06/02/2008 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 2, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Anderson, Doherty, Hasman,
Muldoon, and Vermilyea
Commissioners Absent: Caffall, Fishel,Walsh
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director; Greg Berry, Project
Engineer;John Floyd,Associate Planner; Darren Wyss,Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin,
Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS —None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to
approve the May 19, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Inman, Muldoon,Vermilyea,Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Hasman
EXCUSED: Caffall, Fishel
5. RECOMMENDATION—Renaming of SW Alpine View
The following commissioners reported site visits: Commissioners Vermilyea and Hasman.
Greg Berry, Project Engineer, presented the staff report on the City's behalf. He reported that
this was a request to the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council approve or
disapprove the proposed name change of SW Alpine View to SW Alpine View Drive. He
went on to explain what was written in the staff report (Exhibit A).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU I'ES—June 2,2008—Page 1
I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 200816-02-08 Public Heanng and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes doe
fThis meeting,in its entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records j
After the presentation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea as follows:
"I move we recommend to approve the name change as proposed by the City." Commissioner
Hasman seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon,Vermilyea
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Fishel
EXCUSED: Caffall,Walsh
6. PUBLIC HEARING
6.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00003
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 5:
Natural Resources and Historic Areas REQUEST: To amend the current
Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies and recommended action measures to reflect
current community conditions and values relating to Tigard's Natural Resources and
Historical Areas. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the
City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement,Environmental Quality, Hazards,Public Facilities and Services, and Natural
Features and Open Spaces;Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 11.
President Inman opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Associate Planner,John
Floyd, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. Floyd advised the commission that
they are entering the public hearing phase of the Natural Resources and Historic Areas
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008-00003). He said staff is seeking approval of
changes to Section 3 of the existing Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Statewide Planning
Goal 5. Two memorandums had been distributed for their review. He noted that one of
them (Exhibit B) includes additional language to be removed because of this amendment,
and corrects an oversight in the original packet. The second (Exhibit C) contains two pieces
of correspondence received by staff subsequent to distribution of the packet. He reminded
those present that this hearing follows multiple Policy Interest Team (PIT) meetings and two
Planning Commission Workshops on the contents therein. He said staff has responded to
feedback received at the workshops, with changes noted in Attachment "A" of the packet.
Floyd reported that staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds this request to
meet the necessary approval criteria. And further, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission make a recommendation to Tigard City Council that it amend the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan as determined through the public hearing process.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU IES—June 2,2008—Page 2
I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Hearing and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes doc
[This meeting,in Is entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records.)
At this point President Inman opened up the meeting to questions from the commissioners.
The following questions were asked - answers are in italics:
• One of the commissioners referred to Sue Beilke's email (Exhibit C) and questioned
whether the policy shouldn't be broken down into separate sections as suggested. Its
more a matter of formatting. I believe there's equal regulatoy weight and power in both formats. It's
just that during the process a lot of the language seemed to be very repetitive.
• Why isn't the term "uplands" mentioned? We should make sure it gets included in
the definition so it is understood. Ilerygood point, thank you.
• Is there a problem using the verbiage protect, preserve and restore? The language in
Attachment A speaks to"protect and restore. " We did a survey of many documents and the phrase
"protect and restore"and `protect,preserve and restore"are interchangeable in the documents we
looked at It was chosen for the sake of simplicity. It means the same thing.
• Are there fiscal restraints with restoring? Yes— it would be dependent on the situation.
• So, in other words, if you've got a policy to "restore" and you don't have the funds to
restore, then, is it enforceable at all? I think the phrasing "to the extent feasible"is in this
document and, in the `Definitions"section, we define the word `feasible."Feasible is defined as
"reasonably capable of being done, executed, or effected with the means at hand and circumstances as
they are;practicable."
• Do you know whether the City has budgeted money for stream restoration? The City
has some funds for stream restoration and some of the monies we get through partnerships with Clean
Water Services. There are some physical restraints for restoration,for example, if a developer worked
on a site that had remnants of a very high valued wetland that had been previously graded, it all
depends on how you interpret restore. Implementation of"restore"is highly dependent on the ability to
actually get it done. Taken to the extreme, it could be extremely expensive and very difficult to do
and could pose a burden on both the City and the developers. So there is, indeed, a feasibility
component of restoration.
At this point, the commissioners turned their attention to Sue Beilke's email regarding
adding definitions.
One of the commissioners recommended taking out the word "inventoried" in the
definition and staff agreed that it could be taken out. There was more discussion regarding
the other definitions that had been raised by Ms. Beilke.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU IES—June 2,2008—Page 3
I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-02-08 Public Heanng and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Mmutes.doc
This meeting.in its entirety.is available on CD.and retained at City of Tigard Public Records]
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
PROPONANTS:
John Frewing— 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, drew a picture on the whiteboard for later
reference. He said he agrees with Ms. Beilke in several regards and that he had several key
comments to make.
Comment 1 - Frewing talked about the generality of the policies. He said there should be
more specificity and clear policies.
Comment 2 - Frewing spoke about riparian areas. He believes the area of interest needs to
be broadened to include the "channel migration zone." He referred to the drawing on the
board (Exhibit ID) saying it was a rough drawing of such a zone. He said the stream was in
the dip in the center and the broad flat area near the stream is the channel migration zone
where the stream will change from year to year or decade to decade. He thinks this should be
included in the new Comp Plan and added to the sensitive areas to be protected — from not
only flooding, but also landslides.
Comment 3 — He suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to reference the
current maps, tables, charts, whatever, that provide inventories and, if staff wants to update
those things, great. However, let us name the documents that are to be created so we can see
what we are going to have to make decisions on.
Comment 4— In a previous workshop I asked that the Comp Plan mandate the creation of
overlay zones in the City for natural resource protection —whether wetlands, timbered areas,
whatever and I've not seen that implemented. I would testify that I think that's a good idea
and I think other cities do it. It's feasible, if you will.
Comment 5 —There should be provision regarding natural resources for citizen enforcement
action. Citizens can have a role in enforcement. This should be in the Comp Plan.
Comment 6 — In the sustainable sites document used by Metro it doesn't use the word
"people". Sustainable means sustainable to everything— not just sustainable to people. I
think when you use the word sustainable, it should be broadened to include more than
people.
Comment 7 —There should be some sort of citizen enforcement. There are a variety of legal
things in our country where citizens can have a role in enforcement and I think Tigard is
limited in its capability of enforcement and should have some provision for this in the Comp
Plan. With regard to Natural Resources, the 1972 Federal Water Quality Act includes specific
provisions for citizen enforcement—reporting violations, discharges, and so forth. Those
kinds of things should be specifically included in this Comp Plan.
At this point President Inman opened it up to questions of Mr. Frewing. Following are the
questions by the Commissioners (italics are answers by Frewing.)
What more specific policies would you have us put into what we already have?
I'd be glad to provide you with a recommended list. I would ask you to commit to do something more than
(reference Goal 5.1 policy 4 — bottom of page 3 of 20) `actively coordinate and consult with landowners, etc."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—June 2,2008—Page 4
11LRPLN1Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Hearing and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes doc
[This meeting,in to entirety,is available on CD,and retained at Cay of Tigard Public Records
— What does coordinate and consult"mean? No idea, Tell me whatyou're going to do. Be more specific.
And Goal 5.1 Policy 13— create linkages?I think you should say you'll place a priori y on properties, on
sites, that create linkages. Its so general it's not useful to me. I believe it needs more work before going to
Council.
Please explain what you mean by citizen enforcement. Its citizens initiating actions that have to be
acted on by authorities.
OPPONENTS:
Eric Lindstrom, 6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive, Portland, OR, regarding Policies 1 & 3,
Mr. Lindstrom read a letter he'd written verbatim for the record (Exhibit E).
Following are questions from the commissioners - italics indicate Lindstrom's answers:
With respect to policy 3 when you refer to "Using a hammer when necessary" —what would
you suggest we do that is more than "strongly encouraging"? I assume you understand that
the City is somewhat circumscribed in its ability to force technology on developers, but I'm
open to suggestions in terms of what we can do that is more than strongly encouraging using
those kinds of technologies, without getting into mandating a particular type of building
technology, for example.
Look for new language— be creative and sensitive as you move forward. Set a leadership tone— not a
minimum. It needs personality. It shouldn't be "empy"so that it's "safe." Be specific when you CAN be
specific. I don't believe public documents have to be empy just so they can be `safe."A lot of what got
stricken from the original document probably shouldn't have been struck— it should simply be updated.
Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, OR, referred to her email dated June 2, 2008
(Last page of Exhibit C). She said she'd submitted several comments both in writing and at
previous workshops. She said she would not go over those again but would summarize
some things and answer a question that one of the commissioners had asked about earlier.
She noted that at the original Natural Resource Committee meeting, they had at least 5 goals
and associated policies. At the second meeting, it was reduced to one goal and associated
policies — lumped all together. She said the committee was not responsible for that— staff
was — and that she and the rest of the committee did not agree with that, nor like it. She said
she was very unhappy with that- which is why she was speaking once again as an opponent.
She referred to an inventory that is not complete. She said much of it is what Metro did.
She said there are many areas that no one's walked thru and need to be on an inventory. She
spoke about sensitive habitats, noting that on the current Comp Plan it reads "The City shall
designate areas of value for their fragile character" - in other words, "sensitive habitats." She
wants this to be addressed in the new Comp Plan. She spoke about the wording "where
feasible —where appropriate" and doesn't believe those words are necessary.
Beilke addressed the question of whether the word "rare" is in the Comp Plan and said that,
yes, it is there —in the Parks section. She expressed concern that the "definitions" section
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU I'ES—June 2,2008—Page 5
I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Hearing and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes doc
This meeting,in its entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records( _
had not been worked on or looked at by the public yet. ["Introduction & Definitions" is on
the schedule for a workshop and will have a public hearing in the near future as well.] Beilke
also would like the word "Services" taken out and the word "values" put back in.
Following are questions from the commissioners — answers are in italics:
How many meetings were there on Natural Resources? Floyd answered: There were three
meetings scheduled—people attended two of them.
Sue, are you suggesting we table this section until all the resources are inventoried? That's how
I would do it;however, I think you could deal with this issue by making sure you have very specific policies
that address this issue. You could get this done within one year.
No one will disagree that getting an inventory is important but I don't see a timeline such as
you suggest as feasible, remember, this is a 20 year document. You could hire an undergraduate
to do it as their senior thesis—get someone good— they could work with City staf. Since this was written
we've lost most of our urban forest.
Beilke asked, "If this is not the place for a timeframe, what is the appropriate place?" One
of the commissioners asked. What are action measures for? Do they have to be complied
with? Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, answered— They set forth the
work plan by which you implement the Comprehensive Plan. Along that line, we have several responses to the
question of inventory. At some time, we'd like to talk about the whole process of inventorying and what's
required and also emphasis it's as much a budget issue as staff's willingness to do this. "
Beilke said in conclusion, "Some of this is good, but what we have would not meet goal 5
requirements."
9:03pm—PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATIONS:
After much discussion, President Inman summed up the deliberations to that point by saying
there appear to be three main issues 1) Time; 2) Formatting and specificity; and 3) Use of the
language "extent feasible" She noted that those are the "big" issues — from there we get into
things that could be more easily "fixed" to reach a conclusion. She wondered whether the
Planning Commission is at a point where they should postpone this and backtrack. "Not
that I want to derail getting the Comp Plan done, but do we feel ready to progress on this
tonight or are we actually at the point where we would want to postpone this, do more
workshops, and maybe backtrack this?" Commissioner Vermilyea said there's a bigger
picture of what we're trying to accomplish. I don't believe I'm ready to vote on this. If I
were to vote, I'd vote no, if for no other reason, than to force us to work on it some more.
President Inman polled the commissioners as to whether they should move this forward.
The general consensus was to take a couple more weeks working on this section.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—June 2,2008—Page 6
I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Heanng and recommendabonttpc 6-2-08 Minutes doc
)This meeting,in ds entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records)
Ron Bunch said it's very important that other interested parties be engaged in this as well.
He said, "If we take more time on this, what I'd like to do is broaden this discussion. Rather
than just have two or three people here, we need to get more people for example,
homebhilders, the real estate industry, and other development interests need to come into
this particular process. There are also other groups in the community including the Tualatin
River Basin Partners, and others that need to be engaged in this as well.
Commissioner Doherty said she didn't think there were a whole lot of major changes. She
summed up what she'd heard to be just a couple of issues:
1. There was good stuff in the old Comprehensive Plan — ones not included in this and
it was "meatier"; and
2. There's a need to add an "uplands" policy.
She said the rest appears to simply be on somebody's "wish list." It would be nice if we
could spend lots and lots of money on restoration and that kind of thing but I think what
we're looking at is a policy that we can actually go through and deal with. So what I heard
were those things. I'd like to look at the old policy and see what can be kept and then also
deal with uplands.
Commissioner Vermilyea said he is concerned about the process. He said the citizens are not
happy with this...this is a disconnect. He said he thinks they need at least one more work
session on this. Commissioner Hasman said if there's another session there should be a
vote. President Inman agreed saying she wasn't sure another work session would be
productive towards leading towards compromise as much as it's going to be an opportunity
to reiterate again their opinions as to why it's not working. She said she'd rather see
something that is driven towards something that works versus a continued affirmation that it
just doesn't. She said we need to get to an answer. If we have to vote we'll be more
motivated to get to a point of making something work.
Ron Bunch said staff had taken detailed notes and will deal with existing policies, talk about
how to integrate those, and things in that general direction. So general themes will be dealt
with and brought back to the commission. John Floyd concurred with what Bunch had said
and added the uplands issue and the concept of the language "to the extent feasible." He
said they could come back and talk about that in depth. Also, the language to provide
security that something will actually happen —that this isn't a repeat of what happened in
1983. Lastly, to bring to the discussion a broader group of interest groups who do business
here or have an interest in Tigard for whatever reason. Floyd asked whether there was
something he'd missed. One of the commissioners said he suggests the language "to the
extent feasible" be stricken from all of the policies in the document— he said that it weakens
the document. He would also like them to make policy 3 stronger in terms of directive and
see if they can come up with a stronger verb than "encourage" - recognizing that we only
have a limited ability (or none at all) to mandate the things that are talked about in that but
he empathizes with the testimony given with respect to that word and he would like to see
what could be done about that. In policy 10, he'd like to see the words "complete and"
inserted between "shall" and "periodically" — making it very clear that it is the policy of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU IES—June 2,2008—Page 7
I tLRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Heanng and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes don
]This meeting,in its entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records]
City that we will have a complete baseline done. He said we could deal with the issue of
timing as appropriate. There was also some discussion about overlay.
At 10:00pm it was decided to continue the Public Hearing on CPA2008-00003 to the June
16 Planning Commission meeting.
DELIBERATIONS CLOSED
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented Hs May 23 memo (Exhibit F) and explained
the matrix that was attached. There was discussion about whether or not to move the July
7th Planning Commission meeting as it follows the July 2 Joint meeting with Council so
closely. They decided to table that discussion to the June 16 meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 10:15 pm.
� F
Doreen Laughlin, . rustrati - Specialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—June 2,2008—Page 8
1\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\6-02-08 Public Heanng and recommendation\tpc 6-2-08 Minutes,doc
[This meeting,in its entirety,is available on CD,and retained at Coy of Tigard Public Records I
•
City Tigard, Oregon 13125 SIT' all B lvd. • Tigard, OR 972;
EXHIBIT A
To: Planning Commission
From: Greg Berry, Project Engineer
Date: May 21, 2008 . .
Subject: Renaming of SW Alpine View to SW Alpine View Drive
Background
Section 11.04.020 of the Washington County Code requires that streets within the City be named in
accordance with the County's uniform system. Section 11.04.050 (attached) requires that all street
names include a suffix selected from a list of eleven allowable suffixes. SW Alpine View passes
through Hillshire Summit No. 2, Benchview Terrace and Alpine View subdivisions as shown on the
attached maps. The plats for these subdivisions name SW Alpine View without the required suffix.
Requests have been received from Metro, Washington County Consolidated Communication
Agency, Washington County and others to comply with County Code by adding the Drive suffix to
the street name.
State statute (ORS 227.120) requires that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council to
approve or disapprove the proposed naming of a street. The City Council will then hold a public
hearing and may adopt an ordinance naming the street.
The Planning Commission action does not require a hearing but it may choose to hear comments
from citizens before making its recommendation to the Council.
All affected owners have been notified and requested to submit comments on the proposed name
change. No comments have been received. The notice states that if the name change is approved,
the Post Office will continue to deliver mail with or without the Drive suffix. The owners will also
be notified of the City Council public hearing.
If the name change is approved, street name signs will be replaced. Public Works expects the sign
replacement to cost$630 including materials,labor and vehicle use.
Request
The Planning Commission is requested to recommend that City Council approve or disapprove the
proposed name change of SW Alpine View to SW Alpine View Drive.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission, by motion, recommend that the City Council approve the proposed
name change.
Attachments:
Notice to Owners with map and mailing list
Washington County Code 11.04.050 Street name standards
Phone: 503.639.4171 0 Fax: 503.684.7297 0 www.tigard-or.gov 0 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
.., . . , .
\ -----
1
., , ■ .
C ITY of TIGARD
-,-.: ■. . ,
\•,/ i,-,,,,i,41,1■1C INT OPIPAAT-,o, s,-,rwi
/ -I- ,,:--------i-`,
i 1 1 ' VICINITY MAP
f
I
, Alpine View
.../ i
, '' Name Change
\ '
/ $ ,
to
Alpine View Dr
,---
$
1 ____•-- --- __.
$
/ .°
$ _
____ , 1 \\ \ / t
-----------\-- ,.//c5,0,---...,.,,,,0„,,,,tv ),„, ,,<_„___, _ .„7 )
, ......,,
i
( _Li 1 \iN__ _ I DGE. '
--/c...../A1'\----, / \ N - 09
,
Wer -.110 Ii
■
ALPINE-- 'i I i
',--. i \ • 'I 7
1 ,
. I .
i.-- - ---- \ r'
li
, „
:
,I ,,/ ,7 -, •-,- ,1
1,1 i i
/10 /-----. I .. 1 \ _ ,\___,------ \ ,._---- \
1
/ 1-----_____ '--,-,----, ALPINE Mai
. ______.i
. „ _____. \ \ \ \ ,,
. ,
. ..
.. .,
—, 1
--"----- ' - ' __ ___-- \ \ \ , ' , ! i J.
N
---
.---?) '' , 1
\
/ 1, , I I
I' , ‘ ALM E VIEW
k, { 1 1 , , \ ,-
H
,
: ! 1 I - I'' I'I / ' —'''' '• -I) I
I I 1
1 ' la-AIM-MOM 4■86'won41------- I '
'1 I I I
' I I
'
, I :
"..----'---1----' ..'i 11,' 1 l ) ''-
1 !
1
li / T---■;_i_ 1 1 ' ■ ,
\--,----____! i------,,, 1 i — - \ \
-) ' -
/ ../ / ,1-----7------1 1 . --) i • '‘,/--,,•-\ / -----/ ,/ ,- ----- ,
1------f I i d 1' I ! ,1 11 • 1 ..
''1 ,--,--.'—'\c"'''-- / ' U - / /1 A i
'.----... I / ' ' II ' 1 1 ', 1 1 ' 1 ' N
i',,,..._ \, --,./
----- -1 , ,
i 1 1 i 1, ' • I.c '‘.
--, I I i L , I
:_ _ •
__JL ------------------i__------_,A ,,..
._____--- - % ...
I __.....-- i Ilaie"spa ' ow.ogaq I 0 10 200 ',Op
i J 1 ,,,,
, i i
/ .„,,, ,,,,, r $
$, . cz$10$40$4$
/
.4., . ,,,,,,$___
,...„,,
,,, ,„,,$.
eq..,
-$$$) ($4fit..../z.t. $ $
,
$
$ $
. $
I i,,,,,
ii
I A)
ritt r: r
rntrirrr;
Y 6
\
/)____
, ----__________,__.,
-i`-,,, 4 -
i o I 11)10E11,110o on ihm 11,31,Is for gonoral location only,Ind
r- - \-- _ , _ \ /// i'-'7--,. b: - I i should be vorthed w1111 the Devoluproont SCNICOti Divi5lort
13125 SVV I tall Blvd
T19,Ird,OR 97723
"'"-1 ____ Ass. ------ ,-.. / ' IA, $ ,ii,
--- /: ,----- --N, )--- ---- ) -. / , i 7 0,03,6-39_417 1
htlp ihwev cit,g,xd of lo,
_ .
1 - 'H '
__-__- _______ ', L '''.-, _/_...,-__N-L_________—.:,-:::---------- -", -4 Plot date:May 12.2008:CAmagic\MAGIC03 APR
Community Development
. . , .
11.04.050 Street name standards. Page 1 of 1
Title 11 PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 11.04 HOUSE NUMBERING AND STREET IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
11.04.050 Street name standards.
A. In addition to complying with the requirements of Section 11.04.020, all streets named or renamed shall comply
with the following criteria:
1. Major streets and highways shall maintain a common name or number for the entire alignment;
2. Whenever practicable, historical names shall be utilized or retained and be subject to the considerations as
outlined in Section 11.04.060;
3. Hyphenated, multiple word, or other exceptionally long names shall be avoided;
4. No street shall be given a name that is the same as, similar to, or pronounced the same as any other street within
the jurisdiction of Washington County unless that street is an extension of an already-named street.
5. Consideration shall be given to the continuation of the name of a street in another jurisdiction when it is extended
into the county.
6. Names that are difficult to pronounce or spell shall be avoided;
7. Abbreviated street names shall not be allowed.
8. All proposed street names shall be reviewed, prior to use, by the county surveyor's office to determine whether the
proposed street names comply with the standards and classifications set forth in this chapter.
B. The following classifications (suffixes) shall be utilized in the assignment of all street names:
1. Boulevard: major north/south street providing through traffic movement across the community;
2. Road: major east/west street providing through traffic movement across the community;
3. Avenue: continuous, north/south thoroughfare or extension thereof;
4. Street: continuous, east/west thoroughfare or extension thereof;
5. Drive: curvilinear thoroughfare (less than one hundred eighty degrees) at least one thousand feet in length;
6. Lane: short east/west street under one thousand feet in length;
7. Terrace: short north/south street under one thousand feet in length;
8. Court: East/west cul-de-sac;
•
9. Place: North/south cul-de-sac;
10. Way: Loop street(exceeding one hundred eighty degrees);
11. Parkway: a broad landscaped thoroughfare. (Ord. 640 § 5, 2006)
<< previous ( next>>
http://ordlink.com/codes/washco/ DATA/TITLE11/Chapter 11 04 HOUSE NUMBERING AND /11 ... 4/24/2008
EXHIBIT C
IIII
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Jodie Inman, President; and members of the Planning Commission
From: John Floyd
Re: Comments received from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
and Sue Bielke regarding CPA2008-00003
Date: June 2, 2008
The purpose of this memo is to convey recent correspondence regarding the Natural Resources
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008-00003). Subsequent to distribution of the packet for
June 2, 2008, staff received one letter and one email regarding CPA2008-00004. Both are attached
for your review and include the following:
➢ Letter from Mischa Connine, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 28, 2008
Email from Sue Bielkie,June 2, 2008 including one attachment
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
The letter from ODFW of May 28, 2008 contained four comments. None of these comments
challenged the legitimacy of the document (Le. its compliance with applicable regulations), each
being a suggestion on how the document might be strengthened from their perspective. A
summary and staff response is below:
1. "The format of [the] layout is difficult to follow. It is recommended that for each Goal, the
Policies and Recommended Action [Measures] are grouped together."
Staff Response: The format of this chapter is consistent with formatting chosen for the whole of the Comprehensive
Plan. Additionally, a Recommended Action Measure may satisfy several Policies and as a result the suggested
format would create unnecessary repetition within the document. Staff acknowledges the comment, but recommends
that the Planning Commission not adopt it.
2. "It is strongly recommended that fish and wildlife species are also identified as a resource."
Staff Response: This recommendation exceeds the minimum requirements of Goal 5, and regional programs
implemented through METRO and the Tualatin Basin Partnership, regarding the protection of natural resources
insofar that specific fish and wildlife would be regulated in addition to habitat. The proposed language contains
protections for fish and wildlife through the protection and restoration of both riparian and upland habitats
including Goal 5.1 and Policies 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13. Furthermore, the proposed language would not
prohibit the City from implementing species specific protection and recovery plans at a future date, should that
become necessary. Staff acknowledges the comment, but recommends that the Planning Commission not adopt it.
3. "It is also recommended that the fish and wildlife habitat is separated into wetland and
upland habitats."
Staff Response: This recommendation would split Policy 5.1.7 into two policies, one addressing riparian habitat
and another addressing upland habitat. In subsequent conversation, ODFW(/expressed a concern that it would be
difficult for the City to develop specific policies and action items to address conversation,protection, and restoration
of both types of habitat. Staff finds that a unified habitat policy has the safe regulatory effect and standing as two
separate policies, and sees no reason to separate them. Staff acknowledges the comment, but recommends that the
Planning Commission not adopt it.
4. "It is recommended that each of the City's identified resources should be addressed by a
policy specific to that resource."
Staff Response: The existing language carries the same regulatory effect and standing as individual policies. The
decision to write umbrella policies (including but not limited to Policies 1 and 4) was made to prevent the
unnecessary duplication of language in the document. Resource specific policies are already proposed including,
but not limited to 7, 8 and 9. Staff acknowledges the comment, but recommends that the Planning Commission
not adopt it.
Sue Bielke
On June 2, 2008 an email was received from Sue Bielke containing comments she wished to present
to the Planning Commission for its consideration. The email also contained one attachment, a
previous email of May 13, 2008. Both are attached for the Commission's review.
The main points of her email broadly include a request for more time, a reorganization of the
document to include resource specific goals, and more explicit language regarding listed species and
native American artifacts. Staff acknowledges her comments, but finds the existing language legally
adequate and providing the necessary legislative basis for future protection and restoration
programs called for in her electronic correspondance.
w � \ Department of Fish and Wildlife
∎ z Sauvie Island Wildlife Area
North Willamette Wildlife District
-,
/859) Theodore R.Kulongoski,Governor 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road
Portland, OR 97231
503-621-3488
FAX 503-621-3025
May 28, 2008
OREGON
Fish&Wildlife
John Floyd
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Floyd,
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the City of Tigard's
draft Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan and would like to offer the following comments
and recommendations.
The City provides one goal, followed by a series of"Policies" which are followed by a
series of"Recommended Action Items". The format of this layout is difficult to follow.
It is recommended that for each Goal, the Policies and Recommended Action Items are
grouped together. Following is an example of the recommended format.
Goal 5
Policy 5.1
Recommended Action Item A
Recommended Action Item B
Recommended Action Item C
The City identifies the following resources that are addressed in Goal 5: fish and wildlife
habitat, wetlands, streams, groundwater, and historic and cultural resources. It is strongly
recommended that fish and wildlife species are also identified as a resource. It is also
recommended that the fish and wildlife habitat is separated into wetland and upland
habitats.
The goal of the City is to "protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological
functions they provide; and, where possible, restore natural resources to create naturally
functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity." It is recommended that each of the
City's identified resources should be addressed by a policy specific to that resource. For
example, there should be a separate policy addressing wildlife upland habitat, fish and
wildlife stream and wetland habitat, fish and wildlife species and groundwater. For
example:
Policy 5.1: Wildlife Upland Habitat
Protect, conserve and restore upland habitats related to wildlife, aesthetics, slope
protection and groundwater recharge. Encourage increased vegetation, additional
wildlife habitat areas, and expansion and enhancement of undeveloped spaces. Upland
habitats include all habitats that are not categorized as wetland or waterway. Examples
include mixed conifer forest, oak woodland, oak savannah, grasslands, prairie, etc.
Recommended Action Item A:
Protect, conserve and restore upland habitats and Oregon Conservation Strategy habitats
through a variety of methods including, but not limited to: the use of development and
land management regulations and incentives, acquisitions of land and conversation
easements, educational outreach, and external partnerships.
Recommended Action Item B:
Conduct a baseline inventory of all upland habitat types within the City.
Policy 5.2: Fish and Wildlife Stream and Wetland Habitat
Protect, conserve and restore streams, riparian corridors and wetland habitat which have
significant functions and values related to flood protection, sediment and erosion control,
water quality, groundwater recharge and discharge, education, vegetation, and fish and
wildlife habitat.
Recommended Action Item A:
Conserve riparian, wetland, and water body natural resources through the designation and
protection of transition areas between the resource and other urban development and
activities. Restrict non-water dependent or non-water related development within the
riparian area. The recommended riparian buffer size is 200 feet for fish-bearing streams
and 100 feet for non fish-bearing streams.
Recommended Action Item B:
Conduct a baseline inventory of all wetland and waterway habitats within the City.
Policy 5.3: Fish and Wildlife Species
Protect, conserve and restore fish and wildlife populations that contain ESA threatened
and endangered, Oregon state sensitive, rare and Oregon Conservation Strategy species
through a variety of methods including, but not limited to: the use of development and
land management regulations and incentives, acquisitions of land and conversation
easements, educational outreach, and external partnerships.
Recommended Action Item A:
Protect, conserve and restore stream, wetland and upland habitat that contain ESA
threatened and endangered, Oregon state sensitive or Oregon Conservation Strategy
species habitats through a variety of methods including, but not limited to: the use of
development and land management regulations and incentives, acquisitions of land and
conversation easements, educational outreach, and external partnerships.
Recommended Action Item B:
Establish a high level of biodiversity within the stream, wetland and upland habitats
through a variety of methods including, but not limited to: the use of development and
land management regulations and incentives, acquisitions of land and conversation
easements, educational outreach, and external partnerships.
Recommended Action Item C:
Conduct a baseline inventory of all fish and wildlife species.
These examples are not meant to be a comprehensive list of all Policies and
Recommended Action Items, but to provide a recommended example of how to
adequately protect, conserve and restore the City's natural resources. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that the City of Tigard includes their
Natural Resource Committee to develop a comprehensive list of Policies and
Recommended Action Items that will protect, conserve and restore the City's natural
resources. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would like to thank the City of
Tigard for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions or would like
to discuss the comments and recommendation of this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
•
ait_k_
Mischa Connine
Habitat Biologist
18330 NW Sauvie Island Road
Portland, OR 97231
(503) 621-3488 ext 228
mischa.a.connine@state.or.us
John Floyd
From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke @europa.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:19 AM
To: John Floyd
Cc: John Frewing; Jay Watson; drescher @teleport.com;jblowers @ix.netcorn.com;
el.lindstrom @comcast.net; 'Brian Wegener'
Subject: natural resources section of comprehensive plan
Attachments: Fw_Meeting_ Friday at 1 pm.eml
John,
Please forward the below comments to the Planning Commission for tonight's Hearing on Goal 5, Natural Resources and
Historic Areas.
Planning Commission
City of Tigard
Below are my comments regarding the Natural Resources and Cultural Resources sections for the Comprehensive Plan
and the Planning Commission Hearing tonght:
1. I am currently a citizen serving on the Natural Resources Committe of Tigard, and to date we have had two meetings
for this subject. As I have stated in the past numerous times, two meetings were insufficient in writing goals and policies
that would adequately address the conservation and protection of our natural resources in Tigard. I am therefore
requesting, again, that the Planning Commission delay adopting language for Natural Resoure Section of the
Comprehensive Plan, and allow our citizen committee more time, at least two more meetings, to adequately come up with
goals and policites that address the Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its requirements. What started out as 5 goals with
associated policies at the first meeeting, dwindled down to only 1 goal and policy by the second meeting. This reduction
was done by city staff and not citizens. The current document is totally inadequate in protecting and conserving the many
natural resources that exist in the city of Tigard.
2. The current Goal has language that is weak and will not be adequate in protecting, conserving and restoring all of the
natural resources in Tigard. This one goal needs to be broken down into at least 5 goals, each goal would then address
various areas of natural resources, such as "Wetlands", "Upland Forests", "Fish and Wildlife", etc. Then, each of the 5
goals would have associated policies that could specifically address the needs of that resource, for example, for Fish and
Wildlife, an example of a policy would be: "The city shall restore fish and wildlife populations in order to achieve a high
level of biological diversity".
3. We strongly recommend taking out the verbage that the PC inserted in the first workshop; where our committe had
"Protect and restore", the PC changed to"Protect and then "restore where feasible". This so weakens the document as to
make it virtually unenforceable. Why would anyone NOT want to restore natural resources, especially in light of the
massive influx of invasive species invading Oregon, including plants and wildlife. It is our duty to be good stewards of our
natural resources and to do Everything we can to protect and restore what we have inherited.
Therefore, I recommend taking out"where possible"or"where appropriate"from all of the document and replacing it
with "Protect, conserve and restore"for all of the goals. Language such as"where appropriate" only serves to weaken
this document and make unuseable.
4. Our Natural Resources Committee did not get to the stage for developing a Definitions Section (it was done by staff), _
hence the following comments on that:
- "Natural Resources" - in this definition, the city starts with "inventoried". This word needs to be removed, as natural
resources should refer to ALL of the natural resources not just those inventoried, since much of the city has not been
inventoried. We still need to inventory many areas of the city, but regardless of what has or has not been
inventoried,we need to protect ALL of our natural resources.
1
-"Rare" -We wanted to make sure this is part of this section and should be defined as "Plants,fish,wildlife or
habitats considered to be unique, uncommon, unusual or of high value due to declines in local population
numbers compared to historical levels or considered to be a cultural resource by Native American tribes".
Examples of local "rare" species would be camas, pond turtles, painted turtles, any salmonid fish species; examples of
rare habitats would be oak prairie habitat; examples of Native American cultural resources would be camas, western red
cedar trees, and anything determined to be "a usual and accustomed place".
-"Sensitive Habitat" -This would be defined as"Sensitive Habitats are those area containing rare and/or any plant,
fish or wildlife or habitat type on any state or federal lists as defined below."
"Uplands" -A definition for uplands was also left out of this section. Upland could be defined as "all habitats beyond
the riparian zone of an ecosystem"which includes for example, mixed conifer forests, oak prairies, and meadows.
"Species on State or Federal Lists" - We also need a definition for this, which can read "AU species that are on any
state or federal lists, including threatened, endangered, sensitive, critical or species of concern." Example of
species on these lists include both native turtles and red-legged frogs.
-"Sustainable" -This definition should include verbage that also addresses the sustainability of the resource, can the
resource be sustainable with any level of development? Who ever proves they can do this? The current definition is
totally backwards and should read: "Any development or use of any resource by people must ensure that they will
not in any manner reduce the fish and wildlife populations or reduce the amount of habitat or the functionality of
that habitat(s)in question."
5. We need to have a policy that addresses protection of sensitive habitats, including those which contain rare or listed
species, in order to protect and restore these species. Examples include: Policy: The city shall make it a high priority
to protect and restore sensitive habitats which will include not allowing development of any kind into these areas
(e.g., no trails, etc.). The city is already doing this but it needs to be in writing and part of the Comp. Plan. Policy: The
city shall make it a high priority to actively pursure funding to restore sensitive habitats."
6. The city needs to have a goal and related policies that addresses biological diversity and its importance in relation to
natural resources. Example: Goal: Protect, conserve and restore the biological diversity of all habitats within the
city." Example of associated Policy: The city shall actively work with local conservation groups and citizens to
restore the highest level of biological diversity to all wetlands in the city of Tigard.
7. Goal 5.2 - Regarding protection and preservation of historic and cultural resources, i saw NO mention of Native
American artifacts that have been found in Tigard, including those found on the library site, on the Ash Creek Natural
Area or anywhere else. This needs to be documented in an attached inventory and then needs associated policies in
order to protect and preserve these important cultural resources. In addition, there are areas in Tigard that are
considered "usual and accustomed places" by Native American tribes and this also needs to be addressed in an inventory
and with associated policies, such as"The city shall protect, conserve and restore areas considered "usual and
accustomed places" by any Native American tribe."
Attached are additional comments and recommendations I submitted to the city on May 9 after the first PC workshop.
Again, we still have much work to do before this section of the Comprehensive Plan is adequate and able to be adopted
as part of the Goal 5 statewide planning process. I therefore an requesting that the Planning Commission NOT adopt the
current language for the Natural Resource or Cultural Resource sections of the Comprehensive PLan, but rather, work
with local citizens and conservation groups, such as Fans of Fanno Creek and The Biodiversity Project of Tigard, to make
this a more complete and worthy document that will guide natural resource protection, conservation and restoration for the
next 20 years in Tigard.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sue Beilke,
Director,The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek
Vice President, Friends of Summer Creek
Director, The Turtle Conservancy
2
John Floyd
From: Sue Beilke [sbeilke @europa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:03 AM
To: John Floyd
Subject: Fw: Meeting: Friday at 1pm
Here it is.
Original Message
From: Sue Beilke
To: John Floyd ; 'John Frewing'
Cc: Marissa Daniels
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting: Friday at 1 pm
John,
Here are some of the recommendations/comments/language changes I proposed at the PC workshop for Natural
Resources.
- Use "Protect, conserve and restore" where we now have "protect and restore"
-omit"where appropriate" from the entire document
- keep in "values" but make sure it is defined in the Definitions section, and include some examples
- For the Goal; we now only have one goal, I think that is "lame" considering the extent of the diversity of natural
resources we are addressing. Originally we had at least 5 as I recall. I recommend splitting 5.1 into 3 goals.
5.1: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources and the environmental and ecological services they provide.
5.2: Protect, conserve and restore natural resources in order to reach a high level of biodiversity.
5.3 Protect, conserve and restore plants, plant communities and fish and wildlife populations considered rare, or on any
state and federal species lists as a high priority.
- I do not recommend deleting Policy 2.
Somewhere in the PC meeting, the chairwoman, said something to the effect that"low impact development does not
include incorporating natural resources"? I need to have that clarified and then that needs to be addressed at the next
meeting, as she is very wrong on that one if that is what she said.
- Policy 3-this needs more work and we really need to define"sustainable" in regard to natural resources. For example, if
you put in several houses near a stream and only have a 50' buffer, this will not overtime "sustain" the wildlife that live
there. That size buffer is too small to"sustain"the birds, mammals and other species that have inhabitated it for
thousands of years.
- I recommend adding several new policies;
- Policy -The City shall create a distinct zone for open space, greenways, etc. in order to protect permanently all natural
resources.
- Policy -The City shall place a high priority on the protection, conservation, and restoration of rare plants and habitats
(e.g., oak prairie) and rare and state and federal fish and wildlife species listed as "Species of Concern, Sensitive,
Threatened, or Endangered (e.g., Northern red-legged frog, native turtles).
- Make sure we define "hydrologic regimes".
- Policy 10: I would have several policies covering inventories, etc. 1. The City shall conduct surveys of All natural
resources in order to establish a baseline inventory.
1
2. The City shall periodically maintain and update the Natural Resources inventory through surveys and monitoring
efforts.
3. The City shall utilize the natural resources inventory to assist with setting goals and objectives for restoration
activities.
Then under these 2 Policies i would add these Action Measures: a. Conduct surveys and monitoring of all natural
resources to establish a baseline inventory.
b. Utilize available documents such as the Oregon Conservation Strategy to help guide restoration efforts. c.
Engage citizens and volunteers to assist with surveys and monitoring. d. Identify opportunities for funding and apply for
grants to assist with restoration efforts.
We also need to make sure that"uplands" are addressed, such as in Policy 8.
l:recommend adopting Metro's Title 13 as John recommended at the workshop, again so that uplands are protected, etc.
-We need to look at the CWS standards that the city has adopted in order to see if they are adequate in protecting our
natural resources, since CWS standards and regs. are set up to only address "water quality". I think it would then be in
order to establish several goals and policies that address buffers, etc. in order to further protection for habitats and fish
and wildlife.
See you at 1PM.
Sue
Original Message
From: John Floyd
To: 'sbeilke @europa.com' ; 'John Frewing'
Cc: Marissa Daniels ; Ron Bunch
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:03 PM
Subject: Meeting: Friday at 1pm
Hello Sue and John,
Friday at 1pm seems to work for all of use. I'll go ahead and reserve a room,just come to the front counter and ask for
me.
If you could , please forward me (and each other if you haven't already) any comments you have ahead of time. If you
don't mind, Marissa Daniels would like to attend the meeting as well.
Thanks,
John
John Floyd
City of Tigard
Assodate Planner
•N Community Development
ma kk '`v (503)718-2429
.: johnfl @tgard-or,gov
13125 SW Hall Blvd,
Tigard,OR 97223
2
F--
CO
_ v ..0 D•LLJ
•
va f .
•
w
. .
•
•
•
•r
i
EXHIBIT E
To: City of Tigard Planning Commission
Date: 6/2/2008
Re: Proposed changes to the language of the Natural Resources Chapter
My name is Eric Lindstrom. I am a writer, researcher and photographer and reside in
unincorporated Washington County. For the last year I have been developing material
for a book on the Fanno Creek Watershed. My research has taken me into most of the
wetlands and stream beds that comprise the Creek's watershed. I am not an expert on
watersheds, nor am I affiliated with any of the many organizations that lobby on their
behalf. I am merely an observer and student of the kind of urban watersheds and
related issues that the Fanno Creek complex typifies. The comments that follow are
driven from that perspective.
From a watershed standpoint the city of Tigard is truly blessed. Even after more than
150 years of sustained abuse and degradation, many of the reaches within Tigard's
boundaries still possess the potential to rebound from their currently challenged state
and become highly valuable segments of the larger Tualatin River watershed. Many of
Tigard's citizens actively support the voluntary restoration activities that regularly take
place within the Fanno Creek complex. Many others have stepped up to the plate and
offered, through ballot, their support of the City's current efforts to revitalize its urban
core. Not every city with a stream running through it enjoys such wonderful gifts these
days.
Like any other growing and developing metropolitan area Tigard must make some
difficult decisions regarding both the manner and purpose of its growth — decisions that
very often will need to balance livability against financial benefits. It is vital that these
decisions lead to both a healthy and prosperous citizenry. Additionally, where
watershed issues are concerned, the City must recognize and honor the fact that its
watershed obligations do not end at the confluence of Fanno Creek and the Tualatin
River. Accordingly any decisions made that may influence the overall water quality of
the Fanno Creek watershed must be made with the greatest amount of courage and
sensitivity.
I have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (CPA 2008-0003)
and given the perspective above am concerned about the Plan's relative lack of
assertive language. Here are a couple examples:
Policy 1. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore natural
resources...(Italics mine)
Imagine pulling up to a police car and seeing the following motto on the door:
Protect and (to the extent feasible) Serve.
As it is currently written, this policy leaves the impression that the City may not be
prepared to make the kind of tough decisions that will become increasingly necessary in
the future as it attempts to balance Business's interest in short-term, high-yield returns
against the Public's long-term ecosystem-services needs. "To the extent feasible"
implies a great deal of wiggle room, and arguably —where protection of watersheds is
concerned —way too much wiggling has already taken place.
Policy 3. The City shall encourage public and private development to (properly
manage local area ecosystem-services — Italics mine)...
This is another policy statement that does not clearly espouse the concept of
stewardship or directly place obligation for responsible behavior where it may properly
belong. While influence is always preferable to enforcement, influence alone is often not
enough to protect the Public Interest. Put more directly, there needs to be a hammer in
that velvet glove.
I am also concerned that the plan as written fails to directly address two important areas.
First, other than indirectly acknowledging in its "Key Findings" that the City must adhere
to various regulatory requirements, the Plan does not specifically take ownership for the
City's role as a key player in the overall health of the greater Tualatin or Fanno Creek
watersheds. Why is there so little policy related to the complex task of working up- and
down-stream with Portland, Beaverton, Durham and Tualatin to increase the
effectiveness of Tigard's efforts to properly manage what is clearly a common asset and
equally common set of challenges? In other words, why isn't Tigard focusing more in
this plan on being a good watershed neighbor?
Secondly, in section 5.2 the Plan does not address the unique and complex historical
legacy left behind by the initial stewards of this area. Why the absence of action items
or policy aimed at identifying, preserving, and/or interpreting Historic Areas in Tigard in a
manner that acknowledges the Native American connection?
Finally, as I reviewed the revisions to the plan I was struck by how much precise and
specific language is being struck from the Findings, Policies and Action Items sections of
the initially proposed document. It is difficult to keep from feeling as if that initial effort
has been systematically gutted. The fact that the amended language contains relatively
little in the way of prescriptive clarity underscores the need for an assertive character in
all that remains.
In closing I would like to urge the Planning Commission to revisit this Chapter and work
for (1) more forceful policy language, (2) policies that address the full range of Tigard's
watershed obligations and (3) the inclusion of specific policies and/or action items that
directly address the legacy of the Native American to the historical and cultural
development of Tigard.
Eric L. Lindstrom EdD
.
Writing, Research, Phot g ra P Y
6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive
Portland, Oregon 97225
el.lindstrom(a�comcast.net
503-296-8440
EXHIBIT F
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD 2027
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Goal 14: Urbanization
DATE: May 23, 2008
At its May 19th meeting, the Planning Commission requested for staff to schedule a workshop with
City Council to discuss the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan update. The workshop
has been scheduled for Council's Tuesday,July 1 meeting. The meeting begins at 6:30pm, but the
workshop will follow the previously scheduled Natural Resources public hearing. The intent of the
workshop will be for the Commission to glean information from the Council on current
urbanization/growth management issues and the Council's position on these issues.
Staff proposes not to discuss Urbanization at the Planning Commission's June 2nd meeting as
originally planned. Rather, staff requests the Planning Commissioners identify specific questions to
be answered/topics to discuss in order to frame the conversation at the workshop. Staff asks that
Commissioners either forward questions/discussion topics to staff(darren a,tigard-or.gov) or bring
them to the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. Having the questions by June 2nd will allow
staff the time to package the questions/topics together into themes to bring back to the
Commission at its June 16`h meeting. A packet of questions/discussion topics and related
information can then be sent to the City Council and Planning Commission well in advance of the
workshop.
Additionally, at the May 19`h meeting some Commissioners expressed concern with the draft policy
language that was brought before them. Staff stated at the meeting that the draft language was not
so different than what is currently included in the Comprehensive Plan and/or implements state
requirements and the Metro Functional Plan. Below you will fund either a comparison between
proposed and existing language or a reference to the source or basis of a proposed policy.
Additional information can be found in the material distributed for the May 19`h meeting that
includes commentary associated with the proposed policies.
If you have any questions,please be sure to contact me at darren @tigard-or.gov or 503-718-2442.
See you on Monday,June 2nd
1
Proposed Goal/Policy Language Existing Policies/Plans & Other
Information
Goal
14.1. Ensure T'igard's interests are represented and
promoted in urban growth boundary Statewide Planning Goal 2
expansion and other regional and state OAR 660-015-0000(2)
growth management decision.
Policies
1. The City shall support Metro and state
growth management decisions, to the extent ORS 197.137 145 Urban and Rural Reserves
they support cities as the best building Metro Functional Plan
blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact
urban region.
2. The City's support of regional Urban • Regional Urban Growth Goals and
Growth Boundary management decisions Objectives
shall consider if these actions prevent future • Metropolitan Urban Growth Management
unincorporated urban development, Regional Functional Plan
prevents urban sprawl, and promotes the • Tigard Urban Services Agreement
development of an efficient and compact • Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
urban form.
3. The City shall maintain the low-density • Tigard Community Surveys show citizens
residential character of its existing single want to protect existing single-family
family residential neighborhoods and neighborhoods
accommodate more intense urban land uses • Regional Urban Growth Goals and
in its regional and town centers and within Objectives
major transportation corridors. • Metropolitan Urban Growth Management
Regional Functional Plan
• Regional Framework Plan
• Metro 2040 Growth Concept
10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE
4. The City shall not provide municipal services EXTENSION OF CITY SERVICES EXCEPT:
outside its city limits.
a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION
FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY THE CITY;OR
b. IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE APPLICABLE
STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH AGENCIES
HAVE DECLARED A POTENTIAL OR
IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD PURSUANT
TO ORS FOR 431.705 TO 431.760 (HEALTH
HAZARD ANNEXATION OR DISTRICT
FORMATION). (Rev. Ord. 07-19)
2
5. The City shall not support the formation or
expansion of service districts or special
county funding levies if these actions result
in the expansion of unincorporated urban
areas.
Goal
14.2. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of Statewide Planning Goal 11
urban Ievel services to lands within the OAR 660-015-0000(11)
Tigard City limits.
Policies
1. The City shall maintain, and amend when
necessary, an Urban Planning Area ORS 195.065
Agreement and an Urban Services Current Tigard Urban Service Agreement
Agreement with Washington County that Current Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
recognizes the City as the ultimate provider Statewide Planning Goal 2
of services to the Tigard Urban Services
Area.
10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL
2. The City shall, as needed, coordinate and/or OF THE EXIENSION OF SERVICES
participate in planning activities or OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY
development decisions within the Tigard SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR
Urban Services Area. ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT
WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING
AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN
PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH
WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY
SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT
WILL NOT:
a. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES
TO URBAN DENSITIES AND
STANDARDS;OR
b. PRECLUDE THE SUBSEQUENT
DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES.
THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN
THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATING
ORDINANCES:
a. LAND USE;
b. DENSITY;
c. PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON
THE STYE;
d. STREET ALIGNMENT;AND
e. DRAINAGE.
3
3. The City shall oppose formation of any new
service district, or expansion of existing Tigard Urban Services Agreement
districts,within the Tigard Urban Services
Area that could conflict with the efficient
delivery of existing or future City services.
4. The City shall enter into and maintain
intergovernmental agreements with service
districts operating within the Tigard Urban
Service Area to:
A. Define short and long term service
provision roles;
B. Specify the terms and conditions of
withdrawal of territory from service ORS 195.065
districts and the transition of capital
facility ownership and
administration to the City;
C. Provide for coordination of plans
and programs; and
D. Ensure services are provided
consistent with the City's adopted
Public Facility Plan.
10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE
5. The City shall not approve the extension of EXTENSION OF CITY SERVICES EXCEPT:
City services except:
A. where applications for annexation a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION
for those FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN
properties have been
APPROVED BY THE CITY;OR
approved; or
B. in circumstances where applicable b. IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE APPLICABLE
state and county health agencies STATE AND COUNTY HEALTH AGENCIES
have declared a potential or HAVE DECLARED A POTENTIAL OR
imminent health hazard pursuant to IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD PURSUANT
ORS 431.705 to 431.760 (Health TO ORS FOR 431.705 TO 431.760 (HEALTH
Hazard Annexation or Service HAZARD ANNEXATION OR DISTRICT
District Formation). FORMATION). (Rev. Ord. 07-19)
Goal
14.3. Annex unincorporated properties as Tigard Urban Services Agreement
opportunities arise in order to implement Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
the Tigard Urban Services Agreement.
Policies 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE
1. The City shall assign a zoning district CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON
designation to annexed property that most COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION,THE
closely conforms to the existing Washington CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE
County zoning designation on that property. CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT
DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY
CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING
4
DESIGNATION. (Rev. Ord. 84-21)
10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND
2. The City shall,when approving an TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
annexation, ensure either the capacity exists
or can be developed to provide needed a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE
urban level services to the area. FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE
CAPACITY,OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE
MADE AVAILABLE,TO SERVE THE PARCEL
IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST IN TENSE
USE ALLOWED*,AND WILL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF
SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED
AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE
CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE:
1. WATER;
2. SEWER;
3. DRAINAGE;
4. STREETS;
5. POLICE;AND
6. FIRE PROTECTION.
* Most intense use allowed by the conditions of
approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan.
b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
ORDINANCE,THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN
AND RECORD WITH WASHINGTON
COUNTY A NONREMONSTRANCE
AGREEMENT REGARDING THE
FOLLOWING:
1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT(L.I.D.)FOR ANY
OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT
COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH SUCH A
DISTRICT. THE EXTENSION OR
IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) WATER;
b) SEWER;
c) DRAINAGE;AND
d) STREETS.
2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL
DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE
SERVICES OR THE INCLUSION OF THE
PROPERTY INTO A SPECIAL SERVICE
DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE
SERVICES.
c. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN
SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE TIGARD
URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPON
ANNEXATION.
5
10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
3. The City shall approve proposed OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED
annexations based on findings that the ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
request: FOLLOWING:
A. Eliminates an island of a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN
unincorporated territory within the EXISTING"POCKET" OR"ISLAND" OF
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY;OR
City; or b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE
B. Is contiguous to current City limits AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT
and is located within the Tigard MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE
Urban Services Area; and IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO
C. Can be accommodated by City's DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL
public facilities and services. IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY;
c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS
COMMENTED UPON THE
ANNEXATION;
d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE
TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND
IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY
BOUNDARY;
e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE
ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES
LISTED IN 10.1.1(a).
10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
4. The City shall evaluate and require,when OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED
appropriate, parcels adjacent to proposed ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
annexations be included to: FOLLOWING:
A. Avoid creating unincorporated a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN
islands within the City; EXISTING"POCKET" OR"ISLAND" OF
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY;OR
B. Enable public services to be b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE
efficiently and effectively extended AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT
to the entire area; or MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE
C. Implement a concept plan or sub- IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO
area master plan that has been DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL
approved by the Planning IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY;
Commission or City Council. c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS
COMMENTED UPON THE
ANNEXATION;
d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE
TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND
IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY
BOUNDARY;
e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE
ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES
LISTED IN 10.1.1(a).
5. The City shall develop, coordinate, and
implement an adopted Public Facility Plan to ORS 197.712
ensure the predictable and logical provision
of urban services for areas anticipated to be
within the City Limits.
6