implement tree and habitat preservation. Chapter 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments) allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) if there are space constraints. Section 18.385.040 (Sensitive Land Permits) requires development within the 100 -year floodplain, steep slopes, drainageways, and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these areas. Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section 18.790.050 of the Code. However, there is no tree protection plan requirement (section 18.790.030) for development within sensitive lands. Chapters 18.510, 18.520, and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential, commercial (including mixed use), and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum landscaping a65 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX H requirements, minimum and maximum density requirements, minimum building setback requirements, and minimum lot sizes and dimensions. These standards may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development. Chapters 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards) and 18.640 (Durham Quarry Design Standards) increase the caliper size of all required landscape and street trees in those planning areas. Some of the planting provisions in these special planning areas conflict which make interpretation difficult. For example, the landscaping and screening provisions in section 18.620.070, require tree spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However, the provisions on page 18 of the Triangle Design Standards specify one parking lot tree for every seven parking spaces (this creates spacing of more than 28 feet on center) . In addition the definition of tree types on page 18 are overly specific and therefore difficult to apply. Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) specifies street tree, parking lot tree, buffer tree, and other landscaping requirements. The Chapter specifies that it is applicable to all development, but it does not detail what types of permits trigger the standards. The landscaping provisions are administratively applied to those developments that require a tree plan (section 18.790.030) . The General Provisions (Chapter 18.745.030) require trees and landscaping to be appropriately planted, pruned, maintained, and protected during development. However, there is a lack of specificity in these requirements that make it challenging to ensure that trees and landscaping are properly installed, protected, and maintained. Section 18.745.040 (Street Trees) specifies the location and spacing of variously sized street trees. However, these specifications differ from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also, there is no minimum spacing requirement for street trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks and streets in Chapter 18.745.040 are different than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual. Section 18.745.050 (Buffering and Screening) requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer between differing land uses, aesthetics, and to provide shading for parking lots. The parking lot tree requirements (18.745.050.E) have not resulted in successful shading of parking lots. This is likely due to the limited soil volumes the provisions allow (minimum parking island dimensions are three feet by three feet) and the lack of specificity on installation requirements (e.g. irrigation is not specified for parking lot trees). The Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 protects sensitive lands for safety, functionality, and fish and wildlife habitat. It also implements "Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards ", the "Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan", "Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources)" and meets the National Flood Insurance Program requirements. The chapter requires a CWS Stormwater Connection permit when tree removal occurs in sensitive lands (section 18.775.020.A.9). Lawns and gardens are permitted in sensitive lands except in "CWS Water Quality Sensitive Areas or Vegetated Corridors" and "the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River" (18.775.020.B.1). Exemptions from the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair, stream restoration projects, non - native vegetation removal, and routine maintenance as long as they comply with City Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management (section 18.775.020.C). Section 18.775.020.D requires development to a66 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX H obtain permits from regulating jurisdictions such as the Army Corps of Engineers or CWS prior to development in jurisdictional wetlands. Section 18.775.070 specifies the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits. Section 18.775.100 allows for adjustments to dimensional standards such as setbacks, building heights, or lot areas to preserve habitat and vegetation cover such as trees. Section 18.775.110 allows for density transfers in order to better protect vegetated corridors. While tree removal permits are required for sensitive lands areas by section 18.790.050, and habitat protection is a stated purpose for the sensitive lands chapter, there are no implementing provisions in either Code Chapter that explicitly require the protection of trees and forests in sensitive lands. Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) is what most people think of as the "Tree Code ". This portion of the code regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects, requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands, and prescribes the penalties for illegal tree removal. It also prohibits commercial forestry within the City limits. Section 18.790.020 provides definitions for some of the words used in the Chapter. Many have commented that some of the definitions need revision or clarification. For example, a "tree" is defined as a woody plant with a diameter of six inches when measured four feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definition of tree in the Municipal Code and does not account for trees that are less than six inches such as required mitigation trees. Also, the definition of "hazardous tree" is non - specific and could potentially include trees that are not intended to be defined as hazardous such as those in a forested area with little potential of striking people or other high value targets. Finally, the definition of commercial forestry is specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre, per year. The definition is unclear whether the acreage should measured for the entire property, or for the stand of trees where the removal is occurring. Section 18.790.030 (Tree Plan Requirement) requires a tree protection, removal, and replacement plan for Subdivision, Partition, Site Development Review, Planned Development, and Conditional Use projects. Missing from the list are Sensitive Lands projects, building additions, demolitions, and other development projects with significant potential to result in tree damage or removal. Tree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an "inch for inch" basis. Therefore, developers are required to replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site with an equivalent amount of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example, if a 24 inch tree is removed from a development site, the City may require replacement with up to 12, two inch diameter trees. Also, as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased, the percentage of replacement trees required for mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet mitigation requirements as well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation requirements. If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees, there is a fee in lieu of planting option (18.790.060.E) to cover the City's cost of replanting. This fee is currently assessed as $125 per diameter a67 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX H inch removed, and viewed as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also, the methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to the legitimacy of the $125 per inch figure. The tree protection requirements of the tree plan are not defined, and are left to the discretion of the project arborist. This has resulted in wide inconsistencies between protection methods for development projects, and limits the City's ability to require increased levels of tree protection. Trees removed within a period of one year before a development application are required to be inventoried and mitigated as part of the tree plan. This provision has created a loophole that some developers have exploited by removing trees from a site, waiting one year, and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements. Section 18.790.040 (Incentives for Tree Retention) provides developers incentives and flexibility options in order to preserve trees. However, the incentives are seldom utilized, and often criticized for their impracticality. Many in the development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so that they are more appealing and practical for developers. Section 18.790.040.B requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed restriction. This requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived and difficult to quickly and easily assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after development. Section 18.790.050 (Permit Applicability) requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas. However, the approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by trees. Therefore, if an appropriate erosion control plan is provided by the applicant, any or all trees may be removed from sensitive lands areas. While hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements, there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree and who is qualified to deem a tree hazardous. Section 18.790.060 (Illegal Tree Removal) outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation. The tree replacement requirements in 18.790.060.D are vague and difficult to administer. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing requirements, which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation trees. There is also little specificity on species requirements, which tend to lead to the planting of small stature and narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the "inch for inch" replanting requirements. Finally, the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the tree illegally removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous condition of the tree. One solution may be to set a minimum penalty for cases where there is no evidence of the species or condition of the illegally removed tree. Section 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) specifies the minimum planting strip width for street trees (5 feet per table 18.810.1) and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect trees, a68 Draft 5 City of Tigard I Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix APPENDIX H habitat areas, and other existing natural feature (section 18.810.030.7). Section 18.810.070.0 allows adjustments to planting strip widths to protect existing trees and natural features. Currently the City adheres to standard specifications for street widths from curb to curb regardless of existing trees and natural features. The City does actively allow adjustments to sidewalk and planter strip standards in order to preserve trees. Finally, the five foot standard planter strip width limits the selection of large stature street trees due to the high likelihood of tree root damage to curbs and sidewalks. There are currently no street tree planting specifications such as the use of root barriers aimed at reducing future tree root conflicts. Findings from City of Tigard Policy Framework: • The Comprehensive Plan complies with State and Regional requirements and contains two (2) goals and 22 policies specific to urban forestry that must be adhered to when developing other urban forestry plans or ordinances which affect land use. • The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan, and frames the type and intensity of development for various areas of the City. Code provisions in Chapter 18.500 provide specification for development based on development in the various zones. These Development Code provisions may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development. • Tree and forest related Code provisions are scattered throughout the Municipal Code and the Development Code. Some of the Code provisions in the Municipal Code and Development Code conflict. • Tree provisions in Chapter 7.40 (Nuisances) of the Municipal Code address hazardous trees and vegetation. There is lack of specificity in the provisions, thus limiting their ability to be enforced. There is also no program established to abate immediate hazards. • Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property) of the Municipal regulates public trees. The Chapter contains definitions and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code. The Chapter and associated Tree Manual also lack specificity regarding when the Code provisions are applicable and how they can be met. • Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter. • Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and habitat preservation, but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation. • Chapters 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards) and 18.640 (Durham Quarry Design Standards) contain provisions that increase the type and size of landscaping in these districts. Some of the provisions within the Chapter conflict. • Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening) specifies street tree, parking lot tree, buffer tree, and other landscaping requirements during development. The Chapter lacks a level of specificity to ensure that trees are properly installed, protected, and maintained after development. Planting and maintenance provisions differ from those in the Municipal Code, and parking lot tree requirements have not been successful at providing long term canopy. • Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) protects steep slopes, drainageways, floodplains, and wetlands from development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well. a69 Urban Forestry Master Plan Appendix I City of Tigard Draft 5 APPENDIX H • Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects. Some development such as development in sensitive lands and building additions are not subject to the Chapter's provisions even though there is significant likelihood that trees will be impacted. • Some of the definitions within Chapter 18.790 are inconsistent with those in the Municipal Code and lack clarity making them difficult to administer. • Mitigation for tree removal on an "inch for inch" basis is required by Chapter 18.790, and seen as excessive by many in the development community. It also contributes to overplanting of trees. • The fee in lieu of mitigation tree planting is $125 per caliper inch, which is also seen by developers as excessive. The methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to its legitimacy. • There is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some developers have exploited by removing trees from a site, waiting one year, and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements. • Incentives for tree preservation in Chapter 18.790 are not appealing or practical for developers. • Tree Removal permits are required for trees in sensitive lands by Chapter 18.790, but the approval criteria do not require preservation as long as erosion is adequately controlled. • Penalties for illegal tree removal in Chapter 18.790 can be challenging to apply when the condition and species of the tree removed are not known. • The tree replacement guidelines in Chapter 18.790 lack specificity and are difficult to administer, especially with regards to species and spacing requirements. Throughout the Code, tracking of protected trees is a continual challenge in the years and decades after development is complete. a70 r/ cp/4 10/6/2009 o I cu Urban Forestry Master Plan rg.ld ' i ' ‘; I ! 4 . s : 1 # 1 ', d fl y. i ` i i ai+ I { I I r - r la. i I ` i i , 1 t .; P I ; , 0 1 1 {, -- t- - - '__ — -- Council Vorb bo I I °claw 2009 Urban Forearv!N9gerIlan I , m.tl*.a G.amrotry What is our Urban Forestry Master Plan? Comprehensive Plan „ilk 1 Urban Forestry ;° Master Plan Tree Code and Urban Forestry Programs 1 10/6/2009 (Aim Forestry Master Plan I oerw'npra CalmdMadollog Citizen Involvement 1. Prole' St hednlc 3 „n Pb... I Proper L...rb Pbrx ?: Define Cwmwr Comtmens Phi w J: Dwr. .4..J ,. Pbr r a Dr t Pine Pb.,. t; Plan Adopnow Urban Forestry Master Plan I avow.' a,ueuw Ws,h s Goal 1— Revise Tree Code Major Recommendation - • Less focus on mitigation, more on quality tree preservation and reforestation Basis for Recommendation • Dissatisfaction with existing code by all stakeholders (developers, Tree Board, resource professionals, etc.) • Community survey shows high support for the concept of tree regulations 2 10/6/2009 Urban Foreary Master Plan I chomped tbrmf aaap Goal 2 — Revise Landscaping Code Major Recommendation • Improve street and parking lot tree planting and maintenance standards Basis for Recommendation • Low existing canopy cover in streets (9 %) and parking lots (6 %) • Stakeholders such as the American Society of Landscape Architects suggested more detail is needed in the code to produce higher quality results Urban Forestry Master Plan I taro ewe �e.nf WrxtAhop Goal 3 — Protect Tree Groves Major Recommendation • Develop incentive based program for protecting remaining groves of native trees Basis for Recommendation • Community survey shows high preference for protecting trees in cohesive groves rather than as individuals • Significant decline (24 %) of large sized tree groves ( >5 acres) over past 10 years 3 10/6/2009 Urban Forettrq Waster Plan I rardllaw4 Camdi ♦.aerq Goal 4 — Develop Hazard Tree Program Major Recommendation • Improve emergency response by City for public tree hazards and grant City authority to facilitate resolution of tree hazards on private property Basis for Recommendation • Internal City coordination meetings revealed lack of clarity on addressing public tree hazards • Community survey shows a majority of residents (60 %) want the City to address tree hazards on private property l rban Fore to Master Man I urdna.a nmoditr.ftalop Goal 5 — Improve Management of City's Urban Forestry Program Major Recommendation • Improve management of City managed tree resources by developing an inventory and creating a greenspace coordinator position Basis for Recommendation • City internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for a tree inventory to allow for improved program management • Coordination meetings also revealed the Parks Division needs a greenspace coordinator to actively manage natural areas and tree hazards 4 10/6/2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan I ryaria.rd c. undl*ork4v.p Goal 6 — Develop Stewardship Program Major Recommendation • Provide resources for citizens to better manage trees on private property, and prevent clearing of lots prior to development activities Basis for Recommendation • Stakeholder groups such as the Tree Board, Clean Water Services, and Portland General Electric suggested the City provide citizens with the tools and information needed for sound urban forest management • Community survey shows citizens want to protect and enhance their neighborhoods' tree resources Urban Forestry Master Ilan I rro aka Discussion M • . S t u ri z r 11 .► xa 5 Agenda Item # Meeting Date October 20, 2009 CQUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Briefin! #3 on T d Trans.ortation S stern Plan U date CG #1 & CG #2 Prepared By: Darren Wv5s Dept Head Approval: City 1i r Approval: QR ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive briefing on Tigard Transportation System Plan Update. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive briefing and provide feedback. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Since the last Council update in August, the project to update the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) has made significant progress towards developing an initial draft version of the updated TSP. The consultant team has finalized the Needs and Deficiencies Report; the second public forum was held during Saturday afternoon activities at the Tigard Family Fest; and the draft Transportation Solutions Report was distributed by the consultant team. The second public forum was well attended and the community provided valuable input regarding the improvements listed in the current TSP. Maps and two surveys were available for citizens to fill out and their feedback has been incorporated into the draft Transportation Solutions Report. The draft Transportation Solutions Report is an evaluation of strategies and projects developed to address existing and anticipated deficiencies (identified in the Needs and Deficiencies Report) in the transportation system. Recommendations to improve the system include strategies to manage operations and travel demand, and new facilities to improve capacity and connectivity for all modes of travel. With the completion of the draft Transportation Solutions Report, the project to update the TSP has now reached the point in the process to make decisions on what transportation improvement projects (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, motor vehicle) should be included, and their priority, in the updated TSP. The consultants used the following materials and information to develop preliminary recommendations that are found in the Report: • Chap 2 Goals /Policies • Community Input • Chap 3 Base Year Conditions • Regional Transportation Plan • Chap 3 Technical Appendix • Washington County TSP • Document Review and Issues Report %. City Staff Input • Needs and Deficiencies Report • Input from City Councilor Meetings The consultant preliminary recommendations include various strategies and projects to improve the system related to all modes of transportation. The projects have been analyzed and recommended for inclusion or removal from the updated TSP and have also been prioritized for their importance to the overall transportation system. The next step in the process is for the consultants and City staff to edit the preliminary recommendations and incorporate them into an initial draft version of the updated TSP. This task will be accomplished through a review process that involves the following. First, present the recommendations to the Technical Advisory Committee and I: \ LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \]Il -2© -09 TSPB riefing3 AI lid ocx • • Citizen Advisory Committee during meetings on October 14, 2009. Second, present the recommendations to the Tigard Planning Commission (Oct. 19` and to the City Council (Oct. 20 Third, perform an internal review by a committee of City staff familiar with the workings of the transportation system in the community. Feedback received from all will be evaluated and any necessary changes will be made to the recommendations before the initial draft of the updated TSP is released. Councilors have been provided with a copy of the draft Transportation Solutions Report (Attachment 1) for their review. Staff will not be looking for feedback during the meeting, as time is limited, but asks for Councilors to take time over the next few weeks to review the document and assess whether the recommendations are headed in a direction that supports Tigard's long term transportation aspirations. Staff would also like to invite Councilors to once again meet individually to discuss the recommendations. As with City Council, staff will provide Commissioners with a copy of the Report for review and feedback over next several weeks. Commissioners will also be invited to meet individually with staff to discuss the recommendations. Staff will continue with hi- monthly briefings to the Planning Commission and City Council during the update of the TSP, which is scheduled to be completed end of March 2010. Project documents and information can be found here: www.tigard- or.gov /transportation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 1: Implement the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal LT Goal: Pursue Opportunities to Reduce Traffic Congestion in Tigard LT Goal: Seek to Improve 99W Corridor ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The Oregon Department of Transportation has committed $175,798 from its Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program to update the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. were contracted to perform the update. The City is required to provide an 11% match of staff time and materials. 6. l: \ 1_,IIPLN \Council NI ate rid s \2009 \111- 20 -(19 °ISPBriefing3 AiS.docx Draft: Transportation Systems Solutions Updated Tigard TSP Date: October 9, 2009 Project #: 9473 To: Project Management Team Technical Advisory Committee Citizen Advisory Committee From: Elizabeth Wemple, P.E., Susan Wright, P.E. and Michael Houston, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Cc: Peter Koonce, P.E., Kittelson & Associates, Inc. This report summarizes an evaluation of strategies and projects developed to address existing and anticipated deficiencies in the Tigard transportation system. Improvements include strategies to manage system operations and travel demand, and new facilities to improve capacity and connectivity. The information included in this memo will be included in separate chapters of the final transportation system plan; however it is presented as a unit here in order to facilitate system considerations, evaluations and development of recommendations. The improvements included in this memorandum address motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel modes. The material included in this report will be reviewed and discussed at the October 14, 2009 TAC and CAC meetings. Input received at these meetings will be integrated into the draft TSP. The material included in this report is consistent with the deliverables identified in Task 5 of the project contract. With prior agreement from ODOT the TSM /TDM memo and the facilities memo have been combined into this one deliverable. Because of the length of this report we have provided a table of contents and list of figures for reference. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5 -1 Scenario 1 from Needs and Deficiencies Report 5 Figure 5 -2 Scenario 2 from Needs and Deficiencies Report 6 Figure 5 -3 Recommended Roadway Projects 21 Figure 5 -4 Preferred Alternative d/c analysis 22 C:\Documents and Settings\swright\My Documents\Transportation Solutions Analysis 2009_10_09_09.doc Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Figure 5 -5 Proposed Transit Service Improvements 49 Figure 5 -6 Proposed Bicycle Improvements 56 Figure 5 -7 Proposed Pedestrian Improvements 64 Table 5 -1 Forecast Transportation Revenues (2009 Dollars) 3 Table 5 -2 Tigard Travel Mode Splits (Metro Travel Demand Model) 4 Table 5 -3 Maximum SOV Mode Shares 7 Table 5 -4 City of Tigard Target Maximum SOV Mode Shares 7 Table 5 -5 Qualitative Rating System 8 Table 5 -6 TSM Strategies for Tigard 16 Table 5 -7 Travel Time Savings from TSM Strategies, 2035 Weekday PM Peak Period 17 Table 5 -8 TDM Strategies and Typical Implementing Roles 18 Table 5 -9 Projects in the Tigard CIP (2009 -2014) 23 Table 5 -10 Projects in the Draft 2035 RTP Update 24 Table 5 -11 Major ODOT Projects 26 Table 5 -12 Roadway Realignments 28 Table 5 -13 New Roadways 31 Table 5 -14 Road Widening 36 Table 5 -15 City /County Intersection Projects 42 Table 5- 16ODOT Intersection Projects 44 Table 5 -17 Transit Improvements 46 Table 5- 18Transit Improvement Projects 47 Table 5 -19 Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects in the Tigard CIP (2009 -2014) 54 Table 5 -20 Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects in the 2035 Draft RTP 54 Table 5 -21 Bicycle Connectivity Improvement Projects 57 Table 5 -22 Bicycle Crossing and Facility Improvement Projects 61 Table 5 -23 Pedestrian Connectivity Improvement Projects 65 Table 5 -24 Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Projects 75 Table 5 -25 Multi -Use Pathway Projects 78 Table 5 -26 Forecast Transportation Revenues (2009 Dollars) 87 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Background This background section of the transportation solutions report provides reference material that will be useful in the discussions and review of the remaining sections of the report. This information includes: • Summary of 20 -year costs and potential revenues from the 2002 TSP; • Summary of existing and future needs and deficiencies identified in this project; and • Summary of future travel mode split assumptions from the Metro travel demand model. 2035 ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION REVENUES Transportation capital improvements are typically funded through a combination of state, city, and private funds. This section documents Tigard's projected transportation revenues based on historic trend information provided by City of Tigard Staff. These funds are used primarily for operations, maintenance, services and materials. In typical years, only a small portion is available for capital improvements. The City of Tigard currently estimates their revenues for transportation from 2009 to 2035 to be approximately $5,150,000 per year (2009 dollars). These revenues have come from six primary sources. Table 5 -26 shows a breakdown of the amounts and percentages of the forecast annual revenue from each of these sources. Table 5 -1 Forecast Transportation Revenues (2009 Dollars) Percentage Typical Use of of Total Funds (Operating Forecast Forecast or Capital) Annual Annual Revenues Revenues State Motor Vehicle Fees $3,000,000 58.3% Maintenance (x %) Capital (x %) County Gas Tax $200,000 3.9% Capital City Gas Tax $650,000 12.6% Capital TIF & TDT $300,000 5.8% Capital MSTIP $500,000 9.7% Capital State /Federal Fees used in City $500,000 9.7% Capital Annual Total $5,150,000 100% 0 -5 Year Revenues $25,750,000 6 -10 Year Revenues $25,750,000 11 -20 Year Revenues $51,500,000 20 Year Revenues $103,000,000 1 Once State Transportation Bill takes full effect in FY 2012/2013 2 Project specific. Amount listed is an estimate based on historical annual average. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 3 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 SUMMARY OF NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES As described in the Needs & Deficiencies Analysis, the forecast 2035 traffic conditions reveal roadway capacity deficiencies on several major corridors during a typical weekday p.m. peak hour. Figure 5 -1 illustrates roadway capacity deficiencies anticipated in 2035 with the inclusion of improvement projects identified in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update and in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This is consistent with Scenario 1 in the Needs & Deficiencies report. In the Needs & Deficiencies Report, the impacts of roadway improvements in the 2002 TSP were evaluated as Scenario 2. Scenario 2 includes all of the Scenario 1 improvements, as well as planned transportation projects in the City of Tigard that were not included in the financially constrained RTP model. These were obtained from the 2002 Tigard TSP, the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the Highway 99W Plan, which have been adopted into the TSP. The results of the Scenario 2 analysis are summarized in Figure 5 -2. Forecast Travel Mode Splits The travel demand forecasts used to analyze future traffic conditions (Figures 5 -1 and 5 -2) develops estimates of future travel modes as a function of several inputs in the model, including intersection density, transit subsidies, and parking costs. In Tigard, the model shows limited changes in travel mode shares in the 2035 horizon year. The 2005 and 2035 travel mode splits from the model are shown in Table 5 -2. Table 5 -2 Tigard Travel Mode Splits (Metro Travel Demand Model) Peak Hour All Day Travel Mode 2005 2035 2005 2035 Automobile 94% 93% 94% 93% Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) 54% 52% 50% 49% Drive with Passenger 18% 18% 19% 19% Vehicle Passenger 22% 23% 24% 25% Transit 2% 3% 2% 2% Walk 3% 4% 4% 4% Bike 1 1 1 1% Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4 I at! !I TAYLORS FERRY RD Figure 5-1 cc i : 411 amarial ®! Il W ` 2035 Demand -to- , �, \ Capacity Ratios LA lii .% - ■i / -� p Y . e / o� LOCUST ST Scenario 1 ■ less than 0.85 CHOLLS F ERRY RO 9 �F ¢ / o e s � " �� Weekday PM Peak Hour i _ lli} p J J I OAK ST -sg! ,iii �� N � ' "'" ^ �� Tigard Urban &IA ° Planning Area EM W ll Q ` I LEGEND 1 / Vo Z o 4" �Q I • , � i� ` `` EST s ,. PFAFFI� � ,.. y a "4, 11 ` ¢ Lu HAINES ST D�C Ratio l L I lidiall °` \Ql _ I Ie z r I �� \ �' • •� 1 L ` DARTMOUTH 0.86 to 1.00 \ WALNUTS Ill OUTH ST ♦ t — } — greater than 1.00 s^ WALNUT S T r 9 ' , Other Map Elements ttia , _ - -- �' / N ET S .4 N/ FgST �� , ;� .F � � r 9� 'm �' .. WES Rail Line T C � •, A '.�� ® WES Station 0 f c f- ` �% �' ® ,, , , , I ii +++++ Rail Lines '�� ® Tigard City Boundary ti , ,� � MN -z - wAU . CI v � �Sy R YYYYYYY YE L • . \‘. 1 11 GAAR ST G� Q P �� MCDON S T • , �, a -- — _ _ _ \ \‘‘‘‘., 1 J _ BULL' UNTA�I lirM11..6111TI BONITA RD ` Q A YW.. �' o 4. •�� > u Z Q N Q imp IL YI I m ». 'Ihe,nf non represented on [Ins map Is current as of _ _ Febmary 2.2009. Revnaons will be made as new decisions no moron. .` ' ., v ,� ° or amendments occur to alts the content of the map. 6."'"41••••••••••• BEEF BEEF R D A ` - -- DURHAM RD +' 1 �Q� irwrii m � � In \ Mlles ims€ , S it � am°wunYmY.YU =atom amber . lonP ' ) w3.53.3,-.3513 =. s �ae�. 91 ° i tYYmnYn f it QII t tY I! TAYLORS FERRY RD Figure 5 -2 DI I. 40. II �\ W �5 2035 Demand -to- i ( - i , A ID ° / 1 \' -, .: ■ -I. r- ■�■ Capacity Ratios , ii m ; p Y Y ° <S A e . � / T y ■ ■ ■ = Scenario 2 SCROLLS FERRV RI) 9 �F a ,/ o LOCUST ST 1.11101111 ; U �- Weekday PM Peak Hour I\ i i o v � I C OAK ST -� NIA I �i� �� a / \ �� Tigard Urban I U I:1 . U ■rw■■u■mun ■ IT Planning Area i Z- I I s :I) I _ I • J " m j LEGEND � �� 1 `` i �` PFAFFLE ST W I D/C Ratio v ¢ HAINES.ST � �� o "� � z op r . less than 0.85 �p ' N N W ALNUTST I '� �1 \ \'I 1 ` 4 DARTMOUTH ST 0.86 to 1.00 ' E r 1� � � T sT � e�� } i greater than 1.00 LN a N r i �l U G " ��e 2i� R P tir 1.4 _ _� `\4 4 ,' y F s �' Other Map Elements ■' :e aF i I I S ♦ �S+ j Y _- 1 A r ' WES Rail Line 4 ORM I s� O� • s: ®VVES CiL a IN ' ' y �� / , L ; i1 `: � :4) ® J Tigard City Boundary • � .a : ' R mn.rnrnrnra t �■.■ v ' GAARDE ST Q � � MCDONALD ST I \. JV \ - IIP&Irl A - mu O _ - )" 1 i MNIMM • ' I BULL MOUNTAIN RD ' BONITA RD i i` w S , ■unr I L' i fI n / N Q N I I »x The inf hon represented on ts map Is current as of . lv tt.tt.tt.tt\ ` . , 2 ' i I February 2, 2009. Re J vr .. will be made as new decisions . 4 , I' Q amendments occur to alter the content of the map. ru■u�nr■n■v■u■ �� B E E F BEND on ' — likeptilla_.mmi i I �,., 4i DURHAM R D �- ' ra. rl cn an N e � 1 < .'z i ■ Q i 6 0 0.15 03 m Orr L i O - Mlles i A Z "� � i s N i e5 i e�nwunnmr■vu . ona 4 � � I .a 1... ry 13..w .11 . na9>u, s0r3aa„1 . .yam 5 ■ 5 M./........13. i 1600 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 As shown in Table 5 -2, the proportion of trips made by single occupant vehicle (SOV) is expected to decline only slightly by the year 2035, though they will be in the range of the targets established by the RTP. Still, the table shows that motor vehicle travel will continue to be the travel mode for 93 to 94 percent of travel in Tigard. Given the significant motor vehicle capacity deficiencies under forecast conditions, an increase in transit, walk, and bike mode shares is essential to the future transportation system in Tigard, as much as adding roadway capacity for increased demand. In order to achieve a balanced transportation system, and in compliance with the requirements of the RTP Update, maximum SOV mode shares are proposed for the City of Tigard and designated centers. These are summarized in Table 5 -3, along with the SOV shares in the 2005 and 2035 Metro model, and the RTP target for each area type. Table 5 -3 Maximum SOV Mode Shares Travel Model 2004 RTP Tigard Area 2005 2035 Target Citywide 50% 49% 40 -50% Washington Square Regional Center 47% 46% 45 -55% Tigard Town Center (Downtown) 54% 51% 45 -55% King City Town Center 53% 51% 45 -55% Tigard Triangle XX XX XX While the above is consistent with the RTP and the travel demand model, the City aspires to even lower maximum SOV mode shares. Table 5 -4 shows the more targets for the City of Tigard as a whole, and the more aggressive targets for the regional center and town centers. Table 5 -4 City of Tigard Target Maximum SOV Mode Shares City Aspiration Tigard Area Target Citywide 49% Washington Square Regional Center 40% Tigard Town Center (Downtown) 40% Durham Road Town Center 45% Tigard Triangle 45 It is anticipated that the Metro classification of carpool travel will, in the near future, change to include trips which include a parent and one or more child in the car. To date, these are not considered carpool trips. When and if this change is made, the City will need to reconsider their Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 7 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 mode split target and monitoring as the number of carpool trips will automatically increase with this reclassification of trips. Evaluation Criteria for Transportation Improvements The project goals and objectives were used to develop a set of evaluation criteria that are used to screen and prioritize alternative project concepts. Based on the project goals, the criteria were divided into seven categories: multi -modal mobility, system capacity, consistency with local /regional plans, safety, cost - effectiveness, environmental resources, and environmental justice. The evaluation criteria were applied to new projects, projects recommended for removal from the TSP and project that were otherwise considered critical or notable. The scores were assigned qualitatively and were used to support the overall project evaluation. The scores were not weighted, but were used to assess the overall quality of the project. The rating method used to evaluate the alternatives is described below (Table 5 -5): Table 5 -5 Qualitative Rating System Goal Rating Meaning • Significantly improves transportation options, or connectivity within a mode Multi -Modal Provides some improvement to transportation options, or connectivity within Mobility a mode O Does not change transportation options or connectivity • Project improves system capacity System Capacity Project does not significantly change system capacity O Project decreases system capacity Consistency with • Included as part of other local jurisdiction, regional, and /or state plans other jurisdiction Not mentioned in consistent with the intent of other plans Local, Regional Plans 0 Inconsistent with local jurisdiction, regional, and /or state plans • Provides a safety enhancement in an area with noted safety deficiency or an area with significant pedestrian and /or bicycle traffic. Safety Provides a safety enhancement to one or more modes of travel. O Provides no improvement or negative impacts to safety for any mode. • Provides significant increases in mobility compared to the relative cost. Cost - Effectiveness Provides reasonable increase in mobility compared to the cost. O Provides little increase in mobility compared to the cost. • Enhances parks, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive areas Environmental Does not impact environmentally sensitive areas Resources O Impacts environmentally sensitive areas • Enhances transportation options for designated population neighborhoods Environmental No obvious impact designated population neighborhoods Justice O Negatively impacts designated population neighborhoods Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 8 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The general approach outlined in this memorandum is to find a balance of investments and policies that will best serve the current and future transportation needs of the Tigard community, including its role within the regional transportation system. This document includes a discussion of transportation systems improvements and multi-modal facilities plans. These are followed by recommendations specific to areas within Tigard that have unique objectives and constraints. The specific strategies and recommendations are organized as follows: • Land use measures to encourage development patterns that are supportive of transit, bicycle and walk trips, and that reduce dependence on the automobile. • Connectivity improvements that minimize the need for out -of- direction travel for all travel modes. Connectivity improvements should enhance the convenience for non - motorized travel modes and should reduce motor vehicle use of regional roadways for local trips. • Investments in transportation system management (TSM) measures that will optimize traffic operations of the existing roadway system. • Investments in programmatic measures that support transportation demand management (TDM), such as participation in transportation management associations. • Policies and programs to implement access management strategies All of the above improvements could be classified as "systems management" strategies because they are all aimed at improving conditions with a focus on increasing efficiency rather than increasing capacity. In addition to systems management strategies, a set of projects for new or expanded facilities is also provided. These include: • Roadway projects to accommodate growth in motorized travel demand. • Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit system improvements to facilitate local and regional travel options. In some cases, physical infrastructure projects are a part of a TSM strategy. For example, a new roadway link may have the effect of increasing roadway capacity, but may provide a more important benefit of creating a more efficient travel path, thereby relieving constrained conditions elsewhere. Finally, specific strategies and improvements are provided for the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC), Tigard Triangle, and Downtown Tigard. LAND USE Land use patterns in the City of Tigard and surrounding areas are suburban in character, with residential areas separated from commercial areas and a relatively low density of development overall. The majority of land in Tigard is zoned for residential uses, with commercial zoning primarily along Highway 99W and in the Tigard Triangle, and industrial primarily along the WES commuter rail track south of Highway 99W. The Washington Square Regional Center (WRSC) and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 9 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Tigard Triangle also include significant mixed -use zoning. Based on current zoning and growth projections, most residential growth will occur in the west side of Tigard and south in the neighborhoods around Durham and Beef Bend Road. Employment growth is forecast to occur near major roadways, especially near Highway 217. In addition to zoning and growth forecasts within Tigard, the Bull Mountain area west of Tigard is currently being planned for approximately 4000 additional homes. The travel demand model forecasts approximately 400 new weekday p.m. peak hour trips on Scholls Ferry Road associated with the Bull Mountain area, and another 250 trips on Highway 99W. This traffic growth forecast would be even higher (approximately 300 and 200 respectively) once the model is updated to include the higher residential numbers currently being planned. Several land use strategies are identified to support the use of non - automobile travel modes while retaining the residential and suburban character throughout most of Tigard. LU1- Commercial Nodes in Residential Areas Create commercial nodes within residential neighborhoods to include small restaurants, coffee shops, or neighborhood retail. These neighborhood commercial nodes will provide residents with the opportunity to take non -work trips by bike or walking. This could be accomplished by allowing neighborhood - commercial as a permitted use in residential zones, or through designating specific nodes on the City's comprehensive plan map as neighborhood commercial. The N -C designation currently exists within the City. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • LU2 - Non - Auto Oriented Development Encourage Non -Auto Oriented Development with mixed uses and higher densities in targeted areas, such as along Highway 99W, in the Downtown', and in the WSRC. Mixed use developments have been found to reduce automobile trips by supporting higher frequency transit service and promoting pedestrian and bicycle travel. For Highway 99W, this type of development should be supported in conjunction with the planned Highway 99W Land Use Study for High Capacity Transit which is expected to start in 2010. Non -Auto development can be encouraged through various policies such as parking management requirements, density requirements or bonuses, and /or pedestrian, bicycle or transit mode design guides to integrate non -auto mode features and incentives directly into development. 1 The City's comprehensive plan includes considerably higher residential densities in Downtown, which were not reflected in the Metro model. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 10 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • LU3 - Alternative Mobility Standards Work with ODOT to develop alternative mobility standards on Highway 99W and at I -5 and Highway 217 interchanges in order to accommodate higher density development patterns along the corridor within Transportation Planning Rule requirements. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • CONNECTIVITY As identified in the Needs & Deficiencies Report, east -west connectivity is severely challenged in Tigard by Highway 217, I -5, the WES commuter /freight rail line, and Fanno Creek. With only a limited number of east -west through routes, there is considerable demand placed on a few roadways. In addition to the citywide connectivity issues, many neighborhood streets systems in Tigard are characterized by cul -de -sacs and stub streets. These are often desired because they can limit traffic speeds and volumes on local streets. However, they also result in indirect travel paths, longer trips, limitations to pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and a reliance on arterials for local trips. Opportunities for new roadway connections are limited and may be very expensive due to natural barriers, terrain, or the built environment. An additional negative impact of this development pattern is cut - through travel. With congested arterials , travelers will find less direct, but uncongested routes through neighborhoods. Cut - through travel is often at higher speeds than appropriate for a residential street. This will have a negative impact on livability and, to the extent that cut - through trips occur on a commercial street (e.g. Main Street) this could have a negative impact on local business. As improvements are considered and prioritized, the potential to positively or negatively impact cut - through trips should be considered. As new development occurs, new roadways should be constructed to create a more efficient network consistent with the RTP guidelines. The City does not have an up -to -date inventory of existing street stubs. Such an inventory would be used by staff to identify potential new connections during development review. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 11 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 In addition to roadway connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be provided to make these travel modes more convenient and efficient. The recently adopted Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan identifies 42 off - street trail projects to improve connectivity and reduce out of direction travel. These projects will be implemented by the City as funding becomes available. Cl - Connectivity Inventory Create a comprehensive inventory (likely GIS- based) of street stubs and potential future roadway connections. The inventory should identify priority future connections that could be implemented with development or through dedicated public projects. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • • C2 - Spacing Requirements Evaluate connectivity spacing in the current code and determine recommended spacing for future development in the City. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • C3 - Developer Connectivity Improvements Ensure that development code policies require new roadway or multi -modal connections in project mitigations, as appropriate for associated impacts. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • • • TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TSM strategies include a wide variety of measures aimed at improving operations of existing transportation facilities. TSM measures include variable message signs, improvements to traffic signal system operations, or added turn lanes at existing intersections. TSM measures can be focused on improving transportation "supply" through enhancing capacity and efficiency; or on reducing transportation demand, through measures intended to reduce motor vehicle travel, especially during peak travel periods. Several TSM strategies are identified for application in Tigard in existing plans, including the RTP Update and the Highway 99W Plan. Some of the key strategies identified for consideration in Tigard are summarized below. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 12 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Signal Retiming /Optimization Signal retiming and optimization refers to updating timing plans to better match prevailing traffic conditions and interconnecting signals. Timing optimization can be applied to existing systems or may include upgrading signal technology, including signal communication infrastructure or signal controllers or cabinets. Signal optimization can reduce travel times and can be especially beneficial to improving travel time reliability. Costs: approximately $4,000 per intersection for signal retiming. Advanced Signal Systems Advanced signal systems incorporate various strategies in signal operations to improve the efficiency of a transportation network. Strategies may include coordinated signal operations across jurisdictions as well as centralized control of traffic signals. Advanced signal systems can reduce delay, travel time and the number of stops for vehicles, while potentially increasing average vehicle speed. In addition, these systems may help reduce vehicle emissions and have a high impact on improving travel time reliability. The detection system, controller hardware, and software required at intersections depend on the signal system strategy. In order to implement an advanced signal system, an inventory of the existing hardware and software on the roadways would be performed. The signal controllers on Highway 99W have recently been updated to type 2070 controllers; however many of the remaining signals in Tigard operate model 170 traffic controllers. The cost of upgrading an intersection from a 170 controller to the 2070 model is approximately $2,000 for the controller, $2,000 to install upgraded Ethernet communication and switch, and $2,000 for installation. Additionally, some signal cabinets will likely need to be replaced, at a cost of approximately $7,000. Assuming 1 out of 7 cabinets (roughly 15 percent) need to be replaced the total improvement cost of upgrading the 79 signals in Tigard is approximately $558,000. Of the 79 signals in the City of Tigard, 47 are owned and maintained by ODOT; the rest are maintained by Washington County. Coordination with ODOT and Washington County will be necessary for signal upgrades and implementing advanced signal systems. Advanced signal systems may be applied to several innovative control strategies. The costs of these systems vary as a function of the types of controllers, programming needs and detection needs, Alternative signal systems include: • Adaptive or active signal control systems improve the efficiency of signal operations by actively changing the allotment of green time for vehicle movements and reducing the average delay for vehicles. Adaptive or active signal control systems require several vehicle detectors at intersections in order to detect traffic flows adequately, in addition to hardware and software upgrades. Installing these systems cost approximately $50,000 per intersection. • Traffic responsive control uses data collected from traffic detectors to change signal timing plans for intersections. The data collected from the detectors is used by the system to automatically select a timing plan best suited to current traffic conditions. This system is Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 13 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 able to determine times when peak -hour timing plans begin or end; potentially reducing vehicle delays. Installing these systems cost approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per intersection. • Transit signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and alter signal timings to improve transit performance. This improves travel times for transit, reliability of transit travel time, and overall attractiveness of transit. The City of Portland has the only system of bus priority in the region, which is applied on most of the major arterial corridors throughout the city. Generally, the costs of installing transit signal priority systems vary greatly, potentially ranging from $5,000 to $35,000 per intersection. • Truck signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching heavy vehicles and alter signal timings to improve truck freight travel. While truck signal priority may improve travel times for trucks, its primary purpose is to improve the overall performance of intersection operations by clearing any trucks that would otherwise be stopped at the intersection and subsequently have to spend a longer time getting back up to speed. Implementing truck signal priority requires additional advanced detector loops, usually placed in pairs back from the approach to the intersection. The cost of detectors and installation is approximately $10,000 per intersection. Access Management Access management describes a practice of limiting the number, placement, and movements of access intersections in order to provide access while preserving traffic flow, safety, capacity and speed on the surrounding road system. Within developed areas, access management strategies may include shared or consolidated access points, restrictions on access point movements (medians, channelized movements), or closing access points. Access management provides several potential benefits, such as reducing crashes and crash rates and increasing capacity on the main roadway by maintaining vehicle flows and speeds. While there are several benefits for vehicles (e.g. reduced delay, travel speed, consistency of driving environment), well- employed access management strategies can greatly improve travel conditions for pedestrian and bicycles. Eliminating the number of access points on roadways reduces the number of potential interruptions and conflict points between pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. Access management is typically adopted as a policy in development guidelines. It can be extremely difficult once properties have been developed along a corridor to implement an access management program. Cooperation among and involvement of relevant government agencies, business owners, land developers and the public is necessary to establish an access management plan that benefits all roadway users and businesses. The City has adopted the Highway 99W plan which includes access management policies and programs. The City will pursue this access management plan. Costs: vary depending on access rights and property values. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Real -Time Traveler Information Traveler information consists of collecting and disseminating information to the traveling public. This includes information on traffic and road conditions, general public transportation and parking information, interruptions due to roadway incidents, roadway maintenance and construction, and weather conditions. Traveler information is collected from roadway sensors, traffic cameras, vehicle probes, and recently media access control (MAC) devices such as cell phones or laptops. Data from these sources are sent to a central system and subsequently disseminated to the public so that drivers track conditions specific to their cars and can provide historical and real -time traffic conditions for travelers. When roadway travelers are supplied with information on their trips, they may be able to avoid heavy congestion by altering a travel path or delaying the start of a trip. This can reduce overall delay and fuel emissions. Traveler information projects can be prioritized over increasing capacity on roadway, often with high project visibility among the public. Costs: $50,000 to $100,000 per DMS $11,000 per permanent MAC reader. There are also costs associated with the infrastructure and services necessary to distribute travel information. Real - Time Transit Information Transit agencies or third -party sources can disseminate both schedule and system performance information to travelers through a variety of applications, such as in- vehicle, wayside, or in- terminal dynamic message signs, as well as the Internet or wireless devices. Coordination with regional or multimodal traveler information efforts can increase the availability of this transit schedule and system performance information. TriMet has implemented this through its Transit Tracker system. These systems enhance passenger convenience and may increase the attractiveness of transit to the public by encouraging travelers to consider transit as opposed to driving alone. They do require cooperation and integration between agencies for disseminating the information. Infrastructure improvements, such as installing real -time signs at transit stops, may not be worthwhile since currently most people can use a cell phone or Web - enabled phone to check the transit arrival time for TriMet vehicles. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Transportation or travel demand management (TDM) can be considered an example of a TSM strategy because it improves the efficiency of a given transportation system without necessarily increasing roadway capacity. TDM describes a wide range of measures designed to reduce motor vehicle travel, especially during peak hours, by influencing the mode choice, automobile occupancy, or time of travel. TDM measures are addressed in more detail in a later section. TSM Application in Tigard The TSM strategies recommended for implementation in Tigard are summarized in Table 5 -6. These include strategies identified in the RTP Update, the Highway 99W Plan, the 2002 TSP, and also strategies identified for the TSP Update. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 15 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 -6 TSM Strategies for Tigard Roadway Strategy Estimated Benefit Source Highway 217 Transit priority treatment Metro Draft TSMO Plan Real time information at Scholls Ferry Road, Hall Tigard TSP Update Blvd and Greenburg Rd interchanges, tied to 5% Increase in parking availability at Washington Square Mall Capacity during peak days. Enhanced data collection Tigard 2010 TSP Update Highway 99W Active Corridor Management, including upgrade Currently underway of signal controllers, wireless detection, and by ODOT /City updated timing plans. Transit priority, with queue bypasses at several Highway 99W Plan locations 10% Increase in Capacity Access management Highway 99W Plan High capacity transit Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan Scholls Ferry Install integrated corridor management RTP FC project list Road equipment. 5% Increase in (10602), $1,109,000 Arterial corridor management with adaptive Capacity Metro Draft TSMO signal timing and transit signal priority Plan Hall Boulevard Arterial corridor management with transit priority Metro Draft TSMO 5% Increase in Plan Capacity Access management Tigard 2002 TSP 72nd Avenue Arterial corridor management Metro Draft TSMO 5% Increase in Plan Truck signal priority south of Highway 217 Capacity Tigard 2010 TSP Update Durham Road Arterial corridor management 5% Increase in Metro Draft TSMO Capacity Plan Implementation of the TSM strategies identified in Table 5 -6 will require coordination with ODOT and Washington County, which operate the traffic signals in the City of Tigard. The effectiveness of each TSM implementation will depend on the specific parameters and objectives for each corridor. For example, traffic signals on the Scholls Ferry Road could be timed to optimize travel on the mainline, but at a detriment to the side streets. These types of timing methods can be implemented on a case -by -case basis. For the purpose of this system -wide analysis, relatively conservative assumptions were made regarding the impacts on corridor operating capacity. The TSM strategies summarized in Table 5 -6 were evaluated using the regional travel demand model. The roadway capacity analysis, which includes future transportation projects from the RTP and the Tigard CIP, was refined to incorporate the proposed TSM measures identified in Table 5 -6. While the model does not capture each specific TSM measures, the analysis of the measures was Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 conducted by assigning an increase in capacity along each corridor to reflect the optimized efficiency of corridor. Capacity increases applied to each corridor ranged from five to ten percent, depending on the extent of TSM implementation identified. The changes in estimated travel times along each of the corridors are summarized in Table 5 -7. Table 5 -7 Travel Time Savings from TSM Strategies, 2035 Weekday PM Peak Period Initial Improved Travel Travel Percentage Capacity Times Times of Corridor From /To Direction Improvement (sec) (sec) Improvement WB 10% 504 488 -3.2% Hwy 99W 68 to Durham EB 10% 459 450 -2.0% WB 5% 190 188 -1.1% Scholls Ferry Rd Cascade to Barrows EB 5% 166 166 0.0% SB 5% 542 530 -2.2% Hall Blvd Greenburg to Durham NB 5% 482 477 -1.0% Dartmouth to SB 5% 330 322 -2.4 72nd Ave Upper Boones Ferry o -0.7% NB 5 /0 294 292 -0.7 /o Highway 99W to Upper WB 5% 291 285 2.1% Durham Road Boones Ferry Road ° EB 5% 260 260 0 As Table 5 -7 shows, the planned TSM strategies are expected to improve travel times along these corridor segments by up to 3.2 percent during a forecast 2035 weekday p.m. peak period. It is possible that some corridors could see greater travel time savings if specific systems are managed to achieve this specific outcome. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM measures include any method intended to shift travel demand to alternative travel modes, to less congested times of day, or to locations with more available capacity. Some common examples of TDM strategies include programs such as carpool matching assistance or flexible work shifts; direct financial incentives such as transit subsidies; or facility or service improvements, such as bicycle lockers or increased bus service. Some of the most effective TDM strategies are most suitable to be undertaken by employers and are aimed at encouraging non -SOV commuting. Strategies include preferential carpool parking, subsidized transit passes, and flexible work schedules. Cities and other public agencies can play a critical role in support of TDM through provision of facilities and services, as well as development policies that encourage TDM. While many TDM strategies are most effectively implemented by employers, there are numerous strategies that cities can implement or support with other agencies. These include access management and connectivity strategies that are more often associated with roadway elements of Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 17 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 planning. Other strategies include provision of facilities (sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit amenities) and management of existing resources (parking). Another critical role that cities play is in the policies related to development activities. Through support, incentive, and mandate, cities can ensure that new development supports a balanced transportation system. Several broad TDM strategies are summarized in Table 5 -8. The table also identifies typical implementation roles. Table 5 -8 TDM Strategies and Typical Implementing Roles Transportation TDM Strategy City Management Developers TriMet Employers Metro State Association Public parking management P S S S Flexible parking requirements P S S Access management * P S P Connectivity standards* P S S P Pedestrian facilities P S S S Bicycle facilities P S S Transit stop amenities S S P S Parking management P S S Limited parking requirements P S S Carpool match services S P S Parking cash out S S P Subsidized transit passes S P S Carsharing program support P S S S S P: Primary role; S: Secondary /Support role * Primary implementation depends on roadway jurisdiction The City of Tigard does not have a dedicated TDM program, however, the Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) is a transportation management association (TMA) serving Washington County. The WTA assists employers in developing, implementing, and monitoring programs to reduce commute trips by SOV. The City of Tigard is a member of the WTA, as are most neighboring jurisdictions and many private employers. While the emphasis at WTA is to help employers create TDM programs, the WTA web site provides an "information hub" that individuals can use to find out about a myriad of travel options, including transit service, park- and -ride lots, bicycling, carpool matching, and other services. Specific Strategies the City of Tigard could implement include: TDM 1 Develop and implement a comprehensive TDM program la - Establish Mode Split Targets The City of Tigard intends to adopt non - single occupant vehicle mode split targets that are more aggressive than the targets currently adopted by Metro. Table 5 -4 shows the targets planned for the City as a whole, downtown Tigard, and the 2040 Centers in Tigard. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 18 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 lb - Hire or designate a TDM Coordinator Designate a staff TDM Coordinator to develop city wide TDM programs, develop and implement TDM programs for City staff, and as appropriate participate in Westside Transportation Alliance and support the development of local Transportation Management Associations (See Tigard Triangle special area discussion). 1c — Conduct surveys to identify and track mode splits Develop a program to identify and track existing travel modes within the City as a whole, downtown Tigard, and the 2040 Centers in Tigard. Conduct surveys regularly (e.g. every three years) in order to track progress in TDM implementation. Consistency Multi -Modal System Cost- Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Plans • TDM 2 Review and update development requirements to integrate TDM supportive policies Review existing development code requirements to identify policies and requirements to support TDM. Policies could be implemented or modified to include parking management (e.g. shared parking, carpool parking, pricing), pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, bicyclist end of trip facilities (e.g. lockers, showers, changing rooms), employer TDM programs, transit subsidies, and /or shuttle programs. Consistency Multi -Modal System Cost- Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Plans • • TDM 3 Develop and Implement Program Similar to "Portland Smart Trips" With a Staff member dedicated to TDM, the City of Tigard could develop and implement a program similar to the City of Portland "SmartTrips" program. Smart Trips is an individualized marketing program modeled on "TravelSmart" which is a program in Australia and Europe to reduce drive -alone trips and increase walking, bicycling, transit, and carpool trips. The individualized marketing methodology hand - delivers packets of information to residents who wish to learn more about all their transportation options including transit, walking, bicycling, carpooling, car sharing, and combining trips in their neighborhoods. Key components feature biking and walking maps and organized activities that get people out in their neighborhoods or places of employment to shop, work, and discover how many trips they can Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 19 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 easily, conveniently, and safely make without using a car. Success is tracked by evaluating qualitative and quantitative results from surveys and other performance measures Consistency Multi -Modal System Cost- Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Plans • • • ROADWAYS FACILITIES PLAN The roadway facilities plan is presented in this section of the document. Figure 5 -3 shows the draft project recommendations and draft project priorities. Figure 5 -3 also shows the projects recommended for removal from existing planning documents. Figure 5 -4 shows the results of the demand to capacity analysis for the recommended projects. The following tables summarize the project recommendations and draft project priorities. Projects from the current City of Tigard CIP (Table 5 -9) and 2035 Draft Metro RTP (Table 5 -10) are presented first for reference and context. Subsequently the projects are organized as follows: • Major ODOT projects (Table 5 -11), • Roadway realignments (Table 5 -12) • New roadway projects (Table 5 -13), • Road widening projects (Table 5 -14), • City /County intersection projects (Table 5 -15), and • ODOT Intersection projects (Table 5 -16). Following each table summary is an evaluation of the new projects that have been identified through this planning process, and an evaluation of the projects recommended for removal from the current TSP. 2 Case Study of City of Portland SmartTrips Program http: / /www.walkinginfo.org/library /details.cfm ?id =3961 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 20 Figure 5 -3 DRAFT A TAYLORS FERRY RD i m Roadway ii 15 4 to w / Projects ii ®` - m Q , w o Nina Urban c� � x _ II a — ? Planning Area ® ti LOCUST ST MI B ' -- LEGEND 28 G "; o Ju OAK ST FERRY FO I ` � m `` - 2� � Intersection Improvements oIQ ?� SCN O1 ■ LS _. IL Yi. l��. . fmn �T Q o �7 • High Priority ii . (w �0 F 9f • Medium Priority dirgi IMP > ..W 4S P n 40 7, � QO, ¢ �, ?F:ST •:::: 4 P CZ' -. . �0 TSP . � P� � ` � ,� 1 ` �' w �� 't Roadway Improvements WALNUT ST In �� \ w , ` T we L A. �. �, 1 A3 High Priority gn, r - WA LNUT sT h q \ � y . � . = DARTMOUTH ST Y I- ■ Medium Priority E---- �� I �� CN Gr ST � � / B 4 4 1 1 ' /&41 r F9 0 "I I a I ■ y Low Priorit M I �.:�i 3 9ti y 9 V Sr � ,■ ffi ■ Remove from TSP co .e ei-- i 1 4. MI i - x y ilia" � � �� ' ° , . \® Other Map Elements • g 1 _ � `° 4 �` ^o� \ Ji ; Tigard City Boundary , 9,,' �sy �n�° u r mm�n n Q PG W A�� ST � Q r GAARDE ST H F Ism ' �,,,,� ^� MC� ALD ST :\ "~ WES Rail Line J FY `, � WES Station abl l , I al memo* . B ONIT RD I I I I 1 1 Rail Lines . • 1 � ',y BULL MOUNTA �-■ ' w a l Q n Noll . . 1111.611.1 ) — ° � a OL . m nn N inn, '� , `2 , ` O C • o os os oa �11•11�11•11�1 BEEF BEND RD • DURHAM RD �g. ' 90 O L. �� E� Q . fc.. A . n w D. , _ FOP �, o z�9 0 I Orr Q Q(P w 1 BB- l_a...0 J nY ° ''''""'".,.=.:',0,'"'''''' r pa m 5. .1`' of map �s cu The tnforma Lines _ i - .. � TAYL FERR RD FlFigure -4 m1 . D II I 211 II thri■ - - W _ 2035 Demand -to- -� Capacity Ratios z Y o pi SG HO�LS FER RD \e � LF , ¢ ".. J 02 CO LOCUST ST - ..n with TSMO �� o o = V AK�mm! Weekday PM Peak Hour ■ air-- ioi ■ t � N ��M Tigard Urban 3 I / � r . = Planning Area 1 , � ` LEGEND �O � � ,� ; � PFAFFLE ST � I O . 0 ,11 �� I � - P \, i - Q HAINES ST DIC Ratio .. � o � � � � " �� z less than 0.85 � . WA I I " � �� ` ` V ,... , ` 40 ` DARTMOUTH ST less t0 l.00 �� `� I I � � ursr LN�T sT �� 5�� greater than 1.00 li di �`� I , ` W? N f � , Y - -�, Other Map Elements a Q � . I Othe I _ � / , CD _ Ro •� �� A _.m.,41,„ l, \ , /f 1 • o `\ . Tigard City Boundary 0 I '�� BULL MOUNTAIN RD t_pr, BONITA RD , 1 MIIIPIP . i tlk A •r I II Q 11111 i 1 II 1 > H �� I O LIS �� C d J J •• hOV rerepresented v[ed on tincurrent current as r V` - . ' 2 �' '� / °./ February 2, 2009. Revtstons will be made as new decis tons mrini oeii.it.li : � e �� , �_ � . / or amendments occur to alter the content of the map. Rta . { a . t. ■ a �` i� BEEF BEND RD _ ' I 1 � DURHAM RD J � is ' r lcn an N k: / f I . ttn. 11111h. Illrllirillra � w / QF f z i _ J , �, Q 0 0.15 03 << O / Milos N i ,4 - ( 1,1 nn�� w..nmaooco.rec Par.., a . 4 't e�,.anecny�� xo ...•°. 131zsswwo e nn e onsrzz3 303-50,117I 5 § i I Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Each of the new projects and removed projects was originally evaluated according to the seven evaluation criteria and given a qualitative assessment as described in Table 5 -5. Discussion about d/c analysis forthcoming Table 5 -9 Projects in the Tigard CIP (2009 -2014) TSP Update CIP Project Project Fully # Number Project/ Program Name Total Cost Funded? 17 95030 Ash Ave Extension (Burnham to Railroad) $890,749 Yes 73 95031 Hall Blvd at Hwy 99W Gateway $435,000 No 11 97006 Scoffins /Hall /Hunziker Realignment Study $75,000 No 74 95005 Greenburg Rd/ Hwy 99W/ Main St Intersection Improvements $5,363,450 Yes 51 95006 Tigard Triangle Local Improvement District (includes some $2,280,303 Yes frontage improvements on 68 and Dartmouth and traffic signal at 68 /Dartmouth) 54 95010 Walnut St Signal & WB Right -turn Lane at 135 Ave $400,000 Yes 31 95013 72nd Ave Improvements- Dartmouth St to Hwy 99W $1,200,000 No 84 95014 121st Ave Improvements- Walnut St to North Dakota St (3 $375,000 No lanes plus bike lanes and sidewalks) 34 95015 121st Ave Improvements- Whistlers Loop to Tippitt St (3 lanes $2,400,000 No plus bike lanes and sidewalks) 32 95016 72nd Ave Improvements- Bonita Rd to Hunziker St (3 lanes $300,000 No plus bike lanes and sidewalks) 31 95017 72nd Ave Improvements- Hunziker St to Dartmouth St (3 lanes $400,000 No plus bike lanes and sidewalks) TSP 95019 Dartmouth St Improvements- 72nd Ave to 68th Ave (3 lanes $800,000 (plus No Project plus bike lanes and sidewalks) LID funds) 38 for 4 Lanes 60 95020 Hall Blvd Right -Turn Lane (southbound to McDonald Street) $400,000 No 48 95023 Walnut Street Improvements -116th Ave to Tiedeman Ave (3 $2,500,000 No lanes plus bike lanes and sidewalks) 62 95025 Main Street Traffic Signal (at Tigard Street) $175,000 No 43 95026 Greenburg Rd Improvements- North Dakota St to Shady Lane $1,400,000 No (5 lanes plus bike lanes and sidewalks) 65 95028 Tiedeman Ave Traffic Signal & NB Left -Turn Lane (at Tigard $410,000 No Street) Total $19,804,502 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 23 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 -10 Projects in the Draft 2035 RTP Update TSP RTP Fully Update Project Funded Project # Number Project/ Program Name Project Description Total Cost ? 47 10596 Scholls Ferry Road Widen to 7 lanes Hwy 217 to 121s $19,749,000 Yes Improvements 4 10599 Hwy 217/72 " Ave. Complete interchange reconstruction $19,537,000 No Interchange Improvements with additional ramps and overcrossings 24 10746 Washington Square Increase local street connections at $3,000,000 Yes Connectivity Improvements Washington Square Center based on recommendations in the regional center plan 22 Hwy. 217 Overcrossing Provide a new connection from Nimbus 10747 Cascade Plaza to Washington Square south of Scholls $5,166,000 No Ferry Road. 43 Greenburg Road Widen to 5 lanes with bikeways and 10748 Improvements, South sidewalks from Shady Lane to North $4,000,000 Yes Dakota. Includes bridge replacement. 44 10750 Greenburg Road Improvements Widen to 5 lanes from Tiedeman to 99W $15,017,000 No 23 Realign Hunziker Street to meet 10751 Hwy. 217 Overcrossing Hampton Street at 72nd Ave. Remove $9,635,000 Yes existing 72nd /Hunziker Street intersection. 40 10753 Durham Road Improvements Widen to 5 lanes from Hall to Upper $21,093,000 Yes Boones Ferry Road 27 10754 Walnut Street Extension Extend street east of 99W to connect to $3,770,000 Yes Downtown Tigard. (PE Phase only) 31 Widen to 5 lanes from 99W to Hunziker 10755 72nd Ave. Improvements with bikeways and sidewalks. Includes $25,000,000 Yes bridge replacement. 38 10759 Dartmouth Street Widen to 4 lanes with turn lanes and $4,412,000 Yes Improvements sidewalks from 72 " to 68 16 10762 Nimbus Ave. Extension 2 lane extension with sidewalks and bike lanes. $30,000,000 No 39 10764 Durham Road Improvements Widen to 5 lanes with bikeways and $20,000,000 Yes sidewalks from 99W to Hall. 7,8,9,10 Reconfigure intersection of Durham & Upper Boones Ferry to create a through route between Durham & I -5 /Upper Upper Boones Ferry Boones Ferry /Carmen Interchange; 2nd 10768 Intersection Improvements Northbound Turn Lane at 72nd /Upper $9,630,000 Yes Boones Ferry; 72nd /Boones Ferry assuming Boones Ferry/72nd widened to 5 lanes; eastbound right turn lane at Carman /I -5 southbound. 56, 57, 58 2nd Northbound turn lane, modify signal timing at Greenburg /Oleson /Hall; install Greenburg Intersection boulevard treatment at 10769 Improvements Greenburg /Washington Square Road; $7,000,000 Yes improve geometry /alignment and extend cycle length at intersection of Greenburg /Tiedeman. 66 Provide increased capacity at priority intersections, including bus queue Hwy. 99W Intersection bypass lanes in some locations, 10770 Improvements improved sidewalks, priority pedestrian $50,000,000 Yes crossings, and an access management plan, while retaining existing 4/5 -lane facility from I -5 to Durham Road. 48 Walnut Street Improvements Widen to 3 lanes from 99W to 116th; $12,000,000 Yes build sidewalks & bike lanes; safety Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 24 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 TSP RTP Fully Update Project Funded Project # Number Project/ Program Name Project Description Total Cost ? improvements 46 Construct turn lanes & intersection McDonald Street Improvements improvements; add bike lanes & $8,000,000 Yes sidewalks in gaps from 99W to Hall 45 Widen to 3 lanes from Locust to Hall Blvd. Improvements Durham; build sidewalks & bike lanes; $13,000,000 Yes safety improvements 36 10752 Bonita Road Improvements Widen to 4 lanes from Hall to Bangey. $36,000,000 No 32 10756 72nd Ave. Improvements Widen to 5 lanes with bikeways and $28,166,850 No sidewalks from Hunziker to Bonita 33 10757 72nd Ave. Improvements Widen to 5 lanes with bikeways and $15,425,000 No sidewalks from Bonita to Durham 20 3 lane extension; new Highway 217 10758 Dartmouth Street Extension $58,690,500 Remove overcrossing. 21 10765 Hall Blvd. Extension Extend Hall Boulevard across Tualatin River. $87,220,000 No 66 Highway 99W High Capacity Identify potential alignments, station $5,000,000 Yes Transit Planning locations etc. 11 Realign offset intersection to cross Hall /Hunziker /Scoffins intersection to alleviate and congestion Intersection Realignment 9 $5,000,000 Yes safety issues 12, 13 Realign one or more streets to improve Greenburg /Tiedeman /N. intersection configurations, railroad $10,000,000 Yes Dakota Reconfiguration crossings & creek crossings Total $525,511,350 Major ODOT Projects Error! Reference source not found. provides a summary of projects under ODOT jurisdiction which are currently included in the City's TSP and are recommended for inclusion in the TSP update. With the exception of Project #3, 99W Connector Arterial(s), none of the identified "Major ODOT Projects" are included in the RTP (the 99W Connector Arterial(s) are on the financially constrained RTP project list. Project #1: Interstate 5 Widening & Capacity Improvements The 2002 TSP identified projects to widen I -5 to four lanes in each direction between Highway 217 and I -205, and to otherwise increase through capacity south to Wilsonville. The total project costs were estimated at $200,000,000 (estimate from the 2002 TSP). However, these projects are not included in any state or regional plans, nor were any funding sources identified in the TSP. The congestion on I -5 through the Tigard TSP planning area has negative impacts on Tigard residents and businesses. For residents, this congestion makes travel to and from activities outside of the city difficult, and for business owners timeliness of critical activities less reliable. City of Tigard Staff will continue to advocate for State and Regional Plans to address these issues. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 11 Major ODOT Projects Consistency In Draft ID Project Type w/ Prior Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority Plan Plans Model? 1 Freeway TSP I 5 Widening Increase capacity on I -5 from Hwy 217 to I- $200,000,000 2001 High No Widening 205 2 Freeway TSP Hwy 217 Widening Increase capacity on Hwy 217 from US 26 to $240,000,000 2001 High No Widening 72 Ave Planned series of seven arterials providing connectivity and mobility in the Tualatin /Tigard area. This project is largely Road TSP outside of the study area but the northern of 3 Widening/ RTP (10598 - 99W Connector the three arterials would connect to Upper $350,000,000 2009 Mediu Yes New Road ROW only) (Arterials) Boones Ferry Road or 72 " Avenue at the m southeastern edge of the City of Tigard. This project also includes capacity improvements on Hwy 99W. OR 217/72nd Ave 4 Interchange TSP Interchange Complete interchange reconstruction with $19,537,000 2009 High Yes Improvement RTP (10599) Improvements additional ramps and overcrossings. 5 Interchange TSP I -5 /OR 217 Interchange Interchange Improvements Improvement g 9 P $54,000,000 2001 High No Project #2: Highway 217 Widening The 2002 TSP identifies widening of Highway 217 to three lanes plus auxiliary lanes in each direction, with an estimated cost of $240,000,000 (2001$). According to the TSP, the RTP at that time listed a potential widening or HOV or HOT project. At this time, ODOT is initiating a study to improve operations on the freeway and at interchanges and ramps. The congestion on Highway 217 through the Tigard TSP planning area has negative impacts on Tigard residents and businesses. For residents, this congestion makes travel to and from activities outside of the city difficult, and for business owners timeliness of critical activities less reliable. City of Tigard Staff will continue to advocate for State and Regional Plans to address these issues. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 26 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #3: I -5 to Highway 99W Connector This project has been superseded by a series of Southern Arterial Improvements. The purpose of this project is to relieve congestion along Interstate 5, Highway 99W and to some extent Highway 217 by improving arterial connections in and through the Tualatin area. Under current planning, it is anticipated that the arterial connections may improve local mobility, but longer distance regional and statewide trips will remain on Highway 99W. As such, it is critical that the project includes improvements on Highway 99W to ensure that it will function. These projects are in the RTP Update project list under the federal financially constrained list. Phased construction is anticipated to begin in 2018 and conclude in 2035, with estimated costs of $90,000,000 for right of way acquisition and additional project costs of $260,000,000. One of the arterial options includes connections in the vicinity of 72 Avenue near the Interstate 5 interchange, and in the vicinity of the intersection of Durham Road /Upper Boones Ferry Road. City of Tigard Staff will continue to work with the regional partners in the development and refinement of these arterial concepts. This TSP does include realignment of Durham Road (see Error! Reference source not found.). Project #4: Highway 217 - 72 Avenue Interchange Improvements Because this project is recommended and included in the travel demand model, discussion of this project is included in the Roadway Widening section following Error! Reference source not found. This project is included in the travel model of the draft project list. Project #5: I - 5 /OR 217 Interchange Improvements at the I -5 /OR 217 interchange are included in the 2002 TSP but are not included in the RTP Update. Congestion on I -5 and Highway 217 makes travel to and from activities outside of the city difficult, and for business owners timeliness of critical activities less reliable. City of Tigard Staff will continue to advocate for State and Regional Plans to address these issues. Major Roadway Realignments The recommended major roadway realignments are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. A summary and discussion of the notable projects in the existing TSP is provided after the table. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 27 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 12 Roadway Realignments Consistency w/ Prior ID Project Type Plans Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority Realign /reconfigure Durham Road, Upper Boones Ferry Durham Road Realignment at Road intersections /roadway to accommodate traffic Intersection TSP flow between Durham Road and Interstate 5. 7 Realignment RTP (10768) Upper Boones Ferry Road Refinement study needed to address specific alignment $9,630,000 2009 High intersection of Durham and Upper Boones Ferry and alignment of southern Durham Road and 72nd Ave. 8 Road Widening TSP 72nd A ve / Boones Ferry Assumes 5 lanes on 72n and Boones Ferry (upper ?) included in High RTP (10768) Road (roadway project ?) project #7 9 Intersection TSP Upper Boones FerryRaod /I -5 included in Eastbound right turn lane High Improvement RTP (10768) southbound project #7 Intersection $200,000 10 Improvement RTP (10768) 72n /Upper Boones Ferry 2 northbound turn lane (included in 2001 High project #7) RTP Realign offset intersection to cross intersection to Intersection Hall /Hunziker /Scoffins 11 Realignment CIP (95006- Intersection Realignment alleviate congestion and safety issues. (CIP includes $5,000,000 2009 High study only) $75,000 for a study at this location) Realign Tiedeman between Tigard Street and N. 12 Road RTP Tiedeman Realignment Dakota to improve traffic flow in the area and address $10,000,000 2009 High Realignment the existing queiing issue at the North Dakota /Tiedeman intersection. Total $24,630,000 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 28 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Notable Projects Projects #7 -10: Durham Road at Upper Boones Ferry Road The 2002 TSP identifies this realignment of the Durham Road /Upper Boones Ferry Road intersection so that Durham Road is a continuous route to the I -5 /Upper Boones Ferry /Carmen Drive interchange. This would potentially involve a new road alignment for Durham Road but also has potential to remain in a similar alignment with major changes at each intersection. This project would involve realignments and /or intersection changes each of the intersections of Durham Road, Upper Boones Ferry Road, and 72nd Avenue and is estimated to cost approximately $9,630,000. A refinement study of this area was recommended in the 2002 TSP and is still warranted as there are multiple options for this area from low impact to high impact and a full realigning of Durham Road would significantly impact developed industrial /commercial areas. Near -term intersection improvements at the Durham Road/Upper Boones Ferry intersection are recommended in the following section (see Project #55 in Table 5 -15). This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 10 • • 0 Yes Projects #11: Hall /Hunziker /Scoffins Intersection Realignment Text — The Hall /Hunziker /Scoffins intersection realignment project is identified in the 2002 TSP and RTP and is currently identified in the CIP for conducting a study. Construction is estimated to cost approximately $5,000,000. This project would provide safety benefit to all modes. This location is also an environmental justice area for the senior population and would enhance their mobility by increasing both pedestrian and vehicle safety. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 11 • • • Yes Projects #12: Tiedeman Realignment Realignment of Tiedeman to intersect North Dakota west of the existing North Dakota /Greenburg /Tiedeman intersection is identified in the RTP. This project may have environmental impacts as it would be adjacent to Fanno Creek and intersect North Dakota near the Fanno Creek bridge (which needs to be widened to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles). However, it would remove the queueing conflict that currently occurs at the North Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 29 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Dakota /Tiedeman intersection in which eastbound vehicles on North Dakota have a difficult time turning left on to Tiedeman towards Greenburg due queues on Tiedeman that extend west through the North Dakota /Tiedeman intersection. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 12 • • • 0 Yes New Roadways The new roadways recommended for inclusion in the TSP are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. All of the proposed projects are included in the current TSP and Draft Metro RTP; however there are several projects in the current TSP that are recommended for removal. A summary and discussion of the proposed project removals, as well as several notable projects in the existing TSP, is provided after the table. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 30 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 13 New Roadways Consistency Project w/ other Year ID Type Plans Project Name Description Cost $ Priority 15 New Road TSP Northern Washington Square Remove Regional Center Crossing from TSP 16 New Road TSP Nimbus Road Extension Extend Nimbus Road south to Greenburg Road (or $30,000,000 2009 Remove RTP (10762) Tiedeman) from TSP Ash Ave Extension (Burnham Extend Ash Avenue across the railroad tracks at 17 New Road CIP 95030 across railroad to Commercial Burnham to Commercial Street. $3,000,000 2009 High Street) 18 New Road TSP Ash Ave Extension Extend Ash Avenue from Maplewood, across Fanno $3,000,000 2009 High (map only ?) (Maplewood to Burnham) Creek, to Burnham. TSP Walnut to Ash Street Extend Walnut east of OR 99W to meet Ash /Scoffins 27 New Road (RTP 10754 Extension and Hunziker Streets. $13,000,000 2009 High for PE) 19 New Road TSP Atlanta Street Extension Extend Atlanta Street west to Dartmouth Street $2,500,000 2001 Medium 21 New Road RTP (10765) Hall Boulevard Extension Extend south to Tualatin across the Tualatin River $58,690,000 2009 Low 22 New Road TSP Hwy 217 Over - crossing Provide a new connection from Nimbus to $15,000,000 2009 Low RTP (10747) Washington Square south of Scholls Ferry Road Hunziker to Tigard Triangle Realign Hunziker Street to meet 72 Avenue in the 23 New Road RTP (10751) Connection Tigard Triangle — requires over - crossing over ORE $9,635,000 2009 Medium 217 Improvements to distribute east /west traffic Oak - Lincoln- Locust Street between Locust and Oak Streets and improve 24 New Road WSRC Collector System (Washington accessibility to Lincoln Center commercial district. $3,000,000 2009 Low RTP (10746) Square Connectivity Includes Lincoln Street extension to Oak Street. Improvements) (Lincoln Street portion anticipated to be constructed by development) 25 New Road TSP Taylors Ferry Road Extension Extend to Oleson Road $1,900,000 2001 Medium 26 New Road TSP Wall Street Connection New roadway connecting Hunziker St and Hall $10,000,000 2001 Remove Boulevard from TSP Pfaffle -North Dakota east -west connection with Hwy North Dakota-Pfaffle 217 over- crossing to provide a neighborhood route, New Road/ connecting from 99W at 78 to Scholls Ferry Road, Neighborhood Route and 14 Intersection New Project North Dakota Realignment at via N. Dakota. Includes realignment of North Dakota 2009 Medium Realignment Greenburg Road at Greenburg Road to provide a continuous east - west connection. Requires purchase existing building. Total >$110,000,000 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 31 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 New Project Project #14: North Dakota - Pfaffle Neighborhood Route and North Dakota Realignment This project is envisioned to occur in tandem with or subsequent to Project #12 (realignment of Tiedeman to be removed from the North Dakota /Greenburg Road intersection). Project #14 would provide a much needed east -west connection between Pfaffle and North Dakota Street over Highway 217. It would also include realignment of North Dakota to be a continuous east -west route through the North Dakota /Greenburg intersection. The North Dakota realignment is identified in the RTP. This element of the project would require purchase of an existing building at the North Dakota /Greenburg Road intersection which may be costly compared to the system benefit. This project would provide a continuous route between Highway 99W and Scholls Ferry Road. Modeling indicates there is a demand for this route up to approximately 800 trips per hour, many of which are not neighborhood trips. This route would provide an alternative to 99W and Walnut to get between east and west Tigard. Traffic calming measures could be implemented to keep travel speeds consistent with a Neighborhood Route; however, measures to reduce traffic volumes on this route would reduce the benefit of the crossing which will cost several million dollars. This project is recommended Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 14 • • Yes Recommended Project Removals Project #:15: Northern Washington Square Regional Center Crossing The Washington Square Regional Center Plan included two new bridges over Highway 217. The northern over - crossing extended from Washington Square Mall Road across Highway 217 connecting to Cascade Avenue (Project #15); the southern crossing conceptually extending Locust Street across Highway 217 to Nimbus Avenue (Project #22). In concept these facilities provide secondary circulation to Highway 217, and improved multi -modal access to the Washington Square Area. The probability of constructing two overpasses of Highway 217 is fairly minimal. Additional evaluation of the northern crossing that has been completed since the WSRC plan indicates that this crossing is not very feasible. As the southern crossing provides more of a system capacity benefit by attracting trips that would otherwise use Scholls Ferry Road, the northern crossing is recommended to be removed from the TSP. The northern crossing; however, did provide a significant enhancement to pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety and is a loss to the local system in this area. This project is not recommended due to design feasibility and the expense of providing two crossings within the WSRC. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 32 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 15 • • • No Project #16: Nimbus Road Extension This project would extend Nimbus Road from its current terminus south and west to connect with Greenburg Road. This project is not recommended primarily due to the environmental impacts associated with a road extension along the Fanno Creek area and the potential cost impacts of constructing a project in this area. This project is not recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 16 0 0 No Project #26: Wall Street Connection The 2002 TSP includes a project to connect Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. The extended segment would have a two lane cross section with bike lanes and sidewalks and would be grade separated over the existing railroad tracks. The cost effectiveness of this project is relatively low. Bridge construction over the railroad tracks would require significant structure work. This Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) has among the highest senior and disabled population percentages in the city, therefore there would be potential environmental justice impacts to consider and avoid if possible. Costs are also anticipated to be significant due to potential wetlands impacts. Based on the limited benefits, relatively high costs, and the potential environmental justice impacts, it is recommended that this project be removed from the City of Tigard TSP. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Recommended? Mobility 26 • • • • O O O Remove from TSP This project should be removed from the TSP. Other Project Discussions Project #21: Hall Boulevard Extension to Tualatin The 2002 TSP identifies extending Hall Boulevard south to City of Tualatin. The new connection is also included in the Tualatin TSP. The extended segment of Hall Boulevard is planned as a 3 -lane facility. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 33 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 As a north -south corridor between Tigard and Tualatin, this new extension is forecast to attract approximately 2,500 peak hour trips which will be diverted primarily from 72nd Avenue and Upper Boones Ferry Road. The added traffic will further constrain Hall Boulevard, which serves a high proportion of environmental justice populations and is forecast to be over capacity even without the new bridge. However, it will help alleviate the over - capacity problem forecast on 72 Avenue and Upper Boones Ferry Road in 2035. The Hall Boulevard Extension would also provide an additional bike/ pedestrian connectivity between Tigard and Tualatin. The bridge crossing over the Tualatin River is a significant environmental consideration. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 21 • • Yes Project #23: Hunziker- Tigard Triangle Connection The 2002 TSP identifies realigning Hunziker Street to meet Hampton Street at 72 Avenue. This realignment requires that Hunziker Street over - crosses Highway 217. Hunziker Street realignment would provide an important link to the Tigard Triangle and would play a significant role in the ability to reconstruct the Hwy 217/72nd Avenue interchange. A variety of alignments for this connection should be considered through project refinement and in connection with plans for the Highway 217/72nd Avenue Interchange. The benefits of this project could also be realized from several different alignments such as Hunziker to Hampton, Hunziker at Wall Street to Beveland, or other similar alternatives. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 23 • • Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 34 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #27, 17, 18: Walnut Street Extension (ORE 99W to Hall Boulevard/ Hunziker Street) The 2002 TSP identifies extending Walnut Street east of ORE 99W to meet Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street. This project would provide a much needed connection downtown. A large amount of traffic is anticipated to utilize a Walnut Street extension to Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street. Walnut Street is a desired route to motorists traveling from Tigard downtown to the west side of ORE 99W. However, there are environmental resources concerns with regard to the Fanno Creek and trail crossing. It would also need to be designed to minimize neighborhood impacts. This project would provide needed additional access to downtown. This project is recommended Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 23 • • 0 Yes Road Widening Projects The roadways widening projects recommended for inclusion in the TSP are summarized in Table 5- 14. Most of the proposed projects are included in the current TSP and Draft Metro RTP; however there are several projects in the current TSP that are recommended for removal. There are also several projects from the existing TSP that are not identified in the RTP that are recommended to stay in the TSP, as well as one project (Project #83: Cascade Avenue) from the WSRC that is recommended to be included in the TSP. A summary and discussion of the proposed project removals, as well as several notable projects in the existing TSP, is provided after the table. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 35 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 14 Road Widening Consistency w/ Prior ID Project Type Plans Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority 28 Road Widening TSP Scholls Ferry Rd Widening Widen to 7 lanes (both dir) b/w 121st and Barrows Remove Rd from TSP 29 Road Widening TSP 68 Avenue Widen to 3 lanes between Dartmouth /I -5 Ramps Remove and Hwy 217 from TSP Extend 68 Avenue south to Hwy 217 providing 30 Road Widening TSP 68 Avenue right -in /right -out only access to 68 Avenue from Remove Hwy 217, replacing the NB ramps to 72n at Hwy from TSP 217 ?? Interchange TSP OR 217/72nd Ave Interchange Complete interchange reconstruction with additional 4 Improvement RTP (10599) Improvements ramps and overcrossings. May include Hunziker $19,537,000 2009 High Realignment TSP 72nd Avenue Widening: Ore Widen to 3 lanes (3 lanes plus bike lanes and 31 Road Widening RTP (10755) 99W to Dartmouth sidewalks included in the CIP from 99W to $10,000,000 2009 High Dartmouth for $300,000) (PE only ?) 32 Road Widening RTP (10756) 72 ^ Avenue Widening: Widen to 5 lanes (3 lanes plus bike lanes and $15,000,000 2009 High Dartmouth to Hunziker sidewalks included in the CIP for $400,000) 33 Road Widening RTP (10757) 72 ^ Avenue Widening: Widen to 5 lanes (widening to 3 lanes in CIP) $45,000,000 2009 Low Hunziker to Durham Widening 121s Avenue to a 2 or 3 -lane roadway 34 Road Widening CIP (95015) 121s Street Widening with sidewalks and bicycle lanes between Walnut $1,575,000 2009 High Street and Gaarde Street 35 Road Widening TSP Beef Bend Road Widening Complete 3-lane section from 131st to 150 This is Low a Washington County facility. 36 Road Widening RTP (10752) Bonita Road Widening Widen to 4-lanes from Hall to east of 1-5 (Bangy) $28,166,850 2009 Medium (ex TSP has 3 lanes w/ ROW for 5) 37 Road Widening TSP Dartmouth Street Widening Complete 5-lane section from Costco to 72nd Ave Medium (small section missing in eastbound direction only) Widen to 4 lanes plus turn lanes and sidewalks High or 38 Road Widening RTP (10759) Dartmouth Street Widening between 72n Avenue and I -5 (68 (3 lanes in CIP $4,412,000 2009 remove? for $800,000 + LID funds) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 36 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 39 Road Widening RTP (10764) Durham Road Widening Widen to 5-lanes from 99W to Hall Blvd including $20,000,000 2009 Medium bikeways and sidewalks. 40 Road Widening RTP (10753) Durham Road Widening Widen to 5 lanes (total, both directions) between $21,093,000 2009 Medium Hall Boulevard and Upper Boones Ferry Road 41 Road Widening TSP Greenburg Road Widening Widen to 4 lanes adjacent to cemetery $2,500,000 2001 Low TSP Greenburg Road Widening, Shady Lane to N. Dakota, Widen to 5 lanes with 43 Road Widening RTP (10748) South of Hwy 217 bikeways and sidewalk. Includes bridge $6,000,000 2009 High CIP (95026) replacement. Remove 44 Road Widening TSP Greenburg Road Widening to Tiedeman to OR 99W, Widen to 5 lanes with $15,017,000 2009 from TSP RTP (10750) 99W bikeways and sidewalks or Low Priority? TSP Hall Boulevard Widening, Locust to Durham, Complete widening to 3 lanes; 45 Road Widening RTP South of Locust build sidewalks and bike lanes; safety improvements $8,000,000 2009 Medium (ex TSP has 5 lanes from Locust to Hunziker) 46 Road Widening RTP McDonald Street Widening Widen to three lanes with sidewalks, bike lanes, and $12,000,000 2009 Medium from 99W to Hall safety improvements 47 Road Widening TSP Scholls Ferry Rd Widening Widen to 7 lanes (both dir) b/w OR 217 and 121st $19,749,000 2009 High RTP (10596) Ave TSP $2,500,000 (CIP) Widen to 3 lanes from 116th to OR 99W including 48 Road Widening RTP Walnut Street Widening sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and safety improvements $12,000,000 2009 High CIP (95023) (RTP) 84 Road Widenin CIP 95014 121` Avenue Walnut Street to North Dakota Street - three lanes g ( ) plus bike lanes and sidewalks $375,000 2009 High Add an eastbound through lane on Hall Blvd. from Pamelad Road to Greenburg Road that removes the 85 Road Widening Hall Blvd right -turn lane drop at Pamelad Road and ends as a 2009 Medium right -turn lane at Greenburg Road. This completes the five -lane section on Hall Blvd. from Scholls Ferry Road to Greenburg Road Total >$243,000,000 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 37 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Recommended Project Removals Project #:28: Scholls Ferry Road Widening (121S to Barrows) The 2002 TSP identifies widening of Scholls Ferry Road from five lanes to seven lanes between Barrows Road (East) and SW 121st Avenue. This would be a continuation of the planned widening to seven lanes identified in the RTP and Washington County TSP for Scholls Ferry Road from 121St Street to Highway 217 (Project #47). The 2035 forecast analysis shows this segment of roadway will be over capacity during the weekday p.m. peak hour if it is retained as a five -lane segment. While this project would alleviate the over - capacity condition but would also attract more travel demand, overwhelming the benefits of the widening planned in the RTP (between Highway 217 to 121st Avenue). This segment of Scholls Ferry widening is not consistent with the Washington County Transportation Plan, which shows a future 5 -lane section. This project is not recommended due to inconsistency with Washington County plans for the facility. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Safety Recommended? Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 28 • 0 0 0 0 No Project #:29: 68 Avenue Widening (Dartmouth to Hwy 217) The 2002 TSP identifies widening 68th Avenue to three lanes between Dartmouth Street/ I -5 Interchange and Highway 217. It also identifies extending 68th Avenue South to connect to Highway 217 (see Project #:30, also not recommended), providing right -in /right -out only access to 68th Avenue from Highway 217, which will replace the northbound ramps to 72nd Avenue. Assuming there is no 68th Avenue Extension project, 68th Avenue is not going to be a heavily - utilized roadway as forecast in the 2035 analysis. The additional capacities associated with the widening will not be needed. The widening will provide bike lanes on this roadway, which are not existent on 68th Avenue under existing conditions. Although 68th Avenue travels through an area significantly populated by environmental justice populations (low- income, non - English- speaking); the relative impact associated with this project does not appear to be significant. This project is not recommended without the extension of 68th to Highway 217 with a new northbound on /off- ramp at this location. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Safety Recommended? Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 29 0 0 0 0 No Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 38 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #:30: 68 Avenue Extension and Hwy 217 NB Ramp 68th Avenue Extension This project is not recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Recommended? Mobility 30 • • 0 • • 0 No Other Project Discussions Project #4: Highway 217 — 72 Avenue Interchange Improvements Reconstruction of this interchange is included in the 2002 TSP and is included in the RTP Update non - financially constrained project list. The project includes reconstruction of the existing interchange and would address recurring safety issues. The project cost (in the RTP Update, 2007$) is estimated $19,537,000, with an estimated time of construction from 2018 -2025. This project should be considered in coordination with widening of 72nd Avenue (Projects #: 31 -33), see below, as well as Project #23: Hunziker- Tigard Triangle Connection. This project is included in the travel model of the draft project list. Project #31 -33: 72nd Avenue Widening, Highway 99W to Durham Road The 2002 TSP identifies widening 72nd Avenue to 5 lanes from ORE 99W to south city limit at Upper Boones Ferry Road /Carman Drive /Durham Road intersection. Under the 2035 forecast conditions, 72nd will operate acceptably within the Tigard Triangle, but will be over capacity in the area south of Highway 217. If the Hall Boulevard extension to Tualatin is constructed, the diversion of traffic would alleviate the congestion on 72 Avenue south of Highway 217. There are no continuous bike lanes on 72 Avenue and there are frequent gaps in the sidewalks; therefore, the road widening would improve pedestrian/ bike conditions. However, widening 72nd Avenue would impact areas with high environmental justice populations. 72nd Avenue is recommended to be 3 lanes from 99W to Dartmouth and 5 lanes to Durham Road if the Hall Boulevard extension is NOT constructed. If the Hall Boulevard extension is constructed, 72 Avenue should be considered for remaining3 lanes as Hall Blvd would be widened to 5 lanes. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Recommended? Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility 31- • • • 0 Yes* 33 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 39 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #40: Durham Road Widening from Hall Boulevard to Upper Boones Ferry Road The 2002 TSP identifies widening Durham Road to five lanes between Hall Boulevard and Upper Boones Ferry Road. Widening Durham Road to 5 lanes will provide more capacity and improve traffic conditions in the 2035 forecast. Durham Road connects I -5 /Upper Boones Interchange and the west side of ORE 99W. Segments of Durham Road will operate with d/c ratio in the range of 0.86 to 1.00 in 2035 without widening and less than 0.85 with the proposed roadway widening. Durham Road passes an environmental resources area near its intersection with Upper Boones Ferry Road. The widening may impact this area negatively. This project is recommended due to its improvement to the future traffic conditions. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Recommended? Mobility 40 • 0 0 Yes* Project #41 -44: Greenburg Road Widening, Hall Boulevard to Highway 99W Avenue The 2002 TSP identifies widening of Greenburg Road to 4 lanes adjacent to cemetery (between Hall Boulevard and Locust Street), and to 5 lanes for the segments between Locust and North Dakota, Tiedeman and ORE 99W. Greenburg Road travels through an area with environmental justice populations. The widening of Greenburg Road may negatively impact this population on pedestrian and bike condition. There are no environmental impacts associated with this project. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Recommended? Mobility 41- • • 0 Yes* 45 Project #45: Hall Boulevard Widening (3 -lanes Locust to Durham) The 2002 TSP recommends widening Hall Boulevard from Greenburg to Hunziker to five lanes and three lanes from Hunziker to Durham. Hall Boulevard is currently three lanes from Greenburg to Locust. Widening to three lanes (not five lanes) from Locust Street to Durham Road is recommended as part of the TSP update. The area west of Hall Boulevard includes a high proportion of environmental justice populations (low income and non - English speaking). Pedestrian conditions would be negatively impacted by the wider roadway. Environmental impacts are not readily apparent. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 40 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 The decision to widen this facility to three -lanes versus five -lanes should be considered in coordination with 72nd Avenue widening, the Hall Boulevard Extension (Project #21). This project is recommended as a three -lane facility. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Recommended? Mobility 45 • 0 0 Yes* Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 City /County Intersection Projects The city /county jurisdiction intersection projects recommended for inclusion in the TSP are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. The majority of the intersections were included in the existing TSP. Two additional improvments are suggested, Project #49 (Pfaffle /Hall) and Project #55 (Durham /Upper Boones Ferry). Project #55 is a near -term alternative to the longer -term project described in the above sections. Table 5 -15 City /County Intersection Projects Consistency w/ Prior ID Project Type Plans Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority 49 Intersection New Project Pfaffle St /Hall Blvd Traffic signal or other intersection treatment Medium Improvement 50 Intersection TSP 68th /Atlanta /Haines Install a traffic signal $300,000 2009 Medium Improvement 51 Intersection TSP 68th /Dartmouth Install traffic signal $300,000 2009 High Improvement 52 Intersection TSP 72nd/ Dartmouth Traffic signal; Assumes 72nd Ave and Dartmouth $300,000 2009 High Improvement widened to 5 lanes 53 Intersection TSP 121st/ North Dakota Traffic signal $300,000 2009 Medium Improvement CIP includes a traffic signal and westbound right -turn lane at this intersection. A roundabout should be 54 Intersection CIP (95010) 135th Ave /Walnut Street considered at this location. Improvements at this $400,000 2009 High Improvement intersection are being driven, in part, by the elimination of all left -turns at the Scholls Ferry /Barros Road intersection. Construct intersection improvements at Durham Road Intersection Durham Road at Upper and Upper Boones Ferry Road to provide dual 55 Improvement New Project Boones Ferry Road southbound right- turns, dual eastbound left- turns, High eastbound right- turns, and northbound left -turns and improve signal timing. 56 Intersection TSP, RTP Greenburg /Oleson /Hall 2nd northbound left turn lane; Assumes Hall widened to $7,000,000 2009 High Improvement (10769) 5 lanes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 42 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Greenburg /Washington Intersection TSP, RTP Install Boulevard treatment at Greenburg /Washington included in 58 Improvement (10769) Square Road (roadway or Square Road project #56 2009 High intersection project ?) 59 Intersection TSP Hall /Durham 2nd southbound left -turn lane; Widen west of $1,200,000 2001 Medium Improvement intersection to introduce 5 -lane section on Durham 60 Intersection CIP (95020) Hall /McDonald Add southbound right -turn lane from Hall Street to $400,000 2009 High Improvement McDonald Street. 62 Intersection CIP (95025) Main Street /Tigard Street Install a traffic signal at Main Street /Tigard Street $175,000 2009 High Improvement Retain eastbound right -turn lane when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Rd; Retain westbound right -turn lane Intersection when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Rd; southbound 63 Improvement TSP Nimbus /Scholls Ferry Rd right -turn lane; Reconfigure northbound and $1,150,000 2001 Medium southbound lanes to create exclusive left -turn lanes; Change from split phasing to protected left -turn phasing North South 64 Intersection TSP North Dakota/ 125th/ Scholls Southbound right -turn lane, signal timing changes to $450,000 2001 Medium Improvement Ferry Rd provide permitted phasing north /south 65 Intersection CIP (95028) Tiedeman Street /Tigard Street Install a traffic signal and northbound and southbound $410,000 2009 High Improvement left turn lane Total >$12,000,000 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 43 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 ODOT Intersection Projects The ODOT jurisdiction intersection projects recommended for inclusion in the TSP are summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. The majority of the intersections were included in the existing TSP and /or the 99W Corridor Plan. Many of these projects represent changes to the existing TSP based on a change from a planned 7 -lane facility in the TSP to a 5 -lane facility after completion of the 99W Corridor Plan. This list needs to be reviewed to ensure that all auxiliary lanes planned for Highway 99W are documented as needed. Table 5 -16 ODOT Intersection Projects Consistency w/ Prior ID Project Type Plans Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority Provide increased capacity at priority intersections, including bus queue bypass lanes in some locations, Hwy 99W Intersection improved sidewalks, priority pedestrian crossings, and Intersection an access management plan, while retaining existing 66 Improvement RTP (10770) Improvements and Access 4/5 -lane facility from I -5 to Durham Road (replaces 7- $50,000,000 2009 High Management lane widening in ex TSP)((Should signal interconnect from I -5 to Durham from ex TSP be added as separate project ?). 67 Intersection 99W IMP Highway 217 SB Intersection Capacity Improvements Medium Improvement Ramps /Highway 99W 68 Intersection 99W IMP Highway 217 NB Intersection Capacity Improvements Medium Improvement Ramps /Highway 99W 69 Intersection STIP Highway 99W/I -5 SB Northbound through lane Medium Improvement $400,000 70 Intersection 99W IMP Highway 99W/68th Ave Add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and (also included 2008 High Improvement southbound directions in project #66) Southbound right turn lane; Northbound right turn $300,000 Intersection (also included 71 Improvement 99W IMP Highway 99W/72nd Ave overlap; Change to protected left turn phasing in project 2008 High north /south #66) $600,000 Intersection Add southbound through lane and transit queue (also included 72 Improvement 99W IMP Highway 99W /Dartmouth St. bypass lanes in northbound direction in project 2008 High #66) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 44 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Consistency w/ Prior ID Project Type Plans Project Name Description Cost Year $ Priority Additional eastbound and westbound through lane on Intersection 99W IMP 99W (CIP 95005), exclusive left -, through -, and right - 73 Improvement CIP (95005, Highway 99W /Hall Boulevard turn lanes on each side street approach (CIP 95031) $6,000,000 2008 High 95031) and transit queue bypass lanes in northbound direction (99W IMP). Exclusive side street left -turn lanes on Greenburg $5,363,450 Intersection TSP Highway 99W/ (also included 74 Improvement CIP (95005) Greenburg Road Road and Main Street providing exclusive left, through, in project 2008 High and right -turn lanes on both approaches, additional #66) eastbound and westbound through lane on 99W. Change to protected left turn phasing on Walnut, add $600,000 Intersection Highway 99W/ (also included 75 Improvement 99W IMP Walnut Street westbound left -turn lane, add transit queue bypass in project 2008 High lanes in northbound and southbound directions #66) Highway 99W/ Add third through lane in each direction, westbound 76 Intersection 99W IMP Gaarde Street/ right -turn lane, 2nd northbound and southbound left- $6,000,000 2009 High Improvement McDonald Street turn lanes, add transit queue bypass lanes in northbound and southbound directions $250,000 Intersection Highway 99W/ (also included 77 Improvement 99W IMP Canterbury Westbound left -turn lane in project 2008 High #66) 78 Intersection 99W IMP Highway 99W/ Southbound through lane for 500 ft. included in High Improvement Dartmouth Street project #66 $250,000 Intersection Southbound right turn lane (on ORE 99W); Adjust (also included 79 Improvement 99W IMP Highway 99W /Beef Bend Road cycle length in project 2001 High #66) $250,000 Intersection (also included 80 Improvement 99W IMP Highway 99W /Durham Road Northbound left -turn lane in project 2008 High #66) Intersection Highway 217 SB /Hall Street SB right -turn lane at Hall Blvd /OR 217 ramp (located 81 Improvement Interchange Improvements in City of Beaverton) Medium Highway 217 NB On -ramp/ Intersection Scholls Ferry Road/ Add 2 " northbound left-turn Lane and 2 westbound 82 Medium Improvement Washington Square Road left -turn lane at OR 217 NB on- ramp Interchange Improvement Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 45 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 TRANSIT Transit service is an important part of a balanced transportation system, providing an alternative to private automobile travel for distances too far to walk or bike. As identified in the Needs & Deficiencies report, supporting an environment in which transit is a preferred travel option for the Tigard community requires more than direct investments in transit service. Land use, connectivity, and streetscape features have a major influence on the cost effectiveness of transit service and will help Tigard get more out of its available transit investments. For this reason, the proposed improvements for transit service include planning for land uses that are transit supportive, in addition to providing appropriate facilities and connections to transit. Table 5 -17 shows several strategies and potential improvements for Transit service in Tigard. The table identifies which entities would be in a Primary role and which would be in a Support role. As the major transit provider in the region, TriMet would be the Primary implementer of most of the service enhancements. In most cases, the City of Tigard is in a Support role for direct transit enhancements and a Primary role for transit supportive infrastructure. It should be noted that planning for Project T -2, Provide High- Capacity Transit Service on Hwy 99W, is included in the draft RTP financially constrained project list with an estimated cost of $5,000,000. Table 5 -17 Transit Improvements Washington ID Improvement City TriMet Beaverton County Metro ODOT LU -1 Commercial Nodes in Residential Areas P S T-1 Increase WES frequencies and days of S P S service T-2 Provide high capacity transit service on S P S S S Hwy 99W T -3 New Tigard Connector service* P/S S/P S T -4 Transit Stop Amenities S P S BT -1 Create a bike hub at the Downtown P S transit center *Could be funded by the Tigard Triangle LID or pursue through TriMet. While the City of Tigard does not currently operate transit, there are several potential projects the City could implement to support and improve access to transit. The land use strategy (LU -1) "Commercial Nodes in Residential Areas" creates commercial destinations within residential neighborhoods, and may include small restaurants, coffee shops, or neighborhood retail. These neighborhood commercial nodes will provide residents with the opportunity to take non -work trips by non -auto modes, including transit. This development could be accomplished by allowing neighborhood - commercial as a permitted use in residential zones, or through designating specific nodes in the City's comprehensive plan and /or neighborhood plans. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 46 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Within areas targeted for neighborhood - commercial development transit stop improvements, in the form of benches, shelters, or real -time transit information, could be provided for riders. By working with TriMet and other agencies shown in Table 5 -17, the City could lead or support the progress of transit projects. Transit Projects Table 5 -18 summarize the transit projects for the City of Tigard. These projects include accommodating a new bike hub at the Downtown Transit Center and supporting upgrades to bus stop facilities, both which have an integral role in recreation, commuting, and accessibility for residents. Table 5 -18 Transit Improvement Projects Consistency No. with Prior Project Description Total Cost Priority Plans (2009$) TP1/ Tigard Transit Center Off Road Facility BC1 New Bicycle Hub Additional Bike Racks Medium Covered Bike Lockers Support existing high Transit Stop Amenity frequency bus service on the TP2 New Improvements on Highway 99W corridor by High Highway 99W providing benches, shelters, and real -time information at bus stops • Additional Transit Stop Support existing high activity TP3 New Amenity bus stops by providing Medium Improvements benches, shelters, and real - time information New Projects Project #TP1: Tigard Transit Center Bicycle Hub Improvements Transit travelers often connect trips with multiple transit lines and other transportation modes, and the Downtown Tigard Transit Center provides several of these connections for residents. Bicyclists using transit benefit immensely from bicycle support facilities at stations, such as secure bicycle parking, either open or covered U- shaped racks, and storage lockers for clothing and gear. In addition to providing facilities for bicyclists storing their bikes at the station, cyclists may also choose to use bicycle facilities at the Downtown Transit Center, such as water fountains and storage lockers. Since TriMet buses and vehicles are outfitted with bicycle racks that allow cyclists to bring their bikes with them on transit, and thus increase the range of trips possible by both transit and bicycling, there is a wide range of cyclist needs at the station. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice TP1 • • 0 Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 47 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #TP2: Transit Stop Amenity Improvements on Highway 99W This project focuses on the installation of bus shelters and other user amenities along the Highway 99W corridor in Tigard. The need for bus shelters at bus stops, as well as benches and real -time transit information, should be evaluated in conjunction with any new commercial or residential development adjacent to the roadway. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice TP2 • • • • Yes Projects #TP3: Transit Stop Amenity Improvements at High Activity Stops This project focuses on installation of bus shelters and other user amenities at high activity bus stops identified by TriMet in Tigard. The need for bus shelters at bus stops, as well as benches and real -time transit information, should be evaluated in conjunction with any new commercial or residential development near these stops. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 3 • • • • Yes Projects for Consideration Tigard Transit Connector As development revives and accelerates in Downtown and in the Tigard Triangle, and in connection with the upcoming High Capacity Transit planning, the City of Tigard should consider implementing local connector transit service. This service could connect the Tigard Triangle to Downtown, and /or the Washington Square Mall. The service should have schedules coordinated with other transit service to and from Tigard. Another option for a local transit connector would be to provide an intra -city connection between the Tigard Triangle and the Walnut /Barrows Road intersection. The primary purpose of this connection would be to provide local access to the Tigard Triangle through the residential neighborhoods, with a potential connection to Highway 99W. Because these routes wouldn't significantly enhance regional service, it may be most appropriate for Tigard to lead the implementation of this service with support from TriMet. Partial funding could potentially be provided through the Tigard Triangle LID. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 48 B9 To Local Commuter Rail Neighborhoods 1 11110 44 P, to Hall /Nimbus Station Figure 5 -5 and Beaverton TC w. i1 E. o? To Portland Transit r . 1111 Projects To Local .� Neighborhoods ; ..... . - Tigard Urban i T o Sunset T C m � ' t. T3 or , , T g 56 m o s � ? _ 4s OC S Planning Area • Y RD 9 G u ......1. abd .i 5 _� To Portland i i Lt t - ? 1 „ Q PINE ST 5 LEGEND '" `) , P „ Q r.� T# Transit Projects w 1 e O ¢ _ _ ,� ` . . � PFAFFLE ST .la Am % O ri r.,. a = AINES Transit Elements S WALNUT ST /, D ARTM OUTH ST ® BUS Stops ab 3 11.4 s 5 a o ,, Li ,04, Park and Ride as as w i,k ,..a �'�"'+ , ! q<,� son.: J.,,-1 G ' $�, 5 , aa 04 2i FR m l © Frequent Service ,:.. Sr 9� s i. ' � 1i J P° ,,, / a s 2 �` °" * 7a L=3" # Rush -Hour Service NV .M Q ! ; y „ N ,� Standard Service y1 , ��5� -\: WALL ST `"o ��s ' � ® � �'D ' � ...�.�... . . A , � `< < o� �° 0 Transit Center .u.....5 S h ,,, -- - 1 . '. x � C L . . L if. CAARDE ST Qs. ... -M. MCDONALD ST b, • L 't T � `� 1 V iii j L.... e � �, � q .� 1 F WES Rail Line �� To Lake MI WES Station „ Iwo i 'S �< - B ONITARD i BON RD Oswego and i i > X ' L� �,- .. r i.....v.... �'� y _ MOUNTAIN RD ti �� um Nil 1 Portland 7 _ _ . 1 . . I Q Other Map Elements o x” o Tigard City Boundary i Z ' 76 uwi _ -- • �� 55� 1 m �o� t Rail Lines P • w°b �I •• 'Ihe infi[mahOV represented ort tive map Ie curt ®has of - - BEEF BEND RD D URHA M RD M P' ®. Fe bruary 2, 2009 Re m „ee<me eoe „ce„t as new pe ster • . h _ as L1.1 n .. ■ L. ' 1 Z : ■ .1 �...... .. Z 2 ncnEiD F, MI . _ 0 02 04 ( ■ . Mlles To King City +r' L. II To Tualatin ' -w, .. .. 0,,,,20e and Sherwood ++,* i "•.....; ++ Commuter Rail i1 to Tualatin Station 1, i l Notes: Transit service area is 1/4 mile from standard and rush hour service routes and 1/2 mile from frequent service routes and WES Rail Stations * Waiting for major bus stop data from TriMet Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 BICYCLE Bicycle facilities are the elements of the network that enable cyclists to safely and efficiently travel on the transportation system. These facilities include public infrastructure (bicycle lanes, mixed -use trails, signage and striping) as well as off -road facilities (secure parking, changing rooms and showers at worksites). Each plays a role in developing a comprehensive bicycle network. Many different bicycle facility types are needed to create a complete bicycle network that connects people to their destinations and allows cyclists to feel safe riding. Currently, Tigard's bicycle network primarily includes bicycle lanes, shared roadways and multi -use paths. Multi -use path improvements are discussed in a subsequent section because of their utility for both pedestrians and bicyclists. In some locations where bicycle lanes are provided, specific conditions compromise the quality of the bicycle facility, such as high motor vehicle volumes and travel speeds. In these locations, wider bike lanes or buffers (wider striping, barriers, or medians) separating bicycles from vehicle traffic or sharrows may be appropriate. Other roadways with lower vehicle volumes may not require bicycle lanes for cyclists, but may benefit instead from low- traffic bikeway treatments, also know as bike boulevards. These facilities are generally parallel to roadways with high mobility for vehicles and are designed to connect similar destinations to their counterparts. Treatments may include through lanes only for bikes, switching two -way stop signs to side - street traffic, and wayfinding signs for riders. Types of Bicycle Facilities A brief description of the various bicycle facility types is provided below along with the evaluation criteria for each type of facility. These evaluations were used to support the project ranking shown in Table 5 -21 Shared - roadway — Any roadway without dedicated bicycle facilities is a shared roadway. In Tigard, shared roadways include all public streets without striped bicycle lanes. Where traffic volumes are low, shared roadways are generally safe and comfortable facilities for cyclists. However, the ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plana does not recommend shared roadways where automobile volumes or vehicle speeds are high. Thresholds for where shared -lanes are appropriate are based on several factors, including land -use and grade. Generally, bike lanes are preferred on most roadways with greater than 3,000 ADT or with a speed limit greater than 25 mph. For these roadways, dedicated bicycle facilities, typically bicycle lanes, are recommended. 3 Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Salem, Oregon. June 1995. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 50 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ Other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • Bicycle lane - Bicycle lanes are striped lanes on the roadway dedicated for the exclusive use of bicycles. Typically, bicycle lanes are placed at the outer edge of pavement (but to the inside of right -turn lanes and /or on- street parking). Bicycle lanes improve bicycle safety, improve cyclist security, and if comprehensive can provide direct connection between origins and destinations. However, inexperienced cyclists often feel uncomfortable riding on busy streets, even when they include bicycle lanes. f u r lam "" x ' ' . + ablialikkaalib r Example Bicycle Lane City of Tigard street standards include bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors. However, several major roadways within the City do not include bicycle lanes, often due to limitations of existing right -of -way that make bicycle lane construction prohibitive without roadway widening. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 51 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Low - traffic bikeway — Low - traffic bikeways are also known as bike boulevards and provide high - quality bicycle facilities on continuous street corridors with low vehicular traffic volumes. Typically, low- traffic bikeways are made from existing local streets, which are reconfigured to prioritize bicycle trips and reduce through automobile trips. Local automobile access is retained. Bicycling conditions are improved by reducing stop signs to a minimum along the route and providing wayfinding information specific to bicyclists. Traffic calming is often used to slow automobile speeds and eliminate the cut - through automobile traffic that the removal of stop signs would otherwise attract. VI° 01 STOP ', ONLY ._ '+ - Low- traffic Bikeway Example Low - traffic bikeways are best used when they parallel major roadways and can provide cyclists with a low- volume alternative route. Low - traffic bikeways are used extensively in Portland, and recent rider surveys there indicate that cyclists overwhelmingly prefer them compared to major streets with bicycle lanes. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • Shared -lane Pavement Marking — Shared -lane pavement markings (often called "sharrows ") are a tool designed to help accommodate bicyclists on roadways where bicycle lanes are desirable but infeasible to construct. The sharrow marking indicates a shared roadway space, and are typically Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 52 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 centered approximately 4 feet from the edge of the travelway to encourage cyclists to ride further away from parked and parking cars and /or the curb. Shared -lane pavement markings have been extensively applied in several cities, including San Francisco, Portland, and Corvallis. Shared -lane pavement markings have been recommended for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the MUTCD. Final approval of new MUTCD is not likely until 2010; until then use of shared -lane pavement markings are subject to the experimental process set forth in Section 1A.10 of the current MUTCD. , 11 0 9 ii � 4 _ _ "1fR p_ �. — ► ' N. ` s Li IF/ r _,, _ ir , , 0 I, , , _: iL . , ..,,,......_). 99 . . . , , ._...__ 414 - Examples of Shared -lane Pavement Markings Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Project Lists The 2002 TSP, the Tigard CIP, and the RTP identify bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects. Projects from the Tigard CIP and RTP are shown below in Table 5 -19 and Table 5 -20 for reference and context for the recommended bicycle and, as discussed in the next section, pedestrian projects. It should be noted that there are also many roadway improvements in the CIP and RTP that include bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities; however, only the projects that do not also include enhanced vehicle capacity are included in these tables. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 53 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 -19 Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects in the Tigard CIP (2009 -2014) TSP Update CIP Project Project Fully # Number Project/ Program Name Total Cost Funded? B3 97002 Burnham St Reconstruction $9,746,463 Yes 97003 Main St Retrofit to Green Street $700,000 Yes CP2 95002 Crosswalk - Hall Blvd /Fanno Creek $100,000 Yes ?, P20 95003 Crosswalk - Hall Blvd /Bonita Road to 600'N $326,566 Yes PC7 95006 Crosswalk& Lighting System - Durham Rd at Tigard $68,000 Yes High School P22 95007 Barrows Road Sidewalk Installation $71,814 Yes P31 95008 Garret Street Sidewalk - Ash St to 99W $141,790 Yes P1 95021 North Dakota Street Pedestrian Bridge at Fanno $275,000 No Creek 95027 Citywide Pedestrian /Sidewalk Improvements $250,000 No P32 95018 92 °d Avenue Sidewalk - Durham Rd to Cook Park $475,000 No P20, P14 95011 Hall Blvd Half- Street Improvements $250,000 No P1 95022 North Dakota St Improvements - Greenburg Road to $125,000 No 95th Ave P18 95024 Commercial Street Intersection - Lincoln Ave to Main $800,000 No St Table 5 -20 Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects in the 2035 Draft RTP TSP Federal Update RTP Project Financially Project # Number Project/ Program Name Project Description Cost Constrained? 10606 Washington Square Complete 7,400 feet of sidewalk P10 Regional Center Pedestrian $8,954,000 Yes Improvements improvements B30 10611 Locust Avenue Bike Completes 1,650 feet of bike lanes in regional center $3,417,000 Yes B13 10612 Greenbur Road Bike Completes 3,400 feet of bike lanes in g regional center $3,610,000 Yes Washington Square Regional Improve sidewalks, lighting, crossings, bus P10 10749 Center Pedestrian shelters, and benches at Washington $3,900,000 Yes Improvements Square. Improve Sidewalks, lighting, crossings, bus P14, P18, shelters and benches throughout the Town P16, P9, 10760 Tigard Town Center Center including: Highway 99W, Hall Blvd, $4,882,000 Yes PC6 Pedestrian Improvements Main Street, Hunziker, Walnut and neighborhood streets. Washington Square Regional ? 10763 Center Greenbelt Shared Complete shared -use path construction. $1,821,000 Yes Use Path Infill gaps in regional trail network. Affected MUP2, ? 10766 Regional Trail Gap Closure trails include Fanno Creek, Washington $6,890,000 Yes Square Loop and Westside Trails. Regional Bikeway Make spot improvements on key low - B21 -B30 Improvements volume, low speed through- routes to $4,000,000 Yes facilitate bike & pedestrian travel; identify Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 54 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 them as bike /pedestrian routes Pedestrian Improvements Fill gaps in sidewalk & pedestrian network $5,000,000 Yes Neighborhood Trails & Construct high priority neighborhood trails $5,000,000 Yes Regional Trail Connections to regional trails, sidewalks & transit Portland & Western Rail Construct trail along portion of abandoned $1,000,000 Yes Trail rail line Downtown Circulation Plan Acquire ROW, construct streets and Implementation streetscape improvements in downtown $4,000,000 Yes Tigard In addition to the above, Table 5 -21 shows new bicycle projects identified from the existing TSP and new projects developed to address deficiencies identified in the TSP process. The evaluation criteria, as well as the bicycle priorities from the existing TSP will be used to determine a final priority list for bicycle projects. The bicycle improvement list will be refined after the roadway project list is finalized, as there is significant overlap between the identified roadway needs and bicycle needs. Figure 5 -6 shows the recommended bicycle improvements. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 55 Q c r rr TAYLORS FERRY RD r w Figure 5 -6 11 � al Planned % r�� Bicycle r r ' 2 r m, Facilities sc NOULS . R ' l � F V w �� " � Tigard Urban 1 W _( ; ��Q c� ® /// a ST g Planning Area • \ 1`. \ II. PINE ST II 5 � / fs L EGEN D Fa o �� , , (� J � - r N A ST ��` - / ,¢ - _ • 3 o p ( O ¢ f i �/ ® I� — ■ 1 ; I . PFAFFLE ST ` P l anne d cilities t. O S♦� , `� �� \ � ' T ¢ HAINES ST I B Bicycle Facility P 4" ; fi r a �� P � 1 I � Z .• % r = � . 1 � \ Bicycle Crossing <S , .� T ALNUTS * . � �, j v s T �„� \ DARTMOUTH ST , : ' -�� • ( waWU� sT �' ° -'6K L Multi -Use Pathway 1 1 n 1 i # c:d - `eG''� ��'� s Tigard Trails Projects q< j __ ` A� '. A AA 4 Fn w p M �. � s r " �� > ' ♦ Existing Facilities Y ♦ ♦ 6 J �- �� '/� i� � .� -. ♦ ♦�� Q -- � I a Bike Lanes iS, o - 11 1 strt.ta ® M ® /1,-; a ` : ♦��s 1 r O ®. atrrr „„ �� • }�, _ � 413 WALL F � , I �, . I �. o ■ ® Multiuse Paths B Generators s p.r , 1 S'OE _ - \ Tr „ ?•�� = -. MCDONALDST I.► `♦1i ` \ • , - _ _ � 1 ' s eAARDE sT Qo � ;T F �� j Regional Center , e r G I G r 3 ‘..1.,,,... 4p Town Center , 1 ,� lw ` 1 7' Schools . irif i I 01 1 m i , 5 „ . y - -. B O N ITA R� 1 � _ BULL MOU RD - ® -� • e _ - = ® City Library - - II W - 1 i r e i II > > b „ r ;� o ; a * Tigard Senior Center 2 ' � a r6rL • r G r p I I I I �Q • ' 3 r - m �� i''',1 a Tigard Skate Park • U J W,. t:7***** �\ ¢ �� Z co Feb 2, 2009. .. The information represented on thus map is current as of All _ �' - i � 1J� LL Revisions will be made as new decisions ”; \ 2 Z decisions „. „. „.„ `\ y 1 ? ' MI - - \ O or amendments occur to alter the content of the map. iLi. BEEF BEND RD I a 110 DURHA RD Ili ii il '''''iamilmilwalwami 11111 • j rttt� W r '\ 0 0� o - I I[.AR I] N r 0 P ,F,� W C' 015 oa �yJ�z„'".�"�JQ „� p Mlles m An' €h - O 0 r s Z. 3 - �p7w+`' ” „„ u. .ye:•4 . '. ��S y, +'' Pro- r ! ` w. s.a r �.. a�x.zm9 loni E. g 5 i. �„ p q "// i 1 d Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 21 Bicycle Connectivity Improvement Projects Consistency Project Total Cost No. with Prior Roadway From To Description (2009$) Priority Plans Bike Lane B1 2002 TSP Hunziker Street Hall Boulevard 72n Avenue Install bike lanes on both $371,000 High sides of street B2 2002 TSP Bonita Road 72n Avenue West of 72 " Avenue Install bike lanes on both $74,200 High sides of street B3 2002 TSP Burnham Street Main Street Hall Boulevard Install bike lanes on both $200,340 High sides of street B4 2002 TSP Oak Street Hall Boulevard 71 Avenue Install bike lanes on both $445,200 High sides of street B5 2002 TSP 98 Avenue Murdock Street Durham Road Install bike lanes on both $408,100 High sides of street B6 2002 TSP 92 " Avenue Durham Road Cook Park Install bike lanes on both $400,680 High sides of street B7 2002 TSP Tiedeman Greenburg Road Tigard Avenue Install bike lanes on both Avenue g g sides of street $371,000 Medium B8 2002 TSP 121s` Avenue Walnut Street Iron Mt Boulevard Install bike lanes on both $593,600 Low sides of street B9 2002 TSP Taylor's Ferry Washington Drive City Limits Install bike lanes on both $742,000 Low Road sides of street B10 2002 TSP Washington Hall Boulevard Taylor's Ferry Road Install bike lanes on both $148,400 Low Drive sides of street B11 2002 TSP O'Mara Street McDonald Street Hall Boulevard Install bike lanes on both $408,100 Low sides of street B12 2002 TSP Frewing Street ORE 99W O'Mara Street Install bike lanes on both $222,600 Low sides of street B13 2002 TSP Greenburg Road Hall Boulevard Cascade Avenue Install bike lanes on both $445,200 High sides of street B14 2002 TSP ORE 99W Durham Road South City Limits Install bike lanes on both $1,929,200 High sides of street B15 2002 TSP 72 Avenue Highway 99W South City Limits Install bike lanes on both $1,424,640 Medium sides of street Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 57 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Consistency Project Total Cost No. with Prior Roadway From To Description (2009$) Priority Plans B16 2002 TSP Upper Boones 1-5 Durham Road Install bike lanes on both $296,800 Medium Ferry Road sides of street B17 2002 TSP Walnut Street ORE 99W 121s Street Install bike lanes on both $2,077,600 Medium sides of street B18 2002 TSP Barrows Road Scholls Ferry Scholls Ferry Road Install bike lanes on both $1,335,600 Medium Road sides of street B19 2002 TSP Bull Mountain 150 Avenue West City Limits Install bike lanes on both Road y sides of street $816,200 Low B20 2002 TSP Beef Bend Road ORE 99W West City Limits Install bike lanes on both $2,374,400 Low sides of street Low- Traffic Bikeway B21 New Greenfield Drive Gaarde Street Benchview Terrace Install bike boulevard treatments $40,000 Medium B22 New Benchview Greenview Drive Bull Mountain Road Install bike boulevard treatments $120,000 Medium Terrace B23 New 79 Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road Install bike boulevard treatments $130,000 Medium B24 New Fanno Creek Fanno Creek Bonita Road Install bike boulevard treatments $100,000 Medium Drive Trailhead B26 New Sattler Street Hall Boulevard 98 Avenue Install bike boulevard treatments $100,000 Medium B27 New 80 Avenue Taylor's Ferry Oak Street Install bike boulevard treatments $120,000 Medium Road B29 New Greenfield Drive Bull Mountain Beef Bend Road Install bike boulevard treatments Road $90,000 Medium B30 New Locust Street Hall Boulevard 80 Avenue Install bike boulevard treatments $50,000 Medium Shared -lane Markings B25 New Murdock Street/ 96 Avenue Highway 99W Install shared roadway pavement $10,000 High 103 Avenue markings on both sides of street B28 New 150 Avenue Bull Mountain Beef Bend Road Install shared roadway pavement $10,000 High Road markings on both sides of street Note: Costs are factored from the 2002 TSP costs based on the ODOT Highway Construction Cost Trends for year 2008 (Reference XX) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 58 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 New Projects Projects #B21 and B22: Greenfield Drive and Benchview Terrace Bike Boulevard Installation These two projects provide a north -south connection between existing bicycle lanes on Gaarde Street and Bull Mountain Road, two east -west roadways. This project expands the bicycle network in the western portion of the City by providing bike boulevard treatments on one of the few through- roadway connections between Gaarde Street and Bull Mountain Road. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B21- • • • • 0 Yes B22 Projects #B23 and #B24: 79 Avenue and Fanno Creek Drive Bike Boulevard Installation Project #B23 provides a parallel bike facility to Hall Boulevard, approximately four blocks west, between Bonita Road and Durham Road. While Hall Boulevard currently has bike lanes, this connection will provide another option for cyclists. Additionally, in combination with project #B24, which provides a bicycle connection from Bonita Road to a trailhead for the Fanno Creek Trail, B23 provides access to one of the City's greenways. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B23- • • • • Yes B24 Project #B25: Murdock Street /103 Avenue Shared -Lane Markings Project #B25 provides shared -lane markings on Murdock Street and 103rd Avenue to connect bike lanes on Highway 99W to the South Tigard neighborhood. In particular, this project connects directly to schools. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B25 • • • • Yes Project #B26: Sattler Street Bike Boulevard Installation Project #B26 provides bicycle boulevard treatments on Sattler Street to connect bike lanes on Hall Boulevard to the South Tigard neighborhood. In particular, this project connects directly to schools in neighborhood. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 59 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B26 • • • • • Yes Projects #B27 and B3O: 80 Avenue and Locust Street Bike Boulevard Installation These projects provide bicycle facilities in the neighborhoods adjacent to Washington Square Regional Center, and complement existing bike lanes on Hall Boulevard, through direct connections and parallel facilities. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B27 & • • • • • Yes B30 Project #B28: 150 Avenue Shared -Lane Markings Project #B28 provides shared -lane pavement markings on 150th Avenue from Beef Bend Road to Bull Mountain Road. This north -south connection on the western edge of the Tigard Urban Planning Area will support future growth and demand for bicycle facilities as the surrounding neighborhoods develop. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B28 • • • • • Yes Project #B29: Greenfield Drive Bike Boulevard Installation Project #B29 provides bike boulevard treatments on Greenfield Drive from Beef Bend Road to Bull Mountain Road. This will provide another north -south connection between these two roadways. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility B29 • • • • 0 Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 60 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Bicycle Crossings and Off -Road Facilities Bicycle crossing treatments are used to connect bike facilities at intersections with high vehicle volumes, trailheads, or other bike routes. Typical treatments include bicycle detectors at traffic signals, bicycle only signals, or preferential movements for bicyclists such as only allowing bikes to make a through movement. Many traffic signals in Tigard are actuated signals, meaning that green indications are only given to a movement when the signal detects the presence of a vehicle. However, actuating a signal as a cyclist is difficult if no indication is given of the location of detection equipment. Pavement markings should be used, including actuated left -turn lanes, to show cyclists where to stand to actuate a signal. Additionally, the sensitivity of all loop detectors should be set to allow for bicycle activation. Bicyclists also benefit from several other types of bicycle support facilities, such as secure bicycle parking, either open or covered U- shaped racks, and storage lockers for clothing and gear. The City currently requires bicycle parking included in new development as a condition of approval and TriMet buses are outfitted with bicycle racks that allow cyclists to bring their bikes with them on transit. Allowing bicycles on transit vehicles increases the range of trips possible by both transit and bicycling, and reduces cyclists' fears of being stranded in the event of a mechanical or physical breakdown. Tigard currently provides several types of bicycle crossing treatments and has open -air bicycle racks in the downtown, at the Tigard Transit Center, at the WSRC and other locations throughout Tigard. However, there are additional locations that require enhanced bicycle crossings or other facilities. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the proposed bicycle crossing and facility improvements. The evaluation criteria as well as additional input from the City and TAC and CAC will be used to determine a final priority list for bicycle crossing projects. Table 5 -22 Bicycle Crossing and Facility Improvement Projects Consistency No. with Prior Intersection /Location Description Total Cost Priority Plans BC1/ Off -Road Facility TP1 New Tigard Transit Center Additional Bike Racks Medium Covered Bike Lockers McDonald Street Crossing Improvement BC2 New connections Further detail needed High between 97 Avenue and O'Mara Street from City? Crossing Improvement BC3 New Bonita Road/ Further detail needed High 79 Avenue from City? Tiedeman at Fanno Crossing improvements. BC4 New Creek Trail Near term curb cuts and pavement markings. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 61 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 New Projects Project #BC1: Tigard Transit Center Bicycle Hub Improvements See Project #1 in Transit Projects Section Project #BC2: McDonald Street connections between 97th Avenue and O'Mara Street Bicycle Improvements Text This project isXX. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 11 • • • Yes Project #BC3: Bonita Road /79th Avenue Bicycle Improvements Text This project is XX Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 11 • • • Yes PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian facilities are the elements of the network that enable people to walk safely and efficiently on the transportation system. These facilities include facilities for pedestrian connectivity (sidewalks, mixed -use trails) as well as safe crossing locations (unmarked and marked crosswalks, crossing beacons, pedestrian refuge islands). Each plays a role in developing a comprehensive pedestrian network. The pedestrian system within Tigard includes sidewalks, multi -use paths, and pedestrian only paths. Arterials and collectors in Tigard generally provide sidewalks alongside the roadway, but there are gaps in the system and locations where there are opportunities to improve pedestrian facilities. Multi -use path projects are discussed in a subsequent section because of their utility for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Types of Pedestrian Facilities Ideally, all streets in the Tigard transportation network would have sidewalks on both sides, and current City of Tigard development standards require that sidewalks are included as a part of new Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 62 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 construction. However, sidewalks are often present on only one side of the roadway or contain several gaps in continuity. Accordingly, the pedestrian facility projects in Tigard have been separated into two categories: sidewalks - both sides of the street, and sidewalks - fill in the gaps. Sidewalks — both sides of street — These projects consist of installing sidewalks on both sides of existing roadways, which do not provide sidewalks or parallel multi -use pathways. These projects may require additional right -of -way. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Sidewalks — fill in gaps — These projects include completing pedestrian facilities on sidewalks that are discontinuous or have short gaps on one side of the street or both. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Figure 5 -7 and Table 5 -23 summarize the proposed pedestrian improvements. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 63 Il l � TAYLORS FERRY RD Figure 5 -7 r r ::. zi, Ell 4 e% , r '.. , ®• , • Planned 2 `,, ® � '' � ::. Pedestrian TOME �, m ~ �� 1. 5 Facilities l Y Rp ''''S' `` w v � � 2'' . A' : LOCUST ST' E s �!w -' • �� ® e Tigard Urban SO HOLI. `� w 2 • / `� U OAK S ∎: - - v �%� - P4 �, g : Planning Area O R `N pp.,.,, - PINE ST Q , ..� n7nl�� II _ � `1 F � .: Q LEGEND ° w � I 9 Q / ., NORTH D AKOTA ST , / SN P Q W �7 PF gF % Planned Facilties y , ¢ � , FLE ST ro • • o s � N ::.;, P � 6 1 ¢ HAW sr - p# Pedestrian Facility • co''' - _ Ilb ___ • i®.�, � L Pedestrian Crossing 'S , WALNUTST • l r 'Pq�<T N `: 1 DARTM6 T ,� e��m P15 r � Multi -Use Pathway � » s TST / � k . �� L NU • P73 . Y �, :... : n , — WA a s �qK / a 1 * �� y �N Z/ Ti gard Trails Projects • Q ...... o ,. P8 . , ti� l �� Fn ST P1 9 o Existing Facilities 1n1 r .. t ' `:� �� ` ° Sidewalks �: s l a.ne aSiiu � ® P C2' . � �� Multiuse Paths • .1:1111 1:= r • ,� '�' ` -� I. 1 � � � � F I Pedestrian Generators lir �O ,g I 1- l In � �L'sT ` ° ° z, `\ .III ""� �® a n1J y • v � % Regional Center '9/r ,..:r ylen, 7.� ndiff:nn.F Al ' r DE STS <27 c,,,, WA ' r 1'01 c i ` a gall GAAR MCDONALD ST , „ t ...:3, �9 Town Center Illa • No. . P26 's j Schools _ J n BULL - -- •L -: ' : �� ` ' NITAR RD P2O>, D,.. BONITA e ti I , City Library i w a : 1 ® rr a * Tigard Senior Center i Q a en mmn ml i I ' ��I ❑ a E • + b1 ❑ ' a Tigard Skate Park _ 6R g ♦• 0 7 J 11.11.1111 ® _ J` � The l [ epresented on - ' Fe — Q' 'j �� N •s tins map is current as of • ♦ r �" , 2 February 2,2W9 Ammons well be made as new declsrova � \\ ) J J amendments occur to alter the content of the map 1 ir . ,,,9- ii......................: BEEF BEN RD - - DURHAM R D - - ' : r I ' + I II w ` 0 0 I II.ARI) N 1 ,1 r Q r P . ' e ° s a P T Q o o as F • f-- < y Q w • . �� ; �— —! " It W �..,,,,,---'-‘§ .. J 'III Q Mlles Ant€ ......... •1 uu - •�. GOB r ❑ :• �•,nt pp q n// 7 a�•<„ E. mo o` r 11.11.,E r 6 L Notes: Pedestrian facilities are only shown for arterial and collector streets Regional and Town Centers are designated Pedestrian Districts in the Draft 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 -23 Pedestrian Connectivity Improvement Projects No. Source Project Roadway From To Description Total Cost Priority (2009$) Sidewalk Gap Projects P1 2002 TSP North Dakota Street 121s Avenue Greenburg Road Complete gaps in sidewalk, $341,320 High mainly on south side of street P2 2002 TSP McDonald Street Highway 99W Hall Boulevard Complete gaps in sidewalk on $296,800 High alternating sides of street South City Complete gaps in sidewalk P5 2002 TSP ORE 99W McDonald Street Limits south of King City Town $742,000 High Center Complete gaps in sidewalk P6 2002 TSP Bull Mountain Road Highway 99W West City Limits between Hazeltree Terrace $1,780,800 Medium and 120 Place Complete gaps in sidewalk, P7 2002 TSP Roshak Road Bull Mountain Road Barrows Road mainly between 158 Terrace $445,200 Medium and Bull Mountain Road General pedestrian P10 2002 TSP WSRC Pedestrian Improvements improvements included in the $6,000,000 Medium RTP Tiedeman Complete gaps in sidewalk P13 2002 TSP Walnut Street 114 Terrace Avenue opposite the middle school on $845,880 High Walnut Street Complete gaps in sidewalk, P14 2002 TSP Hall Boulevard Oak Street Pfaffle Street mainly north of the WSRC $1,484,000 High and south of Oak Street P19 2002 TSP 72 " Avenue Highway 99W Bonita Road Complete gaps in sidewalk on $1,780,800 Medium alternating sides of street P20 2002 TSP Hall Boulevard North of Hunziker South City Complete gaps in sidewalk on $994,280 Medium Street Limits alternating sides of street Scholls Ferry Complete gaps in sidewalk on P22 2002 TSP Barrows Road Walnut Street both sides of street near $1,409,800 Medium Road 105 th Avenue New Sidewalk Projects P3 2002 TSP Tiedeman Avenue Walnut Street Greenburg Road Install sidewalk on both $519,400 High sides of street Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 65 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 No. Source Project Roadway From To Description Total Cost Priority (2009$) P4 2002 TSP Oak Street Hall Boulevard 71s Avenue Install sidewalk on both $742,000 High sides of street P8 2002 TSP 121s Avenue Gaarde Street North Dakota Install sidewalk on both Street sides of street $667,800 Medium P9 2002 TSP Hunziker Street Hall Boulevard 72n Avenue Install sidewalk on both $371,000 Medium sides of street P11 2002 TSP Taylor's Ferry Rd Washington Drive 62n Avenue Install sidewalk on both $1,484,000 Low sides of street P12 2002 TSP Washington Drive Hall Boulevard Taylors Ferry Install sidewalk on both $296,800 Low Road sides of street P15 2002 TSP Dartmouth Street 72 " Avenue 68 Avenue Complete gaps in sidewalk on $178,080 High the north side of the street P16 2002 TSP Tigard Street 115th Street Hall Boulevard Install sidewalk on both $667,800 High sides of street P17 2002 TSP Fonner Street Walnut Street 121s Avenue Install sidewalk on both $371,000 High sides of street P18 2002 TSP Commercial Street Main Street Lincoln Street Install sidewalk on both $74,200 High sides of street P21 2002 TSP Beef Bend Road Highway 99W Scholls Ferry Install sidewalk on both $1,484,000 Medium Road sides of street P23 2002 TSP 72n Avenue Upper Boones Ferry Durham Road Install sidewalk on both $371,000 Low Road sides of street P24 New Benchview Terrace Greenview Drive Bull Mountain Install sidewalk on both $280,000 Medium Road sides of street P25 New 79 Avenue Bonita Road Durham Road Install sidewalk on both $180,000 Medium sides of street P26 New Fanno Creek Drive Fanno Creek Install sidewalk on both Bonita Road $10,000 Medium Trailhead sides of street Murdock Street/ P27 New 103 Avenue 96 Avenue Highway 99W Install sidewalk on both g y sides of street $0 Medium Canterbury Lane P28 New 80 Avenue Taylor's Ferry Road Oak Street Install sidewalk on both $250,000 Medium sides of street Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 66 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 No. Source Project Roadway From To Description Total Cost Priority (2009$) P29 New 150 Avenue Bull Mountain Road Beef Bend Road Install sidewalk on both $320,000 Medium sides of street P30 New 97 Avenue McDonald Street Murdock Street Install sidewalk on both $40,000 Medium sides of street P31 New Garrett Street Highway 99W Ash Avenue Install sidewalk on both $70,000 Medium sides of street P32 New 92 Avenue Durham Road Cook Park Install sidewalk on both $110,000 Medium sides of street Note: Costs are factored from the 2002 TSP costs based on the ODOT Highway Construction Cost Trends for year 2008 (Reference XX) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 67 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT September 2009 New Projects Project #P24: Benchview Terrace Sidewalk Installation This project would provide sidewalks on Benchview Terrace between Greenview Drive and Bull Mountain Road. Sidewalks on Benchview Terrace will connect to existing and planned facilities on Bull Mountain Road, and to an existing multiuse path at the Benchview Terrace /Greenview Drive intersection. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility P24 • • • 0 Yes Projects #P25 and P26: 79 Avenue and Fanno Creek Drive Sidewalk Installation Projects #P25 and P26 provide pedestrian facilities on 79th Avenue and Fanno Creek Drive between Durham Road and a trailhead for the Fanno Creek Trail. While Hall Boulevard currently has sidewalks, this connection will provide another option for pedestrians. Additionally, these projects will aid pedestrian access to one of the City's greenways. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Mobility P25- • • • Yes P26 Project #P27: Murdock Street /103 Avenue /Canterbury Sidewalk Installation Project #P27 provides sidewalks on a connection that includes Murdock Street, 103rd Avenue, and Canterbury Lane. This project will connect the South Tigard neighborhood to the Highway 99W corridor. In particular, this project connects directly to schools in neighborhood. This project is adjacent to an environmental justice area and would enhance pedestrian mobility and safety. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 27 • • • • Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 68 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #P28: 80 Avenue Sidewalk Installation This project provides sidewalks on 80th Avenue in the neighborhoods adjacent to Washington Square Regional Center and complements existing sidewalks on Taylor's Ferry Road, to the north, and planned sidewalks on Oak Street, to the south. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 28 • • • Yes Project #P29: 150 Avenue Sidewalk Installation Project #29 provides sidewalks on 150th Avenue from Beef Bend Road to Bull Mountain Road. This north -south connection on the western edge of the Tigard Urban Planning Area will support future growth and demand for pedestrian facilities as the surrounding neighborhoods develop. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 29 • • • Yes Projects #P30: 97 Avenue Sidewalk Installation This project will provide a direct connection to local schools south of McDonald Street on 97th Avenue to Murdock Street. This project is adjacent to an environmental justice area and would enhance pedestrian mobility and safety. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 30 • • • • Yes Project #P31: Garrett Street Sidewalk Installation This project will provide a direct connection to local schools and the Highway 99W corridor on Garrett Street from Highway 99W to Ash Avenue. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 31 • • • Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 69 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #P32: 92n Avenue Sidewalk Installation This project will provide sidewalks on 92 Avenue from Durham Road to Cook Park, approximately one half -mile to the south. In addition to connecting the riverside park with existing sidewalks on Durham Road, this project is adjacent to Tigard High school and provides a connection to the multiuse pathway network in Cook Park. Since this project is adjacent to and partly a park, it will likely have an effect on the existing environmental resources located there. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 32 • • • 0 Yes Pedestrian Crossings Pedestrian crossing locations allow for walking trips to connect across facilities to continue along pedestrian facilities. In addition to the need for sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways, there are several high - volume roadways that bisect Tigard and need improvements to increase the ease and safety of pedestrian crossings. In particular, the rail corridor near Highway 217 in Tigard is difficult for pedestrians to cross due to infrequent crossings, which may not include proper pedestrian facilities. Access across the railroad tracks is increasingly important, with the introduction of WES commuter rail service. Several streets (Gaarde, McDonald, Bull Mountain, sections of Hall) were identified as locations with challenging crossing conditions for pedestrians. These tend to be streets with relatively high traffic volumes, but infrequent signalized intersections or other protected crossing locations. While the state of Oregon considers all unsignalized intersections legal crosswalks, and motor vehicles are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians to allow them to cross, there are still challenges for pedestrians at these locations. Compliance is not consistent and pedestrians may have difficulty crossing higher volume roadways. There are several different types of pedestrian crossing treatments available, each applicable under a different range of factors. A brief description of the various pedestrian crossing types is provided below along with the evaluation criteria for each type of facility. Unmarked Crosswalks — Under Oregon law, pedestrians have the right -of -way at any unsignalized intersection. On narrow, low -speed streets unmarked crosswalks are generally sufficient for pedestrians to cross the street safely, as the low -speed environment makes drivers more responsive to the presence of pedestrians. However, drivers are less likely to yield to pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks on high -speed and /or high - volume roadways, even when the pedestrian has stepped onto the roadway. In these situations, pedestrian crossing facilities are needed to delineate the pedestrian right -of -way and remind drivers that they must yield when pedestrians are present. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 70 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 • 1 Unmarked Crosswalk Example As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, unmarked cross -walks have little to no impact to multi -modal mobility, system capacity, environmental resources. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice Raised Pedestrian Refuge — This option provides a pedestrian refuge in the roadway median, allowing a two -stage crossing to occur if needed. The ODOT Traffic Manual (Reference 1) states that for state highways a raised median, in combination with a marked crosswalk is desired when average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are greater than 10,000. As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, raised pedestrian refuges provide enhanced multi -modal mobility, safety, and provide benefits to populations in environmental justice areas. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Marked Crosswalks — Marked crosswalks are painted roadway markings that indicate the location of a crosswalk to motorists. Marked crosswalks are often accompanied by signs, curb extensions and /or median refuge islands, and may occur at intersections or at mid -block locations. By increasing the visibility of crosswalks, marked crosswalks can improve driver yield rates to pedestrians on many facilities. In general, median refuge islands should be included with marked crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety wherever crossing distances are significant, pedestrian volumes are above average, vehicle speeds are above a residential standard, vehicle volumes make full crossings difficult, physical space is available, and /or pedestrians in the area are incapable of full crossings at standard pedestrian rates of speed. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 71 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 - - - ' S. r , 1 �' tI 1 , _ in 0 7 , v isc zs - Marked Crosswalk Example Research has shown that marked crosswalks in certain situations do not improve pedestrian safety and can even make it worse. Recent research indicates that on multi -lane roadways (more than two lanes), marked crosswalks should not be installed without accompanying treatments (e.g., signalization) when traffic volumes exceed 12,000 ADT (no median refuge island) or 15,000 ADT (with median island). As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, if applied appropriately, marked crosswalks can enhance multi -modal mobility and safety. Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon — RRFBs consist of user - actuated amber LEDs, which have an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. These supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections or mid -block crosswalks. As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, RRFBs can enhance multi -modal mobility and safety. 4 Zegeer, C., et. al. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines, Report No. HRT -04 -100. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. September 2005. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 72 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Consistency Multi -Modal System w/ other Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Pedestrian Hybrid Signal - The pedestrian hybrid signal is a pedestrian- actuated hybrid signal that would interrupt traffic on the mainline to provide a protected crossing for pedestrians at an unsignalized location. Pedestrian hybrid signals have been recommended for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the MUTCD, and final approval is not likely until 2010. Until then use of the hybrid signals are subject to the experimental process. Warrants for the installation of pedestrian - actuated hybrid signals have been proposed based on the number of pedestrians per hour (PPH), vehicles per hour on the roadway for the crossing, and the length of the crosswalk. Thresholds are available for two types of roadways: locations where prevailing speeds are above 35 mph and locations where prevailing speeds are below 35 mph. • L "P oiEL A i mm i Pedestrian Hybrid Signal Example As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, pedestrian hybrid signals can enhance multi - modal mobility and safety. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • • Signalized Intersection - This option would require review of signal warrants according to the MUTCD (Reference 2), which requires pedestrian crossing volumes of 190 pedestrians during one peak hour, or 100 or more during each of four hours. These conditions are relatively rare but in Tigard may exist near public schools. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 73 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, signalized intersections can enhance multi- modal mobility and safety but may not be as cost effective as other potential alternatives. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • 0 • Grade - Separated Crossing — Grade - separated crossings are either underpasses or overpasses that allow pedestrians to entirely avoid conflicts with automobiles when crossing a busy roadway. When used as part of a multi -use path, grade- separated crossings also accommodate bicycles. Grade - separated crossings are necessary wherever pedestrian crossings of freeways are constructed and in other limited circumstances, such as railroad crossings. However, because they are associated with large construction costs; are often perceived as unsafe (especially under - crossings); and, may result in significant out -of- direction travel for pedestrians, grade- separated crossings should be used sparingly. As shown in the evaluation criteria summary below, grade separated crossings can enhance multi - modal mobility and safety but may not be cost effective and can also as other potential alternatives. Multi -Modal System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Mobility Capacity w/ other Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice • • • 0 0 • Figure 5 -7 and Table 5 -24 summarize the proposed pedestrian crossing enhancement projects. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 74 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Table 5 - 24 Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Projects Consistency Intersection/ Total Cost No. with Prior Location Description (2009$) Priority Plans Marked Crosswalk Projects Tigard Street at Fanno Install signing and striping at the existing PCi New Creek Trailheads unmarked mid -block crosswalk located on Tigard Medium Street between 107 Place and Tiedeman Avenue Install signing and striping at the existing PC2 New Hall Boulevard at Fanno unmarked mid -block crosswalk located on Hall Medium Creek Trailhead Boulevard between Burnham Street and O'Mara Street McDonald Street/ Improve signing and striping at the existing PC3 New 97th Avenue crosswalk at unsignalized intersection; consider High installing a RRFB if further compliance is required Durham Road/ Install signing, striping, and lighting at the existing PC4 New Tigard High School unmarked crosswalk on Durham Road near 87 High Avenue Raised Pedestrian Refuge and Marked Crosswalk Projects Highway 99W/ Improve signing and striping at the existing PC5 New Bull Mountain Road signalized crosswalk; raise and upgrade existing $130,000 Medium refuge island Washington Square General Crossing Improvements PC6 2002 TSP Regional Center Install crossing improvements as required for $5,720,000 Medium Pedestrian 1 pedestrian safety Improvements' Town Center Improve Sidewalks, lighting, crossings, bus PC7 2002 TSP Pedestrian shelters and benches throughout the Town Center $4,882,000 Medium ImprovementsZ including: Highway 99W, Hall Blvd, Main Street, Hunziker, Walnut and neighborhood streets Grade - Separated Crossing Project PC8 New North Dakota Street Install a pedestrian bridge on North Dakota Street Low at the railroad crossing 1 RTP project #10749 and cost in 2007 dollars 2 RTP project #10760 and cost in 2007 dollars New Projects Projects #PC1 and PC2: Marked Crosswalks at Mid -Block Crossings Project #PC1 and PC2 provide marked pedestrian crossings at mid -block locations at trailheads for the Fanno Creek Trail. The pedestrian crossing on Tigard Street between 107th Place and Tiedeman Avenue is currently difficult for pedestrians wishing to continue on the Fanno Creek Trail. Additionally, the Tigard Trails Plan identifies this location for crossing improvements and recommends a short trail in the vicinity. The Hall Boulevard crossing, located between Burnham Street and O'Mara Street, also provides enhance pedestrian crossings for the Fanno Creek Trail. This mid -block crosswalk is also near several pedestrian generators including the Tigard Skate Park and City Library. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 75 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Both of these projects will increase the attractiveness of walking and greatly improve safety at these locations. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 1 • • Yes 2 Project #PC3: McDonald Street /97 Avenue Intersection Pedestrian Crossing This project is to install marked pedestrian crossings at the McDonald Street /97th Avenue intersection. The intersection is currently an unmarked crossing and was identified by the City as a location with difficult crossings for pedestrians. With sidewalk projects on McDonald Street and 97th Avenue, providing a striped crossing at the intersection would greatly benefit the accessibility for pedestrians. This intersection should be monitored after striped crosswalks are installed as a potential location for an RRFB. Additionally, this location is an environmental justice area for the senior population and would enhance their mobility by improving pedestrian safety. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 3 • • • Yes Project #PC4: Durham Road Pedestrian Crossing at Tigard High School This project is to install marked pedestrian crossings at the Durham Road /87th Avenue intersection. The intersection is currently an unmarked crossing and was identified by the City as a location with difficult crossings for pedestrians. The surrounding area includes Tigard High School and the Hall Boulevard /Durham Road intersection, which had the highest number of pedestrians counted of all the study intersections. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 4 • • • Yes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 76 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Project #PC5: Highway 99W /Bull Mountain Road Intersection Pedestrian Crossing Project #PC5 includes installing marked pedestrian crossings at the Highway 99W /Bull Mountain Road intersection. This intersection is currently an unmarked crossing and was identified by the City as a location with difficult crossings for pedestrians. This project is recommended. multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 5 • • 0 • Yes Project #PC8: North Dakota Street Grade - Separated Crossing This .project would provide a grade- separated pedestrian crossing on North Dakota Street, across the existing railroad tracks. This would increase the available space for pedestrians and improve safety by eliminating a current at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Capacity w/ Plans Safety Effectiveness Resources Justice ? Mobility 8 • • • 0 0 Yes M ULTI -USE PATHWAYS Multi -use pathways are other facilities dedicated to pedestrians and bicyclists. These pathways have an integral role in recreation, commuting, and accessibility for residents. Tigard's off - street trails are generally concentrated along several greenways located within the City, the most notable of these is the Fanno Creek Greenway which traverses the full length of the City. Trails are also located along the Tualatin River and the Pathfinder - Genesis Trail. Additionally, planned regional pathways are being developed to connect Tigard with other communities in the Portland metro area. While these pathways serve and connect several neighborhoods in Tigard, there are some remaining gaps in these facilities. The Tigard Neighborhood Trails Plan focuses on multi-use pathways at a neighborhood scale, and developed a list of 42 recommended projects that are generally one to two blocks in length. These projects seek to improve opportunities for walking, bicycling and using transit by creating short cut - through route that provide access to local destinations. A complete list of the projects from the Neighborhood Trails Plan is included in the Appendix. The plan has been adopted and the city will implemented trails from this plan as funding and opportunities become available. While the Neighborhood Trails plan addressed short, local connections, there are additional city and region -wide multi -use trails that are in various stages of planning and construction. In particular, the Tiedeman /Main Rail Trail has been identified for converting a nearly three - quarter Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 77 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 mile inactive railroad right -of -way located adjacent to Tigard Street. The trail would extend between Tiedeman and Main Streets. Conversion to multi -use trail will provide benefits including • providing children and seniors a safe, off - street alternative to the adjacent Tigard Street, which does not have sidewalks along eighty per cent of its length and also includes a narrow, substandard bike lane on only one side; • providing a safe, traffic -free path for all walkers, joggers, cyclists, and others to exercise and enjoy the outdoors; • giving the downtown an economic stimulus by providing a new off - street transportation route to downtown businesses of all kinds; and, • providing direct, non - motorized access to the bus and commuter rail transit station located opposite to the corridor connects to Main Street. The City is also preparing to initiate a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) study to evaluate the longer regional pathways that traverse the City. This plan will assess existing gaps in the trail network and establish a plan to fill -in these sections. It will serve as a companion to the Neighborhood Trails Plan. Table 5 -25 summarizes the planned multi -use pathways in Tigard. The evaluation criteria as well as additional input from the City will be used to determine a final priority list for multi -use pathway projects. Table 5 -25 Multi -Use Pathway Projects Consistency Intersection/ Total Cost No. with Other Location Description (2009$) Priority Plans MUP1 2002 TSP Hunziker Link to Linkage to Kruse Way Trail in Lake Oswego Medium Lake Oswego Further detail needed from City? Complete gaps along the Fanno Creek multiuse path MUP2 2002 TSP Fanno Creek Trail from the Tualatin River to City Hall and Medium from Highway 99W to Tigard Street MUP3 2002 TSP Tualatin River Trail Complete multiuse path from Cook Park Medium to the Powerlines Corridor MUP4 2002 TSP Tualatin River New bridge crossing north -south over the Medium Crossing Tualatin River near 108 Avenue MUP5 2002 TSP Powerlines Corridor New regional multiuse path, and in Tigard will Medium connect from Beaverton to the Tualatin River Trail Convert a segment of inactive railroad right -of -way MUP6 New Tiedeman Avenue/ adjacent to Tigard Street from Tiedeman Avenue to $1,000,000 High Main Street Rail Trail Main Street to a multiuse path Source: Metro 2035 RTP Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 78 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 New Project Project #MUP6: Tiedeman Avenue /Main Street Rail Trail For some time, the City has been a proponent of trail use of the 3,840' long by 50' wide inactive railroad right -of -way located adjacent to Tigard Street and extending between Tiedeman Street and Main Street. Trail use will provide a broad range of community benefits, including: • providing children and seniors a safe, off - street alternative to the adjacent Tigard Street, which includes no sidewalks along eighty per cent of its length and also includes a narrow, substandard bike lane on one side of the street only; • providing a safe, traffic -free path for all walkers, joggers, cyclists, and others to exercise and enjoy the outdoors; • giving the downtown an economic stimulus by providing a new off - street transportation route to downtown businesses of all kinds; • providing direct, non - motorized access to the bus and commuter rail transit station located opposite to the corridor connects to Main Street. • improving the unsightly appearance of the unused and unmaintained corridor, which presently detracts from the attractiveness and of both the neighborhood and downtown areas. Conversion of the property to trail use is in accordance with numerous local plans, including the Downtown Improvement Plan, City Center Urban Renewal Plan, Park System Master Plan, and Transportation System Plans. The trail also enjoys wide community support as evidence by numerous endorsement letters received by the City. According to these letters, in addition to serving as a gateway to the downtown, the proposed trail will make an important contribution to community livability and pride. The trail also is part of a broader strategy to get people out of their cars and to promote a healthier and more sustainable community. Installation of the rail to trail conversion will result in more choices for moving around Tigard and help create a better place to live. Additionally, this project will improve multi -modal mobility, safety, and borders environmental justice populations. This project is recommended. Multi- System Consistency Cost Environmental Environmental Recommended ID Modal Safety Mobility Capacity w/ Plans Effectiveness Resources Justice 6 • • • • • • Yes Railroad Crossings As noted previously, the existing freight and commuter rail corridor presents a barrier to access for pedestrians and bicyclists in Tigard. Although new multi -use pathways are desirable, current Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 79 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 ODOT Rail policy related to at -grade crossings is to reduce the number of at -grade rail crossings. In particular, the 2001 Oregon Rail Plan expresses a desire for a reduction in at -grade railroad crossings within Tigard. There are nine at -grade railroad crossings in Tigard, and one grade- separated crossing at Highway 99W. Of the ten crossings, six have existing sidewalks and five have bicycle facilities. Several crossings across the railroad tracks are currently "demand" trails and not part of the formal transportation system. These are worn paths across the tracks and could be used as locations for potential future grade- separated crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. Currently, Grant Avenue ends a Tigard Street near the railroad tracks, directly across from 95th Avenue. There is a worn path across the tracks connecting these two roadways. There is another demand trail where Katherine Street ends at the west side of the railroad tracks. In addition to crossings with existing demand, additional connections across the railroad tracks to the Tigard Transit Center would benefit pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit lines. Currently, there are two connections on either side of the TC, at Main Street and Hall Boulevard, but these crossings are nearly 1,500 feet apart. Due to ODOT Rail policy, other future multi -use pathways, potentially connecting the Fanno Creek Trail with regional destinations such as the Tigard Triangle and the Washington Square Regional Center, should be grade- separated crossings. No new at -grade multi-use pathways are planned in Tigard. SPECIAL AREAS Tigard Triangle The City of Tigard is focusing their community development goals on downtown Tigard and the Tigard Triangle area. The Tigard Triangle has long been a retail and commercial hub within the City. Today, the Tigard Triangle is zoned for commercial and mixed use development, and is identified as an area of significant growth in housing and jobs. From 2005 to 2035, the model forecasts approximately additional households and additional jobs. Although the area is outlined by three major regional roadways, those roadways serve to essentially form an island surrounded by pavement. Travel to and from the Tigard Triangle is funneled through three intersections with Highway 99W: 72nd Avenue, Dartmouth Street and 68th Parkway; the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange, the southbound I -5 interchange with Haines Street, and the northbound I -5 interchange with Dartmouth street. Employees and customers traveling to the area on City streets will almost exclusively access the Tigard Triangle area off of Highway 99W. As demonstrated in the existing conditions analysis, today there is congestion on Highway 99W in the vicinity of the Tigard Triangle, and this congestion is forecast to worsen with future development. Today TriMet Route 78 provides transit along 68th Parkway and Hunziker Street. Access to and from the Tigard Triangle area is, and unless action is taken, will remain a critical issue to the success of the Tigard Triangle area. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 80 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 A second issue with the Tigard Triangle relates to non -auto mobility /circulation to /from and within the area. The Tigard Triangle area as a whole is generally sloping downward from Highway 99W to Highway 217. The topography does make pedestrian and bicycle transportation more difficult. There are no bicycle lanes on the key roadways within the area. There are sidewalks on most streets within the triangle. There are sidewalks and bicycle lanes on Highway 99W adjacent to the Tigard Triangle except between 72nd Avenue and 68th Parkway, where there are no bicycle lanes. However Highway 99W can be characterized as an uncomfortable facility for pedestrians at best and only the most experienced cyclists will feel comfortable and confident riding their bicycles on this facility. At the broadest level, options for improving access to the Tigard Triangle area fall into the following categories: • Provide additional intersection and roadway capacity improvements to improve traffic operations at the boundary streets. • Minimize additional infrastructure investment and focus on travel demand management (TDM) programs. • A blending of critical additional capacity and implementing TDM programs. The following provides a brief overview of these options. Infrastructure Investment in Tigard Triangle Figure 5 -3 provides a summary of the roadway improvement projects related to the Tigard Triangle. With these improvements congestion within the Tigard Triangle is forecast to be limited to Dartmouth Street, 72nd Avenue and 68th Parkway access points to the area from Highway 99W. Within the Triangle, this concept includes widening Dartmouth to five - lanes, widening 72 Avenue to five - lanes, extending Atlanta Street from its existing terminus to connect to 72 Avenue, and constructing a Highway 217 overcrossing connecting Hunziker Street to Hampton Street. The Atlanta Street extension and Hunziker- Hampton Street overcrossing would provide needed additional circulation options for auto and non -auto modes of transportation within the Tigard Triangle. In addition, the Hunziker- Hampton Street overcrossing would provide an additional access to the Tigard Triangle area from the south and west portion of Tigard. The current TSP also includes a connection from Dartmouth Street south across Highway 217 to Hunziker Street. This project is not recommended because it is essentially a duplicate to the Hunziker overcrossing to Hampton Street. Within the Tigard Triangle, 72nd Avenue is classified as an Arterial street, and Dartmouth Street is classified as a Collector street. This concept includes widening both streets to five - lanes. Without, careful design of both facilities, these could both become significant barriers to non -auto travel within the Tigard Triangle. A roadway design option for consideration in the Tigard Triangle is called a "multiway" boulevard. A multiway boulevard has "central travel lanes for relatively fast - moving through- traffic Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 81 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 bordered by tree -lined medians with walking paths. It has narrow one -way access roadway on each side for slower traffic and parking, and finally at the edges, tree -lined sidewalks. The medians, narrow access roadways, and sidewalks together create extended pedestrian realms, where movement is at a slow pace " Below is a concept plan for Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, California This multiway boulevard was recently constructed and has been met with favorable support from the city, and neighborhood residents and business owners. More information about this project can be found online at http: / /www.uctc. net / access /28 /Access %2028 %20 - %2002 %20 - %20Building%20a%20Boulevard.pdf. Additional study of the multiway boulevard cross - sectional requirements and consistency with City of Tigard street design standards would be required to determine if this street type could be viable for Dartmouth Street or 72 Avenue. At preliminary concept level, if 72nd Avenue were converted to a five -lane multiway boulevard, it would would provide a centralized spine /center for development and urban design within the triangle. Plan of (Mum Boulevard ME WR 5 - -- lit 4 '14 gi 4 .6 , l.• - t ; N �_.R. Yd =. lT {r.. i . _. /X .� M+i. �^` Y - 4 - e 1 1, , .� r r r e:. PAGE ST. LILY ST. . CAE 4T. 'Building a Boulevard ", Elizabeth Macdonald, UCTC on -line magazine: Access, Number 28, Spring 2006, page 1 http: / /www.uctc. net / access /28 /Access %2028 %20 - %2002 %20 - %20Building %20a %20Boulevard.p df 6 IBID, page 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 82 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Travel Demand Management in Tigard Triangle As part of this TSP, Tigard is considering adopting non -auto mode split targets higher than required by the Metro RTP. This target demonstrates the City's commitment to reducing congestion and carbon - footprint. Focusing a TDM program within the Tigard Triangle could serve as a starting point for a successful city -wide TDM program. This could be developed as a Transportation Management Association. (TMA) For a TMA program to be successful the business owners, employers and residents within the area must own the issues and potential solutions. If the stakeholders believe in the importance of the program and see their own livelihood and neighborhood livability hinging on the success of localized TDM programs, the TMA would have the opportunity to succeed and become part of the social fabric in the area. The Lloyd District TMA is an example of such a program. The City of Tigard should plan to support the implementation of TDM in their city by committing staff time or a staff position to City -wide TDM management. Initially this role could focus on the development of TDM program for the Tigard Triangle area. Parking Management would also be a critical component of managing travel options to and from the sub -area. In order for a district or subarea to gain momentum an adequate amount of parking is required; that said too much parking can degrade the environment of a place because of the amount of physical space dedicated to parking. As the Tigard Triangle area continues to grow, and as transit options to /from and within the area increase, the City of Tigard should consider developing a parking monitoring and management program. From a policy perspective, the program would be managed to achieve 85- percent parking utilization on street and off - street. Beyond 85- percent utilization the system can be considered effectively full. The program should also consider parking pricing options. As parking utilization increases to near effective capacity, parking pricing becomes an option to increasing parking supply. Pricing options can be set to benefit retail (i.e. short - term), or employment (i.e. long -term) parking. This policy choice (short -term or long -term parking) will influence the mode of travel employees and customers use to get to the Tigard Triangle area. To ease the transition to paid parking, employers or the Tigard TMA could consider parking cash out programs and free carpool parking. This could be integrated with transit subsidies provided through the TMA or the City through a local improvement district. Pricing is not necessary at this time; however the City should be prepared to consider this at some point. As parking becomes more utilized in the triangle, and if parking management programs are implemented, the City should consider developing additional non -auto travel options to provide choices for travelers to gain access to the Tigard Triangle. Options include developing a locally funded city transit circulator connecting the Tigard Triangle to residential areas within the City. The connector identified in the Transit section of this report is one option to provide additional access to the Tigard Triangle area. Other options could be developed to inter - connect with the downtown Transit Center. In addition, as high capacity transit is explored on Highway 99W, plans should be made for providing local transit circulation options from the high capacity transit to and within the Tigard Triangle. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 83 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 From an infrastructure perspective, a travel demand option for the triangle could include maintaining 72 Avenue as a three -lane road. For circulation within the triangle this may be a viable option because of the pedestrian and bicycle advantages. However, from a city -wide system capacity perspective, this may not be a viable option if Hall Boulevard is also maintained as a three - lane facility. There simply may not be sufficient north /south local circulation options with both of these facilities as three -lane roads. Access Management on Highway 99W Access management on Highway 99W is also a critical component of the success of the Tigard Triangle area. As previously described, access to the Tigard Triangle is relatively limited and largely focused to Highway 99W. If congestion on Highway 99W degrades too far, the ease of access to the Tigard Triangle area will decrease, and could ultimately limit growth. Therefore, consistent with other recommendations in this document and the recently adopted Highway 99W plan, access management planning and implementation on Highway 99W is important. Transit Oriented Land Use The eastern portion of the Tigard Triangle is zoned for mixed use development. West of 72nd Avenue the sub -area is zoned for commercial development. Planning is underway to consider the viability of high capacity transit on Highway 99W. Combining high capacity transit with transit oriented land uses in the Tigard Triangle near Highway 99W can be an exciting option to create a renewed vibrancy in the Tigard Triangle. This is consistent with the mixed use zoning in the Tigard Triangle east of 72 Avenue. In addition, developing 72 Avenue as a multiway boulevard or another type of street with design to support transit - oriented and mixed -use development also supports the transit oriented land uses. Recommendations Focusing exclusively on the Tigard Triangle, the following is recommended: • Maintain and improve access to the sub -area - This includes the intersection improvements on Highway 99W, access management on Highway 99W, the Hunziker -Hall Overcrossing, and the interchange improvements at Highway 217/72nd Avenue. • Develop Travel Demand Management options - Commit staff time to development and management of TDM programs for the sub -area. Work with the property owners, residents and business owners to develop ownership of the issues and the programs for reducing SOV travel within the area. This program would include concurrent parking management and development of transit options. • Explore the Possibility of Developing 72nd as a Multiway Boulevard - Multiway Boulevards can move through traffic and provide space for slower speed pedestrian, bicycle travel as well as opportunities for community gathering. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 84 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 • Pursue Transit Oriented Land Uses - Transit oriented land use along 72nd Avenue, and in the vicinity of Highway 99W would provide additional options for non -auto travel and add vibrancy to the Tigard Triangle area. Washington Square Regional Center The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan completed in 1999 included major infrastructure investments aimed at connecting the Washington Square Mall with the land uses on the west side of Highway 217. Two bridges and roadways were proposed: the northern crossing extended from Washington Square Mall Road across Highway 217 connecting to Cascade Avenue; the southern crossing conceptually extending Locust Street across Highway 217 to Nimbus Avenue. The connectivity benefits of these two roadway extensions would be enhanced by extending Nimbus Avenue south roughly parallel to the WES Commuter Rail tracks to Greenburg Road. In concept these facilities provide secondary circulation to Highway 217, and improved multi -modal access to the Washington Square Area. The WSRC also included projects identified to improve local circulation. Project #24 in Figure 5 -3 represents pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Locust Street, Oak Street and Lincoln Street, as well as an extension of Lincoln Street to Oak Street. Based on a select zone analysis travel to and from the Washington Square Mall area is approximately equally distributed (15 -20% ) on Scholls Ferry Road (from the south and north), Hall Boulevard (to and from the west) and Greenburg road (to and from the south). Approximately 10% of the trips to and from the Mall are made on Oleson Road and Locust Street, and approximately 5% of the trip to and from the Mall travel on Hall Boulevard. The select zone results indicate that there is ample demand for the connections from Washington Square to and from the south west toward Beaverton and Tigard and north east toward Portland. Project Considerations Northern Overcrossing from Washington Square Road to Cascade Avenue and Nimbus Avenue on the Westside of Highway 217 Based on input from ODOT and the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard the northern overcrossing from Washington Square Road to Cascade and Nimbus on the west side of Highway 217 was not included in the travel demand modeling for the draft project list primarily due to issues with feasibility of this connection. The analysis results show that although this would be a valuable non - auto connection the proposed system can operate without this connection. Therefore this project is not recommended for further consideration. Nimbus Avenue Extension Similarly, the Nimbus Avenue extension south to Greenburg /Tiedeman was not included in the travel demand modeling of the draft project list. Again, the analysis results show that the proposed system can operate without this connection. In addition, the potential environmental impacts of this roadway are relatively high. It is possible that the impacts could be avoided and or mitigated; Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 85 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 however the associated project costs would likely be relatively high. Therefore this project is not recommended for further consideration. Southern Overcrossing Extending Locust Street to Nimbus Avenue on the Westside of Highway 217 This overcrossing was included in the modeling conducted for this project, and it is forecast that this roadway would carry approximately XX peak hour trips. The roadway would provide an east /west connection in the northern part of Tigard where there are few east /west connections. The facility could also provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the Fanno Creek Greenway area. As a continuous route in this part of Tigard, it does mean that there is potential for this route to become a cut - through route; therefore the roadway cross - section should be designed carefully for slow speeds, and to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel. It is recommended that this project remain in the Tigard TSP. All other recommendations in the Washington Square Area are also recommended to remain in the TSP. Travel Demand Management TDM programs were also identified in the WSRC plan. The Mall has a regional draw for employees and customers; thus achieving success in reducing single- occupant vehicle is more difficult because of the spread of locations from which people travel. Therefore it is recommended that the City of Tigard initially focus their TDM program development on the Tigard Triangle area. With success in the Tigard Triangle, the City should subsequently move to Downtown and then the WSRC. Downtown The city of Tigard would like to create a downtown which will be active, compact, multi -modal and serve as a catalyst for economic development. The on -going Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan project is reviewing connectivity and access in downtown to develop improved connectivity within Downtown, and establish street standards consistent with vibrant, active, pedestrian- friendly streets. This project is being undertaken by SERA Architects. The findings of this project will be integrated into the draft and final TSP Update. 2035 ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION REVENUES Transportation capital improvements are typically funded through a combination of state, city, and private funds. This section documents Tigard's projected transportation revenues based on historic trend information provided by City of Tigard Staff. These funds are used primarily for operations, maintenance, services and materials. In typical years, only a small portion is available for capital improvements. The City of Tigard currently estimates their revenues for transportation from 2009 to 2035 to be approximately $5,150,000 per year (2009 dollars). These revenues have come from six primary Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 86 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 sources. Table 5 -26 shows a breakdown of the amounts and percentages of the forecast annual revenue from each of these sources. Table 5 -26 Forecast Transportation Revenues (2009 Dollars) Percentage Typical Use of of Total Funds (Operating Forecast Forecast or Capital) Annual Annual Revenues Revenues State Motor Vehicle Fees $3,000,000' 58.3% Capital (X %) Maintenance (X %) County Gas Tax $200,000 3.9% Capital City Gas Tax $650,000 12.6% Capital TIF & TDT $300,000 5.8% Capital MSTIP $500,000 9.7% Capital State /Federal Fees used in City $500,000 9.7% Capital Annual Total $5,150,000 100% 0 -5 Year Revenues $25,750,000 6 -10 Year Revenues $25,750,000 11 -20 Year Revenues $51,500,000 20 Year Revenues $103,000,000 1 Once State Transportation Bill takes full effect in FY 2012/2013 2 Project specific. Amount listed is an estimate based on historical annual average. • The State Motor Vehicle fund has provided and will likely continue to provide the most significant portion of the funding for Tigard's transportation system. A major component of the State Motor Vehicle fund is a fuel tax (per gallon). • Together, the City and County Gas Tax provides the second largest source of transportation funding to the city. It should be noted that House Bill 2001 passed in the XXX legislative session prohibits cities from raising fuel taxes between 2009? and 2014. Although the gas tax is recessive as vehicle efficiency increases, this is anticipated to be balanced out by the anticipated overall increase in vehicle miles traveled projected within the city. • Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs) and (TDTs)? are an excellent source of revenues for growth- required needs, but TIFs and TDTs are only collected on development activity, so the revenues stream from TIFs and TDTs are volatile depending on market conditions. • The MSTIP is the Washington County Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. The majority of county- funded road improvement projects are paid for via MSTIP using local property taxes. It is difficult to project how much MSTIP funds will be spent on county roads within the City of Tigard on any given cycle. The amount provided above represents an anticipated annual average. • State and Federal Fees used in the city include forthcoming Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 87 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Bonds were not considered as a potential revenue source as they do not increase revenue; rather, they allow the city to spend several years' worth of anticipated revenues over a short period of time. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Some additional potential local transportation system funding sources the City may wish to consider include: 1) transportation utility fees, 2) urban renewal districts and /or 3) local improvement districts (LIDs). Each of these alternative funding sources is described below. In addition to these longer term funding sources, there are several grant opportunities that should be evaluated each year. These include: • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • Special Public Works Funds (SPWF) • Immediate Opportunity Funds (IOF) — Lottery Program • State Bicycle- Pedestrian Grants • ODOT Enhancement Funds • State Parks Funds • Other from the stimulus that we should list? Transportation Utility Fee A growing number of cities in Oregon are adopting transportation utility fees. These fees are based on consideration of transportation systems as utilities just like public water, wastewater, or stormwater systems. Fees are typically assessed by usage (e.g., average vehicle trips per development type), with revenues used for the City's transportation system improvements, operations and maintenance. This fee is used in many Oregon cities through a monthly fee charged to local dwelling units and businesses. The formulas range from a flat rate per dwelling unit and per business ($10 /month and $25 /month, for example) to rates calculated for each property individually based on the Institute for Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook. Statewide the average revenue generated by local jurisdictions with a Street Utility Free is approximately $26 per year per resident (not per dwelling unit). Typically the revenue generated by these fees are used for operations and maintenance of the street system but the ability to use these fees for capital projects, including pedestrian and bicycle projects should be explored. Urban Renewal District An Urban Renewal District is an area that is designated by a community as a "blighted area" to assist in revitalization. Funding for the revitalization is provided by urban renewal taxes, which are generated by the increase in total assessed values in the district from the time it was first established. Urban Renewal Districts have been formed in over 50 cities in Oregon, generally focused on revitalizing downtowns. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 88 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 Urban Renewal dollars can be used to fund infrastructure projects such as roadway, sidewalk, or transit improvements. Since funding relies on taxes from future increases in property value, the City may seek to create a District where such improvements will likely result in such an increase. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) Under a local improvement district (LID), a street or other transportation improvement is built and the adjacent properties that benefit are assessed a fee to pay for the improvement. LID programs have wide application for funding new or reconstructed streets, sidewalks, water /sewer or other public works projects. The LID method is used primarily for local or collector roads, though arterials have been built using LID funds in certain jurisdictions. State Grant Programs Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) CDBG Program funds are offered through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development although administered through the state. To receive CDBG funds, cities must compete for grants based upon a formula that includes factors such as rural /urban status, demographics, local funding match, and potential benefits to low -to- moderate income residents, including new job creation. CDBG funds can also be used for emerging public work needs. Special Public Works Funds (SPWF) and Immediate Opportunity Funds (IOF) — Lottery Program The State of Oregon through the Economic and Community Development Department provides grants and loans to local governments to construct, improve, and repair public infrastructure in order to support local economic development and create new jobs. SPWF and IOF funds have been used in a number of cities for the construction of water, sewer, and limited street improvements. These funds are limited to situations where it can be documented how a project will contribute to economic development and family -wage job creation. State Bicycle- Pedestrian Grants' ODOT's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program administers two grant programs to assist in the development of walking and bicycling improvements: local grants and Small -Scale Urban Highway Pedestrian Improvement (SUPI) programs. For both these grants, cities that have adopted plans with identified projects will be in the best position to receive grants. Cities and counties can apply for local grants for bicycle and pedestrian projects within the right -of -way of local streets. Local grants up to $100,000 are shared 80% State and 20% local. Projects that consider the needs of children, elderly, disabled, and transit users are given special consideration. . In the SUPI process, 7 Source: http: // www.oregon.gov /ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED /docs /mainstreethandbook.pdf Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 89 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 cities and counties help ODOT identify sections of urban highways where improvements are needed. Examples of eligible projects include: • completing short missing sections of sidewalks; • ADA upgrades; • crossing improvements (e.g., curb extensions, refuges, crosswalks); and, • intersection improvements (e.g., islands and realignment). SUPI projects are located on highways that have no modernization projects scheduled for the foreseeable future. Projects that have a local funding match are typically viewed the most favorably because this indicates strong local support. Projects on highways that cost more than $100,000, require right -of -way, or have environmental impacts need to be submitted to ODOT for inclusion in the STIP. Cities and counties can apply annually for bike path or sidewalk grants of projects they have selected. Grants for projects on local street systems have a match of 20 percent and projects next to state highways have a lower match requirement. Bicycle - pedestrian grants are generally below $125,000 per project. Project evaluation and selection is made annually statewide by the Statewide Bicycle /Pedestrian Committee. ODOT Enhancement Program The Transportation Enhancement program provides federal highway funds for projects that strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, or environmental value of the transportation system. The funds are available for twelve "transportation enhancement activities," which are categorized as: • Pedestrian and Bicycle projects; • Historic Preservation related to surface transportation; • Landscaping and Scenic Beautification; and • Environmental Mitigation. The Enhancement Program funds special or additional activities not normally required on a highway or transportation project. So far, Oregon has funded more than 150 projects for a total of $63 million. Enhancement Grants are available through an ODOT process that occurs every XX years with applications due in XX. State Parks Funds Recreational Trails Grants are national grants administered by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) for recreational trail - related projects, such as hiking, running, bicycling, off - road motorcycling and all - terrain vehicle riding. OPRD gives more than $4 million annually to Oregon communities and has awarded more than $40 million in grants across the state since 1999. Grants can be awarded to non - profits, cities, counties, and state and federal agencies. The application process for these grants occurs in XX of each year( ?). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 90 Tigard Updated Transportation System Plan Transportation Solutions Analysis - DRAFT October 2009 ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION COSTS A summary of 20 -year transportation improvement cost.... Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 91