Loading...
City Council Packet - 10/23/2012 TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING October 23, 2012 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I: \Design & Communications \Donna\City Council\ccpkt3 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov ■ • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting— Agenda e TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: October 23, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign -up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be beard in any order after 7 :•30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http: / /www.tvctv.org /government - programming/ government - meetings /tigard CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting— Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: October 23, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION A. City Manager Evaluation: Setting Criteria & Process • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:35 p.m. - time is estimated A. Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication — Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) - These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7:45 p.m. - time is estimated A. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes for: 1. July 24, 2012 2. August 14, 2012 3. September 11, 2012 B. Adopt a Resolution in Support of Changing the Name of the Tonquin Trail to the Ice Age Tonquin Trail C. Amend City Manager Employment Contract D. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of a Grant Application to Partially Fund Construction of a Segment of the Fanno Creek Trail E. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas River Water Providers F. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro Regarding Trail Signage G. Approve Third Quarter Council Goal Update • ConsentA¢enda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda, for separate discwssion will be considered immediately Or the Council /City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discwssion. 4. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS - URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2011 -00004 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2011 -00002 7:50 p.m. - time is estimated REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798. (Non Land Use Elements) In addition, in support of the Tide 18 amendments, amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 through 8.16, 9.06, and 9.08. LOCATION : Citywide. ZONE: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 5, Natural Resources; 6, Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8, Parks Recreation, Trails and Open Space; 9, Economic Development; 10, Housing; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 14, Urbanization; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Tides 1, 3, 12 and 13. Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5 through 14. A. Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Land Use Elements B. Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Non Land Use Elements 5. ADOPT 2013 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA (packet materials will be published October 18, 2012) 8:30 p.m. - time is estimated 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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 dosed to the public. 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. - time is estimated AIS -1052 A Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: City Manager Evaluation: Setting Criteria & Process Prepared For: Sandy Zodrow Submitted By: Sandy Zodrow, City Management Council Business Mtg - Study Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Sess. Information ISSUE The City Manager's annual performance evaluation is due in December 2012. The City Council discussion will focus on the process to be used for the evaluation, and the criteria upon which the evaluation will be based. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Direct staff regarding the format of the evaluation document, and who will be surveyed for evaluation feedback. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Employment Agreement for the City Manager stipulates that a performance evaluation for the prior 12 month period be completed in December 2012. In anticipation of that, staff is requesting Council discussion and direction regarding the evaluation criteria and form to be used, the process and time lines, as well as which individuals Council wishes to request feedback from regarding the City Manager's performance. This will be the first evaluation conducted for the current City Manager. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not applicable - required per employment agreement COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION No prior discussions have taken place Attachments Memo to Council from Human Resources Director Zodrow Council Appraisal Form Staff Input to Council Form . " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Direct° Re: City Manager Annual Performance Review Date: October 15, 2012 In accordance with the Employment Agreement for City Manager Marty Wine, the City Council is required to conduct an annual performance review in December 2012. This will be the first performance review for the City Manager. The first step to be taken by Council is to decide on the criteria and process to be used for the evaluation. This is scheduled for your October 23r meeting. On November 13 the Council will request public input on the criteria and process that has been selected, as required by employment law for public employees. Finally, the performance review is scheduled on the City Council's agenda for November 20, 2012 instead of December due to the holidays and other Council business in December. Enclosed please find a copy of the review forms that have been used in prior years by the City Council for the annual performance review of the City Manager. Two forms have been used, one for the City Council to note their comments and ratings, and one for Executive Staff to complete. These were submitted to myself and I combined all ratings and comments, without reference to the rater's name, assigned an average score to each criteria evaluated, and collated the information onto a single review form for Council. The Executive Staff that completed a performance review for the City Manager last time included: • Department Directors: Toby LaFrance, Dennis Koellermeier, Margaret Barnes, Chief Orr, Liz Newton (Assistant CM) • Other Staff: Joanne Bengtson (Exec. Assistant to the CM), Loreen Mills (Assistant to the CM), Cathy Wheatley (City Recorder), and myself The issue before the City Council for your October 23`' meeting is: 1) what criteria does the Council wish to include in the review document 2) what process do you want to use to collect this information 3) do you want to add any additional evaluator names to the list I will be there at the meeting to assist in any way I can. Council Appraisal of City Manager City of Tigard City Manager: Date: City Councilor: Mayor & Council Appraisal SECTION I: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT CRITERIA Please designate the appropriate box for each item and include examples, which support the rating. Administrative Ability Planning: Ability to anticipate and analyze problems. Maps effective solutions. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Organizing: Ability to arrange work and efficiently apply resources. Recognizes opportunities for management and operational efficiencies. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Timing - Opportunist: Makes decisions when sufficient information is available. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Analytical: In making decisions considers the best available facts, projections, and evidence. To the extent that resources permit, insures that these tools are available. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Job Knowledge: Has a solid understanding of all phases and departments of municipal government. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Personnel Functions Supervision: Builds and motivates a team, provides direction, monitors and adjusts performances as necessary. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: • City Manager Performance Appraisal Delegation: Effectively assigns work to others to get City business done efficiently. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Communication with Employees: Listens to employees and openly communicates in order to provide sufficient information to keep the employees motivated and part of the team. Understands their concerns. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Hiring: Recognizes the value of excellent employees and hires and maintains available staff. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Labor Relations: Understands contract negotiations and contract administration. Equitably handles problems of grievances among subordinate employees. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Leadership: Motivates, encourages and seeks to develop skills and abilities in staff. Sets the standard for performance accountability by example.. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Collaboration Skills: Builds collaborative trust with staff. Treats staff with respect. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Risk Management: Implements effective programs to limit liability and loss. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement_❑ Comments: Page 2 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Budget and Finance Financial Management: Accurately and concisely reports and projects the financial condition. Management practices and policies are designed to maintain or achieve a sound long -range financial condition. Uses debt cautiously, plans for the long -term replacement and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing 9 Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Operational Efficiency: Obtains the best possible end result for the money spent. Monitors efficiency service improvement and effectiveness for all programs. Most economical utilization of manpower, materials and machinery. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Community Relations Public Service: Commitment to the service of the public. Recognizes and respects the value of public service. Projects a positive image of the City. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Forges Compromises: Has the ability to resolve conflicts with little or no assistance from outside sources. Is a good negotiator. Is credible and builds trust in the community. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Sensitivity: Listens and understands the positions and circumstances of others. Communicates that understanding. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Communication with the Public: Approachable and responsive to the public and takes their concerns and problems seriously, regardless of how insignificant the questions or complaints seem to be. Is able to represent Council at community events and forums. Pursues an outreach style of management as a spokesperson for city issues. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Public Involvement: Involves citizens in city issues and programs. Provides link between the Council and business community. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Media Relations: Develops effective relationships and positive image with public /media. Is able to accurately articulate City Council and community goals. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Page 3 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Relation with Council Communication with Council: Accurately interprets the direction given by the Council. Provides Council with well informed concise oral and written communication. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Accepts Direction: Aggressively responds to the direction of the majority of the Council. Not sidetracked to the minority but recognizes their concerns. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Research: Prepares fully researched materials for Council action including alternatives and recommendations. Analyzes issues and presents policy alternatives to Council with documented justified recommendations. Assures that material is concise and easily understandable. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Intergovernmental Relations Develop Relations: Develops good working relationships with other local, county, regional, state and federal agencies. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Representative: Effectively represents the City on commissions, boards, and committees. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Resource Developer: Exerts appropriate influence on decisions affecting Tigard from other agencies, gaining resources to benefit the City. Has basic understanding of federal and state grants and appropriations. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Interpersonal Skills Creativity: Implements effective and creative solutions to resolve City problems. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Honest, Fair: Consistently demonstrates integrity and honesty, straightforward and impartial. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Page 4 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Adaptable: Responds positively to a changing work environment and changing local conditions. Does not cling to the status quo for its own sake. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Resilient: Energy and motivation maintained in spite of constant demands. Handles stress well. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Ethical: Conforms to the high standards of the profession. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Professional Development: Takes action to acquire new knowledge and skills. Encourages employees to do the same. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Judgment: Thinks logistically and utilizes independent thought to make sound decisions. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Economic Growth Economic Development: Identifies and helps Council create conditions which foster economic development. Understands importance of, and knowledge of factors and methods for, maintaining existing businesses, as well as recruiting new ones. Recognizes relationship of local economy to region and beyond. Develops policies and guidelines to reasonably allocate costs of public improvements and services related to economic development between the public and private sectors. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement Comments: SECTION II: ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS & OUTCOMES FOR UPCOMING RATING PERIOD Outline the goals for the upcoming period and the desired outcomes. The City Manager's goals should be related to the Community goals. The City Manager goal may include a new project or may include a goal that is an ongoing fundamental portion of the position. Any number of goals may be set. The desired outcome is the standard against which performance will be measured. These should be specific and measurable including timeframes. Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Page 5 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Page 6 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: Dept/City Goal: Individual Goal: Desired Outcome: SECTION III: COUNCIL'S SUMMARY COMMENTS The following is an overall performance rating for the City Manager, recommended action by the Council, and sign off. The City Manger's signature does not necessarily mean that the City Manager agrees with the rating, only that the evaluation process has taken place. Summary Comments: Overall Rating (check one): Exceeds: Exceeds expectations in all or majority of categories. Fully Effective: Meets expectations in all categories (may exceed in some) Developing: does not meet expectations in one or more category Needs Improvement: Does not meet expectations in majority of categories City Manager's Signature Date Mayor's Signature Date Page 7 of 8 City Manager Performance Appraisal Rating Definitions & Scoring Exceeds = 4.0 Fully Effective = 3.0 Developing = 2.0 Needs Improvement = 1.0 Page 8 of 8 Staff Input to the Council • Appraisal of City Manager City of Tigard City Manager: Date: Rater: Executive Staff SECTION I: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT CRITERIA Please designate the appropriate box for each item and include examples, which support the rating. Administrative Ability Planning: Ability to anticipate and analyze problems. Maps effective solutions. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Organizing: Ability to arrange work and efficiently apply resources. Recognizes opportunities for management and operational efficiencies. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Timing - Opportunist: Makes decisions when sufficient information is available. Exceeds El Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Analytical: In making decisions considers the best available facts, projections, and evidence. To the extent that resources permit, insures that these tools are available. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Job Knowledge: Has a solid understanding of all phases and departments of municipal government. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Personnel Functions Supervision: Builds and motivates a team, provides direction, monitors and adjusts performances as necessary. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: • City Manager Performance Appraisal Delegation: Effectively assigns work to others to get City business done efficiently. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Communication with Employees: Listens to employees and openly communicates in order to provide sufficient information to keep the employees motivated and part of the team. Understands their concerns. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Hiring: Recognizes the value of excellent employees and hires and maintains available staff. Exceeds El Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Labor Relations: Understands contract negotiations and contract administration. Equitably handles problems of grievances among subordinate employees. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing El Needs Improvement El • Comments: Leadership: Motivates, encourages and seeks to develop skills and abilities in staff. Sets the standard for performance accountability by example. Exceeds El Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement El Comments: Collaboration Skills: Builds collaborative trust with staff. Treats staff with respect. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing El Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Risk Management: Implements effective programs to limit liability and loss. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Page 2 of 6 • City Manager Performance Appraisal Budget and Finance Financial Management: Accurately and concisely reports and projects the financial condition. Management practices and policies are designed to maintain or achieve a sound long -range financial condition. Uses debt cautiously, plans for the long -term replacement and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Operational Efficiency: Obtains the best possible end result for the money spent. Monitors efficiency service improvement and effectiveness for all programs. Most economical utilization of manpower, materials and machinery. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Community Relations Public Service: Commitment to the service of the public. Recognizes and respects the value of public service. Projects a positive image of the City. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Forges Compromises: Has the ability to resolve conflicts with little or no assistance from outside sources. Is a good negotiator. Is credible and builds trust in the community. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Sensitivity: Listens and understands the positions and circumstances of others. Communicates that understanding. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Communication with the Public: Approachable and responsive to the public and takes their concerns and problems seriously, regardless of how insignificant the questions or complaints seem to be. Is able to represent Council at community events and forums. Pursues an outreach style of management as a spokesperson for city issues. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective El Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Public Involvement: Involves citizens in city issues and programs. Provides link between the Council and business community. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Page 3 of 6 City Manager Performance Appraisal Media Relations: Develops effective relationships and positive image with public /media. Is able to accurately articulate City Council and community goals. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Intergovernmental Relations Develop Relations: Develops good working relationships with other local, county, regional, state and federal agencies. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Representative: Effectively represents the City on commissions, boards, and committees. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Resource Developer: Exerts appropriate influence on decisions affecting Tigard from other agencies, gaining resources to benefit the City. Has basic understanding of federal and state grants and appropriations. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Interpersonal Skills Creativity: Implements effective and creative solutions to resolve City problems. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Honest, Fair: Consistently demonstrates integrity and honesty, straightforward and impartial. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Adaptable: Responds positively to a changing work environment and changing local conditions. Does not cling to the status quo for its own sake. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Resilient: Energy and motivation maintained in spite of constant demands. Handles stress well. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Ethical: Conforms to the high standards of the profession. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Page 4 of 6 City Manager Performance Appraisal Professional Development: Takes action to acquire new knowledge and skills. Encourages employees to do the same. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Judgment: Thinks logistically and utilizes independent thought to make sound decisions. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: Economic Growth Economic Development: Identifies and helps Council create conditions which foster economic development. Understands importance of, and knowledge of factors and methods for, maintaining existing businesses, as well as recruiting new ones. Recognizes relationship of local economy to region and beyond. Develops policies and guidelines to reasonably allocate costs of public improvements and services related to economic development between the public and private sectors. Exceeds ❑ Fully Effective ❑ Developing ❑ Needs Improvement ❑ Comments: SECTION II: What do you consider the City Manager's greatest strengths? Do you have any suggestions for the City Manager, which you feel, will improve his effectiveness? Page 5 of 6 City Manager Performance Appraisal Rating Definitions & Scoring Exceeds = 4.0 Fully Effective = 3.0 Developing = 2.0 Needs Improvement = 1.0 Page 6 of 6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -B CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: October 23, 2012 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: L n t 1 GDA A-DD i non Ia 1 S Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Re GA 1N G LI � I+7 — T 4iL Address l Sc 0 5 W A 64 Alfa City T! . 1}-!I.1) State ©R Zip 91 Z 23 Phone No. s © -- (t—' S 8 Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AIS -1060 3. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Minutes for the July 24, August 14 and September 11 council meetings are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments July 24, 2012, Council Minutes August 14, 2012, Council Minutes September 11, 2012, Council Meeting Minutes r a 4 :� AIS -1036 3• B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Tide: Adopt a Resolution in Support of Changing the Name of the Tonquin Trail to the Ice Age Tonquin Trail Prepared For: Dennis Koellermeier Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE Shall council adopt a resolution in support of changing the name of the Tonquin Trail to the Ice Age Tonquin Trail? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro, in partnership with Clackamas and Washington Counties, and the Cities of Sherwood, Tualatin, and Wilsonville, is in the process of completing the Tonquin Trail Master Plan. These partners will fund and operate the proposed 22 -mile regional trail which will connect the Willamette and Tualatin rivers and the communities of Sherwood, Tualatin and Wilsonville. There has been a proposal to change the name of the Tonquin Trail to the Ice Age Tonquin Trail in order to promote public awareness, and enhance funding opportunities and economic development through tourism and scientific research. A consensus of trail partners is required to make the name change. Tigard is not a trail partner. However, Tigard is adjacent to Tualatin and a segment of the proposed trail may connect to Tigard's Cook Park via the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge. To build support for the name change, the Tualatin City Manager, Sherilyn Lombos, has asked for Tigard's support. Tigard's resolution is patterned after a sample resolution provided by Tualatin. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could choose not to adopt the resolution. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS None DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this issue has come before the council. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: There are no costs associated with the adoption of this resolution. Attachments Resolution Exhibit A - Foundation Document AIS -1057 3 C Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Amend City Manager Employment Contract Prepared For: Loreen Mills Submitted By: Loreen Mills, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE Should the City Council amend the indemnification section of the City Manager's employment agreement to delete an insurance policy reference and be more comprehensive and consistent with other department directors' agreements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Recommend approval of City Manager's employment agreement indemnification section by removing reference to the ICMA insurance policy and updating language to be consistent with other department directors' agreements. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During a periodic review, the City has discovered the indemnity section language in the City Manager's contract does not follow the City's employment agreement boilerplate language and references insurance requirements that are not available. Provision of the ICMA public officials' liability insurance is required in the agreement but this is not available through ICMA. Since the City handles this liability coverage through the City County Insurance Pool (CIS) here in Oregon, this reference should be removed. The rest of the indemnity language should be more comprehensive and consistent with current language in all other department directors' employment agreements. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Take action to only remove the insurance reference in the indemnity section. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION October, 2011 - Original employment agreement approved June, 2012 - Amendment #1 approved - self - requested reduction of City Manager's salary Attachments CM Employment Agreement Amendment 2 Amendment #2 To Employment Agreement Effective Date November 1, 2012 Between City of Tigard (the "City ") And Marty Wine ( "Employee ") The City of Tigard has discovered the indemnity language in the City Manager's contract references the ICMA public officials' liability insurance policy which is not available through ICMA. This language should also be more comprehensive and consistent with current language in all other department directors' employment agreements. Section 15: Indemnification Remove current language: The-Gity-agrcc3 to defend, hold harmlcs3, and indemnify the Employee - . . ....: . . . , ... .. .. .. .. :. -, . - . . : . :..- _ : . _ .- - _ :: .- of employee within the scope of her employment. The City agrees to pay premiums on appropriate Insert new language: To the full extent permitted by law, the Employer shall defend, save harmless and indemnify the Employee against any tort, professional liability claim, administrative proceeding or action. or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring within the course and scope of the Employee's duties as City Manager unless the act or omission involved gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct under which circumstance the Employee shall be responsible for any and all damages, costs and fees caused by the misconduct or negligence herself. The Employee's actions within the course and scope of her employment shall be indemnified by the City until the statute of limitations has expired without regard to her continued employment with the City. Legal representation. provided by the Employer for the Employee, shall extend until a final determination of the legal action including any appeals brought by Employer or other party. Any settlement of any claim must be made with prior approval of the Employer in order for indemnification, as provided in this Section, to be available. The Employee recognizes that the Employer shall have the right to compromise or settle any claim, suit, proceeding or action. Marty Wine, anager Crai • / Dirksen Ma o Ar o , i�4a —, _ r . ignatu Suture l 6 2 - 7Ao/ Z �� h r a3 Date Date AIS -999 3• D. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Submission of a Grant Application to Partially Fund Construction of a Segment of the Fanno Creek Trail Prepared For: Kim McMillan Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda • Information ISSUE Shall the council adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application to partially fund construction of a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Proposed Grant Project Fanno Creek Trail is part of a regional trail system. The City of Tigard is actively working to complete segments of the Fanno Creek Trail system within city limits. One of those segments lies between Grant Avenue and Woodard Park. Staff is seeking council approval to submit a grant application. Grant funds, if awarded, would partially fund the construction of the segment of Fanno Creek Trail from Grant Avenue to Woodard Park. The proposed trail segment is approximately 1400 lineal feet and will be approximately 10 feet wide. The path will be hard surface where possible and elevated where needed to minimize impacts to wetlands and to span a drainage way to Fanno Creek. On March 27, 2012, the council approved an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Metro to transfer trail easements to the city. With these easements, the city has access to all the property necessary to construct the Grant Avenue to Woodard Park trail segment. The IGA obligates the city to construct the trail within 10 years or the easements revert back to Metro. The city plans to construct an adjoining trail segment, from Main Street to Grant Avenue, in 2013. If the city is able construct the Grant Avenue to Woodard Park segment, trail systems from Portland and Beaverton would connect to the Tigard trail system and Downtown Tigard and the Tigard Public Library. Grant Process In May 2012 the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) announced $20 million in grant opportunities through the Transportation Enhancement and Bicycle & Pedestrian Program. Interested parties were required to submit a Notice of Intent, and staff submitted the notice, which requested grant funding to construct a segment of the Fanno Creek Trail from Grant Avenue to Woodard Park. In August 2012 ODOT notified the city that our project advanced to Stage Two, the application and scoping phase of the grant review process. A copy of the notice letter is attached. The next step in the grant review process is to submit an application. Applications are due December 2012, award notification takes place in April 2013 and funds will be available October 2013. Grant Requirements The grant requires a minimum 10.27 percent match. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Should council decide not to adopt this resolution, staff will not submit the grant application. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.2 - "Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off -road pedestrian and bicycle trails." The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.2, Policy 1 - "The City shall create an interconnected regional and local system of on- and off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban activity centers, and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property." The construction of the Grant Avenue to Woodard Park trail segment is included in the Park System Master Plan adopted by council in 2009 and is listed as a high priority in the Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan accepted by council in 2011. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time this grant application has come before the council. Fiscal Impact Cost: $616,000 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where budgeted ?: Additional Fiscal Notes: If grant funding is awarded, staff will return to council with recommendations to: • Accept the grant revenue. • Allocate funds for the city's local match. The grant requires a minimum 10.27 - percent match. Estimates place the total project cost at $616,000; 10.27 percent of this total is approximately $63,000. The following funding can be divided between Main Street to Grant Avenue trail segment and the Grant Avenue to Woodard Park trail segment. • $195,000 in city park bond funding. • $127,000 in Metro bond funding. Of this combined $322,000, $134,000 is allocated to the Main Street to Grant Avenue trail. The remaining $188,000 could be used as matching funds for a grant to construct the Grant Avenue to Woodard Park trail segment. Therefore, there is more than enough available funding to cover the required match. Staff is also pursuing Washington County Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program - 3d funding for this project. Attachments Resolution Map - Fanno Creek Trail Woodard Park to Grant Ave Notice of Intent Selection AIS -983 3. E. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas River Water Providers Prepared For: Dennis Koellermeier Submitted By: John Goodrich, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE Shall the council authorize the mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Clackamas River Water Providers (CRWP)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Authorize the mayor to execute the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The CRWP is a coalition made up of municipal water providers that get their drinking water from the Clackamas River. The purpose of the organization is to collectively fund and coordinate efforts regarding water resource planning, management, and water conservation to preserve the Clackamas River as a high quality drinking water source and to minimize future drinking water treatment costs. Lake Oswego is a founding member of the CRWP. The CRWP was established via IGA in 2007; this IGA was amended in 2011. When the Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership projects come online in 2016, Tigard's water will be drawn from the Clackamas River. The Public Works Department informed the council it was pursuing membership in the CRWP in a memo dated March 14, 2012. A copy of that memo is attached. Staff also briefed the council on the IGA at its September 18, 2012, workshop meeting. Joining CRWP will enable Tigard to: • Contribute to the stewardship of our future water supply. • Establish relationships with other CRWP members. • Have a voice on various CRWP issues. • Demonstrate its commitment to the Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership. A majority of the existing CRWP members approved Tigard's membership on July 9, 2012. With this approval, Tigard has the opportunity to join the CRWP as a non - voting member in fiscal year 2012 -2013 and would attain full, voting member rights beginning in fiscal year 2013 -2014. To obtain membership, the council needs to authorize the mayor to sign the existing CRWP IGA. The city attorney's office has reviewed the IGA. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could decide not join the CRWP. In doing so, Tigard would have to rely on Lake Oswego to represent its interests on the CRWP. Lake Oswego would also have to fund the full CRWP water diversion cost allocations for both cities. Rather than paying membership dues directly to the CRWP, Tigard would likely have to reimburse Lake Oswego for Tigard's Clackamas River water usage. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS 2012 Tigard City Council Goal l.a. - "Continue oversight of design, permits, rate implementation and costs for the Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership." DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Staff briefed the council on the IGA at its September 18, 2012, workshop meeting. The Public Works Department informed the council it was pursuing membership in the CRWP in a memo dated March 14, 2012. A copy of that memo is attached. Fiscal Impact Cost: $10,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): Water Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: Annual dues are based on each CRWP member's proportionate annual water usage. However, Tigard is not drawing any water from the Clackamas River at this time, so this allocation method can not be used to determine dues. In lieu of this method, the CRWP will assess Tigard $10,000 per year in membership dues until Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership projects are operational in 2016. Once these projects are online, Tigard's assessment will be based on its annual water usage; staff estimates this number will be approximately $50,000 per year. Attachments CRWP IGA Memo to the Council on CRWP Membership - Dated March 14, 2012 City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum MEW To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Public Works Director Dennis Koellermeier Re: Clackamas River Water Providers Membership Date: March 14, 2012 When the Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership projects come online in 2016, Tigard's water will be drawn from the Clackamas River. The Public Works Department is pursuing city membership in the Clackamas River Water Providers (CRWP). The CRWP is a coalition made up of municipal water providers that get their drinking water from the Clackamas River. The purpose of the organization is to collectively fund and coordinate efforts regarding water resource planning, management, and water conservation to preserve the Clackamas River as a high quality drinking water source and to minimize future drinking water treatment costs. Joining CRWP at this early stage will enable Tigard to: • Contribute to the stewardship of our future water supply. • Become familiar with other CRWP members. • Demonstrate its commitment to the Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership. Current CRWP members must approve our membership. Staff will keep the council apprised of our progress and will bring any membership agreement(s) before the council. INTER - GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OF THE CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER PROVIDERS (as Amended in 2011) 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 1 Table of Contents Section 1. Definitions 3 Section 2. Establishment of CRWP 4 Section 3. Purposes 4 Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Authority 5 Section 5. Clackamas River Water Provider's Authority 5 Section 6. Membership 6 Section 7. Dues 6 Section 8. CRWP Board 7 Section 9. Fiscal Agent 7 Section 10. Term 7 Section 11. Dispute Resolution 8 Section 12. Duration and Dissolution 8 Section 13. Contractual Liability 8 Section 14. Indemnification 8 Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum 9 Section 16. Agreement Amendments 9 Section 17. Prior Agreement 9 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 2 CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER PROVIDERS This Inter - Governmental Agreement is entered into by and among the undersigned municipalities and special districts, herein after called "Participants ", to establish and operate the Clackamas River Water Providers (CRWP). RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 authorizes units of local government to enter into written agreements with any other unit or units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that any of them has the authority to provide, and that the agreement may provide that such functions and activities may be performed by an intergovernmental entity created by the agreement and governed by a board or commission appointed by, responsible to and acting on behalf of the units of local government that are parties to the agreement; and WHEREAS, all the Participants are thus authorized to enter into an inter - governmental agreement; and WHEREAS, the Participants through separate authorizations from the State Water Resources Department, hold permits or rights to the use of public waters from the Clackamas River for beneficial uses without waste; and /or WHEREAS, the Participants own and operate structures on the Clackamas River the purpose of which are to divert the waters of the Clackamas River for beneficial uses without waste; and WHEREAS, the signatories to this Agreement recognize that their respective customers can benefit through cooperative planning, management and development of water supply from the Clackamas Basin. The parties, NOW, THEREFORE, agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions For the purpose of this Agreement the following terms shall be defined as follows: "Agreement" — This document and any authorized amendments thereto. "Clackamas River Water Providers" (herein CRWP) — Shall mean all Participants and Joinder Entities to this Agreement acting pursuant and under the terms of the Agreement. 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 3 "CRWP Board" — Shall mean the Board of Directors established under Section 8 of this Agreement, consisting of one representative from each Participant organization. "CRWP Funds" — CRWP funds shall consist of all dues /cost shares, grant monies and funding from any other source provided to CRWP to conduct the activities and business of the CRWP. "Fiscal Year" - Shall mean the period beginning on July 1 of any given year and ending June 30 the following year. "Joinder Entity" — Shall mean any dues - paying member that is not a public water supply agency. "Members" — Shall mean both Participants and Joinder Entities "Participant" — Shall mean any dues - paying member that is a public water supply agency. Section 2. Establishment of CRWP There is hereby created an intergovernmental entity to be known as the Clackamas River Water Providers ( "CRWP "). Section 3. Purposes The purposes of the CRWP are as follows: A. To coordinate efforts regarding water resource planning, management, conservation and beneficial use of the waters of the Clackamas River and its supporting watershed; B. To fund and /or support public outreach and education programs; C. To fund and /or support water resource activities that may include (but are not limited to) watershed assessments, water quality monitoring and analyses, and water supply planning; D. To fund staff, services, and contracts to implement the activities and programs of the CRWP as they may be identified and approved by the CRWP Board. E. To provide a forum for the study and discussion of water resource issues of mutual interest to the Members and to allow for common understanding and collaborative decision - making related to these issues. 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 4 Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Authority CRWP shall act through the process laid out herein in the spirit of cooperation among its Members. By entering into this Agreement, no Participant has assigned or granted to another or to the CRWP its water rights or authority to plan, construct, and operate its water system or perform any other obligation or duty assigned to it under law. Section 5. Clackamas River Water Provider's Authority In accomplishing its purposes, and utilizing the organizational structure and decision - making processes contained herein, the CRWP is authorized to: A. Adopt by -laws and other operating procedures consistent with the terms of this Agreement to govern operations and administration including budgeting , finance, accounting, reporting, meeting arrangements, voting procedures, elections of officers, notice procedures, and procedures for execution of contracts; B. Adopt and implement an annual Work Plan, and Budget; C. Collect regular dues (or reimbursements) from Participants and Joinder Entities to support the activities of the CRWP in the amounts established as provided herein; D. Expend CRWP funds and establish accounts and accounting processes to manage such funds; E. Execute contracts to obtain goods and services needed to conduct the activities of CRWP; F. Establish a procedure and criteria whereby other units of government or entities may become Members of the CRWP, either as a Participants or Joinder Entities, subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement; G. Establish procedures for managing its own staff, including hiring, development, compensation, and termination; H. Apply for and receive grants and accept other funds from any person or entity to carry out CRWP activities. I. Take other action within the powers specifically granted to CWRP in this section and to carry out the purposes stated in Section 3 above. 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 5 Section 6. Membership A. Initial Participants. The initial Participants and signatories to this Agreement include the South Fork Water Board, North Clackamas County Water Commission, City of Lake Oswego, City of Estacada, Clackamas River Water and the Sunrise Water Authority; B. Membership. Membership in CRWP shall be comprised of Participants and Joinder Entities, as defined herein. The CRWP Board may establish standards for membership in its by -laws or may allow new Members to join on terms that the CRWP Board considers appropriate, consistent with the terms of this Agreement, provided, however, that no new Members may join CRWP without the affirmative vote of a majority of the CRWP Board; C. Withdrawal. Any Member may withdraw from CRWP at the end of a fiscal year by providing written notice to the Chair of the CRWP Board by April 1 of that year. Withdrawing Members shall be responsible for dues for the entire fiscal year during which withdrawal occurs. D. Voting Rights. Voting rights on the CWRP Board will be extended only to Participants and shall be limited to one vote per such member. Section 7. Dues A. Each Member shall pay annual dues each fiscal year on (at least) a quarterly basis for membership during that fiscal year. B. The dues for each Participant shall be established annually by the CWRP Board and shall be based on the proportionate annual water usage among all Participants consumed during the full calendar year prior to the given fiscal year. C. The dues for any Joinder Entity shall be established by the CRWP Board at the time the Board approves the entity's membership. D. If any Member becomes unable to pay its annual dues obligation for reasons of financial constraint, the CRWP Board may negotiate a payment schedule with that Participant. E. Additional Participants shall be allowed to join CRWP only at the beginning of a fiscal year. F. The dues of all Joinder Entities will be treated as part of budget reserves for the fiscal year in which the Joinder Entity dues are assessed, and will not impact or change the dues of any Participant for that fiscal year. Budget reserves resulting from any prior fiscal year 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 6 operation may be used to offset dues of Participants in subsequent fiscal years, as available and approved by the CRWP Board. Section 8. CRWP Board A. The CRWP Board shall be made up of one representative staff person appointed by each Participant. Each Participant shall also appoint an alternate representative staff person to serve in the absence of the primary representative. B. The Board is authorized to: (1) approve CRWP's annual work plan and budget; (2) set CRWP policy; (3) approve new Members; (4) recommend water resource planning, and regional cooperation actions to Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils; (5) adopt by -laws; (6) exercise any other powers and authority granted to the CRWP by this Agreement necessary to accomplish CRWP's purposes as established in Section 3 of this Agreement. C. Consistent with the terms of this Agreement, the by -laws shall, at least, (1) establish the offices of Chair and Vice -Chair and determine their terms, their general duties, and the method for their election; (2) establish a method to allow additional entities to apply for membership; (3) establish a method to determine timing of meetings; (5) establish a method whereby the Board can create subcommittees of the Board and other advisory committees or bodies to assist the Board in conducting it business. D. Unless specified otherwise in this Agreement or the bylaws, Board actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board members present and eligible to vote at a meeting at which a simple majority of the Board is present. Section 9. Fiscal Agent The Board shall designate a fiscal agent for CRWP from among its Members, unless so authorized from the CRWP Board. Section 10. Term The term of this Agreement, unless otherwise terminated according to its provisions, shall be perpetual from the date that the last of the Participants named in Section 6(B) of this Agreement signs this Agreement. 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 7 Section 11. Dispute Resolution Disputes among the Members shall, if possible, be resolved through the use of a mandatory, binding dispute resolution mechanism established by CWRP Board in the by -laws. However, the issues subject to this dispute resolution mechanism shall be limited to interpretation of the terms of the Agreement. No issues related to water supply development or program development by individual members will be raised as part of this dispute resolution mechanism. Section 12. Duration and Dissolution This Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (1) any Participant may withdraw at the end of any fiscal year as provided in this Agreement; (2) should all but one Participant withdraw, the Agreement shall end and CRWP shall be dissolved; (3) CRWP may be dissolved by a majority vote of the CRWP Board. Section 13. Contractual Liability Members shall share contractual liability of CRWP, including any judgment, fines or penalties and reasonable attorney fees incurred in a contract action that are levied against CRWP, or against a Member who entered into a contract on behalf of CWRP with authorization of the CWRP Board, on a basis proportionate to the each respective Member's dues, unless otherwise specified by a majority vote of the membership of the CRWP Board. This obligation shall apply to any entity that was a Member at the time the liability arose or the cause of action accrued. Settlement of any claim or action that would impose an obligation to pay upon Members under this provision must be approved by a majority of the membership the CRWP Board. Members who are not signatories to this Agreement shall be required to execute an agreement consistent with the terms of this Section 13 as a condition of membership. Section 14. Indemnification To the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of Oregon relating to units of local government and subject to the limitations of ORS 30.265 to 30.300, each Member shall indemnify, defend and hold the others harmless from any liability arising from that Member's negligence in connection with CRWP activities including but not limited to acts or omissions of the Member's officials, employees and agents. Members who are not signatories to this Agreement shall be required to execute an agreement consistent with the terms of this Section 14 as a condition of membership. 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 8 Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum • A. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Oregon. B. Any litigation between the Participants under this Agreement or arising out of work performed under this Agreement shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Clackamas County Circuit Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Section 16. Agreement Amendments Amendments to this Agreement shall be recommend by the Board and shall be effective when authorized by the governing board, commission or council, as the case may be, of every Participant. Section 17. Prior Agreement This Agreement amends, by completely replacing, the terms of the agreement Clackamas River Water Providers IGA entered into by the parties on August 2007. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 9 CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER PROVIDERS CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SUNRISE WATER AUTHORITY By: Mayor By: Chair Date: Date: NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY By: WATER COMMISSION Secretary By: Date: Chair Date: CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER By: SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD President By: Date: Chair Date: By: Secretary CITY OF ESTACADA Date: By: Mayor Date: 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 10 CITY OF TI RD By: IVIayor Date: ( 8 -4 -11 final revised IGA Page 2 AIS -1025 3• F. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro Regarding Trail Signage Prepared For: Steve Martin Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE Shall the council authorize the mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Metro regarding trail signage? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Authorize the mayor to execute the IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Intertwine is the name given to the regional network of parks, trails and natural areas. Metro, along with many businesses, nonprofits and cities, including Tigard, participate in The Intertwine. Most of Tigard's parks, trails and open spaces are included in The Intertwine. In order to provide a consistent and uniform look throughout The Intertwine, Metro developed designs and guidelines for directional (wayfinding) signage for regional trails such as Fanno Creek Trail. In March Metro posted 10 directional test signs along Fanno Creek Trail near Downtown Tigard. Attached is a drawing of a sample sign that has been posted. Neighboring Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District has plans to place similar Intertwine directional signage along its trails. Other segments of Tigard's Fanno Creek Trail lack any type of directional signage; signage is one of the most highly requested trail amenities. Metro was recently awarded a grant to install directional signage on selected regional trails including Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard. The attached IGA outlines Metro and city responsibilities as they pertain to directional signage: 1. Metro will install directional signs along Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard. 2. Tigard and Metro will agree on the type and location of the signs. 3. Tigard, at its expense, will maintain the signs. Under Metro's grant, approximately 100 directional signs will be produced and installed along Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard; the estimated cost of this work is $100,000. Tigard is required to contribute $5,000 in matching funds. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could propose changes to the agreement or could decide not to approve the agreement. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS None DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The council was briefed on the IGA at its October 16, 2012, meeting. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: Under Metro's grant, approximately 100 directional signs will be produced and installed along Fanno Creek Trail in Tigard; the estimated cost of this work is $100,000. If the IGA is approved,Tigard will be required to contribute $5,000 in matching funds.This money would come from the park maintenance budget. Attachments Fanno Creek Trail Signage IGA Sample Directional Sign Agreement No. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Metro Regional Trails:Intertwine Signage THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between Metro ( "Metro ") and the City of Tigard (the "City ") effective as of the last date of signature indicated below. RECITALS 1. Metro has received Surface Transportation Program funds for the design, fabrication and installation of wayfinding signs along three regional trails in the Portland Metropolitan area (the "Project "), and the City desires for Metro to install some of these wayfinding signs along the Fanno Creek Trail right of way located within the City (the "Trail "). 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190.010, local government agencies may enter into cooperative agreements with units of local government for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. The City hereby grants Metro and its contractors the right to enter onto and occupy Trail right of way for the installation of signage along the Trail. Before Metro installs a sign, the City and Metro will agree on the type of sign and the place where the sign will be installed on the Trail. This right of entry shall continue for so long as necessary for Metro to complete installation of the signage, and shall terminate upon completion of the installation, or by December 31 2014, whichever is sooner. 2. The City shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project signs on the Trail right of way upon completion of the Project and throughout the useful life of the Project signs. Said maintenance shall be at a minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation and /or service demand. Parties agree that the useful life of the Project signs is defined as twenty (20) years. The State of Oregon (the "State ") may conduct periodic inspections during the life of the Project signs to verify that Project signs are properly maintained and continue to serve the purpose for which federal funds were provided. If the State determines that additional maintenance is necessary, the City agrees to perform such maintenance. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 3. The City acknowledges and agrees that Metro shall have no liability for the quality or accuracy of the signage, and hereby releases Metro for any damages or loss of any kind, including without limitation, direct, indirect, special, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of the use or installation of the signage, or related in any way to the information contained therein. 4. The City shall identify and grant Metro and its contractors all the required permits for the Project. If required, permit fees will be borne by Metro as a Project expense. Hazardous materials, archeological, and environmental investigations will also be borne by Metro as a Project expense. 5. Metro's Project Manager for this Project is Robert Spurlock, 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97232, 503 - 813 -7560, robert.spurlock @oregonmetro.gov, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. Metro shall notify the other party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. 6. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together will constitute one agreement binding on all parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed will constitute an original. 7. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement will bind either party unless in writing and signed by all parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, will be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. METRO CITY OF TIGARD By By Date Date Agreement No. 2 Sample Directional Sign Fanno Creek Trail SW Main St r w � Trail to Woodard Park Beaverton cQ Transit Center ci „, • AIS -961 . G. .. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Tide: Approve Third Quarter Council Goal Update Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Information ISSUE This is an update on progress made during the third quarter to the 2012 City Council Goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Informational only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council met December 6, 2011, to set goals for the coming year. While the city will accomplish much more than what is listed here, the identified goals represent items deserving special attention in the months ahead. OTHER ALTERNATIVES not applicable. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects a. Continue oversight of design, permits, rate implementation and costs for the Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership. b. Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including i. Tree code. ii. Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land use policies and designations and identifying priorities for high- capacity transit (HCT) station location alternatives by mid -2012. 1. Determine the economic development opportunities, development plan, city policies and regulations needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an HCT station location. c. Deliver on the promise of the voter- approved park bond by identifying all acquisition opportunities and completing the majority of park land acquisitions and improvements by the end of 2012. 2. Financial Sustainability a. Maintain the long -term financial health of the General Fund and reserves. i Develop a long -term financial strategy by mid -2012. b. Communicate regularly to residents about the alignment of city priorities with resources. c. Evaluate the city's sustainability efforts on an ongoing basis. 3. Downtown a. Identify a geographic - opportunity area in the downtown with the greatest potential to create a catalyst for further development. Concentrate most resources there. b. Contact owners of key, structurally sound Main Street buildings with vacancies. Begin cooperative effort to secure tenants that will contribute to the vitality of downtown. 4. Annexation a. Re- evaluate the city's annexation policy. b. Develop a philosophy and approach to consider annexations, including islands. 5. Recreation a. Evaluate options and resources to create a pilot recreation program: i. Inventory existing city and community recreational programs, facilities and resources. ii. Create recreational opportunities by partnering with the school district and other agencies or groups. iii. Identify funding options aligning with the recreational programming demand. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The City Council receives a Council Goal progress report each quarter throughout the year. This year the updates occur April 24, July 24, October 23 and the fourth quarter update will be given January 21, 2013. Attachments 3rd Quarter Council Goal Report �. w� ._.,_...... .n.. _a.... _ , . � 2012 Tigard City Council Goals Third Quarter Goal Update Goal 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects a. Continue oversight of design, permits, rate implementation and costs for the Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership • Design continues to advance; the River Intake Pump Station (RIPS) is nearing 100 percent and all other phases are at 60 percent, allowing for a budget update next month. • Contractor pre - qualification for RIPS is underway. • Water rights case continues to churn through the State Court of Appeals. The League of Oregon Cities and the Oregon Water Utility Council have filed friends of the court briefs supporting the partnership's position. • Oregon Division of State Lands has granted the easement for the Willamette River crossing. • Supplier selection of specialty equipment continues. • Land use hearings in West Linn scheduled for October 2012. • Negotiation of a franchise fee to be imposed by West Linn upon the partnership continues at the city manager level. b. Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including: i. Tree code • At the July 10 Study session, staff summarized the adoption process and adoption volumes • On July 24, a public hearing was held to share a staff report and gain public testimony and feedback from Council. • On August 14, a public hearing was held for discussion with the Planning Commission and identify issues of interest • September 11, a public hearing and discussion occurred with Planning Commission President Dave Walsh and the project garnered refinement of the issues of interest. ii. Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land use policies and designations and identifying priorities for high - capacity transit (HCT) station location alternatives by mid -2012 1. Determine the economic development opportunities, development plan, city policies and regulations needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an HCT station location • On August 14 Council voted unanimously to approve a resolution accepting the HCT Land Use Plan report for the purposes of: 1) informing future planning activities, including the Southwest Corridor Plan; 2) acknowledging the work and recommendation of the Citizen's Advisory Committee; and 3) fulfilling the obligations of the intergovernmental agreement with the funding agency (ODOT) and planning partner (Metro) • Tigard continues to be represented at several levels of the SW Corridor project teams including the steering committee, project management group, project team leaders group, and public involvement group. • On August 21 the report "Tigard Triangle: A Path Forward" was presented to the Tigard City Council and Planning Commission. It provided history on previous planning efforts in the Triangle, opportunities and barriers to redevelopment and key elements to ensure success of future plans. • In late September, ODOT announced that Tigard had been selected to receive a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant for additional planning work in the Triangle. This work will help to identify and refine potential economic development opportunities, strategies and policy /plan amendments for the Triangle. c. Deliver on the promise of the voter - approved park bond by identifying all acquisition opportunities and completing the majority of park land acquisitions and improvements by the end of 2012. • The city closed on Eiswerth parcel. • In partnership with Metro, the city recently finalized the purchase of the Fields property, which is a 26 -acre site along the Fanno Creek Greenway and near the Tigard Public Library. The acquisition is a major milestone that will help to close a key gap in the Fanno Creek Greenway. • Acquisitions via the park bond have added over 105 acres to the city's parkland inventory and leveraged over $6 million of grant and local agency contributions to the program. • The Fanno Creek House project obtained land use approval. • East Butte Heritage Park project obtained conditional use permit. • The Jack Park expansion project was submitted for land use. The project allows construction of a trail from Walnut Street to Jack Park. • Property acquisition inquiries for open space continued for the properties on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board's list. • One property on Main Street is on track for acquisition. The acquisition may be funded with park bond dollars. The City Center Advisory Commission and CD staff continue to identify possible park acquisitions in the downtown area. Goal 2. Financial Sustainability a. Maintain the long -term financial health of the General Fund and reserves. i. Develop a long -term financial strategy by mid -2012. • This quarter the city convened the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force, a group of community leaders charged with recommending how "Tigard should spend its next dollar ". The group will bring recommendations to the December 18 workshop. b. Communicate regularly to residents about the alignment of city priorities with resources. c. Evaluate the city's sustainability efforts on an ongoing basis. • Work continues with the Brightworks firm, with a focus on the Public Works department as a pilot project • A department steering committee was formed to help develop a sustainability action plan • The steering committee will receive sustainability training October 29 from Brightworks Goal 3. Downtown a. Identify a geographic - opportunity area in the downtown with the greatest potential to create a catalyst for further development. Concentrate most resources there. b. Contact owners of key, structurally sound Main Street buildings with vacancies. Begin cooperative effort to secure tenants that will contribute to the vitality of downtown. • CCDA approved signing a Purchase & Sale Agreement with owners of Saxony - Pacific property. Due diligence is underway • Targeted Improvement Program finalized and an RFP has been released to owners of vacant properties, brokers and businesses • Progress made in securing a public open space in the downtown • One new facade improvement grant approved. One previously approved project (Main Street Cleaners) completed • Downtown street fair on August 11 drew an estimated 2,000 visitors • Downtown connectivity plan proceeding. Public notice sent to property owners and Council workshop held. A hearing will take place with the Planning Commission on October 15th • Conversations held with prospective developers /investors • Main Street public art call for artists underway Goal 4. Annexation a. Re- evaluate the city's annexation policy. b. Develop a philosophy and approach to consider annexations, including islands. • At the July 17 Council workshop on annexation policy, Council reviewed the annexation background report and prioritized topics for the first policy discussion held on August 21. Issues included the legal context for island annexation, phasing -in taxes and the development potential of property within islands • Council discussion supported an offer for tax phase -in with a promise not to apply city taxes before the River Terrace Community Plan for areas 63, 64 and Roy Rogers West is finalized and approved. Council showed some urgency to consider a resolution on this issue Goal S. Recreation a. Evaluate options and resources to create a pilot recreation program: i. Inventory existing city and community recreational programs, facilities and resources. ii. Create recreational opportunities by partnering with the school district and other agencies or groups. iii. Identify funding options aligning with the recreational programming demand. • Completed a searchable inventory of recreational sources that will be made available to customers through the city's website. A discussion with Council is scheduled for November 2012 • Discussions continue with Tigard - Tualatin School District regarding partnering opportunities, including a field improvement at Metzger Elementary AIS -976 4• A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes Agenda Title: Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Land Use Elements Submitted By: Marissa Daniels, Community Development Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE This aspect of the council public hearing covers the land use elements of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) which include urban forestry standards for development and tree grove preservation incentives. The purpose of the hearing is to have Council discussion and get Council direction on eight policy issues and potential code changes in advance of the November 27, 2012 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive the staff report and: 1. Provide direction to staff for each of the eight policy issues of interest. 2. Verify whether issues of interest have been accurately categorized for the discussion. The staff report /memo is in draft and will be sent to Council on Thursday, October 18. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 11, 2012 Council discussed the UFCR proposal and confirmed the list of issues of interest for further study or possible code changes. This information has been reformatted into a discussion guide for October 23, 2012 (Attachment A, to be sent on Thursday October 18). This memo categorizes each issue of interest based on topic (ie. standards for development or hazard trees) and type (ie. policy issue or clarification item). The purpose of this meeting is to get council direction on the eight policy items which relate to the overall direction of the code. For each policy item a staff response and recommendation has been included. Staff responses to both policy issues and issues for clarification are included in Attachment A. On October 23, a joint panel that will include Community Development staff; Todd Prager, former staff member and now principal of Todd Prager and Associates; and AKS Engineering and Forestry, the firm who completed the peer review of the draft code, will present a brief overview of the code topics relevant to council's issues of interest. For each topic, the presentation will include a discussion of policy issues raised by council, the Planning Commission's recommendation and policy alternatives based on council's deliberations to this point. Staff requests Council direction on each policy item and indicate whether it is desirable to: 1. Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, 2. Choose one of the policy alternatives proposed by staff, or 3. Propose a new alternative Public Hearing Overview At the October 23, 2012 meeting: • Todd Prager will present the policy issues of interest. • Council will direct staff on any desired code changes to address each of the issues. • Council will notify staff of any issues for clarification that should be brought forward as policy issues. • This meeting is designed for maximum discussion by the Council about the proposal. Public testimony will be accepted at the end of the hearing, limited to three minutes per person. At the November 27, 2012 meeting. • Staff will present a report based on council direction from prior meetings. • Public testimony will be taken on any changes under consideration. • Potential council decision to adopt any changes and the entire UFCR package. Additional meetings may be scheduled if more time is needed to adopt the proposal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council has a wide range of options in the legislative adoption process. Council could also decide not to adopt any changes to the existing codes. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS •Goal 1.b.i. Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including tree code. 'Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 2. Tigard's Urban Forest ' Urban Forestry Master Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council previously considered this matter on the following dates: •February 16, 2010 (council direction to pursue a comprehensive set of code revisions) 'October 19, 2010 'November 9, 2010 ' November 23, 2010 'January 25, 2011 !July 19, 2011 (staff presentation and council input on draft code revisions) 'January 24, 2012 'July 10, 2012 !July 24, 2012 (first public hearing on planning commission recommended code revisions) 'August 14, 2012 'September 11, 2012 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: Cost: N/A Budgeted (yes or no): N/A Where Budgeted (department /program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: The code amendments contained in the Urban Forestry Code Revisions package do not have a direct impact on the city's revenue and expenditures. Certain fees are proposed to be created and other to be adjusted. These fees, their purposes, and calculation methodologies are contained in the Resolution and its exhibits attached to agenda item 914. The amount of funds collected in the Urban Forestry Fund may be affected by the proposed change from the existing "tree mitigation" fee to the proposed "tree canopy" fee. Attachments Memo - Urban Forestry Code Revisions 0 0 a • 1 NI City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Tigard City Council From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Date: October 1, 2012 On October 23, 2012, City Council will continue discussion on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions. At the September 11, 2012, public hearing, staff presented a list of 47 "issues of interest" to capture Council feedback. At that time, Council gave direction to staff to categorize and simplify the list of issues to be discussed. The result of that process is included on page 3 of this memo (Discussion Guide). Issues from the September matrix have been condensed and categorized, then sorted into the following types: Policy Issues are items where Council has indicated a desire to look at potential changes to Planning Commission's recommendation. Discussion on October 23, 2012, will center on these items and staff will be asking Council to provide direction on each issue. Appendix A details each of the policy issues and provides a staff response. Most notable are the few areas where staff has provided options to consider, based on your prior discussions. This includes alternatives to: • Exempt single family residential trees on private property (i.e. backyard trees) from maintenance and permit requirements. • Revise the Administrative Rules during their (separate) adoption process. Specific items to address at that time could include: — Should the tree lists be amended? — Should the administrative rules be simplified? • Revise the proposed code to clarify that hazard trees are required to be removed only after complaints are verified using industry standard methods. Issues for Clarification are informational in nature, and Appendix B includes staff response. While some of these questions may be answered by the staff presentation, we do not plan to run through each item individually. If there is an item in this category you'd like to raise for group discussion, please do so during the October 23, 2012, meeting. Future issues will not be considered in the adoption of the code at this time. For example, if Council wishes to amend certain administrative rules in the Urban Forestry Manual, then that 1 can be addressed during the upcoming administrative rules adoption process. Solar access is another example of an issue Council identified as a future work item. Resolved indicates issues discussed on September 11, 2012 with some resolution. Please note that time for public testimony will be provided. Staff from AKS, the firm that completed the Peer Review, will also be on hand. Background Council took the approach of first studying community values and existing conditions to set the framework for addressing the code. This began with the Comprehensive Plan process which established broad, 20 year goals and policies through the new Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan. From the Comprehensive Plan, council then directed the Urban Forestry Master Plan which expanded upon the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and studied the issues in much greater detail. While the long term goal in the Master Plan is to increase citywide tree canopy from the current 25% up to 40 %, the short term action items are to revise the city's urban forestry codes and funding streams in support of that goal. We're now here on the ground implementing the action items in the Urban Forestry Master Plan: • Revising the land use and non land use elements of the code, • Creating the Urban Forestry Manual to administer the code, and • Updating the Master Fees and Charges Schedule to reflect fees associated with the recommended code. The City Attorney advised staff to separate the land use vs. non land use elements of the code on council agendas because they have different process requirements. The Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives apply during development and so are categorized as land use elements, and the Tree Permit Requirements, Hazard Trees and Urban Forestry Manual represent the non land use elements of the code. The Urban Forestry Manual consists of administrative rules that implement the details of the land use and non land use elements of the code. 2 Discussion Guide Urban Forestry Code Revision Issues of Interest - September 11, 2012 Type 111 v � b a c i? ° V Gremory Issue 0w V w aG 5. Is the canopy approach appropriate as a regulatory tool? P1 .« a 10. How will the requirements apply to large subdivisions vs. small infill (i.e. partitions) P2 • a. and redevelopment sites? 2 11. Should developers be requited to maintain trees for two years after planting to ensure P3 m establishment? 7. Are the canopy requirements a regulatory taking? l� 32. Are the tree planting, removal and thinning standards internally consistent? ' 33. What is the `built environment" (e.g. trees are allowed to be removed if their roots A damage the "built environment ")? 35. Are there some inappropriate trees on the lists such as London Plane Tree? u 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? 0 04 4 39. Should there be spacing standards between trees and from buildings? 40. Why are there different standards for planting open grown vs. stand grown trees? 44. Why is it necessary to specify sheet size and scale for development plans? 1 45. Is it necessary for the city to have hard copies submittals of development plans? 46. Is requiring tree protection inspections by arborists /landscape architects twice monthly (luting development excessive? 48. Complexity of requirements to draw plans. u 34. Do the tree lists provide enough options? h' 35. Are there some inappropriate trees on the lists such as London Plane Tree? F 9, 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? 0 I • t 4 37. Is there a federal definition of a nuisance tree that can be used to develop the list? a4 38. Should Norway Maple be removed from the nuisance tree list? 43. Are there trees on the list that will cause damage to underground pipes and utilities? 22. Should a permit be required to remove trees that were planted or preserved with P4 development? • a 21. Should permits continue to be required to remove trees on private property? 20. Are the proposed permit requirements more restrictive than the existing permit Cl ' requirements? ;; a 23. Who will serve on the board or committee that makes decisions regarding removing C2 F " healthy, protected trees? 25. Why does the code allow the removal and replacement of trees that die within three C3 years of planting (e.g.8.12.040)? 28. Should hazard trees be prohibited in Tigard? P5 E 27. How do the hazard tree requirements relate to insurance requirements? P6 b 26. Will the hazard tree requirements be effective in requiring removal of hazard trees C4 when there are disputes? 29. Are there conflicts between the hazard tree requirements and the recently adopted C5 nuisance code? 16/30. Should the Administrative Rules (Urban Forestry Manual) be eliminated and the P7 elements moved into the Code? 044 *Does the proposal increase the cost of development due to the tree canopy plan and soil P8 • volume plan requirements? 14. Do the administrative rules that implement the development code meet state land use C6 e 7 law? 15. Will the use of administrative rules lead to more appeals of development projects? C7 17. Do the administrative rules for the development code need to be so detailed? 31. Are the administrative rules a solution in search of a problem? 9/13. Will the cost of development increase due to the tree canopy plan and soil volume C8 ▪ plan requirements? *Should parking lot canopy (and associated soil volume) be required, since it could lead to C9 increased development costs? l o *How will funding of the Urban Forestry Program be affected by the proposal? C10 1. Was there a balance of viewpoint when developing the proposal? II 2. Is there a disconnect between where we started (i.e. Comp Plan and Urban Forestry . g , Master Plan) and where we ended? 8 3. Do Tigard residents support a 40% long term canopy goal? p ' a 4. Is the 40% canopy goal for all private property or is it citywide? C11 A 19. Should there be a review period after adoption? C12 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? C13 8. Will the canopy requirements prevent solar access? a 24. Should people have the right to significant view corridors such as Mt. Hood views? 41. Should there be limits on tree heights in order to preserve significant view corridors such as Mt. Hood views? r ? 42. Should there be restrictions on planting evergreen trees on the south side of streets (due to winter shade /ice issues)? * Denotes issues raised on September 11, 2012 3 Policy Issues Standards for Development P1 Issue of Interest: Is the canopy approach an appropriate regulator too Staff Response: Many cities and counties throughout the country, particularly in the southeastern United States, have adopted tree canopy ordinances. The CAC and Planning Commission felt the approach was right for Tigard for three main reasons: • The canopy approach allows maximum flexibility for the project designer to meet code requirements. • The canopy approach is more consistent with urban forest science and the city's long -term urban forestry goals. It encourages large stature, appropriately spaced trees, which have the highest benefit /cost ratios. • The canopy approach requires the project designer to consider future canopy growth, which helps ensure that trees are properly placed within a site to become long -term amenities. It encourages appropriate tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by highlighting mature canopy growth. The CAC and Planning Commission supported the development of a tiered approach to the canopy requirements, recognizing that, for example, more tree canopy is desirable and achievable in residential zones than in industrial zones. Staff and consultants then extensively tested the tiered tree canopy requirements on a wide range of development projects and made adjustments as needed based on CAC and Planning Commission input. The goal of the CAC and Planning Commission was to ensure the requirements are achievable, result in a reasonable balance between trees and development, and do not force typical development projects to pay a fee in lieu of canopy or utilize the discretionary review option. If the canopy requirements are modified significantly, staff recommends additional testing to determine the implications of the modifications. For example, if the canopy requirements are reduced by half, they may be achieved with small stature street trees only and result in less tree canopy in new development than currently exists in the same zones. For more detailed information about why a tree canopy approach was selected over tree count (i.e. tree density or number of trees) please see Volume V, page 6. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the proposed canopy approach and tiered canopy requirements because they have been extensively tested and supported through the Citizen Advisory Committee, public involvement, and Planning Commission processes. If significant modifications are made, staff will need more time to rework the proposal and recommends additional testing of the results. 4 P2 Issue of Interest: How will the requirements apply to small infill sites vs. larger subdivisions, planned developments and redevelopment sites?itilliMM Staff Response: Taking into consideration future development trends, the Planning Commission recommended continuing to apply the draft code standards to Minor Land Partitions (when lots are divided to create two or three lots). These small infill sites represent a significant portion of potential future development. The draft code standards are also applicable to larger projects such as residential Subdivisions and Planned Developments, and redevelopment projects that require Conditional Use Permits, Downtown Design Reviews and Site Development Reviews. Independent peer review by AKS Engineering and Forestry (See Volume II, pages 187- 217) demonstrated that the proposed effective tree canopy requirements were achievable on the range of sites that were tested, including three residential sites with smaller lots from the following zones: Zoning Tierl Minimum Lot Effective Tree Size Canopy Provided R -4.5 Tier 1 7,500 sq. ft. 45% R -7 Tier 1 5,000 sq. ft. 215% R -25 Tier 2 <3,000 sq. ft. 35% The Planning Commission approved two changes to the proposal, specifically addressing sites with smaller or more constrained lots: • Recognizing that small lots may have limited street frontage for street trees, the commission reduced the per lot minimum from 20% to 15% for Tier 1 sites, and eliminated the per lot minimum for Tier 2 and 3 sites. • The commission voted to move the R -12 district from Tier 1 to Tier 2 to be conservative since an R -12 site was not tested through the peer review. Staff Recommendation: Retain the Planning Commission recommendations. As described in P1, the tiered canopy requirements were carefully tested and adjusted by Planning Commission before forwarding their recommendation to Council. They found that proposed requirements achieve the desired balance between trees and development on small infill sites as well as larger subdivisions, planned developments, and redevelopment sites. Additional testing would be beneficial to determine the implications of significant modifications to the proposed canopy requirements. P3 Issue of Interest: Should dAlopag be Arr years after planting to ensure establishment? Staff Response: In the existing code, the City requires developers to guarantee mitigation tree survival during a two year establishment period. Guarantees are not 1 Tier 1 (40% effective canopy) - R -1, R -2, R -3.5, R -4.5 and R -7 zones Tier 2 (33% effective canopy) - R -12, R -25, R -40, C -N, C -C, C -G, C -P, MUE, MUE -1, MUE -2, MUC, MUR, and I -P zones Tier 3 (25% effective canopy) - MU -CBD, MUC -1, I -L, I -H, and schools (18.130.050Q)) zones 5 currently required for the establishment of street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees. The UFCR CAC recommended and the Planning Commission concurred that the city should require a guarantee period for all required trees (street trees, parking lot trees, etc.) not just mitigation trees. Often these other required trees have more difficulty becoming established because they are planted in more challenging locations such as along streets and within parking lots. The proposal requires bonding for 2 years after planting for all required trees to ensure early establishment. Note: There is a separate provision in Tide 8 of the Municipal Code that allows the removal and replacement of required trees that die within three years after planting (further explained in C3 below). This provision has been reviewed by staff and does not conflict with the provision in Tide 18 that requires developers to maintain trees for two years after planting. The reason the provisions do not conflict is that the Title 8 requirement does not apply during development and the Tide 18 provision only applies during periods of active development. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommended requirement for a two year early establishment period. Options to consider, based on your discussions, include an alternative to remove the maintenance period for single family residential trees on private property (i.e. backyard trees). If planted in desirable locations, these residential trees may have a higher likelihood of survival because of the care they receive from homeowners. At the same time, this alternative would allow owners more flexibility in managing their residential landscapes. However if homes do not sell soon after being built, these trees may not survive if not maintained by the builder /developer. Tree Permit Requirements P4 I' of Interest: Should permit be required to remove trees that planted or preserved with development ? - - - . Staff Response: Trees that were required to be planted or preserved as part of past development projects are part of the approved land use permit for that development. This includes mature trees that were preserved and incorporated into development plans, as well as newly planted trees such as parking lot shade trees. Because there is no permit process in the existing code to address the removal and replacement of healthy trees that were required with development, applicants must amend their prior land use permits to legally remove these trees. This process is overly time consuming and expensive with fees into the thousands of dollars. There are many legitimate reasons as to why owners may want to remove healthy trees that were required with development. These reasons include trees with roots that have 6 begun damaging pavement and trees that have grown tall enough to obscure significant views. In order to provide more flexibility and reduce or eliminate costs, the CAC recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred with establishing a tree removal permit process for trees that were required with development in the proposed Tide 8. Staff Recommendation: Retain the Planning Commission recommendation. Requiring tree permits for trees planted or preserved with development has been supported through the Citizens Advisory Committee, public involvement, and Planning Commission process. Options to consider, based on Council discussions, include removing this requirement for private single family residential trees. If planted or preserved in desirable locations, these residential trees may have a low probability of being removed by homeowners. At the same time, this would allow owners more flexibility in managing their residential landscapes. However, particularly with past development projects, neighbors may have an expectation that certain trees will continue to be preserved or maintained if it was required as part of that project. Also, in the proposed code, trees planted or preserved to meet the requirements receive from 100% to 200% canopy credit. Council will need to decide whether planted and /or preserved trees used to meet canopy requirements should continue to be maintained after development is complete. Hazard Trees �P5 sue oTlnteiest: Should hazard trees be proTed in Tigard. " Staff Response: Hazard trees are prohibited in both the current and the proposed Tigard Municipal Code. This is similar to other code prohibitions against nuisances such as tall weeds and grass. In the proposal the definition of "hazard tree" is now consistent with the standardized rating system developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. This helps to remove subjectivity during the hazard tree evaluation process by using industry standard methods and terminology. The overall risk rating of a tree is determined by three main factors: probability of failure, size of defective part, and the target area (i.e. how often the site is occupied and the value of the target). Using this methodology, a dead tree in a natural area is unlikely to be considered a hazard because the target rating would be very low, whereas the same tree on Durham Road may be considered a hazard because there are many high value targets. The Tree Risk Assessment Form, which has been adapted from the ISA form, can be found in Volume III pages 61 -65. As recommended by the CAC and supported by the Planning Commission, if a tree on an adjacent property is a hazard, Chapter 8.08 would allow people to file a claim with the city. The city would then utilize a third party arborist to evaluate the tree. If the 7 arborist determines there is a hazard, abatement would be required. The city could, after obtaining a warrant, enter a property, abate a hazard tree and recover costs in cases where an owner is uncooperative. The city could abate tree hazards without a warrant when there is an imminent threat to public health or safety as is currently allowed by the existing code. The intent of the proposed code is to establish an objective and efficient process for the abatement of hazard trees only after complaints are verified. The intent is not to cause the wide spread removal of all trees that may or may not be hazards. Consistent with current code enforcement practices, the city would only take action in response to written complaints. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation. One policy option to consider, based on Council discussions, is to revise the proposed code to clarify that hazard trees are required to be removed only after complaints are verified using industry standard methods. P6 Issue of Interest: Should the hazard tree standards be amended to address ersonal liability insurance requirements? Staff Response: Staff will work with Council to further clarify the impact of the code on personal liability insurance requirements. Policy Options: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation. Policy alternative: Council direction to address requirements. Administrative Rules P7 Issue of Interest: Should the AdministratiRules be eliminated and the elements moved into the Code? Staff Response: Administrative rules were developed for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project to clearly document and communicate most of the city's current administrative practices without making the code excessively long. For example, administrative items such as planting specifications, tree lists and methods for calculating tree canopy are more efficient when placed within an administrative manual rather than in the development code. Also when administrative changes are required such as adding or subtracting trees from the tree lists, the amendment process for administrative rules is more efficient while at the same time providing for adequate public notice and the opportunity for public participation. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the format of the Planning Commission recommendation, separating the Code elements from the administrative procedures. In developing the proposal, public input from the range of viewpoints involved wanted the specificity that the proposed administrative rules provide. 8 Due to the lack of specificity in the existing code, there are numerous staff interpretations and conditions of approval required to implement the code when approving development applications. The intent of the proposed administrative rules is to minimize staff discretion when implementing the code thereby increasing certainly for applicants and the public. Options to consider, based on Council discussions, include an opportunity to revise the Administrative Rules during the administrative rulemaking process. According to Municipal Code section 2.04.070 (Administrative Rulemaking Procedure), council shall be notified 14 days prior to public notice of any proposed administrative rules. At any time during that 14 day period, any councilmember may put the administrative rules for discussion on the next available council agenda. For this project, if council authorizes administrative rules when adopting the UFCR on November 27, 2012, staff anticipates formally notifying council of the administrative rules on December 13, 2012 and sending public notice of administrative rules on December 27, 2012. Therefore, any councilmember may decide between December 13 through December 27, 2012 to put the administrative rules for discussion as part of the next available council agenda. Of course, if council informs staff on October 23, 2012 that they anticipate further discussion of administrative rules, staff will begin finding time on council's early 2013 agenda for administrative rules. Specific items to address during the administrative rule adoption could include: • Should the tree lists be amended? • Should the administrative rules be simplified? Another option to consider is whether to eliminate the administrative rules all together. For the reasons stated above, staff does not recommend this option. However, if council does direct staff to eliminate the administrative rules, staff will need time to further amend the code. This is because as drafted, the code includes numerous cross references to administrative rules in the Urban Forestry Manual such as canopy requirements and how to calculate those requirements. If the administrative rules are eliminated, those details will need to be moved into the code. P8 I' 'of Interest: Does the proposal increase the cost of development da canopy plan and soil volume plan requirements ? Staff Response: The proposed code places a high value on the role of urban forestry professionals in designing and implementing the conditions for sustainable urban tree canopy, which include providing adequate soil volumes. Staff acknowledges that requiring urban forestry professionals adds costs to projects, but it is consistent with the goals of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions: to distribute development costs more equitably (rather than only requiring arborists for projects with existing trees) and to focus on establishing healthy future canopy (rather than only penalties for removal). 9 As an example, based on interviews with local arborists the current estimated cost to develop and implement a tree plan for a Minor Land Partition is between $4,000 and $5,000 (this includes inventory field work, site plan, arborist report, revisions based on city review, implementation and twice monthly inspections). However, costs associated with the existing code for tree removal mitigation alone can reach $30,000 for a Minor Land Partition (this is in addition to the cost of developing and implementing a tree plan. The Planning Commission approved the following change to the proposal in order to lower the potential costs associated with the tree canopy and soil volume plan requirements: • Landscape architects, in addition to arborists, are allowed to develop urban forestry plans to reduce costs by eliminating the need for hiring two urban forestry professionals. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation, including the change to allow landscape architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans. Soil volume plans are not a requirement, but instead an option if the applicant wishes to maximize impervious surfaces and minimize open soil areas for trees. We're not expecting to see this type of development in typical single family residential neighborhoods since there is usually so much soil space available for tree growth. This option might be utilized at non - residential sites if, for example, an applicant wants to maximize the number of parking stalls in a parking lot and provide trees with necessary soil under paved surfaces. However, applicants would need to evaluate whether it makes economic sense to invest in implementing soil volume plans on a project by project basis. 10 Issues for Clarification Tree Permit Requirements Cl Issue of Interest: Are the proposed permit requirements more restrictive than the existing permit requirements? Staff Response: The following categories of trees are currently regulated by the city, in the proposed Title 8, these categories of trees will continue to be regulated, with no expansion of regulations to additional categories. The most notable change in this topic area is the creation of a consolidated permit system to make the permitting process clear, consistent and user friendly. • Street and median trees, • Trees in sensitive lands, • Trees that were required with development, • Trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund, and • Heritage trees. In some cases, the proposed permit requirements would be less restrictive than the existing permit requirements. For example, currently if someone wants to remove a healthy tree that was required with development they may only do so by amending the prior land use permit or paying fines. Either option typically costs thousands of dollars. The proposed permit requirements create a low or no fee permit process to remove healthy trees required with development for additional reasons such as if they are causing damage or blocking views. Also, currently permits are required to remove any tree over six inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands and the proposed permit requirements would apply only to native trees over six inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands. C2 Issue of Interest: Who will serve on the board or committee t iat makes decisions regarding removing healthy, protected trees? Staff Response: Section 8.04.030 authorizes the city manager to designate a city board or committee to make decisions regarding removing healthy, protected trees. This could become part of the charge of an existing board or committee or the city manager could designate a new board or committee. If the charge of an existing board or committee is amended, council would need to approve the change. If a new board or committee is formed, council would need to approve the member composition consistent with the current staff appointment process. C3 Issue of Interest: Why does the code allow the removal and replacement of trees that die within three years of planting (e.g.8.12.030)? Staff Response: It is not uncommon for trees to die within the first three years after planting because their roots have not yet become established. The proposed code recognizes this phenomenon and allows for the removal and replacement of newly planted trees that die without requiring another permit. For example, if a property 11 owner receives a permit to remove and replace a street tree, and the replacement street tree dies the first summer during a heat wave, the owner could remove and replace the tree on their own without yet another city permit. This is intended to save property owners and city staff time and paperwork. Hazard Trees C4 Issue of Interest: Will the hazard tree requirements be effective in requiring removal of hazard trees when there are disputes? Staff Response: The hazard tree requirements were developed in close collaboration with the city's risk division and attorney, and are expected to be effective in requiring hazard tree removal. If a tree on an adjacent property is disputed to be a hazard, Chapter 8.08 would allow people to file a claim with the city. The city would then utilize a third party arborist to evaluate the tree. If the arborist determines there is a hazard, abatement would be required. The city could, after obtaining a warrant, enter a property, abate a hazard tree and recover costs in cases where an owner is uncooperative. The city could abate tree hazards without a warrant when there is an imminent threat to public health or safety as is currently allowed by the existing code. These requirements would create an efficient and effective framework for addressing hazard trees while not unduly exposing the city to liability, C5 Issue of Interest: Are there conflicts between the hazard tree requirements and the recently adopted nuisance code? Staff Response: Susan Hartnett, former Assistant Community Development Director, and Albert Shields, Program Development Specialist, served on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the UFCR and confirmed that the hazard tree requirements in Title 8 do not conflict with the recently adopted nuisance code requirements in Title 6. When amending the nuisance code, Code Compliance staff avoided making substantive changes to the hazard tree requirements because they were aware of the upcoming changes that would be made through the UFCR project. When substantive changes were made to the hazard tree requirements in Title 8 (section 8.02.050, Hazard Tree Related Definitions and Chapter 8.06, Hazard Trees) revisions to Title 6 (sections 6.01.020, 6.02.030 and 6.04.040) were made concurrently to ensure consistency. Adoption of Title 8 will not replace the changes that were made to Title 6. Administrative Rules — General C6 Issue of Interest: Do the administrative rules (Urban Forestry Manual) that implement the development code meet state land use law? Staff Response: The administrative rules that implement the development code were drafted in close collaboration with the City Attorney and are consistent with state land use law. The administrative rules include clear and objective standards such as tree 12 planting and preservation requirements which are referenced by the development code. After obtaining land use approval, an applicant must provide plans consistent with these requirements before being issued building permits. This is similar to other administrative requirements such as the pipe diameter for water service lines, and building code requirements, which are referenced by the development code rather than included as part of the code itself. Separating these administrative requirements is intended to prevent the code from becoming excessively long while at the same time providing certainty as to the city's planting and preservation standards. C7 Issue of Interest: Will the use of administrative rules lead to more appeals of development projects? Staff Response: Staff believes the use of administrative rules will reduce the likelihood of appeals by making the development code requirements more clear and objective. Due to the lack of clarity in the existing code, there are numerous staff interpretations and conditions of approval required to implement the code when approving development projects. If someone disagrees with staff's interpretations or conditions, then they may appeal staffs decision. Decisions as to compliance with the administrative rules are not intended as land use decisions. The intent of the administrative rules is to minimize staff interpretations and conditions thereby increasing certainly for applicants and the public, and reducing the likelihood of appeals. Soil Volumes C8 Issue of Interest: Are soil volume standards necessary in residential areas 'and do they apply only during development Staff Response: Trees need soil to grow and there is a direct relationship between the amount of soil provided and the mature size of trees. Soil volume standards are proposed for street trees and parking lot trees because these tree types are the most likely to not be provided adequate soil volumes. Since street trees are required as part of residential development (i.e. subdivisions, planned developments and partitions), the soil volume standards would apply in these circumstances. The proposed code applies soil volumes standard only during development since there is the opportunity to design the sites to provide sufficient soils for trees. Soil volumes standards would not apply, for example, in situations where an existing homeowner wants to plant a new street tree. The Home Builders Association (HBA) supported applying soil volume standards to residential development during the CAC process because one of the goals of the UFCR was to focus on healthy future tree canopy rather than the punitive mitigation standards for tree removal in the existing code. Another reason for HBA support was the flexibility allowed in meeting soil volume requirements through traditional, low - cost methods such as increasing the size of planter strips for street trees (see code 13 section 18.790.050.C.3). More expensive methods such as the use of engineered soils under pavement is one option for meeting soil volume standards, but not the preferred option in most situations. CO Issue of Interest: Should p arking lot canopy (and associafl volume) be required, since it could lead to increased development costs? Staff Response: Soil volume standards are proposed for parking lot trees because, based on a review of past projects, these tree types are often not provided adequate soil volumes to support mature canopy growth. The proposed standards are intended to support Council goals identified through the Urban Forestry Master Plan for increasing tree canopy over parking lots. There is flexibility allowed in meeting soil volume requirements through traditional, low -cost methods such as providing larger landscape islands for parking lot trees. This can be achieved through strategic parking lot design and /or the use of an allowed reduction of up to 20% required parking for planting trees (see code section 18.790.050.C.3). More expensive methods such as the use of engineered soils under pavement is one option for meeting soil volume standards. These engineered methods may be used if the value of parking exceeds the cost of using engineered soil designs. Funding C10 Issue of Interest: How will funding of the Urban Forestry Program be affected by the proposal? Staff Response: Funding of the Urban Forestry Program is not expected to be significantly affected by the proposal. Based on past Tree City USA reporting data, the staff costs associated with administering the code ranges from approximately $100,000 to $150,000 annually depending on the level of development. These staff costs are budgeted by the Community Development Department and supported by the city's General Fund. While the proposed code includes a shift from a tree mitigation to a tree canopy approach, the staff costs associated with administering the code are not expected to change significantly. Staff would like to clarify that in the "Policy Roadmap" matrix from Council's September 11, 2012 meeting, the column heading titled "Additional Cost to Implement ?" may have caused some confusion. The column heading more accurately should have read "Ongoing Cost to Implement ?" since the intent was to differentiate between one -time project costs versus ongoing program costs. Again, these ongoing program costs are not expected to change significantly from what is already budgeted by the Community Development Department for staff costs associated with administering the code, and we have adequately budgeted for program costs within existing resources. 14 Proposal Development Process C11 Issue of Interest: Is the 40% canopy goal for all private property or is it citywide? Staff Response: The 40% canopy goal in the Urban Forestry Master Plan is a citywide canopy goal that takes into account parks, natural areas, streets, commercial, and residential areas. The Urban Forestry Master Plan seeks to achieve 40% citywide tree canopy by the year 2047. The current amount of citywide tree canopy is approximately 25% with variable distribution from 46% on City of Tigard property, 30% on private residential property, 9% on streets (public right of way), and 6% in parking lots. The 40% effective canopy goal in the Urban Forestry Code Revisions is for lower density residential property (Tier 1). Due to the various credits and standards for the calculations (e.g. 200% credit for preservation, 125% credit for planting native trees, and full credit for street trees) the actual canopy provided through planting and preservation ranges from 16% to 40% canopy or an of average 28% canopy for lower density residential property. There is also the option of paying a fee in lieu or receiving discretionary approval for green building or development techniques instead of providing trees. The proposed code requirements have been compared with one's effective tax rate versus their actual tax rate. C12 Issue of Interest: Should there be a review period after adoption? Staff Response: Both the CAC and Planning Commission recommended an evaluation of the new regulations within five years of their effective date so that any necessary adjustments can be made in a timely manner. This is intended to avoid the need for a complete overhaul of the regulations which is a challenge for all participants. C13 Issue of Interest: How was the nuisance tree list developed? $A Staff Response: Morgan Holen, certified arborist and forest biologist, served on the UFCR CAC. Just prior to the development of the City of Tigard's nuisance tree list, Ms. Holen was contracted by the City of Lake Oswego to develop their nuisance tree list for very similar purposes (to exempt certain species from tree permit requirements). In order to benefit from the up to date work of another expert in an adjacent city, staff utilized the City of Lake Oswego's list for the City of Tigard's purposes. Ms. Holen's process began with compiling nuisance tree lists from other local jurisdictions such as Clean Water Services and the City of Portland. She then researched and verified the list of tree species using additional sources such as the Native Plant Society of Oregon and the Plant Conservation Affiance. Finally, Ms. Holen further refined the list by contacting local ISA certified arborists and receiving additional feedback. She identified twelve local tree species as capable of spreading at such a rate that they cause harm to human health, the environment 15 and/or economy. These twelve species were peer reviewed and approved by Tigard's UFCR CAC and TAG (both included experts on nuisance tree species), and are proposed for inclusion in the City of Tigard's nuisance tree list. It is important to note that the purpose of the nuisance tree list is to automatically allow the removal of nuisance trees when requested as part of the tree removal permit process. There is no requirement to remove nuisance trees if an owner wants to retain them. 16 C I T Y O F T I G A R D Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done 1111 " TIGARD Urban Forestry Code Revisions Council Direction on Policy Issues of Interest Community Development I October 2012 C I T Y O F T I G A R D P1: Is the canopy approach an appropriate regulatory tool? PRI A.41‘.41 lek, rir A. Ail7N ;� : �► �--- ;-„fir � 4640, :::::: ���,� mt%:11111h, 74:11 • . tgk ai N1 Preservation Planting Fee -in -lieu Discretionary Review Comment: Planning Commission supported the flexibility of this approach Alternative: Council direction to develop different requirements Standards for Development C I T Y O F T I G A R D P2: How will the requirements apply to various sites? Tier Canopy Range Zoning II 0 1 16 -40% •Lower density residential irla�i j ��`��r1 'Higher density residential Preservation Planting 2 13 -33% 'Commercial �� � •:;, 'Mixed used : = : " � , � � • ;.� `. :L: At (A ) 1111114� 3 10 -25% • Fee -in -lieu Discretionary Review IS Comment: Planning Commission recommends tiered canopy approach Alternative: Council direction to develop new approach Standards for Development C I T Y O F T I G A R D P3: Should developers be required to maintain trees for two years? <,, "I" 4 ...., Immo . , , _ ,, ,. 0, ,, !t.4• . , . , i7,11;6„, 7 44 4 d "+rte w d { ; tcc` ' *': N n, 5 1 ` t -fffr Comment: This is consistent with existing tree establishment requirements Alternative: Do not require maintenance on private single family residential lots Standards for Development C I T Y O F T I G A R D P4: Should permits be required to remove trees required with development? ' Or - ' ..l - - :„ 41 4- 4,fr . ..,igt-iL4., •• ' f - .. . • r j.t .. I 1" ' ' r - * .: r ; 2, + 1 V • �'h 114%_ t •r r 'MI AIIRt t.at,, !` i - , - : :.: - =.:,..- + _ _. = sue. Comment: Planning Commission found permit process increases flexibility Alternative: Do not require permits for private single family residential lots Tree Permit Requirements C I T Y or T I G A R ID P5: Should hazard trees be prohibited in Tigard? f ti % a r a . 4' o ff _ �NN I r1 1 r 1 r I I� I 1 fi JJ r Comment: The existing code prohibits hazard trees Alternative: Clarify that removal is required only after complaints are verified Hazard Trees C I T Y O F T I G A R D P6: Should hazard trees standards address personal liability requirements? _ < , r.< Y• D - -- i t _ - -�- r✓ 9 �' �f 1 i X Comment: City Attorney advises the code should not address this civil issue Alternative: Council direction to address requirements Hazard Trees C I T Y O F T I G A R D P7: Should the Administrative Rules be eliminated or moved into the Code? r 4 t' �V . likA7-,---- \„,,,-.., - ,, . ..„,...- ' milk • - ...;., , ,e , i Comment: Admin. Rules provide certainty without making Code too long Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules C I T Y OF T I G A R D P8: Does the proposal increase the cost of development? Example Costs for 2 Lot Partition i 4 ..... Code Design/ Mitigation Total Implementation Cost r ,ice , , Existing - $4,000 $30,000 $34,000 .• . Code 2 Lot Partition Proposed �rrrrrmris.. _� $5,000 $0 $5,000 Code Comment: Overall costs not expected to increase Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules C I T Y O r T I G A R D Public Testimony I". '' - -' ':.dd!. '' '`i t`s 4. • ill._' .1, ,k "‘1,, /' II • ..... � * '` y i 1:x + 1 y„ ` �• t +. " �7 , lF;;;:: -'*_ 7 "1- ' ; • ... W 4 . il; C I T Y OF T I G A R D P5: Should hazard trees be prohibited in Tigard? c 7 , f,- 4 , t . %; p ( `° / /�/ 4i _ / M '' Comment: The existing code prohibits hazard trees Alternative: Clarify that removal is required only after complaints are verified Hazard Trees C I T Y OF T I G A R D P6: Should hazard trees standards address personal liability requirements? • I „i► �. �►ot / L 11 / A 1 Comment: City Attorney advises the code should not address this civil issue Alternative: Council direction to address requirements Hazard Trees C I T Y O F T I G A R D P7: Should the Administrative Rules be eliminated or moved into the Code? / N, - ' ' :: : : - N ' ill. " lii .;‘ ' „ sEk. \ 1,,,, ..\ \.,...., \ , i „, .. _ -,,,..,,, , ., , _44.. ,_ ...... _ „.\\,, ,,, ' . Comment: Admin. Rules provide certainty without making Code too long Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules C I T Y O F T I G A R D P8: Does the proposal increase the cost of development? Example Costs for 2 Lot Partition Code Design/ Mitigation Total r ° ' ti Implementation Cost I . r Existing . Code $4,000 $30,000 $34,000 T " ..:',1,-; T ' n ; Proposed $5,000 Code $ $5,000 Comment: Overall costs not expected to increase Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules CITY OF T I G A R D .__ Public Testimony ........ .. ... , .,. • ,,,,,. ...,..• ,v.... -- .-...,...• .,.; ,... , . . .,..,: -4 ' , , .... , • 2 , ,..,„ , „ ly. 1 ■ I, .. l ',.. .1..... — ' A:40..... .. ! ' •""...t :,, , • ,.. --• • ' 'Art„ If*, 4 77 , 4;."' ....v. / // ...., ''t , r; . '-'',* . - 7, ! • -16 ' • :'“- ' . i '" r . . . ,,,,,, , ...s.,,I, 6 * . • . ."' ' 1. .. T S 0 I. . • ' "NIFrk " ' e • . ' .111• , .....V. ...., ...,:, ,,.. N. , a \ , , i , . • .... .. .;' • ir:.f: • i '.■*. ". ;-' 4 .. .. .. . • ,• • ..- • .... -.„..., ,., . . • ., . • .. ., . • •,.... • .„.„. • .„ f . 444 ..... 4 7 . •• , s " . 1 PN. " " w*V-"—... • ., , e. -- ItrIfIlf vi. ii..•••■-- .rt. wirominv.. -_, . 7,:: rist . . - - Irtm, 4 v - - _ - — -- --,— -----• - - - - . ..„ i:•;,••41'...7." AIS -977 4. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes Agenda Tide: Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Non Land Use Elements Submitted By: Marissa Daniels, Community Development Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE This aspect of the council workshop covers the non land use elements of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions which include tree permit requirements, hazard trees and the Urban Forestry ManuaL The purpose of the hearing is for Council to discuss, and to get Council direction on eight policy issues and potential code changes in advance of the November 27, 2012 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive the staff report and: 1. Provide direction to staff for each of the eight policy issues of interest. 2. Verify whether issues of interest have been accurately categorized for the discussion. The memo (staff report) is still in draft and will be sent to Council on Thursday, October 18. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 11, 2012 Council discussed the UFCR proposal and confirmed the list of issues of interest for further study or possible code changes. This information has been reformatted into a discussion guide for October 23, 2012 (Attachment A, to be transmitted to Council on Thursday, October 18). This memo categorizes each issue of interest based on topic (i.e. standards for development or hazard trees) and type (i.e. policy issue or clarification item). The purpose of this meeting is to get council direction on the eight policy items which relate to the overall direction of the code. For each policy item a staff response and recommendation has been included. Staff responses to both policy issues and issues for clarification are included in Attachment A. On October 23, a joint panel that will include Community Development staff; Todd Prager, former staff member and now principal of Todd Prager and Associates; and AKS Engineering and Forestry, the firm who completed the peer review of the draft code, will present a brief overview of the code topics relevant to council's issues of interest. For each topic, the presentation will include a discussion of policy issues raised by council, the Planning Commission's recommendation and policy alternatives based on council's deliberations to this point. Staff requests Council direction on each policy item and indicate whether it is desirable to: 1. Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, 2. Choose one of the policy alternatives proposed by staff, or 3. Propose a new alternative. Public Hearing Overview At the October 23, 2012 meeting: • Todd Prager will present the policy issues of interest. • Council will direct staff on any desired code changes to address each of the issues. • Council will notify staff of any issues for clarification that should be brought forward as policy issues. • This meeting is designed for maximum discussion by the Council about the proposal. Public testimony will be accepted at the end of the hearing, limited to three minutes per person. At the November 27, 2012 meeting • Staff will present a report based on council direction from prior meetings. • Public testimony will be taken on any changes under consideration. • Potential council decision to adopt any changes and the entire UFCR package. Additional meetings may be scheduled if more time is needed to adopt the proposal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council has a wide range of options in the legislative adoption process. Council could also decide not to adopt any changes to the existing codes. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS 'Goal 1.b.i. Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including tree code. 'Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 2. Tigard's Urban Forest 'Urban Forestry Master Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council previously considered this matter on the following dates: 'February 16, 2010 (council direction to pursue a comprehensive set of code revisions) 'October 19, 2010 'November 9, 2010 'November 23, 2010 'January 25, 2011 'July 19, 2011 (staff presentation and council input on draft code revisions) 'January 24, 2012 'July 10, 2012 'July 24, 2012 (first public hearing on planning commission recommended code revisions) 'August 14, 2012 'September 11, 2012 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: Cost: N/A Budgeted (yes or no): N/A Where Budgeted (department /program): N/A Additional Fiscal Notes: The code amendments contained in the Urban Forestry Code Revisions package do not have a direct impact on the city's revenue and expenditures. Certain fees are proposed to be created and other to be adjusted. These fees, their purposes, and calculation methodologies are contained in the Resolution and its exhibits attached to agenda item 914. The amount of funds collected in the Urban Forestry Fund may be affected by the proposed change from the existing "tree mitigation" fee to the proposed "tree canopy" fee. Attachments Memo - Urban Forestry Code Revisions 0 a� B 0 City of Tigard T I GARD Memorandum To: Tigard City Council From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Date: October 1, 2012 On October 23, 2012, City Council will continue discussion on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions. At the September 11, 2012, public hearing, staff presented a list of 47 "issues of interest" to capture Council feedback. At that time, Council gave direction to staff to categorize and simplify the list of issues to be discussed. The result of that process is included on page 3 of this memo (Discussion Guide). Issues from the September matrix have been condensed and categorized, then sorted into the following types: Policy Issues are items where Council has indicated a desire to look at potential changes to Planning Commission's recommendation. Discussion on October 23, 2012, will center on these items and staff will be asking Council to provide direction on each issue. Appendix A details each of the policy issues and provides a staff response. Most notable are the few areas where staff has provided options to consider, based on your prior discussions. This includes alternatives to: • Exempt single family residential trees on private property (i.e. backyard trees) from maintenance and permit requirements. • Revise the Administrative Rules during their (separate) adoption process. Specific items to address at that time could include: - Should the tree lists be amended? - Should the administrative rules be simplified? • Revise the proposed code to clarify that hazard trees are required to be removed only after complaints are verified using industry standard methods. Issues for Clarification are informational in nature, and Appendix B includes staff response. While some of these questions may be answered by the staff presentation, we do not plan to run through each item individually. If there is an item in this category you'd like to raise for group discussion, please do so during the October 23, 2012, meeting. Future issues will not be considered in the adoption of the code at this time. For example, if Council wishes to amend certain administrative rules in the Urban Forestry Manual, then that 1 can be addressed during the upcoming administrative rules adoption process. Solar access is another example of an issue Council identified as a future work item. Resolved indicates issues discussed on September 11, 2012 with some resolution. Please note that time for public testimony will be provided. Staff from AKS, the firm that completed the Peer Review, will also be on hand. Background Council took the approach of first studying community values and existing conditions to set the framework for addressing the code. This began with the Comprehensive Plan process which established broad, 20 year goals and policies through the new Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan. From the Comprehensive Plan, council then directed the Urban Forestry Master Plan which expanded upon the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and studied the issues in much greater detail. While the long term goal in the Master Plan is to increase citywide tree canopy from the current 25% up to 40 %, the short term action items are to revise the city's urban forestry codes and funding streams in support of that goal. We're now here on the ground implementing the action items in the Urban Forestry Master Plan: • Revising the land use and non land use elements of the code, • Creating the Urban Forestry Manual to administer the code, and • Updating the Master Fees and Charges Schedule to reflect fees associated with the recommended code. The City Attorney advised staff to separate the land use vs. non land use elements of the code on council agendas because they have different process requirements. The Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree Grove Preservation Incentives apply during development and so are categorized as land use elements, and the Tree Permit Requirements, Hazard Trees and Urban Forestry Manual represent the non land use elements of the code. The Urban Forestry Manual consists of administrative rules that implement the details of the land use and non land use elements of the code. 2 Discussion Guide Urban Forestry Code Revision Issues of Interest - September 11, 2012 Type � u g Category Issue R. U W A4 5. Is the canopy approach appropriate as a regulatory tool? P1 `° 10. How will the requirements apply to large subdivisions vs. small infill (i.e. partitions) P2 - g o and redevelopment sites? "Sa 11. Should developers be required to maintain trees for two years after planting to ensure P3 • establishment? cn 7. Are the canopy requirements a regulatory taking? 0 32. Are the tree planting, removal and thinning standards internally consistent? 0 33. What is the "built environment" (e.g. trees are allowed to be removed if their roots 21 A damage the "built environment ")? 35. Are there some inappropriate trees on the lists such as London Plane Tree? 0 v 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? g 39. Should there be spacing standards between trees and from buildings? 0 n 40. Why are there different standards for planting open grown vs. stand grown trees? 0 g 44. Why is it necessary to specify sheet size and scale for development plans? H 45. Is it necessary for the city to have hard copies submittals of development plans? 0 46. Is requiring tree protection inspections by arborists /landscape architects twice monthly 0 during development excessive? 48. Complexity of requirements to draw plans. 0 34. Do the tree lists provide enough options? 0 'n 2 35. Are there some inappropriate trees on the lists such as London Plane Tree? H Fi H 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? 0 I u 37. Is there a federal definition of a nuisance tree that can be used to develop the list? 0 'a' 38. Should Norway Maple be removed from the nuisance tree list? 21 43. Are there trees on the list that will cause damage to underground pipes and utilities? 0 22. Should a permit be required to remove trees that were planted or preserved with P4 development? ▪ 21. Should permits continue to be required to remove trees on private property? E 20. Are the proposed permit requirements more restrictive than the existing permit Cl a • u requirements? • C 23. Who will serve on the board or committee that makes decisions regarding removing C2 F" aq healthy, protected trees? 25. Why does the code allow the removal and replacement of trees that die within three C3 years of planting (e.g.8.12.040)? 28. Should hazard trees be prohibited in Tigard? P5 27. How do the hazard tree requirements relate to insurance requirements? P6 26. Will the hazard tree requirements be effective in requiring removal of hazard trees C4 when there are disputes? 29. Are there conflicts between the hazard tree requirements and the recently adopted C5 ,nuisance code? 16/30. Should the Administrative Rules (Urban Forestry Manual) be eliminated and the P7 u elements moved into the Code? -a' *Does the proposal increase the cost of development due to the tree canopy plan and soil P8 u volume plan requirements? E 14. Do the administrative rules that implement the development code meet state land use C6 C7 law? 15. Will the use of administrative rules lead to more appeals of development projects? C7 ti 17. Do the administrative rules for the development code need to be so detailed? 0 31. Are the administrative rules a solution in search of a problem? 0 d 9/13. Will the cost of development increase due to the tree canopy plan and soil volume C8 p • 3 plan requirements? (") > *Should parking lot canopy (and associated soil volume) be required, since it could lead to C9 increased development costs? • *How will funding of the Urban Forestry Program be affected by the proposal? C10 Lt. 1. Was there a balance of viewpoint when developing the proposal? 0 v 2. Is there a disconnect between where we started (i.e. Comp Plan and Urban Forestry 0 pp Master Plan) and where we ended? ° o. o 3. Do Tigard residents support a 40% long term canopy goal? 0 u a 4. Is the 40% canopy goal for all private property or is it citywide? C11 p 19. Should there be a review period after adoption? C12 36. How was the nuisance tree list developed? C13 8. Will the canopy requirements prevent solar access? 0 O 24. Should people have the right to significant view corridors such as Mt. Hood views? 0 u 21 41. Should there be limits on tree heights in order to preserve significant view corridors , such as Mt. Hood views? 42. Should there be restrictions on planting evergreen trees on the south side of streets 21 (due to winter shade /ice issues)? * Denotes issues raised on September 11, 2012 3 Policy Issues Standards for Development Pr Issue of Interest: Is the canopy approach an appropriate regulatory tool? Staff Response: Many cities and counties throughout the country, particularly in the southeastern United States, have adopted tree canopy ordinances. The CAC and Planning Commission felt the approach was right for Tigard for three main reasons: • The canopy approach allows maximum flexibility for the project designer to meet code requirements. • The canopy approach is more consistent with urban forest science and the city's long -term urban forestry goals. It encourages large stature, appropriately spaced trees, which have the highest benefit /cost ratios. • The canopy approach requires the project designer to consider future canopy growth, which helps ensure that trees are properly placed within a site to become long -term amenities. It encourages appropriate tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by highlighting mature canopy growth. The CAC and Planning Commission supported the development of a tiered approach to the canopy requirements, recognizing that, for example, more tree canopy is desirable and achievable in residential zones than in industrial zones. Staff and consultants then extensively tested the tiered tree canopy requirements on a wide range of development projects and made adjustments as needed based on CAC and Planning Commission input. The goal of the CAC and Planning Commission was to ensure the requirements are achievable, result in a reasonable balance between trees and development, and do not force typical development projects to pay a fee in lieu of canopy or utilize the discretionary review option. If the canopy requirements are modified significantly, staff recommends additional testing to determine the implications of the modifications. For example, if the canopy requirements are reduced by half, they may be achieved with small stature street trees only and result in less tree canopy in new development than currently exists in the same zones. For more detailed information about why a tree canopy approach was selected over tree count (i.e. tree density or number of trees) please see Volume V, page 6. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the proposed canopy approach and tiered canopy requirements because they have been extensively tested and supported through the Citizen Advisory Committee, public involvement, and Planning Commission processes. If significant modifications are made, staff will need more time to rework the proposal and recommends additional testing of the results. 4 P2 Issue of Interest: How will the requirements apply to small infill sites vs. larger subdivisions, planned developments and redevelopment sites? Staff Response: Taking into consideration future development trends, the Planning Commission recommended continuing to apply the draft code standards to Minor Land Partitions (when lots are divided to create two or three lots). These small infill sites represent a significant portion of potential future development. The draft code standards are also applicable to larger projects such as residential Subdivisions and Planned Developments, and redevelopment projects that require Conditional Use Permits, Downtown Design Reviews and Site Development Reviews. Independent peer review by AKS Engineering and Forestry (See Volume II, pages 187- 217) demonstrated that the proposed effective tree canopy requirements were achievable on the range of sites that were tested, including three residential sites with smaller lots from the following zones: Zoning Tierl Minimum Lot Effective Tree Size Canopy Provided R -4.5 Tier 1 7,500 sq. ft. 45% R -7 Tier 1 5,000 sq. ft. 215% R -25 Tier 2 <3,000 sq. ft. 35% The Planning Commission approved two changes to the proposal, specifically addressing sites with smaller or more constrained lots: • Recognizing that small lots may have limited street frontage for street trees, the commission reduced the per lot minimum from 20% to 15% for Tier 1 sites, and eliminated the per lot minimum for Tier 2 and 3 sites. • The commission voted to move the R -12 district from Tier 1 to Tier 2 to be conservative since an R -12 site was not tested through the peer review. Staff Recommendation: Retain the Planning Commission recommendations. As described in P1, the tiered canopy requirements were carefully tested and adjusted by Planning Commission before forwarding their recommendation to Council. They found that proposed requirements achieve the desired balance between trees and development on small infill sites as well as larger subdivisions, planned developments, and redevelopment sites. Additional testing would be beneficial to determine the implications of significant modifications to the proposed canopy requirements. P3 Issue of Interest: Should developers be required to maintain trees for two years after planting to ensure establishment? Staff Response: In the existing code, the City requires developers to guarantee mitigation tree survival during a two year establishment period. Guarantees are not I Tier 1 (40% effective canopy) - R -1, R -2, R -3.5, R -4.5 and R -7 zones Tier 2 (33% effective canopy) - R -12, R -25, R -40, C -N, C -C, C -G, C -P, MUE, MUE -1, MUE -2, MUC, MUR, and I -P zones Tier 3 (25% effective canopy) - MU -CBD, MUC -1, I -L, I -H, and schools (18.130.050Q)) zones 5 currently required for the establishment of street trees, parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees. The UFCR CAC recommended and the Planning Commission concurred that the city should require a guarantee period for all required trees (street trees, parking lot trees, etc.) not just mitigation trees. Often these other required trees have more difficulty becoming established because they are planted in more challenging locations such as along streets and within parking lots. The proposal requires bonding for 2 years after planting for all required trees to ensure early establishment. Note: There is a separate provision in Title 8 of the Municipal Code that allows the removal and replacement of required trees that die within three years after planting (further explained in C3 below). This provision has been reviewed by staff and does not conflict with the provision in Title 18 that requires developers to maintain trees for two years after planting. The reason the provisions do not conflict is that the Title 8 requirement does not apply during development and the Title 18 provision only applies during periods of active development. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommended requirement for a two year early establishment period. Options to consider, based on your discussions, include an alternative to remove the maintenance period for single family residential trees on private property (i.e. backyard trees). If planted in desirable locations, these residential trees may have a higher likelihood of survival because of the care they receive from homeowners. At the same time, this alternative would allow owners more flexibility in managing their residential landscapes. However if homes do not sell soon after being built, these trees may not survive if not maintained by the builder /developer. Tree Permit Requirements P4 Issue of Interest: Should a permit be required to remove trees that were planted or preserved with development? Staff Response: Trees that were required to be planted or preserved as part of past development projects are part of the approved land use permit for that development. This includes mature trees that were preserved and incorporated into development plans, as well as newly planted trees such as parking lot shade trees. Because there is no permit process in the existing code to address the removal and replacement of healthy trees that were required with development, applicants must amend their prior land use permits to legally remove these trees. This process is overly time consuming and expensive with fees into the thousands of dollars. There are many legitimate reasons as to why owners may want to remove healthy trees that were required with development. These reasons include trees with roots that have 6 begun damaging pavement and trees that have grown tall enough to obscure significant views. In order to provide more flexibility and reduce or eliminate costs, the CAC recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred with establishing a tree removal permit process for trees that were required with development in the proposed Title 8. Staff Recommendation: Retain the Planning Commission recommendation. Requiring tree permits for trees planted or preserved with development has been supported through the Citizens Advisory Committee, public involvement, and Planning Commission process. Options to consider, based on Council discussions, include removing this requirement for private single family residential trees. If planted or preserved in desirable locations, these residential trees may have a low probability of being removed by homeowners. At the same time, this would allow owners more flexibility in managing their residential landscapes. However, particularly with past development projects, neighbors may have an expectation that certain trees will continue to be preserved or maintained if it was required as part of that project. Also, in the proposed code, trees planted or preserved to meet the requirements receive from 100% to 200% canopy credit. Council will need to decide whether planted and /or preserved trees used to meet canopy requirements should continue to be maintained after development is complete. Hazard Trees P5 Issue of Interest: Should hazard trees be prohibited in gard? Staff Response: Hazard trees are prohibited in both the current and the proposed Tigard Municipal Code. This is similar to other code prohibitions against nuisances such as tall weeds and grass. In the proposal the definition of "hazard tree" is now consistent with the standardized rating system developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. This helps to remove subjectivity during the hazard tree evaluation process by using industry standard methods and terminology. The overall risk rating of a tree is determined by three main factors: probability of failure, size of defective part, and the target area (i.e. how often the site is occupied and the value of the target). Using this methodology, a dead tree in a natural area is unlikely to be considered a hazard because the target rating would be very low, whereas the same tree on Durham Road may be considered a hazard because there are many high value targets. The Tree Risk Assessment Form, which has been adapted from the ISA form, can be found in Volume III pages 61 -65. As recommended by the CAC and supported by the Planning Commission, if a tree on an adjacent property is a hazard, Chapter 8.08 would allow people to file a claim with the city. The city would then utilize a third party arborist to evaluate the tree. If the arborist determines there is a hazard, abatement would be required. The city could, after obtaining a warrant, enter a property, abate a hazard tree and recover costs in cases where an owner is uncooperative. The city could abate tree hazards without a warrant when there is an imminent threat to public health or safety as is currently allowed by the existing code. The intent of the proposed code is to establish an objective and efficient process for the abatement of hazard trees only after complaints are verified. The intent is not to cause the wide spread removal of all trees that may or may not be hazards. Consistent with current code enforcement practices, the city would only take action in response to written complaints. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation. One policy option to consider, based on Council discussions, is to revise the proposed code to clarify that hazard trees are required to be removed only after complaints are verified using industry standard methods. P6 Issue of Interest: Should the hazard tree standards be amended to address personal liability insurance requirements? Staff Response: Staff will work with Council to further clarify the impact of the code on personal liability insurance requirements. Policy Options: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation. Policy alternative: Council direction to address requirements. Administrative Rules P7 Issue o `interest: Should the Administrative Rules be eliminated and the elements moved into the Code? Staff Response: Administrative rules were developed for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project to clearly document and communicate most of the city's current administrative practices without making the code excessively long. For example, administrative items such as planting specifications, tree lists and methods for calculating tree canopy are more efficient when placed within an administrative manual rather than in the development code. Also when administrative changes are required such as adding or subtracting trees from the tree lists, the amendment process for administrative rules is more efficient while at the same time providing for adequate public notice and the opportunity for public participation. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the format of the Planning Commission recommendation, separating the Code elements from the administrative procedures. In developing the proposal, public input from the range of viewpoints involved wanted the specificity that the proposed administrative rules provide. 8 Due to the lack of specificity in the existing code, there are numerous staff interpretations and conditions of approval required to implement the code when approving development applications. The intent of the proposed administrative rules is to minimize staff discretion when implementing the code thereby increasing certainly for applicants and the public. Options to consider, based on Council discussions, include an opportunity to revise the Administrative Rules during the administrative rulemaking process. According to Municipal Code section 2.04.070 (Administrative Rulemaking Procedure), council shall be notified 14 days prior to public notice of any proposed administrative rules. At any time during that 14 day period, any councilmember may put the administrative rules for discussion on the next available council agenda. For this project, if council authorizes administrative rules when adopting the UFCR on November 27, 2012, staff anticipates formally notifying council of the administrative rules on December 13, 2012 and sending public notice of administrative rules on December 27, 2012. Therefore, any councilmember may decide between December 13 through December 27, 2012 to put the administrative rules for discussion as part of the next available council agenda. Of course, if council informs staff on October 23, 2012 that they anticipate further discussion of administrative rules, staff will begin finding time on council's early 2013 agenda for administrative rules. Specific items to address during the administrative rule adoption could include: • Should the tree lists be amended? • Should the administrative rules be simplified? Another option to consider is whether to eliminate the administrative rules all together. For the reasons stated above, staff does not recommend this option. However, if council does direct staff to eliminate the administrative rules, staff will need time to further amend the code. This is because as drafted, the code includes numerous cross references to administrative rules in the Urban Forestry Manual such as canopy requirements and how to calculate those requirements. If the administrative rules are eliminated, those details will need to be moved into the code. P8 Issue of Interest: Does the proposal increase the cost of development due to the tree canopy plan and soil volume plan requirements? Staff Response: The proposed code places a high value on the role of urban forestry professionals in designing and implementing the conditions for sustainable urban tree canopy, which include providing adequate soil volumes. Staff acknowledges that requiring urban forestry professionals adds costs to projects, but it is consistent with the goals of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions: to distribute development costs more equitably (rather than only requiring arborists for projects with existing trees) and to focus on establishing healthy future canopy (rather than only penalties for removal). 9 As an example, based on interviews with local arborists the current estimated cost to develop and implement a tree plan for a Minor Land Partition is between $4,000 and $5,000 (this includes inventory field work, site plan, arborist report, revisions based on city review, implementation and twice monthly inspections). However, costs associated with the existing code for tree removal mitigation alone can reach $30,000 for a Minor Land Partition (this is in addition to the cost of developing and implementing a tree plan. The Planning Commission approved the following change to the proposal in order to lower the potential costs associated with the tree canopy and soil volume plan requirements: • Landscape architects, in addition to arborists, are allowed to develop urban forestry plans to reduce costs by eliminating the need for hiring two urban forestry professionals. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Planning Commission recommendation, including the change to allow landscape architects, in addition to arborists, to develop urban forestry plans. Soil volume plans are not a requirement, but instead an option if the applicant wishes to maximize impervious surfaces and minimiz open soil areas for trees. We're not expecting to see this type of development in typical single family residential neighborhoods since there is usually so much soil space available for tree growth. This option might be utilized at non- residential sites if, for example, an applicant wants to maximize the number of parking stalls in a parking lot and provide trees with necessary soil under paved surfaces. However, applicants would need to evaluate whether it makes economic sense to invest in implementing soil volume plans on a project by project basis. 10 Issues for Clarification Tree Permit Requirements Cl Issue of Interest: Are the proposed permit requirements more restrictive than the existing permit requirements? Staff Response: The following categories of trees are currently regulated by the city, in the proposed Title 8, these categories of trees will continue to be regulated, with no expansion of regulations to additional categories. The most notable change in this topic area is the creation of a consolidated permit system to make the permitting process clear, consistent and user friendly. • Street and median trees, • Trees in sensitive lands, • Trees that were required with development, • Trees that were planted using the Urban Forestry Fund, and • Heritage trees. In some cases, the proposed permit requirements would be less restrictive than the existing permit requirements. For example, currently if someone wants to remove a healthy tree that was required with development they may only do so by amending the prior land use permit or paying fines. Either option typically costs thousands of dollars. The proposed permit requirements create a low or no fee permit process to remove healthy trees required with development for additional reasons such as if they are causing damage or blocking views. Also, currently permits are required to remove any tree over six inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands and the proposed permit requirements would apply only to native trees over six inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands. C2 Issue of Interest: Who will serve on the board or committee that makes decisions regarding removing healthy, protected trees? Staff Response: Section 8.04.030 authorizes the city manager to designate a city board or committee to make decisions regarding removing healthy, protected trees. This could become part of the charge of an existing board or committee or the city manager could designate a new board or committee. If the charge of an existing board or committee is amended, council would need to approve the change. If a new board or committee is formed, council would need to approve the member composition consistent with the current staff appointment process. C3 Issue of Interest: Why does the code allow the removal and replacement of trees that die within three years of planting (e.g.8.12.030)? Staff Response: It is not uncommon for trees to die within the first three years after planting because their roots have not yet become established. The proposed code recognizes this phenomenon and allows for the removal and replacement of newly planted trees that die without requiring another permit. For example, if a property 11 owner receives a permit to remove and replace a street tree, and the replacement street tree dies the first summer during a heat wave, the owner could remove and replace the tree on their own without yet another city permit. This is intended to save property owners and city staff time and paperwork. Hazard Trees C4 Issue of Interest: Will the hazard tree requirements be effective in requiring removal of hazard trees when there are disputes? Staff Response: The hazard tree requirements were developed in close collaboration with the city's risk division and attorney, and are expected to be effective in requiring hazard tree removal. If a tree on an adjacent property is disputed to be a hazard, Chapter 8.08 would allow people to file a claim with the city. The city would then utilize a third party arborist to evaluate the tree. If the arborist determines there is a hazard, abatement would be required. The city could, after obtaining a warrant, enter a property, abate a hazard tree and recover costs in cases where an owner is uncooperative. The city could abate tree hazards without a warrant when there is an imminent threat to public health or safety as is currently allowed by the existing code. These requirements would create an efficient and effective framework for addressing hazard trees while not unduly exposing the city to liability. CS Issue of Interest: Are there conflicts between the hazard tree requirements and the recently adopted nuisance code? Staff Response: Susan Hartnett, former Assistant Community Development Director, and Albert Shields, Program Development Specialist, served on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the UFCR and confirmed that the hazard tree requirements in Title 8 do not conflict with the recently adopted nuisance code requirements in Title 6. When amending the nuisance code, Code Compliance staff avoided making substantive changes to the hazard tree requirements because they were aware of the upcoming changes that would be made through the UFCR project. When substantive changes were made to the hazard tree requirements in Title 8 (section 8.02.050, Hazard Tree Related Definitions and Chapter 8.06, Hazard Trees) revisions to Title 6 (sections 6.01.020, 6.02.030 and 6.04.040) were made concurrently to ensure consistency. Adoption of Title 8 will not replace the changes that were made to Title 6. Administrative Rules — General C6 Issue of Interest: Do the administrative rules (Urban Forestry Manual) that implement the development code meet state land use law? Staff Response: The administrative rules that implement the development code were drafted in close collaboration with the City Attorney and are consistent with state land use law. The administrative rules include clear and objective standards such as tree 12 planting and preservation requirements which are referenced by the development code. After obtaining land use approval, an applicant must provide plans consistent with these requirements before being issued building permits. This is similar to other administrative requirements such as the pipe diameter for water service lines, and building code requirements, which are referenced by the development code rather than included as part of the code itself. Separating these administrative requirements is intended to prevent the code from becoming excessively long while at the same time providing certainty as to the city's planting and preservation standards. C7 Issue of Interest: Will the use of administrative rules lead to more appeals of development projects? Staff Response: Staff believes the use of administrative rules will reduce the likelihood of appeals by making the development code requirements more clear and objective. Due to the lack of clarity in the existing code, there are numerous staff interpretations and conditions of approval required to implement the code when approving development projects. If someone disagrees with staffs interpretations or conditions, then they may appeal staffs decision. Decisions as to compliance with the administrative rules are not intended as land use decisions. The intent of the administrative rules is to minimize staff interpretations and conditions thereby increasing certainly for applicants and the public, and reducing the likelihood of appeals. Soil Volumes C8 Issue of Interest: Are soil volume standards necessary in residential areas, and do they apply only during development? Staff Response: Trees need soil to grow and there is a direct relationship between the amount of soil provided and the mature size of trees. Soil volume standards are proposed for street trees and parking lot trees because these tree types are the most likely to not be provided adequate soil volumes. Since street trees are required as part of residential development (i.e. subdivisions, planned developments and partitions), the soil volume standards would apply in these circumstances. The proposed code applies soil volumes standard only during development since there is the opportunity to design the sites to provide sufficient soils for trees. Soil volumes standards would not apply, for example, in situations where an existing homeowner wants to plant a new street tree. The Home Builders Association (HBA) supported applying soil volume standards to residential development during the CAC process because one of the goals of the UFCR was to focus on healthy future tree canopy rather than the punitive mitigation standards for tree removal in the existing code. Another reason for HBA support was the flexibility allowed in meeting soil volume requirements through traditional, low - cost methods such as increasing the size of planter strips for street trees (see code 13 section 18.790.050.C.3). More expensive methods such as the use of engineered soils under pavement is one option for meeting soil volume standards, but not the preferred • option in most situations. C9 Issue of Interest: Should parking lot canopy (and associated soil volume) be required, since it could lead to increased development costs? Staff Response: Soil volume standards are proposed for parking lot trees because, based on a review of past projects, these tree types are often not provided adequate soil volumes to support mature canopy growth. The proposed standards are intended to support Council goals identified through the Urban Forestry Master Plan for increasing tree canopy over parking lots. There is flexibility allowed in meeting soil volume requirements through traditional, low -cost methods such as providing larger landscape islands for parking lot trees. This can be achieved through strategic parking lot design and /or the use of an allowed reduction of up to 20% required parking for planting trees (see code section 18.790.050.C.3). More expensive methods such as the use of engineered soils under pavement is one option for meeting soil volume standards. These engineered methods may be used if the value of parking exceeds the cost of using engineered soil designs. Funding C10 Issue of Interest: How will funding of the Urban Forestry Program be affected by the proposal? Staff Response: Funding of the Urban Forestry Program is not expected to be significantly affected by the proposal. Based on past Tree City USA reporting data, the staff costs associated with administering the code ranges from approximately $100,000 to $150,000 annually depending on the level of development. These staff costs are budgeted by the Community Development Department and supported by the city's General Fund. While the proposed code includes a shift from a tree mitigation to a tree canopy approach, the staff costs associated with administering the code are not expected to change significantly. Staff would like to clarify that in the "Policy Roadmap" matrix from Council's September 11, 2012 meeting, the column heading titled "Additional Cost to Implement ?" may have caused some confusion. The column heading more accurately should have read "Ongoing Cost to Implement ?" since the intent was to differentiate between one -time project costs versus ongoing program costs. Again, these ongoing program costs are not expected to change significantly from what is already budgeted by the Community Development Department for staff costs associated with administering the code, and we have adequately budgeted for program costs within existing resources. 14 Proposal Development Process C11 Issue of Interest: Is the 40% canopy goal for all private property or is it citywide? Staff Response: The 40% canopy goal in the Urban Forestry Master Plan is a citywide canopy goal that takes into account parks, natural areas, streets, commercial, and residential areas. The Urban Forestry Master Plan seeks to achieve 40% citywide tree canopy by the year 2047. The current amount of citywide tree canopy is approximately 25% with variable distribution from 46% on City of Tigard property, 30% on private residential property, 9% on streets (public right of way), and 6% in parking lots. The 40% effective canopy goal in the Urban Forestry Code Revisions is for lower density residential property (Tier 1). Due to the various credits and standards for the calculations (e.g. 200% credit for preservation, 125% credit for planting native trees, and full credit for street trees) the actual canopy provided through planting and preservation ranges from 16% to 40% canopy or an of average 28% canopy for lower density residential property. There is also the option of paying a fee in lieu or receiving discretionary approval for green building or development techniques instead of providing trees. The proposed code requirements have been compared with one's effective tax rate versus their actual tax rate. C12 Issue of Interest: Should there be a review period after adoption? Staff Response: Both the CAC and Planning Commission recommended an evaluation of the new regulations within five years of their effective date so that any necessary adjustments can be made in a timely manner. This is intended to avoid the need for a complete overhaul of the regulations which is a challenge for all participants. C13 issue of Interest: How was the nuisance tree Ii`st e -Ve oped? Staff Response: Morgan Holen, certified arborist and forest biologist, served on the UFCR CAC. Just prior to the development of the City of Tigard's nuisance tree list, Ms. Holen was contracted by the City of Lake Oswego to develop their nuisance tree list for very similar purposes (to exempt certain species from tree permit requirements). In order to benefit from the up to date work of another expert in an adjacent city, staff utilized the City of Lake Oswego's list for the City of Tigard's purposes. Ms. Holen's process began with compiling nuisance tree lists from other local jurisdictions such as Clean Water Services and the City of Portland. She then researched and verified the list of tree species using additional sources such as the Native Plant Society of Oregon and the Plant Conservation Alliance. Finally, Ms. Holen further refined the list by contacting local ISA certified arborists and receiving additional feedback. She identified twelve local tree species as capable of _ spreading at such a rate that they cause harm to human health, the environment 15 and/or economy. These twelve species were peer reviewed and approved by Tigard's UFCR CAC and TAC (both included experts on nuisance tree species), and are proposed for inclusion in the City of Tigard's nuisance tree list. It is important to note that the purpose of the nuisance tree list is to automatically allow the removal of nuisance trees when requested as part of the tree removal permit process. There is no requirement to remove nuisance trees if an owner wants to retain them. 16 AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: October 23, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on: URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2011 -00004 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2011 -00002 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Three - minute Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: October 23, 2012 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Addres Phone o. Name, Address & Phone No. f D -'f � Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AIS -989 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 10/23/2012 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Adopt 2013 Legislative Agenda Submitted By: Liz Newton, City Management Motion Requested Item Type: Public Hearing - Quasi Judicial Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Adopt the city's 2013 legislative agenda STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends council adoption of the 2013 Legislative agenda attached. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During the September 25 study session, council discussed legislative priorities for the upcoming session. Consensus of council was to bring the following priorities forward for adoption on October 23. • Local Control Amendment • Maintain and strengthen the state's commitment to the State Shared Revenue funding formula • Address tax equity issues in the context of state telecommunications laws including removing existing preemptions that have led to declining revenues. • Allow local governments a more flexible use of transient lodging tax to meet the increased demands placed on both on essential services and infrastructure created by tourism activities. • 9 -1 -1 Tax Renewal • Jobs /Economic Development Initiative • Downtown Brownfield Development • Defeat legislation that would extend or make permanent the moratorium on raising existing or levying new local gas taxes and /or any legislation that proposes to restrict or preempt cities' ability to charge any transportation- related fee or tax. • Seek additional funding, efficiencies and program support for multi -modal transit and rail projects. • Tigard Street Trail • Support an urban growth boundary agenda that would provide for a more efficient urban growth management system. The priorities are described in more detail in the "2013 Legislative Agenda" attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Revise the 2013 Legislative Agenda COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 2013 Legislative Agenda Attachments • 2013 Legislative Agenda III 1 I f 4,� ! I , r1 t 2013 • • ,4 • 1 at '' 1 iL egislative Agenda .r. rS , t411s i j '. _ r tS %11 ti ");(' e "She flies with her own wings." -Judge Jessie Quinn Thornton, 1854 Economic Development /Jobs • Jobs /Economic Development Initiative Endorse the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Jobs /Economic Development Initiative to support three policy options in the Oregon Business Development Department's budget: ❑ The Brownfields Redevelopment Fund for gap funding to clean up industrial sites. Sen. Ginny Burdick ❑ Patient Capital for Industrial Lands Pilot Program for funding to SENATE DISTRICT 18 cities to install infrastructure and conduct feasibility studies 900 Court St. NE, 5-213 needed for sites to be "shovel ready." Salem, OR 97301 y sen.ginnyburdick @state.or.us ❑ The Employment Site Re- Use /Redevelopment Pilot Program to assist communities with funding incentives to reuse /redevelop I existing industrial lands. • Downtown Brownfield Development In addition to supporting the LOC's Jobs /Economic Development lAr I Initiative, pursue available federal funding to clean brownfield sites. Rep. Margaret Doherty HOUSE DISTRICT 35 900 Court St. NE, H -282 Salem, OR 97301 Transportation rep.margaretdoherty @state.or.us • Defeat legislation that would extend or make permanent the moratorium on raising existing or levying new local gas taxes and/ or any legislation that proposes to restrict or pre -empt cities' ability to charge any transportation- related fee or tax. Tigard City Council In 2009, legislation was adopted that prohibited local governments Mayor Craig Dirksen from enacting or amending charter provisions, ordinances or Council President Gretchen Buehner Councilor Nick Wilson resolutions related to the collection of local motor vehicle taxes Councilor Marland Henderson until Jan. 2, 2014. The legislation did not apply to Tigard because Councilor Marc Woodard our local motor vehicle tax was in place. Oppose any legislation 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 that pre -empts the city's ability to charge any transportation - councilmail@tigard- or.gov related fee or tax. • Seek additional funding, efficiencies and program support for multimodal transit and rail projects. Pursue state and federal grants and other funding sources, and 1 - 0 . regional, state and federal support for multimodal transit and �t rail projects. TIGARD • Tigard Street Trail Work with ODOT Rail and Portland & Western Railroad to secure the City of Tigard property rights for the former rail bed land paralleling Tigard Street. %vxm.tigard or.go; Pursue regional, state and federal funds for construction of a trail. 2013 Legislative Agenda I Tigard, Oregon Page 2 Financial Stability • Local Control Amendment This constitutional amendment would allow local voters to consider a local option levy outside of compression and extend the duration from 5 -10 years. (HJR 26 in the 2011 legislative session.) • Maintain and strengthen the state's commitment to the State Shared Revenue funding formula. Prevent erosion of the formula for distribution of state liquor, cigarette and gas tax revenue to cities. At a minimum retain the current distribution formula. • Address tax equity issues in the context of state telecommunications laws including removing existing pre- emptions that have led to declining revenues. The predominant system of franchising telecommunications providers has not kept pace with technology. In particular, the shift from land line telephones to wireless technologies has resulted in an erosion of telecommunications revenues in Tigard and throughout Oregon cities. Over the last three years, Tigard has seen a 45 percent decrease in telecommunications franchise revenues. • Allow local governments a more flexible use of transient lodging tax to meet the increased demands placed on both essential services and infrastructure created by tourism activities. Current law prohibits cities from imposing new local transient lodging taxes. Cities' share of state transient lodging taxes may fund city or county services without restriction. Retain the current distribution formula of state transient tax dollars and fund city services without restriction. • 9 -1 -1 Tax Renewal Renew the 9 -1 -1 emergency tax beyond its expiration in 2014 and extend the tax to prepaid cell phones and VoIP services. As these services become a higher share of the market, the tax revenues to 9 -1 -1 centers is declining which shifts the financial burden for operating 9 -1 -1 centers to cities even though the demand for service increases. It is estimated that extension of the 9 -1 -1 tax would generate $700,000 for WCCA to pay for increased service demand. ' f 44 Growth and Development • Support an urban growth boundary agenda that would provide for a more efficient urban growth management system. if k Support a requirement that concept and community planning for urban growth boundary expansion areas is conducted by the jurisdiction that will ultimately govern the area, and that those final --_ plans be adopted and annexation occur prior to development. C I T Y O F T I G A R D Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done . " TIGARD Urban Forestry Code Revisions Council Direction on Policy Issues of Interest Community Development I October 2012 C I '1' Y 01 T I G A R D u O Comprehensive Plan U, Q, F Urban Forestry c, Master Plan Gl L cu 2 it; � ,r **. Urban Forestry Code and Programs ;, • +- 4 � Urban � 11. 0 r 5ecnon 8.02 ♦� t TifleB autho�ires the UFM fa/rutty Ti I S ' Manua/ O Implementing Non Land Use Details it. Land Use f0 Urban Forestry Fund and Fees V1 U, C I T Y O F T I G A R D P1: Is the canopy approach an appropriate regulatory tool? free k l e % f 7 4 ' e f A% I 17 *.:.,,r r Witt ' Illtllt, .ii 1 i i i" i sir fl Preservation Planting Fee -in -lieu Discretionary Review Comment: Planning Commission supported the flexibility of this approach Alternative: Council direction to develop different requirements Standards for Development C I T Y OF T I G A R D P2: How will the requirements apply to various sites? Tier Canopy Range Zoning .oA F %o i C 1 �, 1 16 -40% •Lower density residential ��1 1 • Higher density residential Preservation Plant 2 13 -33% •Commercial �� , •Mixed used t0.' c r- ' •Industrial Park L iic,, .4 0 l i •Downtown I A FIi t i . ../�1 3 10 -25% •Industrial Fee-in-lieu Discretionary Review '$ChOOIS Comment: Planning Commission recommends tiered canopy approach Alternative: Council direction to develop new approach Standards for Development C I T Y O F T I G A R D P3: Should developers be required to maintain trees for two years? 7s q • :, , Alt o r ,,, I \ / I i ii „,4. V / t - ( - . r � ' °� 'fl _. - - - Comment: This is consistent with existing tree establishment requirements Alternative: Do not require maintenance on private single family residential lots Standards for Development C I T Y O F T I G A R D P4: Should permits be required to remove trees required with development? ''41'.x,-° , .,,,` ' � k ,,4 =" -, JI ra 1 le Fr 0 . -% .`.L,.ArIz .• is i 4 , Comment: Planning Commission found permit process increases flexibility Alternative: Do not require permits for private single family residential lots Tree Permit Requirements C 1 '1' Y O l" '1' ] G A R 1) P5: Should hazard trees be prohibited in Tigard? . � V fro .4. • Comment: The existing code prohibits hazard trees Alternative: Clarify that removal is required only after complaints are verified Hazard Trees C I T Y O F T I G A R D P6: Should hazard trees standards address personal liability requirements? cr:-__A i , 4, - , ' _--- V. kft / �� 3 1 }I Comment: Further clarify the impact of the code on personal liability insurance requirements. Alternative: Council direction to address requirements Hazard Trees C I T Y OF T I G A R D P7: Should the Administrative Rules be eliminated or moved into the Code? i . slyz, ,./ - -- I " ' !. _ ' 0 ' , Ak* ' \ :._ .`\ _ 0•• ‘ \\ - - %.'" '''fr •.. - Comment: Admin. Rules provide certainty without making Code too long Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules C I T Y O F T I G A R D P8: Does the proposal increase the cost of development? Example Costs for 2 Lot Partition Code Design/ Mitigation Total , = ..;., Implementation Cost P 1 , , 1 Existing ' h ir : 1 Code $4,000 $30,000 $34,000 ''ii .rtition Proposed ...� $5,000 $0 $5,000 Code ' Comment: Overall costs not expected to increase Alternative: Revise Admin. Rules during their upcoming adoption process Administrative Rules C I T Y O F T I G A R D Discussion Iwo"- _,,...., •... ,,• �„. • ..`. �' '�cr. ea is« 4c .„,..... ; ...,,,A /' ; tis "Ott* � 1 ', • P ;, lio, ,. `Z. tv ti rir — } 1