02/23/2009 - Packet City of Tigard
TIGARD Planning Commission — Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2009, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:05 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2008-00005
- SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS -
REQUEST: To remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads "5.
The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an
average annual flood;". Removal of this section would allow pathways to be installed in areas which would
benefit the public's access to and educational appreciation of ecological areas. Removal of this requirement
does not affect the protection of sensitive habitats or floodplain requirements. LOCATION: Citywide.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations. ZONE: All
City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and
Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land
Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources,Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7,Areas Subject
to Natural Hazards;and Goal 8 Recreational Needs];any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found
applicable; any applicable METRO regulations; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan; and Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management]; any applicable Comprehensive Plan
Policies; [Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2,Land Use Planning;Goal 7, Hazards;Goal 8,Parks,Recreation,
Trails, and Open Space]; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances [TDC 18.130,
18.380, 18.390 and 18.775].
6. WORK SESSION 8:15 p.m.
TREE CODE UPDATES DCA2009-00001
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:15 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- FEBRUARY 23, 2009
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page lof 1
Tigard Planning Commission —toll Call
Hearing/Workshop Date: '1-23 o`A
Starting Time:
COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President)
Tom Anderson
Rex Caffall
Margaret Doherty
Karen Fishel
Stuart Hasman
Matthew Muldoon
Jeremy Vermilyea
David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
1/ Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
Gary Pagenstecher Ron Bunch
Cheryl Caines V John Floyd
Jerree Lewis Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly
Gus Duenas Darren Wyss
1,7 Phil Nachbar Marissa Daniels
Todd Prager ✓Doreen Laughlin
v
wi
Tigard Planning Commission .
Agenda Item # S Page L of Date of Healing 2- 23- CD °t
Case Number(s) 0 C A ;L(3Og- 0000 S p
Case Name Se r\s°-�i U c_ r.o� Re�u�i v e►v�e.�-t-S - CJC�e e�dly)'`en`--
Location C`,)-* .�°Ae,
If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name,
address, and zip code below:
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: Name: F.:R.1 C.r I t N v 5 i)Z 01,V1
Address: Address: 65'0 I S w G A ,• `/01\--i C ;zt ;
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: r' TLJ4 mji o . 9 72 a 5
Name: Name: ----7 Icc1 ;/vie l
Address: C c� ( ►�Q`
„, o , J
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: 77%,2-1-3
Name: Name: . ,' aQ 1.-f hS t6 1"YN6 C e
Address: Address: I I 5 - i/L.) ) \ (4'P-PL
r
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: `''_`�„(2~ • -1- ZZ.2
Name: Name: T1
ar
i ' �j1,c, \c -e P Pds
Address: Address: ( gegis �j p.Aa CJ,t -11 I
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zips--C—l� , ,.1 n 7-2.---,-
Name: Name: \ )+4 J -yT4 NAA CfR., il
Address: Address: 7\ I o 5r( !— ) 'a t ggA.9, -
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: ) 01 C J?_3
• , COMMUNITY
M NEWSPAPERS
0905 SE LoOn Rod,Portland,OR 01222•PO Boo 370•Beaverton,OR 97075
Phone:503.004.0300 Fan:503-620-3433 i
Email: legala @commaewapapera.cam
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION T I CARD PUBLIC REARI
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The following will be considered by the Ihard Planning
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Commission on Monday February 23.2009 at 7:00 PM at the
depose and say that I am the Accounting Tigard Civic Center- f own Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,
Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Oregon.
Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public
general circulation, published at Beaverton, hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of
in the aforesaid circulation,
county published
and state, as defined procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or
Y the rules of rocedure set forth in Section 18.390.060E. The
by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Planning Commission's_review is for the purpose of making
a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The
City of Tigard Count')will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to
Notice of Public Hearing maing a decision.
TT 11250 further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard
planning Division(Staff contact: Phil Nachbar)at 13125 SW
Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,by calling 503-639-4171,or
A copy of which is hereto annexed, was by email to..o,;aront;Qard-or.eov.
published in the entire issue of said
newspaper for
1
week in the following issue:
February 5, 2009
atta
Charlotte Allso
p (Accountin Mi31na er
(Accounting g )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
February 5, 2009.
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A.BURGESS
� NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
NOTARY PUBLIC FO O GON COMMISSION NO.390701
My commission expires MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY16,2008
_
Acct#10093001
Attn: Patty Lunsford
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Size: 2 x 8
Amount Due $133.60*
'Please remit to address above.
I V DN.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
(DCA)2008-00005
-SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS-
REQUEST: To remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive
Lands Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be
below the elevation of an average annual flood;". Removal of
this section would allow pathways to be installed in areas which
would benefit the public's access to and educational appreciation
of ecological areas. Removal of this requirement does not affect
the protection of sensitive habitats or floodplain requirements.
LOCATION: Citywide. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goal 1,
Public Involvement;Goal 2,Land Use Planning;Goal 5 Natural
Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas,and Open Spaces; Goal
7,Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; and Goal 8 Recreational
Needs]; any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations
found applicable; any applicable METRO regulations; [Metro
Code Sections 3.07.300,Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan; and Title 3,Water Quality and Flood Management]; any
applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; [Goal 1, Public
Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards;
Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space]; and any
applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances
[TDC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775].
Publish 02/05/2009. TT11250
Agenda Item:
Hearing Date: February 23,2009 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
v
PLANNING COMMISSIONS
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE NAME: SENSITIVE LAND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2008-00005
PROPOSAL: To remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Chapter which reads " The
plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the
elevation of an average annual flood;". Removal of this section would allow pathways to
be installed in areas which would benefit the public (access to and educational
appreciation of ecological areas). Removal of this requirement would not adversely affect
the protection of sensitive habitat areas or implementation of floodplain requirements.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: NA
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
APPLICANT'S Phil Nachbar,Redevelopment Manager
AGENT: 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard,OR 97223
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts
LOCATION: Citywide.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter
197; [Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and
Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7,Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; Goal 8 Recreational Needs;]
Any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Any applicable METRO regulations;
[Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality and
Flood Management]; Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; [Goal: 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2,
Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space]; Any applicable
provisions of the City's implementing ordinances [MC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390, and 18.775].
SENSPTIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 10
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment removing
section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood;". and
with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and make a final recommendation to the
Tigard City Council.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City proposes to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads
"5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an
average annual flood;".
Section 18.775.070.B.5 to be removed is part of its Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Tigard Development Code
(attached in full for reference). The purpose of the Chapter is to A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and
creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program, C) implement Clean Water
Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the Tualatin Basin, D) implement the Metro Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), F)
Protect Public health, safety, and welfare.
The City can only speculate on the reason for the inclusion of Section 18.775.070.B.5. in the Sensitive Land
Chapter. The section requires that "the plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will
be below the elevation of an average annual flood". It is likely that it had something to do with maintaining
year-round pedestrian accessibility (out of the annual flood elevation), and / or maintenance concerns.
The current requirement as written requires that trails be located and constructed above the average annual
flood elevation. This can limit where trails can be located depending on how high the `average flood' is. In
some cases, the average annual flood elevation is close to the 2-year flood elevation, which effectively
eliminates access to many areas which are lower and could be appreciated by the public. A case in point is
Fanno Creek Park between Hall Blvd. and Main St. in Downtown Tigard. While there is a Council adopted
master plan for Fanno Creek Park, the City is unable to implement the plan and improve or realign trails to
provide better public access to new areas of the park due to the requirement in section 18.775.070.B.5 that"no
pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood".
The existing requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5 which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be
below the average annual flood elevation' poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be needed
because it would require that they be built above the average annual flood elevation. Trails can be elevated by
placement of a berm or boardwalk, however, it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet
the "no-rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the
balance "cut and fill" requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards also incorporated into the
Chapter.
In some situations, under the current requirement to build above the annual average flood elevation, a raised
trail could impact the environment due to debris obstructing the flow during high flood periods. In addition,
elevated trails built to meet this requirement could impact sensitive wetland environments by obstructing the
natural flow of water.
Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.B. include 1) improved access to natural
areas otherwise inaccessible by the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the potential
for the construction of elevated trails posing a potential impact to the environment.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SI?NSI'i'IVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 10
Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states
that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
The proposed text amendment would apply to all City zoning districts throughout the City. Therefore, the
amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This
procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing Type IV
applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be
based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations
found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan
policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
Findings and conclusions are provided below for the five listed factors on which the recommendation by the
Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and
changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
FINDING:
This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in
Section 18.390. A notice was mailed to all identified interested parties and the notice was additionally
published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. After the Planning Commission public hearing,
additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before
the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is
provided.
Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework.
FINDING:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code
implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review
changes to the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed within this report, the Development Code process and
standards have been applied to the proposed amendment.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
This goal seeks to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas, and opens spaces.
FINDING:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 10
Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 - Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space and policies is discussed later in this
report.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 -Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
This goal seeks to protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDING:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 - Hazards and policies is discussed later in this report.
Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the State and visitors, and where appropriate, to
provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
FINDING:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 - Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Statewide and policies is discussed
later in this report.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent
with applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
The purpose of FEMA and related statutes is to ensure that a floodplain management program is in
place so that Flood Insurance Requirements are met.
FINDING:
One of the purposes of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "B) implement comprehensive plan and
floodplain management program", which effectively implements FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements. The
removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance requirements provided that the
"zero rise" in the flood plain condition is met, which continues as a requirement in the City code. The "zero
rise" requirement, which remains in the ordinance, ensures that any construction or improvement within the
floodplain will not result in any increase in water surface elevation of the 100-year flood.
Another cited purpose of Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams,
and creeks". The Department of State Lands regulates Waters of the State, and the Corps of Engineers
regulates wetlands. These organizations require separate permits, and these permit requirements are not
affected by removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment
is consistent with any federal (FEMA) or state statutes or regulations found applicable.
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 10
ANY APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS;
[Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality
and Flood Management]
The purpose of Metro Title 3 is to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of
resources within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact
on these areas from development activities and protecting life and property from dangers associated
with flooding.
FINDING:
The City is in compliance with the requirements of Metro's Title 3 by adoption of the Clean Water Services'
(CWS) Design and Construction Standards in the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775. The standards of
Metro Title 3 are incorporated into the CWS standards which, in turn, are required under the City's Sensitive
Lands Chapter.
The purposes of the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.010 as written are to "A) Maintain integrity of
rivers, streams, and creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program, C)
implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the Tualatin Basin, D)
implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement Statewide Planning Goal 5
(Natural Resources), F) Protect Public health, safety, and welfare." Item D) clearly implements Title 3 of the
Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments to comply with Title 3 of
Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which outlines water quality and flood management
requirements for the region. The adopted standards were based on a unified program developed by local
governments in the Tualatin Basin and implemented through the Clean Water Services District's (CWS) Design
& Construction Standards, which provides for vegetated stream corridor buffers up to 200 feet wide and
mandating restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.
In addition, Clean Water Services, local cities, Washington County, Metro, and Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District, partnered on a parallel effort to develop the CWS Healthy Streams Plan (HSP), an updated
watershed plan designed to enhance the functions of the Tualatin Basin surface water system and address the
Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act(ESA).
The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no
pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' does not affect compliance with Metro Title 3,
Water Quality and Flood Management, nor the intent of Title 3. Section 18.775.070.B.5, which would be
removed by the proposed text amendment, is not part of the CWS Design and Construction Standards, which
are intended to implement Metro Title 3.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment is
consistent with Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan,Title 3,Water Quality and Flood Management.
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ANY APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all
phases of the planning process.
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 10
FINDING:
The City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to interested citizens and agencies. The City
published notice of the Planning Commission hearing February 23, 2009. After the Planning Commission
public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are
held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity
for public input is provided.
With these public involvement provisions, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen
Involvement policies.
Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Goal 2.1: Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as
the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program.
FINDING:
Applicable polices under this goal relate to amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map and not to
amendments to the Development Code text. The applicant does not propose an amendment to Comprehensive
Plan/Zone Map. Therefore, this Goal does not specifically apply to the proposed text change.
Comprehensive Plan Goal 7: Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards
FINDING:
Applicable policies under this goal include landslides, and flooding. The City uses steep slopes to define
sensitive lands in the Community Development Code and has special requirements for development in these
areas. The City coordinates with several agencies to mitigate the risk of flooding. The FEMA designated
floodplain is used to administer the national flood insurance program (NFIP). The Sensitive Lands Chapter
of the Tigard Community Development Code ensures compliance with FEMA and the national flood
insurance program. The proposed text amendment does not impact floodwaters flows and storage areas, and
therefore does not conflict with FEMA or Comprehensive Plan policies regarding flooding.
The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no
pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below the average annual flood elevation' is in compliance with
Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 Hazards because it does not impact any of the policies areas including
earthquakes,wildfire, landslides, and flooding.
Comprehensive Plan Goal 8: Parks, Recreation,Trails, and Open Space
Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and opens spaces for all residents, including both:
A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped area for nature-oriented
recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and
open space system
FINDING:
Applicable policies under Goal 8.1 include policies 4, 6 and 17.
Policy 4 states "The City shall endeavor to develop neighborhood parks (or neighborhood park facilities within
other parks, such as a linear park) located within a half mile of every resident to provide access to active and
passive recreation opportunities for residents of all ages." The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC I-II ARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 01?10
Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average
annual flood elevation' supports Policy 4. By allowing trails to be built at or below the average annual flood
elevation, and not requiring that trails be elevated above the average annual flood, there will be more
opportunities to construct more trails in areas needed to provide access to active and passive recreational
opportunities.
Policy 6 states "The City shall acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural
resources and other open spaces to additionally provide nature-oriented outdoor recreation and trail-related
activities". The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires
that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' supports Policy 6 by providing
additional opportunities for access to nature-oriented outdoor recreation and trail-related activities.
The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no
pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood elevation', in effect,will provide for the design
and construction of trails in areas that otherwise would not be accessible. While under the current section
18.775.070.B.5, trails can be constructed as along as they are above the average annual flood elevation,doing so
is costlier, and difficult due to having to meet the City "no-rise" conditions. Raising a trail by building a berm
or boardwalk to elevate it above the annual average flood results in a rise in the 100-year flood elevation,which
is not permitted unless mitigated to provide a "no-rise" result. As a result, the existing section 18.775.B.5
provides a barrier to the construction of new trails in areas where access may be needed to meet policies 4 and
6.
Policy 17 states "The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve,
protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally listed species, and provide
"Nature in the City" opportunities." The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 does not, by itself, result in trails
being built in areas to the detriment of natural resources including rare, or state and federally listed species.
Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards incorporated into the Tigard Development
Code provides additional protection to sensitive habitats by maintaining a required buffer from the top of
bank. Trails cannot be built within this buffer, which often includes riparian areas. The width of the buffer
varies depending on the slope of the creek or waterway, and is designed to maintain the functioning of riparian
habitats, which are known to contain a variety of bird species. Trails do not generate pollution and by
themselves, are not a source of impact to sensitive habitats or species. The siting of trails in natural resource
areas containing listed species is subject to the review and recommendations of Oregon Division of Fish and
Wildlife. The construction of trails at or below the average annual flood would not, in and of itself, impact
rare, or state and federally listed species. Trails can, if designed correctly, serve to protect sensitive flora and
fauna by serving as a way to channel pedestrians away from them.
All proposed improvements within the 100-year floodplain and habitat sensitive areas including wetlands are
subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and Clean
Water Services (CWS) permits and approvals,which are incorporated by reference in this Chapter of the Code
(see Section 18.775.070.B.6.).
Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and-off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails
FINDING:
Applicable policies under Goal 8.2 include policies 1 and 2 below:
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.
2. The City shall design and build greenway trails and paths to minimize their impact on the environment,
including on wildlife corridors and on rare, and state or federally listed species.
The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC I II?ARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 10
pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' will, in effect, facilitate the construction of
trails in areas that otherwise would not be accessible by removing the need to elevate pathways in these areas.
Depending on where trails are needed to comply with Goal 8.2 to create a citywide network of trails, the
removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements provides for flexibility in
meeting this goal.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use
Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Park,Recreation,Trails,and Open Space.
ANY APPLICABLE PROVISION OF THE CITY'S IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES
TDC 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi-
judicial amendments to this title and zoning district map.
FINDING:
Section 18.380.030 requires that zoning map and text amendments be undertaken by mean of a Type IV
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
The proposed text amendment is a Type IV procedure as defined in this Section and has been processed in
accordance with Type IV procedures per 18.390.060G.
TDC 18.390 Decision Making Procedures
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a series of standard decision-making procedures that will
enable the City, applicant and all interested parties to reasonably review applications and participate
in the local decision-making process in a timely manner.
FINDING:
The proposed text amendment was completed in compliance with all procedural requirements of Section
18.390. Two public hearings were noticed and scheduled, one before the Planning Commission and one before
Council. Notice has been provided 10 days prior to hearing dates to the required parties. The proposed text
amendment addresses the required decision-making considerations of Section 18.3909.060 which includes 1)
The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any
federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any
applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing
ordinances.
TDC 18.775 Sensitive Lands
The purposes of the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.010 as written are to "A) Maintain integrity
of rivers, streams, and creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management
program, C) implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the
Tualatin Basin, D) implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement
Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), F) Protect Public health, safety, and welfare." Item
D) clearly implements Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
FINDING:
Goal F: Protect Public Health, safety and welfare is not affected by the proposed amendment. The City is
unsure of the original reason(s) for inclusion of the requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5. in the Sensitive
Lands Chapter. The section requires that "the plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT RIQUIRCsMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TUE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 10
pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood". It is likely that the reason(s) for its inclusion
in the code had something to do with maintaining year-round pedestrian accessibility (out of the annual flood
elevation), and / or maintenance concerns. If a trail were built within the average annual flood elevation, and
were inundated,it would not pose a danger to the safety of the public. People would not have access during the
time of inundation. There is no flash flooding in the area so that persons using a trail would not be stranded or
overcome by a flood event. Based on this, the proposed amendment allowing the siting of trails in areas within
the average annual flood does not pose a danger to public's health, safety or welfare.
One of the key purposes of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to `B) implement comprehensive plan
and floodplain management program", which effectively implements FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements.
The removal of Section 18.775.070.8.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance requirements provided that the
" zero rise" in the flood plain condition is met, which continues as a requirement in the City code. The "zero
rise" requirement, which remains in the ordinance, ensures that any construction or improvement within the
floodplain will not result in any increase in water surface elevation of the 100-year flood.
The proposed amendment is to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements
which reads "The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation
of an average annual flood;". The proposed amendment is consistent with and has no adverse impact on the
goals and requirements of Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment
is consistent with any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances.
SECTION V. STAFF ANALYSIS
In reviewing the required applicable review criteria, staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to
remove Section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Chapter is consistent with all applicable review criteria
which include 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO
regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's
implementing ordinances.
The existing requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5 which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be
below the average annual flood elevation' poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be needed
because it would require that they be built above the average annual flood elevation. Although trails can be
elevated by placement of a berm or boardwalk, it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet
the "no-rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the
balance "cut and fill" requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards also incorporated into the
Chapter. In addition the placement of trails on a berm poses maintenance concerns, and would disrupt the
natural flow of water in natural areas. The use of boardwalks is expensive if used for long sections of trails that
may be needed, but does provide a feasible option for shorter lengths through high-water areas.
By removing this requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5., it will be less difficult to site needed trails that will
assist in the City meeting its new Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 for Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space.
Specifically, the proposed amendment will support Goal 8.2: Policy 1 "to 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..."
As an example, it will allow the City to implement the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan adopted by
Council in February 2008. The master plan provides for the restoration of a 24.5 acre natural area on the edge
of Downtown and improved trail access by the public. Without removal of Section 18.775.070.8.5 as
proposed, the City will not be able to improve, realign, and construct new trails in the park for the public. This
is due to impracticality and expense of having to elevate trails above the elevation of the average annual flood,
and the net "rise" in 100-year floodplain that would have to be mitigated. The net rise in the 100-year
floodplain would be due the the additional volume caused by a berm or boardwalk to meet the requirements.
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 10
Constructing trails at or below the average annual flood elevation poses no threat to the public safety or
welfare, and would not result in degradation of the trail surface or long-term maintenance concerns. It is likely
that the intent of the requirement was to keep "people dry" and allow year-round accessibility of trails, and to
keep paths from being inundated due to maintenance concerns. If a trail were built within the average annual
flood elevation, and were inundated, it would not pose a danger to the safety of the public. People would not
have access during the time of inundation. There is no flash flooding in the area so that persons using a trail
would not be stranded or overcome by a flood event. Based on this, the proposed amendment allowing the
siting of trails in areas within the average annual flood does not pose a danger to public's health, safety or
welfare. In addition, the proposed amendment allowing trails within the average annual flood elevation does
not affect the ability of the City to meet FEMA requirements and the National Flood Insurance Program
In some situations, under the current requirement to build above the annual average flood elevation, a raised
trail could impact the environment due to debris obstructing the flow during high flood periods. In addition,
elevated trails built to meet this requirement could impact sensitive wetland environments by obstructing the
natural flow of water.
Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.B. include 1) improved access to natural
areas otherwise inaccessible by the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the potential
for the construction of elevated trails to pose a potential impact to the environment.
It the conclusion of staff that the removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 "The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle
pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood" is of benefit to the
community and the goals of its Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION VI. ALTERNATIVES TO APPROVAL
No Action–the code would remain unchanged.
SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Long Range Division was notified of the proposed code text amendment but did not
comment.
The City of Tigard Engineering Department reviewed the applicant's proposal and had no objection to the
proposal.
The City of Tigard Public Works Department reviewed the applicant's proposal and provided the following
comments: "This should enable Regional Trail Access".
The City of Tigard Arborist reviewed the proposal and had not objections to it.
The Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers,
and METRO, nd DLCD were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment.
47/621---"•.— February 13, 2009
PREPAR D BY: Phil Nachbar DATE
Redevelopment Manager
/ / 'e"
it .' • ' Atom..AmL` February 13, 2009
APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE
Community Development Director
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008-00005
2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 10
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Jodie Inman, President; and Members f the Planning Commission
From: John Floyd,Associate Planner
Re: Workshop Review of Amendments to Tigard Tree Code (DCA2009-00001)
Date: February 13, 2009
At the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting, staff will present draft amendments to Section
18.790 of the Tigard Development Code for review, discussion, and editing. The intent of the
proposed changes is to clarify how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated
preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. This lack of clarity generated a
Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development Director, which was
successfully appealed by the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) on the
grounds that it was better addressed through a code update. As a result of the appeal hearings,
Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code.
The proposed amendment responds to comments from the Tigard Tree Board and interested
citizens, including a representative of the HBA, which were gathered on December 4, 2008 at a
regular meeting of the Tree Board. Proposed changes are contained in "Attachment
1," with proposed deletions and language insertions marked in red. While staff will deliver a more
detailed overview at the workshop, the amendments can be summarized into the following points:
1. The phrase "wherever possible" would be changed to "wherever practicable" to better
align with the purpose of the chapter. The word "practicable" has also been defined.
2. Tree Plan requirements would be expanded to include the following:
a. Trees within 25 feet of the affected parcel would be included in the tree plan;
b. Tree inventories would include the condition of the tree, would measure trees to
the nearest tenth of an inch, and state the reason for a tree's removal;
c. A narrative and site plan that respond to a series of defined questions would be
required; and
d. Mitigation plans would have to satisfy minimum content requirements.
3. Tree Plan Adequacy will be determined by the project arborist so long as it meets
specified submittal requirements. Questions of adequacy will be resolved by an
independent, third-party arborist.
This meeting gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to ask questions of staff on the
concepts or content of the code amendment. The intended outcome of the meeting would be a
consensus on the final language that will be brought before the Planning Commission for a
public hearing on March 16th. To meet this timeline, please thoroughly review the materials
before the meeting, and have your questions ready to ensure a focused and efficient review and
discussion.
Staff is available to answer any questions you may have leading up to the meeting. You're
welcome to contact me at 503-718-2429 or johnfl(a,tigard-or.gov.
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Amendments to TDC Section 18.790 (Tree Removal)
Sections:
18.790.010 Purpose
18.790.020 Definitions
18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
18.790.050 Permit Applicability
18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal
18.790.010 Purpose
A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from
a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help
clean the air, help control erosion,maintain water quality and provide noise barriers.
B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to:
1. Encourage the preservation,planting and replacement of trees in the City;
2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees;
3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties;
4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion;
5. Protect water quality;
6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and
7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment.
C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of
development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets,
utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development.
18.790.020 Definitions
A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of
trees contained in this chapter exclusively:
1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree;
2. "Commercial forestry"means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale.
Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not
considered commercial forestry under this definition;
3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation, age,or other condition
presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property;
4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at
hand and circumstances as they are.
5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized
Draft Amendments 1
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
tree maintenance practices;
6. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root
system of a tree,or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes
the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning;
7. "Tree"means : - ... --- , : .. . . . -, - . . . . . - • , . . - . .. :
.:: . - .. - - - - • .. : : .. - - . -- any standing woody plant having a trunk
which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean
ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but
below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is
considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground each trunk shall be
considered one tree;
8. "Sensitive lands"means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title.
B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include
the future and words in the singular shall include the plural.
18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
A. Tree Plan Required:A tree plan for the planting,removal,and protection of trees prepared and signed by
a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, adjacent road right-of-way, or combination
thereof of lots or parccl3 for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site
development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over
removal wherever possible practicable.
B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been
incorporated into the protect design,tThe tree plan shall include the following:
1. Identification of the location, size , condition,and species of all existing trees,including trees-
. . : . . . - - -• within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by
the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner);
2. Identification of a program to we retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement
guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive
of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program
in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees;
b. Retention of from 25% to 50%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50% to 75%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal;
4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect
trees during and after construction;
Draft Amendments 2
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction
techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must
address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to
how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable.
a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to
become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition,ability
to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses
and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow?
b. Do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing
trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of
new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved?
c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and
other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees?
d. Are lot layouts,road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building
footprints that are located outside of the driplines of existing trees?
e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no,
can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall
requirements?
f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain
existing trees?
g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width and depth to
preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040(2) and (3);
h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the
protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to
prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no —dig pavement
installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and
longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted?
6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing,
and planting specifications for the replacement trees.
C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development
application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to
Section 18.790.060D.
D. Tree Plan Adequacy. The tree plan shall be declared adequate by the deciding authority if it
meets content requirements spelled out in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the
signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments,and amendments. In questions of
adequacy, the Planning Director or deciding authority may at their discretion, subject a tree
plan to peer review by a third-party certified arborist under contract to the City.
Draft Amendments 3
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
A. Incentives.To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more
of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan
according to Section 18.790.030:
1. Density bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that
are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density
computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one
development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed
in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes
greater than 25%, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development;
2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any
land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot
size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is
not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum
lot size allowed in the zone;
3. Lot width and depth.To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any
land division under Chapter 18.400,lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required
by the underlying zone;
4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees
over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial,
industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking
Requirements,a 1%reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a
20%reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development;
5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing
trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%
reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%of the required
amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development.
B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may
thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or
as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other
section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of
any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the
tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be
considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a
hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director.
C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements
granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including
but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval.
D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of
public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with
safety or increase maintenance costs.
18.790.050 Permit Applicability
A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which
is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree
Draft Amendments 4
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval
criteria:
1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes:
a. Deposits of mud,dirt,sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public
or private streets,adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct
deposit,dropping,discharge or as a result of the action of erosion;
b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows;or
evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not
filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified
Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules.
2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland,
tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover
if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%.
B. Effective date of permit.A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date
of approval.
C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree
removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in
compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original
application have changed.
D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree
which:
1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the tide;
2. Is a hazardous tree;
3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code;
4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's
office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands.
E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2.,
excluding D.4. above,is not permitted.
18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal
A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter:
1. Removal of a tree:
a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or
b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or
c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or
d. In noncompliance with any other section of this tide.
Draft Amendments 5
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or
its root system.
B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she
may do any or all of the following:
1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,
which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of
the tree was permitted by this chapter;
2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any
other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard;
3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title;
4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code;
5. Take any other action allowed by law.
C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,any party found to be in violation of this chapter
pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to$500 and shall be
required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and
2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or
damaged tree,as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for
Plant Appraisal.
D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines:
1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics;
2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the
Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value;
3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be
viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the
following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the
estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably
available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,
the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the
City,either public property or,with the consent of the owner,private property;
4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth
to maturity.
E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above,a party may,with the consent of
the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement.
F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive.
Draft Amendments 6
DCA2009-00001
February 13, 2009
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2009
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffa11, Doherty,
Hasman, Muldoon,Walsh, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Vermilyea
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager;John Floyd, Duane Roberts,Project
Planner; Greg Berry, Utility Engineer;Associate Planner; Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment
Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary
3. COMMUNICATIONS - None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
1-26-09 Meeting Minutes:
There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Doherty to
approve the 1-26-09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted:
The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Muldoon,
Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Walsh (6)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Hasman (1)
ABSENT: Commissioner Vermilyea, Fishel (2)
2-2-09 Meeting Minutes
There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Walsh to
approve the 02-02-09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted:
AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall,
Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman,
Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Walsh (6)
NAYS: None (0)
ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Muldoon (1)
ABSENT: Commissioner Vermilyea, Commissioner Fishel (2)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 1 of 9
5. PUBLIC HEARING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2008-00005
- SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS -
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STAFF REPORT
Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager, presented the staff report on behalf of
the applicant, the City of Tigard. [Staff reports are available at the City one week before
each meeting.] Nachbar distributed several items; one was a portion of the Sensitive Lands
code update (Exhibit AA). He used two large boards as visuals for his presentation
(Exhibits AA2 and AA3). Nachbar also distributed two emails that he'd received on
February 18th (Exhibits AA4 and AA5), as well as several emails that he'd received that day
(Exhibits A-F).
Nachbar made the following points:
1. The City proposes to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands
Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle
pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average
annual flood;" (perhaps a berm or a boardwalk).
2. Reason for requirement: doc 1983. It is likely that the intent of the
requirement was to keep "people dry" and allow year-round accessibility of
trails, and to keep paths from being inundated due to maintenance concerns.
3. Reasons for removal:
• Requirement poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be
needed - By removing this requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5.,it
will be less difficult to site needed trails that will assist in the City
meeting its new Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 for Parks, Recreation,
Trails and Open Space. Specifically, the proposed amendment will
support Goal 8.2: Policy 1 "to 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..."
• Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.B.
include 1) improved access to natural areas otherwise inaccessible by
the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the
potential for the construction of elevated trails to pose a potential
impact to the environment.
• Although trails can be elevated by placement of a berm or boardwalk,
it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet the
"no-rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the
Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the balance "cut and fill" requirements of
CWS Design and Construction Standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 2 of 9
Nachbar gave an example (Exhibit AA2,AA3) of how removal of the requirement will
allow the City to implement the Fanno Creek Park&Plaza Master Plan adopted by Council
in February 2008. He gave several examples of nearby cities which have no requirements to
not build in a floodway.
Nachbar finished his presentation with the following:
• Staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to remove Section 18.775.070.B.5 of
the Sensitive Lands Chapter is consistent with all applicable review criteria.
• The removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance.
• The City is in compliance with the requirements of Metro's Title 3 by adoption of the
Clean Water Services' (CWS) Design and Construction Standards in the City's
Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.
• The Tualatin Basin Plan satisfies the Metro Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods
requirements,which in turn satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 5 requirements.
• The removal of this requirement would not directly impact the sensitive habitats or
environments.
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS
(Replies in italics)
• One of the commissioners commented that a lot of information was distributed that
night and he requested that in the future they would get this sooner. If I had gotten this
information before today I would have forwarded it to you.
• Is there a possibility that trails would not be put in due to either cost or geologic
reasons if they had to be raised above the flood plain? The answer to that would be yes—
for two reasons. The cost could be excessive if the City had to build for example boardwalks instead
of trails. And because it's difficult to meet this "no rise"condition required under our sensitive lands
code to meet our FEMA requirements.
• Has there been any consideration of just modifying the language? I don't know
whether it would make sense to express a preference for it being placed above the
average annual flood elevation except when not practical? We have not considered that—
doesn't mean we can't consider it. You have to ask the question— what is the reason for having it?
The only two reasons we could identi,6 was to keep people's feet dry and so that the pavement doesn't
get flooded and break down over time— which is unlikely actually, when you only flood a few times a
year.
• You'd mentioned that there's no particular attractiveness in using boardwalks. They
actually allow people to cross an area they wouldn't otherwise have access to— they
also extend wheel chair access area where those people wouldn't otherwise have
access. I was referring to the only two ways you could build above the average annual food elevation
— which is a boardwalk or a berm as not being great ideas. I hope that clarifies. I think boardwalks
are great in areas where they are really needed. My question was— is a boardwalk really needed in
an area that floods very rarely.
• So what happens to a trail when it does flood? Do you close it down to the public?
Normally people just don't use it. We don't have flash floods here— no need to close down trails.
• Is this driven by cost?No, that's not the issue. It would affect the city's ability to build a
progressive trail system and to implement parks. The cost would impact our decision about where to
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 3 of 9
put trails if we knew we had to elevate all trails but more than likely we wouldn't make those
improvements at all. We'd probably have to leave it the way it is and not provide that additional
access that is desired.
• What input did you seek—any expert advice? Yes—consultants and architects— Walker
May HDR Engineering that does hydrologic analysis. CWS was also a part of the
conversation.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
None
PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION
Eric Lindstrom, 6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive, Portland, OR, said he was present as a
"Friend of the Fanno Creek Watershed and the City of Tigard." He gave his testimony in
opposition to the amendment—he passed out his written testimony and went over it at
length (see Exhibit A).
Questions from Commissioners (answers in italics):
• Are you suggesting that there not be access —pedestrian or bicycle? Absolutely not.
We need to find an equitable solution for the City, its citizens, and the watershed. What we have
here is a move that would make the rampant usage of these pathways permissible. I'm not against
access -I'd like to see more pathways—I just want to see them used with conscientiousness. I think
this portion of the code actually provides you with that little bit.
Tim McGilvrey, 11608 SW Spring,Tigard, OR, spoke in opposition. He said he opposes
this code based on common sense. He stated that you should build on higher ground where
you can look over a natural area rather than be right down on a natural area which isn't good
for the riparian zone.Just common sense —build on a little bit higher ground.
Questions from Commissioners: There were no questions of Mr. McGilvrey.
Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard—representing Fans of Fanno Creek gave
opposition testimony. She also submitted it in written form and passed it out (see Exhibit
B).
Questions from Commissioners:
• You're saying no new trails?No— never said that.Just this one area?No. I use trails all the
time— some flood often— so I don't use those. Some of these flooding trail arras need boardwalks.
They are good. We need to do a better job of protecting resources and species.
At this point President Inman interjected to the commissioners that there's a very fine line
between when we're talking about sensitive lands -in that the "sensitive land" that we're
talking about with this particular application is a flood plain. You can build a parking lot in a
flood plain. This whole conversation is getting focused towards Fanno Creek but in a
broader code context we're talking about something bigger than just that. When it comes to
making decisions, the applicable criteria for me has to do with the sensitive land that we're
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 4 of 9
impacting. So think about that when you're structuring your comments. Secondly, if we leave
this in here, then if we want to rebuild those trails we may have to build them 5 feet in the
air, or put them on stilts and a boardwalk, if we want them to still be there. They can go in—
they just have to go in higher. So this, by no means, precludes the development of any of
those trails —it just makes them more expensive and could potentially make them more of
an intrusion. So there is a balance there. We're not saying they can't be built. This doesn't say
they can't be built— they just have to be high. There's balance with everything.
Nachbar interjected comments about Fanno Creek Park. He said he and Sue Beilke have
similar interests. He noted that there are no net new trails going into this park. There are
existing trails and they're realigning some trails but there will be no net new lineal footage of
trails. He said they're not decimating this park with trails.
• Sue, if we took the code off, can you think of any alternatives,—how you could
structure it so that it could address issues that you're raising, short of saying no. I'm
not sure.
There were a few more questions and Ms. Beilke spoke more about the importance of
sensitive lands and wildlife. More questions followed:
• So you would rather see an asphalt trail taken up into a two or three foot high
boardwalk along almost the entire extent of the trails that are there right now—in the
air? I don't know— some of them I'd move into the uplands. You have to remember the City plans
on buying all of that land.
• What we're talking about is purely a floodplain—not a resource area—we're not
impacting that—it's just the floodplain. Would you rather,where it's just a matter of
it being too low that it's going to get inundated, you'd rather see it in the air? But this
is in a sensitive lands code. I don't see how you can ignore that. Sorry. If it's sensitive lands, it's
sensitive lands, and it raises a whole bunch of issues. It relates to a lot of things. I don't see it that
way. I see it as a much bigger picture. Sorry.
Brian Wegener, 12360 SW Main St. #100,Tigard, OR representing Tualatin Riverkeepers, as
the Watershed Watch Coordinator, went over his submitted,written, testimony (Exhibit C).
Questions from Commissioners: There were no questions.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard spoke about the knowledge of Eric
Lindstrom. He said Eric had written a book about Fanno Creek. He then gave testimony
(Exhibit D) He spent a large amount of his time talking about his sketch entitled
"CWS/Oregon"— (page 4 of Exhibit D).
Questions from Commissioners:
So you're saying no trails? I think we can have and keep the situation we have now but shouldn't be
building additional access below the ordinary high water mark.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 5 of 9
Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, summed it up saying "The basic question is: `Do you
want to be able to change the location of a trail within the 100 year floodplain or do you
want to leave it where it is?"
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Can you speak to why or why not a variance process would be appropriate? The requirement
shouldn't be there in the first place in that if it were to stay, it'd have to go through a variance process, and
there's a potential we couldn't meet that criteria.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATIONS
One of the commissioners noted that they'd received 40 pages of material at the last minute
that night and it seems to happen a lot. He said he doesn't see how they can be expected to
make good decisions when they haven't seen all the material [ahead of time]. Regarding the
ODF&W [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife] letter dated 2-23-09 (Exhibit E) that
states they do not believe fish and wildlife will be adequately protected if we make this
decision. He said he doesn't have time to read the rest of it but puts a lot of strength in what
ODF&W has to say. Unless I have more time I can't give a vote.
Inman reminded the commission that this allows all kinds of development. She said we are
singling out the trail portion but this section has to do with a lot more than that. This is in a
floodplain. She asked that everyone keep it in this context.
One of the commissioners said he was disappointed in the City's presentation. He thought it
could have been presented in a way that provided for some alternatives. He said that still, he
concurs with President Inman. He said this needs to be treated carefully—that this was not
just going to affect Fanno Creek, but is citywide. He also said he couldn't support it as
presented. Another commissioner said he likes the idea of connectivity of path areas. That
would be a top priority. One of the commissioners asked staff if it would be of benefit to
have staff rethink this and come back later. Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, said that
whenever possible,when writing a staff report, alternative approaches should be provided.
He said this hasn't been done in this case. He said there's no problem if the commission is
uncomfortable passing it, having staff go back and develop some kind of criteria under
which that would happen. It would take some time. The commissioners took a straw poll
and decided they'd like to push forward with it. There was much deliberation that followed
regarding the average annual flood elevation and two year flood elevation. At this point
President Inman said she would not be comfortable making any changes below the two year
at this point without further input because then they would be significantly changing things.
Muldoon—likes the idea of connectivity of path areas. That would be top priority.
Inman gave options of the commission: Deny, Modify the language, or send back for
development of specific criteria.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 6 of 9
Commissioner Doherty interjected saying that looking at the time and the fact that they'd
put off the tree board twice, she would like to have Bewersdorff and Nachbar come back
with some other language so they could go through and maybe feel a little more comfortable
with the decision. President Inman said she felt as though she'd done a 180 since now they
were talking about flood elevations and she's lost her ability to see the end goal. She said if
they could get some direction from an engineer as to whether it's practicable to do, what it
should be if they should change it, or if it should just come out—but what does that piece of
it mean? Bewersdorff said an option would be to continue this hearing to a date certain.
Nachbar said it doesn't make sense to rush into anything but he said it wouldn't take a lot to
come up with a better basis for some modification to this requirement.
A straw poll was taken and it was decided to continue to a time certain—April 6th. The
commission then took a 5 minute break.
6. WORK SESSION 9:35 p.m.
TREE CODE UPDATES DCA2009-00001
STAFF PRESENTATION
John Floyd, Associate Planner, stated that staff is bringing forward amendments to Section
18.790 of the Tigard Development Code, otherwise known as the Tree Removal chapter. He
stated that this workshop is being held to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity
to ask questions on the concepts or content of the code amendment,which will be duly
considered and deliberated upon at a public hearing on March 16 of this year.
The primary goal of this proposal is to clarify how an applicant may comply with the stated
intent and preferences of the development code, namely the preservation of trees instead of
their removal wherever possible. In 2008 the previous Planning Director issued a Director's
Interpretation which attempted to provide this clarity. This interpretation was successfully
appealed by the Homebuilders on the grounds that it overreached the scope of an
administrative interpretation. As a result Council directed staff to bring forward code
amendments,which brings us to tonight.
A secondary goal of these amendments is to update content requirements to reflect current
administrative practices and ISA standards.
These goals would be made possible through the following changes:
➢ Definitions
o The definition of a tree has been expanded to reflect ISA standards and to
clarify how an applicant is to measure a split trunk specimen
• Stated Preference of the City
o The current code states that "protection is preferred over removal wherever
possible."
o Staff proposes to change the phrasing from "wherever possible" to wherever
practicable", with the meaning of practicable defined. This term introduces a
degree of reasonableness to the code rather than an absolute, as was done in
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 7 of 9
the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which
recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development.
> Tree Plan Requirements
o Submittal requirements would be expanded, though much of this is already
standard practice and the code would merely formalize these items.
o Trees within 25 feet of the property line would have to be inventoried and
assessed in the Tree Plan
o The condition of a tree, the reason for its removal, and its diameter to a tenth
of an inch would have to be recorded in the tree plan
o A narrative and site plan would be required. These documents would provide
the applicant, through his or her staff arborist; the ability to demonstrate how
commonly accepted tree preservation strategies are being implemented to the
extent practicable. This demonstration occurs through 8 questions that all
plans would have to address.
o A mitigation plan with would be required upfront, rather than a condition of
approval.
> Adequacy
o There's been a lot of debate and discussion as to how a tree plan would be
reviewed for adequacy (i.e. approval criteria). Staff has received a lot of
comment from the Tree Board, the HBA and private citizens. In addition,we
are still working with the City Attorney's office on final language. As a result
there may be further amendments to Section 18.790.030.D when it is
presented at the public hearing on March 16.
o The intent of 18.790.030.D is to provide clear and objective approval criteria
for an applicant,while still allowing the flexibility necessary to address each
site on an individual basis. The solution put forth tonight would require a
certified arborist to prepare and sign a self-certifying plan. The City would be
required to accept that plan, so long as it meant minimum content
requirements or was found lacking by an independent, third-party arborist
under contract to the City.
Two parties submitted comments prior to tonight's workshop: John Frewing and Alan
DeHarpport on behalf of the HBA. Copies have been distributed for your review. Because
this is a workshop, and not a public hearing, these comments will not be entered into the
official record. That said, staff has invited the commenting parties to discuss their
comments and concerns prior to the public hearing on March 16.
At this point, Floyd concluded his presentation, and President Inman opened the meeting up
to questions and/or comments.
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS
President Inman asked if this was in response to the loss on the appeal. Yes. She said the
other "elephant in the room" is mitigation— she asked if they were doing this because they
need to address those criteria and that they would be coming back. Yes, absolutely.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 8 of 9
One of the commissioners asked Floyd 'What are you looking for us to do? What is the
purpose of this workshop?" The purpose of the workshop tonight is to put this language before you to
help familiarke you with what we'll be talking about at the public hearing.At this time it's just to help you
understand what we'll be talking about at the next meeting and whether there are any major gaps that you see
where changes may need to be made.
Why is the measuring to the nearest 10th of an inch? To be more precise - in some cases it may
mean something.
President Inman and some of the other commissioners noted that they were impressed with
how clear and concise the draft amendment is - number 5 particularly.
There were no other questions or comments.
7. OTHER BUSINESS -None
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 23,2009—Page 9 of 9
AA
B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland
maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done
by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense.
18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time
A. Voiding of permit. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void if
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one-and-one-half year
period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
B. Granting of extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the
required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year,provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the approval authority;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of the site within the one year extension
period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance
provisions on which the approval was based.
C. Notice of the decision. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's
decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Section 18.390.040.G and 18.390.040.H.
18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits
A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter
18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the
proposed activity within a sensitive area,either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated
in Sections 18.775.020.F and 18.775.020.G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive
areas,e.g., floodplain, are presented in Sections 18.775.070.B— 18.775.070.E below.
B. Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following
criteria have been satisfied:
1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance
of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered
professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during
the base flood discharge;
2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in
areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that
alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public
support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be
allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards;
Sensitive Lands 18.775-10 Code Update: 5/07
3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will
not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood;
4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said
pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; •5. _ _ •. .. • .- •- • - - - .•
6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State
Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained;and
7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year
floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area
within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall
include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway
within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground
based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site
disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream
sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or
property;
3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper
drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil
conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow
depth-to-bedrock; and
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas
not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in
accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening.
D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or
deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that
all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site
disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream
sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or
property;
Sensitive Lands 18.775-I1 Code Update: 5/07
., /
0. \ ..
-A-1/ - * .AA . .
•
1 ' .\, )\,//,/ / iii,\ ,/../ '\.\ / .-\. / .
)/-1 '\.. r ,.. , ,/, \.. ., ../. ./ ., \ .\,, \
__\_.i ,i,,,,, •
. ./ \\ ,. .. \\.
. \
.• ,
\ ) ( \,. LIMP
.J iV / '/. /,/,,*\,.\
/ rrii \
p U it): j i / r \ I
//,.4 o.0. // j &,./
\ ,,,,,//,,,, ,, „.:,..;,,,,,, i, .,
/// \ \
•
Y. I/-. r
1 /�
. • H.- _ 2.)),
•
o •
� •'
•
:/' C \ y j i•//j/'...////'%///i'. 9.�F "nom. .
,./.„ • ,./ , ./ */.. ., C"" J / ,, , /j ,,,��f, /,// fir'.r % /=%� . 0a IN
` / .i''I/ %/,,�/ '/;'=��/ A,,nf. Lower Fanno Creek Park
y '/s j / :/ j�`�� D/:� , 2 Year Flood Inundation•
_..� 1� 1 �p e�'er,,`:. Walker Macy
Y \c'''.
_ - \::Ill: �' 02.10.09
I. #0,;›,-.4',"<> „N.e •-a Vir. 4r ■
. ,,,,,,, , Do
c\i . , ,,,,, ,
O o°off C
New Bridge and �pSS `�� % OQ� O
Boardwalks O .Lt ,� O O OO� —
�, New Mixed Use O —
0 _
Plaza
. />-_,---. - '•1,_Boy
*d*/
Y
,-,j."---\ ,. ' ,'''.- - A400 ,* ---- - 400t r.` '..wT ft New H ng A , 4
' Cree I emeander l O O(
,\, Oil V ' -1, . ,,f.:*',,.....,9,-kr? \/
4r i-s."' \ ,..4,--•/' Pr
i ,� ,r me r we Point
' %'
New Bo rdwa r!t� '. _ Entrance Feature
0 v E `-. - - Public Works
'( 4*f.
Annex o
�� � �--�wer P•
0
0 ,and.
� .� ar
7
ce ent Area `.
/ nd
,- / w Board .. rage
" al J
. AO'1 — _ �,. an- Mitiga on Area _
, n
. R I (�
-'ocate• :ridge
grade ', . .w : idge Verizon
ntrance
'Regional Trail
y`<2..e 0 Oxbow Ponds
Pr `� f.
-y City Hall
a iiirallk N #�
r rt: . E r. v
t t
3
?'I')-,,.
'' rte _
,INit *IN ry �!. 11 Upgrade
New Bridge ,,} .. �- " --. 4- Entrance
New Boardwalk # - ^•, i
J V yi'
NI New Bridge i
A 0 250
N �� feet
Phil Nachbar -r" " � PR 1
From: Brian Wegener[brian @tualatinriverkeepers.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Phil Nachbar
Subject: US Fish &Wildlife Service Response to Trails in Floodplains
Attachments: Re: [Fwd: FW: Copy of staff report to Planning Commission - Feb 23 - re SensitiveLands
Permit Requirements (removal of section 18.775.070.B5)].eml
Jennifer Tholnpson(c,fws.gov wrote:
Hi Brian -
I don't have anything right at my fingertips on that, but Metro's
environmentally-friendly trails guidebook comes to mind as a resource that
should have some good info. on floodplain and other natural resource
considerations (http: //www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=11897) .
Marty Mitchell helped work on that, and hydrology was something she focused
on.
Potential impacts: loss of fully functional flood area, altered hydrologic
patterns (e.g. , trails could redirect water and create runoff channels;
potential for erosion right next to/directed into the stream) , wildlife
disturbance/reduced loss of- value of riparian area as a wildife
corridor/loss of interior habitat, loss of riparian area, increased
invasion by non-native vegetation, public use-related impacts in a
sensitive resource area, etc. That' s probably nothing you haven't already
thought of; sorry I don' t have literature handy but I think it would be
worth seeing what ' s in the guidebook and looking for further references
there as one place to check. . .
good luck,
Jennifer
Brian Wegener
<brian @tualatinri
verkeepers.org> To
Jennifer Thompson
02/18/2009 10:44 <Jennifer Thompson @rl. fws.gov>,
AM Jennifer Thompson
<Jennifer Thompson @fws.gov>
cc
Please respond to
brian @tualatinriv Subject
erkeepers.org (Fwd: FW: Copy of staff report to
Planning Commission - Feb 23 - re
Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements
(removal of section 18 .775.070.B5) )
1
Phil Nachbar
From: Brian Wegener [brian @tualatinriverkeepers.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:55 PM
To: Phil Nachbar
Subject: NMFS Review of trails in floodplains
Attachments: Re: Trails in Annual Flood Plain.eml
nancy munn wrote:
Generally,NMFS does not support trails in floodplains. That is because trails are usually paved, impermeable
surfaces, that cause or promote erosion, and frequently replace valuable riparian trees and shrubs. As well, trail
developer often want a view from the trail to the water, and so create overlooks and get rid of trees. This often
leads to riprap and other forms of bank hardening that do not support ecological functions needed to support a
cold-water fisheries. A final issue is that many trail developers want to use pesticides to prevent plants from
encroaching on the trail; pesticides can kill juvenile salmon or lead to reduced survival.
That said,NMFS does not have a problem with dirt trails within an intact and functional riparian community.
Nancy Munn, PhD
NMFS
Brian Wegener wrote:
Nancy,
The City of Tigard is proposing to allow trails below the annual flood elevation. This proposal is being heard at
the Planning Commission meeting on Feb 23. Does NOAA/NMFS have an opinion on such a practice?
Brian Wegener
Tualatin Riverkeepers
*From:* Phil Nachbar [mailto:phil(a),tigard-or.gov]
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:45 PM
*To:* 'Brian Wegener'
*Cc:* Ron Bunch
*Subject:* Copy of staff report to Planning Commission - Feb 23 - re Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements
(removal of section 18.775.070.B5)
Brian,
i
MEMORANDUM Page 1 ofF
To: Planning Division, City of Tigard
From: Eric L. Lindstrom EdD
Re: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2008-00005— Proposal to Amend section
18.775.70.8.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit Requirement
Date: February 23, 2009
Attachments: Photo, Goal 5
The request for this amendment states that "removal of this requirement [18.775.70.8.5] does not affect
the protection of sensitive habitats or floodplain requirements." Arguments supporting this request may
include some of the rationale indicated in bold type below. The merits of these arguments are discussed
in the paragraphs that follow.
Supporting the Amendment—The original intent of Section B.5 is unclear.
While the Code might benefit from elaboration, particularly with regard to explaining what an "average
annual flood" might be, there are a number of legitimate reasons for expressly prohibiting developed
pathways through areas that are regularly inundated.
1. A developed pathway, particularly one constructed out of impermeable materials, absolutely and
negatively impacts the functionality of the portion of the watershed it covers.
2. Depending upon its location and general design a developed pathway can easily have
unforeseen and negative impacts on the storage and flow patterns of a given area (Exhibit A —
Yellow Jacket Canyon)
3. Placing developed pathways through areas that are prone to annual inundation will lead to higher
than average maintenance requirements and related expenses.
4. When placed in annually flooded areas, pathways designed to encourage pedestrian traffic
between different parts of the city complex unnecessarily limit access during peak rain events and
in the bargain pose a slight but still unacceptable risk to public safety.
Supporting the Amendment— Locating trails and bicycle paths in areas inundated on a regular
basis does not pose a threat to sensitive habitat areas.
The direct impact of such development is discussed in points 1 through 4 above. There are additional
non-surface impacts that need to be taken into account. Most species of plants and animals native to
Oregon are highly sensitive to regular proximity with human populations. The so called "canaries in the
mine shaft" in this instance are native species of turtles, followed closely by native species of amphibians.
Unless the City exercises greater caution with its development projects the day is close at hand when
these species will cease to think of Tigard as "A Place to Call Home."
Supporting the Amendment— Removal of this section supports Statewide Planning Goal 5.
The express purpose of Goal 5 is "To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas
and open spaces." The entire document resonates with a sense of respect and stewardship for the land.
Eric Lindstrom—Watershed Research and Photography—6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive/Portland/OR 97225
503-358-7144(cell)/503-296-8440(home)/el.lindstrom(a,comcast.net
MEMORANDUM Page 2 oft
Under the Planning and Implementation sections of Goal 5 (Exhibit B) three paragraphs are particularly
relevant with respect to 18.775.70.B.05:
2.(P) Criteria should be developed and utilized to determine what uses are consistent with open
space values and to evaluate the effect of converting open space lands to inconsistent uses.
Lands that are annually inundated are flood areas. Uses that are most consistent with such lands are
as holding and processing areas for stormwater runoff and habitat for native flora and fauna. Any
other utilization of these lands is inconsistent with their natural functionality.
4.(P) ....The land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should not
exceed the carrying capacity of such resources.
These lands, including the 100 year floodplain itself, are heavily degraded and their carrying
capacities have already been greatly exceeded. By further diminishing the total effective area and
altering the physical landscape, developed pathways automatically further degrade the carrying
capacities of the land.
6.(I) ...Plans should provide for the preservation of natural areas consistent with an inventory of
scientific, educational, ecological and recreational needs for significant natural areas.
Plans exist for the development of pedestrian and bicycle pathways through Fanno Creek Park, and
presumably these developed from an inventory of community interests and existing resources. These
plans are formal and current, and as such they may demonstrate a level of conformity to the spirit of
the article. But no other such formal and current plans (supported by similar inventories) exist that
are related to the other uses of these lands as specified in this section of Goal 5. Without such
specific and detailed attention to all the items specified in the section 6, Goal 5 itself is not supported.
Supporting the Amendment—Removal of this section is necessary in order to support an already
approved development plan for Fanno Creek Park and adjoining areas.
That an already approved Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park may not be consistent with Tigard's own
Development Code is a worrisome thought. It calls into serious question issues of process and oversight.
As worrisome as that may be however, it is far less worrisome than using this kind of amendment process
to the Code as the preferred method for correction. Such an action might even establish a precedent for
calling into question other instances of Code enforcement related to sensitive lands, past as well as
future. Precedents of this nature tend to degrade the integrity of the Code.
In conclusion, while the development of pedestrian and bicycle pathways are desirable components of
responsible parks plans, they should not be planned in a manner that unnecessarily compromises the
functional integrity of lands in the 100 year floodplain. Nor should the design and ultimate implementation
of such plans come at the cost of the integrity of the City's own Development Code.
Thank you. I sincerely hope you will not approve DCA 2008-00005. //-*-
('
Eric Lindstrom—Watershed Research and Photography—6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive/Portland/OR 97225
503-358-7144(cell)/503-296-8440(home)/el.lindstrom(a�comcast.net
West entrance to Yellow jacket.jpg
i - 444 ilit , , e
44 4 ., .4, , $1
., 1 ) I
(..111141.
.t c' ,t ; ', 1 ilit, )
. ■ 4ir ( .
•
. �/
. I,
I,• ,
, !I q. ■j jr
r
4 d 41
.,
`,
,r r
t
-.*vi, -* - . ' "'.6.2•Wilry:,4
11111111111111111k- '
Notes to Yellow Jacket Canyon photograph.
This view of the Leslie Gulch area in eastern Oregon shows a road that was constructed
through a canyon complex in order to provide access to the Owyhee River for boaters,
fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts. In other words it was built entirely for recreational
purposes.
Note that the road has created a dam that now limits the flow of water from the south (picture
right) to the north.
Note also the meandering creek at the foot of the bluff to the south. An on-foot examination of
this creek would show that the bed is heavily incised due to flash flooding. While the creek has
always been flashy, the action has increased significantly since the creation of the road resulted
in limiting the spread of stormwater run off from the uplands into those areas north of the
roadway.
To one extent or another, this phenomenon occurs wherever an obstruction in the form of a
road or pathway is placed upon a watershed area. And while it may appear extreme
graphically, it is merely indicative of similar but less readily depicted situations that exist at many
places throughout the Fanno Creek Watershed.
Eric Lindstrom
2/23/2009
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND
HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES
OAR 660-015-0000(5)
(Please Note: Amendments agencies are encouraged to maintain
Effective 08/30/96) current inventories of the following
resources:
To protect natural resources and a. Historic Resources;
conserve scenic and historic areas b. Open Space;
and open spaces. c. Scenic Views and Sites.
Following procedures, standards,
Local governments shall adopt and definitions contained in commission
programs that will protect natural rules, local governments shall
, determine significant sites for
historic,
and conserve scenic, inventoried resources and develop
and open space resources for present programs to achieve the goal.
and future generations. These
resources promote a healthy GUIDELINES FOR GOAL 5
environment and natural landscape that
contributes to Oregon's livability. A. PLANNING
1. The need for open space in
The following resources shall be the planning area should be
inventoried: determined, and standards developed
a. Riparian corridors, including for the amount, distribution, and type of
water and riparian areas and fish open space.
habitat; 2. Criteria should be developed
b. Wetlands; and utilized to determine what uses are
c. Wildlife Habitat; consistent with open space values and
d. Federal Wild and Scenic to evaluate the effect of converting open
Rivers; space lands to inconsistent uses. The
e. State Scenic Waterways; maintenance and development of open
f. Groundwater Resources; space in urban areas should be
g. Approved Oregon Recreation encouraged.
Trails; 3. Natural resources and
h. Natural Areas; required sites for the generation of
i. Wilderness Areas; energy (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal, hydro,
j. Mineral and Aggregate geothermal, uranium, solar and others)
Resources; should be conserved and protected;
k. Energy sources; reservoir sites should be identified and
I. Cultural areas. protected against irreversible loss.
Local governments and state 4. Plans providing for open
space, scenic and historic areas and habitats should be protected and
natural resources should consider as a managed in accordance with the
major determinant the carrying capacity Oregon Wildlife Commission's fish and
of the air, land and water resources of wildlife management plans.
the planning area. The land 5. Stream flow and water levels
conservation and development actions should be protected and managed at a
provided for by such plans should not level adequate for fish, wildlife, pollution
exceed the carrying capacity of such abatement, recreation, aesthetics and
resources. agriculture.
5. The National Register of - 6. Significant natural areas that
Historic Places and the are/historically, ecologically or
recommendations of the State Advisory scientifically unique, outstanding or
Committee on Historic Preservation important, including those identified by
should be utilized in designating historic the State Natural Area Preserves
sites. Advisory Committee, should be
6. In conjunction with the inventoried and evaluated. Plans should
inventory of mineral and aggregate provide for the preservation of natural
resources, sites for removal and areas consistent with an inventory of
processing of such resources should be scientific, educational, ecological, and
identified and protected. recreational needs for significant natural
7. As a general rule, plans should areas.
prohibit outdoor advertising signs 7. Local, regional and state
except in commercial or industrial governments should be encouraged to
zones. Plans should not provide for the investigate and utilize fee acquisition,
reclassification of land for the purpose easements, cluster developments,
of accommodating an outdoor preferential assessment, development
advertising sign. The term "outdoor rights acquisition and similar techniques
advertising sign" has the meaning set to implement this goal.
forth in ORS 377.710(23). 8. State and federal agencies
should develop statewide natural
B. IMPLEMENTATION resource, open space, scenic and
historic area plans and provide
1. Development should be technical assistance to local and
planned and directed so as to conserve regional agencies. State and federal
the needed amount of open space. plans should be reviewed and
2. The conservation of both coordinated with local and regional
renewable and non-renewable natural plans.
resources and physical limitations of the 9. Areas identified as having
land should be used as the basis for non-renewable mineral and aggregate
determining the quantity, quality, resources should be planned for interim,
location, rate and type of growth in the transitional and "second use" utilization
planning area. as well as for the primary use.
3. The efficient consumption of
energy should be considered when http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal
utilizing natural resources. 5.pdf
4. Fish and wildlife areas and
February 22, 2009
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard, Oregon
RE: Development Code Amendment(DCA)2008-00005/
Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are writing to comment on the City of Tigard's proposal to remove Section
18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirement which reads in part that"no
pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood." Fans of Fanno Creek is
a local advocacy group for Fanno Creek and its tributaries with many members who
donate significant time and effort during the year to plant native vegetation and remove
non-native species. While many of our members use trails for various reasons, we do not
support any building of new trails that would in any way cause negative impacts to our
natural resources. We believe that 18.775.070.115 is a necessary part of the code and
should NOT be removed for a number of reasons.
1. Staff argues in their memorandum for this proposal that removing this part of the
code would allow Tigard to build trails in areas of Fanno Creeek Park"currently
inaccessible." Almost all of the Park is currently accessible to the public right now
and those areas that don't have trails are this way for a good reason, they are
wetlands that flood annually or are wet year-round. Fanno Creek Park, as well as all
of our other creeks and adjacent wetlands in Tigard, are classified as"Significant
Habitat Areas", and the Park is rated as an area with the "Highest Habitat Value".
This means that these areas receive the highest level of protection under Goal 5 in
order to protect habitat, water quality, and the fish and wildlife that live in these areas.
Placing trails to these currently inaccessible wetland areas would have dire negative
impacts to these important habitat areas by adding impervious surface(trails),
increasing disturbance to fish and wildlife, increasing dogs and other pets to the area
and increasing the amount of garbage to these significant habitat areas.
2. Staff argues that removal of this section of the code will improve the ability of Tigard
to meet the newly revised comprehensive plan goals, including"providing passive
recreational opportunities such as trails in parks and open spaces." Keeping this part
of the code intact will NOT in any way prevent Tigard from meeting the goals, as
there already exist numerous trails throughout our city including both the Fanno
Creek regional trail which goes through Fanno Park, and numerous other trails
throughout our parks and open spaces. In addition,the on-going Trail Study has
identified numerous short trail segments in uplands that will help to meet the
comprehensive plan goals for trails and nature-oriented recreation. According to the
updated Comprehensive Plan, Tigard already has over 9 miles of completed trails,
which include over 1.5 miles of trails within Fanno Creek Park already.
3. Whoever wrote this section of the code did a very wise thing, by Not allowing trails
in the Park and elsewhere in Tigard that have"average annual flooding", as it helps to
protect these significant habitats. Building trails in these wet areas would only serve
to:
• add impervious surface areas to the wetlands,
• would fragment habitats,
• would create barriers to wildlife moving through these significant habitats and
• would degrade water quality
• would create safety issues for the public using these trails in flooded areas.
4. Staff argues that the "original intent of the part of the code remains unclear."
However, staff then proceeds to list "perceived" reasons as to why the code is
included. Their"perceived" reasons are exactly correct, in that yes,this part of the
code does indeed help to:
• Lessen impacts on floodplains,
• Helps to alleviate public safety concerns,
• Reduces potential maintenance associated with inundated trails,
• Reduces negative impacts to habitat and the "flora and fauna" associated with
those important habitats.
5. Staff argues that removal of this part of the Sensitive Lands code will not negatively
impact Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Staff is also wrong on this
argument, for in fact removal of this section of the code will have severe negative
impacts on our natural resourcesi especially in these areas that"flood annually."
With increased development in Tigard and surrounding cities, our creeks and
wetlands now flood more frequently and at greater volume and velocities every year.
This has negative impacts on both habitat and fish and wildlife. Adding trails to these
areas that flood annually will only serve to increase these negative impacts, by
adding increased impervious surface, degrading habitats, some already in poor
condition, degrading water quality, and putting people at greater risk.
6. Staff argues that removal of this section of the code will improve the ability of Tigard
to meet the newly revised comprehensive plan goals, including"providing passive
recreational opportunities such as trails in parks and open spaces." Keeping this part
of the code intact will NOT in any way prevent Tigard from meeting the goals, as
there already exist numerous trails throughout our city including both the Fanno
Creek regional trail which goes through Fanno Park, and numerous other trails
throughout our parks and open spaces. In addition, the on-going Trail Study has
identified numerous short trail segments in uplands that will help to meet the
comprehensive plan goals for trails and nature-oriented recreation. According to the
updated Comprehensive Plan,Tigard already has over 9 miles of completed trails,
which include over 1.5 miles of trails within Fanno Creek Park already.
7. Rather, the removal of this section of the code will actually Violate two policies of
the revised Comprehensive Plan which state"The City shall acquire and manage
some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources...." And"The
City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that
preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare or State
and Federally listed species (Pond Turtles), ...." Building in these sensitive
wetlands that flood annually will violate both of these policies of the comprehensive
plan as well as the Sensitive Lands code. Putting pathways in areas that flood
annually including near stream banks creates 1) impervious surface areas or if it is a
boardwalk, creates an obstruction in wildlife habitat and fragments existing
"significant habitat"; 2)puts people in areas that provide "significant, critical habitat"
for imperiled species including Western Pond Turtles, which by state and federal law
must be protected and in which are highly sensitive to human disturbance including
noise from people walking, talking,biking, etc; 3) introduces dogs and other pets that
should not be allowed in Significant Habitat areas; and 4) increases debris, garbage,
etc. that will enter the area. Finally,removing this section of the code in no way
protects,preserves or restores habitat or species since it will only serve to have
multiple negative impacts on our precious natural resources.
8. Staff fails to mention that in the Fanno Creek Master Plan is also included a project to
improve Fanno Creek through remeandering one section of Fanno Creek, improving
bank stability, and also by increasing the available habitat for the Western Pond
Turtle, an imperiled and State and Federal listed species that is found in the park.
Fans of Fanno Creek met on-site with Clean Water Services and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2007 and 2008; these meetings included
discussions of the Fanno Creek improvements and possible trail construction and
alignments. Both agencies recommended that the current trail on the southwest side
of the park be removed in order to reduce the negative impacts it has to the creek,the
creek bank and the wetlands, and that NO NEW TRAILS be built in the newly
created remeander/wetlands area of the park. This was agreed upon in order to
protect the habitat and to give fish and wildlife, including turtles which need quiet,
backwater areas away from human disturbance in which to grow and thrive, a place
of refuge in the park. The public can still see and appreciate this area from a distance
when it is completed as well as enjoy almost the entire rest of the park from the
current existing trails.
9. Fanno Creek is listed as "Essential Salmonid Habitat" which means that any addition
or removal of material associated with path construction creates a need for a DSL
permit. Staff in their report fail to address this and how this DSL regulation affects
their proposal to delete this section of the code.
10. Staff failed to consider Metro's "Green Trails Guidelines for Environmentally
Friendly Trails"; One section discusses how to site a potential trail route and evaluate
impacts to natural resources. It states that routes should"avoid negative impacts to
wildlife habitats and water resources and that this is achieved by routing the trail
around these resources." It is crucial that staff and the city as a whole get on board
with the rest of the region by adopting these Green trail guidelines and standards in
order to truly protect and conserve our important natural resources. Dropping the
proposed section of the Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements is the wrong"route"to
take!
11. Any future effort to revise or change our Sensitive Lands Code must include a
thorough hydrologic study that analyzes the hydrology of our city and includes how
global climate change and development will affect the hydrology in the future. It
must also include analyzing the hydrologic impacts that result as a consequence of
placing trails near streams and wetlands and how it affects/impedes flow, velocity,
water volume, etc. This should certainly be done before the city can accurately state
that they will not have any adverse/negative impacts to natural resources. Anything
less is unacceptable.
In conclusion, we request that the Planning Commission DENY the City of Tigard's
request to remove this important section of the Sensitive Lands Permit section of the
Development Code, in order to protect our natural resources and meet Tigard's
obligations under Goal 5, Title 3 and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, ; �
Sue Beilke,
Board member, Fans of Fanno Creek
C
TUALATIN RIVERKEEPERS
` 12360 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223
503-620-7507 • fax: 503-620-1645 • email: info@tualatinriverkeepers.org
www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
•
February 23, 2009
Tigard Planning Commission
13125 SW Ha11 Blvd
Tigard, OR 977223
RE: DCA2008-00005
Dear President Inman and Planning Commissioners,
The following testimony submitted by Tualatin Riverkeepers is in support of our request that you
deny Development Code Amendment DCA2008-00005.
Section III,Paragraph 3 of the staff report states
The City can only speculate on the reason for the inclusion of Section 18.775.070.B.5.
in the Sensitive Land Chapter. The section requires that "the plans for the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an
average annual flood". It is likely that it had something to do with maintaining year-
round pedestrian accessibility (out of the annual flood elevation), and/or maintenance
concerns.
Actually,the city staff could have and should have done much more than"speculate as the
reason of inclusion" of 18.775.070.B.5. in the Sensitive Land Chapter. At minimal, the city staff
should have consulted an ecologist, a wetlands biologist, a habitat specialist, or a hydrologist as
to why this section of the code is included. Since the city staff neglected to perform this minimal
task in preparing its report, I contacted several local government scientists and asked them why
the city should not allow trails below the annual flood elevation.
Jennifer Thompson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the following potential impacts to
allowing trails in floodplains:
Potential impacts: loss offully functional flood area, altered hydrologic patterns (e.g.,
trails could redirect water and create runoff channels;potential for erosion right next
to/directed into the stream), wildlife disturbance/reduced loss of value of riparian area
as a wildife corridor/loss of interior habitat, loss of riparian area, increased invasion
by non-native vegetation,public use-related impacts in a sensitive resource area, etc.
Jennifer Thompson
Project Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Oregon Office
Ms. Thompson also suggested that I consult Metro's Green Trail Guidelines. I contacted Lori
Hennings, Senior Natural Resource Scientist with Metro and got this information about the trail
guidelines and why trails should not me in floodplains:
Metro's Green Trails: Guidelines for environmentally friendly trails"publication
speaks to this issue on Page 33, section 4.4— Water Resources:
"Avoid crossing streams, wetlands and floodplains. Trails can interfere with floodplain
dynamics, groundwater movement, and stream transport of large wood and bedload.
Care should be taken to avoid the impacts of trails on these resources by avoiding wet
areas, springs,floodplains, stream corridors, wetlands and the lower portions of slopes,
especially those that face north... "
There are other reasons not to disturb such areas if at all possible. Streams provide the
region's best remaining wildlife corridors, and also some of the most important
remaining wildlife habitat,particularly for songbirds and most particularly for
Neotropical migratory songbirds, the latter which are declining rapidly and
consistently in our region and are also sensitive to human disturbance. The closer a
trail is to a stream, the more it will impact these resources. Floodplains are also,
obviously,frequently flooded; trails built there will consistently need repair, causing
both significant expense and repeated wildlife habitat disturbance, as well as loss of
access to foot and bicycle traffic during wet seasons.
If a stream bears salmonids, NOAA Fisheries should be consulted before disturbing the
riparian area.
Lori Hennings
Senior Natural Resource Scientist
Metro Sustainability Center
Following Ms. Hennings advice regarding salmonid bearing streams, I also contacted National
Marine Fisheries Services and got this response:
Generally, NMFS does not support trails in floodplains. That is because trails are
usually paved, impermeable surfaces, that cause or promote erosion, and frequently
replace valuable riparian trees and shrubs. As well, trail developer often want a view
from the trail to the water, and so create overlooks and get rid of trees. This often leads
to riprap and other forms of bank hardening that do not support ecological functions
needed to support a cold-water fisheries. A final issue is that many trail developers
want to use pesticides to prevent plants from encroaching on the trail;pesticides can
kill juvenile salmon or lead to reduced survival.
Nancy Munn, Ph.D.
Habitat Conservation Division
NOAA—National Marine Fisheries Service
Oregon Office
Statewide Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open
Spaces
The City of Tigard is a partner in the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places. The Tualatin
plan approved by Metro and the state is part of Tigard's compliance with state Land Use
Planning Goal 5.
As part of the process for developing this plan, the Partners and Metro went through an extensive
mapping process to determine where the habitats of highest value deserving the greatest level of
protection are.
Council's recommendation on habitat protection
,/It r 5t:clr a�
❑ Mow development
❑ Low habitat conservation area
❑ Moderate habitat conservation area
High habitat conservation area
• Parks and open spaces
..� • Streams and rivers
❑ Nal affected by recommendation
r---7----,
4
0141,,,VA
As you can see from the above map (source: Metro), the flood prone areas of Fanno Creek Park
have been recommended for the highest level of protection. The areas recommended for highest
protection coincide with the habitat of highest value on the City of Tigard's habitat map.
Adjacent upland areas were recommended for development. Putting the trails in these areas
designated "Allow Development"will better protect the natural resources in the park while
allowing the citizens of Tigard an excellent viewpoint of the wildlife that inhabits the park. Note
that the city has recently acquired upland on the south side of the park and is in the process of
acquiring other adjacent properties.
Locating a bike path below annual flood elevation
in high value habitat puts native amphibians and =-
reptiles, including state listed species at risk. 1
(Photo of road-killed red-legged frog, a state-listed
111, 1*
species of concern)
Statewide Planning Goal 7: Natural Hazards
The Fanno Creek trail alignment that would be accommodated by this code change does not
"protect people and property from natural hazards". Placing a trail below the annual food
elevation puts the public users of that trail in harms way. In addition, the trail alignment in the
park intersects with Hall Blvd where there is no safe crossing. A more appropriate trail
alignment would take pedestrians out of the floodway to controlled crosswalk at Wall Street.
FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
The staff report fails to address federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and State
Wetland protections. It only addresses FEMA flood insurance requirements.
Obviously there is a high coincidence between annual elevation and state and federally protected
wetlands. The existing prohibition in 18.775.070.B.5 of trails below annual flood elevation
protects the city from accidental disregard of state, federal, Metro and CWS regulations which
would put the city at risk of civil and criminal penalties.
TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Paragraph 4 of page 7 of the staff reports has a number of glaring errors that are refuted by
statements of agency scientists at the beginning of this document. A particularly glaring error is
worth pointing out: "Trails do not generate pollution and by themselves, are not a source of
impact to sensitive habitat or species." Not only does the staff fail to provide any
documentation of such a bold assertion,but it is directly refuted by Dr. Munn, Ms. Thompson,
and Ms. Hennings.
One significant purpose of Tigard's Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "maintain integrity
of rivers, streams, and creeks". The Staff reports assertion that"The Department of State Lands
regulates Waters of the State, and the Corps of Engineers regulates wetlands"does not include
any analysis of how completely these agencies fulfill 18.775's purpose to "maintain integrity of
rivers, streams, and creeks." If such an analysis had been performed even a rudimentary
analysis, it would have found that Tigard's creeks, including Fanno Creek do not meet state
water quality standards specified in the Tualatin Total Maximum Daily Load. It would also find
.
that habitat degradation along Tigard's creeks, streams and the Tualatin River has impacted
several sensitive species including the federally listed steelhead trout. Thus, additional
protection provided by 18.775 is warranted.
SECTION VI. ALTERNATIVES TO APPROVAL
The staff report was missing any analysis of alternatives to approval. Since the primary
motivation of this proposed action is to accommodate trails in Fanno Creek Park, it would be
appropriate to discuss alternatives to placing trails below the Annual Flood Elevation in Fanno
Creek Park.
Tigard's Sensitive Lands Ordinance 18.775 provides procedures for a variance to its
requirements. Eliminating a Section 18.775.070.B.5 just to accommodate one particular project
is inappropriate when variance procedures exist. Doing so makes the rest of Tigard's flood
prone natural areas at further risk to degradation.
Thank you for your attention to our testimony. Tualatin Riverkeepers urges you to reject
DCA20008-00005.
Sincerely,
k
Brian Wegener
Watershed Watch Coordinator
Tualatin Riverkeepers
TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING FEBRUARY 23, 2009
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 2008-00005
SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
I an an advocate of additional pedestrian facilities in Tigard, however this proposed code
change is not compatible with the needs of our natural surroundings and I oppose it.
1 The Public Hearing Notice did not identify as applicable review criteria, those regulations of
the CWS Design and Construction Standards which Tigard is required to meet per its IGA with
CWS. I ask that you receive and accept by reference these CWS standards and the IGA into the
record of this proceeding. The staff report section on "Any Applicable METRO Regulations" and
specifically its reference to METRO Title 3 compliance errs in stating that the CWS Design and
Construction Standards do not affect the proposed change. See the attached sketch of
streamside lands: the proposed permission of development on lands below OHWL (Ordinary
High Water Level, annual high water level) are well within the 'sensitive area' of CWS
regulations and are prohibited.
2 The proposal to allow pathways within the area of annual flood levels increases maintenance
costs to the city. TDC provisions for flexibility in application of the current code (ie
adjustments, variances) prohibit such flexibility where public safety is reduced or where
maintenance costs are increased.
3 From the staff report, it appears that what Tigard has in Fanno Creek Park is a 'nonconforming
situation', TDC 18.760. Tigard should determine the extent of the existing nonconforming
situation and regulate the current use of Fanno Creek Park before proposing changes to the
code. As a result, this proceeding should be a Type Ill decision-making action rather than the
proposed Type IV decision-making action. See TDC 18.775.130, 'Plan Amendment Option' which
calls for a quasi-judicial proceeding when Goal 5 protection is to be vacated. This process calls
for an ESEE analysis (OAR 660-23-040) not provided here.
4 This proposal would result in 'development' within the banks (2-yr recurrence level) of the
stream. Oregon DSL rules call for'mitigation' of work in this area: DSL provides a hierarchy of
mitigation priorities, the first being 'avoid by not taking a certain action.' Tigard should retain
the prohibition of development with the banks of Fanno Creek.
5 The proposed change would affect many areas of Tigard for an identified problem in only one
spot— Fanno Creek Park. Rather than a code change,an 'adjustment', TDC 18.370 or variance
would better resolve the problem —within the procedures for adjustment and variance, there is
a balancing of public benefit against the strictures of the code. Alternatively, if only a local site
is of concern, CWS rules provide for limited 'encroachment' into the vegetated corridor.
6 The proposed areas for trail development are within METRO's highest level of sensitive
habitat areas. If trail development is needed, it should be limited to those 'development
allowed' areas found on METRO habitat maps.
7 The proposed code change will result in trails with safety issues. ODOT already has spoken
about the problem of Fanno Creek Trail crossing Hall near the creek. Tigard should resolve this
issue of safety by designing a Fanno Creek trail location which leads the trail from Main St to
the Tigard Senior Center, then OMara St, and to the regulated Hall Blvd crossing at Wall St,
where there is a light.
8 The processing of this change appears to avoid the normal independent staff review of a
proposal: the Owner is Tigard, the Applicant is Tigard (Nachbar), the staff report is by Tigard
(Nachbar), and the Applicant's agent is Tigard (Nachbar). Please consider assigning an
independent reviewer to address both the need/benefit of this code change with the cost/harm
to Tigard natural resources.
9 This proposed change has not been forwarded for review and comment to two important
agencies which have responsibilities in this area: ODOT and Oregon Dept of Parks and
Recreation. ODOT has specific skills and responsibilities for transportation, including pedestrian
and bike ways. Oregon Dept of Parks and Recreation has funded projects in Tigard and has
standards for development which are relevant here. The proposed change should be held in
abeyance until such additional coordination (see mandatory provisions of Goal 2) can be
executed.
10 Because Fanno Creek is an area of"Essential Salmonid Habitat", the DSL exemption of 50
yards of material removal does not apply; any addition or removal of material associated with
path construction creates a need for DSL permit. The DSL permit, while not exempted by this
change in local code, has review, alternative and mitigation standards which make the
usefulness of the proposed code change nil.
11 Those applicable review criteria which are mentioned in the Public Hearing Notice are listed
in only the most general sense; specific provisions of the referenced large documents and
avoidance of the term "any (federal, state, METRO, local) statutes or regulations" should be
observed. The public is not able to meaningfully participate (timely and effective) in this
decision with only such vague references.
12 Under discussion of Tigard Comp Plan Goal 8.1 and its associated Policies 4 and 6, staff
maintains that the proposed removal of prohibition on paths below OHWL 'supports' these
policies. I do not believe this is true because for the recognized Fanno Creek Park area, other
city parks and linear parks exist within one half mile of the area affected here. As a minimum, a
revised staff report should demonstrate how failure to construct bike or pedestrian paths
below OHWL in Fanno Creek Park creates areas without a public park within one half mile.
Access to passive recreational areas near water does not require trails; in fact, trails produce
local areas of excessive impact—more distributed impact favors existing habitat.
13 Tigard staff should consider the guidance of METRO's "Green Trails: Guidelines for
Environmentally Friendly Trails." At page 67 in this document, the message is clear: "How do
you site a potential trail route? Evaluate trail routes in natural areas and restricted urban
corridors. In natural area settings, it is of primary interest for trail routes to avoid negative
impacts to wildlife habitats and water resources. This is achieved by routing the trail around
these resources." The buffer widths necessary to protect the functions of streams and
wetlands (Appendix C, attached) and the associated 12 pages of technical references support
the need to not build trails below the OHWL.
13 Discussion of Tigard Comp Plan Goal 8.1 and associated Policy 17 asserts that the proposed
change does not automatically mean trails will be constructed below OHWL; other parts of the
staff report claim the opposite—that trail development is needed at this elevation. The conflict
should be resolved by staff before Planning Commission and City Council decisions. This same
discussion asserts that trail construction by itself does not impact sensitive habitat or species—
as if a trail would be constructed without the expectation that it would be used by people,
dogs, bikes, etc—all of which create impact on sensitive habitat or species. The Planning
Commission should find this reasoning false and recommend to City Council denial of the
proposed code change.
14 Policy 2 of Goal 8.2 in the Tigard Comp Plan is clearly violated by the proposed code change.
Staff discussion of this policy doesn't address how trail construction below OHWL will
'minimize' the impact on the natural environment; in fact the opposite is true— it would
increase the impact on the natural environment, eg stream bank and buffer areas.
15 Discussion of consistency with TDC 18.775 begins with an analysis of safety, concluding that
trails constructed below OHWL 'would not pose a danger to safety of the public.' I respectfully
disagree. Trails which are flooded are then covered with sediment from the flood waters and
become slippery for both pedestrians and bicyclists—this is a safety hazard. At some cost,
Tigard could presumably post danger signs and using brushes or high pressure water, wash off
the flooded trails, but with limited maintenance dollars, a public hazard would be created for
some time on such trails.
16 Discussion of consistency with TDC 18.775 ignores completely consistency with purpose A:
"Maintain integrity of rivers, streams and creeks." Same for purpose C: "Implement CWS D&C
Standards for the Tualatin Basin". Comment 1 above speaks to the lack of consistency with
CWS D&C Standards. The 'integrity'of streams can only refer to their functional roles and
associated needs in our natural environment. The METRO trail guidance noted in Comment 13
above and the attached tabulation of necessary buffer distances to meet these functions
effectively preclude the construction of trails below the OHWL.
Attachments
Sketch
Appendix C of METRO's 'Green Trails' text and handbook.
_fv, ii-r-,--c4t_i_vrn,„-- To
J
.2.),:-:.-, ,„, , , , .
, ,
..11 is, „,__, ,_,.v,g -01::Itc7)S
'9; 9Z
i
,E,_°, 4(1-r ico .),.
\ „a.F E-ci-v7--,,c).-7-,- ,,
trr„,i _ert(9-1- 0141-)v-J-1 , ,,t-t---) 2 --P., i
t4-"P 1- .'")?
i
\ GQ--Th
ha2<5Th__. ,
of),,7473/ \)„(), ts_ , ( .v , 6,1140.4, _
1_,Dc),..r . .. . . /
apvic). .) ,,kszczcv_) _1.1•00.0_
1 �� � `Fi - LP/P--)
bp--)ij. --)-cft 3CCY '9Pm ? r7--- 1 "1Z,
TAI )
ii_45_ �f\1 91�
i -.- WA I
C7eceryc),N
U
tii
Range of functional riparian area widths for wildlife habitat W
Terrestrial habitat
Function Reference Recommended width
(each side of stream) tiag
Willow flycatcher nesting Knutson and Naef 1997 123 feet W
Full complement of herpetofauna Rudolph and Dickson 1990 >100 feet
tii
Belted kingfisher roosts USFWS HEP Model 100-200 feet it.
Smaller mammals Allen 1983 214-297 feet
Birds Jones et al. 1988 246-656 feet
Minimum distance needed to Hodges and Krementz 1996 328 feet
support area-sensitive neotropical
migratory birds OW
d Western pond turtle nests Knutson and Naef 1997 330 feet
tali
d Pileated woodecker Castelle et al. 1992 450 feet
c
°1 Bald eagle nest, roost, perch Castelle et al. 1992 600 feet tat
-Ne Nesting ducks, heron rookery and
3 sandhill cranes
Pileated woodpecker nesting Small 1982 328 feet Acronyms
Mule deer fawning Knutson and Naef 1997 600 feet
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Rufous-sided towhee breeding Knutson and Naef 1997 656 feet Service
populations FEMAT: Forest Ecosystem
. General wildlife habitat FEMAT 1993 100-300 feet Management Assessment
General wildlife habitat Todd 2000 100-325 feet Team
General wildlife habitat May 2000 328 feet
nrrr, L\-4 `-19
T 17T1`aThotN9\-1 Z' . 7 V9
•
A.. _
Range of functional riparian area widths for fish habitat and water quality .;�
Aquatic habitat
Function Reference Functional width
(each side of stream)
d Shade FEMAT 1993 100 feet
m c Shade Castelle et al. 1994 50-100 feet
c Shade Spence et al. 1996 98 feet
tz 4 c Shade May 2000 98 feet
E ° Shade Osborne and Kovacic 1993 33-98 feet
aco
~ 5 Shade/reduce solar radiation Brosofske et al. 1997 250 feet
m
E Control temperature by shading Johnson Ryba 1992 39-141 feet
.o Bank stabilization Spence et al. 1996 170 feet
A a Sediment removal and erosion control May 2000 98 feet
c c Ephemeral streams Clinnick et al. 1985 66 feet
N• ° Bank stabilization FEMAT 1993 1 SPTH
1 a• ci Sediment control Erman et al. 1977 100 feet
N Sediment control Moring 1982 98 feet
c 4, Sediment removal Johnson and Ryba 1992 10 feet sand-400 feet clay
m High mass wasting area Cederholm 1994 125 feet Acronyms
Nitrogen Wnger 1999 50-100 feet USFWS: U.S. fish and Wildlife
c To General pollutant removal May 2000 98 feet Service
ca > FEMAT: Forest Ecosystem
Filter metals and nutrients Castelle et al. 1994 100 feet Management Assessment
E 2 Pesticides Wenger 1999 >49 feet Team
Nutrient removal Johnson and Ryba 1992 33-141 feet HEP: Habitat Evaluation
a Large woody debris Spence et al. 1996 1 SPTH Procedures
c
as Large woody debris Wegner 1999 1 SPTH
1 ii d Large woody debris May 2000 262 feet
-0 --- Large woody debris McDade et al. 1990 150 feet
c'� Small woody debris Pollock and Kennard 1998 100 feet
o Organic litterfall FEMAT 1993 1 SPTH
0, Organic litterfall Erman et al. 1977 100 feet
Organic litterfall Spence et al. 1996 170 feet
. 155
�.
ff
Department of Fish and Wildlife
' r 11') re on Northwest Region
18330 NW Sauvie Island Road
Theodore R.Kulongoski,Governor
Portland, OR 97213
(503) 621-3488
(503) 657-2050
OREGON.
Fish 8 Wildlife
February 23, 2009
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97233
Dear Tigard Planning Commission,
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) would like to provide the following
comments regarding the City of Tigard's proposal to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the
Sensitive Lands Code.
The Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006) identifies riparian habitats, including
associated floodplains and terraces, as a priority habitat. Riparian habitats have declined from
historic levels and are now greatly reduced in area and connectivity. Riparian habitats are
critical for fish and wildlife and contain a high level of species diversity. Healthy riparian
habitats also provide important ecological functions such as protection from bank erosion,
decreased water temperature, and filtering of runoff.
ODFW is concerned with allowing trails and bicycle paths to be placed in riparian and
associated floodplain habitats. ODFW does not believe that fish and wildlife will be
adequately protected if the City of Tigard removes section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive
Lands Code.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would like to thank the City of Tigard for the
opportunity to provide comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Mischa Connine
Habitat Biologist
Ucki,k01t
SocietyofA February 23, 2009
�S Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
i i 13125 SW Hall Blvd
000,t'd r' ry Tigard,OR 97223
ded in19 0
President Inman and Planning Commission,
President We are writing regarding the staff proposal to remove section 18.775.070.13.5 prohibiting
Peter Paquet development of pedestrian/bicycle pathways below the elevation of an average annual flood.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject the staff proposal. Keeping these
Vice President regulations in place will require new trail development to be built with low-impact designs
at Campbell that avoid impact to flood areas that provide multiple environmental benefits.
Secretary
Adrienne Wolf-Lockett Audubon Society of Portland has serious concerns about the incremental loss and
degradation of floodplain habitats in the Tualatin Basin and the resulting negative impacts
Treasurer on water quality,wildlife habitat-including the habitat of sensitive species-and public health
Ken Ivey and safety. The failure to adequately protect floodplains in the Tualatin Basin was a major
Past President issue during the development and adoption of Metro's Title 13 Regional Fish and Wildlife
Linda Craig Protection Plan and the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 approach finalized in 2005.1 Since then
Tualatin Basin has lost some 70 acres of floodplain to development including 9.4 acres in the
Nancy Jane Cushing Fanno Creek watershed.
John Fitchen
Martha Gannett We support the development of bike and pedestrian trails but not at the expense of the
Kristina Gifford region's water quality and wildlife habitat. Local governments and developers have failed to
Wink Gross provide adequate land for trails outside environmentally sensitive areas in most urban areas
John Hammerstad in the Tualatin Basin. Consequently, the practice of aligning and developing trails in vegetated corridors
Barb Hill and sensitive areas has gotten out of control. Local planners have come to view our floodplains and
Terry Kem riparian corridors as defacto trail rights-of-way. Since 2000, Clean Water Services has agreed
Karen O'Connor Kruse twice to weaken the district's Design and Construction Standards to allow further
Claire Puchy encroachment of trails into vegetated corridors. We urge the Planning Commission to
Ron Spencer
oppose the staff proposal and reverse the trend that increasingly allows trail development to
trump environmental protection in the Tualatin Basin.
Board Member
Emeritus There is already an extensive network of trails in the Fanno Creek floodplain and riparian
Dave Marshall corridors. These areas provide critical habitat for numerous species of fish and wildlife,
including state listed sensitive species such as the Western Pond Turtles. It is time that
public officials recognize that by continuing to allow trails to encroach into environmentally
sensitive areas or to be built in a fashion that does not avoid environmental impacts,we run
the serious risk of allowing natural areas along Fanno Creek to be loved to death.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
e --
Bob Sallinger Jim Labbe
Conservation Director Urban Conservationist
March 28, 2005, Oregonian "Tualatin Basin Wildlife Plan falls short,"Jim Labbe and Sue Marshall,. Online at:
http://www.0 roan fa tin a.oig/files/Tualad n_Plan.htni