Loading...
City Council Packet - 06/23/1992 4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an L agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up .l ;;h . sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in an the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard In any order after 7:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM) C 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 9, 1992 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Englewood Park Pathway Rehabilitation b. Award Bid for Main Street Drainage Capital Improvement Project (Consent Agenda Continued on Next Page) COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 1 a IIIJ11 1111111111 1- I'll 3.3 Authorize Submittal of Application for Department of Land Conservation and Development Funds - Urban Growth Management 3.4 Appropriate Grant Awards: 1) Cook Park Boat Launch Facilities and 2) Tree Planting in Fanno Creek Park - Resolution No. 92- 1 3.5 Approve Agreement with Washington Co. for Use of MSTIP Funds for Bikeway Projects 3.6 Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Are Communications Commission (MACC) Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Meetings 3.7 Approve Municipal Court Judge Contracts for Fiscal Year 1992-93; Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 92-3L; Bruce Liebowitz - Resolution No. 92-_,~3 3.8 Approve Reappointments to Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO's) - Resolution No. 92- 7:50 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0017 SHRAUGER (NPO #7) A request to annex one parcel consicting of 1) T) arrPg to thA r;ity of Tnnrd and to chanoe the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The R-4.5 zoning allows single family residential homes, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary use, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures. LOCATION: 13030 SW Walnut Street (WCTM 2Si 4AC, tax lot 1800) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A) (B), Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2. • Public Hearing Continued from 11/19/91 and 1/28/92 • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: - NPO - Proponents (Speaking for Annexation) - Opponents (Speaking Against Annexation) - Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 92-_:?-.~; Ordinance No. 92-? 11 8:15 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0005 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT. The City Council will consider amending Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 2 IMF- HERE l . designation (Community Commercial) intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. In addition, the Council will consider amending the Community Development Code to create a new zoning district (C-C) intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. The Council also will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. a. Public Hearing Opened (Continued from April 28, 1992) b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: • Proponents (in favor of amendment) • Opponents (oppose amendment) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-_ 9:15 C6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:25 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/U-73DATE • City Administrator 9:35 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor "relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10:00 9. ADJOURNMENT a ;a =0623.92 F 3 1 i 9 COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item 3. 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 23, 1992 • Meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Jerry Offer, Associate Planner; Mike Robinson, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION a. Public Hearings to be Scheduled City Engineer advised of two policy issues which Council may want to consider for review: 1. SUBDIVISION! SUB 92-0003 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 9270001 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MIS 92-00061 HART/RENAISSANCE (NPO 7) This issue concerns the policy for water quality treatment facilities at the time of development. City Engineer advised the Council may want to review s the Planning Commission decision on Hart Subdivision relating specifically to the Council policy of making improvements at time of development to accommodate future "upstream" developments. Planning Commission decided the developer should not have to build to serve future areas. Council discussed looking at options to assist developer in salvaging some of the initial investment and to review the "oversizing" policy of the City. 2. SUBDIVISION SUB 92-0005 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 92-0003 VARIANCE VAR 92-0010 SENSITIVE LANDS SLR 92-0002 QUAESTORIMATRIX DEVELOPMENT (NPO 3) This issue deals with a planned development, 64-lot subdivision on a 33.8 acre parcel west of the intersection of 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street. The Planning Commission approved the planned development subdivision subject: to a number of conditions. The Commission did not require improvement of the entire extension of Gaarde to the parcel's northern property line. z C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 1 i lg~ll J ( After discussion, Council agreed to call up both items listed above for a public hearing, limiting the "call up" to the policy issues listed. b. Agenda Review 1. Councilor Fessler questioned Consent Agenda Item 3.6 concerning the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission contract for cable coverage. City Administrator advised that live cable coverage did not cost more than having the shows taped and shown later. 2. Mayor Edwards advised he would be requesting that item 3.8 be removed from the Consent Agenda and set over indefinitely because of the current review of board and committee restructuring. 3. Community Development Director Murphy briefly reviewed Item 4 which is a request for annexation (Shrauger). He advised staff recommended that this annexation proposal be approved. The Council policy for annexation is still being formulated. He advised that as properties annex individually, some of the annexation methods for remaining properties (such as double majority) would no longer be an option. 4. Associate Planner Offer summarized some of the issues with regard to Agenda Item 5, the Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal. He said that he was aware of some information, against the CPA, had been circulated among selected neighborhoods. He advised that this is a legislative public hearing item; Council would be dealing with a zone change and not with individual sites at this time. Mayor Edwards advised that he would be interested only in receiving testimony commenting directly on the proposed amendment not specific sites or complaints about staff, boards or committees. Community Development Director Murphy advised that this was a City- initiated issue and the Council was facing no deadline to make a decision immediately. 5. City Administrator reviewed the proposal to come before the Boundary Commission to "Add-a-Function" to Metro for the acquisition and maintenance of open space. Councilor Johnson and Councilor Fessler advised they would be available to work with the City Administrator in preparing testimony for the Boundary Commission. Council is opposed to adding a function to Metro at this time. This action would be premature given the fact that the Metro Charter has not been completed. C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 2 i RIM 6. Councilor Kasten questioned whether the casual use of fireworks by individuals was a good idea given the dry conditions. It was noted that the State Fire Marshall has issued permits for stands. The City must also issue Temporary Use Permits for fireworks stands. After discussion there was no request for action. 7. Mayor Edwards advised that he was serving on the Washington County RENIM OEM Economic Development Planning Committee. He advised that if anyone had any issues for him to bring to the committee, to please do so. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: • Mr. Doug Smithey relayed his concerns over wetlands in the City of Tigard: i.e., identifying sensitive areas in the City and the planning, locating and designing of pathways in these areas. He urged the Council to "...set up a schedule for public input on inventory, planning, and evaluation of alternatives for Goal 5 in a comprehensive and efficient fashion." Mr. Smithey submitted written materials detailing his concerns and proposals. (Note: A copy of this material is located with the Council packet material.) • Mr. Lew Scholl announced that the Tualatin River Discovery Day Celebration is taking place on Saturday, beginning at 9 a.m. The event is staged to make people aware of the Tualatin River's recreational opportunities, especially in light of the dollars being spent on environmental aspects of the Tualatin on a regional basis. • Ms. Judy Groner, 13890 S.W. 118th Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified with regard to a path being planned in the greenway in her neighborhood. She registered ; concerns with damaging the wildlife and wetlands. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approved the Consent Agenda. Mayor Edwards requested that Item 3.8 be removed at this time because the Council was currently reviewing board and committee structure. Motion was amended by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented less Item 3.8. 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 9, 1992 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for Englewood Park Pathway Rehabilitation b. Award Bid for Main Street Drainage Capital Improvement Project C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 3 !'I MEN Will 3.3 Authorize Submittal of Application for Department of Land Conservation and Development Funds - Urban Growth Management 3.4 Appropriate Grant Awards: 1) Cook Park Boat Launch Facilities and 2) Tree Planting in Fanno Creek Park - Resolution No. 92-31 3.5 Approve Agreement with Washington Co. for Use of MSTIP Funds for Bikeway Projects 3.6 Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Are Communications Commission (MACC) Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Meetings 3.7 Approve Municipal Court Judge Contracts for Fiscal Year 1992-93; Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 92-32; Bruce Liebowitz - Resolution No. 92-33 Removed from Consent Agenda: 3.8 Approve Reappointments to Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO's) Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0017 SHRAUGER (NPO #7) A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.70 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The R-4.5 zoning allows single family residential homes, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary use, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures. LOCATION: 13030 SW Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 4AC, tax lot 1800) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A) (B), Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2. a. The Public Hearing was continued from November 19, 1991 and January 28, 1992. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report was summarized by Community Development Director Murphy. (A copy of the staff report is included in the Council packet material.) d. Mayor Edwards noted that no NPO comments were received. There was no public testimony. e. Public Hearing was closed. f. RESOLUTION NO. 92-34 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA 91-17) (SHRAUGER). C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 4 i -ow i C g. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. 92-34. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-21 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-17) (SHRAUGER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. i. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-21. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91- 0005/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT. The City Council considered amending Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan designation (Community Commercial) intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. in addition, the Council considered amending the Community Development Code to create a new zoning district (C-C) intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. The Council also will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. a. Public Hearing was opened. (Continued from Aprii 28, 1992). { Mayor Edwards advised that he would be limiting individual testimony to three minutes. He also advised that the Council would not be deliberating on special areas; that is, the proposal was not site-specific. b. Councilor Fessler declared that she was on the Planning Commission when this issue came before that body. She advised that she was open to new testimony and felt she could be able to reach an impartial decision on this issue. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 5 j C. Councilor Johnson advised that although this was a legislative matter, she wanted to declare that she had been contacted by persons on the issue. She advised that this would not affect her decision. d. Mayor Edwards also noted that he had had contact from individuals on this matter; he advised this would not affect his decision. e. Associate Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the staff report. (Staff report is on file with the Council packet material). He reviewed the steps followed by the Planning Commission in their two public hearings. The approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission on a 4-3 vote. Dissenting Commissioners were not opposed to the concept of the Community Commercial Plan designation and C-C Zoning, but instead had urged changes in the proposal. In response to a question from Councilor Fessler, Mr. Offer advised of the differences between a permitted use and a conditional use. f. Public testimony: Proponents • Cal Woolery, 12356 SW 132nd Court, Tigard, advised that the NPO 7 has been involved with this issue since its inception. At first the consensus of the neighborhood was that they were against the Community Commercial zoning. Through the course of the process on the issue, the consensus of the NPO was that they found most of the Community Commercial zones in existence determined that 35,000 square feet for a grocery store (anchor) would adequately serve the surrounding neighborhood. The NPO agreed that limiting the size of the largest store would avoid negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The NPO recommends that a floor space of 30,000 square feet maximum be allowed. In response to Councilor Fessler, Mr. Woolery advised that two to eight acres would accommodate a range of activities in areas for Community Commercial development. • Katy Dorsett, 13847 SW Hindon Court, Tigard, testified as Vice-Chair of NPO 7. She outlined that the City should look at what is wanted in the Community Commercial zone; this new zone would allow medium-sized development. She advised that the NPO was unanimous in their support of the maximum size of 30,000 square feet for one store, most likely a grocery store. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 6 • Matt Marcott, Thriftway Stores, 14555 S.W. Teal, Beaverton, Oregon 97007 advised that he was representing Thriftway. He noted that he owned three Thriftway stores in the Beaverton area. He compared research done for different sizes of stores. He noted that the King City Kienow store was 18,000 square feet. The majority of convenience type stores are less than 40,000 square feet. Mr. Marcott advised that the provisions as set forth in the C-C zone would be adequate to serve a neighborhood. He cited other cities in the area and noted that the limitation on store size was not unique or outside reasonable expectations for a zone of this type. (Written material was submitted and is on file with the Council packet F material.) • John Shonkwiler, 13425 S`AI 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, advised that he was in favor of the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission with some modification. He commented on the process and noted that the focus had not been on whether or not the zone should have a grocery store, but that the focus had been on how big the grocery store should be. He advised that from a planning perspective, the City should look at the City's needs. He noted that some sites had been identified as potential C-C areas; however, not all were likely because of growth areas. He noted, for example, the Bull Mountain area would develop at less density. He noted the need for flexibility with the C-C zone and for potential use of Conditional Use permits. • Keith L.iden, McKeever/Morris, Inc., 722 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 400, Portland, Oregon, 97204, testified in conjunction with Mr. Marcott and advised that they supported the C-C zone. Mr. Liden submitted written testimony for the record. During his testimony he advised that the locationai criteria and the purpose statement for this C-C zone sets forth that this designation is intended to serve adjacent neighborhoods and should not attract a substantial amount of trade from outside the neighborhood. Because of its neighborhood orientation, the allowable size of major commercial tenants should be restricted. (Please refer to the written testimony which has been filed with the Council packet material.) i 1 • Edward J. Sullivan; Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates and Ellis, 3200 US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 7 j 97204-3635 testified in support of the C-C zone. Mr. Sullivan referred to written testimony. (Copy of the written testimony has been filed with the Council meeting material.) • Mr. Craig Petrie, The Petrie Company, 9600 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, OR 97219 testified in favor of the C-C site recommendation. Mr. Petrie referred to a map (on file with the packet meeting material) showing potential growth. With this growth, people will need a place to shop. He advised that 40,000 square foot stores do not necessarily draw people from other areas for shopping. (Please refer to written material which was submitted by Mr. Petrie and has been filed with the Council meeting material.) • Mr. Don Duncomb, 17001 NE San Rafael, Portland, OR advised that he was in favor of the C-C commercial except for the limitation on store size. Mr. Duncomb suggested that size limitations were recommended in order to limit competition. He reviewed his data which suggested that stores that are less than 40,000 square feet would be too small to be community oriented. • Mr. Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, Oregon 97056 advised that his family owns property which has been identified as a potential C-C site. Mr. Russell commended the staff and NPO on their work. He identified his major concerns with the C-C zone proposal as increased densities and traffic impacts. In general, he advised, that he favored the C-C designation with the grocery store size less than a regional store such as Costco, but similar to an Albertsons or a Safeway which could provide full service to the neighborhood. (Written testimony was submitted to the Council and is on file with the Council packet material.) • Bill Gross, Secretary of NPO 7, 3019 SW Hampshire, Portland, OR 97201 advised that, as a member of the NPO, he has advocated the interasts of the community at large with regard to this issue of a C-C zone. He noted the NPO's process and how they accommodated the balance of the community interest at large. He noted conflict with persons who were advocating that large stores would be compatible with the C-C zone located in neighborhoods. Mr. Gross referred to a document of research performed by Albertsons wherein the criteria shoppers use for selecting a store to shop was based, generally, on the quality of produce and meat rather than the size of the store. r. C CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 8 I mom Mr. Gross urged the Council to adopt the proposal incorporating the recommendations of NPO 7. Mayor Edwards advised that he, too, had read the Albertsons document, but had interpreted it differently than Mr. Gross. • David Allen, 12242 SW 131st, Tigard, Oregon, testified that people shop because of price and availability of product. He said the City should not eliminate any stores or exclude stores in the 40-50,000 square foot range. He said the more choices available the better. In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, Mr. Allen advised that he was in favor in the C-C zone but disagreed to the square footage limits. • Anna Tolbert, 12430 SW Walnut, Tigard, testified that she had lived in Tigard for 20 years. She advised that she was opposed to the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She said that such a change would have an impact on livability. Shopping is readily available throughout the area. She referred to impacts that were already significant with regard to traffic on Walnut Street. • Roger Staver, 6433 SW Lake Road, Portland, Oregon, testified that he thought the primary issue was the size question for the main store. He noted that the larger the grocery store, the smaller the other buildings would have to be because of the size limit. He advised that it was reasonable to place restrictions on the size of the store to . minimize the effect that the C-C zone would have on neighborhoods. • James Fairweather, 14060 SW Beef Bend Road, Tigard, Oregon 97224, noted he was concerned about traffic. He advised that Beef Bend was already highly impacted with people using this road as a "freeway." He advised a shopping area would only worsen the situation. • Eugene Anderson, 16420 SW 147th Avenue, objected to a shopping center near him because of the traffic impacts. • James Meyer, 14730 SW Beef Bend Road, Tigard, Oregon said that he was concerned about the traffic and the amount of development already in the area. He referred to quality-of-fife issues. He said that people in the area are adequately served for shopping. • Mr. John Reed was signed up to testify but declined to speak. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 9 • Mr. & Mrs. C. Busby signed up to testify, but declined to speak. • Wayne S. Israel, 9839 SW Kimberly, Tigard, Oregon advised that he was opposed to the CPA amendment because of quality-of-life issues and the fact that he thinks they are adequately served by commercial areas at the present time. He further stated that unsuccessful stores were not closing because of lack of size but because of saturation of the number of stores in the area. • Vicki Mote signed in to testify, but declined to speak. • Robert Long, 11975 SW Walnut, referred to the map which identified potential sites for the C-C zone designation. He advised that he was opposed because of traffic issues. He referred to the problems on Walnut Street. He advised that more lighting was needed on Walnut and that other improvements should be taken care of prior to any additional impacts. He also thought that he was adequately served by the commercial properties in existence. g. Council Comments • Councilor Johnson noted that she was disappointed that more comments were not received on whether or not this type of zoning was needed. She reflected that most of the testimony was on other issues such as square footage requirements. She advised that she thought the identification marks on the map identifying potential C-C areas should not have been introduced. Councilor Johnson advised that a great deal of written material had been presented which needed to be reviewed by Council. • Councilor Schwartz agreed with Councilor Johnson. He advised that the concept of a C-C may be good; however, he had reservations with identifying specific areas at this time. He advised, too, that a lot of information had been received and he was not prepared to make a decision. He recommended that the Council be given more time to review th-i material. • Councilor Fessler commended the people who testified. She advised that she, too, would like to review the material and testimony received during the hearing. She was concerned of the scale of some of the proposals which would include redevelopment in some areas identified on the map. • Councilor Kasten advised that he would look forward to the opportunity to review the additional documentation and viewpoints. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 10 He thanked people for coming to testify and participating in the public process. • Mayor Edwards commented on the testimony received. He referred to the quantity of information received, some of which he felt was inaccurate. He referred to the urban growth boundary, required density of development and continued pressure towards planning and containing growth within the urban growth boundary. h. The public hearing was continued to September 8, 1992. 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. lit Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, of Tigard Date: «x„0623.92 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1992 - PAGE 11 SEEMMOMEM COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice _J BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 TT 7311 Legal Notice Advertising o City of Tigard o ❑ Tearsheet No P. 1 23397 T[ a folIowuig meeting highligfits are;gublislied fox ® Tigard, O OR 97223 ® 13 Duplicate Afft agendas may be oltamed, from the rdty;Rordbr s . Bouteva►d;:TIgard; ©aegon 972 3, ar:b -Ci 11'49 6394171--- - IT . o COUNCIL BUSII'~dESs-'MEE~TI~TG T)GARD CITY HALL 'P(yR+N 1iAL1,11 131ZS 5~VHFU L Bf3LJI.$~*ARD, TTGM' QREC,~3P1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION StudY`ft iott 'o:Wn Hall Conference Ruoro) 3~ p 1 STATE OF OREGON, )ss Business Nfeet~ng (Town Frail COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) ) (7 3() P.M ) I, Ti Vti t-h Kopl,l pr YACBI Contract ReV3CtVBpaKt being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising f 'P. Director, or his principal clsrk, of the TJgard Tim `~t+bitc eanngs;~ a newspaper of general circul 1pn as defined in ORS 193.010 ' Zonef'hange Annexaban 2CA 9r OOr7 Shrau er and 193.020; Published a4igard in the fContanued from 11 a9 -91,1-28-92) Location ~3a30 3 aforesaid county and state; that the alnpt Stect a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ' Community CominerFislZone CPA91-~D5/Z()Ag1 t.~ entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and lrxecutive Sessi4n• Ue Ti$ard iry CaurieFl ~vtlI o anto I~xecat~~re consecutive in the following issues: Session; under the pmV%sions iyf: C)RS 192160 (Q (q)`a , cbsc.iss labor r 3 itaons, real proPct Y #ra ficaas, u ae anal gent . June : 18, 1992 ?ng Itagapon issges „t r . E-1 T1'731I Publish ; - - - June.183992, ._r~1 _.,,.~3.... Subscribed and swor to before me this d-1 of hme 1992 G Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ i AGENDA ITEM NO. VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED c Stn l W o~ ~O a s 6,-u c.e s D&LtQ A :-jam r~4 n zw e, o i;33 fW T ve;a p ~ ~ p 7 f 1 E I ogle O v13 Ors.S r S f X 1 5 { i i i i Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. Please sign in to testify on the following: M t a AGENDA STEM 1110., L DATE: "MA001 SUS., -i PLEASE PRINT ,~~a~er~t~.~(~~~~ lr~~~avpa- of Ana ~ ~ pc~nant (gyp ak,n~ r~gmsr~~t ~~~w.:ti.;? i ge as~~ 1={ Q77- Skiraugiar) er ~ Name Name Address Address r' Name Name r Address Address Name Name Address dress i Name Name Address Address Nam e ame -Aff Address ress j Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name i i Address Address r F Name Name i { Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount C of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: PLEASE PRINT Proponen 81 t ittg It apt ar~f Opponent (Speaking. Against.C..omprehansive: _ ~dm ark a Iv A d ent CPA I' - Plan Amer~dr~~'rt4 ~~A 91=t~fD5/done .9'1-~5,~~e~ira~nat~~-e-A~endmer~t-2®A O.rdmance Amer~cirr~~r~# Zt~A 9-!-{JOpla)s, ; N e Na a per(/~/ ~ c/ - ~J .1 ~ 1 Z - N Address -0 -7 1 Z- -15 f 22 Z S 13 I ~ am ame ♦c -I-- & r .:s ress ~rl-:ZL &N kA Name Address Address N`am^e - Name v V"`TC h_ ~G is is -cz- /'Address A;76 dress Add sss 41-2 . l 2 U [-`a -51 W ~ 7. reSS r Name Name Address Address X11 ~ l . Namp,~ - N Address ress i Y 7 -31) 5" 1 . Kim Eggs= PLEASE PRINT Wx pre py Plan s d Pty Ant r~+ g e , /Name S amWI 6~ 'U N (y V Address Address Name N / rasa dregs .70J/ /I 94,-L PeA '9773o 2-' `fJ ~,(J. 2 fL amB e % a Address Address r c_ FNarrib- 01` G Mai~re TINA Address 33) s c,~ ~w z _ e Address dress Name Name Address -Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address ame Name c l i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON , AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, -A 1W 1W ;Ae at A-PA- begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose a say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) " which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated R, q copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being reto attached an by reference made a part hereof, on the p_ day of 19 q a 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Washington Federal Savings Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of kvvIt- OFFiCIAL SEAL M. JOANN HAYES NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON Notaryublic for Orego COMMISSION NO. 006513 IVY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 5 19q~ My Commission Expires: ELs~ i"Inwmp-t j i law= i i r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 92- a AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91- 17) (SHRAUGER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by Rosemary and Harold Shrauger who are the owners of the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on June 23, 1992 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in Section 2 below is that which most closely conforms to the Washington County zoning designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section It The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 2S1 04AC/1800 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-4.5 Current Plan Designation Proposed Plan Designation Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard Low Density Residential Section 2: The property meets the definition for an established area as defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State. s PAYED: By un&nr ✓Ybi vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 0.~4d day of atherin Wheatley, City R,corder APPROVED: This _8 r day of 1992. ~j Ger Id R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as/~to form: ratt'Llyo l:. . City Attorney l~•ZZ•g2 Date C 5 11111 11 131 1111 lp III Egg= f.o1a31~2. f i 11396 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, Oregon 97223 23 June 1992 DELIVERED IN PERSON Tigard City Council City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor and Counselors: I am attaching a letter dated June 2, 1992, from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) stating that the city must more carefully explain its actions regarding wetlands, Goal 5, and determination of significance, and that periodic review remains open. I am also attaching a copy of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan, done by the City of Portland, and adopted by the Portland City Council on July 17, 1991. The Johnson Creek Plan represents a good example and one approach to comprehensive planning for compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5, done on a watershed basis rather than piecemeal. Also ORS 196 provides a mechanism for doing comprehensive wetlands plans. There are economic and environmental efficiencies in favor of doing a comprehensive plan for Goal 5. Goal 5 involves more than wetlands. The Johnson Creek Plan allowed Portland to take a holistic view of the watershed and give different levels of protection to different sites in a manner which logically ties together. I have an example of how Tigard's piecemeal approach can cause problems. On June 11, 1992, the city sent out a form letter (copy attached) to various neighborhoods informing them that bike paths were going to be put in their greenspaces. The letter does not offer opportunities for public input nor discussions of alternatives for route or design. It presents a decision. Some neighbors feel certain greenspaces should be avoided because they are sensitive and wildlife use could be disrupted. Other greenspaces may not have this problem. Proper planning and design is in order. Other neighbors do not want trails designed to street standards because teenagers may go around or through the barriers and drive on them. There seems to be a rush to spend park levy money. At the June 2, 1992 Park Board meeting, I told the Board that I am a professional fish and wildlife biologist and would be willing to assist in identifying sensitive areas in the City for free, and assist in planning, location and design of paths. No one contacted me about this before the recent letter was sent out. Based on the discussions I heard at the Park Board meeting, the City does not have enough information nor enough public input to make a decision on trails. I This is only one example. There are many ways the City impacts Goal 5 Resources on an on-going basis. I urge you to set up a schedule for public input on inventory, planning, and evaluation of alternatives for Goal 5 in a comprehensive and efficient fashion. ` E Sincerely, F Douglas A. Smithey I Attachments cc: Mel Lucas, DLCD OEM i I i v t f d ~i i i 7 C- IBM June 2, 1992 C _ DEPARTMENT OF Ed Murphy LAND Community Development Director CONSERVATION 13125 S.W. Hall. Blvd. PO Box 23397 AND Tigard, OR 97223 DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Murphy: We have received an objection from Doug Smithey to the city's final periodic review order. Specifically, the objection is that the order does not include a specific wetland site on its Goal 5 wetlands inventory. As provided by OAR 660-16-000 (5) (a) "The local government is not required to justify in its comprehensive plan a decision not to include a particular site in the plan inventory unless challenged by the Department, objectors or the Commission based on contradictory information-" (emphasis added) The objection is based on information contained in a wetlands report conducted for the city in 1989 by Scientific Resources, Inc. Mr. Smithey claims the report demonstrates that a wetland site (labelled B-2 in SRI' s report) provides valuable B - 2 = EI A RJ- wildlife habitat and should be determined t- AK "significant" and protected under Goal 5. We agree the SRI report does provide information that supports the objection- For this reason, the City of Tigard is required to explain, in writing, why this site was not included on the plan inventory. In the alternative, the city may decide to label the site as "significant" and complete the Goal 5 process. Until one of these options has been completed, the city's periodic review cannot be terminated. In addition, it appears that'the city has chosen not to inventory any of the wetland sites discussed in the SRI wetlands document, since the city is still using the wetlands inventory map B=b= Roberts developed in 1984. Considering that the SRI cov.=n°r report is certainly specific concerning location, quality and quantity of specific resource sites 1175 Court Street KE Salem, OR 97310-0590 (503) 373-0050 FAX (503)362-6705 Mille, .Ed Murphy -2- June 2, 1992 and addresses wetlands that could be considered 'significant," we request an explanation of why none of these.sites were inventoried. if you have any questions and would like information regarding wetlands and Goal 5, please call Lynn Beaton at 378-8009. Sincerely, i Michael J. Rupp Plan Review Manager i -<wet> k: cc- Doug Smithey Mel Lucas ' I i t 1 i ' r i F 1 S F i CITE O TIGARD OREGON June 11, 1992 Current Resident 138°90 SV 11 Viii vourt Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Pathway construction The City of Tigard is beginning the process of designing and building an eight foot wide asphalt pathway that W.11 connect through the public greenway between 115th Avenue and 118th Court. This greenway path has been planned and is intended to be constructed this year. We will make every effort to minimize any disturbance to the neighborhood during survey and construction. If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171. ZS1nc iy, ck er te Planner aaa.~r, cm) Gl2W 13125 Sin/ Hail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tlgarct Orman 97223 (5031639-4171 - moo= I ~ 1~II r AVC - IT 1?' a S. W. A W E TE H b ! < 124 tN v Qli. E. S.N. a n Oil 411 is o a r b. x = 1 s' vl.S R L ALY •i M A~ >If 6 i f g a O Qt 4► _ P a 6 @ ]AV N s• a7nl .re ~ r „ r~.R x a, ` q~PF 3AY I)AIS SA libto P' [N, ~ • q . 1 1 Sltt 1 A AV J. NMI! ' $ d x_~ 114M AV E S. 1. e ~ •I~f I ERS i < if y 4 Z~ 9 n quail 7t11 1 A IA L d11L 10 AVE . 1 Lo _ ~nvra' + >EM N. q g AVE a fit t r a 4+ y a ~ 6~1 { 1 i~ i s t JOHNSON CREED BASIN PROT'ECr~'~ 1 I®N PLAN Including JOHNSON CREED, REED LAKE, CRYSTAL SPRINGS POWELL BUTTE, AND MT. SCOTT AREAS t INVENTORY, ANALYSIS, AND REGULATIONS for the CONSERVATION AND GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF • WETLANDS, WATER BODIES, OPEN SPACES, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS Bureau of Planning City of Portland Adopted by City Council July 17, 1991 % Effective August 16, 1991 GO 1 i i =oil f l R f JOHNSON CREEK BASIN PROT'ECT'ION PLAN Including: ! JOHNSON CREEK, REED LA- C:3:'STA" SPR &A i POWELL BUTTE, AND NIT. SCOTT AREAS ~ j i i i f 7 i Bureau of Planning i Gretchen Kafoury, Commissioner-In-Charge Robert E. Stacey, Jr., Planning Director Robert E. Clay, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning and Urban Design i a Project Planners Gail Curtis, City Planner Duncan Brown, Senior City Planner Esther Lev, Wildlife Biologist Project Team Tim Brooks, City Planner Geoff Sauncy, Graphic Illustrator Nancy Ryan, Planning Intern t Adopted by City Council July 17, 1991 Effective August 16, 1991 Ordinance No. 164472 i i i i I I i C TABLE OF CONTZNTS f 1 1 9 page Background Information a Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose 5 Vision 5 S Sum Basin Sttuudy Area 7 Regulatory Setting 8 Public Involvement 13 Chapter 2 Background £ Introduction 17 3 Flooding 17 Geology 18 Water Quality and Quantity 18 Chapter 3 Components of the Natural Resource Area Introduction 23 Components 23 Summary 27 Chapter 4 Natural Resource Inventory Process Introduction 31 Site Selection 31 Methodology 32 Summary 32 Chapter 5 Inventory of Natural Hazard Components Introduction 35 Classification of Elements 35 Existing Regulations 35 Summary 36 Chapter 6 Inventory of Urban Design Components Introduction 39 History 39 Urban Design Components 39 Classification of Elements 40 Summary 40 page Analysis of Economic, Social, Environmental, - and Energy Consequences Chapter 7 General Analysis of Natural Resource Values and Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences of Resource Protection Introduction 45 Economic Consequences 45 Social Consequences 48 i Environmental Consequences 49 Energy Consequences 52 Summary 54 Chapter S Inventory Site Summaries and Site Analysis of Natural Resource Valued Including the Site-Specific Analysis of Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences of Resource Protection Introduction 61 How to Use This Chapter 61 Site Summaries 63 Protection Plan Chapter 9 Protection Measures for the Johnson Creek Basin Introduction 127 Protection Plan Policies and Objectives 128 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 133 Application of the Environmental Zone 133 Johnson Creek Basin Plan District 134 Guidelines 136 Model Areas Concept 141 Appendices A Glossary of Common Terms 145 B Johnson Creek Basin Plan District Regulations 149 . (City Code Chapter 33.535) C Existing Environmental Zone Regulations 155 (City Code Chapter 33.430) i 4 J 1 f 1 a a 3 page Appendices (continued) 4 D Existing Nonconforming Use Regulations 167 (City Code Chapter 33.258) E Portland Plant List 173 F Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form 185 G Johnson Creek Corridor Committee Mission 187 Statement and Program Goals H Statewide Planning Goal 5 Open Spaces, 189 Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources I Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, 191 Division 16 Requirements and Application Procedures for Complying with Statewide Goal 5 ORS 308.740-790 195 I£ (Partial) Bibliography 199 L Maps of Inventory Sites and Environmental and separate Plan District Zoning document r l i •i ANIL®N O-UND 1 Sam CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION d PURPOSE- VISION • SUMMARY • STUDY AREA • REGULATORY SETTING • State Local Regional Federal PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT • i 7 3 Name C PURPOSE The purpose of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan is to identify, evaluate, and protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, open spaces, water bodies, wetlands, and the functions and values of the Johnson Creek basin as a whole, and to adopt management recommendations on specific ways to retain and restore the natural habitat areas and values. The plan is designed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. VISION The Johnson Creek basin will be a beautiful natural resource that is carefully planned and nurtured, thanks to the collective efforts of residents, organizations, and the city. The creek will become a unique visual and functional unifying element to southeast Portland, providing neighborhood character and a sense of place, as well as a stormwater drainage system, wildlife corridor, recreation area, and source of pride for Portland. Damage from high flood waters will be history. The quality of the water will be improved to the point that natural runs of anadromous fish will be re-established to levels of the past. Development will be complementary to the needs of the creek basin, so that a harmonious balance hPtwPPn neclnle and nature will exist. A sense of shared stewardship for all landowners and recreational users of the creek will reflect the pride and commitment upheld by those who recognize it as a natural resource to be preserved for all. SUMMARY Protecting identified natural resources in the Johnson Creek corridor will occur at various levels in the land use regulation hierarchy: adoption of Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives relating directly to the Johnson Creek basin, modification of base zone densities where appropriate, application of the Environmental Zone, relocation of the Recreation Trail designation from the edge of Johnson Creek to the newly-purchased Springwater Line (previously known as the Belrose Line) railroad right-of-way, and modification of the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District to apply to much of the Johnson Creek basin. The plan district generally will protect the natural resources in three ways: 1 Limit housing densities in areas that are difficult or hazardous to build on due to physical constraints such as floodways, steep slopes, floodplains, or wetlands. The existing Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District limits housing densities to 1.05 to 4.20 units per acre, depending on the presence of conditions which make building hazardous. The Johnson Creek Plan District expands the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District for the length of Johnson Creek within the Portland city limits. 2 Expand plan district requirements to include protection of natural resource and neighborhood values. In addition to the variable zoning density requirements, the plan district is amended to protect resource characteristics which have been identified as having water quality, environmental, or neighborhood value. These include: exemptions for certain activities in Environmental-zoned areas which are compatible with neighborhood character and protected resources; retention of treed areas and native landscaping to aid in groundwater recharge, provide more habitat, control erosion, and continue the semi-rural neighborhood character; and provision of stormwater detention or retention facilities to improve water quality, aid in groundwater recharge, and reduce peak flood levels. 5 ~l VANCOUVER N POg71A10 IIII AFOM ML AiVg6R if~MNY TROUTDALE s p BUFVAM ux eraaK P RTL AVD REs r ' pOMF11, aND. ~ ~Y~N BEAVERTON JOHNSON CREEK 1 A HAPPY VALLEY \ $ , BORING +Mrmy I "Mrs Legend J®lias® a Creel; Basin Ilan District 0 Johnson Creek Watershed JOHNSON CREEK ...WA1.r~ERSHED 6 I 3 Protect or restore habitat within the resource area as an approval criteria for new development. This is accomplished either through environmental review for proposed development in Environmental zones, or plan district regulations. The level or threshold for improvements depends upon the amount of proposed development. Emphasis is on: protecting or restoring riparian areas along Johnson Creek, its tributaries, and drainageways; connecting upland resource areas such as parks, steep slopes, and major forested areas with the creek corridor to aid in the passage of wildlife; and promoting the use of native vegetation (especially trees) throughout the plan district. BASIN STUDY AREA Johnson Creek extends through the cities of Milwaukie, Portland, and Gresham, as well as portions of unincorporated Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. The total Johnson Creek drainage basin is about 54 square miles in size (of which only 44 square miles contribute runoff), and up to three miles wide. It also includes the cities of Cottrell, Boring, and Happy Valley. Within southeast, Portland Johnson Creek follows a generally east-west path parallel to Foster Road and the Springwater Line, a railroad right-of-way recently purchased by the City. The study area extends from SE 174th Avenue and SE Jenne Road west to Johnson Creek's confluence with the Willamette River in the City of Milwaukie, and from the southern city limits along the crest of the Boring Lava Hills northward, encompassing Powell Butte, Beggar's Tick Marsh, Crystal Springs Creek, Reed Lake, and other natural resources related to the creek. It includes the westerly 13 miles of the creek's total 25 mile length, its tributaries and riparian areas, as well as wetlands and well as uplands which add to the natural resource values of the basin. As part of this plan, resource protection is for only those areas within the City of Portland jurisdictional limits, although resources outside city limits were inventoried. For example, there is stretch of the creek between SE 45th and SE 76th Avenues that has been inventoried but not analyzed because it is in either unincorporated Clackamas County or the City of Milwaukie. Between SE 117th and 145th Avenues the creek also "snakes" in and out of Multnomah County. As Portland annexes lands which are in the Johnson Creek basin, the inventory information will be used to aid in determination of appropriate base and overlay zones. REGULATORY SETTING State Statewide Land Use Planning Oregon's statewide land use planning program was established under Senate Bill 100, adopted by the Legislature in 1973 and included in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) as Chapter 197. This legislation created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and gave it the authority to adopt mandatory Statewide Planning Goals. These goals provide the framework for Oregon's cities and counties to prepare comprehensive plans. There are nineteen Statewide Planning Goals, fifteen of which apply to the Johnson Creek Corridor. After local adoption, comprehensive plans are submitted to the LCDC for review to ensure consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals. Portland's Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council in 1980, effective January 1, 1981, and was acknowledged by LCDC in May 1981. 7 i Periodic Review In 1981, the Legislature amended ORS 197 to require periodic review by the state of { acknowledged comprehensive plans. As stated in state statute, the purpose of periodic review is to ensure that each local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations are in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and coordinated with the plans and programs of state agencies. Under state law, four factors must be considered during periodic review. The second factor, "new Statewide Planning Goals or rules," relates to new Goals or rules adopted since a comprehensive plan was acknowledged such that the plan or its land use regulations no longer comply. The specific requirement to complete Portland's natural resources inventory and analysis is based on LCDC's adoption, in the fall of 1981, of a new administrative rule for Statewide Planning Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. The Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan updates the City's Comprehensive Plan inventory and analysis of wetlands, water bodies, open spaces, and wildlife habitat areas in the Johnson Creek watershed, and addresses the new administrative rule requirements. The Statewide Planning Goal 5 -and Administrative Rule Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires cities and counties "to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." When Portland's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1980, however, there was little guidance as to how the Goal requirements should be met. In the fall of 1981, subsequent to acknowledgement of Portland's Plan, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted administrative mle, OAR 660, Division 16: Requirements and Application Procedures for Complying with Statewide Goal 5. The steps which a jurisdiction must go through in order to comply with Goal 5 include: • inventoring resource sites; • analyzing the economic, social, environmental and energy,(ESEE) consequences of conflicting uses on the resource; and • determining the level of protection required for the resource. The inventory is done first and includesxthe location, quantity, and quality of the resources present. Location of a resource must include a map or description of the boundaries of the resource site, and be as accurate as available information allows. Resource quantity requires consideration of the relative abundance of the resource. Quality of a resource is determined by comparing the resources within categories. If a resource is not important, it may be excluded from further consideration for purposes of local land use planning, even though state and federal regulations may apply. If information is not available or is inadequate to determine the importance of the resource, the local government must commit itself to obtaining the necessary data and performing the analysis in the future. At the conclusion of this process, all remaining sites must be included in the inventory and are subject to the remaining steps in the Goal 5 process. The next step in the Goal 5 process includes the identification of conflicts with the protection of inventoried resources. This is done primarily by examining the uses allowed in broad zoning categories. A conflicting use, according to the Goal 5 Administrative Rule, is one which, if allowed, could negatively impact the resource. These impacts are considered in analyzing the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences. 8 If there are no conflicting uses for an identified resource, the jurisdiction must adopt policies C. and regulations to ensure that the resource is preserved. Where conflicting uses are identified, the ESEE consequences must be determined. The impacts on both the resource and on the conflicting use must be considered, as must other applicable Statewide Planning Goals. The ESEE analysis is adequate if it provides a jurisdiction with reasons why decisions are made regarding specific resources. Other Statewide Planning Goals There are nineteen Statewide Planning Goals. Fifteen apply to the Johnson Creek basin. Some of these goals establish a decision making process, such as Goal 1, Citizen Involve- ment, and Goal 2, Land Use Planning. These state mandated procedures were applied duri- ng the preparation, review, and presentation of the various drafts of this protection plan. Other Statewide Planning Goals address specific topics. Examples include Goal 9, Economy of the State, Goal 10, Housing, and Goal 14, Urbanization. Uses addressed by these goals were identified as conflicting with natural resource protection and required analysis under the Goal 5 Administrative Rule. This protection plan incorporates the requirements of these goals with the ESEE analyses. The Willamette River Greenway Goal, Statewide Goal 15, does not apply to Johnson Creek because the confluence is under the jurisdiction of the City of Milwaukie. Therefore, Goal 15 is not considered by this protection plan. Statewide Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 address only coastal and ocean resources and therefore do not apply to Johnson Creek. Egon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( DF ) - ODFW has a Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) which is in part being. implemented on Crystal Springs where there is a STEP-sponsored, volunteer-operated fish hatchery. Local Portland Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 - Environment The purpose of Portland's Environment Goal is to, "Maintain and improve the quality of Portland's air, water and land resources and protect neighborhoods and business centers from detrimental noise pollution." Policies and objectives of this goal generally meet or exceed the requirements of the Statewide Planning Goal 5. The City Council, city adminis- trators, and city hearings officers make all decisions affecting the use of land in conform- ance with the policies of Portland's Comprehensive Plan. Since state approval in 1981, conformance with the Plan also means conformance with the Statewide Planning Goals. Ordinances adopted through 1991 added new Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 policies committing the City to regulate development in groundwater areas, drainage ways, natural areas, scenic areas, wetlands, riparian areas, water bodies, uplands, wildlife habitats, aggregate sites, and in areas affected by noise and radio frequency emissions. These ordinances also established new Goal 8 objectives, which commit the City to controlling hazardous substances; conserving aquifers, drainage ways, wetlands, water bodies, riparian areas, and fish and wildlife habitat; prioritizing properties for public acquisition, cooMinating City regulations with the regulations of state, federal, and other affected local governments; avoiding harm to natural resources; mitigating unavoidable harm to protected natural resources; maintaining vegetative cover, improving water quality; and preventing soil erosion and stormwater flooding. i 9 'The policies anal ohiectives of Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 meet the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and are thus incorporated in the section of this protection plan - which analyzes economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. Portland Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 - Housing The housing densities that the City of Portland is responsible for providing per the City's adopted housing goal does not include areas located in a floodway, 100-year flood plain, or on hazardous hillsides. With the possible exception of portions of the Boring Lava Hills, essentially all areas recommended for environmental overlay zoning within the Johnson . Creek Corridor Plan District fall into one of these three categories. Other Portland Comprehensive Plan Goals There are nine Portland Comprehensive Plan goals in addition to Goals 8 (Environment) and 10 (Housing). These goals address urban development, neighborhoods, economic development, transportation, energy, citizen involvement, metropolitan coordination, plan review and administration, and public facilities. As with the Statewide Planning Goals, required procedures are addressed in the preparation, review, and presentation of the Plan. Applicable goals are addressed in the analyses of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. Powell Butte Mt. Scott Plan District Chapter of the P hind 7nnina QQde A major element of this Plan is replacement of the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District (DBMS) with the Johnson Creek Corridor Plan District. The PBMS Plan District was created as part of the zoning code rewrite project. Regulations were developed in 1974 as " the Variable Density (V) Overlay Zone, which were later incorporated into the existing plan district with only minor modifications. The plan district applies to the areas for which it is named (Powell Butte and Mt. Scott). Legend Johnson Creek Basin Plan District ® Plan District PLAN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 10 f m- .,,wnrwe of the PBMS Plan District is to provide for safe, orderly, and efficient tbT an development of lands subject to physical constraints such as 5~.,..Pr and hazardous slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and that lack streets, sewers, and water services by further limiting densities on low density single dwelling (R10)-zoned land. All land in the plan district is - divided into five land classifications, Classes I through V, as shown in the Development Manual of the Powell Butte Mt. Scott Density Development Study. Class I lands are generally the steepest sites having the greatest amount of natural hazards and least services, while Class V lands are generally flat without natural hazards or water features. Housing densities are limited to between. 1.05 and 4.20 units per acre, depending on the presence of building and services constraints. - Scenic Resources ning Commission has forwarded to the City Council for adoption a Scenic The Plan Resources Protection Plan.' This plan recommends that Johnson Creek be designated as a scenic corridor. It also recommends designation of the following sites within the Johnson Creek Study area as scenic sites: Leach Botanical Garden (Inventory Site 19); Reed Campus (Reed Lake is Inventory Site 1); and Beggar's Tick Marsh (Inventory Site 160J).2 As part of the Plan new zoning code provisions for scenic resource protection are recommended. The recommended code describes the relationship of scenic and environmental protection measures: "When an environmental zone has been applied at the location of a designated scenic resource, the environmental review must include considerations of scenic qualities of the resource as identified in the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences (Scenic Sites, Vol. V) analysis for scenic resources. The development standards of [the scenic protection chapter] should be considered as part of that review." The analysis of the Scenic Resources Protection Plan is incorporated by reference and is not repeated in the analysis section of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan. Scenic value was only one factor weighed in the Bureau of Planning's decisions to recommend environmental protection for sites associated with Johnson Creek. Scenic corridor development standards have already been recommended by the Scenic Resources Protection Plan. These scenic standards are not repeated in the regulations section of this protection plan. Mineral and Agmgate Sites The City has completed its inventory, analysis, and recommendations for mineral and aggregate sites.` This inventory identified no potential aggregate sites in the City of Portland portion of the Johnson Creek basin. All decisions concerning the use of mineral and aggregate resources in the Johnson Creek basin have been made, so this protection plan does not address this use in the analyses of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences. Bureau of Egildings The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was enacted by Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development and is implemented through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Its purposes are to discourage future unwise development in flood plains, and to offer insurance at subsidized rates to present flood plain occupants. To qualify for this coverage, the local government must enact adequate flood plain regulations. In Portland, these are enforced through the Bureau of Buildings. 11 FEMA has identified a 100-year flood plain which covers about 1600 acres of the Johnson Creek Basin. Much of it is in the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan area, although part extends beyond the plan boundaries. Included are about 820 -acres of residential land, 120 acres of commercial , 400 acres of industrial, and 260 acres of parks or open space. Over 20,000 people live or work in the flood plain. In effect, FEMA regulations prohibit development within the floodway unless it can be demonstrated that the areas subject to flooding will not be increased and that flood waters will not be impeded. - Bureau of Environmental Services The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), in cooperation with state and federal agencies, is analyzing water quality and flooding concerns in the Johnson Creek basin as part of their Clean Rivers Program, in a comprehensive effort to determine the extent of flooding and water quality problems in Johnson Creek. The final product is expected to be a resources management plans or Johnson Creek. The water quality analysis includes identifying potential contaminant sources and determining how contaminants enter the creek, water quality impacts on fish populations and other aquatic life, and recreational uses of the creek. The management plan will include an evaluation of potential strategies for correcting flood and water quality problems. It is being developed through an extensive public involvement process. A Johnson Creek Corridor Committee provides coordination with interested citizens and other agencies. The goals of the management plan are attached as Appendix F. The Bureau of Environmental Services project represents an opportunity for coordination of planning and resource protection efforts. The final product will provide technical data that can help to determine effective. means of mitigation. The time flame for the BES project is a minimum of 24 months. Environmental Zone protective measures must be in place in early 1991. However, once the management plan for Johnson Creek is completed, it is expected to be integrated into the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan. Bureau of Parks and Recreation The Bureau of Parks and Recreation is working in conjunction with the Bureau of Environmental Services to develop a recreational trail and master plan for the newly- acquired Springwater Rail Line. The trail master plan is expected to be completed in late 1991, and will be a major component of the 40 Mile Loop system. Connections between this and selected points of Johnson Creek will be identified, and will occur through parks, public rights-of-way, or other public property. As part of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan, the east-west recreation trail designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan is shifted from along Johnson Creek bankline to the Springwater Rail Line right-of-way east of SE 71st Avenue. Multnomah County Vector Control Multnomah County Vector Control provides limited services related to Johnson Creek and . habitat protection in terms of assisting property owners with information on identifying and removing nuisance plant and animal species. ` 12 F Regional The Metropolitan Greenspaces Study is underway to identify natural areas through the Metropolitan Service District (ME IRO) in the a ordand riet o_politan ama, including Johnson Creek. METRO will make efforts to coordinate programs between cities and 1 counties, and to provide a regional approach to resource conservation. Federal The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a flood evaluation to identify the extent of flooding problems along Johnson Creek, and to determine if there is justification to provide federal funding for correction. The project began October 1989 and a draft report was completed December 1990. Local sponsorship of a project is required for federal involvement and funding. This project is preliminary and conceptual by nature, and the Cities of Portland and Gresham are local sponsors. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Bureau of Planning-sponsored public involvement in the planning process began in the summer of 1990, with two public meetings held prior to the analyses stage to explain the planning process and to provide opportunities for input. Those meetings were held in July and August 1990 at the Woodstock Community Center. A presentation was given to the Southeast Uplift, Land-Use Committee in October 1990. A public meeting to review the Discussion Draft was held November 1st at Precision Castparts at SE 45th Avenue and Johnson Creek Boulevard. Planning Bureau staff then met with neighborhood and citizen groups to discuss the purpose of the project, material and recommendations in the Discussion Draft, and possible changes. A Proposed Draftt, which was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on March 26th, reflected many of the changes suggested in these meetings and subsequent correspondence. At this public hearing testimony was received from residents and property owners, neighborhood associations, and interested parties. On April 23rd the Planning Commission adopted the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan with amendments to reflect testimony received, and forwarded it to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. 1 Portland Bureau of Planning, Scenic Views, Sites, and Corridors: Scenic Resources Protection Plan, Portland, Oregon, 1990 (nine parts, multiple volumes). 2 ibidem, Scenic Site, Volume V. pages 2, 12, and 24. 3 ibidim, part vi, proposed City Code section 33.480.050, page 6 (language in brackets is not part of the original). 4 Portland Bureau of Planning, Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory, Portland, Oregon, 1988. 13 C CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION • FLOODING • GEOLOGY* WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY • 15 f r INTRODUCTION Johnson Creek is a tributary of the Willamette River, roughly eighteen miles long, originating west of the Sandy River Canyon, east of the City of Gresham. It flows west through the City of Gresham, east Multnomah County, the City of Portland, unincorporated north Clackamas County, and finally through the City of Milwaukee to its confluence with the Willamette River just north of Elk Rock Island. From its origin in rural lands east of the Portland metropolitan area, Johnson Creek flows through progressively more urbanized land. Johnson Creek- is one of the few Free-flowing creeks within the Portland city limits, and the only major one on the east side. It links abutting natural areas, parks, and wetlands with highly urbanized residential and industrial areas. The creek is a continuum where differing land uses and their associated impacts and inputs can be seen and felt throughout its length. This very intricate relationship of the Johnson Creek basin (the area the stream drains and flows through); not only the entire channel and the abutting land uses, but also the wetlands, lakes, groundwater resources and other streams and rivers in the system, requires its treatment as a single management unit. Natural areas and water features in the study area were identified and inventoried in the 13-mile stream reach defined by the Portland-Gresham city limits to the east and the Portland-Milwaukee city limits to the west. FLOODING Due to its geographic features, Johnson Creek has historically been a "flashy" water body, with the potential for flood waters to rise quickly and either recede quickly or persist for / some time. As a result, development patterns throughout its watershed have recognized the flood potential and responded to it in various ways. Impermeable clay soils of the steep-sided Boring Lava hills to the south of the creek contribute rapid storm water runoff in the winter and as such have been a major cause of flooding. Early settlers on the floodplain sometimes welcomed and encouraged the floods. When a landslide occurred on Mt. Scott in 1921, covering portions of Johnson Creek near 112th Avenue, farmers took advantage of the event by diverting the creek, hoping to encourage flooding and subsequent silting of their fields. In the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) cleaned and lined the creek channel. However, the channel has not been consistently maintained, and no significant improvements to it have occurred since. The channel has been partially filled in many areas with silt washed off from adjacent rural and urban lands, and stands of trees and brush have now grown up on these silt deposits. The typical 1:1 riprapped slopes created by the WPA are not conducive to plant growth, and access to the creek is limited for wildlife. Water flow in the creek is severely restricted and flooding can be exacerbated by these channel restrictions. As urban development progressed, an increasing proportion of the watershed area was covered with impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, parking lots, and rooftops. This increase in impervious surface, coupled with the removal of native vegetation, resulted in the land surface becoming less permeable, further modifying stormwater runoff quantity and timing. Development activities and urban land uses have decreased infiltration of water through the soil and altered historic drainage patterns so that the quantity of runoff directly r delivered to the stream has markedly increased. 17 i The total drainage basin of Johnson Creek is 54 square miles, 44 of which contribute ~ runoff. Major floods, especially an intermediate regional flood or a. standard project flood, j can cause substantial damage. During 1964, the creels crested in 36 hours, rising at an. I average rate of 0.3 feet per hour with a maximum rate of 1.3 feet per hour. It then remained above bankfull stage for 53 hours. Attempts have been made to control increased runoff in localized situations. The use of percolation sumps (dry wells) are the primary drainage system in areas which are porous, such as those found north of the creek. Combination sewers are used to collect stormwater runoff in some northwest basin locations. However, in other areas north of the creek such as Interstate 205 freeway and Gresham, storm sewer pipelines directly discharge runoff. On the south side of the creek soils are more impervious with high potential for runoff and therefore are not capable of easily absorbing water with the use of sumps. Here storm sewer pipes are used to direct runoff to Johnson Creek and its tributary streams. Recent basin-wide efforts to provide flood relief have failed, in part, because of lack of a local sponsor with implementation authority and an acceptable flood control plan. The cities of Portland, Gresham, Milwaukee, and Happy Valley, and Multnomah and Clackamas Counties share jurisdiction over the 23 u,:le-long creek basin as it flows the from the Cascade foothills to the Willamette. Until recently there has been no single jurisdiction willing to take overall responsibility. However, with recent annexations to the City of Portland, it is increasingly in Portland's interest to take a larger role in creek management. The Portland Bureau of Environmental Services has assumed a coordination role in the development of a management plan, to address flooding and water quality issues on a basin-wide, multi jurisdictional level. Completion of this plan is expected in about two years, and may include local sponsorship of federal flood control projects. Upon adoption by the City, portions of the plan may be included, where applicable, as zoning and other land use regulations. GEOLOGY The majority of the Johnson Creek drainage basin is characterized by the geologic classification of alluvium. Alluvial deposits include all of the material in the channels of present-day streams, their flood plains, and abandoned channels. Alluvium consists of very poorly consolidated gravel and sand in the stream channels, gravel and sand lenses usually overlain by silt and minor clay on the flood plain, and organic material usually in abandoned channels beneath several feet of silt or clay.' Alluvial soils are deposited and subject to erosion and redeposition by water. The thickness of the alluvium is variable. The sand and gravel is generally thin and rests on bed rock in small stream channels where gradients are high. The smaller flood-plain deposits of silt and gravel tend to be narrow, thinning out at the canyon sides, where-.s the larger flood plains may contain recent alluvium up to 30 fee, thick or more. WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Pollution in Johnson Creek has been an issue for several years. From 1970 to 1975 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality studied the lower 17 miles of Johnson Creek and identified several water quality problems. It found high levels of nutrients (nitrogen or phosphorous based compounds) which can cause undesirable growths of algae and aquatic weeds. The study also noted a drop in the amount of oxygen durinf summer low flow conditions, a condition that may threaten fish and other aquatic life. 18 t sum i C Portland State University collected water quality data from Johnson Creek between fall of 1979 and spring of 1981. Water quality measurements and samples were collected during both high and low flow conditions, and provided information on contamination from human or animal wastes.' IBM i The United States Geologic Society (USGS) investigated water quality along the lower 23 miles of Johnson Creek during 1988. This study identified concentrations of heavy metals and manmade organic compounds in bottom material during low flow conditions. Because many pollutants will attach to sediments, analysis of chemicals in bottom material collected during low flow is a useful technique for determining the general location of pollutant i# sources.4 I Increased runoff and decreased infiltration during the winter has severely restricted ground water recharge. Rapid runoff over impermeable surfaces has had an effect on decreased groundwater levels necessary to provide streamflow to Johnson Creek during the drier months. Groundwater is the predominate source of streamflow in the summer. Decreasing summer flow as urbanization has occurred has caused local pending, stagnation, and ' increased temperatures in some parts of the creek. In addition, several major pollutants have been identified that affect the creek's water 1 quality: sediment carded into the creek from urban and agricultural runoff; fecal contamination from failing cesspools and septic tanks in nearby areas; organic pollutants such as DDT and PCB, and heavy metals. These factors and other pollution sources have contributed to the deterioration of fish and wildlife habitat and decreased recreational potential in Johnson Creek, i C 1 Donald A. Hull, State Geologist, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Geology and Geologic Hazards of Northwestern Clackamas County, Oregon, 1979. 2 Portland Bureau of Planning files, Memorandum, Johnson Creek Water Quality and Flood Control, August 30, 1989. 3 ibid 4 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services files, Johnson Creek Sediment Report, March 1989. i r i C 19 1 CHAPTER 3 COMPONENTS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE AREA INTRODUCTION - COMPONENTS Basin Geography Creek and Riparian Corridor Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Uplands SUMMARY • 21 ( INTRODUCTION Natural resource components can be broken into three functional categories: wildlife habitat, natural hazards, and urban design. Within each category, components can be identified which singly or collectively contribute to the urban environment. The Johnson Creek basin is a complex system of natural resource components which, when combined, l form a comparatively rich and valuable urban design element and ecosystem, considering its history of urbanization. Resource value is also in the form and location of the basin, as well as the simple physical presence of individual components. This chapter gives a brief overview of the major components as they relate geographically, their interrelationships with one another, what is present, and what could be done to protect, enhance, or expand each. The purpose of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan is generally to identify these components, their importance, impacts of protecting or not protecting them, and a decision as to whether or not protection is warranted. Subsequent chapters identify and describe in greater detail individual components and their overall value in the urban environment, impacts of protection, and recommendations for protection. COMPONENTS Basin Geography As described previously, the Johnson Creek basin is a linear corridor extending from rural lands well east of Gresham, through several major cities and unincorporated urbanized areas, to the Willamette Fiver in the heart of the Portland metropolitan area. It connects the rural areas of the Cascade foothills to several major urban open spaces and natural areas, acting as a wildlife corridor for the introduction, recharge, and passage of species not normally observed in large cities, including deer, bear, and many woodland and meadow birds. Steep, unstable slopes, potential flooding, and lack of services have discouraged urban development in major parts of the Johnson Creek basin, so there remain substantial areas that are either undeveloped or retain many of the historic native landscape ecosystem characteristics (native plants, deciduous/conifer mix, surface drainage, etc.). However, as development occurs, land is disturbed in a manner that promotes conditions for exotic plants, and commercial landscaping encourages the replacement of native plants with exotic and invasive species. Existing pervious surfaces throughout the basin allow groundwater recharge, increasing overall water quality and the health of the creek. Natural drainageways also allow sediment trapping, protecting the main creek and related fish habitat. To retain significant resource values, preservation or re-establishment of native plants and forest structure is important. Reducing development densities in hazard areas, encouraging planned unit developments to retain existing drainageways and forested areas, and retaining older native trees are all important actions in retaining basin and water quality values. To protect urban development from natural hazards, development must be restricted in the flood plain and on steep slopes that are subject to landslides. Additionally, stormwater runoff may need to be retained or detained to decrease "flashiness" of the creek, and to stabilize or decrease flood levels. 23 114 A Creek and Riparian Corridor The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has declared Johnson Creek a "water quality limited" stream, as certain pollutants exceed state standards. These standards have been set to protect both the public and wildlife of the state. According to the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, organic pollutants such as DDT, PCB, and heavy metals are found in the water. The creek also receives high sediment loads and fecal coliform. Certain activites, such as fishing or swimming, are used as goals or indicators of acceptable water quality. Fisheries resources are the primary water quality indicator in this plan. Major water quality problems influencing fish resources in Johnson Creek appear to be suspended sediments, elevated water temperatures, low summer flows, toxic discharges from point sources, and occasional low dissolved oxygen levels. Historically, DEQ has reported the lowest dissolved oxygen readings between SE 92nd and SE 190th Avenues, attributing these low values to decomposition of organic material in stagnant pools. More recent data collected by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) during low flow periods in 1988 showed a much higher dissolved oxygen level. Fish Habitat Little inventory or research work relating to fisheries habitat has been conducted in Johnson Creek. Johnson Creek has been viewed primarily in terms of flood control function rather than fisheries habitat since its channelization in the early 1930s by the WPA. A stream survey conducted in 1935 by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) described the creek as "...scarcely more than a badly polluted slough with large areas of the bottom covered with mud, silt, and debris." A few spring Chinook and steelhead were reported to enter the creek during high water. However, the creek was described as having little value for salmon spawning due to "...the high degree of pollution, destruction, obstruction, flood control improvements, and the heavily populated surroundings which make the stream practically useless as a salmon producer." Despite its history of being poor habitat for salmonids, several species currently inhabit Johnson Creek. Coho salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, and rainbow trout have been reported on occasion. Most are found high in the system (Gresham and upstream). Fall Chinook will, on rare occasion, stray from the Willamette River and enter the downstream portion of the creek (lower two miles). Spawning will occur if conditions are acceptable (adequate dissolved oxygen, moderate water temperature, sufficient flow, and unsilted gravel). The lower two miles is strongly influenced by Crystal Springs, which tends to moderate temperatures and improve water quality. Sufficient numbers of adult steelhead are present in the upper system to maintain the population, but most steelhead fry die off in the summer during low flow periods, and when water temperatures reach or exceed 68 degrees. Typically fry do not survive downstream from Gresham. In the recent past, local anglers have reported catching adult steelhead in the lower creek below Crystal Springs Creek near McLoughlin Boulevard, and above Crystal Springs near the Tacoma Street crossing. Residents of Johnson Creek recount that historically "...there were so many steelhead in Johnson Creek that you could walk across in the creek on their backs."' 24 Salmonid angling is focused primarily on catchable rainbow trout released by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) between April and May of each year. Approximately 2,000 fish are released between Johnson Creek Park, at the confluence of Crystal Springs and Johnson Creeks, and SE 82nd Avenue. In most years, at least a few adult steelhead and Coho are caught above Gresham, based on "punch card" results. Since the 1935 survey, which detailed stream habitat during the Works Progress Administration (WPA) channelization process, most fisheries inventory work in Johnson Creek has been in response to reported fish kills. Based on records kept by ODFW, Johnson Creek has populations of redside shiners, dace, suckers, lampreys, squawfish, and sculpins. Brown bullheads and crappie are rarely found but have been documented in past fish kills. These species are better suited to Willamette River conditions and may have entered from the lower creek or been released from private ponds. The Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) program maintains a hatch box in Crystal Springs Creek, a tributary to Johnson Creek. This program has been operating in Crystal Springs since 1981. The hatch box is operated by Clyde Brummel and the Sellwood-Moreland Improvement League (SMILE). Approximately 15,000 Coho and steelhead eggs are hatched annually. Most fingerlings remain in the creek for approximately one year, leaving the Johnson Creek system between spring and fall of the following year. Resident cutthroat trout reside above a dam at Reed College. Fish Habitat Requirements Various fish species are adapted to survival in different living environments. Separate characteristics which describe these environments can be placed in the general categories of r water quality (chemical pollutants, sediment, dissolved oxygen, etc.), water temperature, flow, bottom conditions (gravel, sand, or silt), cover, and food. Vegetation that borders most waterbodies, particularly rivers, streams and creeks, is referred to as riparian. Loss of riparian vegetation and its replacement with impervious surfaces affects water quantity and quality by increasing water temperature extremes, sediment loading and water runoff, and decreasing groundwater recharge. Riparian vegetation influences water quality and quantity, having an important effect on the growth, density, and biomass of anadromous and resident fish. Roots of herbaceous and woody vegetation tend to stabilize streambanks, retard erosion, and in places, create overhanging banks which serve as cover for fish. Live trees with overhanging canopies provide shading and control water temperatures suitable for spawning, egg and fry incubation, and rearing of anadromous and resident salmonids, and warm water fish. Studies in the last decade have clearly shown how live trees along the streamside and their canopies directly control water temperatures. Additionally, riparian vegetation provides food as insects which drop into the creek from overhanging branches. Removing the forest canopy adjacent to and within the riparian area produces higher summer and lower winter water temperatures. Not all the impacts are detrimental, as increased light reaching the stream can result in short-term increases in algae and invertebrates which form the diet of fish. The cumulative effects of extensive canopy removal, however, might cancel potential benefits by prolonged increase in water temperature and increasing sediment over the long run. C In summary, riparian vegetation plays an important role in protecting water quality. T his streamside buffer of vegetation also strongly influences the quality of habitat for anadromous and resident fish as well as providing some of the most productive and diverse 25 habitat for terrestrial wildlife populations. Because there are many varied types of riparian vegetation buffer strips depending upon topography and stream order, there is no single descriptive definition. There is general agreement that these riparian buffer strips have certain common features. These features consist of a mix of native vegetation combining herbaceous ground cover, understory shrubs, and overstory trees The overstory trees may contain both deciduous and coniferous trees, generally dominated by deciduous species. Wetlands also play an important role in the health of a water body such as Johnson Creek. General values have been well documented in previous studies by the City for establishment of the Environmental Zone and its application to the Columbia Corridor and Balch Creek basin. Under certain circumstances, they are the most biologically productive lands, serving as an interface between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. For the Johnson Creek basin, functional values of wetlands include flood control, erosion control, sediment trapping, water quality, groundwater recharge and discharge, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, education, and recreation. Due to filling and urbanization, few wetlands remain along Johnson Creek. The larger ones within the Portland urban services boundary are Beggar's Tick Marsh at SE 111th Avenue, north of the Springwater Line (in i unincorporated Multnomah County), one near the fish ladders at SE 42nd Avenue, north of the creek, and one at the headwaters of Crystal Springs Creek in the vicinity of Reed Lake. Smaller ones are usually along the creek or associated with tributaries or drainageways. Because of their rarity, retention of the remaining wetlands is critical to the overall environmental quality of the creek and basin as a whole. Sediment can affect fish survival if the concentrations are high enough. Excessive deposited sediment has serious impacts upon salmonid production by limiting the flow of intragravel water. This limits the supply of oxygen available to incubating eggs and alevins. If concentrations are high and persistent, silt may accumulate on the gill filaments of adult fish actually inhibiting the ability of the gills to aerate the blood, eventually causing death by anoxemia and carbon dioxide retention. Vegetation, particularly in wetlands, drainageways, and riparian areas can significantly reduce sedimentation in the creek bed through either filtering the particulates out as water passes through, or slowing flow velocities and allowing particulates to precipitate out. Historically, large trees in the riparian buffer strip were the source of large debris (tree trunks and large limbs). The importance of large organic debris in streams has only recently been recognized as being an abundant and important part of natural forested streams. The fallen trees and logs provide highly productive side channels for food, resting pools, cover, and the accumulation of spawning gravel. Logs in' the stream bed decay over time and serve as a basic food source for invertebrates, which in turn then become part of the available fish food. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Uplands Riparian systems contain the three critical habitat components: water, cover, and food. Due to the variety of pi:int composition and structure, this natural resource element can encompass a great diversity of wildlife. A buffer strip of riparian vegetation left along streams to maintain suitable water temperatures for aquatic life and reducing impairment of water quality is considered excellent wildlife habitat. The value of a given riparian habitat varies from species to species, and even seasonally for the same species. In practice, it is very difficult to separate all the possible influences on a species habitat preferences. The composition and structure of the upper canopy may exert the greatest influence for some species, while other species may select nesting and foraging areas on the basis of the understory, size of branches, extent of herbaceous ground cover, or the intermingling of x several of these factors. 26 f Many wildlife species use riparian zones but there is a scarcity of information on the habitat requirements for most of them. Songbird concentrations in riparian zones are often noted as being very high. Possibly because most species are diurnal and conspicuous by song or sight, there have been more riparian bird and habitat association studies than for any other wildlife group. Forested riparian vegetation is considered excellent songbird habitat and is often inhabited by species with specific habitat requirements. Riparian areas are important not only to breeding bird populations but to winter residents and migrants as well. Breeding bird densities in riparian communities are dependent upon specific riparian vegetative type and, as a result, are generally higher than in the surrounding habitat. The specific width or size of the forest buffer strip necessary for songbirds is difficult to determine. Territory sizes and shapes vary with vegetative structure, population density, richness of habitat, food resources and bird species. Manual (in press) found species richness of bind populations in Montana were related to the width of the riparian strip and the complexity of the vegetation. His study suggested the width of the riparian buffer strip and the volume of vegetation could be important in determining the bird species composition. Uplands also play an important role in overall wildlife habitat of the basin, as well as having a direct influence on the creek corridor. Because uplands are rarely inundated, plant species differ from those in wetlands and riparian areas. This diversity provides different habitat characteristics, attracting or helping to support a greater variety of wildlife. There is much evidence that the selection of habitat by many species of wildlife is primarily related to the structure of the vegetation. This structure translates into many different resources for the different groups of animals that use them. These resources may be foraging sites, nesting sites, or protection from the weather and predators. SUMMARY A review of the literature suggests that vegetative and structural features within the creek, riparian zone, and adjacent uplands are all important for water quality and fish habitat, as well as for habitat for terrestrial wildlife. These features are recognized as containing a mix of natural vegetation consisting of herbaceous understory, shrubs, and deciduous and coniferous trees. This comes from the recognition that native wildlife and fish evolved with the natural vegetation that once covered western Oregon. If these features have been degraded, altered, or removed it is important to enhance and recreate these areas if levels of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat are to be maintained or improved. The environmental value of the Johnson Creek basin is not in simply the creek itself, but in ecosystem components located throughout the entire basin. They are interrelated and largely inseparable, and must be understood and addressed as a whole. All components must be protected in a balanced fashion or degradation will occur. Loss of one element in the ecosysystem can have a "cascading" effect, causing environmental damage beyond the immediate area. Conversely, improvement of one can have a geometric effect on overall enhancement. Approaching conservation of the water body and adjacent natural resource values includes addressing vegetation, erosion control, and degrading upland portions of the basin through urbanization, as well as retention, maintenance, and enhancement of remaining wetlands, riparian areas, and water bodies. 1 Portland Bureau of Planning staff conversation with a resident of SE Harney Street, October 24, 1990. f 27 MEN Q CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCE AREA INVENTORY PROCESS y INTRODUCTION • SITE SELECTION • METHODOLOGY- SUMMARY 29 f INTRODUCTION For a jurisdiction to meet Statewide Planning Goal 5 standards, the location, quantity, and quality of a resource must be determined. The previous chapter identified general resource components and their it p ortance in the overall ecosystem. This chapter describes how each resource site was chosen, inventoried, and rated for these components. SITE SELEC'T'ION All of d1he City has the potential to provide wildlife habitat potential to varying degrees. Because of both the impracticality of conducting a total inventory of all properties, and the understanding that this extensive an inventory was not the intent of Statewide Planning Goal 5 dictated that only areas with a high probability of containing valuable natural features and located within the Portland urban services boundary were selected. The urban services boundary was chosen for inventory purposes instead of the present city limits, because it represents the ultimate incorporated limits of the City of Portland. Landowners of unincorporated areas which have been inventoried will benefit by being made aware of any potential Statewide Planning Goal 5-related issues, and can make a more informed decision on the cost-effectiveness and timing of possible annexation and development than if forced to wait for the results of a future inventory and evaluation. Because of the great number of variables involved in identifying wildlife habitat inventory areas citywide, several methods were used by the Bureau of Planning and the results were reviewed several times before acceptance. In 1986, a technical advisory committee of wildlife experts representing conservation groups, private industry, and public agencies suggested the initial list of areas. Aerial photos were reviewed to find additional major areas of vegetation. Parks and public lands were also initially included. Finally, local wildlife literature was consulted and various city agencies and special interest groups were contacted. Brief site visits to all areas on the list were conducted by field biologists hired for the inventory process in 1986 and 1987, and the list was modified to reflect their observations. This list was again reviewed by the technical advisory committee for completeness prior to the commencement of scheduled, detailed field work. As an additional review mechanism, letters were sent to neighborhood associations and special interest groups, informing them of the study and asking if there were any additional sites which should be included. Responses were received from several groups. To update this information, brief site visits were again made in 1990 and 1991, and further information collected. Chapter 8 summarizes sites inventoried throughout the-Johnson Creek basin for the wildlife, plant, and habitat values. The study area was divided into thirteen sites initially, and then divided further into a total of thirty-one sites in order to conduct a more detailed analysis. The sites are numbered downstream-to-upstream, starting from Reed Lake on the Reed College Campus, south through Cyrstai Springs and its confluence with Johnson Creek (near SE 21st Avenue and Clatsop St.), south to Johnson Creek's confluence with the Willamette River in the City of Milwaukee. Twenty-three additional sites extend along Johnson Creek to the the city limits at SE 174th Avenue. Four additional areas abutting Johnson Creek were inventoried and included in this report Beggars Tick Marsh (Site 16- OJ); Powell Butte (Site 29), and the portion of the Boring Lava Hills that is within the City (Sites 30 and 31). Each site was scored using the Wildlife Habitat Assessment form (Appendix E). Narrative information about each site was recorded on the Natural Areas Inventory Field Notes form. Summaries are included in Chapter 8 of this plan. 31 METHODOLOGY The study area was divided into subareas chosen to encompass the variation in environmental characteristics, vegetation, geology, and soil over the subarea of concern. " Sites were visited once or twice in February-March of 1986, and some again in June- August in 1990 and observed in a random manner. Sites were evaluated by biologists Michael Jennings and Esther Lev. Field notes, as well as habitat rating sheets, were completed and are on rile in the Planning Bureau offices. Information was collected on the vegetation and wildlife of each area. A narrative description of the site, including information on weather, topography, vegetation, wildlife, habitat function, human use, and management potential, was completed for each site. A standard inventory form for field notes (see Appendix E for an example and explanation) was used at each site. Sites were rated numerically for wildlife habitat value. A standard rating sheet, originally developed by the City of Beaverton and subsequently modified with the input from a number of state and federal agencies and the Audubon Society of Portland, was used. The rating system was also used by the City of Portland for an inventory of natural areas along the Willamette Greenway, and has been used with minor modifications by Gresham, Milwaukee, Multnomah County, Eugene, Springfield, Hillsboro, and other jurisdictions in the state. The rating included evaluation of the presence and availability of water, food, and cover for wildlife. Values for human and physical disturbance, interspersion with other natural areas, and the scenic and educational opportunities, and unique or rare occurrences of plant and animal species were also noted. The total number of possible points was less because scenic and educational values were taken off the sheet. Scores given by field biologists for all sites within the City ranged from a low of six to a high of 106, with the vast majority lying in the 30-80 point range. Inventory site scores for Johnson Creek ranged from a low of 18 to a high of 83, with a mean of 53. A large number of the sites were in the 30-50 numerical scale. Sites that scored over 50 included Reed Lake, Boring Hills, Beggars Tick Marsh, Bundee Park, Powell Butte, as well as some stretches of the creek itself. The site inventory summaries contained in this document represent material gathered during field visits, as well as technical and other data collected from additional sources. Sites are arranged by natural area, and by subarea (if any), with a description of common characteristics, their history and merit. SUMMARY The methodology used for determining the location, quantity, and quality of identified natural resources is one which provides an acceptable base of information, while allowing augmentation from other sources. It has been used in the same general form with success by other jurisdictions in the state, and provides a means to complete the Goal 5 inventory work with a minimum of technical expertise. t ' 32 J C Y1AP Y P,i INVENTORY OF NATURAL HAZARD COMPONENTS mom INTRODUCTION • CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS • EXISTING REGULATIONS • Landslide Hazard Areas Mood Hazard Areas SUMMARY o 33 !pllil;~ilillll le ® INTRODUCTION rTM,P„r in the Johnson Historically, natural hazards have had major- iiuiuoi~.,e on ae.,el.....,,-O in Creek basin. Because land values were relatively low, it was often less expensive to build _ on geologically stable lands out of the flood plain and accept lower densities, rather than attempting to control the elements. Undeveloped hazard-prone areas have, to a large degree, retained their natural character, and represent many of the natural resources which are inventoried for this plan. CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS Natural hazards within the Johnson Creek basin are primarily slides and flooding. The potential for slides is largely because of a combination of soil type, topography, and weather. Slide hazard areas are generally in the vicinity of Powell Butte and south of Johnson Creek, along steep slopes and where soils are finer than the rocky, well-drained soils of mid-Multnomah County. Flood-prone areas are primarily along Johnson Creek, although localized ponding and flooding occurs along tributaries and drainageways, and in low-lying lands throughout the basin. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped major flood hazard areas. Copies of the most recent maps are on file with the Portland Bureau of Buildings. EXISTING REGULATIONS _ Separate regulations control development within landslide and flood hazard areas in the Johnson Creek basin. Various portions of each are also administered through separate city bureaus. Landslide Hazard Areas The Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District chapter of the zoning code (Title 33) requires a reduction in allowed residential development densities, based upon a formula which takes into account, in part, soil type and slope. The Bureau of Buildings may also require an engineering analysis of proposed structures, to ensure structural integrity in slide-prone areas. Location of landslide hazard areas regulated by the plan district are identified in the Development Manual of the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Density Development Study available at the Bureau of Planning. Flood Hazard Areas Flood hazard areas have been incorporated in the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District. A reduction in residential development densities is based, in part, on location within the flood plain. Location of flood hazard areas regulated by the plan district are identified in the Development Manual of the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Density Development Study. Additionally, the Bureau of Buildings enforces FEMA regulations, which regulate fills and other land uses and activities within identified flood hazard areas. Flood plain identification is by FEMA-prepared maps available for review at the Bureau of Buildings. 35 FOO'~O~~ W SUMMARY Major flood and landslide hazard areas are found in the Johnson Creek basin. Land use regulations are now in place which provide some motection for new develop :ent suvject so these hazards. However, the regulations do not address other values these areas may have, such as habitat, recreation potential, urban design, and aesthetics. 36 t } i t I _ I i S , i S 3 1 t CHAPTER 6 INVENTORY OF URBAN DESIGN COMPONENTS 1 i 1 i 1 t 1 f i i S t i INTRODUCTION i HISTORY • j t URBAN DESIGN COMPONENTS • CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS • r' SUMMARY • 37 . 4 Oil INTRODUCTION Many residents participating in the public involvement portion of this plan have made a consciviiS uct.is ivll to lives ui the Viacn vas ui va.auaZ of the pre Sp»:.e of 12atluaa aa.svuaw components that make it an enjoyable or desirable place. They enjoy t.-ie relatively low,- OEM density residential development and distance between dwellings and other uses. They tolerate adverse impacts, such as flooding or unstable hillsides, because, as a whole, the natural resources provide a special value to their lefes. This chapter identifies some of those components which have been mentioned, their function as urban design element, and their functional values. HISTORY During the initial settlement of the Johnson Creek area, man-made elements were shaped by the environment. Roads ran along Johnson Creek and its tributaries, crossing only at selected points where the water was shallow and could be forded, or where it was narrow and could be bridged. Transportation was by foot or horse-drawn wagon, so roads were level whenever possible, winding around hills and skirting flood plains, forests, and other areas with adverse topography or geography. Railroads, although freed from some of these limitations by more advanced technology, still were limited to relatively flat grade. Economics also placed an emphasis on the need to minimize creek crossings, as well as the distance to various destinations (hence the relative straightness of tracks). Early development form, therefore, paralleled Johnson Creek in a generally west-east direction, connecting the farmlands of Clackamas and Multnomah Counties with the markets and transshipment points of Milwaukee, and later Portland. Historic design elements of this era can still be seen in Foster Road and other older streets, and in the Springwater Rail Line. As technology advanced and the Portland metropolitan area grew, urban form was no u longer so constrained by nature. The grid street pattern was imposed on the landscape, leading to more creek crossings. Creek banks were stabilized to reduce erosion and meandering, allowing greater urban encroachment into the historic flood plain. Forests and farmlands were converted into residential areas for people still wishing to live in a rural or semi-rural atmosphere. URBAN DESIGN COMPONENTS Many residents continue to value the neighborhoods in the Johnson Creek basin for their natural, semi-rural character. In spite of its present condition, Johnson Creek still provides natural resource values for fishing, wildlife viewing, and other forms of recreation. It is a backyard to many homes, often maintained and cared for by residents with little help from local governments. Wooded hillsides of Powell Butte, the Boring Hills, and Mt. Scott provide a visual backdrop and terminus for the City of Portland. Westmoreland Park, • " Reed College, Leach Botanical Gardens, and the Powell Butte Nature Park provide the area with various activities, often relating to the creek or the surrounding environment. Farmlands, isolated wetlands, and open spaces with native vegetation continue to be • dominant elements in the Johnson Creek basin. 39 FAIN CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS Urban design elements can generally be classified into five categories: paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. Good urban form takes advantage of these elements in defining and shaping neighborhoods. providing distinct identity rha+'?cter, avid a "sense ^f place." Use of these elements can also be a unifying force, tying neighborhoods together _ into a coherent district. Paths are channels along which a person moves. They include streets, walkways, or railroads. In the Johnson Creek basin, paths influenced by the natural landscape are Foster Road and the Springwater Rail Line. Other paths of note cross the basin in a north=south direction, and include McLoughlin Boulevard, SE 82nd Avenue, and SE 162nd Avenue. Edges are boundaries (but not paths), and can vary in ability to be penetrated. They can either be a barrier and set regions apart from each other, or can be a "seam" to join or relate two regions to each other. Johnson Creek (ironically, a wildlife "path") is an example of an edge. Along its length, it acts both as a barrier, separating industrial and commercial uses from residential neighborhoods, and as a sear, drawing residential areas together. Steep hillsides also act as edges, becoming visual as well as physical barriers. Districts are medium-to-large areas of a city which are recognizable as having a common, identifying community character. Within Portland, neighborhoods could be identified as districts, although they tend to be too small. Eesmoreland, with its unique street pattern and trees, is a good example of a district and neighborhood. The Johnson Creek basin, with its unifying natural resource elements of the creek, hills, and vegetation, could be considered a district. Along with paths, districts often act as a dominant element in urban form. Nodes are crossing points or concentrations of activity. They are something a person can enter into. Traditionally, commercial activities are examples of nodes. However, within the Johnson Creek basin, functioning nodes are almost exclusively related to the natural environment. Westmoreland Park and Powell Butte Nature Parks are examples of nodes, as are Reed College and Leach Botanical Gardens. Landmarks are another type of reference point that provide immediate identification, like a tower or hill. Landmarks give a sense of place or direction. Powell Butte is an example of a landmark. SUMMARY Natural resource components within the Johnson Creek basin either dominate as urban design elements or, in the case of paths, exert a strong historic influence on their form. Conservation of the natural resource values of the creek and its tributaries, wetlands, open spaces; and wildlife habitat areas provide opportunities for accommodating these elements j in the urban landscape as design elements, tying together all southeast neighborhoods from Westmoreland to the Powell Butte. With little additional consideration, natural resources can become multiple-use elements, serving both human and natural resource needs, and further Portland's reputation for integration of natural resources into the urban landscape. t " i 40 t . i 1 c M s n AN XLY Vilt®"3I~~P~ CONSFQUF-NCE5 t S i t i Z i 1 { 41 3 a I C- I I CHAPTER / GENERAL ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES and ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL and ENERGY CONSEQUENCES OF RESOURCE PROTECTION INTRODUCTION • ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES • Property Values and Development Potential Tax Base Tourism and Convention-Related Impacts Infrastructure and Flood Control Recreation Summary SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES • Recreational and Educational Opportunities Historic, Heritage, Cultural, and Aesthetic Values Visual Variety, Urban Design, and Image of the City Screening and Buffering of Incompatible Uses Health, Safety, and Welfare Summary ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • Water Quality and Quantity Fish and Wildlife Habitats Air Quality ENERGY CONSEQUENCES • Heating and Cooling of Structures Transportation Infrastructure Summary SUMMARY • Compatible Uses Conflicting Uses Consequences of Resource Protection 43 INS ra - SEEM=_=_ 1101 Emmmm~iliilill i i INTRODUCTION Statewide Planning Goal 5 states that "programs shall be provided that will 1) insure open space, 2) protect scenic and historic areas and natural resources for future generations, and 3) promote healthy and visually attractive environments in harmony with the natural landscape character." According to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), the next step after an inventory of natural resources in the Goal 5 process is identification of potential land use conflicts with inventoried resources. This is done primarily by examining the uses allowed in broad zoning categories. A conflicting use is one which, if allowed, could negatively impact the resource. These impacts are considered in analyzing the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences. If there are no conflicting uses for an identified resource, OAR requires the jurisdiction to adopt policies and regulations ensuring preservation of the resource. Where conflicting uses are identified, the ESEE consequences must be determined. Impacts on both the resource and conflicting use must be considered. Other applicable Statewide Planning Goals are also considered in the discussion of impacts. The ESEE analysis is adequate for purposes of meeting OAR standards if it provides a jurisdiction with reasons why decisions are made regarding the protection of specific resources. Oregon Administrative Rules lay out the steps to be followed in complying with Goal 5, but provides little direction in determining what factors should be considered as having potential economic, social, environmental or energy consequences. This lack of guidance is because relevant ESEE factors vary greatly, depending on the type of resource that is being evaluated and potential conflicting uses that are allowed. The following section is a description of land uses and activities permitted by existing zoning. Included is a discussion of general consequences to both the resource and existing or potential land uses in the Johnson Creek basin which may result from resource protection. Additional site-specific impacts are discussed in the next chapter, which x summarizes individual resource sites and their values. It is the combination of these general and individual site consequences which is used to arrive at the conclusions in this protection plan regarding the level of resource protection for resource sites, and the Johnson Creek basin as a whole. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES Property Values and Development Potential Property values are largely determined by demand. Market demand, in turn, is a product of many factors, including development potential and aesthetics, character, and desirability of a property and surrounding neighborhood. In simplistic terms development potential can be looked at as how much development can be placed on a property. Protecting natural resources may reduce development potential if the development could not be redistributed elsewhere on site through such mechanisms as clustering or planned unit development. All zones except for IG1, IG2, and IH (General and Heavy Industrial) have floor area ratios or unit density limits which allow transfers or redistribution to take place on site. Development potential on General and Heavy Industrial properties is related to land area, so reduction in area directly available for development represents a loss in development potential. Properties within the Johnson Creek basin •i r 45 which are zoned General or Heavy Industrial and which also contain inventoried natural resources are located between I-205 and SE 112th Avenue, and southwest of the Eastmoreland Golf Course, near SE McLoughlin Boulevard. Industrial needs for the City of Portland and Portland metropolitan area have been described in detail in the Inventory and Analysis of Wetlands, Water Bodies, and Wildlife Habitat Areas for the Columbia Corridor, adopted by the City of Portland in April 1989 (pages 127-134). It concludes that the need for industrial land in the metropolitan area by the year 2005 is about 5,192 acres. About 19,070 acres of vacant, suitable land exist within the metropolitan urban growth boundary, 10,483 of these are vacant and uncommitted and have no development constraints. This provides a market ratio of over 2:1 for the estimated need for presently-unconstrained land, and a ratio of almost 4:1 for all vacant industrial land. In addition, there are about 9,700 acres of vacant industrial land within Multnomah County and, according to the 1989 publication by the Bureau of Planning 1987 Vacant Land Report, 5,731 acres of vacant industrial land within the City of Portland (page 30). Industries which are highly locationally-dependent, such as deep-draft shipping or air freight facilities may face shortages. Industrially-zoned lands in the Johnson Creek basin are near major streets, but existing industries are not necessarily tied to the need to remain located at that particular site. Aesthetics, character, and amenity value are more intrinsic values, and are difficult to quantify. They represent amenity values that increase demand, and therefore land prices, in a particular area. Districts in Portland acknowledged as desirable and commanding higher average residential dwelling prices than the average citywide (Eastmoreland, Alameda, Overlook, the West Hills, etc.) all have natural resources as major amenities (street trees, parks and open spaces, creeks, views). Protection of these amenities can result in increased property values over areas having no natural resource amenities. Even in industrial areas such as the Koll Business Center in Washington County, natural resource amenities have been integrated into the development in such a way as to increase its desirability, and therefore its value. Tax Base Tax base to local jurisdictions is, as a result of Measure 5, directly related to market value of lana. As property values fluctuate, property taxes will vary in direct proportion. Property value consequences are discussed in the previous section, and are directly applicable to the subject of property taxes. Tourism and Convention-Belated Impacts The Johnson Creek basin is not a resource which tourists visit Portland for, nor is it a major reason for conventions. However, it is an element in the overall network of open spaces and natural areas in the City which determines its character as one of integration of natural elements into the urban form. Protection of natural resources in a way which makes them easily accessible to visitors provides additional unique destinations within the city limits for sightseeing or simply relaxing. Conferences related to Environmental issues are often held in Portland because of easily- accessed natural resources within the city limits. The 1990 Country in the City Symposium, attracting international participants, used the Willamette River and Balch, Fanno, and Johnson Creeks as field locations for sessions. 46 1 r, Dollar expenditures on tourism and conventionyp -te activities are difficult to identify. However, in 1988, Defenders of Wildlife conducted a survey of Oregon households on non-game wildlife economic impact and concluded that an average household expenditure of about $348 was attributed to travel and over $600 to photography and optical equipment directly related to wildlife enjoyment. Activities related to these expenditures could occur in the City within natural resource areas from tourist or convention-related activities. In summary, natural resources within the City of Portland can provide a reason for locating a conference or convention, or provide a local destination for tourists. This increase in conference and tourism can bring significant money into the local economy. Infrastructure and Flood Control Limiting development within areas of natural hazards, which are largely natural resource areas, will reduce the need for costly hazard protection infrastructure, such as flood control structures. Retention of open space helps reduce or maintain flooding levels. Not aggravating or worsening the flooding situation by preventing direct stormwater discharge will contain the amount of property damage done. Not increasing flood levels can have the effect of reducing storm drainage infrastructure costs. Flood control along Johnson Creek could have the effect of making more land available for development. Development in landslide-prone areas requires more expensive solutions for initial construction, as well as increased maintenance costs. By clustering development away from steep slopes, as well as floodplains, the expenditures for construction and maintenance of infrastructure would be reduced, lessening demand of tax dollars for given services. Water Quality Johnson Creek does not meet state water quality standards for various pollutants, and has been classified as a "water quality limited" stream, Continuation of this may result in fines to the City and state-mandated cleanup measures which may stress time rather than cost. Both will result in adverse economic impacts to the City. Additionally, property owners may have site improvement requirements imposed which will emphasize costly but time efficient technology, again imposing economic hardship. By developing a plan which emphasizes natural and low technology pollution control measures, requires that it be incorporated into new development, provides for long-term inclusion of resource protection MMM actions into existing land uses as redevelopment occurs, and encourages an educational, neighborhood-participatory program through the Bureau of Environmental Services' efforts, water quality levels exceeding state standards can be achieved in a manner which will not impose undue economic hardship on existing development. Recreation According to a 1988 survey conducted for the Defenders of Wildlife, Oregon households spent an average of over $8,600 on non-game wildlife recreation activities. Of these expenditures, over $2,300 (photographic and optical equipment, bird seed, clothing, magazines and books, landscaping for wildlife, boats, etc.) could be used on wildlife- related activities in Portland, and $1,100 (same as previously except for boat-related expenditures) within the Johnson Creek basin. f 47 OEM 9 ME i Summary Protection of natural resources in the Johnson Creek basin will have both positive and negative economic impacts. Positive impacts will result from increased amenities, resulting in higher property values, attraction for tourists and related activity, and more efficient use of public services and utilities, and increased recreation potential. Negative impacts are greatest in General and Heavy Industrial zones, where development potential is limited more by land area than floor-area ratios or number of units per given area. However, projected needs for industrial land in the City or even the Portland Metropolitan area is far less than the amount of land presently zoned for industrial uses and located out of hazard areas. SOCIAL, CONSEQUENCES Recreational and Educational Opportunities; There are no other natural resources of the size, type, and quality of the Johnson Creek basin in east Portland. It provides a unique educational opportunity for schools in southeast Portland, providing convenient access to a wide variety of native vegetation and wildlife that was once mammon in the Willamette Valley. The next closest similar resource area is Forest Park in Northwest Portland. Recreational opportunities afforded by the continued protection of Johnson Creek basin resources relate primarily to Powell Butte and the 40-Mile Loop Trail along the Springwater Line, although fishing, limited boating, children's play areas, and local hiking to selected resource locations are important. Disappearance of resource values would curtail all these activities. Additionally, formal recreation activities along the creek such as golfing at the - ' Eastmoreland Golf Course and picnicking at Westmoreland and other parks would be adversely affected. Especially impacted would be the reason for choosing this route for the 40-Mile Loop, the linear resource provided by Johnson Creek, and the connected natural resource and activity "islands" in the form of parks, wetlands, and informal open spaces, as well as the pastoral nature of much of the creek basin. Historic, Heritage, Cultural, and Aesthetic Values Many residents in the Johnson Creekbasin have chosen to live in the area because of the presence of natural resources such as.the creek and wooded hillsides, and the semi-rural atmosphere provided by them. Protection of critical natural resource components would continue this aesthetic and cultural value, adding to neighborhood stability. Removal of components would mean resource degredation and elimination of resource values, possibly resulting in increased desire to move to more rural areas outside the urban growth boundary, adding pressures for rural resource degradation. Property values may also decline with loss of semi-rural character. Heritage values are also found in the Manor House and grounds at Leach Botanical Garden, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) rockwork, and a possible archaeological site at Tideman-Johnson Park. Development that destroys the natural resources of the Johnson Creek basin would place these land uses out of context with their surroundings, losing intrinsic heritage value. 48 Now= C Visual Variety Much of East Portland is flat, with little visual relief except for isolated buttes. Hills which form an integral part of the Johnson Creek basin form a backdrop and southern edge to the City. Natural resources such as the trees accentuate this form, as well as providing a natural foreground element when viewing the Cascade Mountains to the east. On a smaller scale, the riparian strip along Johnson Creek provides a strong sense of orientation, and an edge or seam between neighborhoods and land uses. From west to east, as one travels away from the city center, development becomes less intense, largely because of the presence of natural resources. This "tapering off' provides visual variety, and the feeling of natural resources being integrated. into the urban fabric. Preservation and enhancement of natural resources will continue to integrate natural resources into the City and provide variety in landscape form, while their loss will result in greater monotony. Urban Design and Image of the City REM As discussed in the section on urban design in Chapter 6, Inventory of Urban Design Components, protection of natural resources in the Johnson Creek basin will provide a sense of definition, location, and uniqueness to southeast Portland. It also serves to PAM connect neighborhoods, and form a physical and psychological edge to the southern boundary of Portland. Conservation and enhancement of natural resources contributes to the image of Southeast Portland neighborhoods, while their destruction would result in the ( reduction of identity and, therefore, their uniqueness, character, and value. - Screening and Buffering of Incompatible Uses Natural resources act as an edge to different land uses, separating and buffering them from each other by both distance and visually. Protection of natural resources allows for incompatible land uses to locate more closely, with less potential for conflicts, while their removal would either require major changes in land uses to resolve issues of incompatibility, or the creation of artificial buffers, many of which simply duplicate elements found in natural resource buffers. Health, Safety, and Welfare Protection of natural resources located in the flood plain and on steeply-sloped hillsides will protect the general public from possible natural disasters. This protection reduces potential demand on disaster relief agencies and bureaus (and subsequent demands on tax dollars), as well as reducing individual expenses of replacing destroyed property and the costs of treatment for injuries. Continued degradation of Johnson Creek, which will occur if protection measures are not instituted, would bring health risks such as fecal and chemical contamination. Summary Protection of natural resources in the Johnson Creek basin will result in generally positive benefits in terms of increased protection from natural disasters, decreased disaster relief costs, increased protection from incompatible land uses, increased sense of place, uniqueness, visual diversity and aesthetics, and greater education and recreation opportunities. 49 I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Water Quality and Quantity Natural -resources, including upland vegetation, riparian fringes, wetWds, a_-td creeks and drainageways provide major contributions toward improving water quantityand quality. Soils allow water to filter downward to the groundwater reservoir, adding volume to surface waters during low flow periods. Groundwaterrecharge in turn reduces surface runoff, and accompanying erosive forces. Other areas allow groundwater discharge in the form of springs or seeps, providing water sources for surface water drainageways. Wetlands, water bodies, and other lowland., provide flood storage and desynchronization, reducing overall flood levels. Vegetation traps sediment from surface flow and provides soil anchoring, as well as absorption of certain hazardous chemicals and heavy metals, reducing water pollution. Additionally, erosive forces from water flow are dissipated by vegetation, allowing deposition of suspended solids and increasing bank stabilization, both of which increase water quality. Development which removes the natural resources of the Johnson Creek basin will result in decreased summer creek flows and higher water temperatures, destroying fish and water- related wildlife habitat. It reduces groundwater recharge and increases immediate stormwater runoff, exacerbating flood levels, contributing to more erosion, carrying pollutants directly to the creek, and reducing overall water quality. Protection of natural resources will help stabilize flood flows by retaining open space and allowing groundwater recharge. This action will allow continued water supply for summer flow. A continued groundwater source will also help keep the water temperatures of Johnson Creek and its tributaries down, as will shading of the creek by streamside vegetation. Riparian vegetation and wetlands adjacent to the creek traps sediment and other - pollutants from sheetflow, aiding in overall water quality. Limiting stormwater outfalls and sheet runoff from developed lands through the use of on-site retention facilities reduces point and non-point sources of pollution. Prevention of direct runoff also provides for filtering of certain pollutants as water percolates through the soil, rather than flowing directly to the creek. Fish and Wildlife Habitat ' The Johnson Creek Corridor is a mosaic of vegetative communities and human uses integrated with the water course ecosystem which provides food, shelter, breeding and rearing areas for aquatic and terrestrial animals and birds. Fish and wildlife need food, water, cover, and places to perch, rest, breed, and nest. Any changes in these requirements, whether man-induced (development, channelization, removal of vegetation) or natural (flooding, windstorms, drought or insect infestations), will affect fish and wildlife habitats. The changes may be beneficial to some wildlife species and detrimental to others. Changes and losses in the quality, quantity and availability of food, water, cover and living space have the greatest detrimental effects on wildlife. The most important aspect of habitat and habitat protection within the Johnson Creek basin is water. Water exists in the form of creeks, ponds, wetlands, or groundwater. A review of the impacts on water resources in the basin from conflicting uses provides justification for protecting the two other basic habitat components: food and cover. For example, the removal of vegetative cover affects water quality by increasing erosion and silting. Increased siltation affects the turbidity level of the water and the ability of fish to spawn. Removal of vegetation causes warming of the creek. High summer water temperatures is 50 i Non= the major factor limiting fish diversity in Johnson Creek. The removal of vegetation reduces nesting cavities and shelter for birds and insects. A reduction in insects causes a decrease in the bird and small mammal populations. Throughout the basin and along Johnson Creek and Crystal Springs (ie. Reed Lake) there are wetlands. These wetlands are valued because of their rarity and great plant and animal diversity common to wetlands. Upland protection is warranted because of the rarity and species diversity, despite the fact that most of the wetlands have been modified and disturbed by fill and invasion of non-native species. Wetlands and undeveloped land provide permeable soils for groundwater recharge, flood storage, and to trap sediment from entering the creeks. Maintaining areas for groundwater and flood storage help reduce peak flooding which in turn helps decrease the amount of habitat and personal damage destroyed annually by flooding. Plants provide food apd cover for fish and wildlife. Their roots, bark, foliage, nuts and fruits provide food for a variety of wildlife species. Twigs, leaves, and bark are used for nest building and insulation. Large trees, especially snags, are prime perch sites for hawks and owls which feed on small mammals on the ground below. Although plants are at the bottom of the food chain, they are a crucial element of the entire system. Algae in Johnson Creek is eaten by tiny macro-invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by fish which may be eaten by herons, kingfishers or other birds. On land, crickets, beetles, small mammals, and rabbits feed on vegetation and, in turn, provide food for coyotes and raptors. When vegetation begins to die and decay, it becomes home and food to mites, earthworms, fungi and millipedes which aid in the decomposition process. Hollow trees laying on the ground provide cover for rabbits and raccoons, salamanders and snakes. Tree trunks lying partially submerged in a creek or pond provide cover and shading for fish, attachment sites f for aquatic insects, sunning areas for western pond turtles, snakes and other insects (dragonflies). The vegetative cover and waterways provide travel corridors for the fish and animals. Safe access to and along the waterways is crucial. Even in the reaches where there is little vegetation and exposure to summer heat is high, the creek serves to connect habitats and as a passageway between habitats. Water is the other component required by wildlife species. Safe access to a clean water source is crucial, such as a healthy riparian system providing connectivity between upland habitats and a water supply. Urbanization and development have greatly impacted the state and health of the aquatic, riparian and upland habitats of the Johnson Creels basin. Some habitat has been destroyed and others created. As these changes occur, more aggressive and adaptive species survive, resulting in a loss of bio-diversity. The following general characteristics provide good overall fish and wildlife habitat: • Native plant communities and landscapes; • Convenient access to water, food, and cover for wildlife; • Spawning and breeding areas for fish and wildlife; • Presence of an adequate pool-to-riffle ratio for adequate oxygenation of creek water; • Insects, worms, and other small organisms which provide food for birds, fish, and small mammals; ' 51 • Connections between natural resources to provide for interspersion of plants and animals to provide recharge of populations and to enhance and increase wildlife diversity; • Continuity of the creek, riparian fringe, and adjacent uplands as a wildlife corridor; and • Perching sites for raptors and other birds. The following general land uses and activities degrade natural resources: • Garbage and littering; • High levels of human and domestic animal activity; • Toxic deposition of sewage and industrial waste; • Excessive herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers from agricultural fields or domestic use; • Fences and streets which limit wildlife access; and • Noise, light at night, and other development impacts. Air Quality Vegetation traps particulates which are then deposited on the ground with rainfall. Leaves also absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Removal of vegetation would result in increased air pollutants. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES Decisions on resource protection will have impacts on city form. Development densities may have to be altered to take resource protection into account. Development form and location will, in turn, impact energy consumption in both construction and ongoing maintenance of human uses and activities. Following is a general discussion of energy consequences of resource protection: Heating and Cooling of Structures Energy consumption (heating and cooling structures) as a result of resource protection is impacted in two ways: building form and presence of vegetation. If resource sites are protected from development, that same development has to occur elsewhere. Needed development could be provided for through expanding urban boundaries and using the same building form, which would result in no change in energy consumption for heating or cooling. However, if it is desirable or necessary to locate the development on or near the same site as the resource, increased intensity would result. This could be accomplished through clustering of buildingq, resulting in more common wall construction and reduced surface area for a given volume. Heat transfer between indoors and outdoors would be reduced, resulting in an energy savings. Vegetation provides a moderating effect on climate, both on a macro and micro scale. Trees provide shade on nearby buildings in the summer, reducing energy demands for cooling. Plants also absorb sunlight and transpire during growing seasons, reducing ambient air temperatures. This moderating effect can reduce energy needs for cooling of nearby development. Trees and shrubbery can also act as a wind break during winter. By slowing or diverting winter winds, heat loss in structures from infiltration and convection is reduced, resulting in lower energy needs. 1 52 IMMIMMINMEM MMMOMM MMJ In summary, energy needs for heating or cooling would generally be positively impacted as a result of resource protection. A positive impact would result from clustering, while a lesser, but still positive, impact would result from expanding urban boundaries, as development surrounding the resource would continue to benefit from resource vegetation. A positive impact would result from wind protection and summer shading on nearby . development whether the urban area were expanded to allow for needed development, or increased densities were encouraged on nearby sites. The extent of energy saving is dependent on many factors beyond the scope of this report, including type of resource protected, proximity of resource to development, structure type, heating source, construction materials, design, activities, etc. Transportation Energy expenditures for transportation are related primarily to distance of travel between origin and destination, and mode of transportation available. Both of these variables can be affected by natural resource protection. The Johnson Creek basin has major employment and commercial areas at either end: the Gresham city center on the east, and downtown . Portland, near eastside industrial and commercial lands (including McLoughlin), and Milwaukie on the west. Smaller, less defined activity areas are located along Johnson Creek at about SE 45th Avenue in Milwaukie, SE 82nd and 122nd Avenues, and at SE 162nd Avenue and SE Powell Boulevard, at the base of Powell Butte. If resource protection precluded future needed residential development, and it were not replaced with increased densities nearby, people shopping or working in these locations may have to use more energy for traveling between home and employment or shopping. The availability of natural resources within the Johnson Creek basin provides opportunities for wildlife observation, recreation, and education purposes to residents of the area. Because resources are closer to users, less transportation energy is used in reaching them. When the 40-Mile Loop is relocated to the Springwater Line right-of-way, a greater range of transportation modes, including bicycling and walking, can be used to reach and use the corridor. Separation of pedestrian and bicycle routes from roadways may in rease safety, and therefore make alternative forms of transportation more attractive. Proximity to natural resources along Johnson Creek, as well as landscape treatment to the Springwater Line right-of-way, may also make travel more pleasant. In summary, the impact of resource protection on transportation energy costs depend upon where needed potential land uses displaced by protected resources will relocate. If increased land use densities are allowed nearby to offset protected areas, or if uses are located more closely to employment centers, a net positive benefit from protection should result. If urban boundaries were expanded to allow development far from employment, commercial, and recreation destinations to compensate for lost development opportunities, more energy would be required for commuting. Protection of natural resources will also encourage the use of energy-efficient travel, such as bicycling and walking, by enhancing routes for these modes. Infrastructure Clustering development outside of natural resource areas in an efficient manner will result in less infrastructure needed to serve sewer, water, transportation, and other needs. If done away from flood and landslide hazard areas, additional construction considerations or hazard control structures would not be needed to the same extent. The result would be a savings in infrastructure materials and maintenance, of which a major component is energy. 53 61 IM, =I Summary Considerable energy savings can be achieved through natural resource protection, J Fm particularly in terms of infrastructure provision and heating and cooling of structures. Transportation-related savings can also be substantial if needed residential development were located near destination points and alternative energy-efficient travel modes were integrated into the natural resource protection plan. SUMMARY The outcome of a plan following Oregon Administrative Rules for LCDC Goal 5 compliance is one of three decisions for each inventoried resource: 1 Allowing the conflicting use fully This action occurs in areas where the conflicting use, notwithstanding the impact on Ulm the resource, is sufficiently important to warrant allowing the uses fully and without restrictions. 2 Limiting conflicting uses in a manner which protects the resource This action occurs in areas where both the resource and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other, and restrictions are placed on conflicting uses which would protect resource values while at the same time allowing some or all conflicting uses. 3 Protecting the resource fully This action occurs in areas where the resource, relative to the conflicting use, is sufficiently important that the resource should be protected and all conflicting uses prohibited. Within urban areas it is almost inevitable that conflicts between natural resources and other forms of land uses and activities exist. Both the resources and conflicting uses are of value to the urban environment. It is a balancing of these values in an innovative manner that allows multiple use of lands that will benefit the City in the greatest manner. The following section summarizes the general land use impacts on natural resources within, the Johnson Creek basin and identifies approaches to accommodating the conflicting use while protecting resource values. The goal is to integrate the resource with conflicting uses and throughout the basin to create a unique identity for southeast Portland and that will benefit the neighborhood and City as a whole. Compatible Uses Compatible uses are those that can be conducted in a manner which will not result in resource degradation. Three uses allowed by present zoning are compatible in the Johnson Creek basin: 1 Aesthetic enjoyment of natural features from existing roads and trails, including the Springwater Line segment of the 40-Mile Loop; 2 Educational use of areas by individuals and groups; and 3 Creek restoration projects in conformance with management guidelines set forth in this plan. 54 C Conflicting Uses Conflicting uses are those which are incompatible with resource protection but are allowed by present City of Portland zoning. If these uses actually occurred at the intensities and during the times allowed by existing City land use regulations, they would diminish or destroy the identified values of one or more resource areas in the Johnson Creek basin. Uncontrolled residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, or agricultural uses can result in the removal, destruction, or degradation of the natural habitat. Conflicting Residential Uses About three-quarters of the study area is zoned residential. About half the residential land is either vacant or under-built based on allowed densities. Unregulated residential development has the effect of causing environmental changes that gcncrally contribute to degradation of the ecology of the Johnson Creek basin. Activities associated with residential development which are generally detrimental to resource values include: • Reducing vegetation; • Replacing native plants and structural diversity with lawns and/or ornamentals; • Replacing vegetation with impervious surfaces (buildings, driveways, parking lots, etc.); • Isolating vegetation horizontally and vertically; • Removing dead vegetation in all strata (creek corridor, ground, and tree canopy); • Increasing bank erosion and deterioration; • Compacting soil; • Riprapping the stream channel and bank; • Littering and dumping in the creek • Increasing the uncontrolled presence of cats, dogs, and human activity (trails, fishing); • Increasing human population density and noise; and • Leaching of pollutants, including herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers from agricultural fields, lawns, and gardens. Conflicting Commercial Uses There are eight areas of commercially-zoned land in the Johnson Creek basin. Six abut or span Johnson Creek. They are: • SE McLoughlin Boulevard, between SE Nehalem and Umatilla Streets (Site 3) This area is about four acres in size, and is zoned CG, General Commercial. A number of commercial uses occupy the site, generally oriented to auto traffic along McLoughlin Boulevard. • SE 45th Place and SE Johnson Creek Boulevard (Site 7) This area is about four acres in size, and is zoned CG, General Commercial. Development is generally neighborhood service in character. • SE 82nd Avenue, between the Springwater Line and Multnomah/ Clackamas County boundary (Site 10) This area is part of the strip commercial development along SE 82nd Avenue, and is about ten acres in size. Uses include a mobile home park. • SE 92nd Avenue south of SE Flavel Street (Site 12) This is an area of about r two acres in size and is zoned CN2, Neighborhood Commercial. 55 • SE 108th Avenue and SE Foster Road (Site 15) This is an area of less than one acre, made up of two properties. It is zoned CN2, Neighborhood Commercial. • SE Foster Road, from SE 110th Avenue to about SE 116th Avenue (Sites 15 and 17) This is an area of strip commercial development of about eight acres. Land west of NE 112th Avenue is zoned CN2, Neighborhood Commercial, while the remainder is CG, General Commercial. The remaining two are not near Johnson Creek, but are located in the existing Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District. They are: • SE 174th Avenue and Powell Boulevard (Site 29) This area is about 22 acres in size, and is zoned CG, General Commercial. It has been recently developed as a shopping center. • SE Jenne Road and SE Foster Road (Site 30) This is about one acre in area, and is zoned CG, General Commercial. Activities associated with commercial development which are detrimental to the resource are generally the same as for residential development. Impacts may be greater than those of residential development. When sites are filled and leveled, large areas are paved or covered with buildings, and existing landscaping is reduced Impacts include reduced flood storage capacity, soil compaction, accelerated storm runoff and peak flooding, and loss of permeable soil for vegetative growth to protect and provide food to the creek. Protecting resources from these impacts is particularly important along the creek. Conflicting Industrial Uses Although industrial land accounts for only about ten percent of the plan area, it is located along roughly one-third of the length of Johnson Creek. Industrially-zoned land is included on Sites 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17, and 29. Unregulated industrial development - can have the same negative impacts as discussed under Conflicting Commercial Uses. Additional impacts may be caused by outdoor storage, spills of hazardous materials, assembly, and other activities. Conflicts With LknlQped Oren Space About 15 percent of the Johnson Creek Basin Plan District is designated for open space. This area includes the parks and golf course associated with Crystal Springs, Johnson Creek Park, Tideman-Johnson Park, Leach Botanical Garden, and Powell Butte. There are no restrictions in the zoning code against removal of trees and natural vegetation within 4 Open Space-zoned areas. Urban treatment of the open space areas includes parking lots, streets, recreational fields, etc. These improvements can have the same negative environmental effects as other types of urban development listed above. C:onflictingRecreational 11s o The Springwater Line follows Johnson Creek for much of the plan area. Railroad tracks are presently being removed in anticipation of the development of a bicycle path and major link in the 40-Mile Loop regional trail system. The Springwater Line is included in many of the site inventories and identified as a recreational resource. It is not inventoried as a natural resource since there is presently little vegetation or water resources integrated with the rail line. s { 56 Gyp A 1:1 111 R 11 1 Elm t i a _ i Conflicting Agricultural Uses Pollutants enter the creek as runoff from agricultural lands. The runoff decreases water quality and increases turbidity, which effects fisheries values. Removal of vegetation for agricultural practices decreases wildlife, food, and cover. Animal fecal contamination can also occur as a result of pasture use. 3 Consequences of Resource Protection j The Johnson Creek basin includes ponds, creeks, wetland, meadows, and uplands j intermeshed with existing development. The mixture of habitat types increase the number and diversity of wildlife species. Allowing conflicting uses fully will result in loss of habitat areas which provide food, water, and cover for fish and wildlife. It will also continue to degrade water quality. i Protecting resources fully would not necessarily have an adverse impact on Portland's ability to technically meet its Comprehensive Plan housing obligations, as lands within flood and landslide hazard areas are excluded from calculations of needed land. However, precluding development under all conditions would reduce opportunities of choice in the market place, possibly driving up housing costs throughout the metropolitan area due to unmet demand. Additionally, the ability to develop would be removed from fullproperties, possibly resulting in legal challenges. By fully protecting critical resources, protecting resource values of other important resources, and allowing development throughout the remainder of the Johnson Creek basin in a manner which will have minimal impact on the overall resource, urban development densities can be achieved in a manner which will conserve resource values, provide unique character, amenities, pride, and additional value to Southeast Portland neighborhoods, and continue Portland's and Oregon's reputation for living with nature. i NNW Comm 57 i !11: lgzIi;lg;il ;IgIgIIIIII CHAPTER S INVENTv'+ RY SITE SUP.~P~I ARIES and SITE ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES Including the SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS of ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, and ENERGY CONSEQUENCES OF RESOURCE PROTECTION INTRODUCTION • HOW TO USE THIS CHAPTER • SITE SUMMARIES • Site Unit Maps Site Size Location Neighborhood Date of Inventory Habitat Classification General Description Significant Resource Values Quantity of Resource Quality of Resource Management Recommendations Area Affected by Environmental Overlay Zones Site-Specific ESEE Comments C Site-Specific Compatible Land Uses and Activities 59 f INTRODUCTION This chapter contains a summary of the natural resource information gathered for each natural resource site in the Johnson Creek basin. It describes the general location, quantity, and quality of the resource. It augments, and does not necessarily replace, information contained elsewhere in this document. With each inventoried resource site is a site-specific analysis of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of resource protection where unique conditions of the site warrant, along with recommendations regarding resource protection. If the resource at a given location is such that a particular resource value or enhancement action is desirable, it is suggested under Management Recommendations. The purpose is to guide mitigation efforts resulting from Environmental Zone review. HOW TO USE THIS CHAPTER Each natural resource site in the Johnson Creek basin was inventoried for resource location, quantity, and quality. Each site description is arranged in a similar manner. Following is a description of the headings of each section: • Site The site number refers to one of 31 separate resource sites within the Johnson Creek basin inventoried. Locations are described further in this chapter, and maps of the sites are contained in Appendix I. • Unit This is a name describing general location of the site. • Maps This refers to the Multnomah County Assessor's quarter section map numbers, which also are the City of Portland Official Zoning Map numbers. • Site Size This is an estimate of the number of acres contained in the site. • Location This is a general description of site boundaries, using streets or geographic landmarks. For specific boundaries, see maps in Appendix I • Neighborhood This lists the officially-recognized neighborhoods in which the site is located. • Date of Inventory This lists the dates inventory information was obtained for this study. These are not necessarily the only dates the site was visited by City personnel for this study. • Habitat Classification This classifies the resource site according to characteristics developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and is typically used in natural resource analyses. • General Description This is a brief description of the resource, land uses and activities in and near the site, and other information which may be pertinent to the study. This is not an exhaustive description. Other site information, including land use maps, various studies and literature, site visits, etc. were used in the course of this study- • Significant Resource Values These are resource values within the site to be protected by regulations of the Environmental Zone and the Johnson Creek basin Plan District. • Quantity of Resource This is a brief and general description of size or proportion of the site which contains certain land uses or resources. Other site information, including land use maps, various studies and. literature, site visits, etc. were used in the course of this study. • Quality of Resource This is a summary of the types of resources and resource values found at the site. It describes certain site-specific resource characteristics which are of note. It augments, and does not replace, information elsewhere in this document. Other site information, including land use maps, various studies and literature, site visits, etc. were used in the course of this study. 61 ~j z - f • Management Recommendations These are site-spec recommendations for treatment of the resource, and are in addition to general recommendations located elsewhere in this document. • Amount of Land Affected by Proposed Environmental Zones This is an estimate of the number of acres within each base zone present in the site which will have the Environmental Protection Zone applied. Zone designations are described in 1 • S tee-Speciific ESEE Comments These are comments related to the site-specific ~ economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of resource protection. They are in addition to general ESEE consequences contained in Chapter 5. Absence of this section does not mean that there are no ESEE consequences. It simply means that Chapter 5 discusses them at the appropriate level. • Site-Specific Compatible Uses and Activities Base zone regulations are ; modified by the Environmental Zone. Plan district regulations may refine base and/or j Environmental Protection Zone regulations to become more or less restrictive, depending on the purpose of the district. Resources at a given site may be of such a } nature that, given the ESEE consequences, a level or type of development which differs ! from other sites may be allowed. Recommendations for site-specific resource management and compatible uses contained in this chapter are a further refinement of plan district and Environmental Zone regulations described in Chapter 8 and must be used in conjunction with these and other land use regulations. Resource Management and Compatible Uses sections, in essence, become part of the plan district regulations, guiding land use development and activities in a manner which will protect significant natural resources in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and LCDC Goal 5. i i 62 SITE 1 Unit: Reed Lake Maps: 3533, 3633, 3634, SITE SIZE: 60 acres LOCATION: SE Harold (l); SE 28th Ave. (E); SE Ellis (SW) SE Knight (SW) NEIGHBORHOOD: Eastmoreland; Reed DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, June 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom • Riverine, Lower Perennial Artificial, Rocky Shore • Palustrine, Upland Forest Coniferous/Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded GENERAL DESCRIPTION Reed Lake is a year-round pond located on the Reed College Campus. It has an associated a wetland and upland area. Single family development is located in the eastern portion of the site. Surrounding property consists generally of the college campus to the immediate south, and single and multi-family residential neighborhoods further south and to the east, north, and west. A master plan for the Reed College campus was recently approved by the City which considered the resource (CU 41-90). SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic (adopted as a City of Portland Scenic Resource), fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, heritage, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, recreation, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCES The total 60-acre site provides relatively high quality habitat. The lake is about four acres in size, with the remaining site consisting of wetland and contiguous upland areas. Reed Lake is significant in terms of quantity in part because it is the only naturally-occuring pond (or lake) remaining in the inner-city area. QUALITY OF RESOURCES Reed Lake is a year-round pond located on the college campus with associated wetland and upland areas. The high structural vegetative and species diversity provides habitat for many passerine, woodpecker, waterfowl (wintering and breeding), kingfisher and raptor species. Reed Lake, by way of Crystal Springs, feeds the lower mile of Johnson Creek year-round. The source of water is ground water which emerges from the Portland Terraces. The Portland Terraces occupy 19 square miles of the Johnson Creek drainage basin and consist of silt deposits eroded during the Pleistocene flooding., A large proportion of the summer water flow into Johnson Creek is provided by this aquifer, drainage system, creating a water quantity and quality suitable for year-round fisheries on the lower portion of the Johnson Creek. Site interspersion with Johnson Creek, Crystal Springs, and Oaks Bottom/Willamette River increases the value of this site. The canyon is a mixture of deciduous/coniferous riparian vegetation with small pockets of vegetated emergent islands. Large Grand Fir, Western C 63 Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Bigleaf Maple, and Red Alder form the overstory canopy. Elderberry, spirea, and willow form a shrub layer immediately adjacent to portions of the creek. The small islands are vegetated by spirea, cattail, and nightshade with pondweed on the surface of the water. Nest boxes have been installed throughout the canyon. Good amphibian habitat is provided by the numerous downed logs within the creek. Reed Lake has scenic values which are enhanced by the 100-foot drop from the top of the canyon walls to the lake. With the exception of late winter, when there are no leaves on the deciduous trees, the canyon is completely enclosed with little visual intrusion from surrounding properties. The lake environment serves as an "outdoor classroom 'for Reed College students, as well as for passive and active recreation including bird watching, picnicking, walking, canoeing and boating. There has been some invasion of non-native plant species into the canyon. Water quality has been degraded with the loss of infiltration caused by surface and piped stormwater runoff, as well as general pollution from urbanization. As recent as 1976, residents along the Portland Terrace used the ground water for domestic use? The same source of information notes that portions of the Portland Terrace served by septic contributes to the degradation of the water and contamination problem. In summary, overall the resource is of high quality, although urbanization has reduced the quantity and quality of water recharge and vegetation. core or lldli a Habitat clue: 8 Range or Al! rtes =1 to Vegetatition Food (variety): high Lift Cover (structural diversity): high Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Protect significant upland forested areas, as well as water bodies. Except as provided for in the recently-approved master plan for the Reed College campus, retain the resource in its present condition with exception to removal of non-native, invasive plants such as blackberry and reed canary grass (listed in the Portland Plant List as nuisance species) and replacement with native species. Active wildlife management such as the placement of bird nest boxes would help inc-case wildlife. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zones within Site Area Affected by Area Affected by EP EC Zone Zone R2* 40 acres 15 acres * 1 1.5 * Land owned by Reed College Portions owned by Reed College 64 <t f t a SI'Z'E-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMEN'T'S Conflicting Uses: Identified conflicting uses within this site area would be expansion of the Reed College Campus or residential development for which the area is zoned. Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses: Loss of high quality habitat and educational resource within the inner city, loss of impervious surfaces resulting in less ground water recharge and filtration of storm water, and decreased water flow into Cyrstal Springs effecting the fisheries, and possibly degradation to the water quality caused by # hillside erosion and siltation during site construction . Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: The portion of the site that is located on Reed Campus is intended to remain in a natural condition according to the City-approved, Reed College master plan. About 3.5 acres of protected land is outside of the Reed campus, in the northeast corner, most of which is already developed at the R5 base zone density. New residential construction would be required to mitigate for lost resource values. SI'Z'E-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES AND ACTIVITIES • Uses specified under the Reed College master plan (CU 41-90) 1 Ethan Seltzer, Citizen Participation in Environmental Planning: Context and Consequence, A Dissertation in Urban Planning, 1983 2 R.A. Redfern, Portland Physiographic Inventory, A Study of the Physical Environment and Implications to 4 Planning and Development, December 1976 i i 1 C I 7 65 I i WWNWAN~ WESUBEENUMMom SITE:.2 UNIT: Crystal Springs 1~Iaps: 3632; 3633; 3732; 3733; 3832; 3833 SITE ASSIZE: 101 acres LOCATION: SE-Ellis (1); -SE Nehalem and Tacoma (S); SE McLoughlin and SE22nd . Ave. (W); and SE 28th Ave. (E). 'NEIGHBORHOOD: 'Eastmoreland and Sellwoood=Moreland DATE OF :INVENTORY: February 1987, June :and August 1990 ~HA:BIT-AT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom • Riverine, Lower Perennial Artificial, Rocky Shore Palustrine,:Scrub-Shrub, Broad4eafed.Deciduous, Seasonally-Flooded • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent, Seasonally Flooded (Crystal Springs) 'GENERAL DESCRIPTION This highly modified site is a flat, historic floodplain is now primarily a landscaped City -park (Westmoreland Park), a•municipal garden (Rhododendron Gardens), anda:golf course (Eastmoreland). Crystal Springs and the Rhododendron Gardens.provide scenic .values and the later, also provides educational value. Golf course and park activities take advantage of the creeks, riparian areas, and wetlands:pnmarily from anaesthetic standpoint. Single and multi-family residential development is also within small portions at the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners, and a single commercial lot on the corner of SE McLoughlin Boulevard and SE Tacoma is also included. Both Cyrstal Springs and Johnson Creek are located within this site. The area includes water bodies, two creek channels, fisheries, and extensive permeable surfaces (open grass) that.provides rain infiltration and limited habitat. ' SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, heritage, flood storage, recreation, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCES: The overall wildlife habitat quality of this site is limited due to the extensive lawn cover. Ninety percent of this, 101-acre site area has permeable surfaces which contribute to groundwater recharge and reduction in peak flooding. About 25 acres of the site are water bodies, with most of the remainder in highly modified open space. QUALITY OF RESOURCES: The water quality of Crystal Springs has been studied by tie USGS in 1989 and 1990. The creek is known to support coho, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and some migrating fall chinook. Crystal Springs is primarily spring fed, has a year-round flow, and receives little surface runoff. Native vegetation is limited, with more than 90% of the site being landscape lawn. However, the golf course's cultivated grass provides food for resident and wintering waterfowl. In 1986, higher concentrations of both American and European widgeons were observed at Eastmoreland than anywhere else in Portland. This combination of grassland _ and adjacent water bodies provides important wintering habitat for waterfowl within the urban environment. 66 i i loan Mai Rhododendron gardens consisting of azaleas, rhododendron, and other flowering shrubs provide food and nesting for hummingbirds and warblers in the spring and early summer. Golf course ponds and Crystal Springs Lake provide food and cover for wintering waterfowl. Mallards, wigeons, mergansers, shovelers wood ducks, and coot can commonly be observed. The Rhododendron gardens receive regular human use on a year- round basis, with higher numbers of visitors in spring and summer. The adjacent Eastmoreland Golf Course is used daily. The creek channels provide aquatic habitat for steelhead, trout, and coho salmon. Crystal Springs, which flows into Johnson Creek just south of this site, is one of the few creeks within the Portland Metro area that still supports a population of native cut throat trout and steelhead. These fish spawn and migrate up Johnson Creek no farther than the Tideman- Johnson Park area.' A fish hatchery is located along Cyrstal Springs within this site. It is operated by a private volunteer and sponsored by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and stocked with Cutthroat Trout and Coho Salmon fry. The relatively large amount of permeable surfaces on this site help maintain the infiltration capacity of the ground and ground recharge. The Site 2 portion of Johnson Creek flows through the Eastmoreland Golf Course and Johnson Creek Park. The channel is mostly riprapped. Blackberry and willow grow in a narrow strip along the bank adjacent to the golf course green. Vegetation overhangs the creek, providing some local temperature regulation of the stream for fish and limited habitat for passerine species and small mammals. The riparian fringe functions as a corridor for some wildlife in a densely urbanized area that lacks the necessary natural vegetation and water required to attract wildlife. C Fences along the creek separating properties may inhibit travel by some mammal and herptile species throughout the length of the site. Bird species using Reed Lake probably travel regularly between the two sites. h Score or Wildlife Habitat 'Value: 39 Range or All Sites = 1 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) low Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: low MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Increase native plant materials throughout site. Incorporate a wildlife habitat management program into groundskeeping practices for these three public facilities; Rhododendron Garden, Cyrstal Springs (West Moreland Park); and Eastmoreland Golf Course. lam LAND AREA AFFEC'T'ED BY ENVIRONMEN'T'AL OVERLAY ZONES: Zones Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone 1 1 acres 1 acres 5 1 1 1 1 C 5 1 1 1 67 i i SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential development and urban park expansion. Commercial and industrial development that impacts water quality or removes tree shading from the creek. Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses: Because 90% of this site is publicly owned and in park or golf course use it is likely that there will be no redevelopment of these open spaces. There could however, be an intensification of recreation and ancillary uses which decrease the amount of open space area. Residential and Industrial development could remove creekside vegetation, add pollutants to the creek from stormwater runoff, and introduce excessive human activity. Consequences of Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Application of the p, Environmental Protection, Zone should have minimal effect on residential or industrial development, as it is only within the creek floodway in these zones. Impact of the EC, Environmental Conservation, Zone would probably require either a reduction in overall residential densities or creation of planned unit developments. Few lots in this site are now vacant, a major exception being an R2-zoned property along the southwest border of Westmoreland Park. Implementation of the recommended plan district management plan may help foster groundskeeping practices that are compatible or more supportive of wildlife through increased native plantings for cover, food, and shade, and a reduction or more sensitive application of pesticides and herbicides. New construction would be required to mitigate for lost resource values. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES AND ACTIVITIES • Removal of concrete channel lining of Crystal Springs Creek and reestablishment of the native riparian strip and shallow wetland planting. I • Approved land use actions, including the Eastmoreland Racquet Club and Eastmoreland i Golf Course activities. µ 1 Phone conversation with Wayne Bower staff biologist for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, July f 1990 f 68 111111IR: 11121111111 C SITE: 3 UNIT: City of Portland/Milwaukie Limit Maps: 3832, 3833, 3932 SITE SIZE: 87 acres LOCATION: SE 21st Avenue (W), SE SE Nehalem and Tacoma Streets (N), SE 33rd Avenue (E), and the Multnomah County boundary (S) NEIGHBORHOOD: Ardenwald and Sellwood-Moreland DATE OF INVENTORY: June 1988; September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom • Riverine, Lower Perennial Artificial, Rocky Shore • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leafed Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site comprises the lower portion of Crystal Springs Creek, its confluence with Johnson Creek, and about one and one-quarter miles of Johnson Creek downstream from Johnson Creek Canyon. Adjacent lands are almost fully developed with a wide variety of land uses including single and multi-family housing, commercial, and industrial facilities. With the exception of residences abutting Crystal Springs Creek and Johnson Creek Park at the confluence of Crystal Springs and Johnson Creeks, water resources are virtually ignored. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, heritage, flood storage, recreation, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCES This site borders the Milwaukie city limits and is ninety percent developed with primarily industrial and commercial land uses leaving the natural habitat diminished. At this point creek channel is generally, 30-50 feet wide with a 10 ft. riparian strip. Johnson Creek Park' is park of about 10 acres, with about one-third (including tho waterways) in natural condition. QUALITY OF RESOURCES The resource area of Site 3 is the creek channel and floodway. The floodway varies from 90 to 300 feet wide and has a 10-50 foot strip of vegetation along the steep banks. Throughout this site Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass are the dominant plant species with scattered stands of black cottonwood, alder, and willow. Creek banks have a 1:1 slope, limiting access to the creek by mammal and herptile species. Lawns, parking areas, and roads are immediately adjacent to the narrow riparian vegetation. Lack of canopy cover and shade, and stormwater runoff from paved surfaces limit habitat quality for fish and aquatic invertebrates. This stretch of Crystal Springs and Johnson Creeks provides limited wildlife habitat, and is primarily used by urban-adapted wildlife species. It serves as a travel corridor for spawning cuthrout trout and steelhead between the Willamette River to Reed Lake and other areas along Johnson Creek. Johnson Creek Park is a small open space resource located within this site. It is about 10 acres, located at the confluence of Cyrstal Springs and Johnson Creek, near SE 21st Avenue and SE Clatsop Street. C 69 Score or a i e Habitat alu-c 1 Range or A rtes =1 to 3 Vegetation ^ f,- Food (variety) low C over(su acr d diversity) low Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: low MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION To encourage greater wildlife use, terrace creek banks away from the creek and revegetate to create a wider riparian area using native tree, shrub, and ground cover species. This will also provide greater volume within creek banks, reducing width of the floodplain. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zones ---Kr-ea AffRiea by Area A acted by EC Zone EP Zone acres acres 1 5 <1 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Urban development, particularly stormwater runoff, human activity, noise, and light. i Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Tyre condition and treatment of the creek edges would remain in the same degraded state, continuing flooding patterns. Continued development and redevelopment would result in parking lots, buildings, and fill within the narrow habitat area. Pollution from stormwater runoff would continue. Consequences of Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Restoration of the creeks, including banks would be required as development and redevelopment occurs. This would help improve water quality for fisheries and at the same dme provide additional cover and food for wildlife using the creek edges. As paved areas are improved, oil separators, sediment traps, and on-site retention or detention facilities can reduce surface water pollution. 70 Will maim ( SITE: 4 OJ* UNIT: Milwaukie Confluence *OJ= Other jurisdiction CCU of Milwaukie) LOCATION: SE Sherrett St. (N); Willamette River confluence (S) and (W); NEIGHBORHOOD: City of N ilwaukie DATE OF INVENTORY: June 1988; Sept. 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Riverine, Lower Perennial Artificial, Rocky Shore. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leafed Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This portion of the creek flows through industrial and commercial areas, and is largely ignored by development. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Public access, water, storm drainage , scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, heritage, flood storage, recreation, scenic beauty, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCES The actual resource area is the floodway channel and a narrow 10 ft. strip of vegetation along the steep banks with the exception to the confluence of Johnson Creek with the Willamette River where there is about a 5-acre wetland. QUALITY OF RESOURCES ' Himalayan Blackberry and Reed Canarygrass are dominant plant species, with scattered stands of black cottonwood, alder and willow. The banks are very steep, limiting access to the creek by mammals and herptiles. Lawns, parking areas and roads are immediately adjacent to the narrow riparian strip. There is limited canopy cover and shade, and probable runoff from adjacent uses limit habitat quality for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The resource has been degraded by channelization, replacement of riparian vegetation with paving up to the top of the creek bank. Presence of streets, lighting, and noise associated with urban development decrease wildlife value. This site provides habitat for urban adapted wildlife species and includes the confluence of Johnson Creek with the Willamette River. It serves as a link between the Willamette River, Elk Rock Island, Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, and the rest of the Johnson Creek Basin for fisheries and avian wildlife. Public access, recreation, scenic beauty, and environmental education is provided at Johnson Park located on this site. Score for Wildlife Habitat Value: 45 Range for All Sites =_18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) low Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Terracing and revegetating creek banks and widening the riparian zone using native trees, shrubs, and ground cover would enhance the site and encourage greater wildlife use. i 71 BEEN g1:1:111 U PIONEER` SITE: 5 UNIT: Tideman-Johnson Park (West) Map: 3834 SITE SIZE : 39 acres LOCATION: SE Johnson Creek Boulevard (S); SE Berkeley Way (unimproved,right-of- way) and SE Crystal Springs Boulevard (N); SE 32nd Avenue, (W); and 39th Avenue (E). NEIGHBORHOOD: Eastmoreland DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, June 1990, and August 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: Creek Bank & Channel: Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom Palustrine, Emergent Persistent, Seasonally Flooded Palust ze, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leafed Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded, Upland Forest-Shrub Slope GENERAL DESCRIPTION Site 5 includes the Johnson Creek channel and riparian zone in the vicinity of Tideman- Johnson Park. Land on both sides of the canyon are developed single family residential neighbarhoods. This site is thirty-nine acres of an approximately 117-acre wilderness canyon area, associated upland and adjacent wetland area, wildlife and fisheries travel corridor, gradual creek bank allowing access by animals, possible archaeological resources, and City park providing public access, scenic, and educational values. SIGNIFICAN'T' RESOURCE VALUES Public access, water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, flood storage, recreation, scenic beauty, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCE The 39-acre site is about 80% undeveloped, including about one-third of all parcels. Of the privately-owned vacant parcels, most are on the steep slopes of the southern canyon wall. QUALITY OF RESOURCE This site is the west end of one of two canyons in the study area, and the least urbanized of sites west of NE 117th Avenue. There are no roads into the site, and the canyon walls create a contiguous urban wilderness. One-third of the parcels within this study area are vacant and eighty percent of the total area remains undeveloped. The canyon as a whole has high scenic value. This site includes Tideman-Johnson Park, a six acre parcel located near SE 39th Avenue on the north side of Johnson Creek. This park site was donated to the City of Portland in 1942 and remains relatively undeveloped. The lower elevations, or creek terrace, is cultivated with lawn and shade trees interspersed with native vegetation (cedar, fir, cottonwood, and oak). The south bank vegetation of Johnson Creek is dominated by blackberry, maple, and alder. _ The southern canyon wall that rises 75 to 100 feet up to Johnson Creek Boulevard is an upland forest of Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and Bigleaf Maple with some intrusion of introduced plants. The slope of the north canyon wall is more gentle, providing easier - access by wildlife species. It rises 60 feet above the flat, terraced area that is the center of Tideman-Johnson Park. Springs are located along the north and south canyon walls, providing moisture to the plant species and a minor water source to the creek. 72 i I I I C At the eastern end of the park adjacent the creek channel there is 40-inch diameter cottonwood tree. This tree is a native, estimated at over 100 years old, and provides habitat for Great Blue Heron and owls. A sanitary sewer line runs at grade and parallel to and in the creek channel for about fifty feet within Tideman-Johnson Park. The concrete sewer line is a barrier to fish migration. It is to this point that salmonids reportedly travel from the Willamette River and spawn . Creek vegetation is primarily blackberries overhanging the channel, mixed with willow, cottonwood, grasses, and nettle. Small amounts of sedges and rushes line the littoral zone. Riparian vegetation provides food, nesting, and cover for passerine species and small mammals. The channel is suitable for feeding/resting by small fish. Reptiles and amphibians probably use the stream and riparian area. Waterfowl use the area for feeding and resting. Structural diversity on both sides of the creek is limited, but some food, cover, and nesting is provided by dense patches of shrubby vegetation and trees. Species observed include pileated woodpecker, downy woodpecker, kestrel, green backed heron, gray squirrel and garter snake. Interspersion with other natural areas is medium. The site is influenced by urban } surroundings with some fishing and swimming activity. There have been arrowheads found in this area, giving evidence that that Indians once occupied this area., Score or WHOM abitat Value: 7 Range or Al! Sites =18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: medium s x MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS • Removing non-native plant species (particularly Himalayan Blackberry) and replacing with native plants such as red osier dogwood, elderberry, willow, sword ferns. • Continuing wildlife management practices such as placing nest boxes in Tideman- Johnson Park to encourage use by cavity-nesting bird species. • Investigating restoration of the creek through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife STEP Program, to increase fisheries. • Constructing a fish ladder or other means to allow passage over sewer interceptor located in Tideman-Johnson Park. • Assisting annual creek clean-ups with citizen and volunteer help. • Retaining upland tree cover as development occurs. • Considering public overlooks of the canyon from higher elevations such as along SE Johnson Creek Boulevard. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zone Area Affected by E Area Affected by P Zone Zone 5 1 acres acres 7 73 SI'Y E-SPECIRC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential and urban park development, and any roadway within the canyon or along Johnson Creek Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: The natural habitat and character of the canyon would be diminished and irretrievably altered if not protected. The character of - the park would be changed. Damage to the fisheries would result from removal of shade and dietrus material over the creek. Siltation caused during construction would further degrade the water quality and the springs on the canyon walls would be altered, resulting in a change in plant communities to one more tolerant of drier conditions which have less habitat value. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Economic Con=uenc es Seven acres of this 39-acre site would have a reduction in housing density from R5 and R7 densities to 1 unit per 1.05 acres. Property values may not proportionately drop with the loss of density, as scenic qualities and close proximity to the park and creek would influence the property value. It should be noted again that under the City's adopted Housing Goal, (Goal 10) the loss of density on the seven-acre area located floodways, 100-year floodplains, and on "hazardous" hillside were not included in the needed housing calculations adopted by the City Council and accepted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission. All lands being recommended for no development within the site fall into one of these three categories so, in effect, there is no loss of land needed to meet housing goals due to the infeasibility of developing on these highly physically constrained sites. P Social Conseq nc s: Full protection of the floodway and adjacent riparian strip and partial I protection of the upland area would preserve the scenic character of the canyon. Residents of Portland would continue to enjoy recreation or living in an urban wilderness. Environmental Conseaueces_: With protection, there would be a decrease in allowed density, more trees and natural vegetation retained, and less disturbance to hillsides. Despite the decrease in density, infill housing would have the appearance and character of an R5 development, as it would be clustered on the upland areas. Houses on smaller (ie. 5,000 square foot) lots would be consistent with the zoning pattern of the area. Energ ns uences: Clustering development is more energy efficient; less land and infrastructure is used. In the case of "zero lot line" development, there is an even greater energy saving because of the common-wall construction that reduces heating and cooling costs. I Steve Johnson, A Special Place, 1979 x 74 SITE: 6 UNIT: 39th-42nd Wetland Map: 3834, 3835 SITE SIZE: 10 acres LOCATION: SE 39th Avenue (W); Springwater Line (S); Crystal Springs Boulevard (N); and NE 42nd Avenue (E) NEIGHBORHOOD: Woodstock, Ardenwald, Eastmoreland DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, June and September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent; Seasonally Flooded • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub; Broadleafed-Deciduous, Semi-Permanent Seasonal Flooding GENERAL DESCRIP'T'ION This site includes a small wetland adjacent to Johnson Creek to the northeast of Tideman- Johnson Park. The site has slopes on the north and west sides which separate it from the adjacent residential neighborhood. Dense Himalayan blackberry, willow, and red osier dogwood dominate the site with some variation in the riparian area. Shrubs and trees provide good structural diversity for habitat for birds and small mammals. Interspersion with other natural areas is good. Dense blackberries severely limit use of this site by humans. However, this area is probably used by dogs and cats. SITE RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, interspersion, flood storage, scenic beauty, and education QUAN'T'ITY OF RESOURCES This site includes a 9-acre wetland that is adjacent a 6-acre undeveloped park site and nearby upland forest. Although, much of this site is being taken over by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, the scarcity of wetlands along Johnson Creek makes it important. In this situation the dense Himalayan blackberry surrounding the wetland provide a buffer from human use. QUALITY OF RESOURCES The site rating of 72 is high. This wetland and associated upland provide a biological and hydrological link to the creek corridor. The wetland provides habitat for redwing blackbirds, common yellowthroats, and other wildlife species. It also provides storm water retention, groundwater recharge, and water quality filtration to the adjacent Tideman- Johnson Park and Johnson Creek. Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass reduce the habitat quality from what it would be if native plants occurred rather than the aggressive exotic plant species. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 72 Range or All ties = 18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium ( Interspersion: medium 75 t MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 4 . It is important to protect the wetland to the greatest extent possible. Invasive and exotic t. ~ species should be replaced by native plants through mitigation or enhancement actions, providing greater diversity, and higher quality habitat and amenity value. ALAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zones Area Affected by Area A acted by Zone Zone 5 R2.5 acres acres 5 1 SI'Z'E-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Opportunities to locate development above the wetland area exists, so development and resource protection can both occur. The wetland enhances the wildlife value of adjacent Tideman-Johnson Park. Conflicting Uses: Residential development. This site is zoned R5, with 80% of the site a designated R2.5 by the comprehensive plan (appropriate for future attached single-family residential development). Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Degradation of the site would occur to the extent that the habitat resources would be lost. Fill would have to be placed to lift the area above the flood plain, causing additional localized flooding nearby. Water quality benefits would also be lost. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Economic Consequences: Protection as proposed would result in a loss of potential housing units. About five acres would have a reduction in allowed density to one unit per 1.05 acres for the R5(R2.5) areas recommended for EP, environmental protection zone where no development would be allowed. The density could be transfered to other portions of the site. The drop in property values would be offset somewhat by scenic qualities and desirability of living in an urban natural resource. The resource value of Tideman-Johnson Park would be increased if the surrounding properties were left in a natural condition. Social Consequences: Civic pride and enjoyment of living within this urban wilderness area would be continued. Character of the neighborhood and City as a whole would be enhanced. Environmental Consgguences: This wetland would continue to provide wildlife habitat diversity, animal access to the creek, groundwater storage, and sediment trapping. Energy Consea eu nces: Combined with the adjacent park, this site provide the opportunity for residents of the area to view wildlife while avoiding the fuel and expense of car travel. a f i 76 r I NINE=_ SITE: 7 UNIT:WPA Fish Ladder Unit (42nd & Harney) Map: 3835 SITE SIZE: 32 acres LOCATION: City limits near Johnson Creek Blvd.(S); South of SE Cyrstal Springs Boulevard (N); near SE 45th Avenue (E); and SE 39th Avenue (W). NEIGHBORHOOD: Woodstock } DATE OF INVENTORY: August; September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverire, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent, Seasonally Flooded. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leafed Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The resource site is either low density single-family residential development or vacant. Johnson Creek divides just west of the SE 45th Avenue bridge, forming an island which makes up much of the site. Access is by a small bridge on SE Harney Street. Residential neighborhoods are located to the north and west, while commercial and industrial activities are to the east and south. TYPES OF RESOURCE VALUES Historic, fish and wildlife habitat; public park land; wetland; and scenic QUANTITY OF RESOURCE About half of the site area is developed, while the remainder is creek and bank, wetlands, and slopes along the northern portion of the site which separate it from the neighborhood to the north. QUALITY OF RESOURCE An oxbow at this section of the creek was created by the WPA in the 1930's. The WPA also built a fish ladder, rock bridge, and waterfall. This stretch of the creek provides moderate to high wildlife habitat value. The water is usually shallow and slow moving through the oxbow. Portions of the the creekbed adjacent to the oxbow-;have been nprapped. There are large pieces of concrete in the creek. The tree canopy is approximately 60% closed, dominated by alder and cottonwood. Shrub and herb canopies are denser, about 90% closed with willow and hawthorne. The ground cover consists primarily of the non-native species of reed canarygrass, blackberry, and tansy. There is one large snag within the site that is being used by downy woodpecker and red breasted nuthatch. The fish ladder and waterfall attract human visitation, resulting in garbage and broken glass scattered throughout the site. The site is also being used for yard debris disposal. The riparian strip is about 25 -30 feet wide, with good shading over the creek. There are some good fish holes and the creek is well shaded, regulating the water temperature, enhancing the habitat for fish, and other aquatic species. Riprapping, steep banks, garbage, yard debris, and human use lessen the wildlife habitat use of this stretch of the creek. This is one of the few places along the creek where a (vertical) snag was observed. Interspersion is good, linking the adjacent wetland and Tideman-Johnson Park. 77 Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 66 Range for All rtes =1 to 3 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Inters ersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Garbage and solid waste in creek should be removed. Portions of the creek banks should be regraded away from the creek to a shallower angle for easier access by wildlife. Property owners should be made aware of habitat value and ways to maintain and enhance it, including the importance of maintaining shade cover over the creek, removal of invasive } or non-native plants, and of degradation caused by disposal of yard debris in the habitat area. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES ones Area Affected by Area Affected by Zone Zone S 1 7 5(R2.5) 3 7- R5(M2) 5 1 G 1 G1 1 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential and commercial development and urban park expansion. Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Infill housing development would likely continue as it is today on the island, where homes are constructed on stilts to avoid flood damage and to meet the FEMA regulations administered by the Bureau of Buildings. The southwest corner of the site is zone R7. No protection would allow removal of the , natural vegetation and further development to a density of up to one house per 7,000 square feet of lot area. This would change the wilderness character of the canyon, accelerate rates of erosion, reduce flood storage and groundwater recharge, and lose habitat. The vacant industrial parcel to the north of the Springwater Line could be developed to the top of bank. This setback would have the negative impact of destroying the creek-side, riparian vegetation. The industrial zone parcels located to the south of the Springwater line appear fully developed. With no protective measures, sites like this will continue to have runoff from the parking lots and buildings empty directly into the creek without oil separation. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: These consequences are the same as are contained in Chapter 5. 78 i { i SITE: 8 OJ* UNIT: Clackamas Co. (45th - 77th Ave.) Maps: 3935; 3936; *OJ= Other jurisdiction 3937;3938 t Note: The inventoried site includes less than the Unit area, only the creels and a small adjacent shrub wetland at f _ 72nd Avenue LOCATION: SE 45th Avenue (W); Railroad Tracks (N); SE 77th Avenue (E); and SE Overland Street (S) DATE OF INVENTORY: June 1988, June 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES g Fish and wildlife habitat providing food, nesting, and cover for birds, reptiles, amphibians, and beavcr, historic, -pen space, scenic, recreational, educational; and 1,600 foot-long strip of mature Cottonwood trees. QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES This site provides limited wildlife habitat value, primarily for those species that adapt to urbanization. Heavy human use and garbage disposal along this stretch of the creek inhibit use by wildlife. Although separated from other habitat areas along Johnson Creek, this site does function as a travel corridor for wildlife. Willows dominate the vegetation community with some blackberry and grasses. This small area represents a portion of the natural riparian vegetation which existed along Johnson Creek prior to urbanization. The scrub-shrub wetland provides food, nesting, and cover for birds, reptiles, amphibians, and beaver. Streambank vegetation is disturbed by human trails and fishing activity. Litter and garbage are present. Interspersion with other natural areas is low, as it is separated by railroad tracks and surrounded by industrial and residential development. Score or ddlia Habitat clue: 49 Range or All rtes =18 to 3 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cbver(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: low z 79 SITE: 9 UNIT: 77th - 82nd Ave. Unit Map: 3838 SITE SIZE: 17 acres LOCATION: SE 78th Avenue (W); SE Clatsop Street/City Limits (S); S. of Crystal Springs Boulevard (E); and SE 82nd Avenue (E). NEIGHBORHOOD: Brentwood-Darlington DATE OF INVENTORY: June, August 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This is an area of agricultural activity along most of the creek, surrounded largely by industrial activity. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Fisheries, wildlife travel corridor, and water source for wildlife QUANTITY OF RESOURCES This stretch of Johnson Creek has a very steep, 1:1 riprapped slope. Where present, the riparian, tree-covered strip is narrow, only 10 ft wide. The primary ground cover is blackberry plus 10% big leaf maple and 30% willow. The substrata is rocky with a lot of additional large garbage and debris. Bank erosion is problematic in the areas where the vegetation has been removed, All of the creekside vegetation has been removed and the creek bank has been pushed to the extreme edge of the creek in order to maximize upland use of the land except for a 10-foot wide strip. Except for about 40% of the 10-foot strip that has trees, the creek is exposed to direct sunlight and heating. - QUALITY OF RESOURCES The wildlife habitat quality of this stretch of the creek is limited. Wildlife species that adapt well to urbanization, proliferation of introduced plant species, and poor water quality are the most common resource characteristics found here. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 43 Range or All Sites = 18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Creek banks should be regraded away from the creek to create better animal access and slopes that will not be so susceptible to erosion. The riparian strip and creek bank should be planted with native vegetation, particularly trees and shrubs, to create cover and shade. Planting of major trees such as western red cedars and other plantings on both sides of SE - 82nd Avenue can indicate creek location from the roadway and create a gateway into the City. f_ 80 LAND AREA AFFEC'T'ED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES C Zones Area ecte by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone um acres acres 1 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Agricultural and urban development has created the present poor state of creek channel and creek edge. Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses: Continued heat exposure to the creek during the summer months will contribute to the decline of fish. Water temperatures exceeding sixty-eight degrees are difficult on fish; exceeding the mid-seventies is lethal to fisheries. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: There would be a 5- acre reduction in development area, of which most is floodway area. Development in the floodway is already limited by FEMA regulations. r 81 SITE: 10 UNIT: 82nd Ave. East Unit Map: 3839 SITE SIZE: 10 acres LOCATION: SE 82nd Avenue (V); S. of SE Harney Street (S); Springwater Line (N); and SE 84th Avenue (E) NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents DATE OF INVENTORY: June, August 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL (DESCRIPTION This site is, with the exception of the creek, in commercial, trailer park, and industrial use. The wildlife habitat value of this stretch of Johnson Creek has been severely affected by adjacent land uses. A trailer park immediately adjacent to the south bank of the creek limits wildlife access to the creek. (On one visit several of the trailers were hanging over the bank). The steep banks are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass growth: There is an abundance of garbage and grocery shopping carts throughout this stretch. The creek is exposed with little shade provided from the few scattered ash and big leaf maple trees. Remnants of an old bridge abutment still remain in the creek, acting as a garbage trap. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, interspersion, fisheries QUANTITY OF RESOURCES Properties abutting the creek are mostly paved, leaving an unpaved area of about 50-feet Ella wide between each bank. The riparian vegetation is sparse. In its current condition, the primary resource is the creek itself. It serves as a travel.corridor. The floodway, which occupies more than one-third of the site, represents a potential habitat area as redevelopment occurs. The floodway is over 200 feet vide across most of the site, widening to 470 feet at the eastern end. With the exception to a less than one acre tract next to Harney Street, the remainder of the ten-acre site is within the 100-year flood plain. QUALI'T'Y OF RESOURCES This site is greatly degraded and very little impervious surface remains. As with the rest of Johnso:: r0reek, this section functions as a travel corridor for wildlife moving up and down the creek, as well as linking some. upland sites with. thhe reek. 1 "his site received 26 points, one of the lowest ratings for wildlife habitat value along Johnson Creek. In addition to the removal of native vegetation, SE 82nd Avenue, a major arterial street, degrades habitat value of the site because of the traffic noise and debris generated from the street. Score or Wildlife- Habitat Value: 2 Range or All Sites = 1 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) low Cover(structural diversity) low Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: med. Y 82 a i 3 i I I MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Removal of garbage, terracing slopes, revegetation, and creation of a buffer between the resource area and the adjacent land use would greatly enhance the habitat value of the site. SE 82nd Avenue can be reinforced as a hist~;;c anal cur. m`ci route Lao the City by i creating a gateway with trees that will be large at maturity. ; LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAP ZONES f Zones rea Affected by Affected by EC Zone EP Zone 10(R5) 1 acre acres G2 1 1 1 1 i ISC 1 E SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential, commercial, and industrial development along the creek channel and floodway. i Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Continued degradation of fisheries and wildlife habitat. I Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: The existing trailer court would become a non-conforming use. I I i i - f I i i i _ i i i 83 t SITE: 11 UNIT: 86th Ave. Forest Map: 3839 r SITE SIZE: 13 acres LOCATION: SE 84th Avenue (W); SE 87th Ave. (E), Springwater Line (1); and North of SE Harney Street (S) t NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents NOR= DATE OF INVENTORY: June, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Upland Forest; coniferous, deciduous. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This is an unusual forested area, bordered on the east and south by single-family development, industrial and commercial activities on the west, and the Springwater Line on the north. Johnson Creek passes through it. Much of the site is within the floodway, and all is within the 100-year flood plain. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, interspersion, wildlife and fisheries habitat, aesthetics, storm drainage and flood storage, recreation, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCE The forested portion of the site covers about ten of the 13-acre site. The forest has a 90% closed tree canopy, making it relatively dense. There are no other forested uplands near or ' adjacent the creek within several miles each side of this site. There are very few forests or woodlot pockets at the lower elevations on the east side of the City. QUALITY OF RESOURCE The rarity of a forested upland along Johnson Creek and on the east side of the City make this an important site. The forest is dominated by Douglas fir, red alder, and Bigleaf maple with a shrub layer of Oregon hazel, vine maple, and Himalayan blackberry. There is very little ground cover with large expanses of bare ground. The areas surrounding the forest is dense blackberry, making access to the site difficult. The trees and shrubs provide food for towhees, robin, black capped chickadees, kinglets and western wood peewees. The surrounding area is under-developed with large, half-acre parcels and a small 15-lot subdivision bordering the southeast corner of the forest. Usp by domestic animals is high, which may limit use by wildlife species. Interspersion with other sites is gained by the adjacency of this forest to Johnson Creek. Although the structural diversity of This ivnsi has bee►a uu icasc'd by Ule -mm.M of much Nam of the understory vegetation, the forest plays an important role in the Johnson Creek ecosystem by providing habitat for birds, mammals, and herptile species that require forested areas adjacent to the creek for cover, food, resting and breeding. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 2 Range or All rtes =18 to 3 Vegetation Food (variety) high - Cover(structural diversity) high Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium 84 .-E MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION C_ Removing blackberries and garbage, limiting unnecessary human intrusion, and reestablishing the under and overstory with native plantings would increase resource value significantly. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zones Area ected by Area A acted by EC Zone EP Zone R-1 1 acre acres R-7 3 3 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMEN'T'S Conflicting Uses: Residential development. Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: An important resource "island" between Tideman-Johnson Park and the Mt. Scott area would be lost, decreasing interspersion value of the creek corridor for terrestrial species. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Residential development would be limited to EC-designated arras (4 acres of the 11-acre site) or outside the resourcc, iequu::.g clustering and possible overall reductions in density. OEM VASM OEM. Nam C~ i PAM i i 1 i mom sum 85 SITE: 12 UNIT: 88th Avenue Oxbow P:sn: 3839 SITE SIZE: 35.acres LOCATION: Springwater Line (l); I-205 (E); SE 92nd Avenue ; NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents . DATE OF INVENTORY: June, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION e Riverine, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is primarily single and multi-family development or cleared open space. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, stormwater, interspersion, fisheries QUANTITY OF RESOURCE Outside of the creek condor, little resource is present. The steep banked section of Johnson Creek is vegetated by a closed canopy scrub, shrub-willow and blackberry community. There are no trees present along this stretch of the creek. The area was probably cleared and filled during construction of the I-205 interchange. The riparian strip is only about 10 feet wide. Interspersion with other areas is limited by the roads and interstate on all sides. There is a small island covered with reed canarygrass in the middle of the creek, providing potential nesting area for waterfowl. QUALITY OF RESOURCES: 1 This is one of the lowest rating stretches for wildlife habitat value along Johnson Creek. In it's present state, the scenic value of Johnson Creek is almost non-existent at this point. Because of the unresponsive surrounding urban design there is little indication of the creek's presence. As the rest of Johnson Creek, this section functions as a travel corridor and water source for wildlife moving up and down the creek. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 30 Range or All rtes =18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) low Cover(structural diversity) medium U.. T: ~~....i..,....o. nh L LYLLIQIL 61 1JLJ~lal i A- + Innterspersion• - medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Removing garbage, terracing slopes, and revegetating with native species to establish an under and overstory of plant materials would increase existing resource values significantly. Creating a treed riparian fringe for drivers viewing the City from I-205 would increase the visual presence of Johnson Creek and reinforce the notion of the livability of Portland. 86 - i i i LAND nIL"LLA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zones Area Affecied buy Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone R1 1 1 -R7 1 N j1 , SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS } Conflicting Uses: Industrial, residential, commercial development. i f . 1 i i i i I 1 a 1 I i i . i i Rama= i i _ I i i C 87 1 gill i SITE: 13 UNIT: I-205 West Map: 3740, 3840 SITE SIZE: 26 acres. LOCATION: Sp ngwater Line (N), SE 92nd Avenue (E}, SE 87th Avenue (W).; and SE Crystal Springs Boulevard (S) NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents DATE OF INVENTORY: June, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFFICATTION. a Riverine, Permanently, Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. a Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIVTION Natural resources are confined almost entirely to the creek and bank,, unpaved portions of the 1-205 right-of-way, and a large field on the. southern portion of the. site. The site is t bounded by I-205 on the east and south, industrial. activities along the north and northwest, and milti-family development to the southwest. Industrial activities also occupy the land between Johnson Creek and the Springwater Line. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, stormwater, interspersion, fisheries i QUANTITY OF RESOURCE Significant remaining resources are located almost entirely within the creek and banks.. i QUALITY OF RESOURCE j This section of the creek was lined with concrete during. construction of I-205. In spite of this, riparian shrubs are being reestablished, providing limited shading of the creek.. As with the rest of Johnson Creek, this section functions as a travel corridor and water source for wildlife moving up and down the creek. core or Wildlife Habitat Value: 30 Range or All rtes =1 to 83 Vegetation i Food (variety) low Cover (structural. diversity) low Human Disturbance: low Interspersion: high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Removing garbage, terracing slopes, revegetating, and creating a buffer between the resource area and the adjacent land use would greatly enhance the habitat value of the site. Large trees at this site and the east side of I-205 would provide a visual gateway into southeast Portland, and "showcase" the creek corridor. i 3 i 88 I LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zones rea acted by Area Affected by EC Zone EN Zone H 1 acre acre G2 1 1 ( ) r.SEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential and future neigiwrhood commercial development south of SE 1Flavel Street, and general industrial use to the north. 4 89 i i SI'Z'E: 14 UNIT: I-205 East Map: 3740; 3741, 3840 SITE SITE: 121 acres LOCATION: I-205 (W); Springwater Line (N); SE Knapp Street (S); SE 105th Avenue (E) NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, September 1990 - HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom • Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded • Urban Hardtop GENERAL DESCRIPTION ' This is a large industrial site that has been vacant for a number of years. Most of it is open. It is surrounded by single-family residential development to the east and on Mt. Scott to the south. I-205 is its west border, while industrial and mixed residential development is to the 1 north, between the Springwater Line and SE Foster Road. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, and interspersion. QUANTITY OF RESOURCE , This 121-acre site is a flat bottomland (Publisher's Paper) with moderate seasonal watercourses and depressions. A wetland of about five acres is located in the northwest corner of the site, next to I-205. The Johnson Creek channel is lined with intermittent stands of cottonwood, blackberry, and grasses. Eighty-to-ninety percent of the site is weedy, disturbed vegetation, and about two-thirds within the 100-year flood plain. The floodway is uniformly 200 feet wide through the site. This site has great potential for habitat restoration. In its present condition this section functions as a travel corridor for wildlife moving up and down the creek, and to and from the adjacent, Mt. Scott upland which borders to the south. A small flat grassland bordered by trees and blackberries is adjacent to the drainageway in the northeast corner of the site. Ten-to-fifteen percent of the total site is hardtop surface. The combination of hardtop and weedy vegetation provides very limited cover or habitat except for some urban adapted wildlife species such as starlings, pigeons, and crows. The Elm small grassland with tree border increase the food/cover for a greater diversity of potential species such as flickers, black-capped chickadees, song sparrows, rabbits, etc. HEM A 10-acre wooded strip about 200 feet deep along the south boundary slopes steeply upward as the base of Mt. Scott at its northern edge there is a drainageway wh:•ch directs stormwater to the west and into Johnson Creek near I-205. QUALITY OF RESOURCES The site provides limited value for wildlife along Johnson Creek, except for those species that adapt well to urbanization. The wetland in the northwest corner is isolated, and provides some protection to wildlife. 90 L=MMM M__ NEW There is speculation that much of the site is overlayed with several feet of sawdust from historic use of the site as a sawmill. Sawdust draws nitrogen from the soil, making it generally a poor planting or growing medium. From an urban design standpoint, natural resources on this site have much to offer. To the south, Mt. Scott provides a scenic backdrop and edge to any future development. Johnson Creek also provides an edge for the large southern portion, or a seam (unifying element) for the entire site. The wetland in the northwest corner can serve as a landmark and gateway into the Lents neighborhood and Portland for those traveling north on I-205. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 1 Range or All rtes =1 to 8 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) low Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: low MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Because of its size, location, and relatively undeveloped state, the site has more management potential for water resources and wildlife than any other site along Johnson Creek. It also has much development potential, although constrained by the flood plain, access, and load bearing limitations of the soil, if there is a high organic content as previously speculated. Many uses have been suggested for the site by neighbors, including a dam and stormwater detention, multi-family residential development, a park (including RV facilities), and employment-intensive industrial or commercial activity. All could be ^ compatible with existing resources, although the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning would preclude residential and most commercial activities. Following are recommendations for resource protection and ways the resource could be incorporated into any future development: • Retain the forested slope along the southern site boundary to provide a backdrop for future development; • Consider enhancement of the drainageway on the southern boundary at the foot of the slope, possibly extending it eastward into the next site and connecting to Johnson Creek at NE 112th Avenue to serve as an overflow channel; • Consider incorporating stormwater detention or retention facilities throughout future development as amenities such as ponds, wetlands, or open lawns or fields; • Establish a forested riparian strip along the creek for both wildlife and to increase the visual presence of the waterway; • Use the creek corridor as a major unifying design element for the entire site; and • Protect and enhance the wetland in the northwest corner, to serve as a refuge for wildlife and a gateway feature for drivers entering Portland along I-205. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zones Area A ected by Area A ected by EC Zone EN Zone H 1 acres 1 acres 2 1 C SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Industrial development 91 Vill SITE: 15 UNIT: 106th-112th Unit Map: 3741 SITE SIZE: 66 acres LOCATION: SE 105th Avenue (W); SE 112th Avenue (E); SE Foster Road (N), and the base of Mt. Scott, North of SE Knapp Street (S) NEIGHBORHOOD: Lents, Informal neighborhood group known as Land Owners And Friends of Johnson Creek (LOAF) RATE OF INVENTORY: March 1987, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Seasonally Flooded, Artificial Rocky Shore GENERAL DESCRIPTION This is a well-defined neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. To the west is the Publisher's Paper site, SE Foster Road and industrial properties along the north side, SE 112th Avenue to the east, and the toe of the northern slope of Mt. Scott to the south. Small conforming and nonconforming commercial and industrial uses are located along SE Foster Road and throughout the site. Roads are unimproved and, although a sewer interceptor runs along the southern boundary, few properties are connected. Most of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, recreation QUANTITY OF RESOURCES A major portion of the 65-acre site is in the designated floodway. The creek winds through the site with four major bends in the creek, creating about 3,400 feet of creek channel across the 2,000-foot wide site. In some portions of the creek, the lack of vegetation (trees, shrubs, and groundcover) reduces habitat area and increases summer water temperatures. QUALITY OF RESOURCE Prior to 1921 the Johnson Creek channel was located at the foot of Mt. Scott. In 1921 the hillside was clearcut. Later that winter it slid and diverted the creek to its present course. Annual flooding was encouraged by local farmers to deposit the creek's rich silt. The stream channel was lined during the early 1930's WPA project, some of which is visible today. According to residents, land near the historic channel at the foot of Mt. Scott is lower than along the present creek, causing ponding to occur during periods of heavy rainfall. This area drains generally to the west, to the southern drainageway of Site 14. Most of the site is dominated by a residential landscape treatment of lawn and garden up to the creek banks. There is some blackberry, willow, and alder growing in the riprap but native vegetation is minimal. Despite extensive human use, the stream and existing riparian vegetation provide habitat for beaver and muskrat. There are also signs that the cut bank along the stream provides nesting habitat for swallows. The wooded hillside of Mt. Scott is connected to the creek corridor loosely by vegetation throughout the neighborhood, allowing travel between the uplands and water. Litter and garbage are present. The upland and stream habitat is degraded. The site provides limited value for wildlife along Johnson Creek, except for those species that adapt well to urbanization. However, habitat for beaver and muskrat exists. 92 From an urban design standpoint, the site has much to offer. It has well-defined boundaries and access points, giving a strong sense of place. Like Site 14 to the immediate west (Publisher's Paper), Mt. Scott provides a strong visual backdrop, as well as upland habitat value. Johnson Creek is near SE Foster Road, and forms a strong northern boundary which must be crossed to enter into the neighborhood on NE 106th and 108th Avenues. Score or ildli a abitat alue: 5 ange or ll ites =1 to Vegetation medium Food (variety) Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: m__erlitnnn ( Interspersion: medium - MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS • Through restoration and revegetation, this site could be enhanced for its wildlife habitat value. • To reduce water temperature, plant trees to shade the creek. • Plant trees along the riparian strip to enhance visual impact, edge to the neighborhood, and "sense of place." • Consider establishing an overflow channel from where the creek crosses SE 112th Avenue, west along the toe of Mt. Scott, to connect with the south drainageway at Publisher's Paper, to reduce flooding and bank erosion along the serpentine main channel; • Regrading to create shallower banks reduce erosion, help stabilize the banks while reducing siltation into the creek. • Because of high visibility, lack of paved roads, and relative ubiquity, consider using this site as a test area for alternative road construction or drainage treatment techniques that reduce surface runoff and control pollution. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zones Amount Affected by Amount Affected by EC Zone EP Zone G2 1 1 N 1 1 10 ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential, Commercial, light industrial Consequences of allowing Conilicting Uses: According to residents, recent channel improvements have reduced flooding considerably (the last reported event was in 1982). However, much of the site continues to remain in the 100-year flood plain, according to FEMA. Because of the broad flat nature of this site, when flooding does occur, large areas can be inundated. In its present condition this site provides flood storage and decreases the storm water velocity during flooding, possible resulting in less downstream flooding, erosion, and property damage (at the expense of this site). 93 i j h Allbwing continued development without reducing the flood threat would simply subject continually greater investment to possible flood damage Additionally, present regulations limitresidential densities within the flood plain to half of what they would be out of it. Coanse€u es of limiftg or probi fag Conffiefiit g likes L• irnitingconflicting uses along the. creek corridor and reducing flood potential through use of a bypass,. detention system,. or a combination would actually increase: development potential' in the residential area, as the plan district would allow a doubling. of density for lands, removed from the. flood plain. This results in major economic gain. Retention, and enhancement of the riparian strip would separate: and buffer light industrial and commercial uses fronting SE Foster Road from the residential area, protecting and increasing.livabilit-j of the-neighborhoocL SIT&SP ECUIC COMPATIBLE USES. Repair orreplacement of existing. (but not new) pedestrian bridges serving property under the saxrae ownership but divided by the creek if: A maximum riparian area of 10 feet on each bridgehead is disturbed; There is, no enlargement or relocation of bridge piers; • There is. no, filling or blocking of the floodway;. and i • They are elevated to the height required by FEMA regulations. { i i . i i i 1 j ' i I f i i r 41 2 i 7 94 I i C SITE: 16 OJ* UNIT: Beggar's Tick Marsh Maps: 3641 *OJ= Other jurisdiction is Multnomah County SITE SIZE: 20 acres LOCATION: West of SE 111th Avenue north of SE Foster Road. DATE OF INVENTORY: March 1987, July 1990, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent (plants), Permanently, Semipermanently, and Seasonally Flooded. • Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Semipermanently and Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This is the highest-rated site in the Johnson Creek basin. It is located in and maintained by Multnomah County as a wildlife habitat preserve. Its primary significance is the plant diversity, which in turn supports a greater wildlife diversity. Beggar's Tick is a 20-acre marsh surrounded by residential and industrial development. The littoral is a dense growth of blackberry, willow, and hawthorne. About 20% of the inundated area consists of emergent cattail, spike-rush, sedge, and spirea. The marsh provides resting area and food for a large diversity of wintering waterfowl, as well as habitat for reptile, amphibian, and aquatic mammal (muslaats, beavers) species. More than one hundred ducks were counted during a January visit to the site. The surrounding vegetation provides food, cover, nest, and perching habitat for passerine, raptor, pheasant, and small mammal species. This high quality natural area serves as an island refuge for diverse wildlife species which formally occupied the surrounding urban region. The diversity and number of birds observed illustrate the importance of the marsh as a habitat for wintering species. i The educational potential is extremely high. The marsh is surrounded on all sides by residential and commercial/industrial development. People with horses ride through the j marsh in the summer months when water levels are low. Some bird watching and fishing occurs. Local residents could be educated about source and non-point source pollution, storm water retention, and the flora and fauna of a wetland. Beggars Tick Marsh has been included in this inventory because of its proximity to Johnson Creek, as an example of an undisturbed and relatively large wetland, and because of its hydrologic connection to Johnson Creek (which is presently not well understood but being studied). QUANTITY OF RESOURCES Wetland sites of 20 acres within the urban area are rare and provide important habitat for many songbird, waterfowl, mammal and herptile species. The diversity of the scrub/shrub and emergent wetland promotes greater wildlife species diversity. QUALITY OF RESOURCES Beggar's Tick Marsh is one of the highest ranking sites for wildlife habitat value within the City of Portland. It has been designated as one of the model sites for this study, representing a predominantly native wetland plant community. It is hoped that other sites within the basin can be modeled after Beggar's Tick Marsh in terms of plant species r diversity, design, and creation of wetland, restoration, or enhancement projects. 95 i Score or ildlt a Habitat 'Value: 83 ange or all sites = 1 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) high Cover(structural diversity) high human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium ESEE COMMENTS x This site is owned and in the jurisdiction of Multnomah County. The site was acquired by the County in 1968 to serve as flood storage. In 1987, the County rezoned the property from light industrial to low density residential in orc_ter to preserve its nani ai quaiiue§. it , WAM . has recently been zoned as Open Space, and the County has taken steps to protect the s natural resource values. The City of Portland has no authority to control zoning or protection of this habitat area. The mangement plan for Beggar's Tick Marsh prepared by Multnomah County states that contaminants from surrounding industrial land uses adversly impact the resource, as do garbage dumping and inappropriate recreation uses like horseback riding through the marsh. I~ i 4 1 i f t 1 f i .s 96 SITE: 17 UNIT: 112th-117th Meadow Map: 3741 SITE SIZE: 27 acres LOCATION: Springwater Line (1), SE 110th Avenue (W), extension of SE 117th Avenue (E), and SE Brookside Drive (S). NEIGHBORHOOD: Powellhurst-Gilbert DATE OF INVENTORY: March 1987, July and August 1990, April and July 1991 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Permanently Flooded, Unconsolidated Bottom. • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent, Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This sire includes an abandoned, 16-acre pasture and wetland that is presently dominated by reed canarygrass, blackberry, and willow. The streambank is overgrown with black- berries and small strips of willow. On the southern boundary of the site there is approx- imately a 50-foot wide strip of deciduous trees that buffer this site from the adjacent and relatively new, residential subdivision. Land bordering SE Foster Road is zoned com- mercial and industrial, and is presently generally a mix of this and low-density residential uses. A drive-in theater is located on the northern side of SE Foster Road, south of the Springwater line. Large expanses of reed canarygrass provide habitat for birds and small mammals. Adjacent forests bordering on the east provide perch sites for raptors who feed on small mammals. This site provides an important function of providing flood storage during peak flooding. 1 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat including connection between Johnson Creek and Beggar's Tick Marsh, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, recreation QUANTITY OF RESOURCES Only about five of the twenty-seven acres on this site are developed. The combination of wetland, open grassland, deciduous trees, and adjacent coniferous forest is uncommon within the Johnson Creek Basin. This range of habitat type supports a diversity of species. The curvilinear character of the creek and gradual grades result in a floodway that extends over two-thirds of the site. The floodway or wetland area is up to 400 feet wide, narrow- ing to 70 feet at the eastern edge. Three-fourths of the remainder of the site is in the 100- year flood plain. The open space north of SE Foster Road acts as a wildlife corridor, allowing the potential for wildlife recharge from Johnson Creek to Beggar's Tick Marsh, a significant natural resource fully protected by Multnomah County. QUALITY OF RESOURCES Although the wetland area along Johnson Creek has been disturbed and is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, it provides an important wildlife habitat function within the the Johnson Creek basin. The combination of meadow, wet meadow, forest, riparian and creek habitat allows use and travel by a large diversity of wildlife species. Since none of the property within the floodway is developed there is little or no property damage caused by flooding. 97 f r A small pond with an island has been created in the north-central portion as mitigation for wetland fill in the southwest, adjacent to SE Brookside Drive. This provides still water and a relatively protected spot for birds from neighborhood pets. Adjacent residential development has provided pedestrian access easements to an open space strip that borders the creek property. This allows the opportunity for viewing wildlife and suggests use of the area by children and domestic animals. ' The ~omiWittauvtt ur Habitats is an uncommon and valued resource within the Johnson Creek basin. The diversity of habitats present supports a diversity of species. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 7 Range or 1 Sites = 1 to Vegetation j Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium * Because of structural similarities, the open space portion of the site north of SE Foster Road was inventoried as part of Site 160J (Beggar's Tick Marsh), but because it is within the city limits, it has been included inside Site 17. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining and enhancing the existing habitats will add to the aesthetic and economic value of the nearby residential properties. Undeveloped and vacant land, particularly the wetland and open space directly west of the Foster Drive-In and the drive-in itself, should be considered for flood retention or detention areas, as well as continuing to function as a wildlife corridor. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zones __rea a__gctpr1 _y __rpa __p-terl hW EC Zone EP Zone 2 1 acre acre G 1 G 1 ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Single family residential development to the south and west, com- mercial and light industrial development north of Johnson Creek, along the south side of SE Foster Road. General industrial development along the north side of SE Foster Road. Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Not protecting the resource would likely result in development that would be subject to annual flooding damage similar to the site to the west. There would also be a loss of habitat and habitat diversity that is rare within the Johnson Creek drainage basin. Beggar's Tick Marsh, a wildlife refuge that is fully protected by Multnomah County, may lose wildlife species and population over time due to the loss of a corridor connection for population recharge between it and Johnson Creek.l 98 t S t Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: About 80% of the four acres zoned Commercial General on this site is in the floodway. Protecting the resource will result in a loss of this potentially developable land. In order to protect the f resources while achieving the comprehensive plan, residential density, it will be necessary to have attached, clustered units. This can be done on the filled land KjAacent to SE Brookside Drive. i Protection of open space created by this habitat area would have a positive economic effect on the value of the existing Northern Lights subdivision because of proximity and access to view wildlife. There are four pedestrian access easements from Northern Lights to a part of this open space area (see zoning map). i .Protection of resources north of SE Foster Road would remove land from potential industrial development. Use of it for stormwater retention or detention in conjunction with an overall flood control plan for the Johnson Creek basin would, however, result in greater development opportunities throughout lands in the existing flood plain. i 1 The January 1987 issue of the Natural Arteas Joumal contains several articles on habitat fragmentation, patch dynamics, and the values of wildlife corridors. Additionally, Michael Soule's article "Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance", Joumal of the American Planning AssociatiotL Summer 1991, describes wildlife population and species impacts resulting from habitat fragmentation, corridor destruction, and adverse urban impacts. t i I 1 i 1 I 1 S 99 NINE! i 1 SI'Z'E: 18 UNIT: Leach Garden/Canyon Maps: 3742, 3743 SITE SIZE: 41 acres 1 LOCATION: Near SE Foster Place (I); SE Brookside Drive and SE 122nd Avenue (S); SE 128th Avenue (E); and SE 117th Avenue (W). NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Malley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, June and September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded and Saturated. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The entire site, as well as surrounding area, is zoned and developed in single family residential or recreation (Leach Botanical Garden) use. The canyon provides a secluded, forested setting which is taken advantage of in the botanical garden development. The creek channel is rip-rapped and overgrown with blackberry. Dominant vegetation influencing the channel is a mixed forest of Douglas fir, cedar, alder, cottonwood, maple, willow, and various ornamental trees, as well as lawns and gardens. Interspersion of this area is high, lying near large forested areas such as Powell Butte north of the creek, the Lava Boring Hills south, and the developed and undeveloped portions of Leach Botanical Garden and Bundee Park (SE 142nd and Cooper). This juxtaposition of the creek channel with large forested natural areas and parks provides not only an important source of water to animals that use the larger forested areas, but also serves as a corridor providing cover and food for movements and dispersals between the areas. Leach Botanical Garden, straddles Johnson Creek and is located in this site area at 6704 SE 122nd Avenue. It is a historic and environmental education resource and designated as a "scenic resource" by the City. It has a Rank 1 status on u,e City of Pom'and' s, Historic Inventory and is eligible for the National Register. The colonial revival-styled home was built in 1933 by John and Lilla Leach. Mrs. Leach was a nationally known botanist with particular interest in native plants and Mr. Leach was a local pharmacist and civic leader. The property is now owned by the City of Portland and operated by a non-profit organization. Environmental education programs are offered, and the creek and garden are used as outdoor classrooms. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, scenic, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, heritage, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and,removal, sediment trapping, recreation, and education QUANTITY OF RESOURCES This site is made up of half-acre-plus sized lots that are occupied with homes constructed in the 1950's. The oversized lot sizes have allowed for the natural growth of Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedars trees to remain. The forest canopy is intact and the surrounding low- density residential provides a quiet setting that is conducive to wildlife. Natural understory areas have been replaced with lawns and exotic garden plants. The riparian area on each side of the creek is generally less than 30-feet wide, dominated by blackberries, willows, and alders. Due to the steepness of the canyon walls, the floodway is confined to a narrow strip that is generally 100 feet wide, with the 100-year flood plain somewhat less. 100 From SE 117th Avenue east, Johnsuri Creek follows the base of the north slope of Mt. Scott. The canyon walls rise 70 feet from the creek channel with 20% slopes. Intersper- sion of this area is high, being near large forested areas such as Powell Butte to the north of the creek, the Lava Boring Hills to the south, and the developed and undeveloped parks of Leach's Botanical Garden and Bundee Park (SE 142nd Avenue and SE Cooper Street). QUALITY OF RESOURCES This site received a score of 69, which is a relatively high rating. The forest overstory remains, but the riparian understory has been largely replaced with residential gardens, reducing the quality and amount of habitat area. core or Wildlife Habitat Value: 69 Range or All rtes =1 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium i Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To enhance this site for both wildlife and recreation, native vegetation should be planted along the entire channel in the riparian zone and within the forest canopy area to shade and control the water temperature extremes of Johnson Creek and to replace habitat lost by infill development. Riprapping should be removed to increase the amount of area for plant growth, nesting, and fish spawning. Replacement of lawn with riparian plant species would increase habitat diversity. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone 10 acres i-s S SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: The parcels in this area are characteristically, half-acre lots with over 300 feet of depth making them suitable for partitioning into two lots. Due to the oversized lots, it appears that infill development and resource protection can occur simultaneously. Consideration will need to be given to preventing erosion during site construction and to retention of vegetation. In some cases the location of existing homesites will limit infill development. Property values in the area would likely drop if the native vegetation particularly, the Douglas fir and western red cedar, were removed as infill development occurs. It is the canyon slopes, creek, and forest cover that creates the unique neighborhood character. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Protection will reinforce the social and economic value placed on the natural beauty of this neighborhood. Protecting the forest and creek habitat in this area will reinforce the character of Leach Botanical Garden and the public investment made there. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES AND ACTIVITIES Development in conformance with the Resource Management Plan for Leach Botanical Garden. 101 SITE: 19 UNIT: 127th-131st (South of Cooper) Map: 3743 SITE SIZE: 34 acres WCATION: SE 127th Avenue (W); SE SE 131st Avenue (E); North of Flavel St. (S). NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded and Saturated. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The site is a mix of developed and undeveloped single family residential land, surrounded by similar uses. Areas which have not been subdivided are largely open fields or are forested. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, scenic, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping QUANTITY OF RESOURCES The creek and canyon character are the same as the site to the west (Site 19). There are 20%-sloped canyon walls that rise 70 feet above the creek. Sixty percent of the 34-acre site has a mixed, deciduous/coniferous forest cover, 30% is open pastureland, and about ten percent is developed with homes. There are no roads through this site to cut-off or disrupt animal access to the creek. Steep slopes may imped animal access to the creek in some areas. QUALITY OF RESOURCES Other than past logging and conversion of forest land to agricultural land, this site has little disturbance. This mid-section of the (second) Johnson Creek canyon has relatively high quality due to the combinations of habitats that are adjacent to one-another, including riparian strip, open grassland, upland, and mixed forest. No roads and the few homes (five or so) provide a relatively, quiet, natural area with cover and food, and where wildlife can move freely. Interspersion of this area is high, lying near large forested areas such as Powell Butte to the north of the creek, the Lava Boring Hills to the south and the developed and undeveloped parks of Leach Botanical Garden and Bundee Park (SE 142nd and Cooper). Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 7 Range or All rtes =18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To enhance this site for both wildlife and recreation, it is suggested that native vegetation be encouraged along the entire channel in the riparian zone and forest canopy be retained and expanded, to shade and control summer water temperature of Johnson. Creek. 102 r LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone iu acres acres 1 EC 1 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: The whole site is zoned R10, low density residential. Allowing unchecked residential development would result in continued degradation of the water quality caused by erosion of the highly erodible, clayey soils. Indiscriminate removal of vegetation would reduce habitat area, affect water temperature, and reduce dietrus material for fisheries. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: This site is part of the Powell Butte Mt. Scott Plan District area, where consideration is given to protecting more-difficult-to-build-on areas of the site. Planned-unit development is an option where density is transferred from one area of the site(s) to another. Limiting residential development to flatter, more upland areas, away from stream and creek drainages will help keep development costs lowered, thus reducing housing costs while also protect habitat areas and limit soil erosion into Johnson Creek. 103 F 7 Sr-1E: 20 UNIT: Deardorf Road (West) Map: 3744 SITE SIZE: 22 acres LOCATION: Near 131st Avenue (W); South of SE Knapp Street (S); SE Deardorf Road (E); and near SE ylackberry Circle (N.) NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded and Saturated. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Most of this site is undeveloped, with single family subdivisions to the north and south. The creek bisects the site in an east-west direction. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping QUANTITY OF RESOURCES Two-thirds of this 22 acre site is forested with a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. On the north side of the creek there is an intermittent stream that runs through an undeveloped, eight-acre parcel that is parallel and west of Deardorf Rd. The grades are relatively steep on the both sides of the creek, ranging from 10 to 20%. The dryer north side appears ready for development. There is a relatively new street surrounded by a four acres of open, grass-covered land. QUALITY OF RESOURCES The channel is riprapped and overgrown with blackberry. Dominant vegetation influencing the channel is a mixed forest of Douglas-fir, cedar, alder, cottonwood, maple, willow, and various ornamental trees, as well as lawns and gardens. The creek is well-shaded throughout this stretch with some pools, providing habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Interspersion of this area is high, lying near large forested areas such as Powell Butte to the north of the creek, the Lava Boring Hills to the south and the developed and undeveloped parks of Leach Botanical Garden and Bundee Park (SE 142nd and Cooper). This juxtaposition of the creek channel with large forested natural areas and parks provides not only a potential important source of water to animals that use the larger forested areas, but also acts as a corridor providing cover and food, and movements and dispersal between sites. This site shows the impacts of human use (residential development and riprap) on the stream corridor. A covered bridge along Deardorf Road crosses the creek at this section. There is a lot of garbage along and in the creek on both sides of the road. Score for WildliUe Habitat Value: 65 Range for All Sites =18 to 83 Vegetation , Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Inters ersion: medium E j 104 1 r MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To enhance this site for both wildlife and recreation it is suggested that natural vegetation be encouraged along the entire channel in the riparian zone and encourage a forest canopy to shade and c;,nl the water temperature extremes of Johnson Creek. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Affected by Area A ected by EC Zone EP Zone RIO 1 acres 1 acre ESEE COMMENTS Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: The whole site is zoned R10, low density residential. Allowing unchecked, residential development would result in continued degradation of the water quality caused by erosion of the clayey soils. Indiscriminate removal of vegetation would reduce habitat area and adversely impact the temperature and condition of the stream and reduce dietrius material for fisheries. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: The majority of the 22-acres is undeveloped land. R10 density can be achieved while protecting the habitat if there is careful site analysis and construction, and clustering of units. In order to disrupt the least amount of ground and habitat, attached units are the best solution. Attached units would have an energy savings benefit created by common wall construction. There would be a social benefit of providing a housing type other than single-family residential, while also having the enjoyment of natural surroundings. # 105 gnsi; SII'lE: 21 UNIT: Deardorf Road Unit (East) Map: 3744 SITE SIZE: 13 acres - LOCATION: SE Deardorf Rd. (W); 750 feet west of SE Deardorf Rd. (E); City Limits east of SE Glenwood Dr. (N); and north of SE Clatsop Street (N) NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, September 1990 HABITAT CLASSiF iCia L JL%S ? • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanency Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded and Saturated. GENERAL. DESCRIPTION The present condition of the site is undeveloped with only two ho=s - nd upland northern and southern halves of the site in a agricultural uses. The more severely sloping areas on each side of the creek have at least a 200-foot wide area that is in forest cover. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping i QUANTITY OF RESOURCE s This 13-acre site is made up of two parcels that are both occupied with homes and used partially for agricultural uses. Half of the site is in a natural condition with second growth mixed deciduous/coniferous forest, and the rest is open field and pastureland located on the flatter, upland areas away from the creek. Land north of the site is in single family ' residential development, while the other sides are bordered by forests or agricultural uses. QUALITY OF RESOURCES The channel is rip-rapped and overgrown with blackberry. The dominant vegetation influencing the channel are a mixed forest of Douglas-fir, cedar, alder, cottonwood, maple, wiuvw, Mud "various vTiiamental trees, a~ vrel as lawns and gardens. 'The. creek is shaded throughout this site and has some pools, providing relatively good habitat for f sh and other MMMM aquatic species. Interspersion of this area is high, lying near the large forested areas of Powell Butte to the north of the creek, the Lava Boring Hills to the south and the developed and undeveloped parks of Leach Botanical Garden and Dundee Park (SE 142nd Avenue and SE Cooper Street). This juxtaposition of the creek channel with large forested natural areas and parks provides not only a potential important source of water to animals that use the larger forested areas but also acts as a corridor providing cover and food, and for movements and dispersals between areas. The canyon is begins to open up within this stretch of the creek, and adjacent agricultural uses are present. These agricultural uses decrease the habitat quality through chemical runoff, clearing of vegetation, and sedimentation. The covered bridge crossing Deardorf Road crosses the creek at this section. There is a lot of garbage along and in the creek on either side of the road 4 105 t . i ws~ rr Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 63 Range or All rtes = 18 to 3 lJ. Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: low Interspersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To enhance this site for iwi wii'uc a'a recreation, it is suggested th at native :'ege*.ation be encouraged along the entire channel in the riparian zone and a forest canopy shade Johnson Creek. LAND AREA AFFECTED EV ENVU ONMENTAL OVERLAP' ZONES Zone Area ected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone 1 acres 1 acre SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENT Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: There is a potential for about forty- two additional housing units on this site. Allowing unchecked, residential development would result in continued degradation of the water quality caused by erosion of the clayey soils. Indiscriminate removal of vegetation would reduce habitat area, shading of the creek, and the amount of dietrus material for fisheries. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Residential density can be achieved while protecting the habitat through careful site analysis, construction, and clustering of units. In order to disrupt the least amount of ground and habitat, attached units would be the best solution. Attached units would have an energy savings benefit created by the common-wall construction. There would also be the social benefit of providing a housing type oth er than single-family residential, while also having the enjoyment of natural surroundings. S 107 MIS; 215 10 SITE: 22 UNIT: Bundee Park Canyon Unit Map: 3744 SITE SIZE: 14 acres LOCATION: Bundee Park and areas east on SE Cooper Street, and 't'ract C of Eastridge Park Subdivision NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley IRATE OF INVENTORY: Februaryl987, June 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent Permanently, Semipermanently, and Seasonally Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Semipermanently and Seasonally Flooded GENERAL DESCRIPTION Bundee Park, a well-kept secret, is a 3.6-acre City park accessible only be a narrow dirt road (SE 141st Avenue) off SE Foster Road. The rest of the site is open space or undeveloped property abutting the park. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, recreation, education QUANTITY OF RESOURCE This site (Bundee Park, Tract C, and privately-held properties) is undeveloped and a remnant of what much of the Johnson Creek riparian corridor looked like prior to alterat- ions and removal of forested vegetation. Structural diversity is high, characterized by a Western Red Cedar and Douglas Fir overstory and a well-developed native shrub and herbaceous layer understory. Plant species diversity is high and primarily comprised of w native plants. L' asLll ge U LH.LA V .Jton u µd '1`ra..t r is nn ? nnrrh facing slope above the creek. It is an undeveloped 1.5 acre site that is a part of the Boring Lava Hills and surrounding undeveloped forested area. It has similar vegetative cover and habitat attributes as Bundee Park. QUALITY OF RESOURCES: Bundee Park is one of the few areas of primarily-native riparian vegetation left intact within the Johnson Creek basin. Bundee Park has been chosen as a model site to demonstrate the structure and species diversity of a primarily-native riparian forest. This is a high quality habitat site. Score or Wildlife Habitat Value: 81 Range For All Sites =19 to 93 Vegetation Food (variety) high Cover(structural diversity) high Human Disturbance: low Interspersion: hi h 108 t -RUM i +l I I MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Riparian restoration projects within the Johnson Greek basin should look to Bundee Park as an example a primarily native riparian forest that has a well-defined structure and species diversity. Bundee Park should be developed as a natural area for residents of the area to enjoy rather than as an urban neighborhood park. The small site size of the park makes it more suitable for a natural area. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL, OVERLAY ZONES:. • one Area Affected by rea A ected by EC Zone EP Zone 1 1 acre acre Gs 4 SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENT # Conflicting Uses: Identified conflicting uses within this site area would be urban park ^ development with extensive paved surfaces and removal of trees for park landscaping, play fields, play equipment, or axillary park facilities such as parking lots and restrooms. The residential development intended for the portion of ine site southeast of the park also presents a conflict. Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses: Both Bundee Park and the Tract C could be lost to urban park-type development without some level of protection; resulting in further degradation of the creek corridor through loss of vegetation that provides food, cover, and shade. In order to construct one of the three housing units possible within the resource area it would be necessary to demonstrate that the FEMA regulations were being met. This would likely result in no construction or construction on stilts for one unit. The remaining potential two units (created through land division) would be within 50 feet of the floodway and with in 100 feet of the center of the creek channel. This close proximity to the creek would result in a loss of habitat and flood storage area. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Placing overlay zoning on the two open space sites would limit any park design and function. A likely result of the zoning would be a "natural treatment" of both areas limiting park uses to passive activities. For the remainder of the site, which is zoned R10 and is part of the Powell Butte W Scott Plan District, there would be no loss of development potential on privately-held lots, although environmental review to ensure protection of the Johnson Creek corridor would be required. Raw C 109 :W11:1111:114 Al SITE: 23 UNIT: Barbara Welch/Foster Maps: 3645, 3745 SITE SIZE: 28 acres LOCATION: South of SE Foster Road, spanning SE Barbara Welch Road for a distance of about 1,200 feet, to SE Cooper Street NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, July 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Palustrine, Emergent Persistent (plants), Permanently, Semipermanently, and Seasonally Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Semipermanently and Seasonally Flooded. GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is located in an area of low-density single family homes and undeveloped forested or cleared lots. It is at the base of the Boring Hills. NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping, QUANTITY OF RESOURCE The floodway is uniformly about 70-feet wide through this site, with a narrow 100-year flood plain (0' to 120' wide) on each site of the creek. The riparian strip and tree covered area corresponds to the floodway, and are also only about 70 feet wide. The once-gradual slopes are now filled, and drop at a 1:1 slope 30 feet to the creek channel. This site has a geologic hazard rating of moderate-severe, severe, and extremely severe, with a major portion of the site classified as severe. West of the creek the grades smooth out where filling has occurred. To the east of Barbara Welch Road the grades continue at a 1:1 slope. The southeast portion of this site is part of what is suspected to be an ancient, inactive, deep-rooted large landslide area. QUALITY OF RESOURCES This stretch of Johnson Creek has been filled and altered within the past twenty years. The banks are steep, high, and vegetated with young alder, willow, bigleaf maple, and Himalayan blackberry. The floodway is narrow and well-shaded at this point. There are roads and buildings immediately adjacent both sides of the creek. Runoff and erosion are potential problems. Resource value in this portion of the creek is limited, due to adjacent land uses which have negatively modified the creek habitat by removing vegetation and creating steep banks. Interspersion with other areas is high, proximity to Powell Butte and Bundee Park. This section of the creek functions with the rest of Johnson Creek as a travel corridor for wildlife up and down the creek as well as a connector to the adjacent upland sites. Score or ildlr a Habitat Value: 5 ar*_ge or All rtes =18 to 3 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium , Interspersion: high 110 OWN 0111 low, MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS i Continuation and enhancement of the riparian strip and erosion control are major actions which would protect the resource. ' f LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone a 5 1 acre 1 acre 10 1 € V ESEE COMMENTS h Conflicting Uses: Residential development at both R5 (about i acres) and n10 densii,Y Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Loss of forest canopy and connection of the forested uplands to the creek would occur with uncontrolled urban development. Consequences of limiting or prohibiting Conflicting Uses: Clustering of units -on the R5-zoned property would probably be required in order to achieve full densities. x i 111 i SITE: 24 UNIT: SW of Powell Butte (145th Ave. East) Map: 3645 SITE SIZE: 21 acres LOCA'T'ION: North of SE Foster Road and south of the Springwater Line; between SE 145th Avenue and 900' east of SE Barbara Welch Road NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, July 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: • Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded, Saturated • Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flood GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is the westernmost portion of a broad valley between Powell Butte and the Boring Hills. It is in and surrounded by low density single family and agricultural development. NATURAL... RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping QUANTITY OF RESOURCES The riparian strip in this area is generally, 50-feet wide (and up to 100-feet) but only occurs for half the creek length. Native vegetation in the remaining area has been replaced with lawns. SE Foster Road, bordering to the south, is the where the forested canyon area located on the north face of Boring Lava Hills ends and where the low-lying, floWplain of Johnson Creek located south of Powell Butte begins. In this area the creek floodway widens to 250 feet, and the 100-year flood plain extends over the whole site except for 10- ' 50-foot wide band of along Foster Road. On the northern edge of the site adjacent the Springwater Line there is a 2-acre stand of deciduous trees. QUALITY OF RESOURCES i nis area is a mosaic of low density residential consisting of small farms, pasture land, and forests with seasonally saturated soils with some ponding. Patches of young-to-medium- aged forests, primarily Douglas-Fir, Western Red Ce&x, and shrubs (small blackberry patches) provide potential food, cover, perch, and nest sites for passerines, woodpeckers, raptors, small mammals, and reptiles. Some properties along this stretch have manicured lawns to the edge of the creek channel, which is a 1:1 sloped, riprapped channel. This treatment of the creek and creek edge limits wildlife access to and use of the creek. This area is juxtaposed with Powell Butte, the Boring Lava Hills, and Johnson Creek channel providing a diversity of habitat types. Despite the low density of development human use of this area is high with a mixture of roads, houses, fences, power lines, railroad tracks, and drainage ditches. Bridges serving properties fronting on SE Foster Road cross the creek. The Springwater Line (site of the recreation trail) is immediately north. Trees provide some habitat for bird and mammal species, but do not have as high of value for wildlife as the stretches of Johnson Creek directly to the east. The eastern stretches have more structural and species diversity and age class diversity, presence of a few snags, and water thermo-regulation through shade. i112 i This area is juxtaposed with Powell Butte, Bundee Park and the Johnson Creek channel, providing a diversity of habitat types and a travel corridor between these upland and riparian areas. 49 All rtes = 19 to a core or al 4 e Habitat Value: ange o Vegetation j Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium s Human Disturb we. medium Interspersion: medium/high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Retain R20 zoning to maintain maximum area for flood storage. Consideration for increase in density to R10 would be more appropriate once solution for flooding and water quality information is determined as a part of the Bureau of Environmental Services plan. The riparian strip should be reestablished, and further human intrusion (such as any recreation trail) discouraged. Since access to many properties must be across the creek, maintenance of existing bridges to serve existing dwellings should be allowed, as long as existing resources are protected. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: ~ one Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone } (R1) acres acres ESEE COMMENT ' Conflicting Uses: Residential development, grazing, and agricultural uses i .._•.,a Uses: Allnavina cn nflirt~-n. Cr SeS r°•cnlr~ts Consequences of aiiowiiag Co a4aaic inn a a a» in the removal of native vegetation, pesticides use, and possibly use of the creek for irrigation. Use of the creek for irrigation reduces the summer water flow and increases the stream temperatures, diminishing the fishery resources. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES Rebuilding and replacement of existing bridges to minimum building code requirements if: i • a maximum of 25 feet of riparian vegetation on each side of the creek is disturbed; • there is no filling; • there are no new piers or abutments, or enlargement of existing ones; and • the bridge will serve only the dwelling or dwellings served at the time of adoption of this plan. i 113 1 i SITE: 25 Unit: South of Powell Butte Maps: 3645, 3646 s: SITE SIZE: 31 acres LOCATION: South of SE Marlin Street/Springwater Line, north of SE Foster- Road, ' between. SE 158th Avenue and 900 feet east of SE Barbara Welch Road NEIG- EMORHOOD: Pleasant Valley DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, July 1990 arsaii..c is s. l.L J►7111lrA d A['yl 1 Palustrine, Emergent,. Persistent, Seasonally Flooded Palustrine, Scrub:Shrub; Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded Riverine, Tower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is a large cultivated grazed pasture to the west of Johnson Creek and on the ' southeast side of Powell Butte. Willows and blackberry overhang the stream. The cultivated and grazed riparian zone provides poor habitat for wildlife and little sediment and erosion control for the bank. The pasture is extensively grazed by livestock. NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES i Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping i QUANTITY OF RESOURCE i With the exception of two stands of trees in the northwest and north-central portions of the site, significant resources are confined to the creek corridor. QUALITY OF RESOURCES:. Crazing. of this area limits its value for wildlife. Grasses and other forbe species are eaten to the ground, leaving very little food or coverfor non-domestic animals. Dense biack`veM and wiuow overhanging the stream, provide habitat for urban-adapted birds. Portions of the creek within this stretch are well shaded, keeping the water temperature cooler and better habitat for fish and aquatic species. core or Wildlife Habitat Value: 32 Range ror All rtes =1 to 3 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) low Human Disturbance: medium Interspersion: medium MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Retain R20 zoning to maintain maximum area for flood storage. Consideration for increase in density to R10 would be more appropriate once solution for flooding and water quality information is determined as a part of the Bureau of Environmental Services plan. The riparian strip should be reestablished, and further human intrusion (such as any recreation trail) discouraged. Since access to some properties are a, Toss the creek, maintenance of existing bridges to serve existing dwellings should be allowed, as long as existing resources are protected. 114 3 1 1 LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: C one Area Affected by Area Affect ed by: EC Zone EP Zone (R1) acres acres t ESEE COMMENTS: Conflicting Uses: Residential development, grazing and agricultural uses, and recreation Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses results in the removal of native vegetation, pesticides use, and possibly use of the creek for irrigation. Use of the creek for irrigation reduces the summer F water flow and increases the stream temperatures, which diminish fishery resources. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES 3 Rebuilding and replacement of existing bridges to minimum building code,requirements if: r • a maximim of 25 feet of riparian vegetation on each sid of the creek is disturbed; E • there is no filling; • there are no new piers or abutments, or enlargement of existing ones; and • the bridge will serve only the dwelling or dwellings served at the time of adoption of this plan. i 1 i t i i s Z i 115 i i i 9 S .M. Z6 Unit: SE of Powell Butte Maps: 3646, 3647 SI'Z-E SiiZE: 70 acres j LOCATION.- . Between the SpringwatF* Line ;;•+u SE vsica R'04-0', west of Jenneyiand t ri res,. anti' east of SE 158th Avenue ' NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is the eastern end of the valley between Powell Butte and the Boring Lava. Hills. It is a mixture of low-density residential, agricultural, and undeveloped uses, surrounded by the same. ti SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient-retention and removal, sediment trapping r ; QUANTITY OF RESOURCE In the western portion of the site, significant natural resources are largely confined to the bed and banks of the creek. Toward the east, forested areas away from the creek hold significant values. QUALITY OF RESOURCES: This is a historic, forested floodplain with some present-day wetland. There are occasional small forest stands of cedar/alder (10-60 year old) mixed with low density residencies and j small farms with seeded pasture and livestock. The site includes the channel of Johnson Creek to the southeast side of Powell butte: The riparian zone contains blackberries _ j overhanging the channel interspersal with lawns, western red cedar and willow. The stream flows through an urbanized forest in the central portion of the site. Dense blackberries scattered throughout provide cover and. nesting-habitat for passerines and small mammals. Large cedar and Douglas fir trees interspersed with willow and alder provide important habitat for many bird species including chickadees, nuthatches, kingfisher, and warblers. This section of creek is an important wildlife travel corridor and link to Powell Butte, upland buttes in Gresham, the Boring Lava Hills and other sections of Johnson Creek. Human use along the creek is high. The western portion is primarily a residential area with more of a rural than urban atmosphere, and a classic pattern of human settlement along waterway bottomlands. Minus the blackberry and other introduced species, the cedar/alder forest can serve as a model of structural and species diversity of native riparian habitat for future restoration or riparian creation projects. i Score or Wildlife abrtat aloe: 64 Range for All rtes =1 to 93 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: medium Inters ersion: medium f 116 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS R20 zoning should be retained to maintain maximum area for flood storage. Consideration for increase, in density to R L110 would be more appropriate once solution for flooding and Raw water quality information is determined as a part of the Bureau of Environmental Services _ plan. The riparian strip should be continued or reestablished, and further human intrusion (such as any recreation trail) discouraged. LAND AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Affected by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone R20(R10) 119 acres acres SITE-SPECIFIC ESEE COMMENT: Conflicting Uses: Agricultural, residential. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES Rebuilding and replacement of existing bridges to minimum building code requirements if. • a maximum of 25 feet of riparian vegetation on each sid of the creek is disturbed; • there is no filling; • there are no new piers or abutments, or enlargement of existing ones; and • the bridge will serve only the dwelling or dwellings served at the time of adoption of this plan. C 117 SHE:: 27' UNIT:. Jenne Road-Northwest Map: 3647 SITE. SIZE.. 40' acres I:,.O;CA,T'IO.N -l asrofSE Jenne-Road and north of SRAIcKinldy Road NEIGEEORHOODt. Pleasant Valley DATE; OF' INVENTORY:: February 1987, June 1990 HASin A'T CLASSIFICATION •I Agricultural; GENERAL. DESCRIPTION' This is .a-large, farm,.contributing.to:the visual characterof the area. Zoning is R20 with a Comprehensive-Plan designation.of R10. SIGNIFICANT. RESOURCE VALUES taroundwaterrrecharge, aesthetics,.poRution and nutrient retention:and removal, sediment. trapping: C3"•Y?Y'i GTA:T A RTTYmsf ♦ ND i... This site'-holds little-resource -value, although it affects nearby creek-related resources such as"waterquantity and quality. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, Control waterquality SIT&SlPECIFIC ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses:. Agricultural and housing F A 3 f S 1 S 118 f SITE: 270J UNIT: SE Jenne Road-Southwest Map: 3547 Multnomah County Jurisdiqion LOCATION: Both sides of SE Jenne Lane, between the Springwater Line and SE Jenne Road JURISDICTION: Multnomah County DATE OF INVENTORY: February 1987, June 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION: • Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded. • Palustrine, Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen, Seasonally Flooded. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping r TYPE OF RESOURCES: Within this site shrubs are sparse along the channel banks and ferns are the dominant herb component. The riparian zone is primarily forested with Douglas-fir and western red cedar providing shade for the stream channel and food, roosting, perching, and nesting habitat for passerines and woodpeckers. The stream bank integrity has more or less been maintained in conjunction with low density residential development. This is a fairly scenic reach of Johnson Creek. QUALITY OF RESOURCES This is a high value wildlife habitat area along Johnson Creek. Much of the riparian vegetation is still intact with comparatively little invasion by alien, introduced plant species. The dense canopy cover shades the creek through this stretch, increasing the habitat value for fish and other aquatic animals. This site includes a forest canopy of primarily Douglas- fir and western red, cedar mixed with alder and maple retained in a small acreage residential area with open pasture and buildings. Several small snags were noted providing some woodpecker and nuthatch habitat. Woody debris are absent on the forest floor. The habitat that occurs now is functional for primarily urban adapted species such as starlii.gs and house sparrows. Some ground foraging by Towhees, Robins, and wrens may occur. Domestic animals are present. Interspersion here is high due to close proximity to Powell Butte and Johnson Creek channel. The cedar alder forest can serve as a model of the structural and species diversity of this native riparian habitat for future restoration or riparian creation projects. This section of creek is an important wildlife travel corridor and link to Powell Butte, upland buttes in Gresham, the Boring Lava Hills and other sections of Johnson Creek. Continued maintenance of forest canopy will retain the native character of the site. The current residential density is compatible with some wildlife use such as an access corridor for animals traveling to and from Johnson Creek and Powell Butte. Score or fldli a Habitat Value: 5 Range or All rtes =1 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: high 119 Will 'S -ITE: 29 UNIT: Powell Butte Nlaps:.3445-48, 354548, 36-45-,47--- ,SITE SIZE: 600:acres (570 ac. in public ownership) :LOCATION:: East of SE 136th Avenue, west of:SE 174th Avenue, north of the Springwater.Line, and south of.SE Powell Boulevard NEIGHBORHOOD: Powellhurst DATE OF INVEN'T'ORY: February 1987, June 1990 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Forested Deciduous/Conifer Open meadow GENERAL DESCRIPTION This site is the top and southern portions of Powell Butte, a large part of which was once a dairy but is now owned by the City of Portland. Urban development is on the west, north, and .east, while natural resource sites 24-26 are to the south. SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, aesthetics, scenic, pollution and nutrient retention and -removal, sediment trapping, recreation, education, heritage QUAN'T'ITY OF RESOURCES This site is a-major•butte surrounded by residential development at its base to the north, west, and south, but with relatively non-intensive residential. development on the east side. This is one of the more unique uplands in southeast Portland and perhaps within the Urban Growth Boundary. This butte consists of primarily two major habitat types: an open grassland (2/3) and a mid-serial stage forest (1/3). The forest consists of mature deciduous trees (maple, alder) and 30-50 year old conifers (Douglas fir). Snags are common and there.is some downed dead wood from windthrow. The grassland is an abandoned ungrazed and unharvested pasture with some invading hawthorne trees. There was a vernal pond noted within this grassland during the time of the first inventory (2/20/87). QUALITY OF RESOURCES Powell Butte provides very important wildlife habitat within Johnson Creek and the Portland metropolitan area. There are very few upland meadows left in the metropolitan area. The large size and combination of upland meadow, forest, and adjacency to Johnson Creek is rare and provides habitat for a large diversity of bird, large and small mammal, and reptile species. This combination of forest and grassland provides potential for good quality habitat. The forest provides foraging, perching, roosting, and nesting habitat for hawks, falcons, owls, and bats. The grassland provides nesting habitat for birds such as meadowlarks and sparrows. The grass sod and thatch provide high quality habitat for small mammal production. The grassland/forest ecotone provides a valuable edge effect to wildlife, potentially supporting greater densities than other habitat types. Powell Butte has very high scenic quality with a panoramic view of the Cascade mountains, Columbia River, and the Portland metropolitan area. The site also shows signs of historical disturbance in forms of logging and farming; however, it now shows less sign of human use. 120 Score For a ife Habitat Value: 73 Range or l Sites =18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) medium Human Disturbance: high Interspersion: high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Retain the variety of habitat, including the meadow. Protect the forested perimeter. Develop the park area to take advantage of its natural attributes. As a condition of any future water reservoir expansion, require an alternative or modified practice of water release that is compatible with the goals and objectives of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES Zone Area Affected by Area acted by EC Zone EP Zone 0-s- 400 17 92-0(RIO) ESEE COMMENTS Conflicting Uses: Residential development, removal of trees for firewood (or any other reason), some aspects of the park use (both incompatible recreation and overuse of compatible recreation), and Water Bureau operations which discharge water into Johnson Creek in large amounts over short periods of time. Consequences of allowing Conflicting Uses: The Powell Butte Master Plan was adopted in 1987. It gives considerable protection to the natural resource aspects of the park that are in public ownership. The master plan intends that Powell Butte will develop as a natural, regional park providing generally passive activities. The master plan recognizes the value of the natural resources. With the master plan in place, application of the Environmental Zane is less important on the publicly owned lands, which is about 570 acres of Powell Butte. SITE-SPECIFIC COMPATIBLE USES • Park development approved under the 1987 conditional use 121 SITE: 30 UNIT: Boring Lava Hills Maps: 3647, 3547, 3646, 3546, 3446. 3445: 3645: 3545 SITE SIZE: Approx. 1,370 acres LOCA•i'lON. i 205 east to City Limits near SE Foster Road, natural resource sites along Johnson Creek south to the southern City Limits NEIGHBORHOOD: Pleasant Valley HABITAT CLASSIFICATION • Palustrine, Foeeste,3, Deciduous/Conifer, Seasonally Flooded, Saturated • Upland Deciduous/Conifer Mixed Forest SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE VALUES Water, storm drainage, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, scenic, flood storage, pollution and nutrient retention and removal, sediment trapping TYPES OF RESOURCES: This site is composed of steep sloping hillsides known as the Lava Boring Hills. It is a forested area of mosaic pattern resulting from logging practices and urban development. The area is dominated by forests of mixed conifer and deciduous trees (Douglas fir,wesu-AAA :.,d cedar, red alder, and big leaf maple). This forested habitat provides roosting, perching, feeding, and nesting habitat for some passerine species, woodpeckers, and perhaps small owls. The forest litter and soils provide burrowing habitat for some mammals. This site is an important component of the Johnson Creek watershed. Several seasonal creeks drain these slopes to Johnson Creek. QUALITY OF RESOURCES: This site is an important component of the Johnson Creek watershed. Several seasonal creeks drain these slopes to Johnson Creek. The steep slopes covered by clayey, impermeable soils contribute significant winter stormwater runoff. Substantial forest clearing and surface conversion would significantly affect the hydrology of Johnson Creek by increasing stormwater runoff. The Boring Lava Hills are a link to many of the forested buttes and upland sites in Gresham, Mt. Scott and East Portland. Johnson Creek functions as the travel corridor between many of these upland sites. core for WffildfiTie -Habitat Value: 78 Range for All Sites =18 to 83 Vegetation Food (variety) medium Cover(structural diversity) high Human Disturbance: medium/low Interspersion: high MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage planned unit developments and clustering of housing to conserve forested lands, retain groundwater recharge, and control stonnwater runoff. LAND AREA AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY ZONES: Zone Area Afficted by Area Affected by EC Zone EP Zone 10 rox. acres 122 t mill P C ~ 1y( 1 3 i i PRO'T'EC'T'ION PLAN r f i 3 HIM i I i i 123 gli t CHAPTER 9 PROTECTION MEASURES for the JOHNSON CREED BASIN INTRODUCTION • PROTECTION PLAN POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS o APPLICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE • JOHNSON CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN DISTRICT e GUIDELINES . MODEL AREAS CONCEPT o 125 Emil f 4 INTRODUCTION ; Natural resources within the Johnson Creek basin vary greatly in type and location. All are interrelated, forming a blend of components supporting the travel corridor and sustaining habitat for survival of many non-native urban species introduced into the City, and creating a unique urban identity for southeast Portland. The Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan promotes conservation and enhancement of existing significant natural resource sites, and encourages creation of others throughout ' the Johnson Creek basin. The result is a natural resource area which will become part of, not be separated from, the urban fabric of Portland. The plan encourages human activity in locations that can sustain such activity, and guides conflicting uses away from more sensitive resources. It provides for innovative solutions and a range of alternatives, many of which will be presented in the near future as part of the Bureau of Environmental Services' Johnson Creek water quality management plan. It forms a closer partnership between property owners and the City in developing solutions to conflicts between resource conservation and urbanization. It identifies and protects natural resource elements valued by residents in a cohesive, overall manner which will conserve wildlife habitat, provide urban identity through design, and protect urban development from natural hazards. Finally, it recognizes that development throughout the entire basin affects major resources such as the creek, and provides solutions that address the causes and not just the symptoms. Protection measures for Johnson Creek basin are in the categories of regulations and goals or concepts. The protection plan recognizes that conflicts between uses and activities will occur, and provides a regulatory process to resolve those conflicts. This is in the form of environmental zone land use review and plan district requirements. To provide further guidance and a greater level of certainty for landowners, guidelines are provided at the end of this chapter which are to be considered for all activities within the i plan district, particularly those in significant natural resource sites. Major actions in this report that provide protection and restoration to the inventoried natural resources in the study area are: 1 Adopting a Comprehensive Plan policy which identifies specific natural resource values and the means by which they are protected; 2 Adopting as part of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan management goals and implementation strategies to guide resource mitigation and enhancement; 3 Protecting significant natural resources through application of environmental zones on isolated distinct resource features; 4 Replacing the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District with an enlarged Johnson Creek Basin Plan District. The new plan district would address, development which may impact important resource values in the creek basin which are part of the overall ecosystem or affect the more significant resources protected by the Environmental i Zone; S Moving the Public Recreation Trail designation from its present Johnson Creek location to the newly-acquired Springwater Line. a C 127 The following objectives can integrate development, neighborhood projects, and natural ( resource restoration and enhancement: 1 Leave undisturbed vegetation before, during, and after construction, except where actual construction activities are involved. This objective applies especially to native vegetation, but the retention of non-native vegetation is important until a proper restoration plan is put in place; 2 Retain or develop buffer strips of vegetation along the creek; 3 Provide for diversity of native plant species with varying flowering and fruiting seasons in community and backyard landscaping; 4 Reduce frequent mowing of lawns, permitting native wildflowers and herbs to grow, especially around edges between two different habitats or land uses; 5 In park-like areas characterized by tall trees and closely-u narnued ground cover and lawns, plant native shrub and herbaceous species as an understory; 6 Avoid construction projects within the floodplain; 7 Avoid unnecessary erosion by prompt reseeding and revegetation, and construction of sediment catchment basins or swales; 8 Carefully remove topsoil inlarg intact units and replace them after construction is completed; 9 Remove garbage, excess fill, and construction debris from construction sites promptly; 10 Remove Himalayan blackberries, reed canarygrass and other invasive non native species by cutting, digging, and selectively applying herbicides when necessary. Herbicides should comply with integrated pest management goals; 11 Design permanent.stormwater control basins using non-structural and soil bio- engineering solutions whenever practical in a manner which also provides habitat for wildlife species; 12 Use soil bio-engineering or similar non-structural techniques (vegetation on shallow slopes) to stabilize banks instead of riprapping steep slopes; 13 Avoid large expanses of closely-trimmed lawn to the edge of the creek bank. Encourage buffering or structural diversity (trees or shrubs) between the lawn and the creek; 14 Avoid lights which shine directly into natural resource areas; 15 Encourage passive non-consumptive recreation and environmental education in selected areas along the creek. Avoiding human impact on fragile or environmentally-sensitive areas of the creek; and 16 Avoid fences along the creek to allow wildlife passage. 129 I Utilize the Springwater Line right-of-way as the major bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian route along Johnson Creek to provide access to and between parks, and as a major component of the 40-Mile Loop; 2 Recognize the Powell Butte Nature Park as both a significant natural resource and a nature-oriented recreational center for Portland, promote passive use including hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding; and 3 Provide access to Johnson Creek at selected points for passive recreation opportunities while minimizing potential conflicts with private property or environmentally sensitive areas; • Using existing improved and unimproved public rights-of-way wherever possible; • Emphasizing passive recreation relating to the waterway in existing and future parks along the Johnson Creek corridor. Limiting physical improvements to support this; and • Working with surrounding property owners in the design and development of recreation areas to be sensitive to neighborhood character, security needs, and overall livability. Natural Hazards Policy Reduce the potential for damage from flooding or landslides by limiting ( development in areas subject to hazards and providing comprehensive public works projects which will reduce flooding. Portions of the Johnson Creek basin are subject to natural disasters and hazards such as flooding and landslides. Often these hazard-prone areas also provide significant natural resource values. Regulations are now in place which discourage development within some hazard-prone areas, but for reasons of cost, not resource protection. The protection plan integrates these hazard areas into an overall, basin-wide approach for resource protection. The following are objectives which can protect existing and future development from flood and landslide hazards in the Johnson Creek basin, and at the same time retain or enhance natural resource values: 1 Continue reduced allowable housing density in areas subject to landslides or flooding; 2 Continue to enforce federal flood control regulations by limiting land development and activities within flood-prone areas; 3 Increase vegetation on developed land to increase ground stabilization and groundwater recharge, and to reduce flooding; 4 Develop a comprehensive public works improvement plan which will reduce flooding and increase water and habitat quality; 5 Discourage additional direct stormwater discharge to creeks and requiring, where appropriate, stormwater retention; 131 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT'S Two Comprehensive Plan amendments are necessary to recognize natural resource values in the Johnson Creek basin, and recent acquisition of the Springwater Line for the 40 Mile Loop. Following are those amendments: 1 AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD POLICY 8.11C: Protect and preserve the scenic, recreation, fishery, wildlife, flood control, water quality, and other natural resource values of the Johnson Creek basin through application of environmental overlay zones and implementation of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan. 2 AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO REPLACE THE RECREATION TRAIL. DESIGNATION ALONG JOHNSON CREEK WITH A DESIGNATION ALONG THE SPRINGWATER RAIL LINE EAST OF SE 71ST AVENUE. Mapping of the Recreation Trail designation is contained in a separate accompanying i document, Appendix I. APPLICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE The Johnson Creek plan applies environmental zones (City Code Chapter 33.430) to directly protect significant natural resources from adverse impacts. It is applied to the resource itself and areas necessary to protect the resource, and requires environmental review for a wide range of development or activities. Environmental zones would apply to the areas of the Johnson Creek basin where mapped, and include wetlands, the ! creek, riparian strips, and upland areas. There are two Environmental Zone designations: the "p", Environmental Protection, Zone, which is the most restrictive allowing no development in most cases; and the "c", Environmental Conservation, Zone, which allows development with review and mitigation. Within the Environmental Zone there are few exceptions to the requirement for environmental review. However, there are a few additional activities which could occur under certain circumstances in and adjacent to identified resources without adverse impacts, so environmental review is unnecessary. These activities, along with conditions under which they can occur, are listed in the Johnson Creek Basin Plan District regulations. The "p" Environmental Protection, designation is generally applied to the floodway portions of Johnson Creek, its main tributaries, significant wetlands, creek banks, and very high quality upland resources, particularly on Powell Butte and steep slopes on Mt. Scott and the Boring Hills. This level of protection will insure the continuation of critical wildlife habitat elements, protect existing and future development from certain natural hazards such as flooding and landslides, and retain certain design elements that provide identity to the Johnson Creek basin. C 133 { t jl;111'1 111 110 11, 11~11 The "c" Environmental Conservation, designation is applied to land. surrounding. the "p"=designated resources necessary to protect the resources; and to resources which are of value to the overall system but could be altered to allow development with _ mitigation. Most upland resources and smaller drainageways are ' protected in this manner.. The Environmental Zone chapter of the adopted City Code Title 33 (Portland Zoning Code) is contained in Appendix C of this report, for reference purposes. Mapping of the Environmental Zone is contained in Appendix I. JOHNSON CREEK BASIN PLAN DISTRICT Natural resource elements in the Johnson Creek basin include both those which are isolated distinct.features and those which occur at lower intensity throughout large areas, often being: included in existing development. Johnson Creek.is an example of a distinct resource. An evergreen overstory retained in an existing subdivision or parking lot MEN landscaping is an example of the other, less intense, type. Both have natural resource values which, when considered together, provide an important ecosystem. Resources also provide an important social value to the area, creating identity, uniqueness, and sense of am= place in the urban environment. All land within the Johnson Creek basin affects the creek to a certain degree. Paving and sewering of stormwater directly to the creek increases the "flashiness" of flood events, and prevents groundwater recharge. The result is higher winter water flows with increased erosion and lower summer water flows with subsequent fisheries resource degradation. Reduction of native landscaping through both development and replacement with exotic species reduces or eliminates wildlife habitat. This is especially true for larger native trees. A plan district is a type of zoning tool that can provide specific and tailored regulations within the plan district boundary. Use of a plan district to aid in resource protection softens the boundary between resources and urbanization, and acts as a form protection for the resource. Without this, larger formal areas of protection would have to be placed along Johnson Creek and around significant resources (such as the 75' along, the Columbia Slough). Because of existing lot patterns, ownership, and development, a large formal , area of protection would create greater hardship on residents and property owners. The plan district also addresses external impacts on resources, such as stormwater discharge and groundwater recharge. It addresses the cause of resource degradation, not just the symptoms. The unique character and natural resource values of the Johnson Creek basin require additional regulations beyond those contained in the environmental zones. Restrictions imposed by such natural hazards as flooding and steep slopes require lower densities than presently found. In addition, emphasis needs to be placed on preserving natural areas and directing development to areas with fewer hazards or habitat values. The Johnson Creek Basin Plan District has its own set of development standards that are specific to the Johnson Creek basin, and serve in addition to the Environmental Zone. The plan district supersedes Environmental Zone regulations in the case of conflicting requirements. 134 51 ffi!m F R Replacement of the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District with an enlarged Johnson Creek Basin Plan District is intended to protect neighborhood and natural resource values, and limit development in areas with potential for natural catastrophes in the following ways: i 1 Continue density regulations now contained in the Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District to protect development from natural hazards, and expand application throughout the new plan district; 2 Prohibit all above-surface structures and non-residential outdoor storage and activities within the Johnson Creek floodway; 3 Require at least half of each lot to be kept pervious (not paved or built upon), to encourage groundwater recharge and reduce surface runoff; 4 Allow removal of trees greater than six inches in diameter only when they are diseased or pose an immediate danger, 5 Require on-site stormwater retention systems for all new subdivisions and non- residential development, to allow for groundwater recharge; 6 Allow no additional direct stormwater discharge into Johnson Creek or its tributaries unless it can be shown that water quality and seasonal quantity will not be affected; 7 Require all natural resource actions, including mitigation, to meet Johnson Creek Basin Plan Policies; 8 Require natural resource mitigation and enhancement actions to conform to Johnson Creek Basin Objectives; 9 Exempt the following uses and activities from environmental review, as they are compatible with neighborhood character and should not adversely impact natural resource values: • Removing trees that are detrimental to flood passage within the Johnson Creek channel below ordinary high water, • Changing crop type or farming technique on existing farms; • Mowing, trimming, and normal maintenance of vegetation within the Transition Area of the EC, Environmental Conservation, Zane, and the outer 25 feet of the portion of a Resource Area of an EC zone necessary to protect the resource if the Parking and Truck Area, Exterior Storage and Display, and Construction Management Standards of 33.430.200 are met; • Planting native vegetation in a manner consistent with the guidelines; • Removing dead, dying, or diseased plants which pose a hazard; • Constructing structures within the Transition Area (outer 25 feet) of a "c", Environmental Conservation, Zane in single-family residential zones if the Building Placement Standards and Lighting Standards of subsection 33.430.200 are met. c 135 i j. Limit the amount of impervious surfaces in order to improve the groundwater recharge potential of the creek during drier times of the year, k. Leave snags left standing unless they pose public health or safety hazards; 1. Stabilize creek banks in order to decrease water turbidity. Use soil bio-engineering or other techniques that will not inhibit wildlife use and access; and 1 m. Remove garbage in the creek as necessary. 2. ModWain Sites (For floodplain location FEAU maps are available at the Permit Center). a. Do not disturb native vegetation that is protected by regulation. Avoid removal and cutting back of dead and decaying trees, shrubs, and forest litter, b. Limit fences and other barriers to allow wildlife movement; c. Limit stormwater from directly entering into the creek(s); d. Apply erosion control methods during contsruction; e. Increase width and length of riparian strips by planting native riparian plant species; f. Plant a diversity of native vegetation to provide ground, shrub, and tree cover where required or feasible; g. Shield outdoor lights from habitat areas; ~ h. Increase the densities of native coniferous and deciduous shrubs and trees on portions of the site where necessary; j . Remove invasive, non-native plants such as blackberry and reed canarygrass. Replace with willow, dogwood, and other native plant species as listed in the Portland Plant List, k. Encourage interspersion and connectivity between natural area's and creek; 1. Replace ornamental plants with native vegetation where desirable; m. ;detain buffer strips along property boundaries to the extent practical to serve as cover and travel corridors for wildlife; n . Maintain lawn areas near creeks in such a way to provide animal cover. In some cases no mowing would be appropriate; o. Limit the amount of on-site impervious surfaces in order to improve the • , groundwater recharge potential of the creek during drier times of the year, and p. Leave snags standing unless they pose public health or safety hazards. i C 137 r 3. Vi A rl ._iiks and Large-Scale DeveloJ=nb3 None: Upland sites are those Sites above the floodplain. Large-scale development is that which takes place on a site that is over 5 acres in size. a. Restore, create, or retain upland meadows. Upland meadows are characterized by native, grassland plant species; b increase bird habitat by installing nesting boxes for cavity nesting binds in upland and riparian habitat areas; c. Do creek restoration when the profile of the creek is modified on large-scale projects. In these cases the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife can provide guidance on the specific standards to determine the ideal pool/riffle ratio sizes and depths for Johnson Creek. Developers will be required to identify existing critical spawning and rearing habitat along Johnson Creek which will be impacted by the proposed development. Restoration and creation of new spawning areas in other suitable areas along the creek will also be required; d. Create island habitats within the creek to provide breeding areas safe from predators for large-scale projects; e. Limit domestic animals to leashes in common open space areas of new residential developments; f. Shield outdoor lights from habitat areas in new or expanding developments; and g. Prohibit leaching of toxic materials, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers from agricultural fields and deposition of sewage and industrial waste. Background on Development of Guidelines The Johnson Creek basin is a mosaic of vegetative communities and human uses integrated with the water course ecosystem which provides food, shelter, breeding and rearing areas for aquatic and terrestrial animals and birds. Riparian corridors are much more than a conduit for the conveyance of water. They are eco- systems where all of the many elements are interrelated and act together to sustain the life dependent on these habitats. A change in one element can effect the entire system. Some elements are more closely related to one another than others, but all interact and to some degree are affected. Water, soil, substrate, terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals are the main elements of a riparian corridor. Over time changes in the environment will affect habitats of fish and wildlife. Any changes, whether man-induced (development, channelization, removal of vegetation) or natural (flood- ing, windstorms, drought or insect infestations), affect wildlife. These changes may be bene- ficial to some species and detrimental to others. Changes and losses in the quality, quantity and availability of food, water, cover and living space have the greatest effects on wildlife. Habitat diversity and connectivity between the habitats is the key to a healthy riparian ecosystem, and a major objective of this study. Decaying logs laying on the ground provide cover for rabbits, raccoons, and other mammals. Ground covers of ferns, grasses, and wildflowers provide habitat for shrews, moles, raccoons, and other ground foragers. Algae in Johnson Creek is eaten by tiny .oacro-invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by mink and beaver. These species require hiding areas in aquatic vegetation along and in 138 t J creeks. The ground cover ferns, grasses, and wildflowers provide habitat for salamanders and snakes Native groundcover and riparian vegetation should be planted in order to provide the habitat and materials required by some salamander, snakes, and frog species. Urbanization and development have greatly impacted the state and health of the aquatic, riparian and upland habitats of the Johnson Creek basin. Some habitat has been destroyed and others created. As these changes occur animals must adapt to the new conditions, leave the area, or die. More aggressive, adaptive species will survive. The loss or reduction of native plant, fish and wildlife species, biodiversity and the domin- ance by fewer, more aggressive species are the most noticeable changes to the Johnson Creek ecosystem as influenced by environmental changes listed above. Habitat enhance- ment and restoration are the key to increasing the diversity of wildlife species along Johnson Creek. The Role of Native Plant Communities Plants are at the bottom of the food chain, and are a crucial element of the entire system. Habitat diversity and connectivity between the habitats is the key to a healthy riparian ecosystem, providing habitat for fish and wildlife species. Although the vegetative communities found along Johnson Creek today do provide habitat for some wildlife species, areas with greater plant species diversity, where one type of vegetation merges with another to create edge habitat there are likely to be more kinds of wildlife than those of a single cover type. Diversity also insures elasticity of populations, if there is a natural or man-made catastrophe, greater species diversity lessens chances of loosing everything. The same is true of forested areas. A forested area with a mixture of broadleafed deciduous and coniferous trees is likely to support a greater diversity of wildlife species. A forest composed of uneven-aged trees with a variety of layers of vegetation above the forest floor is suitable for many more wildlife species than an area of tall trees of the same age with a mowed grass ground cover. Native plant species are often more disease resistant and valuable to wildlife than ornamentals and exotics. Environmental Influences on Fisheries The primary loss of fish populations in Johnson Creek is due to summertime water temperatures greater than 70° F. Removal of trees and shrubbery from the banks cause water to heat up through increased exposure to the sun. The vegetative loss causes temperature increases which result in aquatic deaths, pollution, and algal bloom, greater sediment in the creek, higher levels of carbon dioxide due to faster moving water, concentrations of chemicals combined with sediment that are detrimental to aquatic and plant life, and increased flooding. Fish become more sluggish and susceptible to disease in high water temperatures. The planting of riparian vegetation along the creek that overhangs the water will protect the water from direct sun and heat. A combination of black cottonwood, alder, willow, creek dogwood, grasses and sedges are the appropriate to plant along the creek's edge. Fish require water free of pollutants, phosphates and sedimentation. Clearing vegetation • and resculpting and grading the landscape within the Johnson Creek Watershed often result ' in increased soil erosion and sedimentation, in turn affecting the water quality. Erosion of the banks adds sediment to the creek, run-off from farming alter the creek's chemical balance, building and paving of urban development replace water-absorptive ground, and storm sewers channel add run-off into the creek. Sediment carried by the runoff water has the potential to cover spawning beds of fish, suffocate eggs, or directly harm fish and other aquatic organisms. 139 a 1 I3aigher water levels in the summertime are needed in Johnson Creek. Rainfall contributes to .surface water and the groundwater table. Portland's weather pattern includes more rainfall in fall, winter, and spring than in the summer. Surface waters are naturally low in summer and higheir during the rest of the year. Adjacent land use activities and development change the natural hydrologic cycle. Clearing, grading, filling, excavation, compaction, covering with impervious surfaces, construction and installation of pipe drainage systems all decrease the land's ability and capacity to absorb and retain water and the groundwater recharge potential. Therefore, impervious surfaces within the basin should be limited in order to improve the groundwater recharge potential of the creek during drier times of the year. Fish require resting and hiding places to escape predators. Downed logs, large boulders and even riprapping with some holes for fish to swim behind can provide sheltered areas. Tree trunks lying partially submerged in the creek provide cover and shading for fish, and attachment sites for aquatic insects (fish food). Duckweed, and sedge provide hiding areas for fish. The ideal pool/riffle ratio sizes and depths for Johnson Greek is proportional to the stream gradient and substrate within a given segment of the creek. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife can provide guidance on the specific standards. Environmental Influences on Insect Populations Good structural diversity in all vegetative layers is required to promote increased and diverse insect populations. Insects abound in the top of the forest canopy providing food for warbler, flycatcher, oriole, and other species. When vegetation begins to die and decay, it becomes home and food to mites, earthworms, fungi and millipedes which aid in the decomposition process. Insects found on the leaves, bark and decaying wood are eaten by warblers, woodpeckers and other insect. eating birds. Many insects live in the moist ground beneath a riparian or upland forest floor. These insects are the food of moles, shrews and other animals. Dead and decaying vegetation becomes home and food to mites, earthworms, fungi, and millipedes which aid in the decomposition process. Insects found on the leaves, bark, and decaying wood are eaten by bats, small mammals, and native amphibian and reptile (red legged frog and western pond turtle) species. Environmental Influences on Cavity & Branch Nesters, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds Tree cavities formed through decay or woodpeckers provide nesting and resting areas for raccoon, squirrels, bats, woodpeckers, wood ducks and other bird species. Twigs, leaves, and bark are used for nest building and insulation. The shrub layer is important nesting area for warblers, grosbeaks and other bird species. The ground cover-ferns, grasses, and wildflowers provide habitat for thrushes, towhees, and other ground forages. Algae in Johnson Greek is eaten by tiny macro-invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by fish which may be eaten by herons, kingfishers or other birds. Waterfowl and shorebirds require hiding and nesting areas in aquatic vegetation along and in creeks. Island habitats are often safer for these birds from predators. Greater structural and habitat diversity will provide a continuous source of food for residents as well as migrants. 140 Environmental Influences on Butterflies There are approximately fifty species of butterflies found in Multnomah County. The mixture of wetlands, open space, riparian and upland forests in the Johnson Creek watershed potentially support several dozen species at any one time. Larval host plants are the critical factor for the continued presence of butterfly species. Red alder, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, willow, snowberry, violets, thistles, grasses and mustards are known preferred larval host plants for butterflies. Planting of these species should be encouraged. Butterfly species require open meadows in both the larval and adult stages. There are no undisturbed upland meadows remaining in the Johnson Creek basin. Prairie grasslands once occupied much of the Willamette Valley prior to settlement. Many of these early prairies are now forested, although many new grasslands have been created through agricultural practices. Intensive agriculture, grazing, absence of fire, and urbanization have almost eradicated any native prairies within the area. MODEL AREAS CONCEPT Creation, rests, ation, and enhancement of wetland, riparian forest, upland meadow, and upland forest habitats along Johnson Creek is encouraged. In order to better understand the components of recreating landscapes which are supportive of wildlife, four areas within Johnson Creek have been selected as model sites. The sites are intended to beexamples, and possibly serve as seed and plant material sources. Although none of the four model areas are pristine, they each have a predominance of native plant species, good structural diversity, and represent a native habitat type. Model Area 1: Beggar's Tick Marsh This Multnomah County Wildlife Refuge is a wetland located at SE 111th Avenue and SE Foster Road. Dominant plant species are: Trees Shrubs: Ground Covers: Pacific Willow (Salix lasiandra) Douglas Spirea (Spirea douglasii) Cat-tail (Typha latifolia) Duckweed (Lemma s ) Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)* Rush sp. (Juncos sp.) Sedge (Carer sp.) Smartweed (Polygonum sp.)* Spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris) Beggar's Tick (Bidens frondosa) These species are invasive and/or non-native and, as such, should not be used when planting in or near environmental zones. Model Area 2: Top of Powell Butte This Portland Bureau of Parks Regional Park is an upland meadow site located between SE 136th and 174th Avenues, and SE Powell Boulevard and SE Foster Road. The entire site has been disturbed, and there are very few native species growing. However, it is the largest upland meadow in the Johnson Creek watershed. 141 WRIMM i { Model Area 3: Johnson Creek Canyon at Deardor8 Road and Bundee Park (SE 141st Avenue and SL Foster Load) ` These two sides are examples of riparian vegetation. Dominant plant species are: ' Trees: Shrubs: Ground Cover: Big-leaf Maple (Ater Creek Dogwood (Connus Foxtail (Hordeum macrophyllum) stolonifera) brachyantherom)* Black Cottonwood (Populus Evergreen Blackberry (Rebus Horsetail (Fquisetum arvense)* trichocarpa) laciniatus)* Lady-fern (Athyrium filix-femina) Douglas Fir (P'seudotsuga Himalayan Blackberry (Rubes Rush (Juncos sp.) f menziesii) discolor)* Sedge (Carer obmtpta) Oregon White Ash (Fraxmus Indian Plum (Oemleriaia Sword-fern (Polystichum munitum) Irryfolia) cerasiformis) Red Alder (Ahms rubra) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Western Red Cedar (rhuja plicata) Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) Willow (Salix h¢siandra, Salix :i sessilifolia) Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) Model Area 4: Powell Butte and the Boring Lava Fulls These are upland broad-leaved deciduous/coniferous forests. Trees: Shrubs: Ground Cover: Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga Baldhip Rose (Rosa gymnocarpa) Bedstraw (Galium spp.) menziesii) Black Hawthorn (Crataegus Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum) Big-leaf maple (Ace douglasii) Oregongrape (Berberis nervosa) macrophyllum) Common Snowberry Salal (Gaultheria shallop) f Red Alder (Alms rubra) (Symphoricacarpos albus) . St. John'swort (Hypericum Western Red Cedar (Muja plicata) Indian Plum (Cemleria cerasiformis) perforatum)* Oc---..-spr-~ (Holcdisa= discolor) Sword-fem (Polystichum munitum) Oregongrape (Berberis aguifolium) Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) - Red Huckleberry (Vaccinium Trailing.Blackberry (Rubus parvifolium) ursinus)* Saskatoon Serviceberry Trillium (rrllium spp.) (Amelanchier alnifolia) Wood Strawberry (Fragaria vesca) Vine Maple (Ater ciroinatum) Western Hazelnut (Corylus comets) * These species are invasive and/or non-native and, as such, should not be used when planting in or near environmental zones. s i i { - 1 i a i i 3 142 { gill III R APPENDICES • 5 S E 1 ' i t i S t ~ t E I I 143 Appendix A GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS USED FOR THE CITY OF PORTLAND INVENTORY OF WETLANDS, e:'ATEI? BODIES, AND WILDLIFE AREAS BANK The rising ground surrounding a lake, river, or other water body. CHANNEL The bed where a stream of water runs. COVER Vegetation that serves to protect animals from excessive sunlight, drying, or predators. DOMINANT The species controlling the environment. EDGE EFFECT The opportunities afforded along the boundary (also ECOTONE) between two plant communities for animals that can feed in one and take shelter in the other. ENHANCE To raise to a higher degree; improve quality or available capacity; intensify; magnify. EMERGENT Various aquatic plants usually rooted in shallow VEGETATION water and having most of their vegetative growth above water, such as cattails and bullrushes. rt EUTROPHICATION The process by which a lake becomes rich in dissolved nutrients and deficient in oxygen. GALLERY FOREST A strip of forest bordering a river or lake where tree growth is supported by :=eater f m-ring through the soil for a short distance. GOAL 5 A portion of the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission land use goals, dealing with the protection and conservation of open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources. HABITAT Place where a plant or animal species naturally lives and grows; its immediate surroundings. HYDRIC SOILS Soil that is wet long enough to periodically produce anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the growth of plants. HYDROPHTTE A vascular plant that grows in water with its buds below the water surface. INTERSPERSION The proximity and interaction of one natural area to other adjacent areas. r INUNDATE To flood; overspread with water, overflow. 145 LACUSTRI E Related to or within lakes. LITPORAL Relating to, situated in or near a shoreline. LIPANIC Relating to or inhabiting a marshy lake. MESIC Of or pertaining to, or adapted to an environment having a balanced supply of moisture; being neither extremely wet nor dry. MITIGATE To make less severe. "Mitigation" includes: (a) Avoid-hig, the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) Compensating for the impact by providing substitute resources or environments. PALUSTRINE Wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent herbs, emergent mosses or lichens. i PASSERINE Birds of t ac O.-der Passeriformes, comprising more than half of all bird species, and typically having feet adapted for perching (sparrows, warblers, etc.). RAPTORS Birds of the families Accipit4id :e, Falconidae, Tytonidae, and Strigidae; birds of prey equipped with long hooked 'sills and strong talons (hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls). RIPARIAN Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural water course (stream, river, etc.). RIVERINE Related to, formed by, or resembling a river. SATURATED Soaked, impregnated, or imbued thoroughly (soils). SERAL STAGE A characteristic association of plants and animals during succession and before climax. SHOREBIRD Birds of the Families Charadridae and Scolopacidae that are generally mud feelers and shore inhabiting. " SLOUGH Usually a channel containing water which may or may not be moving, and often alluvial in nature. r 146 t SMALL. Ni N54AI_S Fur covered animals that bear their young alive and nurse, those of the Orders Rodentia and Insectivores (mice, voles, shrews, etc.). STRUCTURAL Different habitat types within a Natural Area (i.e., Diversity; grasslands„ forest, open water, etc.). WATERFOWL Birds of the Family Anatidae. Aquatic, web-footed, gregarious birds ranging from small ducks to large swans, including geese. WETLANDS Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 'do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. For a more detailed description, refer to the discussion on Wetlands in the main body of the report. XERIC Of, pertaining to, or adapted to a dry environment. i C 147 Appendix B INTRODUCTION The Powell Butte/Mt. Scott Plan District is now applied to lands in southeast Portland generally east of I-205. The Johnson Creek Basin Plan District replaces these regulations in a manner that not only protects development from hazards such as landslides and floods, but, in conjunction with application of the Environmental Zones, also protects significant natural resources which offer certain values, including wildlife habitat, water quality, flood control, aesthetics, and neighborhood identity and character. Deletions to present regulations are srassed-eet, while additions are shown in italics. Notes to clarify or provide examples of appropriate actions are contained in [italicised brackets]. These notes will not appear in Title 33. CHAPTER 33:56 53S POWELL-BUTTE -nAST-.SGOTT JOHNSON CREEK BASIN PLAN DISTRICT Contents General 33.366535.010 Purpose 33.366535.020 Where the Regulations Apply l Development Standards 33.535.100 Items Subject to These Regulations 33.535.110 Items Exempt from These Regulations 33.535.120 Additional Development Standards Land Division Standards 33.366:838535200 Land Classifications 33.366:048535210 Maximum Density for PUDs and Cluster Subdivisions 33.366:030535220 Minimum Lot Sizes for Subdivisions and Partitions 33.366:868535230 Conservation of Class I, II, and III Lands 33.366 00535240 Contesting the Land Classification Designation Relationship to Environmental Zone Regulations 33.535.300 Items Exempt from Environmental Review 33.535.310 Items Subject to Modified Environmental Review 33.535.320 Additional Approval Criteria 33.366-.088400Review for Timeliness N4ap 566 1 Powell utte/ t c a D1 TM rMap 535-1 Johnson Creek Basin Plan District General 33.S6b3S.010 Purpose The Johnson Creek Basin Powell BuffeAft-Seeft plan district provides for the safe, orderly, and efficient development of lands which are subject to a number of physical constraints, including significant natural resources, steep and hazardous slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and the lack of streets, sewers, and water services. The density of development is limited by applying special regulations to new land division proposals en RIO . I.a-eddifiex, Class I and 11 lands C are given priority for designation as common open space in PUDs and cluster subdivisions, and 149 existing vegetation on Class 1, II, and 1H lands is encouraged to be preserved. In addition, restrictions are placed on all new land uses and activities to reduce storm"ter runoff, provide groundwater recharge, reduce erosion, enhance water quality, and retain and enhance native - vegetation throughout the plan district. This plan district is intended to be used in conjunction with environmental zoning placed on significant natural resources in the Johnson Creek basin, to protect resources in conformance with Goal S of the Comprehensive Plan and statewide planning Goal S. !Where there are conflicts between this plan district and the environmental zone regulations, the regulations of the plan district apply. 33.5635.020 Where the Regulations Apply &A fbA The plan district regulations apply to lands plmdisftiet; shown on Map M05-1 at the end of this chapter and on the Official Zoning Maps. The boundary of the plan district is based on the Johnson Creek Basin Plan District document --y am shewn in the StUdy is -4C A. at the zefi-.1 G&MM. Development Standards 33.53S.100 Items Subject to These Regulations Unless exempted in 33566.026, the following are subject to the developmentt standards and required reviews of this chapter: A . New development and exterior alterations, B. New above or below ground utilities that are not in public rights-of-way; and 4 C. Removal of trees greater than six inches in dia,;.eer. 33.535.110 Items Exempt. frown These Regulations The following items are exempt from the development regulations and required reviews stated in this chapter.• A . Changing crop type or farming technique on existing agricultural land; B . Planting native vegetation; and C . Mowing, trimming, and normal maintenance of vegetation in the Transition Area of an EC Environmental Conservation zone and in the outer 25 feet of a resource area of an EC Environmental Conservation zone, if the following standards of the Environmental zone regulations are met. 1. 33.430.200 B - Parking and truck areas; 2. 33.430200 D - Exterior storage and display; and 3. 33.430.200 J - Construction Management. 1r.0 33.535.120 Additional Development Standards The following development standards apply as specifted in 33535.100: A . Structures in the Floodway Above-ground structures are not allowed within the Johnson Creek floodway as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on July 1, 1991. An exception to this is fences, which are allowed subject to standards set by the Bureau of Environmental Services; B . Maximum Lot Coverage No more than 50 percent of any site can be developed in impervious surface; [note: uncovered slatted decks, concrete pavers. " grasscrete, ' and si nilar items can be exempt] C . free Removal Trees greater than six inches in diameter can be removed only when they are diseased or pose an immediate danger, or are within ten feet of an existing or proposed building or five feet of a paved surface; D. Stormwater Systems Stormwater collection systems shall allow no greater volume of stormwater,tlow off the site than 1100 of what would occur under existing conditions. There shall be no increase in peakfYows leaving the site, including during construction. Inf `filtration facilities shall be required for stormwater disposal except in soils identified as Cascade by the most recent soils map published by the Soil Conservation Service. Systems shall meet adopted Bureau of Environmental Services and Bureau of Buildings design and construction standards, E . Water Quality Water discharge to Johnson Creek or its tributaries shall not increase the existing level of Priority Pollutants as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, sediment, temperature, or fecal enterococcus in the receiving water body. Systems shall meet adopted Bureau of Environmental Services and Bureau of Buildings design and construction standards, F . Water Discharge Release of water from Powell Butte reservoirs into Johnson Creek is prohibited unless there is a system malfunction or when the release would result in no more than a I091o increase in water volume at any point in the creek during the release period. Water discharged during scheduled release periods trust be dechlonnated; and G . Erosion and Sediment Control All vegetation removal activities trust be surrounded or protected in a manner to prevent erosion and sediment from leaving the altered site; and Land Division Standards 33.§66-.0-M535.200 Land Classifications All land in the plan district is divided into five land classifications, Classes I through V, as shown in the Land Claa a ' n for the JO nson Creek Basin Protection Plan Class I lands are generally the steepest sites having the greatest amount of natural hazards and water features, while Class V lands are generally flat without natural hazards or water features. This land classification system is the basis for the regulations of this chapter. [This land classification document has rot been produced, but will be a compilation of the two existing documents: Development Manual of the Powell Butte Mt. Scott Demyfty evel mnnt Shy and Johnson Creek Basin Protection f1W C._ 151 MENEM= } i 33.566-040535.210 Maximum Density for PUDs and Cluster Subdivisions The maximum allowed density of development for residential PUDs and cluster subdivisions is determined by calculating the number of acres in each land classification and multiplying those figures by the following units per acre: • s Land Class One-fourth the minimian density allowed in Class I and II Lands 1.05 the base zone Class III lands unksfePoem One-ha4fthe minimum density allowed in the base zone Class IV and V lands 4.20 uaiwpepaew Minimum density allowed in base zone 33.566-.4SIi 535.220 Minimum Lot Sim for Subdivisions and Partitions The following minimum lot sizes apply for all subdivisions and major partitions, excluding PUDs, cluster subdivisions, and minor partitions. Minor partitions must meet the minimum lot sizes of the base zone. Y A. Up to 50 percent Class I, II, ffi. If up to 50 percent of the site area is classified as Class I. IL and III lands, the minimum lot size is the minimum lot size allowed in the base YAM N-M zone 18;9tI8- a feet. II . More than 50 percent Class I, H, 13L If more than 50 percent of the site area is classified as Class I, II, and III lands, the following minimum lot sizes apply: 1. If less than 20% of the site area is classified as Class I and II lands, the minimum lot size is 2 am4Bet two times the minimum lot size allowed in the base zone; 2. If 20% to 50% of the site area is classified as Class I and II lands, the minimum lot size is 30908 s -feet three times the minimum lot size allowed in the bdce zone; 3. If more than 50% of the site area is classified as Class I and H lands, the minimum lot size is 4n 98tI sgiatfour times the minimum lot size allowed in the base zone. 33.564A" 535.230 Conservation of Class I, II, and III Lands When designing PUDs and cluster subdivisions, Class I and II lands must Amidd be given first priority for designation as common open space and are to be maintained in a natural state. Existing non-nuisance plants vegawaien as listed in the Portland Plant Last on Class I, II, and III lands should be preserved where practical. ;The purpose of these requirements is to conserve significant natural areas, decrease the potential for erosion, decrease the amount of surface water runoff, and ' r help stabilize areas prone to landslides. i t 33.546-.470 535.240 Contesting the Land Classification Designation The land classification for a property shown in the d C mffm a far the Johnson Cr elC { Basin Protection Plaat Paele=w fimft may be contested through a Type IR procedure. The landowner roust include supporting materials prepared by a qualified engineering geologist, proving that the land classifications shown ` in the Development Manual for that property are incorrect. The pre-application conference is waived in these instances. i a R f 152 f Relationship to Environmental Zone Regulations 33.535.300 Items Exempt from Environmental Review The following items are exempted from environmental review within the Plan District, as they are compatible with the purposes of the Plan District and will not adversly impact significant natural resource: A . Removing trees within Johnson Creek below the ordinary high water level; B . Changing crop type or farming technique on existing agricultural land; C . Mowing, trimming, and normal maintenance of vegetation in the Transition Area of an EC Environmental Conservation zone and in the outer 25 feet of a resource area of an EC Environmental Conservation zone, if the following standards of the Environmental zone regulations are met. 1. 33.430200 B - Parking and truck areas; 2. 33.430.200 D - Exterior storage and display; and 3. 33.430200 J - Construction Management. D . Planting native vegetation in a manner consistent with the Guidelines of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan: and E . Constructing structures in the Transition Area of an EC Environmental Conservation zone in the RF through R2.5 zones, if the standards of subsection 33.430.200 A - Building Placement, and subsection 33.430200 G - Lighting are met; F . Items and conditions listed in the Johnson Creek B -min Protection Plan document as "Site- Specific Compatible Uses and Activities" in Chapter 8, Inventory Site Summaries; G . Constructing a public recreation trail and support facilities within the Springwater Line right-of-way; H. Maintenance within existing rights-of-way including road widening, rebuilding of bridges, resurfacing, and installation of curbs and sidewalks; , I. Modification of existing structures if the following standards are met: 1. There is no enlargement of the footprint of the structure; 2. Subsection 33.430.200 A - Building Placement, and 3. Subsection 33.430.200 G - Lighting. 33.53S.3I0 Items Subject to Modified Environmental Review • When located in an Environmental Protection zone in the plan district, new construction of bridges within public rights-of-way are allowed subject to the review for compliance with Approval Criteria for development within the Environmental Conservation zone, subsections 33.430340 A through E, as replacement is compatible with the purposes of the plan district and, with appropriate mitigation, will not adversly impact significant natural resources. 153 16 33.535.320 Additional Approval Criteria In addition to the requirements of 33.430, all land uses and activities subject to environmental review-must consider the Guidelines of the Johnson Creek Basin Protection Plan . 33.5 8535.400 Review for Timeliness. The. regulations. of this. chapter will be reviewed for timeliness before July 1, 2001 Deee POWELL BUTTE n tom. Pow ei oisrMi S TT .a xu IYVALLEY 7. f. . Johnson Creek Basin Pia District EXISTING POTMLL B UWW MT. SCOTT PLAN DISTRIC § 1 t t i~ i i s 1 t m h.. m cis N Legend Johnson Creek Basin Plan District ® Plan District PLAN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 154 1 i 7 / Appendix C 4. IN'TRODUCT'ION The Environmental Zone regulations were adopted by Portland in 1987, to be applied to significant resources throughout the City in order to meet Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 (Environment) and Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources). No changes are being made to these regulations as a result of the Johnson Creek Basin Plan District. However, these regulations may be modified by Plan District regulations, as long as purposes of the Environmental Zone, Comprehensive Plan goals, and Statewide Planning Goal 5 are met. CHAPTER 33.430 ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES General ' 33.430.010 Purpose The purpose of the Environmental, zones is to: • Protect the City's inventoried significant natural resources and their functional values, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan; • Implement the Comprehensive Plan environmental policies and objectives-, and • Encourage coordination between City, county, regional, state, and federal agencies concerned with natural resources. I, 33.430.020 Overlay Zones A . General. The City has identified and inventoried natural resources and their public value. Some natural resource areas have been determined by the City to have greater public benefits than others. There are two overlay zones with different emphases to reflect two levels of natural resource areas. 1. The Environmental Protection overlay zone is applied to areas with the highest functional values and where the City has determined the natural resource to be of such significant value that almost all development would have a detrimental impact. The regulations of the Environmental Protection zone are intended to be very stringent and are designed to preserve the resource and its values. 2. The Environmental Conservation overlay zone is applied to areas with high functional values where the City has determined that development may be allowed if adverse impacts are mitigated. The regulations of the Environmental Conservation zone are intended to conserve the resource and its values. B . Subareas of the environmental zones. Each Environmental zone consists of the naturo resource area and a transition area surrounding the natural resource area. The purpose of the transition area is to protect the adjacent natural resource. The transition area provides a buffer between the natural resource area and impacts of adjacent development. 1. Natural resource area. .This is the land containing the natural resource to be protected and the lands surrounding it where development and activities would degrade the resource. 155 i 2. Transition area. This is the land around the edges of the natural resource area that constitutes a transition area for the natural resource area. The first 25 feet of the Environmental zone, measured inward from the zone boundary, is the transition area. See Figure 430-1. Figure 430-1 Environmental Zone Subareas 25' Nat~!ra_l Reurce Area 25 foot Transition Area Environmental Zone boundary line 33.430.030 Short Naives and Map Symbols The Environmental zones are also referred to in this Title by the short names listed below and are shown on the Official Zoning Maps with the symbols listed below. Collectively, the zones are called the Environmental zones. M Name Short Name MV Svmbol Environmental Conservation EC c Environmental Protection EP p 33.430.040 Natural Resources and Functional Values A. Natural resources. A natural resource is the physical resource itself. An Environmental zone may be placed on a site when one or more of the natural resources listed below have been identified as significant; 1. Wetlands; OEM 2. Water bodies and riparian areas; 3. Fish and wildlife habitat areas; or 4. Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas. B . Functional values. Significant natural resources are important because of their functional values. The functional value may be physical, aesthetic, scenic, educational, or some other nonphysical function, or a combination of these. For example, two values of a wetland could be it's ability to provide stormwater detention for x units of water draining y acres, and it's ability to provide food and shelter for a varieties of migrating waterfowl. 156 As another example, an unusual native species of plant in a natural resource area would be of educational, heritage, and scientific value. Most natural resources will have many . functional values. Some general categories of functional values are: Groundwater recharge and discharge; • Flood storage and desynchronization; • Domestic water supplies; Shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces; • Sediment trapping; • Nutrient retention and removal; • Pollution control (to maintain water quality); • Habitat for fish and wildlife; Ret wational opportunities; i Visual and scenic amenities and character, and • Heritage value. C . Additional site information. The City's adopted Goal 5 inventories and related economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analyses contain additional information about the natural resources and their values at individual sites. 33.430.050 Items Subject to These Regulations Unless exempted in 33.430.060 below, the following are subject to the development standards and required reviews of this chapter, as specified in Section 33.430.070: A. Change of use where there are concurrent exterior alterations to buildings or the site; C. New development; D . Exterior atteradon. of and hnlding and any site exprinsions or modifications, including increased cultivated area, grazing area, or other agricultural activities; F.. Changes to the land, including all fills and excavations, grading, and-any modification of drainage patterns; F . New above or blow ground utilities that are not in public rights-of-way; G . The dedication or extension of public and rail rights-of-way; H . Removal of trees and removal, cutting, or mowing of noncultivated vegetation including herbicide application. Removal of vegetation identified as nuisance plants on the Portland Plant List is not subject to this provision. The Portland Plant List is available at the Permit Center, and I. Resource enhancement activities. 33.430.060 Items Exempt From These Regulations The following items are exempt from the development standards and required reviews stated in this chapter. A. Sale of property or change of ownership of a business; B . Changes to the interior of a building; C 157 r ugaw WI 11 C . Normal repair and maintenance of structures and development, including landscaping (only when replacing with in-ldnd materials), flood control, and irrigation; D. Customary dredging and channel maintenance of existing drainage facilities. This includes vegetative maintenance for access and stormwater/flood control purposes within and adjacent to drainageways, but not the placement of fill or dredge spoils except for temporary storage outside a wetland or water body; E . Temporary emergency procedures necessary for the safety or protection of property; F . Single utility poles required to provide service to the local area; G . Public right-of-way dedication and improvement projects that are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and that the City finds, through the NEPA and Oregon Action Plan process, that the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan; H . Groundwater monitoring wells when constructed to standards approved by the City. I . Right-of-way dedications for widening existing rights-of-way, when additional right-of- way is needed to ensure a contiguous width. 33.430.070 Applicable Development Standards and Approval Criteria A . Recreational trails. Required recreational trails are subject to the development standards of Chapter 33.272, Public Recreational Trails, and the approval criterion of 33.430.340.A. In addition, they must be constructed to City standards. Other trails, rest points, view points, and facilities for the enjoyment of the natural resource are also subject to the approval criterion of 33.430.340.A. B . Resource enhancement projects. Resource enhancement projects, including approved mitigation plans, are reviewed against the approval criteria of 33.430.340.B. They are not subject to the development standards of 33.430.200. C . All other development. All other development is subject to the development standards of 33.430.200 and the environmental review approval criteria of 33.430.340. The applicable environmental review approval criteria will depend on whether the proposal is in a transition area, an EC natural resource area, or an EP natural resource area. In addition, development in a natural resource area must include an impact evaluation and may require a mitigation plan, as stated in 33.430.350 and 33.430.360. D . Natural resource management plans. Development in areas subject to a natural resource management plan must conform to the requirements of the plan. See 33.430.370. The development standards of the plan may be more liberal or more stringent than the environmental zone standards. The requirements for review, the procedure, or the approval criteria may also be superceded by the requirements of the management plan. The environmental zone development standards apply unless the management plan states otherwise. 33.430.080 Other Regulatory Agencies This chapter contains the City's regulations for areas within the environmental zones. The regulations of other agencies may also apply to individual sites and they may be more restrictive than the City's regulations. Possible affected agencies include: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of 1{S t III Will Im 111111 1 1 IS! 111111, OEM_ Environmental Quality, and local drainage districts. City approval does not imply approval by C other agencies. Applicants are encouraged to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies for information and advice before their development plans are completed. Use Regulations 33.430.100 Uses Allowed A. Review required. Uses and development allowed by the base zone, overlay zone, and plan district regulations are allowed in the environmental zones if they comply with the development standards and are approved through an environmental review. The amount and placement of development may be restricted to ensure conformance with the regulations of this chapter. B . Hazardous substances. Hazardous substances greater than the consumer commodity quantity are prohibited in the environmental zones. See 33.140.120 for descriptions of hazardous material quantities. Development Standards 33.430.200 Development Standards The development standards of this section apply to all transition and natural resource areas. A. Building placement. This standard is intended to protect adjacent natural resource areas by allowing for solar access and controlling the scale and bulk of buildings near natural resources. A building or structure up to 25 feet in height may be placed up to the boundary of the natural. resource area. A setback from the natural re source area boundary of at least 1 foot for every 1 foot in height over 25 feet is required. See Figure 430-2. Figure 430-2 Building heights in Transition Areas Height limit ~ I ~ I ~ I i I 50 ft. or normal height limit I I I I I I 25 &1 I I I I tiTX.,:... ,:c.»T:'^:.,} ~::c':xcxc.X3:'4; i':'•`:::f k ~ o>S:'`:`.::::: ??xxx:>[x?~..:'L,?•.c ,di ' vt.... ~;,3:~. ..7:Q ,L iSr w~-.... ~.k• _ $..x~?..-01ai'4i:,,;:' ~\4:ik, v`S; ~,L Q.k..: t,;:r,.'~,„:~~.`C,,`x~:.ti~:: p:•. :.k a>. ,.:•:•:•.r,.:.:;3: ":d.t''cc.::a;TX:,,~'.'.',..~...4:.,:',,,~.,~,,,'':. .•.,c'T. ~AFtiilF;i'.. C 159 B . Parking and truck areas. 'These regulations are intended to provide a transition between the natural resource area and development, to assist in controlling runoff, and to protect the visual amenity values of the natural resource. 1. Auto and >;ght truck areas. Parking areas for autos and light trucks must be set back at least 10 feet from natural resource area boundaries. The setback must be landscaped to at least the L2 standard, as stated in Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening. 2. Medium and heavy truck areas. Parking, loading, and maneuvering areas for medium and heavy trucks must be set back at least 10 feet from natural resource area boundaries. The setback must be landscaped to at least the L3 standard. C . Exterior work activities. Exterior work activities are prohibited unless in conjunction with a river-related or river-dependent use. D . Exterior storage and display. Exterior storage and display areas must be set back at least 10 feet from resource area boundaries. The setback must be landscaped to at least the L3 standard. E . Drainage and topography. 1. The site must be contoured, planted, or developed to prevent erosion, pollution, and sedimentation into the adjacent natural resource area. 2. The Bureau of Environmental Services may require water pollution mitigation measures as a condition of approving the discharge of runoff into a natural resource or into a stormwater drainage facility which discharges into a natural resource. Preferred treatment is with natural pollution control systems compatible in character with the natural resource. The type of mitigation measure or facility, will be determined by the Bureau of Environmental Services. F . Landscape materials. 1. The first 10 feet of landscaping, measured from the natural resource boundary line, must be planted with plant species native to the Willamette Valley or to the Pacific Northwest. Allowable plant species are described in Section IV.C, Landscaping, of the Willamette Greenway Plan. This requirement applies to all landscaping whether required or optional. 2. The standard in Paragraph 1. above does not apply where the identified natural resource does not include native plant species as a characteristic or value. In these cases, landscaping may be similar in type and character to that in the natural resource area. G . Lighting. Exterior and interior lights must be placed so that they do not shine directly into natural resource areas. H . Trash collection areas. Outdoor trash collection areas are prohibited. I . Noise. Buildings must be placed and constructed to meet the noise standards for nonresidential development adjacent to residential zones. See Title 18, Nuisance Abatement and Noise Control. 160 i{ 1 i S i : Construction management. Construction must be done in a manner which will C ensure that the remainder of the site with Environmental zoning will not be adversely impacted. Environmental Review { 33.430.300 Purpose of the Review Environmental review of uses and development in the Environmental zones is intended to provide adequate protection for the identified natural resources. The review provides for flexibility and reasonable development opportunities when development is sensitive to the special environmental concerns of the site. 33.430.310 Modifying Environmental Zone Boundaries j Environmental zone boundaries may be modified by the City as the result of and concurrent with approving development in a natural resource area. The boundaries may be modified for either of the two situations stated below. All other requests for boundary changes are processed as a change of an overlay zone, as stated in Chapter 33.855, Zoning Map Amendments. A . Creation of new resource areas. The Environmental zone boundary may be expanded as part of the environmental review to include areas identified for enhancement in a mitigation plan. B . Loss of existing resource areas. The Environmental zone boundary may be removed from a portion of an existing natural resource area where approved development will eliminate natural resource. The boundary will not be removed until after all required mitigation measures have been completed. 33.430.320 Procedures l A. Transition areas. Environmental review in a transition area is processed through a Type II procedure in both the EC and EP zones. i B . Natural resource areas. Environmental review in a natural resource area is processed through a Type II procedure in the EC zone and a Type III procedure in the EP zone. An exception to this in the EP zone is a review of a recreational trail located in a natural resource area but not in the natural resource itself. When locating outside the natural i resource, recreational trails are processed through a Type II procedure. A pre-application conference is required for all Type II and III procedures in both zones. C . Special evaluation by a trained professional. The Planning Director may hire a professional to evaluate proposals and make recommendations upon finding that additional expertise is warranted due to exceptional circumstances. The professional may have expertise in the applicable natural resource or expertise in the potential adverse impacts on the natural resource. This provision may be applied only to proposals to develop in the natural resource area. A fee for these services will be charged to the applicant in addition to the application fee. { a s { 161 i MMM 33.430.330 Supplemental Application Requirements All of the information listed below must be included with an environmental review application, in addition to the standard application requirements of 33.730.060. - - A. Special site plan requirements. 1. The site plan must clearly show the boundaries of the natural resource area and the transition area at a scale of at least linch for every 100 feet. Location of the environmental zone is based upon the maps adopted with the ESEE analysis for the area. 2. Additional site plan requirements. In addition, the site plan must show: • Proposed site contouring; • Proposed stormwater management and disposal; • Existing or proposed, above or below ground utilities; • Proposed right-of-way dedication; • All trees greater than six inches in diameter measured at five feet above the ground. As an option to showing all trees greater than 6 inches in wooded areas not being disturbed, the crown cover outline can be shown; • Other vegetation cover types, general distribution, and identification of vegetation affected by the proposed project; • Existing floodplains and elevations; • Proposed sanitary waste disposal systems; and • Proposed recreational trails, viewpoints, and outdoor recreational spaces. B . Additional plans and analyses. The following information is required in either a site plan or narrative form, or in a combination of the two: 1. A construction management plan showing enough detail to fully address the concerns described in 33.430.210.x. above. The plan_ should address the handling of construction equipment, construction materials, excess fill, runoff, erosion, how trees and vegetation will be protected, and similar items; 2. If the development is proposed for a transition area, a detailed description of any proposed on-site or off-site mitigation measures; 3. An impact evaluation if the development is proposed for a natural resource area, See 33.430.350. If the impact evaluation shows that there will be a degradation or loss of functional values, a mitigation plan will also be required. See 33.430.360. 33.430.340 Approval Criteria An environmental review application will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that all of the applicable approval criteria stated below are met. A. Recreational trails, 1. Which approval criteria apply. Recreational trails to be located outside of a natural resource area are subject to the approval criterion stated in Paragraph 2. below. Recreational trails to be located in a natural resource area in the EP and EC zones are subject to the approval criteria stated in Subsection E. below. 162 will i 2. Approval criterion. Trails, rest points, view points, and other facilities constructed j for the enjoyment of the natural resource limit and balance significant detrimental environmental impacts with the potential for enjoyment of the natural resource. B . Resource enhancement projects. Resource enhancement projects must have adequate mitigation measures to ensure that there will be no net loss of natural resources and fLmcdonal values and that the objectives of the enhancement project will be achieved. C . Excavations and fills. Excavations and fills are subject to the approval criteria of Subsections D, E, or F below and the approval criteria for excavations and fills stated in Chapter 33.530, Excavations and Fills. D . Development in transition areas. 1, Development within the the transition area will have no significant detrimental environmental impacts on adjacent natural resource areas due to any change of drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation, hazardous material spills, litter, or exterior . lighting. 2. Existing trees and other vegetation are retained to the greatest extent possible. 3. The proposed construction man agement plan is adequate to protect the adjacent natural resource area. E . Development in natural resource areas in the EC zone. 1. The proposal has as few significant detrimental environmental impacts on functional C values as is practical. 2. All identified significant detrimental environmental impacts on the functional values will be compensated for through a mitigation plan. 3. Proposed construction management measures are adequate to protect remaining natural resource areas during the construction period. F. Development in natural resource areas in the EP zone. 1. There are no alternative sites available within the City that are suitably zoned to allow the proposal and that would have less impact on natural resources. 2. The applicant's analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences (ESEE) of the proposal is able to show that the City's prior ESEE analysis for the site is no longer valid due to a change in the factors considered. The applicant's ESEE analysis also clearly demonstrates that there is a public need for the proposal in the natural resource, and that the public benefit resulting from the proposal outweighs the significant detrimental environmental impacts on the natural resource. 3. All significant detrimental environmental impacts on the functional values will be compensated for through a mitigation plan. 4. Proposed construction management measures are adequate to protect remaining natural resource areas during the construction period. 163 33.430.350 Impact Evaluation An impact evaluation is required for all proposals in a natural resource area. The following steps describe the process for evaluating the impacts of a proposal. _ A. The natural resources are identified. B . The functional values of the identified natural resources are defined by characteristics and . quantity. C . Alternative locations, design modifications, or alternative methods of development on the subject p,, vrhich would reduce the impacts on natural resources are identified an d evaluated. D . The impacts of the proposal on the natural resources and functional values are determined, including an economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis for proposals in the EP zone. E . If there is any resulting degradation or loss of functional values from the proposal, a mitigation plan is required which will compensate for the degradation or loss. See 33.430.360 below. 33.430.360 Mitigation Plans A . Description. A mitigation plan is a plan to compensate for the degradation or loss of a site's functional values identified in the impact evaluation process. It may also be a plan to improve a natural resource area through the enhancement of functional values. It is a comprehensive and long range plan. B . Purpose. Mitigation plans are intended to prose ie functional values while providing some flexibility for development within a natural resource area. Development within a natural resource area has the potential of degrading or destroying the natural resource and its functional values. If development outside of the natural resource'area is not practical, the negative impacts must be eliminated or compensated for through mitigation. In evaluating proposals for mitigation, the following order of locational and resource preference applies: 1. On the resource site, with the same kind of resource; 2. Off-site, with the same kind of resource; 3. On-site, with a different kind of resource; and 4. Off-site, with a different kind of resource. C . Location of mitigation treasures. Mitigation must be done within the City limits and preferably in the same local watershed. D . Preparation and implementation It is recommended that, based upon the functional values to be mitigated and the complexity of the project, the mitigations plan be prepared and implemented with the guidance of professionals with experience and credentials in the applicable natural resource arras and values. These professionals may include wildlife biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, foresters, and wetland scientists. The property owner of the affected site is responsible for the design and/or implementation of each element of the plan. 164 t E. Elements of a mitigation plan. A mitigation plan must contain at least the following elements: 1. Documentation in written and mapped form of the existing natural resource and • functional values on both the site to be impacted and the mitigation site. 2. The objectives of the mitigation plan, including functional values that are being conserved; 3. Information showing how the mitigation measures will ensure that there is no net loss of the functional values; , 4. Information describing the coordination efforts with, and requirements of any other local, State, and Federal regulatory agencies; 5. A site plan which includes at least the following items: a. Applicable elements required by the environmental review application; b. The species, size, and spacing of any vegetation; c. Any water bodies, including depths; d. Any water sources, including volumes; and e. Any dams, weirs, or other structures relating to mitigation; 6. A construction plan for the mitigation measures, including timetables and assurances for performance; 7. A management plan for ongoing maintenance, including assurances for performance. 8. A monitoring plan for during and after implementation. 9. Assurances to rectify any mitigation actions which are not successful. This may include bonding or other surety. 33.430.370 Natural Resource Management Plans A . Purpose. Natural resource management plans provide an alternative approach to individual environmental reviews. The plan may be either comprehensive in its treatment of natural resources within the management plan area, or it may be a functional plan which addresses a single or limited range of natural resources and functional values. Examples of a functional plan might be a 40-Mile Loop implementation plan or a drainageway development plan. Plans should cover large natural resources, such as a creek or slough, which may pass through many ownerships, or large areas which may have many protected natural resources and many ownerships. The plan provides a means for a single environmental evaluation and review of a large ecosystem. This process is not intended for small parcels. The process allows for coordination with other local, state, and federal agencies to provide consistency in implementation of environmental regulations. A natural resource management plan will also result in more certainty for land owners and in more rapid processing of development requests. 165 R . What is covered in a plan. Nam 1. A natural resource management plan must cover all significant natural resources protected by the environmental zone(s) within the plan boundaries which are relevant to the scope of the plan. The plan must address all of the identified functional values of the natural resource areas which are significantly affected by actions or ' developments addressed in the plan. 2. The plan may also address concerns of other governmental agencies if the plan is being developed to be used concurrently by other agencies. 3. Management objectives which maintain or enhance identified functional values should be included. C. Details and content of the plan. 1, 1 -he plan must be of adequate detail, description and mapping to provide site specific certainty to property owners and to allow City staff to review all development proposals for compliance with the plan. 2. The plan may include additional development standards or exemptions from the development standards of this chapter. 3. The plan must also identify: a. Where development is and is not allowed and the types of development allowed; b. The location and type of any mitigation measures; c. The timing of development, mitigation measures, and other improvements; d. The procedure for City review of allowed development; and e. The manner in which all requests for adjustments or amendments to an approved plan will be processed. D . Adoption procedure for a plan. Adoption of a natural resource management plan is processed through a legislative procedure. A natural resource management plan may be implemented in several ways including but not limited to a plan district, urban renewal district, or master plan. Formulation of the plan may be done by the City, another government agency, or affected property owners. E . approval criteria for adoption of a plan. A natural resource management plan will be adopted if it is found that: 1. The plan is consistent with the purpose of the environmental zones; 2. The plan complies with the requirements for natural resource management plans stated in this section; and 3. The plan meets the relevant environmental review approval criteria stated in 33.430.340.A through F. 166 111111 El ii111111 1111 Q1 11 Appendix D 9ft CHAPTER 33.258 NONCONFORMING USES AND DEVELOPMENT Sections: 33.258.010 Purpose 33.258.020 Status and Documentation of a Nonconforming Use or Development 33.258.030 Types of Nonconforming Situations 33.258.040 Regulations that Apply to All Nonconforming Situations 33.258.050 Nonconforming Uses 33.258.060 Nonconforming Residential Densities 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development 33.258.080 Nonconforming Use Reviews 33.258.010 Purpose Nonconforming uses and development are created when the application of a specific zone to a site changes, or a zoning regulation changes. As part of the change, existing uses or development might no longer be allowed The intent of the change is not to force all noncomplying situations to be immediately brought into conformance. Instead, the intent is to guide future uses and development in a new direction consistent with City policy. This chapter provides a method to review and limit nonconforming situations when changes to those situations are proposed The intent is to protect the character of the area by reducing the negative impacts from nonconforming situations. At the same time, the regulations assure that the uses and development may continue and that the zoning regulations will not cause unnecessary burdens. Nonconforming situations that have a lesser impact on the immediate area have fewer restrictions than those with greater impacts. Nonconforming uses in residential zones are treated more strictly than those in commercial, employment or industrial zones to protect the livability and character of residential neighborhoods. In contrast, nonconforming residential developments in residential zones are treated more liberally because they do not represent a major disruption to the neighborhood and they provide needed housing opportunities in the City. 33.258.020 Status and Documentation of a Nonconforming Use or Development . (Amended by Ord No. 163697, effective 1/1/91.) The nonconforming use and development regulations apply only to those nonconforming situations which were allowed when established or which were approved through a land use review. Nonconforming situations which were not allowed when established have no legal right to continue (often rz erred to ass "grandfather rights") and must be removed. The applicant must provide evidence to show that the nonconforming situation was allowed when established (using building permits) and was maintained over time (using utility bills, tax records, business licenses, or telephone directory listings). The Director will determine whether the evidence is satisfactory. If the applicant wishes to provide evidence other than those identified above in parentheses, a Type H process will be used to determine whether the evidence is satisfactory. 33.258.030 Types of Nonconforming Situations A specific site may be nonconforming because it contains either a nonconforming use, an allowed residential use that exceeds the allowed density, a nonconforming development, or a combination of these. Nonconforming uses, nonconforming residential densities, and nonconforming development are defined in Chapter 33.900, Definitions. 167 33.258.040 Regulations drat Apply to All Nonconforming Situations A. Ownership. The status of a nonconforming situation is not affected by changes in ownership. B . Change to a conforming situation. A nonconforming situation may be changed to a conforming situation by right. Once a conforming situation occupies the site, the nonconforming rights are lost and a nonconforming situation may not be re-established. C. Change to conditional use. A nonconforming use may change to a conditional use if approved through a conditional use review. Once a conditional use occupies the site, the nonconforming rights are lost and a nonconforming use may not be re-established. D. Maintenance. Normal maintenance and repair of nonconforming situations is allowed. 33.258.050 Nonconforming Uses (Amended by Ord. No.163697, effective 1/1/91.) A. Continued operation. Nonconforming uses may continue to operate. Changes in oNc ations are allowed. However, nonconforming uses in residential zones may not extend their hours of operation into the period of 11 pm to 6 am. B . Change of use. A change to another use in the same use category is allowed by right, provided that the off-site impact standards of Chapter 33.262, Off-Site Impacts, are met. The applicant must document in advance that the nonconforming use will meet the off-site impact standards. For changes of use within the same use category which do not meet the off-site impact standards, the change may be allowed through a nonconforming use review. A change to a use in a different use category which is prohibited by the base zone may be allowed through a nonconforming use review. See 33.258.080. C . Floor Area Expansions. 1. OS and R zones. The standards stated below apply to all nonconforming uses in OS and R zones. a. Floor area expansions on the same site may be approved through a nonconforming use review. See 33.258.080. The development standards of the base zone must be met. b. Expansion of the nonconforming use onto another site is prohibited. 2. C, E, and I zones. The standards stated below apply to all nonconforming uses in C, E, and I zones. a. Floor area expansions on the same site may be approved through a nonconforming use review. See 33.258.080. The development standards of the base zone must be met for the expansion. b. Expansion of the nonconforming use onto another site is prohibited, except in the following situation: (1) The site is abutting the site of the nonconforming use; and (2) The site was in the same ownership as the nonconforming site when it became nonconforming; and 168 121 (3) The prior zoning regulations on the expansion site would have allowed the use; Aft ARE and (4) The expansion is approved through a nonconforming use review. See 33.258.080. c. The addition of new residential units to a nonconforming residential use is prohibited. D. Loss of nonconforming use status. 1. Discontinuance. If the site of a nonconforming use is vacant for 2 continuous years, the nonconforming use rights are lost and the re-establishment of a nonconforming use is prohibited. If the site is vacant for less than 2 continuous years, the nonconforming use rights are maintained. 2. Accidental destruction. When a structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged by fire or other causes beyond the contuol of the owner, the re-establishment of the nonconforming use is prohibited if the repair cost of the structure is more than 75 percent of its assessed value. 3. Intentional destruction. When a structure containing a nonconforming use is intentionally damaged by fine or other causes within the control of the owner, the re-establishment of the nonconforming use is prohibited. 33.258.060 Nonconforming Residential Densities x A . Changes to dwellings. Existing dwelling units may continue, may be removed or enlarged, and amenities may be added to site. There may not be a net increase in the number of dwelling units and the building may not move further out of compliance with the base zone development standards. B . Discontinuance and damage. 1. Building unoccupied but standing. Nonconforming residential density rights continue even when a building has been unoccupied for any length of time. ' 2. Damage or destruction. a. When a residential structure that contains nonconforming residential units is damaged or destroyed by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner the nonconforming residential density rights are maintained if the structure is rebuilt within 5 years. The structure may be rebuilt with the old number of units, but if the repair cost is more than 75 percent of its assessed value, the structure must comply with the development standards (except for density) of the R2 zone or of the base zone, whichever is less restrictive. If not rebuilt within 5 years, the lot is considered vacant and is subject to the base zone density standards. b. If a house on a substandard lot is damaged or destroyed by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, and the repair cost is 75 percent or less of its assessed value,the structure may be rebuilt. If the repair cost is more than 75 percent of its assessed value, the structure may be rebuilt by right if it is rebuilt within 5 years. In these cases, the base zone standards apply and a substandard lot 169 III pqIIJppI:1JIIIIJiIIJJII MISS! review is not required. If the structure is not rebuilt within 5 years, the lot is considered vacant and is subject to the substandard lot regulations of Chapter 33.291. 33.258.070 Nonconforming Development (Amended by Ord. No. 163697, effective 1/1/91.) A. Purpose. This section is primarily aimed at upgrading nonconforming development elements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings. B . Continued operation. Nonconforming developments may continue unless specifically limited by Subsection D. below or other regulations in this Title. C . Changes. Changes may be made to the site which are in conformance with the base zone development standards. Proposed changes that are not in conformance, are subject to the adjustment process unless prohibited , D . Development which must be brought into conformance. The regulations of this subsection are divided into two types of situations, depending upon whether the use is also nonconforming or not. These regulations apply except where superseded by more specific regulations in the code. 1. Nonconforming development with a new nonconforming use. When there is a change to a different nonconforming use, the following nonconforming development must be brought into compliance with the development standards that apply to the site (base, overlay, plan district, special use): a. Exterior display, storage, and work activity areas, including landscaping; b. Landscaped setbacks for surface parking and exterior development areas; c. Interior parking lot landscaping, d. Landscaping in existing building setbacks; e. Minimum landscaped area (where land is not used for structures, parking, or exterior improvements); f. Screening; and g. Paving of surface parking and exterior storage and splay areas. 2. Nonconforming development with an existing nonconforming use, allowed use, limited use, or conditional use. Nonconforming development associated with an existing non- conforming use, an allowed use, a limited use, or a conditional use, must meet the requirements stated below. When alterations are made which are over the threshold of Subparagraph a. below, the site must be brought into conformance with the develop- ment standards listed in Subparagraph b. up to the limits stated in Subparagraph c. a. Thresholds triggering compliance. The standards of Subparagraph b. below must be met when the value of the proposed alterations on the site are 35 percent or greater than the assessed value of all improvements on the site. On sites with 170 multiple tenants in one or more buildings, the threshold applies to any alteration that is 35 percent or greater of the assessed value of all improvements on the site. The threshold is not cumulative. b. Standards which must be met. Development not complying with the development • standards for the following standards must be brought into conformance or receive an adjustment. (1) Landscaped setbacks for surface parking and exterior development areas; (2) Interior parking lot landscaping; (3) Landscaping in existing building setbacks; (4) Minimum landscaped area (where land is not used for structures, parking, or exterior improvements); (5) Screening, and (6) Paving of surface parking and exterior storage and display areas. c. Caps on the cost of required improvements. The standards listed in Subparagraph b. must be met for the entire site. However, required improvements costing over 10 percent of the value of the proposed alterations do not have to be made. It is the responsibility of the applicant to document that the value of the required improve- ments will be greater than 10 percent of the value of the proposed alterations. When all required improvements are not being made, the priority for which improvements to make is the same as the order,of improvements listed in ti Subparagraph b. above. E. Loss of nonconforming development status. 1. Discontinuance. If a nonconforming exterior development, such as an exterior storage area, is vacant for 2 years, the nonconforming rights are lost and a nonconforming exterior development may not be re-established. If the exterior development is vacant for less than 2 years, a nonconforming exterior development may be re-established, unless stated otherwise in Subsection D. above. 2. Destruction. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is removed or intentionally destroyed, replacement structures and other nonconforming development must comply with the development standards of the base zone. When a structure which has nonconforming elements is partially or totally damaged by fire or other causes beyond the control of the owner, the structure may be rebuilt using the same structure footprint. An adjustment is required to allow the replacement structure to be more out of compliance with the development standards than the previous structure. However, garages in residential zones are subject to the provisions for detached accessory structures of 33.110.250 and 33.120.250 (Single-Dwelling and Multi-Dwelling chapters respectively). F. Sites that are nonconforming in parking spaces. When a site is nonconforming in the number of required parking spaces, this subsection applies. If changes to a use or building are made that increase the number of required parking spaces over the existing C situation, only the number of spaces relating to the increase need to be provided. 171 15 i 01 O. Nonconforming signs. These regulations apply to nonconforming signs in all zones. 1. Nonconforming permanent signs may continue to exist. 2. Maintenance, repairs, and changing of permanent sign faces is allowed so long as structural alterations are not made. A new painted wall sign painted on top of an existing painted wall sign is considered a replacement of the permanent sign, and is regulated by Paragraph 3. below. 3. Permanent signs and sign structures which are moved, replaced, or structurally altered must be brought into conformance with the sign regulations. However, nonconform- ing signs required to be moved because of public roadway improvements may be re- established. A Nonconforming temprIz sites rnust be removed, 33.258.080 Nonconforming Use Reviews A. Procedure. A nonconforming use review is processed through a Type H procedure in the C, E, and I zones, and through a Type III procedure in an OS or R zone. B . Approval criteria. The request will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that all of the following approval criteria are met: 1. With mitigation measures, there will be a net decrease in overall detrimental impacts (over the impacts of the previous use or development) on the surrounding area taking into account factors such as: a. The hours of operation; " b. Vehicle trips to the site and impact on surrounding on-street parking, c. Noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare, and smoke; d. Potential for increased litter; and e. The amount, location, and nature of any outside displays, storage, or activities; and 2. If the nonconforming use is in an OS or R .one, and if any changes are proposed to the site, the appearance of the new use or development will not lessen the residential char- acte- Gf tl7,c a.; o.-° zor.ed =a. This is b-sa-A nn tatrino into account factors such as: a. Building scale, placement, and facade; b. Paridng area placement; c. Buffering and the potential loss of privacy to abutting residential uses; and d. Lighting and signs; and 3. If the nonconforming use is in a C, E, or I zone, and if any changes are proposed to the site, the appearance of the new use or development will not detract from the desired function and character of the zone. 172 r Appendix E MIN PORTLAND PLANT LIST INTRODUCTION The Portland Plant List is divided into four sections - Introduction, Native Plants, Nuisance Plants, and Prohibited Plants. Description of Lists The Native Plants section is a listing of native plants found in he City of Portland. The list divides the plants into three groups - trees, shrubs, and groundcover. For each group, the list includes the Latin name, common name, and the habitat types it is most likely to be found in. The habitat types are: wetland, riparian, forest, forested slopes, thicket, grass, and rocky. The Nuisance Plants section is a listing of plants found in the City of Portland which can be removed without requiring an environmental review or greenway review. These plants may be native, naturalized, or exotic. They are divided into two groups - plants which are considered a nuisance because of their tendency to dominate plant communities, and plants which are considered harmful to humans. Being on this list is not an indication that the City of Portland necessarily prohibits or discourages the use of these plants; merely that they can be controlled without having to go through one of the land use review procedures identified above. Being on this list also does not exempt the applicant from having to obtain any necessary regional, state, or fedeaal approvals before removing these plants. Unless included on the nuisance plant list, the removal of all plants in the environmental and greenway zones require a review. The Prohibited Plants section is a listing of plants which the City of Portland prohibits being used in required landscaping situations. At present, there are no plants on this list, although there may be adopted plans which prohibit certain species in specific areas or situations. y Modification of Lists The process for adding or removing plants from the Native Plants and Nuisance Plants list is as follows. When a request is received, the City of Portland will consult with three or more knowledgeable persons with a botany, biology, or landscape architecture background to determine whether the plant in question should be added to or deleted from either list. This decision will be forwarded to the applicant and will be final. The primary source for native plant determination is the five volume set, Flora of the Pacific Northwest by Hitchcock & Cronquist. Adding or removing plants from the Prohibiters Plants list will be conducted through the legislative procedures as stated in Title 33. 173 I 111110 111 NATIVE PLANTS The native plant list in this section is a listing of native plants historically found in the City of Portland. The list divides plants into three groups: trees, shrubs, and groundcover. For each group, the list includes the Latin name, common name, and the habitat types where the plant is most likely to be found. The habitat types are: wetland, riparian, forest, forested slopes, thicket, grass, and rocky. "Wetland" includes all forms of wetlands found in Portland. "Riparian" includes the riparian areas along the Willamette River, Columbia River, and other streams in Portland. "Forest" refers to upland forested areas with little or no slope. "Forested slopes" refe1s- to much of the west hills and various buttes found in Portland. "'T'hicket" refers to edges of forests and meadows and includes hedgerows and clumps of vegetation that may be found in meadows. "Grass" refers to open areas or meadows. It may also include clearings in forested areas. "Rocky" refers to rocky upland areas, and may include cliffs. Native Plants Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wetland Riparian Forest F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky Trees Abies grandis Grand Fir x X X X Acer macrvphyllum Big-leaf Maple x X Alnus rubra Red Alder x X X Arbutus menziesii Madrorte Corpus nuttalM Western Flowering Dogwood x X Crataegus douglasii douglasii Black Hawthom (wetland x X form) Crataegus douglasii Black Hawtbom (upland foam) X X X X X suksdorfii Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash x X Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine x X Populus trichocarpa Black Cottonwood x X Primus emarginata Bitter Chokecherry x X X Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir x X Quercus garryana Gany Oak x X X Rhamnus purshiana Cascara x X X Salix fluviatilis Columbia River Willow x X Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow x X Salix piperi Piper's Willow x X Salix rigida, var. Rigid Willow x X macrogemma Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow x X X Salix sessilifolia Soft-leaved Willow x X Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow x X Taxus brevifolia Western Yew, Pacific Yew x X X Thuja plicate Western Red Cedar x X X X Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock x X X 1 E 174 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wetlmtd Riparian Forest F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky Shrubs Acer circinatum Vine Maple x X X Amelanchier alnifolia Westem Serviceberry x X X Berberis aquifolium Tall Oregongrape x x a&-horia a) Berberis nervosa (Mahonia n) Dull Oregongrape x X Ceanothus sanguineus Oregon Tea-tree x X X X Ceanothus velutinus Mountain balm x X X laevigatus Comus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood x X X occidentalis Corylus cornuta Hazelnut x X X Holodiscus discolor Ocean-spray x X X Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregongrape X X [Berberis a] Mahonia nervosa [Berberis n] Dull Oregongrape x X Menziesia ferruginea Fool's Huckleberry X Oemleria cerasiformis Indian Plum x X X X Philadelphus lewisii Mockorange x X X Physocarpus capitatus Pacific Ninebark x X X Primus virginiana Common Chokecherry x X X Pyrus fusca Western Crabapple x X X Rhododendron maarophyllum Western Rhododendron Rhus diversiloba' Poison Oak's n x X Ribes bracteosum Blue Currant x X Ribes divaricatum Straggly Gooseberry x X Ribes laxiflonrm Western Black Currant x X Ribes sanguineum Red Currant x X X X X Ribes viscosissimum Sticky Currant x X Rosa gymnocarpa Baldhip Rose x X Rosa nutkana v. nutkana Nootka Rose X Rosa pisocarpa Swamp Rose x X Rubus leucodermis Blackcap x X X Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry x X X Rubus spectabilis Salmonbeny X Rubus ursinus Pacific Blackberry x X X X X X Sambucus cerulea Blue Elderberry x X Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry x X X Spires douglasii Douglas's Spirea x X X Symphoricarpos albus Common Snowberry x X X Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping Snowberry x X ' Vaccinium alaskaaense Alaska Blueberry x X i Vaccinium membranaceum Big Huckleberry x Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Huckleberry X Vaccinium parvifolium Red Huckleberry x X ~P 175 i 111 Ogg! P Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wedand Riparian Forest F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky Ground Cover Achillea millefolium Yarrow x Achlys triphylla Vanillaleaf x x .stare abra Banebexry x x Adenocaulon bicolor Pathfinder x x Adiantum pedatum Northern Maidenhair Fem x x x Agoseris grandiflora Large-flowered Agostais x x Alisma plantago-aquatica American Water-plantain x x mum Allium amplectens Slim-leafed Onion x Allium cernuum Nodding Onion x Alopecurus geniculatus Water Foxtail, March Foxtail x SAMOS Anaphalis margaritacea, V. Pearly-everlasting x Occidentalis Anemone delooidea western White Anemone x x Anemone lyallii Small wind-flower x x Anemone oregana Oregon Anemone x x Angelica arguta Sharptooth Angelicas x x x Apocynum androaasmifolium Spreading Dogbane x x Aquilegia formosa Red Columbine x x x x Arenaria macrophylla Bigleaf Sandwart x x Arnica amplexicaulis piped Clasping Arnica x x Artemisia douglasiana Douglas's Sagewort x Artemisia lindleyana Columbia River Mugwort x Anmcus sylvester Goatsbeard x x x Asarum caudatum Wild Ginger x x Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair Spleenwort x Aster chilensis hallii Common California Aster x Aster curtus White-topped Aster x Aster modestus Few-flowered Aster x x Aster oregonensis Oregon White-topped Aster x Aster subspicatus Douglas's Aster x x x x x Athyrium fdix-fernIna Lady Fem x x Azolla filiculoides D adm eed x Bergia texana Bergia x x Bidens cernua Nodding Beggars-tick x Bidens fsandosa Leafy Beggars-tick x Bidens vulgate Westem Beggars-tick x Blechnum spirant DeerFem x x x Bolandra oregana Bolandra x Botrychium multifidum Leathery Grape-fern x x Boyldnia elata Slender Boykinia x x Boykinia major Greater Boykinia x x Brasenia schnebed Water-shield x Bnodiaea howellii Howell's Brodiiaea x Bromus carinatus California Brmne-grass x x x Bromus sitchensis Alaska Brome x x x Bromus vulgaris Columbia Brome x Callitriche hetrophylla Different leaf Water s t x Calypso bulbosa Fairy Slipper x x 176 i Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Weiland Riparian Forest F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky Camassia leichlinii Leichtlin's Camas X Camassia quamash Common Camas X Campanula scouleri Scouler's Bellflower X X Cardamine angulata Angled Bittsnress X X Cardamine oligospenna Little Western Bittercress X X X Cardamine penduliflora Willamette Valley Bittercress X X Cardamine pe nsylvanica Pennsylvania Bittercress X Cardamine pulcherrima Slender Toothwort X X Carex amplifolia Big-leaf Sedge X X Carex aperta Columbia Sedge X X Carer accts Clustered Sedge X X X Carer atherodes Awned Sedge X X Carex athrostachya Slendesbeaked Sedge X X Carex canescens Gray Sedge X X Carex cusickii Cusick's Sedge X Carex deweyana Dewey's Sedge X X X Carer hendersonii Henderson's Wood Sedge X X Carex interior Inland Sedge X Carex leporina Hare Sedge X X Carex livida Pale Sedge X X Carex obnupta Slough Sedge X X X Carex praticola Meadow Sedge X Carex rostrata Beaked Sedge X Carex sitchensis Sitka Sedge X Carex stipata Sawbeak Sedge X Carex vesicaria Inflated Sedge X Castilleja levisecta Golden Indian-paintbrush X Ceanothus sanguineus Oregon Tea-tree X X Ceratophyllum demersum Coontail X Chrysosplenium Pacific Water-carpet X glechomaefolium Cimicifuga elata Tall Bugbane X Circeae alpina Enchanter's Nightshade X X Clematis ligusticifolia* Western Clematis* X X X Collinsia grandiflora Large-flowered Blue-eyed X Mary Collinsia parviflora Small-flowered Blue-eyed X Mary Collomia grandiflora Large-flowered Collomia X X Collomia heterophylla Varied-leaf Collomia X X Comandra umbellata Bastard Toad-flax X califomica Conyza canadensis glabrata Horseweed X Coptis laciniata Cutleaf Goldthread X Corallorhiza maculata Pacific Coral-root X X Corallorhiza mertensiana Coral-root X X Corallorhiza striata Hooded Coral-root X X Comus canadensis Bunchberry X C Cryptantha intermedia Common Forget-me-not X grandiflora 177 i i Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wetland Riparian Forest F. Slopes 'thicket Grass Rocky n Cynoglossum grande Pacific Hound's-tongue x x Cystopteris fragilis Brittle Bladder Fern x Delphinium leucophaetrn Pale Larkspur x Delphinium menziesii Menzies' Larkspur x x pyramidale Delphinium nuttaU Nuttall's Larkspur x Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hair grass x Dicentra formosa Pacific Bleedinghead x x x Disporum hookeri Hooker Fairy-bell x x Disporum smithii Large-flowered Fairy -bell x x Dodecatheon dentatum White Shooting Star x x Draba vema Spring Whitlow-grass x Dryopteris austriaca Spreading Wood Fern x x Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern x Eburophyton austiniae Snow-orchid, Phantom orchid x x Echinochloa crusgalli Large Barnyard-grass x x Elatine triandra Three-stamen Waterwort x x Eleocharis acicularis Needle Sp&e-rush x Eleocharis palustris Creeping Spike-rush x Elodea dersa South American Waterweed x Elymus glaucus Blue Wildrye x x x x x Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed x x x x x Epilobium glandulostun Common Willow-weed x x x x Epilobium watsonii Watson's Willow-weed x x x x Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail x x Equisetum hyemale Common Scouring-rush x x Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail x x Equisetum telemateia Giant Horsetail x x x Erigeron annuus Annual Fleabane x Erigeron decumbens Willamette Daisy x decumbens Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane x Eriophyllum Lanattun Woolly Sunflower x Erysimum asperum Prairie Rocket x x mom Erythronium oregonum Giant Fawn-lily x x Eschscholzia californica Gold Poppy x Euonymus occidentalis Wester Wahoo x x Festuca occidentalis Western Fescue-grass x x Festuca rubra v. rubra Red Fescue-grass x x x x Festuca subulata Bearded Fescrr-grass x x Festuca subuliflora Coast Range Fescue-grass x x x Fragaria vesca bracteata Wood Strawberry x x x Fragaria vesca crinita Wood Strawberry x x x Fragaria virginiana Broadpetal Strawberry x x Fritillaria lanceolate Mission Bells x x Galium aparine Cleavers x x x x Galium trifidum Small Bedstraw x Galium triflorum Sweetscented Bedstraw x x Gaultheria shallon Salal x x Gentiana amarella Norther Gentian x x 178 Rig NO 11 i Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wettend Riparian Forest P. Slopes Thicket Gans Rocky - - Gentiana sceptrum Staff Gentian x x Geum macrophyllum Oregon Avens x X X X Gilia capitata Bluefield Gilia X X Glycena occidentalis NW Manna-grass X Gnaphalitmt palustre Marsh Cudweed x X Goodyera oblongifolia Giant Rattlesnake-plantain X Habenaria Mat= White Bog-orchid X Habenaria elegans Elegant Rein-orchid X Habenaria saccata Slender Bog-Orchid j Habenaria unalascensis Alaska Rein-orchid x X Heracleum lanatum Cow-parsnip x X X X Heuchera glabra Smooth Alumroot x X X Heuchera micrantha Smallflowered Alumroot x X X Hieracium albiflorum White-flowered Hawkweed x X Howellia aquatils Howellia X Hydrophyllum tenuipes Pacific Waterleaf x X Iris tenax Oregon Iris x X Juncus taalticus Baltic Rush X Juncus brachyphyllus Short-leaved Rush X Juncus bufonius Toad Rush X Juncus effusus Common Rush X Juncus ensifolius Dagger-leaf Rush x X Juncus tenuis Slender Rush X Lemna minor Water Lentil X Ligusticum apiifolium Parsley-leaved Lovage x X X X Ligustucum grayii Gray's Lovage x X Lilium columbianum Columbia Lily x X X Limosella aquatics Mudwort X Linanthus bicolor Bicolored Linanthus X Linnaea borealis Twinflower x X Listera caurina Western Twayblade x X Listera cordata Heart-leafed Listera x X Lomatium utriculatum Common Lomatium X Lonicera ciliosa Trumpet Vine X Lonicera involucrata Black Twmbeary x X X Lotus denticulatus Meadow Lotus X Lotus formosissimus Seaside Lotus R Lotus micranthus Small-flowered Deervetch x Lotus purshiana Spanish Clover x X Lupinus bicolor Two-color Lupine X Lupins latifolius Broadleaf Lupine X Lupinus laxiflorus Spurred Lupine X Lupinus lepidus Prarie Lupine X Lupinus micranthus Field Lupine x Lupinus microcarpus Chick Lupine x Lupinus polyphyllus Large-leaved Lupine X Lupinus rivularis Stream Lupine x X Lupinus sulphureus Sulfur Lupine x Luzula campestris Field Woodntsh x X 179 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Weiland Riparian Forest F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky - Luzula parviflora Small-flowered Woochvsh X Lysichim,. --y-icanum Skunk Cabbage x X Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestiffb X Lysimachia thyrsiflom Tufted Loosestrife X Madia glomerata Cluster Tarweed X Madia saliva Chile Tarweed X Maianthemum dilatatum Deerberry x X Marah oreganas Manroot x X Malricariamatricadoides Pineapple Weed X Melica geyeri Geye's Oniongrass x x Mentha arvensis Field Mint X Menyanthes trifoliata Buckbean X Mertensia platyphylla Western Bluebells x X Microsteris gracilis Microsteris X Mimulus alsinoides Chickweed Monkey-flower x Mimulus guttatus Yellow Monkey-flower x Mimulus moschatus Musk-flower x X Mitella caulescens Leafy Mitrewort x X X Mitella pentandra Five-stamened Mitrewort x X X X Monotropa uniflora Indian-Pipe X Montia diffusa Branching Montia X Montia fontana Water Chickweed X Montia linearis Narrow-leaved Montia x X Montia parvifolia Sam .ba-mas Springbeauty x X Montia perfoliata Miner's lettuce x X Montia sibirica Siberian Montia X X X Navarretia squarrosa Skunkweed x Nemophiaparviflora Small-floweredNernophia x X Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue-eyes x X Nuphar polysepalum Yellow Water-lily X Oenanthe sarmentosa Pacific Water-parsley x X X X Orthocarpus hispidus Hairy Owl-Clover X Osmorhiza chilensis Mountain Sweet-root x X Oxalis oregana Oregon Oxalis x X Oxalis suksdorfii Western Yellow Oxalis X Oxalis trilliifolia Trillium -leaved Wood sorrel x X X Panicum capillare occidentale Old-witch Grass x X Penstemon ovatus Broad-leaved Penstemon X Petasites frigidus Sweet Coltsfoot x X X X Phacelia nemoralis Shade Phacelia x X Plagiobod"s figuratus Fragrant Plagiobothrys X Plectritis congests Rosy Plectritis X Poa annua Annual Bluegrass x Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass x X Poa grayana Gray's Bluegrass x X Poa howellii Howell's Bluegrass X Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass x X Polygonum amphibium Water Smartweed X Polygonum aviculare Doorweed x X 180 gill Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wetland Riparian Forest F. Slopes 'thicket Grua Rocky Polygonurn coccineum Water Smartweed X Polygonurn douglasii Douglas' Knotweed x x Polyponum hydropiperoides Common Waterpepper X Polygonurn kelloggii Kellogg's Knotweed x X X Polygonurn nuttallii Nutall's Knotweed x Polypodum punctatum Water Smartweed X Polygonurn Fall Kn tweed x sperguimiaefMne Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice Fern x X x x •Polypodium hesperium licorice Fern x X X Polystichum munitum Sword Fern x X Potentilla glandulosa Sticky Cinquefoil x X Potentilla palustris Marsh Cinquefoil X Pteridium aquilinum Bracken x x Ranunculus allsmaefolius Water-plaintain Buttercup X Ranunculus cymbalaria Shore Buttercup X Ranunculus flammula Creeping Buttercup x X Ranunculus macounii Macoun's Buttercup x X oreganus Ranunculus occidentalis Western Buttercup x X Ranunculus orthorhyncus Straightbeak Buttercup x X Ranunculus pensylvanicus Pennsylvania Buttercup x X Ranunculus uncinatus Little Buttercup x X Rorippa columbiae Columbia Cress x x Rumex occidentalis Western Dock x X Sagina occidentalis Western Pearlwort X Sagittaria latifolia Wapato X Sanguisorba occidentalis Annual Burnet X Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific Sanicle x X Satureja douglasU Yerba Buena X Saxifraga femrginea Rusty Saxifrage x X Saxifraga integrifolia Swamp Saxifrage X Saxifraga occidentalis Western Saxifrage x mfiduly Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush X Scirpus heterochaetus Pale Great Bulrush x Scirpus microcarpus Small-fnuted Bulrush x X X Scirpus olneyi Olney's Bulrush X Scirpus validus Softstem Bulrush X Scoliopus hal1ii Oregon Fetid Adder's-tongue X Scrophalana californica California Figwort X Scutellaria galericulata Marsh Skullcap x X Sedum lanceolatum Lanceleaved Stonecrop X Sedum oreganum Oregon Stonecrop X Sedum spathulifolium Spatula-leaf Stonecrop X Selaginella densa Compact Selaginella x Selaginella douglash Selaginella x X Selaginella oregana Selaginella x x C Senecio bolanderi var. Bolanders Groundsel x x harfordii 181 3 Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Wcd=d Ripaiem Fomst F. Slopes Thicket Grass Rocky Sidalcea campestris Meadow Sidalcea X Sisyrinchium angustifolium Blue-eyed grass x X ' . Smilacina aacetnosa Western False Solomon's Seal X X Smilacina stellata Starry False Solomon's Seal X Solamun nignun* Garden Nightshade* X Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod X - Spiranthes romanzoTum Ladies-tresses x X Stachys cooleyae Cooley's Hedge-nettle x X Stachys mexicana Great Betony x X X Stachys palustris v. pilosa Swamp Hedge-nettle x X Ste.1m a cr.;s7 Crisped Starwmt x X Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping-leaved Twisted-stalk x X X Sullivantia c regana Sullivantia X Synyhyris reniformis Snow Queen x X Tellfma grandiflonun Fringecup x X Teucrium canadense Wood Sage x X Thalictrum occidentale Western Meadowme x X X Thelypteris nevus Wood Fern x X X Tiarella trifoliata Iaceftower x X X Tolmiea menziesii Pig-a-Back x X X Tonella tenella Small-flowered Tonella X / Trientalis latifolia Western Starflower x X Trillium chloropetalum Giant Trillium x X Trillium ovatum Western Trillium x X X Typha latifolia Common Cattail X v Urtica dioica* Stinging netde* X X X X Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort x X Vancouveria hexandra White Inside-out Flower x X X X Veaatnun californicum False Hellebore x X Verbena hastata Wild Hyssop x X Veronica americana American Brocklime x X X Vicia americana American Vetch x X Viola adunca. Early Blue Violet X Viola glabella Johnny jump up x X X Viola hallii Hall's violet x X X Viola howellii Howell's violet x X Viola palustris Marsh Violet x X Viola sempervirens Evergreen Violet x X Whipplea modesta Yerba de Selva X Xanthium spinosum Spiny Cocklebur X Xanthium stnunarium Common Cocklebur X * These plants have been placed on the Nuisance Plant List, as they have been determined to be eithex dominating or harmful. As such, their introduction or continuation may be inappropriate. i 182 Ild:11ill It sm, it I NUISANCE PLANTS Plants on this list can be removed without environmental or greenway review. These plants may be native, naturalized, or exotic. They are divided into two groups - plants which are considered a nuisance because of their tendency to dominate plant communities, and plants which are considered harmful to humans. Being on this list is not an indication that the City of Portland necessarily prohibits or discourages the use of these plants; merely that they can be controlled without land use reviews identified above. Being on this list does not exempt the applicant from having to obtain any necessary regional, state, or federal approvals before removing plants. Nuisance Plant List Latin Name Common Name Dominating plants Chelidonium majus Lesser Celandine Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Clematis ligusticifolia Western Clematis Clematis vitalba Traveler's Joy Convolvulus arvensis Field Morning-glory Convolvulus nyctagineus Night-blooming Morning-glory Convolvulus seppitun Lady's-nightcap Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom Daucus carota Queen Ann's Lace Erodium cicutarium Crane's Bill Gerainiunn rob er`ianunn RobeTt Gamanimn Hedera helix English Ivy Hypericum perforatum St. John's Wort Leontodon autumnalis Fall Dandelion Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Watermilfoil Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass Polygonum convolvulus Climbing Bindweed Rubus discolor Himalayan Blackberry ow, Rubus laciniatus Evergreen Blackberry Milo Senecio jacobaea Tansy Ragwort Solarium dulcamara Blue Bindweed Solanum sarrachoides Hairy Nightshade Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion various genera Bamboo sp. Harm• fu/ Plants Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock Laburnum watereri Golden chain tree Rhus diversiloba Poison Oak Solanum nigrum Garden Nightshade Utica dioica Stinging Nettle PROHIBITED PLANTS The Prohibited Plants section is a listing of plants which the City of Portland prohibits being used C in required landscaping situations. At present, there are no plants on this list, although there may be adopted plans which prohibit certain species in specific areas or situations. 11 1 183 Appendix F W]IDIJIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT for sites with Surface water features SITE TOTAL HABITAT POTENTIAL HABITAT TOTAL NUMBER SCORE AS EXISTING SCORE IF ENHANCED ACRES SITE FIELD FIELD LOCATION DATES OBSERVERS GENERAL COMMENTS HABITAT DEGREE SCORE SCORE SPECIFIC COMPONENT PRESENT EXISTING ENHANCED COMMENTS QUANTITY & NONE SEASONAL PERENNIAL SEASONALITY 0 4 8 A DIVERSITY ONE TWO THREE STREAMS, PONDS, ETC. 2 4 8 T E PROXIMITY NONE NEAR ADJACENT H TO COVER 0 4 S QUALITY STAGNENi SEASONAL CONTINUOUS FLUSHING FREQUENCY 0 3 6 QUANTITY & NONE LIMITED YEAR ROUND F SEASONALITY 0 4 8 O LOW MEDIUM HIGH O v ARIET`I 0 4 8 D PROXIMITY NONE NEAR ADJACENT [ TO COVER 0 4 8 STRUCTURAL LOW MEDIUM HIGH DIVERSITY 0 4 8 C VARIETY LOW MEDIUM HIGH O 0 4 8 V SEASONALITY NONE LIMITED YEAR ROUND E 0 2 4 R NESTING LOW MEDIUM HIGH DENNING, ETC. 0 2 4 ESCAPE LOW MEDIUM HIGH 0 2 4 PHYSICAL PERMANENT TEMPORARY NONE T A DISTURBANCE 0 2 4 HL HUMAN HIGH MEDIUM LOW E U DISTURBANCE 0 2 4 RE INTERSPERSION LOW MEDIUM HIGH WI111 OTHER HABITATS 0 3 6 U IF N E HABITAT TYPE 0 _ 4 I A U U FLORA 0 _ 4 ER S FAUNA 0 _ 4 Page One of Four ( DEVELOPED BY: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTED BY. City of Portland. Oregon Mike Houck • Portland Audubon Society Dennis Peters - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Esther Lev • Portland Bureau of Planning Ralph Rogers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Planning Michael Jennings - Portland Bureau of Planning Gone Herb • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife COMPUTER AUTOMATION BY., Jsek Broome - Wetlands Conservancy A] Bums & Tlm P ~a • Portland Bureau or Planrdng Diana Hwang - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 185 Appendix G JOHNSON CREEL CORRIDOR COMMITTEE DRAFT 2/8/91 Mission 1. The mission of the Johnson Creek Corridor Committee (JCCC) is to recommend a basin wide resources management program and to advocate and coordinate its implementation to take advantage of opportunities and solve problems in the Johnson Creek watershed. The Resources Management Program Goals 2. The Program is to be a multi-objective, basin-wide management program with an implementation system which, when implemented, will meet the following goals in a way that is realistic in respect to feasibility and cost: NEW OEM gem * Improve water cniality -Maintenance of minimum stream flow -Meet state and federal water quality standards and deadlines * Enhance fisheries * Reduce flood impacts -Flood reduction -Maintenance of minimum stream flow * Preserve natural areas -Protect and restore environmental resources * Provide recreational opportunities -Allow and develop recreational opportunities as appropriate, including fishing * Provide economic development opportunities * Preserve heritage -value -Protect and restore cultural and historic resources * Promote shared stewardship -Educate public, residents, industrial neighbors, children, of area on uses and significance of long-term value of Creek -Work with adjacent property owners and all in watershed (continuous information sharing) to identify problem areas (pollution sources) as a basis for implementation, acquisition, tax C deferrals * Enhance Aesthetics * Promote Resource -eness and Education 187 Appendix H OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC 5® AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES GOAL (d) Conserve landscaped areas, such as 6. In conjunction with the inventory of min- To conserve open apace end protect natu• public ur private golf courses, that eral and aggregate resources, sites for ral and scenic resources. reduce air pollution and enhance the removal and processing of such value of abutting or neighboring prop- resources should be identified and pro- Programs shall be provided that will (1) Insure arty; lected. open space, (2) protect scenic and historic (o) Enhance the value to the public of areas and natural resources for future goner- abutting or neighboring parks, for- 7. As a general rule, plans should prohibit ations, and (3) promote healthy and visually ests, wildlife preserves, nature reser- outdoor advertising signs except in com- attractive environments In harmony with the vatons or sanctuaries or other open mercial or Industrial zones. Plans should natural landscape character. The location, space; not provide for the reclassification of land quality and quantity of the following (f) Enhance recreation opportunities; for the purpose of accommodating an out- resources shall be inventoried: (g) Preserve historic sites; door advertising sign. The term "outdoor (h) Promote orderly urban development. advertising sign" has the meaning set a. Land needed or desirable for open forth in ORS 377.710 (20). Cis Is. Scenic Areas -are lands that are valued for 2 b. Mineral and aggregate resources; their aesthetic appearance c. Energy sources; Wilderness Areas -ere arose where the B. IMPLEMENTATION d. Fish and wildlife areas and habltais; 1. Development should be planned and earth and Its community of life are e. aEcologically nt nature and scientifically ding signer- untrammeled by man, where man himself directed so as to conserve the needed cant natural areas, including desert is a visitor who does not remain. It Is an amount of open space. i areas; Outstanding scenic views and sites; area of undeveloped land retaining Its 2. The conservation of both renewable and primeval character and influence, without g non-renewable natural resources and g. Water areas, wetlands, watersheds p ? and groundwater resources; permanent Improvement or human heb- physical limitations of the land should be It. Wilderness areas; Itatlon, which Is protected and managed ' used as the basis for determining the I. Historic areas, altos, structures and so as to preserve Its natural conditions quantity, quality, location, rate and type of objects; and which (1) generally appears to have growth In the planning area. j. Cultural areas; been affected primarily by the forces of k. Potential and approved Oregon recre- nature, with the imprint of man's work 3. The efficient consumption of energy allon trails; substantially unnoticeable; (2) has out- should be considered when utilizing natu- I. Potential and approved federal wild standing opportunities for solitude or a ral resources. and scenic waterways and state scenic primitive and unconfined type of recrea- waterways. tion; (3) may also contain ecological, geo- 4. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats should logical, or other features or scientific, be protected and managed in accordance Where no conflicting uses for such resources educational, scenic, or historic value. with the Oregon Wildlife Commission's have been Identified, such resources shall be GUIDELINES fish and wildlife management plans. managed so as to.preserve their original character. Where conflicting uses have been A. PLA WINO S. Stream flaw and water levels should be Identified the economic, social, environmen- 1. The need for open space In the planning protected and managed at a level ads- tal and energy consequences of the conflict- area should be determined, and standards quato for fish, wildlife, pollution abate- ing uses shall be determined and programs developed for the amount, distribution, ment, recreation, aesthetics and developed to achieve the goal. and type of open space. agriculture. Cultural Area - refers to an area charac- 2. Criteria should be developed and utilized 6. Significant,natural.areas that are histor- terized by evidence of an ethnic, religious to determine whet uses are consistent Icaliy, ecobgicailjr or scientifically unique, or social group with distinctive traits. with open space values and to evaluate outstanding or Important, Including Oasis beliefs and social forms. the effedl of converting open space lands Identified by the'State Natural Ares-Pre- to Inconsistent uses. The maintenance serves Advisory Committee, should be Historic Areas - are lands with sites, strut- and development of open space In urban Inventoried and evaluated. Plans should lures and objects that have local, areas should be encouraged. provide for the preservation of natural c regional, statewide or national historical areas consistent with an Inventory of sci- signlficance. 3. Natural resources and required sites for entific, educational, ecological, and recre- the generation of energy (i.e. natural gas, ational needs for significant natural areas. Natural Area - includes land and water that oil, coal, hydro, geothermal, uranium, and state governments has substantially retained its natural solar and others) should be conserved 7 Local, regional g character and lend and water that, and protected; reservoir altos should be should be encouraged to investigate and although altered In character, Is Impor- identified and protected against Irrevers- utilize fee acquisition, easements, cluster tant as habitats for plant, animal or Ible loss. developments, preferential assessment. marine life, for the study of its natural development rights acquisition and similar historical, scientific or paleontological 4. Plans providing for open space, scenic techniques to implement this goal. features, or for the appreciation of its and historic areas and natural resources natural features. should consider as a major determinant 8. State and federal agencies should the carrying capacity of the air, land and develop statewide natural resource, open Open Space - consists of lands used for water resources of the planning area. The space, scenic and historic area plans and agricultural or forest uses, and any land land conservation and development provide technical assistance to local and I area that would. If preserved and con- actions provided for by such plans should regional agencies. State and federal plans i tinued in its present use: not exceed the carrying capacity of such should be reviewed and coordinated with resources. local and regional plans. (a) Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; 5. The National Register of Historic Places 9. Areas identified as having non-renewable (b) Protect air or streams or water sup- and the recommendations of the State mineral and aggregate resources should ply. Advisory Committee on Historic Preserva- be planned for Interim, transitional and (c) Promote conservation of soils, wet- tion should be utilized In designating his- "second use" utilization as well as for the j r lands, beaches or tidal marshes; toric sites. primary use. I I i i I I I 189 t a Appendix I OREGON ADMViISTRATTVE RULES CHAPTER 660. Dr%'IS10N' 16 - LAND CON'SERVATION' A.ND DEVELOPME. "I' COIsLiiitISSIo. DIVISION'16 through the Goal S process in the future. The plan should include a time-frame for this review. Special implementing measures are not appropriate or required for Goal 3 complt- REQL•IRE.%fE%TS AND APPLICATION anee purposes until adequate information is available to enable PROCEDURES FOR CO.Mi'l `C WITH further review and adoption of such measures. The statement STATEN IDE COAL S in the plans commits the local government to address the resource site through the Goal S process in the post. In.entor) Goal 4 Resources acknowledgment period. Such future actions could require a 660.16-000 (1) The inventory process for Statewide planarnendment. Planning Goal 1 begins with the collection of available data (e) Include on Plan Inventory: when information is from as many sources as possible including experts in the field, available on location, quality and quantity, and the local local citizens and landowners. The local government then government has determined a site to be significant or important anal} zes and refines the data and determines whether there is as a result of the data collection and analysis process, the local sufficient information on the location, quality and quantity of government must include the site on its plan inventory and each resourcc site to properly complete the Goal 3 process. indicate the location, quality and of the resource site This analysis also includes whether a particular natural arcs is (see ee above). Items included on this s inventory must proceed "ecologically Lnd scientifically significant", or an open space through the remainder of the Goa] S process. area is "needed'-, or a e-eenic area is "outstanding", as Scat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 A 197 outlined in the Goal. Based on the evidence and local govern- Ma: LCD 3-1981(Temp), f. A ef. X8-•81; LCD 7-1981, f. A cf. ment's analysis of those data, the local government then &29-81 determines which resource sites we of significance and (ED. MOTE: The text of Tcmportary Rules is not printed in the includes those sites on the final plan inventory. Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained (2) A "valid" inventory of a Goal S resource under from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.) subsection ll of this rule must include a determination of the location, quality, and quantity of each of the resource sites. Identify Conflicting uses Some Goal S resources (e.g., natural areas, historic sites, 660.-ll It is the responsibility of local government to mineral and aggregate sites, scenic waterways) are more identify conflicts with inventoried Goal S resource sites. This is. site-specific than others (e.g., groundwater, energy sources). done primarily by examining the uses allowed in broad zoning !c For site-specific resources, determination of location must districts established by the jurisdiction (e.g., forest and include a description or map of the boundaries of the resource site and of the impact area to be affected, if different. For could agricultural neg it latively zones). impact act conflicting Goal S reusesource one site. allowed, non-stte•speeifi: resoi ree3,'determination must be as specific could . Where ct- as possible. ing taus have been identified. Goal S resource sites may y impact 1 - those uses. These impacts must be considered in analyzing the M The determination of quality requires some considers- of the resource site's relative value, as compared to other , social, environmental and energy (ESEE) comae- examples of the same resource in at least the juri diction itself. quenees: A determination of quantity requires consideration of the (1) Preserve the Resource Site: If there are no conflicting uses for an identified resource site, the jurisdiction must adopt relative abundance of the resource (of any given quality). The policies and ordinance provisions, as appropriate, which insure level of detail (hat is provided will depend on how much preservation of the resource site. information is available or *'obtainable**. (2) Determine the Economic, Social, Environmental, and (4) The inventory completed at the local level, including Energy Consequences: If conflicting uses are identified. the ,)ptions UXa), (b), and (e) of this rule, will be adequate for Goal economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of , complirnce unless it can be shown to be based on inaccurate the conflicting uses must be determined. Both the impacts on data, or does not adequately address location, quality or the resource site and on the conflicting use must be considered quantity. The issue of adequacy may be raised by the Depart- in analysing the ESEE consequences. The applicability and ment or objectors, but final determination is made by the requirements of other Statewide Planning Goals must also be Commission. considered, where appropriate, at this stage of the process. A (S) Based on data collected, analyzed and refined by the determination of the ESEE consequences of identified local government, as outlined above, a jurisdiction has three conflicting uses is adequate if it enables a jurisdiction to t+asic options: provide reasons to explain why decisions are made for specific (a) Do Not Include on Inventory: Based on information sites. that is available on location, quality and quantity, the 1091 ` government might determine that s Sit. Auth-: ORS Ch. 183). 197 particular resource site is His: LCp 3-i981(Temp), 3 cf. S-a-BI: I.CD 7-1981, &.cf. not important enough to warrant inclusion can the plan invento- 6.2941 ry, or is not required to be included in the inventory based on the specific Goal standards. No further action need be taken (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the with regard to these sites. The local government is not required Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained s to justify in its comprehensive plan a decision not to include a from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.) panicular site in the plan inventory unless challenged by the 5 Department, objectors or the Commission based upon De.etop Program to Achieve the Coral )-contradictory information. 664 1 6-0 1 0 Based on the determination of the economic. - (b) Delay Goa) 3 Process: When some information is social, environmental and energy consequences, a jur• -diction available, indicating the possible existence of a resource site, must "develop a program to achieve the Goal". Assuming but that information is not adequate to identify with particulari• there is adequate information on the location, quality, ■nd ty the location, quality and quantity of the resource site, the quantity of the resource site as well as on the nature of the local government should only include the site on the compre- conflicting use and ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction is hensive plan inventory as a special category. The local expected to "resolve" conflicts with specific sites in any of the go%crnment must express its intent rclatiee to the resource site following three ways listed below. Compliance with Goal S through a plan policy to address that resource site and pros shall also be based on the plan's overall ability to protect and 191 _ OREGON ADMINUTRAT VE RULE _CHAPTER 660, Dlt•'15!_ON 16 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COSf'tISS10N conserve each Goal S resource. The issue of adequacy of the Oreawm Adm;niurative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtaineu . overall program adopted or of decisions trade under sections from the adopting igeney or the Secretary of State.) (1), (2) and (3) of this rule may be raised by the Department or objectors, but final determination is trade by the Commission. Landowner involvement pursuant to usual procedures: 660.16-020 (1) The development of inventory data,' (1) Protect the Resource Site: Based on the analysis of the identification of conflicting uses and adoption of implementing ESEE consequences, a.jurisdiction may determine that the measures must, under Statewide Planning Goals I and 2. resource site is of such importance, relative to the conflicting provide opportunities for citizen involvement and agency uses, and the ESEE consequences of allowing conflicting uses coordinmion. In addition, the adoption of regulations or plan are so great that the resource site should be protected and all provisions carries with it basic legal notice requirements. conflicting uses prohibited on the site and possibly within the (County or city legal counsel can advise the planning depart- impact area identified in OAR 664164)=5Xc)• Reasons which rnent and governing body of these requirements.) Depending support this decision must be presented in the comprehensive upon the type of action involved, the form and method of plan, and plan and zone designations must be consistent with Landowner notification will vary. State statutes and local this decision. ehartet provisions contain basic notice requirements. Because (2) Allow Conflicting Uses Fully: Based on the analysis of of the nature of the Goal S process as outlined in this paper it is ESEE consequences and other Statewide Goals, a jurisdiction important to provide for notification and involvement of may determine that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, landowners, including public agencies, at the earliest possible not withstanding the possible impacts on the resource site. This opportunity. This will likely avoid problems or disagreements approach may be used when the conflicting use for a particular later in the process and improve the local decision-making site is of sufficient importance, relative to the resource site, process in the development of the plan and implementing Reasons which support this decision must be presented in the measures. comprehensive plan, and plan and zone designations must be (2) As the Goal S process progresses and more specificity eonsistent'with this decision. about the nature of resources, identified conflicting uses. (3) Limit Conflicting Uses: Based on the analysis of ESEE ESEE consequences and implementing measures is known. consequences, a jurisdiction may determine that both the notice ■nd involvement of affected parties will become more resource site and the conflicting use arc important relative to meaningful. Such notice and landowner involvement. although each other, and that the ESEE consequences should be not identified as a Goal S requirement is in the opinion of the balanced so as to allow the conflicting use but in a limited way Commission, imperative: so as to protect t)-- resource site to some desired extent. To Stet. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 A 197 implement this decision, the jurisdiction must designate with Mat: LCD 5-1941(remp), f. a cf. $441; LCD 7.1961. t. A cf. certainty what uses and activities are allowed fully. what uses 629-81 and activities arc not allowed at all and which uses are allowed t conditionally, and what specific standards or limitations art (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the _ placed on the permitted and conditional uses and activitici~ for Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtaill each resource site. Whatever mechanisms are used, they must from the adopting xgcncy or the Secretary of State.) . be specific enough so that affected property owners are able to determine what uses and activities are allowed, not allowed, or Policy Application allowed conditionally and under what clear and objective 660-16425 OAR 66416.000 through 660-16.023 are conditions or standards. Reasons which support this decision applicable to jurisdictions as specified below: must be presented in the comprehensive plan, and plan and (1) Category 1• Compliance with OAR 660.16-000 throuo zone designations must be consistent with this decision. 66416-075 is required prior to granting acknowledgment of Suit. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 A l97 compliance under ORS 197.251 and OAR 660.03-000 through Hui: LCD S-19al(rernp), t. a ef. S4~ 81: LCD 7-1981. f. Q ef. 660-03-W for those jurisdictions which: 6-29-41 (a) Have not submitted their comprehensive plan for (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the acknowledgment as of the date of adoption of this rule; Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be obtained (b) Are under denial orders as of the date of adoption of from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.) this rule: (e) Are not scheduled for review prior to or at the June Post-Acknowledgment Period 1981 Commission meeting. 660-I6-OIS All data, findings, and decisions made by a (a)Ca focal government prior to acknowledgment may be reviewed re Compliance ane with OAR 660.16- is through which- -023 is by that local government in its required as outlined d below for those jurisdictions which- by periodic update process. This (A) Are under continuance orders adopted pursuant to includes decisions made as a result of OAR 660.16-00 5Xa). OAR 660-03-040• 65D-16.ODS(1), and 664.16.010. Any changes. additions, at (B) Are scheduled for review at the April 30/May 1. May deletions would be made as a plan amendment. again following 29 or June 1981 Commission meetings. all Goal 5 steps. I (b) If the local government has included in its plan items For those jurisdictions a notice will given to eft under OAR 660-16-000(S)(b). the local parties s the original notice last providing a 45-day period to government has object to o the plan based on OAR 66416-0DO through 660-16 - committed itself to take certain actions within a certain time 025. frame in the post-aknowlcdgment period. Within those stated (c) OAR 66416000 will be applied based on objections .time frames. the local govenuncnt must address the issue as s stated in its plan, and treat the action as a plan amendment. resource alleging v sites. violations specific provisions of the rule on specific Objections s must be filed fallowing requirements Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 141 a 197 outlined in OAR 66043-OW through 660.03-040 Hta: LCD 5.1981(remp). f. A ef. 5441: LCD 7.1981, t. A ef. (Acknowicdgmcnt of Compliance Rule). Where no objections 6-29-8t are filed or objections are not specific as to which elements of (ED. NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not printed in the OAR 664 16000 through 660-16-0725 have been violated, and on what resource sites, the plan will be reviewed against Goal 5 1 (September. 1961) 192 MUM . i I OREGON ADMINWMATIVE RULES CH kVrER 6W, DMISION 16 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVEwple ks-r C`ommismo% standards as they existed prior to adoption of OAR 660-860 Scat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 193 d: 197 through 660-16-2S. Hha: LCD 5-INICremp). CA cf. 5441. LAM 7-1961. f. ! e(. (7) Jurisdictions which receive acknowledgment of `2981 compliance (as outlined in ORS 197.251) at the April 3WMay 1. (ED. , . ttxt gam, Rukc eta printed in ?4= of is the r 1981 Commission meeting "I not be subject to' review Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be Obtained procedures outlined above. but will be treated as other train the adoptitls agency or the Sccmtwy of State.) previously acknowledged jurisdictions. . ' • ~i • a ii 1 4 1 j i 193 (September. MI) J e~ ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR TAXATION 308.746 shall thereafter apportion the amount of tax so OPEN SPACE LANDS received among the several counties in which the 308.740 Definitions for ORS 308.740 company operates rural telephone exchanges. to 308.790. As used in ORS 308.740 to 308.790. The part to be apportioned to a county shall bear unless a different meaning is required by the the same ratio to the total of the tax so received as context: the number of wire miles of the rural telephone (1) "Open space land" means: exchanges or parts thereof in the county bears to (a) Any land area so designated by an official the total number of wire miles of all rural tele- comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city phone exchanges or parts thereof operated by the or county; or company in this state. The part apportioned to each county shall be remitted to the treasurer of (b) Any land area, the preservation of which the county -and shall be distributed among; the in its present use would . code areas of the county on the basis of wire miles (A) Conservg and enhance natural or scenic in each code area and among the districts in each resources; code area in the proportion that the rate of tax (g) protect air or streams or water supply; levy in each district as shown by the tax levy filed with the assessor for the year last in process of (C) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, collection bears to the total tax rate of the levies~'~ or tidal marshes; of all such taxing bodies for such year:. (D) Conserve landscaped areas, such as pub- (2) Whenever the department determines lit or private golf courses, which reduce air pollu- that the use of wire miles under subsection (1) of tion and enhance the value of abutting or this section does not fairly apportion the tax, it neighboring property, may apportion the tax to the counties in which (E) Enhance the value to the public of abut- the property of the rural telephone exchange is ting or neighboring parks. forests, wildlife pre- situated in such manner as the department deems serves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other reasonable and fair. The department shall advise open space; each assessor of the value apportionment of the (F) Enhance recreation opportunities; companies' properties within the county of the assessor for (G) Preserve historic sites; purposes of distribution of fazes to the taxing district in the county. 11957 c.628 §7:190 (H) Promote orderly urban or suburban c.2:18 §2:1965 c.492 §1: 1961 c.226 §1: 1969 c.S95 §121 development; or (I) Retain in their natural state tracts of land. on such conditions as may be reasonably required 308.730 Tax as a lien; delinquency by the legislative body granting the open ;space date; action to collect. (1) The tax imposed classification. under ORS 308.710 (2) shall be a debt due and (2) "Current" or "currently" means as of next owing from the company and shall be a lien on all January 1, on which the property is to be listed the property, real and personal, of the company and valued by the county assessor under ORS on and after February 1 of each year. Interest chapter 308. shall be charged and collected on any tax so (3) "Owner" means the party or parties hav- imposed and not paid when due at the rate of one ing the fee interest in land, except that where land percent per month or fraction of a month until is subject to a real estate sales contract, "owner" paid. The taxes so imposed shall be delinquent if shall mean the contract vendee. 11971 c.493 §21 not paid within one year following the due date 308.745 Policy. The legislature hereby thereof. declares that it is in the best interest of the state (2) The Department of Revenue shall enforce to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise collection of the tax imposed under ORS 308.710 continue in existence adequate open space lands (2) and immediately after the delinquency date and the vegetation thereon to assure continued thereof may institute an action for the collection public health by counteracting pollutants and to of the taxes, together with interest, costs and assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources other lawful charges thereon. The department and scenic beauty for the economic and social shall have the benefit of all laws of this state well-being of the state and its citizens. The legi~- pertaining to provisional remedies against the lature further declares that it is in the public properties, either real or personal, of such com- interest to prevent the forced conversion of open ( panies, without the necessity of filing either an space land to more intensive uses as the result of affidavit or undertaking, as otherwise provided economic pressures caused by the assessment by Isw.11957 0;2S es: Mini .•.623 y.',1 thereof for purposes of property taxation at val• 195 slalom= 308.760 REVENUE AND TAXATION ues incompatible with their preservation as srch proved. the granting authority shall weigh the open space land, and that assessment practices benefits to the general welfare of preserving the must be so designed as to permit the continued current use of the property which is the subject of availability of open space lands for these pur- application against the potential loss in revenue poses, and it is the intent of ORS 308.740 to which may result from granting the application. 308.790 to so provide. (1971 c.493111 (2) If the granting authority in so weighing 308.760 Application for open space use shall determine that preservation of the current assessment; contents of application; filing; use of the land will: reapplication.-'-An-ownerof-iandtlesirirwcur-- Ja) Conserve or enrtisiice'na-fuial" or "scenic - rent open space use assessment under ORS resources; 308.740 tQ 308.790• shall make :application to the county assessor upon forms prepared by the (b) Protect air or streams or water supplies; Department of Revenue and supplied by the (c) Promote conservation of soils. wetlands, county assessor. The owner shall describe the beaches or tidal marshes; land for which classification is requested, the (d) Conserve landscaped areas, such as public cuncent. open space use or uses of the land, and or private golf courses, which enhance the value shall designate the paragraph of ORS 308.740 (1) of abutting or neighboring property, under which each such use falls. The application shall include such other information as is reason- (e) Enhance the value tforests, public of abut- ably necessary to properly classify an area of land serves, r ves, s, nature neighboring parks, wildlife pre- under ORS 308.740 to 308.790 with a verification s. saanctnctuaries. or other of the truth thereof. Applications shall be made open spaces; prior to December 31, 1971, for classification for (f) Enhance recreation opportunities; the assessment year commencing January 1, (g) Preserve historic sites; 1972, and thereafter applications to the county (h) Promote orderly urban or suburban devel- assessor shall be made during the calendar year preceding the first assessment year for which opment; or such classification is requested. If the ownership (i) Affect any other factors relevant to the of all property included in the application general welfare of preserving the current use of remains unchanged, a new application js not the property; required after the first assessment year for which the granting authority shall not deny the applica- application was made and approved. 11971 c.493 431 tion solely because of the potential loss in revenue 308.766 Submission of application for which may result from granting the application. approval of local granting authority; (3) The granting authority may approve the grounds for denial; approval; withdrawal application with respect to only part of the land of application. (1) Within 10 days of filing in which is the subject of the application; but if any the office of the assessor, the assessor shall refer part of the application is denied. the applicant each application for classification to the planning may withdraw the entire application. 11971 c.493141 commission, if any, of the governing body and to the granting authority, which shall be the county 308.760 Notice to assessor of approval governing body, if the land is in an unincorpo- or denial; recording approval; assessor to rated area, or the city legislative body, if it is in an record potential additional taxes on tax incorporated area. An application shall be acted roll; appeal from denial. (1) The granting upon in a city or county with a comprehensive authority shall immediately notify the county plan in the same manner in which an amendment assessor and the applicant of its approval or to the comprehensive plan is processed by such disapproval which shall in no event be later than city or county, and by a city or county without a April 1 of the year following the year of receipt of comprehensive plan after a public hearing and said application. An application not denied by after notice of the hearing shall have been given April 1 shall be deemed approved, and shall be by three consecutive weekly advertisements in a considered to be land which qualifies under ORS newspaper of general circulation in the city or 308.740 to 308.790. county, the third published at least 10 days before (2) When the granting authority determines the hearing. Each advertisement for one or more that land qualifies under ORS 308.740 to 308.790, hearings shall be no smaller than three column by it shall enter on record its order of approval and five inches in size. In determining whether an file a copy of the order with the county assessor application made for classification under ORS within 10 days. The order shall state the open :108.740 (1)(b) should be approved or disap- space use upon which approval was based. The 196 ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR TAXATION 308.775 county assessor shall, as to y such land. assess notice of the withdrawal to the granting authority on the basis provided in 019 308.765. and each that classified the land; and additional real prop- year the land is classified shall also enter on the erty taxes shall be imposed, on such land in an assessment roll, as a notation, the assessed value amount equal to the total amount of potential of such land were it not so classified. additional taxes computed under ORS 308.760 (3) Each year the assessor shall include in the (3) during each year in which the land was certificate made under ORS 311.105 a notation of classified, together with interest at the rate of the amount of additional taxes which would be two-thirds of one percent a month, or fraction of due if the land were not so classified. a month, from the dates on which such additional taxes would have been payable had the land not (4) On approval of an application filed under been so classified, limited to a total amount not in ORS 308-750.; for each year of classification the excess of-the dollar difference in the value of the assessor shall indicate on the tax roll that the land as open space land for the last year of property is being specially assessed as open apace classification and the market value under ORS land and is subject to potential additional taxes as 308.205 for the year of withdrawal. provided by ORS 308.770, by adding the notation "open space land (potential add'l tax)". (3) If the owner fails to give the notice required under subsection (1) of this section (5) Any owner whose application for classifi- during the period of classification, upon with- cation has been denied may appeal to the circuit drawal under subsection (2) of this section, the court in the county where the land is located, or if assessor shall add to the tax extended against the located in more than one county, in that county land previously classified, an amount,. if any, in which the major portion is located. (1971 c.493 951 equal to the additional taxes that would have 308.765 Determination of true cash been collected had the assessor valued the classi- value of open space lands. In determining fed land on the basis of the changed open space the true cash value of open space land which has use, together with interest at the rate of two- been classified as such under ORS 308.740 to thirds of one percent a month, or fraction of a 308.790, each year the assessor shall, notwith- month, from the dates on which such additional ( standing the provisions of ORS 308.205: taxes would have been payable. 11971 c.493 971 (1) Assume the highest and best use of the 308.775 Withdrawal by assessor when land to be the current open space use, such as use changed; notice to granting authority; park, sanctuary or golf course, and the assessor imposition of additional taxes; interest; shall not consider alternative uses to which the penalty; exception in case of certain sale of land might be put. land. (1) When land which has been classified (2) Value the improvements on the land, if and assessed under ORS 308.740 to 308.790 as any, as required by ORS 308.205.11971 c.493 56) open space land is applied to some use other than as open space land, except through compliance 308.770 Change in use of open space with ORS 308.770 (2), or except as a result of the land; notice to assesaor; withdrawal from exercise of the power of eminent domain, the classification; collection of additional owner shall within 60 days thereof notify the potential taxes. (I) When land has once been county assessor of such change in use. The classified under ORS 308.740 to 308.790, it shall assessor or assessors shall withdraw the land from remain under such classification and it shall not classification and immediately shall give written be applied to any other use than as open space notice of the withdrawal to the granting authority unless withdrawn from classification as provided that classified the land; and additional real prop- in subsection (2) of this section, except that if the erty taxes shall be imposed upon such land in an use as open space land changes from one open amount equal to the amount that would have space use to another open space use, such as a been due under ORS 308.770 if notice had been change 'from park purposes to golf course land, given by the owner as of the date of withdrawal, the owner shall notify the assessor of such change plus a penalty equal to 20 percent of the amount prior to the next January 1 assessment date. so determined. (2) During any year after classification, (2) If no notice is given as required by subsec- notice of request for withdrawal may be given by tion (1) of this section, the assessor, upon discov- the owner to the county assessor or assessors of ery of the change in use, shall compute theA the county or counties in which such land is amount of taxes, penalty and interest described in situated. The county assessor or assessors, as the subsection (1) of this section, as though notice case may be, shall withdraw such land from such had been given, and shall add thereto an addi- classification. and immediately shall.give written tional penalty equal to 20 percent of the total 197 MEMNIMMEM r• 308.780 REVENUE AND TAXATION amount so computed, for failure to give such maintenance and operation of an electric trans- notice. mission and distribution system for the benefit of (3) The limitation described in ORS 308.770 the members of such association without intent (2) applies only to the computation of taxes and to produce profit in money and which has no interest, and not to the penalties described in other principal business or purpose shall. in lieu _ subsections (1) and (2) of this section. of all other taxes on the transmission and dis- tribution lines, pay a tax on all gross revenue the event that derived from the use or operation of transmission of this section shall not subsections o apply and distribution lines (exclusive of revenues from the chQ:sse in use results from the sale of a least 50 the leasing of lines to governmental agencies) at percent of such land classified under ORS the ..rates prescribed by ORS 308.807. The tax 308.740 to 308.790 within two years after" the.. shall not`apply,'to 6r• be in-lieu" of ad valorem death of the owner. 11971 c.493 ¢81 taxation on any property, real of personal, which 308.780 Prepayment of additional is not part of the transmission and distribution taxes; extending taxes on tax roll; collec- lines of such association. tion; distribution. (1) The amount determined (2) The Department of Revenue. pursuant to to be due under ORS 308.770 or 308.775 may be CARS 3M.505 to 308.655, shall assess for ad val- paid to the tax collector prior to the completion of orem taxation all the real and personal property the next general property tax roll, pursuant to of such associations which is not a part of ORS 311.370. "transmission and distribution lines," as defined (2) The amounts under ORS 308.770 or in subsection (3) of this section. All other prop- 308.775 shall be added to the tax extended against erty subject to ad valorem taxation shall be the land on the next general property tax roll, to assessed in the manner otherwise provided by be collected and distributed in the same manner law, by the assessor of the county in which such as the remainder of the real property taxes. 11971 property has a tax situs. c.493 §9. 1979 c.350 691 (3) As used in ORS 308.805 to 308.820: 308.785 Reports from owner to assessor; effect of failure of owner to make (a) "Transmission and distribution lines" a report upon request. The assessor shall at all shall include all property that is energized or times be authorized to demand and receive capable of being energized or intended to be or certified mail from energized, or that supports or is integrated with reports by registered owners of land classified under ORS 308.740 to such property. This includes, but is not limited 308.790 as to the use of the same. If the owner to, substation equipment, fixtures and frame- shall fail, after 90 days' notice in writing by work, poles and the fixtures thereon, conductors, certified mail to comply with such demand, the transformers, services,. meters, street lighting assessor may immediately withdraw the land equipment, easements for rights of way, generat- from classification, give written notice to the ing equipment, communication equipment, granting authority of the withdrawal, and apply transmraslon lines leased to governmental agen- the penalties provided in ORS 308.770 and Gies, construction tools, materials and supplies. 308.775. (1971 c.493 §101 office furniture and fixtures and office equip- ment. This shall not include such property as 308.790 Rules and regulations. The parcels of land, buildings, and merchandise held Department of Revenue of the State of Oregon for resale. shall make such rules and regulations consistent with ORS 308.740 to 308.790 as shall be neces- (b) "Wire mile" means a single conductor one sary or desirable to permit its effective admin- istration. 11971 c.493 §111 service drops. (Amended by 1957 c.637 51: 1959 c.109 54: 1969 c.492 §1) GROSS EARNINGS TAX ON MUTUAL 308.807 Rate of tax. (1) For payments OR COOPERATIVE DISTRIBUTION due February 1, 1970, the tax imposed by ORS SYSTEMS 308.805 shall be at the rate of two and one-half 308.805 Mutual and cooperative elec- percent. tric distribution systems subject to tax on (2) For payments due February 1, 1971, gross earnings. (1) Every association of per- through February 1, 1983, the tax imposed by ^t sons, wholly mutual or cooperative in character. ORS 308.805 shall be at the rate of three percent. whether incorporated on unincorporated, the (3) For payments due February 1. 1984. principal business of which is the construction, through February 1, 1991, the tax imposed by 198 } 1i f F 'i x Appendix K i (Partial) Bibliography i Geology and Geologic Hazards of Northwestern Clackamas County, Oregon, 1979, State Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries by Donald A. Hull, State Geologist. d Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 16. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197, Section 640. ; F Portland Bureau of Planning, Powell Bute Mt. Scott Development Density Study, Development Manual, Aug. 1978 Portland Bureau of Planning, Addendum to Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory (Portland, Oregon: 1989). Portland Bureau of Planning, Historic Resource Inventory (Portland, Oregon: 1984) 14 loose leaf volumes, inventory number 2-888-03021. Portland Bureau of Planning, Scenic Views, Sites, and Corridors: Scenic Resources Protection Plan (Portland, Oregon: 1990) nine parts, multiple volumes. r 4 { i i f 1 3 t 1 e 3 I i i 199 1:11 Mal WM my M, MINE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3- aa. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY-LCRB AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 12, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Englewood Park PREVIOUS ACTION: Council author- -Pathway Rehabilitation ized advertising for bids 3/24/92 _ ll,fllf PREPARED BY: ,$f` 13 DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: THE COUNCIL ISSUE B20 Shall the Council award the contract for the construction of pathway improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, award the contract to Kerr Contractors Inc. INFORMATION SUMMARY The project includes pathway asphalt overlaying, pathway construction, and a bridge at Englewood Park. . The following bids were received: Kerr Contractors Inc., Tualatin Or. $68,455.00 Eastside Paving Inc., Portland Or. $78,788.00 Paul Bros. Inc., Boring Or. $82,129.50 Eagle-Elsner Inc., Tigard Or. $84,195.00 Berning Construction Co., Wilsonville Or. $84,240.00 Hoss Paving Inc., Hillsboro Or. $85,733.00 Flintstone Crushing & Const. Co., Eugene Or. $97,227.00 Parker Northwest Paving Inc. Oregon City Or. $105,785.00 Carrillo Enterprises Inc., Aloha Or. $152,257.00 Engineer's estimate: $99,924 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES This project is entirely funded by the Parks Levy Fund. engl-a.lcr NMI` 1111! zgp,111I'111111~1:1 4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM -3.a b { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY-LCRB AGENDA OF: _June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: _June 12, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Main St. Drain- PREVIOUS ACTION: Council author- -acre CIP ized advertising for bids 5Z12/92 l PREPARED BY: llsi DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADM-IN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL 1 Shall the Council award the contract for the construction of drainage improvements? 3 i STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, award the contract to Gelco Construction Co. INFORMATION SUMMARY ' The project includes 355 feet of 18-inch storm drain to improve drainage at S.W. Main St. and S.W. Commercial St. C_ The following bids were received: Gelco Construction Co., Salem Or. $31,681.00 Clackamas Construction Inc., Clackamas Or. $32,200.00 Michael-Mark Ltd., Tigard Or. $34,792.50 Kerr Contractors Inc., Tualatin Or. $52,742.00 Engineer's estimate: $25,000 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES - - 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL NOTES - - - This project was budgeted as a capital improvement project in a previous year and carried over into this year's budget. main-a.1cr l~ i 2 i f i r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3,3 ` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 15, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Urban Growth PREVIOUS ACTION: None Management Grant Application ' °fRFPARED BY : D. Roberts, Ad. Plan . 1 ' 11u DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed ,•.~n;._.Dbv, CD Dir. ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL To authorize the submittal of an application for Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize submittal of the application INFORMATION SUMMARY Grant funds for urban growth management projects are available from the DLCD. To be eligible for funding a project must test or demonstrate a recommendation developed by the DLCD's Urban Growth Management Project's Task Group on Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries. One of these recommendations involves the creation of "specific development plans". These are plans applied to specific areas that are intended to reach a finer grain of detail than conventional comprehensive planning and zoning. The City has examined various land use options in the Triangle. The City seeks funding to expand this existing information base into a specific development plan. The grant funds, if awarded, will be used to develop a plan specifying land uses, street designs, utilities, institutional and civic uses, and design standards in sufficient detail to provide ease of approval for conforming development. This plan will be based on extensive public participation. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1) authorize as recommended 2) do not authorize submittal of the grant application - FISCAL NOTES The grant funds, if awarded, would be used to supplement amounts previously budgeted for Dartmouth Extension landscape design, transportation system planning, and design standards development for the Triangle area. No local funds beyond these obligated amounts would be required. C[ LM C f Application C URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT GRANT Department of Land and Development s Date 6/15/92 PROJECT TITLE: Tigard Triangle Specific Development Plan APPLICANT JURISDIC 1ON:' City of Tigard MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 23397 i -Tioard, OR 97281 a Y CONTACT PERSON: Duane Roberts TELEPHONE: (503) 639-4171 (x347) FAX: (503) 684-7297 Summary Description of Project The Tigard Triangle is a 340 acre area within the City of Tigard located at the crossroads of three primary traffic cariers. The proposed project is the development of a specific area plan for the Triangle. The objectives of the plan -are-to achieve higher density, infill and redevelopment, and transportation efficient land uses. The formulation and adoption of definitive design standards for development will include participation and agreement from the residents of the area. If a joint application, list other applicants, addresses, contact persons, and telephone numbers: -Not Applicable - i i C e Responsible for receiving and administering the grant. i i t Budget Grant Local Total for Reauested Contribution Budget Personal Services -o- (salary plus benefits) Travel -a' -0- Supplies -O-' -0= Reproduction -0- Contractual Services' $25,000.00* $35,000.00** $651000.00* * -O- Other* -o- * -Q- Capital Expenditure NA7* -413- TOTAL $_15, 000.00 $_25,000-00 $±5,000-00 Ex`plain: tr * Consultant services to develop a specific area plan for Tigard Triangle. Includes $20,000.00 for a Triangle area transportation improvement study, $10,000.00 for the foi:mulation of design standard, and $5,000.00 for the development of a landscaping plan for the proposed extension of a major collector road through the study area. C ."Grant funds may not be used for capital expenditures. -2- t i SIGNATURE PAGE i s Applicant: city of Tigard (lead, if appli'c e) ; Applic is Name Offic" s Signature Date Gerald R. Farards Mayor Official's Printed Name Official's Printed Title f FOR JOINT APPLICATIONS Applicant No. 2: Applicant=s Name Official's Signature Date Official's Printed Name Official's Printed Title Applicant No. 3: Applicant's Name j Officials Signature .Date Official's Printed Name Official's Printed Title Applicant No. 4: - Applicant's Name Official's Signature Date Official's Printed Name Official's Printed Title LS:JCK <ugm>rfp -3- i 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 3t,am 23 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: .Italy- , 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 15. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appropriate PREVIOUS ACTION: Grant Awards f~ PREPARED BY: Wavne Lowry DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK'-j m REQUESTED BY: Duane Roberts ISSUE BE ORE THE COUNCIL Local budget law allows the expenditure ur grant funds after appropriation by Council resolution. Shall s the Council authorize the expenditure of certain grant funds? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of resolution authorizing expenditure of grant funds. INFORMATION SUMMARY C The City has been awarded $2,500 per year for maintaining the Cook Park boat launch facilities which were originally constructed with State Marine Board grant funds. In addition, the City has been awarded a State Forest Service/U.S. Small Business Administration grant of $5,850 for tree planting in Fanno Creek Park. The City match for both of these is "in-kind" and they require no additional city funds. Neither of these grants were available at the time the 1992/93 budget was proposed and were therefore not included. T PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve resolution. 2. Do nothing. - l FISCAL NOTES 1. Increase revenue and appropriations in the General Fund in the amount of $8,350. 2. No impact. s i glil IN, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM .3.5 { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement for use PREVIOUS ACTION: of MSTIP bikeway funds PREPARED BY: City Engineer REQUESTED BY: DEPT-HEAD-OK-------CITY ADMIN OKIdLM BEF THE COUNCIL ISSUE =hf Approval of a formal agreement with Washington County for use of MSTIP funds for bikeway projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached agreement and authorize the mayor to sign. ' INFORMATION SUMMARY The County's MSTIP-2 serial levy for road projects provided that a portion of the funding was to be used for bikeway projects. Tigard's share of the MSTIP-2 bikeway funding is $54,800. In March, the Council approved a budget for park projects that included bike path projects. The proposed funding included the MSTIP-2 bikeway project funding. i Approval of the attached agreement will allow Tigard to use the MSTIP-2 bikeway funding on the projects as proposed. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FISCAL NOTES i rw/mstip-2 s s r s i i I i MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (COUNTY), and the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation (CITY). W I T N E S S E T H Recitals WHEREAS, on September 19, 1989, the voters approved a Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program - Six Year Serial Levy for Roads (MSTIP 2), COUNTY now has funds and may enter into cooperative agreements with various cities situated within the boundaries of said county to accomplish certain types of road construction projects; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Route Matching Fund was specifically identified and included in the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP 2) as approved by the voters; and WHEREAS, by Part IV of the Administrative Procedures of MSTIP 2, all project funding shall require execution of jurisdiction agreements with various cities within Washington County for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the parties; and WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 authorizes agencies to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the Agreement has the authority to perform; and i WHEREAS, under the such authority, it is the mutual desire of the COUNTY and the CITY to enter into such an agreement to cooperate in the construction as described below: The City of Tigard proposes to use its MSTIP 2 Bikeway Funds in the approximate amount of $54,800, plus city-provided matching funds, as part of the funding for the following bikepath projects: 1. The Pathfinder/Genesis construction p•-oject will complete this particular bikepath by connecting Pathfinder and Genesis. 2. The Fanno Creek Park bikepath will be extended from its current terminus near Tigard City Hall to connect to Ash Avenue. 3. The Terrace Trails bikepath will connect S.W. 118th Court with S.W. 115th Avenue in the Terrace trails Subdivision. C -1- Sam These paths will be constructed in conformance with the 1988 Oregon Bicycle Master Plan and its guidelines. Both of the projects listed are part of Tigard's pedestrian and bikepath system plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Obligations of the County A. COUNTY approves the project described above. COUNTY funds shall be obligated and dispersed only for COUNTY approved actual costs for the project. COUNTY will reimburse CITY for costs related to right-of-way acquisition, project design, construction, construction management, and administration costs. YAM B. All billings received from CITY must be approved by the MSTIP Program Manager or his designee prior to presentation to the Washington County Department of Support Services Finance Division for payment. Said billings shall be paid by the COUNTY within thirty (30) days of submittal by the CITY. Payments will be made only to the CITY and not RON to the contractor(s), as this Agreement is only with the CITY. 2. Obligations of the City A. CITY shall perform all tasks assigned to it under this Agreement. CITY shall be solely responsible for completing any necessary right-of-way acquisition and for providing project design and construction management for the project. B. CITY represents that it is the Public Contract Review Board for the CITY and, as such, shall perform all activities necessary to obtain materials and services required to complete the project. CITY shall comply with all applicable contract review rules and procedures. C. CITY shall not undertake work upon any new projects intending to use MSTIP 2 funds prior to receiving written authorization from the COUNTY MSTIP Program Manager to proceed. All work and records of such work shall be in conformance with applicable state and local statutes and regulations. The work and records shall not conflict with any applicable ordinances or regulations. D. CITY shall, upon execution of this Agreement, assign a liaison person to be responsible for progress of the project and to receive, review, approve, and forward to the COUNTY liaison person all billings due the CITY. -2- H i E. Within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, CITY and COUNTY shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend each other for any and all a claims, damages, losses, and expenses including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees in connection with any action, suit, or claim, whether in tort or contract, arising out of or resulting from each party's performance or failure to perform any of the obligations herein, or in the referenced contractor's contract, to the extent same ? are caused by the COUNTY or CITY, their respective employees or agents. u 3. Miscellaneous Terms i. A. The parties agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations regarding the handling and expenditure of public funds. B. Either party shall be deemed to be in default if it fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement. CITY and COUNTY agree time is k of the essence in the performance of any of the obligations within this Agreement as related to construction. Complaining party shall provide the other party with written notice of default and allow thirty (30) days within which to cure the defect. C. COUNTY shall pay CITY for costs incurred for satisfactorily completed ' and authorized work up to the time of default. CITY shall be liable for all costs and damages arising from default by CITY. D. COUNTY shall be deemed in default if it unreasonably withholds or delays funds for payment of authorized work. In no event, however, shall COUNTY's liability exceed the funding contribution of $54,800 to construct the project herein approved. E. COUNTY shall have no responsibility or liability for operation or maintenance of project either during or after construction. 4. Terms of Agreement A. The term of the Agreement shall be from the date of execution until the completion of the project, but not to exceed three years. B. This Agreement may be amended or extended for periods of up to six (6) months by mutual consent of the parties, subject to provisions of this Agreement. Except for breach, it may be cancelled or terminated for any reason beyond the control of the parties. The parties shall, in good faith, agree to such reasonable provisions for winding up the project and paying for costs incurred as are necessary. x -3- 7 r a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. DONE AND DATED this day of 1992. CITY TIG 0 ON WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON r ~ or Chairman ATTEST: City Recorder Recording Secretary a ' F t APPROVED AS TO FORM: - i 4 f Dan R. Olsen k Chief Assistant County Counsel t -4- MSTIP-Agree 1 i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3~CP CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 5, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize Ci PREVIOUS ACTION: Administrator to Sign MACC Contra for Cable Covera a of Council Me t PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OTC CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISS BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City continue to contract y1th the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) - Tualatin Valley Access for `live/videotaped gavel-to-gavel coverage of Council business meetings for Fiscal Year 92-93. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to sign the Agreement for Government Access Production services. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed agreement provides for increases in costs as follows: (A copy of the full agreement.is available in the City Recorder's office) Description Last Year This Year Coverage for meeting $ 200 $ 208 0 to 1-1/2 hours Each additional hour 64 67 Copy of videotape 4.50 6.00 - PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize City Administrator to sign the one-year Agreement. FISCAL NOTES The estimated $6,000 cost for the year is included in the City Administration contractual services budget. C Y COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3,`7 i ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 11, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve Municipal PREVIOUS ACTION: Prior Contracts Court Judge Contracts Approved Fiscal Year 91/92 111, PREPARED BY: Nadine Robins r DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Loreen Edi ISSUE BEFOR THE COUNCIL Policy was set by Resolution 88-21. to appoint judicial staff after negotiating personal services contracts. t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to approve resolutions. INFORMATION SUMMARY For the past four fiscal years, the City has entered into personal services contracts for the municipal judge function. This fiscal year, Anthony Pelay, the "senior judge" resigned. Staff is recommending Michael O'Brien be appointed as Municipal Court Judge. Judge O'Brien has served as a pro-tem Municipal Judge for Tigard since October of 1989. If approved, Judge O'Brien will be compensated at $55.00 per hour to: preside over hearings, review Municipal Court rules and process, and conduct research as needed. It is also recommended that pro-tem Judge Bruce Liebowitz's contract be renewed. There were no changes to Judge Liebowitz's contract. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve judicial contracts for fiscal year 1992-1993 for: Michael O'Brien, Municipal Judge and Bruce Liebowitz, pro-tem Judge. 2. Give further direction to staff. , FISCAL NOTES Sufficient funds have been allocated in the 92-93 budget for judicial staff. r i t i i l .i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 15. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Rea ointments to PREVIOUS ACTION: Neighborhood Planning organizations NPO's / PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL Consideration of -reappointments to various Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO's). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution approving reappointments to NPO's. INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached resolution, if adopted, approve the reappointments of several individuals to NPO's. All of the appointees have been contacted and expressed interest in serving another term. There is no term limit on NPO appointments. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Decline action at this time. FISCAL NOTES i J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING REAPPOINTMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (NPO's) WHEREAS, the individuals listed below have served on an NPO and; WHEREAS, the terms have expired for service on these committees and; WHEREAS, the following individuals have expressed an interest in reappointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The following individuals are hereby reappointed to the NPO as follows: Name Board or Committee Term Expire Ed Duffield NPO 1/2 06/30/96 Kent Hansen NPO #3 06/30/96 Ormond Doty NPO #5 06/30/96 Sue Carver NPO #6 06/30/96 Mary Clinton NPO #6 06/30/96 Lee Cunningham NPO #7 06/30/96 PASSED: This day of , 1992. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard h:\1ogm\liz\nPores.692 RESOLUTION NO. 927 Page 1 f Now= 1~0 =~l I! I RIENEFEM L COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AND- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY "AGENDA OF: June 23. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 16. 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Shrauger Annex. REVIOUS ACTION: Postponed from ZCA 91-0017 Zone Change Annexatio _ January 23, 1992 meeting PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy- j ISSUE BEF RE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of a parcel consisting of approximately 0.70 acre located at 13030 SW Walnut Street to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission? Alternatively, should the Council delay annexation until a larger area can be annexed? - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and to assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the property. INFORMATION SUMMARY This request consists of a parcel totaling 0.70 acre that is contiguous to the City of Tigard on Walnut Street. The owners of the property requested annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service, because of deterioration of existing septic tank drain field. The property owner signed a nonremonstrance agreement and connected to the sewer on November 22, 1991. Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request as well as an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-6 to City of 'igard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. There was no response from the neighboring property owners when they were notified in November, 1991. Also attached is a vicinity map and staff report. NOTE: Staff has contacted all adjacent property owners as requested by Council. Adjacent property owners have shown no interest in annexing to the City of Tigard at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council a request for annexation to the Boundary Commission. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary Commission and assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES The City of Tigard will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $140 for annexation. The current tax assessment is $46,330. The City could increase its tax base by approximately $87.00 (Assessed value as of 1/10/90 X City tax base portion of tax rate of $1.87/1000 = $86.64). VA/2CA91-17.aum STAFF REPORT November 19, 1991 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL MEN= 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS: CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-17 REQUEST: To annex one parcel consisting of 0.70 acre of unincorporated Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for a zone change from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). i COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ti i Washington County Residential, 6 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). APPLICANT AND OWNERS: Rosemary and Harold Shrauger 13030 SW Walnut Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: 13030 SW Walnut Street, WCTM 2S1 4AC, Tax Lot 1800. 1. Background Information The applicant's requested annexation to allow connection to City sewer because of deterioration of a septic tank drain field. Following usual City practice, a nonremonstrance agreement was signed on September 20th, 1991 between applicant and the City of Tigard to allow applicant connect to City sewer. The applicant has taken out a permit for sewer hookup but the hookup has not been completed. ZCA 91-17 Staff Report 1 i 2. Vicinity Information Property to the north of the site is in the City of Tigard and is a large vacant lot zoned for single family residence. Properties to the northeast across Walnut Street are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4,5 units per acre) and developed as single family residential homes in the City of Tigard. All other properties directly to the east are in Washington County. Properties to the west are single family lots in the City of Tigard. Properties to the south are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) in the City of Tigard. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property to be annexed has one single family residence with the remainder of the property undeveloped. Staff notes that the usage of the property has included a dog breeding kennel that has been in existence for the past thirty years. The remaining portion of the site is largely open with grass with few trees scattered throughout the property. The applicant requested that this parcel be annexed into the City of Tigard in order to connect to sanitary sewer line because of deterioration to the septic tank drain field. There is 6n existing sewer lateral at the edge of the westerly portion of the property. 4. Agency and NPO Comments Portland General Electric, Tigard Water District, Tigard School District 23J, Tigard Police Department, Tigard Engineering Department, Tigard Fire District, General Telephone and Electronics, Washington County Land Use and Transportation, and the Tigard Building Division have reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments. i B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established C ZCA 91-17 Staff Report 2 t Areas; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary C Criteria and chapters 18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and Community Planning Organization as well as surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the request. 2. Plan Policy 6.3.1 is satisfied because the annexation IIIIIIIM will be designated as an established area on the offid development standards map. 3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the Washington County Island Urban Services Study which includes the subject property. This study as well as the comments from the Police Department, and other service providers indicate that adequate services are available in the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the subject property. 4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City, the Police Department has been notified of this request. The land is located within Tigard•s Area Of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted above. The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings noted below: 1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies discussed above ZCA 91-17 staff Report 3 i have been satisfied and the property has been determined to be an established area in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, the properties are designated in Washington County for single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a maximum density of 6 units per acre. The City of Tigard Low Density Residential plan designation and R- 4.5 zone with a minimum lot size requirement of 7,500 square feet and maximum density of 4.5 units per acre are the most comparable to the present County designation. 2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets the definition for an established area and shall be designated as such on the development standards area map. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 51-0017. PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri, Development Assistant Planner VA/ZCA91-17 ZCA 91-17 Staff Report 4 i NEW fimm °EXEIBIT A° Legal Description A tract of land situated the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: Beginning at the a point at the Northeast corner of that parcel conveyed to Rosemary Shrauger and Harold Howard Shrauger in fee number 88-28480 and being a point on the south right-of-way line of S.W. Walnut Street (County Road 934), said point being 637 feet North along the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 4; thence Westerly along the southerly' line of said County Road to a point 113 feet East of the east line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 4; thence Southerly parallel to the east line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 4, 270 feet to a point; thence East parallel to the south right-of-way line of said County Road, 113 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 4; thence North along said line 270 feet to the point of beginning. annex 2s1, 4a-1800 6 i F-M "MainiT - Use The City of TIGARD r ZCA 91-0017 ST. Site area / / annexed Parcels I! within Tigard city ) limits City limit 0 11 boundary / 8 00 Olg l tat ea ld 11 map rsprees a- j lik en aonplled by the City llgerd utillrlsg Geegre- Ile Infornetlos System 61 may be ltw iaetree.ndeIs1or- portroye/ fare d la be motion ddilioaal used with N O R T H la cleiPal wedywr te rased...-rnla ad by the Clty of Tigard. (YP M117) Loo (10110/111) fill! FMM COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 23, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: June 2, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Com Plan Amendme t REVIOUS ACTION: Continued from CPA 91-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendmen A ril 28, 1992 ZOA 91-0006 (Ommmunity Commercial PREPARED BY: ,r Jerry Offer, Planner DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CDD ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City amend the Comprehe sive Plan to create a commercial designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the City amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinances amending the Plan and Development Code. INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to suggestions that the City should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope ~f permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the lanning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zone. he Planning Division has drafted the attached proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan designation and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. In addition, related Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. After two public hearings which included substantial community testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to forward the proposed amendments to the Council with a recommendation for approval. Dissenting Commissioners were not opposed to the concept of the Community Commercial Plan designation and C-C zoning district, but instead had urged changes in the proposal. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinances amending the Plan and Development Code. 2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the May 12, 1992 meeting adopting the amendments to the Plan and Code with revisions related to scale of Community Commercial sites and/or maximum floor area for particular uses. 3. Deny the proposal. FISCAL NOTES (-.one applicable. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE TO AM-END VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91- 0005/ZOA 91-00061. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the guidance of land usage and development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission has initiated the proposed amendments and has held public hearings on the proposed amendments on March 2, 1992 and April 6, 1992 and has recommended approval of the amendments to the Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on June 23, 1992 to consider the amendments. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS A.^-s i OLLOWS: SECTION 1: Plan Policy 12.2.1, at #4 of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit A (new section shown in its entirety); SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit B (new Chapter 18.61 shown in its entirety; amendments to existing sections of the Code shown with additions underlined and deletions bracketed SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1992. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1992. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date jo/ora-cc ORDINANCE No. 92- Page 1 I MM, -NEENFEESIM MEMORANDUM €+f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON mom, TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directo DATE: April 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed New Community Commercial Plan Designation and Zoning District BACKGROUND In response to suggestions that the City of Tigard should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the existing small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood Coamiercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning Commission on December 16, 1991, directed staff to research and draft a new mid-range commercial zone. In response, the Planning Division has drafted proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a Community Commercial Plan designation and to the Community Development Code to create a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. The following pages C summarize the proposed new Plan designation and zoning district. In addition, other Community Development Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, other listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. The proposed Community Commercial Plan designation locational criteria and the text for the proposed C-C zoning district have been presented to all of the NPOs as well as CPO 4B and CPO 4M. The cities of Beaverton, Durham, King City, and Tualatin; Washington County; and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development have also been provided with the draft amendments for review and comment. In addition, a substantial amount of comments have been received from individuals and businesses which have an interest in the proposed changes. Written comments received are included in this packet. After two public hearings which included a substantial amount of community testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to forward the attached package of amendments to the Council with a recommendation for approval. Dissenting Planning Commissioners were not opposed to the concept of the Community Commercial Plan designation and C-C zoning district, but instead had urged changes in the proposal. Planning Commission comments are available in the attached Planning Commission minutes of March 2 and April 6, 1992. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL a. Intent The primary intent of the Community Commercial Plan designation and the C-C zoning district is to provide opportunities for the development of relatively small shopping centers or shopping districts that would be located within a primarily residential area. By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to Mam neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these Sam services practical. b. Scale The proposed C-C zoning district provides for sizes of individual businesses to be limited to what the community feels is necessary to provide for the needs of the intended trade area. Grocery stores would be limited to a maximum size of 40,000 square feet. General retail stores would be limited to 10,000 square feet. Other uses would be limited to 5,000 square feet. The limit on sizes of establishments is also intended as to discourage uses that would bring substantial traffic into the community. In addition, operating hours would be limited in order to reduce the potential for negative impacts upon the neighborhood, although longer operating hours may be permitted for a particular establishment through the conditional use process. The size of the individual Community Commercial districts is proposed to be limited to between two and eight acres in order to limit the physical scale of commercial development surrounded by residential development. C. Locational Criteria Individual Community Commercial districts are proposed to be separated from other commercial districts or commercial developments by at least one half mile so as to avoid strip commercial development. Community Commercial districts are proposed to be located at or close to either the intersection of two major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and either a major or minor collector street. Community Commercial districts would be limited to one quadrant of an intersection or one side of a street. It was not the Commission's or staff's intention that the City designate any properties with the Community Commercial Plan designation or C-C zoning district at this time. 5 willip Nevertheless, staff has applied the basic intersection locational criteria on the attached map in order to show which locations within the city and the city's urban growth area could possibly qualify for the Community Commercial designation. The display of this basic intersection criteria on this map, however, does not include assessment of either existing development at these locations or the proposed Community Commercial site size criteria. These criteria could disqualify any of the circled areas from consideration from redesignation. The areas shown as potential Community Commercial sites may also be unacceptable for redesignation for many other reasons including (but not limited to) traffic problems, existing development on sites, incompatibility with adjacent developed residential areas, topography, and/or a lack of desire by the property owners or the City to change the existing Plan designation and zoning. It is very important to remember that this map only indicates potential Community Commercial sites. Actual redesignation of sites to Community Commercial designations would need to occur separate from the current proposal. The current proposal would only provide changes to the texts of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to enable potential Community Commercial redesignation of sites in the future. Some of the comments received from the NPOs and others requesting changes in the proposed Plan and Code language may a be generated by site-specific concerns with some of the circled intersections on this map. The integrity and usability of the proposed Plan designation and zoning district ' should not be undermined by too fine tinkering with the proposed text amendments to exclude certain circled sites from potential Community Commercial designation. Exclusion of unwarranted sites should be done through the Plan Map amendment process, if and when requests for redesignation of these sites are made. In order for actual designations of sites to occur, a property owner would need to file an application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change for the particular site for which redesignation is requested. The applicant would need to demonstrate not only that the site was consistent with the locational criteria for the Community Commercial designation, but that the proposal also was consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals, and that there had been a mistake in the original Plan and zoning designations for the site or that physical changes of circumstances had occurred in the area of the subject properties that was supportive of reasons for the requested change in designation. The Comprehensive !~ian Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change process that would apply to individual redesignations would be a public review process with hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and notification of neighbors prior to the hearings. 3 COMMENTS/MAJOR ISSUES a. Scale Staff readily admits that the proposed two acre minimum and eight acre maximum site size, 40,000 sq. ft. grocery size, and 10,000 sq. ft. retail store maximum size limits were not determined as a result of lengthy analysis of the community's needs or desires. These size limits are proposed based on staff walk-throughs of several grocery stores and shopping centers in the surrounding area, review of the sizes of these centers, as well as the recommendations of The Zoning Report of October 21, 1988. This report is attached. The last sentence of page 4 of this report recommends a maximum grocery store size of 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. and a maximum size for other uses of 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in a neighborhood serving commercial zone. In addition, page 7 of that report quotes the text of the Beaumont, Texas Neighborhood Shopping Center zoning district with regard to total shopping center gross floor area and site size limits. Proposed store and site size limits are within the recommended ranges provided in that report and seem reasonable with regard to other developments in the southwest suburban Portland area (see Appendix One - area supermarkets and their respective sizes). We have received comments from Albertsons and their representatives (Messrs. Shonkwiler, Russell, and Petrie) supporting larger store size limits as well as comments from NPO 7 and Mr. Marcott of Murrayhill Thriftway recommending a smaller maximum size for grocery stores. While both sides' arguments have merit, the Commission was not convinced that the proposed size limits need to be modified one way or the other from the size limits originally proposed by staff. In addition, redesignation of sites with the Community Commercial designations will be accomplished through the Plan map and zoning map amendment processes. If the city wants to limit the size of the redesignation at a particular location to anything between two and eight acres, it can effectively occur at that point through limiting the size of the area to be designated Community Commercial. Not every site to be redesignated as Community Commercial in the future need be eight acres in size. Tailoring the size of the area to be redesignated to the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods can have the effect of placing de facto limits on the maximum store sizes for that particular site., b. Locational Criteria The principal issues with the proposed locational criteria appear to be distance from other commercial sites and whether Community Commercial developments should be limited to arterial intersections rather than major collector/major collector intersections as well. First, staff believes it is essential that Community ( Commercial designations not be limited to arterial street intersections as was proposed by others early on in the development of these proposals. From a suburban development philosophical standpoint, limiting commercial sites to arterials would do nothing to discourage local short trip traffic on arterial streets that are primarily intended and designed for carrying through traffic. In addition, limiting future commercial opportunities to arterials would be counter- productive to efforts to limit strip development and likely would not result in much of a "community" feeling to these developments that would be any different than development within a General Commercial district. If anything, we may be stretching away from the purposes of the proposed Plan designation to include potential sites along arterials. From a practical standpoint, limiting potential Community Commercial designations to arterial intersections would result in only the 135th/Scholls and the western-most Scholls/New Scholls intersections as realistic possibilities for Community Commercial designation. This is due to limitations of the other sites along arterials illustrated on the potential sites map. If any changes are made to the locational criteria intersections standard, we would suggest dropping the possibility of Community Commercial sites along arterial streets. Second, others have proposed a minimum spacing for Community Commercial sites from other commercial sites of one mile. This spacing requirement proposal combined with the currently proposed intersection criteria would result in only one site in the City's urban growth area, at 150th and Bull Mountain Road, meeting these two locational criteria. If the suggested one mile spacing standard would be applied along with the other proposed limitation to arterial street intersections only, no sites in the urban growth area would meet these two basic criteria. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has recommended that the locational criteria require that the site meet all applicable access spacing/access management standards. City staff feels that this is implicit in the Plan map amendment approval criteria which requires consistency with all applicable Plan policies. Plan policy 8.1.1 requires that a map redesignation proposal provide for a safe and efficient street and roadway system." This should cover the County's concern. C. Impact Assessment Generally stated, comments received have urged the following: 1) not allow uses to operate between 11 PM and 6 AM; 2) require adequate screening and buffering; 3) reduce the minimum landscape area standard; 4) require noise abatement in C development design; and 5) require pedestrian connections between residential developments and Community Commercial developments. While not every future Community Commercial site may be appropriate for late hour operations, late hour operations also serve the needs of a substantial number of city residents. Because late hour operations may or may not be a detriment to surrounding neighborhoods, individual requests for approval of particular late hour business operations should be considered on a case by case basis. The current package of proposed amendments does include relatively strict buffering and screening standards that were not included in the package reviewed by the NPOs resulting in some of their cor-twtents. Staff believes that the 20 percent minimum landscaped area standard is necessary to visually blend the commercial development into surrounding residential areas that typically have 50 percent or greater site landscaping. Additionally, the 20 percent landscaping standard helps distinguish Community Commercial areas from General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial areas that have a minimum 15 percent landscape area standard. The buffering standard, along with requirements for street trees and parking lot island landscaping, are such that future Community Commercial developments will probably have no trouble meeting the 20 percent site landscaping standard without really trying. Noise abatement is certainly a concern in establishing commercial areas.that by definition will be surrounded by residential development. Subsequent to the Tigard Marketplace/Food Connection noise problems., the City has established stronger noise control standards and the site plan and building plan reviewers have learned a lot about design measures to reduce noise impacts. In addition, the proposal to limit late hour operations to situations approved as conditional uses should help reduce the potential for adverse noise impacts upon neighbors. Noise certainly should be an issue in considering individual Plan map and zoning map amendment requests for Community Commercial redesignations as well as in site development and conditional use applications; however, staff does not find that there is a need to further amend the proposed text amendments to deal with noise issues. The suggestion that the proposed Plan and zoning designations promote pedestrian connections between residential areas and commercial development can be implemented, where warranted, through existing authority in the approval standards for development review applications. t i .-~~51`pJkTI0" ---T_PD ThC i o f j oR fACT I G R D - S e Q T ' 0 Il or- A, eQhA TIN Guts T , - + ~1 - b a o l Pd ,,0'r-l- IAL ~SPAV f < - - - - , T J j u I E MRutREc'~ C o m p r e h e n s i v e s a SEE NOTE P 1 an ~ Sr Trans A portat ion A \ f W Map < E Figure 3- SEE NOTE, , 5 a Li ght Rai I 4Y \ Corridor Study Area Studs Area E F ST SEE E Arterial NOTE SEE N " a►r~rrr~ 3 r,cDcr+xD^- Co lector + M i - Er+r>flonc a o r NOTE 9 57' Collector Freeway n ® Interchange SEE NOTE + 0 POTENTIAL, C C 51Td D?Ilial data t map rfprfsfa- ' taliea compiled by the City of Tiyari aliliiisA 9ee91e- Y~~~~ vE eAls lalarco:laa system CIS) selt.ore. lslor- ` motion perlroyed Jere e.ay is iataadfd to 9e e onal - _ acd pith additi Ordinance No . ORO 91-I3 - SEE N 0 R T R l iatedproloaitYf /orole d 4t NOTE as eft s delermi neC by tap adopted 3UNE it, 1991 t9e Cil► fl lider (HP111S) See back for revision schedule sage (13111191) i i AREA K AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SIZES In order to give you a better understanding of stores and their sizes, this list was obtained from United Grocers database. It is accurate to within 5%. SUPERMARKET LOCATION SIZE FOOD CONNECITON TIGARD 40,000 Nam FOOD CONNEL°I ION ALOHA 40,000 ALBERTSONS KING CITY ( Dori HMm t 49 W) 44,000 ALBERTSONS 185TH& WALKER 45,000. SAFEWAY _LAKE GROVEn UALATIN 47.000 ( SAFEWAY TICIARD (W( A 9qw) 30,000 SAFEWAY CEDAR HILLS 22.000 SAFEWAY CEDAR MILL 25,000 SAFEWAY 10TH & JEFFERSON 23,000 SAFEWAY BARBUR BLVD. 25,000 TBRIFFWAY 185TH & BASELINE 24,000 TEiRIFTWAY ALLEN & LOMBARD 25,000 THRIFTWAY Wl - DARK 26,000 THRIFTWAY WEST SLOPE 1 1, 000 THRU TWAY -25TH & SW GLISAN 16,000 LAKE GROVE MAR KEI' BOONES FRY & BRYANT 23,000 gowARLIS CARE wd4! ~ow~ ecmTel~ 38000 ~5p,40PIC>1061 1 &A2D T(DwN :SC~u AAE_ aorox 1a xvie5 C'R~ way 6ppY0K11. 3 acres I ~~A2p N kETP~ac~ I4.g- acyreS APP6D I >C ONE j EA SUPERMARKETS AND THE S RESPECTIVE SIZES j i In order to give you a better understanding of stores and their sizes, this list was obtained from United Grocers database. It is accurate to within 5%. ' SUPERMARKET LOCATION SIZE i FOODCONNECTION TIGARD 40,000 FOOD COI, D 7I0N ALOHA 40 , 000 /9" ALBERTSONS KING CITY 44 , 000 /1 ALBERTSONS 185TH & WALKER 45 000-1511 SAFEWAY LAKE GROVEMJALATIN 4 7, , 0 0 0 4-'~ fa SAFEWAY TIGARD- 30 , 000 ~ "'4" re4 SAFEWAY CEDAR HILLS 22.000 ` SAFEWAY CEDAR NVIILL 25,000 SAFEWAY 10TH & JEFFERSON 23 , 000~~ ~10N , eo- SAFEWAY BARBUR BLVD. 25.000 eta THRIFTWAY 185TH & BASELINE 24,000 THRIFTWAY ALLEN & LO BARD 25.000 THRIETWAY r IVIT. PARK 26.000• THRIFTWAY WEST SLOPE 1 1, 000'1~ THRIbTWAY 25TH & SW GLISAN 16,000 j I AKEGROVEN+RARKET BOONES FRY & BRYANT 23.000 APPEt,jpl),l Two 6•z•9;L ,x CRAla Pz<TRIe R~gQuC STeD THAT THIS ANNoTA-'F-D 45T ATrACOED -gyp THE APkit 144N MEMO To 1"-U5WATE -MAT MANY OF TH£ CRaceq WoQE3 CEO IN APPEMOlk ONE AgE OLDS(-' STOR EXHIBIT A Y:h:M?CL.:r,.:nvrKbkfy:n:.::..'.:NYta::i}Yr,::.:H.• F'. %.Y.Wr~:fr~yy: nx:.v: ~~ix:a:NYm?•rij: aWi cf::.Yr . y. a%t.;.a. u: Y+;r: :.,R: rn.:•,d.. 3J+ r:3.::w :.T?o Gxv% '6 ':i.`'.~.:n?:a.a.R:.,'•'...".".,1~::%::2?.:•`1,.;.}:.a nf ,:f,Y:.2ti:ii.a a: r{~+rR. L'.•.c:?:F%+.~~?A:%};u . N:: nm2a:.vlJ:k:4}h.Q•Jn4~.v:J.ar:{•R{•%4:•::av.{a: : %N.:W: Rvn•R+nv:.{vnvi6: r}.vn'!.{•%GRK{vH/N.a\4N::$Ofw: 40tt: 4. Community Commercial The Community Commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. It is further the intent of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities and that the Community Commercial plan designation should not be located in close proximity to other commercial areas. a. Scale (1) Trade Area: generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. (2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial floor area. • Food sales up to 40,000 sq. ft. per establishment; general retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment; other commercial sales and service facilities up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size per establishment. b. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection, or where there is no street intersection immediately adjacent to the site, to one side of the street. (b) Community Commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to - 1 - MORMalwam OEM providing a similar separation from non- commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. mom (2) Access NEOM mom (a) The proposed Community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. (4) Impact Assessment F (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses. (b) It is generally preferable that a Community Commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. However, parcels within a Community commercial site may be developed independently, although the City may require that developmental aspects of ` individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between Community Commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods - 2 - Him i I i F, 1-11 i I shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. ! The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. (f) Associated lights, noise, and activities shall not significantly affect adjoining residential uses. Operating hour restrictions may be t. placed on uses within the district. 4 t jo/Corn-Com.Mst i a j t a i 4 2 C_ -3- ;6 IJ(HIBff B Chapter 18.61 C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sections: 18.61.010 Purpose 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process 18.61.030 Permitted Uses 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements 18.61.060 Additional Requirements 18.61.010 Purpose A. The purpose of the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district is to provide locations for convenience shopping facilities that provide for the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. it is intended that the Community Commercial shopping center be ideally developed as a unit, with adequate off-street parking for customers and employees and with appropriate landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor area in a Community Commercial center typically ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and land area consists of 2 to 8 acres-in size. Community Commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least 1/2 mile. The designation of a site with this district should not create or contribute to a commercial strip development pattern. This district is intended to be located adjacent to several residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street. The district should be applied in only one quadrant of an intersection, or on only one side of a street if the site is not directly adjacent to an intersection. The intended primary service area of the district is up to 1 and 1/2 miles. With respect for the district's primary neighborhood K 111 EM orientation rather than to the travelling public, signage should be strictly Aimited in size and height. In addition, special concern should be shown for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and within the development. 18.61.020 Procedures and ADRroval Process A. A use permitted outright, section 18.61.030, is a use which requires no approval under the provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a use permitted outright, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted use. B. A conditional use, Section 18.61.040; is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. It is incumbent upon the applicant for conditional use approval to demonstrate that the intended use is consistent with the purposes of the Community Commercial zone and that the proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying district. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18.61.030 Permitted Uses A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Civic use types: a. Public agency administrative services; b. Cultural exhibits and library services; C. Public support facilities; d. Postal services; and e. Public safety services; 2. Commercial use types: a. Animal sales and service: (i) Grooming; b. Consumer repair services; ( - 2 - ti C. Convenience sales and personal services; d. Children's day care; e. Eating and drinking facilities; f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of 40,000 square feet); g. General retail sales (maximum size of 10,000 square feet); h. General offices, such that where these uses are combined in one structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square ~ feet dY !f Fa: Nediaa and dental services; ( ) Fipancial, insurance and real estate • SQ~iCB~.i. (iii) professional and administrative services1 i. Participant sports and recreation: (i) Indoor; 3. Single or multi-family residential dwellings, as a z mixed use in conjunction with a commercial development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units per gross acre. 4. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.1.42. 5. Temporary uses; 6. Fuel tanks) or 7. Accessory structures. Y 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Automotive and Equipment: 9 (i) Cleaning; - 3 - `y n ri 2. Vehicle fuel sales; f~ 3. Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly; 4. Parking facilities, including transit centers. 5. Religious assembly; 6. Uses operating before 6:00 a.m. and/or after 11:00 p.m. 7. Drive up windows 18 61 045 Special Limitations on Uses A. Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows: 1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except for outside play areas for children°s day care facilities, and as allowed in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section; 2. Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet; 3. Accessory open air sales/display/storage shall be permitted for horticultural and food merchandising uses only and shall constitute no more than, five percent of the gross building floor area of any individual establishment; 4. Accessory open air dining or drinking areas shall be permitted for approved eating and drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted within 200 feet of any developed residential area. Public or private sidewalk areas around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway. 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as follows:- 1. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet; 2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet; 3. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: - 4 - s a. No front yard setback shall be required, except a 20 foot front yard: setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district; b. No corner yard setback shall be required; however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied; C. No side yard setback shall be required except a 20 foot building setback shall be required from a residential zoning district; and d. No rear yard setback shall be required except a 20 foot setback shall be required from a residential zoning district; and e. All building separations shall meet Uniform Building Code requirements; 4. No building in the C-C zoning district shall exceed 35 feet in height; 5. The maximum site coverage shall be 80 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces; and 6. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20 percent. 18.61.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the C-C district are as . follows : 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; , 2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 3. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 4. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 t i S Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming situations, 3 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and a 5. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. >.:t•:•.:t,>::,.._...:tt+ ">:>r:':>:+>::;+::.>oFSt::r. >rsr;~ rtvw.,::::~..•'t - .:..:.:::t::.;..:..::.;;:«::•:....t..t...:...;..+;...:,::.....:.....,.>:.:............:.. - . :.r•:: y.z,~':.,;..,.:n:..M,.j~tfi„.t{... r.:/oy.:.:• : ~.d::~. ~~E: ;~~3~T~::>:T::.~5:NGs>:;~OAJE.::...arEG!,~':~...:~ ...,y'ty.:..,.~.cyy%oo'f.:::SS:?>.:;; :•v'> a:;,. . y{G~..y. ~:f ...y...~:.::o».:::::.».t::•: :•>:tas>s:+: +t•G>.': ,:.c:.. .C'. x.. ..X•:.v...... Y...y ws;t.~a>:tts:a`to:•:cs:::.::,. s:::.,w.>:. >:.•..ww....::::+.:.. +»rNt!cts :r...~,.'i•'.~:"it :3i7:7:::~~YJti'.~. ~.p..~` :::bi't .r } s 18.114.130 Zoninct District Regulations E. Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Zones 1. No sign shall be permitted in (a] the C-N or C-C zones except for the following: a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted a on properties zoned C-N or C-C: ,s (1) One 'multifaced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; (ii) Area Limits: (1) The maximum square footage of freestanding signs shall be 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; C - 6 - a~ 's 's 1 s i c { AM- IM9501M Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (iv) Height Limits: (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each ten feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height; b. Wall Signs (i) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs, including illuminated reader-boards, may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area ten percent of any building face on which the sign is to be mounted; (ii) Wall signs shall be parallel to the face of the building upon which the sign is located; and (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be y permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this S subsection, '1copy1° includes symbols, € logos, and letters; r - 7 - i i i i c. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Temporary signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; e. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and B,2. f. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and g. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). C~ III. Zoning District Classifications and Requirements 18.61 Community commercial District 18.40.010.a Classification of Zones (matrix) Zoning District Map Symbol Dwelling Units Minimum Per Net Acre Lot Size Community Commercial C-C 12 61000 sq. ft. ....a.,....,»:.,,.:..:....»........,:..,•scx::::i:~ :...::...........i~:isAtiisi::.ci:.?itii:u,...r::9:a,:ti •:Lrtta.,.,.,.,y`C';rxuu,:, a.,.,........,...... • 18.1.00.130 Buffer Matrix ADD C-C ZONE TO MATRIX'S LEFT MARGIN WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C. - 8 - i NMI !i s a S o. ,~:5awr:#:Rm `S:ri`•rc«~`<., f; <.•:.c. <:.<:c ,rr•s~ ~~i~:v:Sti iiib:vi.•ii:OiC+.KNiW:Wii:S i; <~iV titt';.NRSV.Sti6:U~itiMY.rG .W}ifNN. •.v£v ~4Y+iSP:iivivTV igi.Ari:it{ ~ C 18.130.150 Standard Dimensional Requirements for Conditional ' Use Types f 18.130.150.C.19 Parking Facilities Y a. Applicable Zones: R-12, R-25, R-40, C-C and C-N zones 18.130.150.0.29 Drive-up Windows a. Applicable Zones: CBD and C-C zones. r jo:c-czone.ord 3 t r i t i V t {1 { - 9 - 3 i a ,i i s t LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1, Planning Commission Minutes x • April 6, 1992 41 March 2, 1992 February 3, 1992 2. The Zoning Report - October 21, 1989 "Zoning for Supermarkets" 3. Letters of Comment: a. Scott Russell b. William Jackson - Safeway C. Max Anderson - Fleming Co. d. Craig Petrie - The Petrie Co. e. Matt Marcott - Marcott's Thriftway Stores f. Alan Jones - United Grocers g. Roger Staver - United Grocers h. Roger Staver - United Grocers i. Rick Renzel - United Grocers j. Jim Robinson - Thriftway br/List.PC 1 5.3 Continuation oeublic Hearing for Comprehensive rlan Amendment CPA 91-05/Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 91-0005 Community Commercial Plan Designation/C-C Zoning District The Planning Commission will consider amending Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan designation intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) limited locations due to specific locational criteria, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. In addition, the-Commission will consider amending the Community Development Code to create a new zoning district intended to implement this Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. Also, the Commission will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage, landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. The Commission is holding this hearing for the purpose of forwarding a recommendation to the City Council relative to the proposed amendments. The City Council will hold a subsequent hearing before deciding whether to adopt the proposed amendments. No locations are presently being considered for designation with the new Plan designation or zoning. o Associate Planner Jerry Offer advised that the comments received during the 7-day period following the previous meeting were provided in the meeting packets. He said there was no information which differed from that received at the last hearing. He advised the main issue was the scale of grocery stores. o Commissioners Fyre and Saporta, who were not at the previous meeting, stated they had read all the material and felt sufficiently informed to make a fair decision. o It was agreed to limit questions to points of clarification. o Commissioner Castile favored looking at each site on an individual basis to judge whether there is a need for a smaller or larger store. He favored considering allowing stores up to 50,000 sq. ft. He suggested this be written as an outright use. o Commissioner Hawley favored limiting the outright use as written, but allowing specific sites to have larger stores as conditional use after review by neighborhood residents. r~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1992 PAGE 4 i ' o Commissioner huvre agreed with Commissioners Ca~o le and Hawley, stating his main concern was what the community wants. He noted the way the staff has written the amendment and ordinance favors what is best for the community rather than the individual applicants. o Comissioner Fessler advised she studied the needs fora site with 25,000 sq. ft. grocery store, miscellaneous shops, landscaping requirements, and parking area. She concluded that 3 acres would be sufficient, and she suggested 8 acres may be too large for this type of use. She was concerned with keeping things to the scale of a neighborhood: She noted she was hesitant to allow 24-hour use and 3 drive-up windows. Discussion followed regarding appropriate size for sites. o Commissioner Boone stated he favored a land area of 2 to 6 acres in size, based on research he had done at several community stores. Regarding conditional use at the discretion of the Hearings Officer, he would favor 30,000 sq. ft. maximum size for grocery stores. He did not gim feel there should be limits on single-family residential as a mixed use in this zone. He favored eliminating drive-up windows. o Associate Planner clarified the Hearings Officer's consideration of public input, and he noted the.code is binding. o Commissioners Saporta and Moore favored the proposal as written by staff. a o Commissioners Boone and Fessler preferred to limit the site size to 6 acres. C o Commissioner Hawley was in favor of the March 12th wording and wanted to leave out conditional use for larger stores. o Commissioner Castile did not agree with limiting the grocery store size. o Commissioner Fyre stated he was comfortable with the way staff had written the proposal. * Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Hawley seconded to forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of CPA 91-05, ZOA 91-0006, Community Commercial Plan Designation C-C Zoning District as written. Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Castile and Boone voting "Nay." 6. OTHER BUSINESS - o Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff advised there was a Regional Growth Conference on April 21st, and he encouraged Commissioners to attend. He requested they notify Bonnie Mulhearn by April 7th and turn in the completed registration form if they would be attending. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1992 PAGE 5 i f o Senior Planner advised that Community Development Director Ed Murphy would like to meet with the Planning Commission for a 20 minute presentation and question/answer session regarding growth in the region. Commissioners were agreeable. ADJOURNMENT - 9:25 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary ATTEST: Milton F. Fyre, President 1 i f i i i I PLANNING C0114ISSION MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1992 PAGE 6 i l f 1: N2 I: sill 11 6. PUBLIC HEARIN( 6.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA < 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN RESIGNATION/C-G ZONING DISTRICT The Planning Commission will consider amending Volume II and the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan designation intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to. 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) at limited locations; and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. In addition, the Commission will consider creating a new zoning district intended to implement this Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. Also, the Commission will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. The Commission is holding this hearing for the purpose of forwarding a recommendation to the City Council relative to the proposed amendments. The City Council will hold a subsequent hearing before deciding whether to adopt the proposed amendments- No locations are presently being considered for designation with the new Plan designation or zoning. o Associate Planner Jerry Offer explained the purpose of this type of zone and how it can meet certain needs of the community. He reviewed the Planning Commission's direction to staff suggesting the creation of a new plan designation and zoning district. He discussed comments received and distributed a. copy of a letter from NPO V. He gave details about types permitted uses. He explained the locational criteria and how it differed from Commercial Zone criteria. He.advised that additional language was added to-deal with special zone issues.. He talked about special circumstances and ways to provide flexibility. He said the biggest issue yet to be determined was'the maximum size for grocery stores. He discussed signage, buffer requirements; and traffic issues- On-the wall map he pointed out specific sites which would fit the locational criteria; but.he said the Commission would not be designating any sites, only designating the type of zone. o Associate Planner discussed grocery stores in particular, and staff's efforts to determine appropriate size needed to fit in with the character of the neighborhood. He advised that staff recommended allowing residential to exist above commercial space and to allow home occupations in this zone. He answered questions from Commissioners pertaining to site landscaping and buffer requirements. o Regarding. comments received, Senior Planner advised that NPO #3 suggested that the spacing from other commercial sites should be a minimum of 1 mile. However, he noted this would eliminate all but one potential site. He discussed additional comments received and advised that the main issues concerned the spacing between sites, the minimum and maximum acreage for the sites, and the store size in the case of grocery stores. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 2 t i PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Cal Woolery, Chairman of NPO #7, spoke about the application by Albertsons and the subsequent decision to establish this type •of zone designation. He explained that many HPO members and homeowners have expressed opposition to the zone designation to Commercial General because of the impact this would have on the neighborhoods. He described the numerous meetings which were held on this issue. He said the subject of conditional use was of concern, as well as the scale of a retail sales size and limitation of percentage of site used for the retail building. He said the City needed this type of zone, and that there was no objection to allowing living quarters above a retail operation. o Commissioner Boone stated he was not comfortable limiting the sizes of individual businesses. There was discussion concerning the concept of a mini-mall with some positive and negative aspects. Associate Planner a Offer explained that limitation of the size of individual businesses was of concern, as this would affect how large a market area would be i served. He favored scaling the size of businesses to serve the neighborhood. f RECESS - 8:55 PM RECONVENE - 9:05 PM o Cal Woolery spoke again to clarify for the Commission that the meeting minutes submitted and to which he had referred had not been officially ratified yet but will be at the next meeting. r o 'Lee Cunningham, NPO #7 provided a minority report from NPO #7 and read some statements from the NPO i#7 meeting minutes. The main points were: 1. -He made a motion to change the locational criteria to allow a -ti distance of 1 mile rather than-1/2 mile, for which there was no second; 2: Community Commercial centers be required to locate at least 1 mile from each other; 3. To preclude the necessities of tenant required parking so that it is not necessary for the pad of the building to be 25 percent, nor any specific percent; and 4. If the motion to change the site location criteria from collector street to arterial, and the motion to downgrade the new Scholls Ferry Road to collector, then the commercial sites would be reduced to three. o Associate Planner Offer provided clarification concerning Old Scholls Ferry Road and New Schoils Ferry Road_ He said if New Scholls Ferry is changed from an arterial to a major collector, it should not affect any of the sites. There was further discussion concerning the locational criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 3 t 11 11 all PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Cal Woolery, Chairman of NPO 97, spoke about the application by Albertsons and'the subsequent decision to establish this type.of zone designation. He explained that many NPO members and homeowners have expressed opposition to the zone designation to Commercial General because of the impact this would have on the neighborhod'd. He described the numerous meetings which were held on this issue. He said the subject of conditional use was of concern, as well as the scale of a retail sales size and limitation of percentage of site used for the retail building. He said the City needed this type of zone, and that there was no objection to allowing living quarters above a retail operation. o Commissioner Boone stated he was not comfortable limiting the sizes of individual businesses. There was discussion concerning the concept of a mini-mall with some positive and negative aspects. Associate Planner Offer explained that limitation of the size of individual businesses was of concern, as this would affect how large a market area would be served. He favored scaling the size of businesses to serve the neighborhood. a ' RECESS - 8:55 PM RECONVENE - 9:05 PM V Cal Woolery spoke again to clarify for the Commission that the meeting minutes submitted and to which he had referred had not been officially ratified yet. but will be at the next meeting. o " Lee Cunningham, NPO #7 provided a minority report from NPO $7 and read sane statements from the NPO #7 meeting minutes. The main points were: -He made a motion to change the locationai criteria to allow a distance of 1 mile rather than-1J2 mile, for which there was no second; 2.- Community Commercial centers be required to locate at least 1 agile from each other; 3. To preclude the necessities of tenant required parking so that it is not necessary for the pad of the building to be 25 percent, nor any specific percent; and 4. If the motion to change the site location criteria from collector street to arterial, and the motion to downgrade the new Scholls Ferry Road to collector, then the camnercial sites would be reduced to three. o Associate Planner Offer provided clarification concerning Old Scholls Ferry Road and New Scholls Ferry Road_ He said i.f New Scholls Ferry is changed from an arterial to a major collector, it should not affect any of the sites. There was further discussion concerning the locational criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 3 t o John Shonkwil 13425 SW 72nd, Tigard, spoke behalf of Albertsons regarding grocery stores. lie spoke about the preliminary application to build an Albertsons and the ordinance system in place. He spoke about the need for a Community Commercial zone and provided examples of areas which need this type of zone. He provided information about Beaverton commercial districts. He said the key issue is the appropriate size for a grocery store. He cited reasons why the size limit should be 50,000 square feet. He said consumers wish to have more product choice. He advised that the larger size store will not necessarily adversely effect the neighborhood. He referred to the letter received from Marcott's Thrifway (see packet). He pointed out building dates and named stores which were not mentioned in the letter which are larger in size. He referred to his February 24, 1992 letter (see packet) comparing recently-built stores of various companies- He concluded that 50,000 square feet appeared to be the most feasible. He spoke about avoiding conditional uses which would result if 30,000 square feet was the limit. He talked about other types of retail operations, such as variety and drug stores. Concerning limitation of hours of operation, he suggested it would be more appropriate to allow grocery stores to operate 24 hours a day to meet consumer needs. He suggested there may be good reasons to change the maximum site size to 10 acres. He provided a site plan for the proposed Albertsons and Payless stores to show (Exhibit A). He talked about landscaping and screening requirements, suggesting 15 percent would be better than the C proposed 20 percent. mom He submitted to the Commission a petition (Exibit B) which he said was signed by 540 residents who are in favor of building an Albertsons grocery store on-the site at Schoils Ferry Road at Murray Boulevard. o Associate Planner requested that Mr. Shonkwiler consider whether it is appropriate to submit this petition concerning the specific site at this hearing, as there is no application yet. Mr. Shonkwiler clarified that this petition is merely to demonstrate the interest in this type of business and the size proposed. There was discussion as to the propriety of this type of petition. Associate Planner recommended that Planning Commission allow Mr. Shonkwiler to withdraw the petition. Mr. Shonkwiler declined to withdraw the signed petition. o Gary McMurray, Suite 435 Benjamin Franklin Plaza, stated he represents the owners of property at Scholls Ferry and Murray, Mr. Scott Russell and his family. He said it was important to have a zone that works. He spoke about limiting grocery store size and the associated issues. He stated he preferred the 50,000 square foot maximum. PLANNING COMt•9ISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 4 l } o Beverly Frout 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road, ted she was speaking fors herself. She asked the Commission to think about the goal of this amendment. She read from the proposed 'amendment language pointing out y that "primarily neighborhood orientation" indicates the intention to not attract substantial amounts of business from outside the area. She read _ about the intent of the locational criteria, and she favored a.l mile distance spacing from other commercially designated areas. She pointed out some conflicts in the wording, and she commented it would be difficult to retrofit this zone into an already established community. She brought up the issues of noise, lighting, and accompanying enforcement problems. She said she favored this type of zone as it is basically a good idea, but with careful limits. She did not agree that a neighborhood needs a 24 hour grocery store. She suggested the Commission take time and think through all the issues and define all the terms. i o Craig Petrie, 9600 SW Capitol Highway, said he is a real estate broker. He commended Associate Planner Offer and the staff for their efforts in developing this zone amendment. He favored providing convenient shopping for neighborhoods to promote conservation of gasoline. He expressed his preference for a 50,000 square foot grocery store, as they offer consumers more variety and better prices. o Scott Russell, Scappoose, advised he owned property which Albertsons is interested in. He described his property which is divided into several different types of uses. He said the proposed CC zone would be a means of eliminating some of the conflicting use problems. He pointed out that having a commercial area established prior to residential development, allows people to choose how close they live to a commercial area. He favored increasing the size to 10 acres and the size to 50,000 square feet. o Katie Dorsett, 13847 SW Hindon Court, said'she lives near the proposed Albertsons-site....She talked about the.discussions with. many people concerning what is needed to fill in the gap between Neighborhood Commercial, which is supposed to be 2 acres, and the Commercial Zone, which would be big stores. She. said they arrived at 30,000 square feet. because there needs to be something new. - She said she would even favor a maximum size of 25,000 square feet. o Matt Markott, Meridian Apartments, advised he operates several Thriftway Stores, including Murray Hi-11 Thriftway. He discussed the various sizes of Thriftway Stores. He said the reason for larger stores being built in recent years is because the developers choose the larger store to build. He talked about some successful smaller stores, naming specific stores which are around 25,000 square feet. He discussed the various corporate agendas which dictate what size they are willing to build and operate. He suggested the most appropriate size for a grocery store in j a neighborhood is not 40,000 square feet, but smaller. s' t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 5 f' I Bill! Will o Beverly Frou, 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road, ted she was speaking roor% herself. She asked the Commission to think about the goal of this r amendment. She read from the proposed'amendment language pointing out that "primarily neighborhood orientation" indicates the intention to not attract substantial amounts of business from outside the area. She read _ about the intent of the locational criteria, and she favored a.l mile distance spacing from other commercially designated areas. She pointed out some conflicts in the wording, and she commented it would be difficult to retrofit this.zone into an already established community. She brought up the issues of noise, lighting, and accompanying enforcement problems. -She said she favored this type of zone as it is basically a good idea, but with careful limits. She did not agree that a neighborhood needs a 24 hour grocery store. She suggested the Commission take time and think through all the issues and define all the tens. o Craig Petrie, 9600 SW Capitol Highway, said he is z real estate broker. He commended Associate Planner Offer and the staff for their efforts i` developing this zone amendment. He favored providing convenient shopping for neighborhoods to promote conservation of gasoline. He expressed his preference for a 50,000 square foot grocery store, as they offer consumers more variety and better prices. o Scott Russell, Scappoose, advised he owned property which Albertsons is interested in. He described his property which is divided into several different types of uses. He said the proposed CC zone would be a means of-eliminating some of the conflicting use problems. He pointed out that having a commercial:.area established prior to residential deveiopinent; allows people.to choose how close they live to at commercial :area: He favored increasing the size to 10 acres and the size to 50,000 square feet. o-. Katie Dorsett,-13847 SW Hindon.Court, said-sbe lives near the proposed Albeksons-.site.. -She talked about the.discussions with. many. people concerning.what is needed to fill in the gap°-between Neighborhood Commercial, which is supposed to be 2 acres, and the Commercial Zone, which would be big stores- She.said they arrived at 30,000 square feet, because there needs to be something new.- She said she would even favor a maximum size of 25,000 square feet. o Matt Markott, Meridian Apartments,-advised he operates several Thriftway Stores, including Murray Hill Thriftway. He discussed the various sizes of Thriftway Stores- He said the reason for larger stores being built in recent years is because the developers choose the larger store to build. He talked about some successful smaller stores, naming specific stores which are around 25,000 square feet. He discussed the various corporate agendas which dictate what size they are willing to build and operate. He suggested the most appropriate size for a grocery store in a neighborhood is not 40,000 square feet, but smaller. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 5 was i O uommissloner ;ioure VU11ILCU UUL LndL L,ji, uc:dr 1119 Wdb, iwL uw aNNrvNi iaLc time and pla( to be discussing corporate str: gies. o Don Duncombe, 17001 NE San Rafael, Portland, stated he is Peal Estate Manager for Albertsons Stores for the northwest. He commended Associate Planner Jerry Offer for the work done on this proposed new Community Commercial designation, He advised that limiting the size of grocery stores to 40,000 or less would mean that only Thriftway will build the store. Commissioners objected to bringing the corporate strategies into the hearing. There was further discussion and Mr. Duncombe disagreed with the Commission's viewpoint concerning the topics of concern. Commissioner Barber advised that a debate was not the proper format for this hearing. Commissioner Castile suggested waiting until the next meeting to make a decision based on the information which has been received. There was agreement to delay the decision until the next meeting- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commission agreed to accept written. testimony for seven days, the deadline being March 9, 1992. o Commissioner Boone expressed concern about some of the language regarding pedestrians, bikes, and automobiles. He did not favor regulating sidewalks, allowing drive-up windows, or establishing densities in the case where residential units are mixed in with Community Commercial- o Commissioner Fessler agreed that it was important to take time to consider all the issues which have been brought up. o Commissioner Moore pointed out that the most controversial issue seems to be maximum square footage. o Commissioner Hawley spoke about the need to be clear about the concept of serving the-community and neighborhood with this new zone, and perhaps there is a need to have two new zones to fit in between the two existing ones. o Commissioner Castile suggested there was a need to re-zone one or two parcels; and he requested information from staff as to what areas are available for building a large grocery store. o Commissioner Barber said there was clearly a need for this type of zone. She favored leaving home occupations as a permitted use and agreed with previous comments about needing more information before a recommendation can be made to Council. She commended staff for their work on the proposed new Community Commercial Plan Designation, and she thanked the NPOs for their input and the representatives from Albertsons and Thriftway for their information. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 6 1 I Commissioner vley moved and Commissioner Fe- er seconded to continue, the hearing to the next available meeting in April and to accept written testimony for the next seven days. Motion passed by unanimous vote.of Commissioners present. 7. AOJOURN14ENT - 11:05 PM Ellen P. Fox; Secretary ATTEST: Vlasta N. Barber, Vice President t PLANNING CWHISSION MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1992 PAGE 7 • i I o There was discussion regarding maximum size. Commissioner Castile indicated concern for the-shopping center retailers and suggested temporary sign limitation based on frontage. Monument signs were discussed. Senior Planner provided clarification stating that each business would be allowed to-have a temporary sign for 30 days four times a.year. There was discussion regarding advantages of businesses joining together to have several names on one sign. Commissioner Saporta suggested limiting the size. Commissioners favored 24 square feet maximum with no-one side larger than 12 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING o There was no one signed up to speak on this item. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED * Commissioner Fessler moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to forward recommendation.to.City Council to approve the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100) with a modification to Section C-.2, changing maximum square foot to 24 square total with no side larger than 12 square feet. Motion passed by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. o Discussion followed regarding the method for notifying merchants of changes to Temporary Sign Code. 6. OTHER .1:.. ~Progr~ss ReparD^ ' Jb essio'n, n` €C'OMP.REHENSIY~~PLAN~r ENDMENT ;GPA " 91. 0005 :.=ZONE? URDINA CE AM'ENDP~EIUT' ZtSA"' 91 0006;x' 1 O1~INIUNITY° COMMERCIAL PLAW DESIGNATIONstd-dreate'a"-61N Community Commercial 'Plan designation and zoning district. Associate Planner Jerry Offer updated the Commission concerning the Community Commercial Plan Designation. He provided a brief" history of how this CPA originated.- He-advised-the NPOs were provided with the draft outline to review... He discussed responses received, which were both in favor and against the amendment. He distributed copies of a letter received from Marcott's Thriftway Store which provided a list of typical stores in the area and their square foot size for comparison purposes (see Exhibit A). He encouraged the Commissioners to pay attention to the various sizes of stores they use during the next month. There was discussion of services offered in various stores and reasons to limit or not limit sizes of stores in this proposed zone designation. o Associate Planner described the features which make good sites and explained why this type of site is limited. He talked about conditional uses which might be permitted. He handed out a copy of a memo from Craig A. Petrie dealing with-issues of similar uses in CC zone as in CP zoned property, landscaping requirements, and pedestrian access to sites from residential areas (Exhibit B). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 1992 PAGE 7 o Discussion followed concerning stores which are currently interested in building. Drawbacks for residents were noted, and Associate Planner explained proposed buffering standards. Commissioners discussed signage, lighting, and pedestrian access issues. o Associate Planner answered questions about fuel tanks, accessory structures, canopies, automotive equipment and cleaning. Hours of operation were seen as important to regulate. He advised these sites were best for retail establishments geared to serve 1 1/2 mile area. The role of competition was raised. He said the NPOs will review drafts and provide written comments to Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT - 10:45 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary low ATTEST: Harry Saporta, Commissioner C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 1992 PAGE 8 l AML THE ZONING REPORT For Planning and Zoning Professionals ISSN 0748-0083 VOL. 6, NO. 11 - OCT 21, 1988 - Charles Reed, AICP, Editor/Publisher - $48/year/subscription ZONING FOR SUPERMARKETS Consider limiting the size of future new super- Supermarkets are a low-profit, low overhead markets allowable in your neighborhood busi- operation. The incentive for investment gain by ness zone. As the largest and most important food companies is to obtain an enormous stable commercial land use serving neighborhoods, cash flow by developing and maintaining a they have been steadily increasing in size over steady dependable level of food sales volume the years. with careful cost control. Food companies rein- In many cases, they have become too large to vest this cash flow in three ways: by building serve neighborhood-only functions. uture more well-designed, well-located supermarkets; years, they may become even larger--gigantic by improving the profitability of existing stores in-.size-too big to be rest enti0y- compatible by store remodeling and expansion and careful. in neighborhood shopping zones. cost control; and by eliminating unprofitable In this issue cf The Zoning Report, we dis- stores in the chain. Business risk for the food cuss the economics of supermarkets as the ba- company declines quickly as the number of sis for public planning for them, revisions to well-managed stores in the chain increases. your zoning codes to accommodate trends in Profit on food sales is razor thin--less than supermarket development, site plan review- for one percent. This percentage has been declin- supermarkets, and local public infrastructure ing gradually over the years, almost to an at- required from developers proposing. new large cost basis. But profit on non-food items sold in supermarkets. supermarkets is much higher, several percent Past issues of The Zoning Report whose top- of sales. Thus, to make more money in super- ics relate closely to zoning solutions for super- market retailing is to increase the percentage markets include: Sept 24, 1984, "How to obtain -of nonfood sales relative to food sales. To ex- successful screens between commercial and pa nonfood sales, ood companies must ex- residential zones and uses;" Oct 29, 1984, "What you need to know about retail parking zoning requirements;" and Nov 21, 1986, "Your Don't forget . off-street loading regulations may be seriously out of date." to include us in next year's budget, start- ing January 1st or any time in 1989.. . Planning characteristics of supermarkets Budget us for $48 You need to understand a few key basics about We're keeping our rates the same as usual the economics of supermarket retailing before for new subscriptions and renewals start- you start revising your zoning and site plan ing any time in 1989. standards for supermarkets. 1988 by Charles Reed 1404 N. State Road 7, Suite 269; Margate, Florida 33063 - Mailing address: PO Box 6529; Margate, Florida 33063 - THE ZONING REPORT Page Two pand floor space to display nonfood items, but 5-10% of market share to be viable. Thus, at they can never reduce the amount of existing 15% per store to capture 75% of food sales in floor space Tor food sales. For most supermar- the trade area, the neighborhood is served by kets, total profit averages about one percent . five or six stores. These are sited on business of till sales, since non-food sales are about streets, about 2-6 blocks between supermarkets 15-40% of total sales. along arterial streets. Food sales do not expand perpetually. A person A supermarket does not seek the most desir- eats only so much ood-but everybody must able commercial site available in its neigh n- eat. So the market for food sales is guaranteed hood trade area. For a supermarket, food com- but only to a limited maximum in a trade area. panies prefer a less costly site with lower visi- The competitive goal among supermarket bility, on lower-volume major streets at a se- companies is to capture the largest stable condary location. Most patrons live near the share of food sales available in in a neigh- store, shop it weekly, and know where it is borhoo . 1 an single supermarket store cap- located-thereby a high-visibility top-value site tures an inordinately large share of food sales is not necessary. Lower site cost is a trade-off (more than about 15%) available within a for the high cost of aggressive advertising. neighborhood, competitors are quick to find out why-then to take steps to recapture excess The optimum size of supermarket store has not market share. yet been reached. Optimum size is reached Supermarkets compete aggressively for non- when the size store in floor area derives sum- rket food sales. Nonsupermarket enter- the lowest dollar of cost per dollar of sales. InAft prises that sell food at retail take about 25% the search for optimal size, GFA for supermar- of the total food sales generated by a typical kets has been increasing stea since e residential neighborhood (which excludes high- first supermarkets six decades ago started at way-tourist-traveler food sales). These enter- 3500-5000 sq ft per store. As stores get big- prises include sit-down and fast-food restau- ger, economies of scale keep improving and rants, 7-11-type convenience stores, gas-sta- larger trade areas are served through greater Lion mini-marts, health food stores, bakeries, sales food volume through lower food prices meat markets, and food sales in drug stores. for a larger variety of food items. Supermarkets try to counter this competition To upgrade the average GFA for all stores in by selling, for example, fresh daily prepared the chain, food companies close or modernize foods, . cooked take-out meats and prepared, older smaller stores and build much larger party trays. stores on new sites. Older small _ suurmarkets, with a GFA of Determine how many supermarkets are needed 10,000715,000 sq t or less, on small tight to sup rt a neighborhood. The remaining 75% sites, are replaced or expanded as soon as pos- o neighborhood food sales is generated by su- sible by chain food companies in five ways: permarkets and discount warehouse food stores. (1) by being closed and the neighborhood The trade-area radius for conventional super- abandoned by a fooocompany; markets is about 1-1/2 miles, in medium-density (2) by being replaced by a modern larger neighborhoods, about 5000 persons per square store nearby on a new larger site, on major mile. This radius describes an 8-10 sq mile arterials, readily accessible to a larger trade trade area, which supports a population of area; 40,000-50,000. Each supermarket captures (3) by being expanded on the site by con- about 15% of food purchases in its trade area, structing additional-loor area (and, perhaps, no matter what the size of supermarket is. Dis- the site expanded by purchase of neighboring count warehouse food stores need only capture properties); October 21, 1988 Issue t V Page Three THE ZONING REPORT (4) by getting com lementar businesses to 35,000 to 50,000 sq ft GFA, but average about 1 ocate next to them on the same site or on 40,00045,000 sq ft, on sites 3-5 acres in size, abutting. sites. These businesses, owned by oth- with a 1-1/2 to 2-mile trade-area radius. er companies, are chain drug-variety stores, Supermarkets larger than this are being built, package liquor stores, a good bakery, a deli usually about 50,000-60,000 sq ft in size, serv- market, or a beauty shop; ing several neighborhoods through a larger (5) by being converted to other types of food trade area radius of 2-3 miles. stores that are pro rta a in an old small store building and small site. Conversions usually are "Hypermarkets" are the super-giant food stores to discount warehouse type food stores or spe- o the future, being built in scattered locations cialty food stores. around the nation. These stores combine a su- permarket with a general merchandise junior Discount warehouse type retail rood stores, are department store/discount store (like a K-Mart, small (10,900-22,000 sq t GFA , most being Target, Venture or Wal-Mart). Food store su- conversions of older obsolete supermarket permarket companies are going into joint ven- buildings, but some "box stores" (stores selling ture with discount store companies to build only pre-packaged and dry foodstuffs) occupy these large stores. general tenancy space in a small shopping cen- These stores have 100,000 to 220,000 sq ft ter. These stores sell less food items, perhaps GFA (the largest so far-which is five acres 3,000 or so items compared to 8,000-10,000 and counting). Obviously ese stores have items sold by modern conventional supermar- community- and metropolitan-sized trade areas kets. Food items sold by discount stores are on large 20- 30-acre sites next to two or more limited to those with high turnover. Discount arterial streets. stores lower their costs by less advertising and Their food sales objective is to dramatically less services. i ncrease sales of non-food. items-w ch in- Specialty food stores sell ethnic foods, ko- creases profit margins or the entire store. But skier foods and delicatessen items, seafood or profit margins can be reduced to offer very meats, or, specialize in (say) party foods and low prices on all items sold in the store. The items. They are successful usually only with stores not only sell convenience variety goods, smaller GFA, 2500-10,000 sq ft, since their but also sell nonconvenience comparative-shop- smaller sales volume cannot support excess per goods (such as color TVs). The expectation GFA in larger stores. They often have large is that patrons do not shop the entire store, so community-wide trade areas for their small many trips over time will be made to shop the sales volume, requiring high visibility on arter- store-including regular food shopping trips. ial streets. The percentage of non-food floor area for hypermarkets is 50-75% compared to 10-15% Recent existing smaller conventional su rmar- for small supermarkets, 20-25% for large super- ets stay in business r they are efficiently markets, and 30-35% for supermarket-large operated, have good access and dock space for drug-variety combination stores. freight unloading and storage of foodstuffs di- We would expect that hypermarkets would rectly. _ by off-the--road eighteen-wheeler semi draw a food sales market share of about 15%- trucks, and have adequate parking and site about what a conventional supermarket draws. design. Minimum successful operating size is But the hypermarket draws this from a much about 22,000-25,000 sq ft for recent, not- larger trade area, several times the size of a yet-depreciated (10 years old or less) stores, typical supermarket trade area. We would anti- with a 1 to 1-1/2-mile trade-area radius. cipate, if they are successful, hypermarkets New conventional supermarkets now being will close the equivalent of one supermarket built in neighborhoods range in size from within each of the neighborhood trade areas October 21, 1988 Issue THE ZONING REPORT Page Four within the hypermarket trade area--which day. Parkers are willing to tolerate longer might be a major difficult reduction in the via- walking distances in large parking lots, since bility of some smaller neigh orhood shopping the grocery trip is a major and essential trip, areas in the built-up areas of cities. with groceries carried across parking lots in grocery carts. Parking turnover is rather low, Travel characteristics of supermarkets include perhaps as low as once to twice per hour for trip and parking generation, and the amount of close-by spaces. off-street parking and loading required. Conventional supermarkets require about 5 Trip generation is about 125 trip ends per spaces per 1000 sq t of GFA. is translates weekday per 1000 sq ft of GFA for conven- to 1 parkin; space per 200 sq ft GFA. Most tional supermarkets. Thus, a supermarket of zoning codes, about 70% of codes, agree realis- 40,000 sq ft generates 5000 trip-ends per day tically with supermarket developers on parking or 2500 trips on the site. needs. For hypermarkets, we anticipate that trip As supermarkets increase in size from over y generation per sq ft will be considerably less about 40,000 sq ft, parking demand graduall than for conventional supermarkets. For exam- rises to 6 to 7 or more spaces per 1000 sq t ple, a proposed hypermarket of 220,000 sq ft or hypermarkets at 100,000 or larger GFA. GFA is projected by its investors to require 50,000 trips- per week to support an adequate sales volume. This is 14,000 trip ends per day, Zoning regulations only three times the daily trip ends of a 40,000 or supermarkets sq ft supermarket. However, parking turnover per space for the hypermarket will be much Review how you allow supermarkets in your lower, requiring a larger amount of parking per neighborhood zone. Most zoning codes allow sq ft GFA, about 1600 spaces. supermarkets o any size in neighborhood zones. With supermarkets doubling in size in The two types of supermarket peak hours for recent years, you should reconsider allowing o street parkin each has., its own character- such large stores by right in your neighborhood i sties. Each is important for determining park- business zone. ing lot capacity and design for supermarkets. You may need to add physical residential The purpose for week-day peak-hour food compatibility to the purposes section ofyyour shopping trips are for quick in-and--out conven- neighborhood business zone. Many such zones iince food purchases, much like mini-mart or are described only as allowing primarily con- convenience store trips. These peaks occur dai- venience shopping goods and do not describe ly from 4 to 6 pm, often as. a stop-off on the the need for physical design compatibility with evening work-trip home, totalling 12% of the surround residential areas as a zone purpose. day's trips. Parking turnover is high, requiring Limit the gross acreage for new free-stand- many close-by spaces turning over 3-5 times i ng neighborhood business zones to 10-30 acres per hour during the peak. Thus, supermarket per zone, including abutting commercial zones, developers avoid congested locations in large all ROW, public sites and non-business uses shopping centers. They prefer sites located on located in the zone. the right side of arterials outbound from clown- Limit the maximum size of any one use al- town and major employment centers. lowed in the zone by imposing a cap on GFA. The purpose of week-end peak-hour trips are The limit prohibits larger uses as by-right uses, for weekly grocery shopping, with many items with such uses allowable as conditional uses. purchased, with employee-assisted carry-out, The cap ranges from 3500-50,000 sq ft GFA check casting, use of ATMs, and other ser- in zoning codes. We suggest a'eap of 10,000- vices. The week-end peak is 1-5 pm on Satur- 15,000 sq ft GR per use and 30,000-50,000 sq gfiolh, October 21, 1988 Issue • _ .f,. ALE: • .:KWr•,: :.i-'a~+ _ - r.. I Page Five THE ZONING REPORT ft for supermarkets. This cap allows construc- ers, such as dumpsters-and covered with lids tion of larger efficiently sized neighborhood if the container/dumpster is out-of-doors, to supermarkets that can continue to dominate reduce wind-blown litter and odors, and to re- commercially as the traditional anchors for duce hat harbor; neighborhood shopping areas. As anchors with a Retail stores are allowed temporary out- comenienee-goods function, supermarkets firm- side display of seasonal and sale merchandise. ly set the convenience-shopping tone for small- Ttus could be limited to say 5% o GFA on er complementary neighborhood retail uses in the sidewalk area within 10 ft of the front of the shopping area. the store between its side walls near its public Consider creating a new planned neighbor- entrance area and not in parking lot aisles or hood shopping center zone, to accommodate areas; neighborhood businesses whose GFA is larger - The lot containing the supermarket must than the cap imposed on individual uses in tort- abut an arterial street on at least one side. No ventional neighborhood business zones. As a entrances to the supermarket site. are allowed planned zone, the usual stringent design re- onto local residential streets that do not di- strictions and public review required of such rectly intersect with an arterial street. zones would allow very large uses the special compatibility protection offered by the site Public infrastructure to be provided b the plan review and design requirements of planned developeP o the supermarket (exactions), is zones. increasingly required by communities as super Or you might instead consider revising your market stores become larger and generate $ existing planned shopping center zone to alll w greater signs scant public impacts within neigh- small-site neighborhood planned shopping cen- borhoods. Financing of this infrastructure ters. Do this by adding a qualifying set of might be shared with public agenleies. These j neighborhood-sized zoning standards for smaller exactions, their financing arrangements and sites to- your existing regionally-sized general timing of construction are negotiated during zone standards for larger shopping centers. For the site plan review, and are approved by the example, planned neighborhood shopping cen- CPC and elected board as part of the approval ters for tracts smaller than (say) 5 acres must of the site plan. meet neighborhood-sized zone yards, lower The most common off-site exactions are height limits, lower signage requirements, low- these: er impervious surface ratios, provide more open - An additional stri .of public ROW, about space and provide stringent landscape/wall 5-15 ft in width, must be dedicated from the screens abutting residential zones and uses. applicant's site, to widen the ROW of the ar- terial street. Dedication of ROW is also requir- ed if a supermarket site abuts the intersection Site planning zoning standards of two arterials and room is needed for a and exactions or supermarkets right-turn lane from one arterial to the other. Width of additional ROW is also required for Consider these site standards for supermarkets, any geometric taper at major intersections, as especially in neighborhood business zones: specified by the public engineer, along both - They must be contained within a fully en- arterial streets abutting the site; closed building; - Right turn lanes must be built on the ar- - Loading and trash storage areas must be terial street, to accommodate traffic turning contained within a court area fully screened into the supermarket site at main entrances; from residential view by a 100% opaque mason- - Left-turn lanes must be added to arterial ry wall or wood fence of minimum height (5-6 streets crossing a median, to main entrances ( ft); trash must be stored in enclosed contain- onto the supermarket site; October 21, 1988 Issue THE ZONING REPORT Page Six - Barriers are required in medians to prohi- - Temporary window signs that are expected bit left turns to and from the site or certain to appear in supermarket windows are not entrances to maintain safe acceptable through much of a problem for counting total sign area travel on arterials; on the site. Most zoning codes do not count - Traffic control signals must be provided at paper temporary window signs as part of sign a main entrance to the site or at the intersec- area. A corporate lessee who is not the site tion of an abutting street that intersects the developer should be aware of total site sign arterial; and area constraints required by your zoning code, - Increased storm runoff capacity is required if window sign area is counted as part of the by rebuilding or providing off-site conduits, total sign area allowed on the lot. .culverts, catch basins, drainag ditches or Loading and truck maneuvering areas, and swales, or retention areas to accommodate in- trash storage areas are usually inadequately creased storm runoff expected from the large screened from residential areas or whose expanse of hard surfaces that occur on super- screen and security walls or fences are insuffi- markets sites (parking lot, loading area and ciently opaque or of inadequate construction or building roof) that cannot be reduced by on- height; and site retention areas. - Parkin areas are commonly inadequately or insufficiently landscaped, are often poorly Revisions most commonly required to proposed designed for traffic circulation, or propose site plans or supermarkets, by planning agen- improper grades or insufficiently-sized or lo- ties, are these: cated catch basins and conduits for draining - Storm runoff retention areas must be in- sheet storm runoff on the site. crease in capacity to accommodate the calcu- lated increase in storm surcharge runoff ex- pected from the large expanse of hard-surfaced Sample text areas to be built on the site; - Entrance drives must be shifted or realign- We divide the sample text into two parts: (1) ed for optimal ptblic traffic control. Usually purposes of neighborhood zones to reflect con- the developer must reduce the number of en- venience retailing; and (2), zoning development trances to the site at the front of the store. standards for supermarkets. Entrances must be shifted to align with entran- We underline quoted material to highlight and ces or streets intersecting the opposite side of locate key topics within the body of the text. abutting arterials, or roust be shifted or delet- ed to provide an adequate traffic control dis- tance from street intersections with traffic Purposes of neighborhood zones signals; to reflect convenience retailnn - Signs proposed by the developer must be reduced in surface area or shifted away from (Note that the following neighborhood business street ROW and sight distance areas. Two zone district purposes section places a cap on types of signs are usually involved: the store the size of stores at a reasonable break point name wall identification. sign and the front- between a neighborhood and community-serving yard free-standing pole identification sign. The function. By being placed in the zone district message of the pole sign might be revised to purposes section rather than as a regulation in conform to identification requirements of the the zone district, the cap serves as a guide- sign zoning code; the pole sign might need re- line and is not imposed on applicants. The city duction of height and area or must be shifted retains flexibility to allow stores larger than back from the front zone yard or sight-dis- the cap but still yet puts applicants on notice tance areas; of the restrictive intent of the cap.) October 21, 1988 Issue MIN 11 Page Seven THE ZONING REPORT "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. (The following quote provides a small planned Neighborhood business districts provide for shopping center zone. The quote is the pur- small commercial areas that offer retail and poses section or at zone, which provides service businesses to serve the needs of the rather. detailed guidelines limiting the size of surrounding population, front on designated pri- the shopping center and the stores within it to mary or secondary arterial streets and meet a neighborhood-serving function.): the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan "NSC, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER. for neighborhood business districts. It is the DISTRICT REGULATIONS. i ntent of the City that an such di-it- Et en- "A. GENERAL PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: compass no more the 50,000 sq t o GFA in The NSC, Neighborhood Shopping Center Dis- any one neighborhood and that such district trict, is intended for a unified grouping, in one shall contain a minimum number of three uses." or more buildings, of several, typically between (Bellevue WA) 5 and 20, retail and service shops or stores that provide for the regular needs and are for (The following quote places the cap of the size the convenience of the people residing in adja- of free-standing neighborhood zone in the dis- tent iesidentun neighborhoods. GFA in a - trict regulation rather than in the purposes neighborhood center typically ranges from section. Also, note the restriction to neighbor- 30,000 to 100,000 sq ft, and land area consists hood-serving facilities in the zone.) of 2 to 10 acres in size. It is intended that the 11C-1 ZONE: PURPOSES. It is the purpose of neighborhood shopping center be developed as the C-1 zone to provide locations for conven- a unit, with adequate off-street parking for ience shopping facilities in which are found customers and employees, and with appropriate retail commercial uses which have a neighbor- landscaping and screening to insure compatibil- hood orientation and which supply necessities ity with surrounding residential environment. usually requiring frequent purchasing with a This district is located adjacent to several res- minimum of consumer travel. Such facilities idential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersec- should be located so that their frequency and tion of 2 or more arterial or major streets with distributional pattern reflect their neighbor- a service area of up to 1-1/2 miles.. " hood orientation. In addition, such facilities (Beaumont TX) should not be so large or so broad in scope oo F services as to attract substantial amounts o trade from outside the neighborhood ed. note: Zoning development standards this. precludes large-GFA combined supermar- Tor supermarkets kets and drug-variety stores and hypermarkets which otherwise are allowable neighborhood (This quote provides standards that restrict al- uses). It is further the intent of this zone that, lowable uses in neighborhood zones, applicable in order to restrict the size of such facilities, to supermarkets): the convenience commercial zone should not be "Permitted uses are any of the following uses located in close proximity to other commercial provided when: areas; and it shall not be applied to land which "(1) Conducted in an enclosed building. is located within a CBD . . 11(2) Not exceeding a GFA of 10,000 sq ft for "AREA REQUIREMENTS. Land classified in each nonresidential establishment. the C-1 zone shall not exceed 15 acres at one "(3) Serving and intending to serve the family location, including land which is zoned for, or or personal needs of the immediate neighbor- developed with, commercial uses and which is hood. adjacent and contiguous or separated only by a 1(4) Involving only the retail sale of new mer- street or other ROW ...TV chandise and personal services, unless other- (Montgomery Co, Silver Spring MD) wise stated hereunder. October 21, 1988 Issue t .:e HE ZONING REPORT Page Eight AI& "(5) Not noxious or offensive by reason of the intended to be consumed in automobiles on or emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas or other pol- adjacent to the premises and establishments lutants, vibration, noise or other similar providing darning or live entertainment. causes. " "(6) Not of such intensity as to generate vol- "22.~... Package liquor sales shall be permit- umes of vehicular traffic sn :startially detri- ted only in Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control mental to the welfare of the neighborhood.. " establ hments or as authorized by retail off- (Pittsburgh PA) premises wine and beer licenses issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board." "(1) All business establishments shall be retail (Norfolk VA) or service establishments dealing directly with consumers. All goods produced on the premises "Stores chiefly engaged in the sale of groceries shall be sold at retail on the premises where which sell beer only under a package store produced. permit shall not be regarded as package stores "(2) The outdoor storage, display, or serving of or as selling alcoholic liquor for the purpose of goods or materials shall be prohibited irrespec- (regulation for alcoholic liquor licensing within tive of whether or not they are nor sale. this zoning code)" "(3) Warehousing or indoor storage of goods or (Manchester CT materials in quantity greater than normally incidental to the above permitted uses shall * $ be, prohibited. "(4) At least 50% of any required front yard 16shall be landscaped. Along any side or rear lot I N THE NEXT FEW ISSUES line abutting a street, there shall be a continu- ous landscaped area with a minimum width In the' November 18th issue, we suggest new equal to one-half the width of the required i deas for zoning side yards. Our review of zon- yard. Thd landscaped strip need not be pro- ing codes provides an extraordinary number Of. vided at points of approved vehicular access. variations for regulating side yards. This landscaping requirement is necessary to In the December 16th issue, we discuss ex- maintain the transitional character of the area cess BZA variances that reduce off-street that this district is intended to preserve." parkin g. (Southfield MI) For our January issue: how to link our map- ped streets ordinance more a ectively with "Permitted Principal Uses and Structures (in your subdivision and zoning codes. neighborhood business zones : For February: new ideas for creating zoning "1.... use tables. 113. Bakeries, confectioneries, delicatessens and the like, provided that products produced or processed on the premises shall be sold only at retail, and only on the premises. We make every effort to present accurate in- formation and sound opinion in this report. 119. Drugstores. However, we do not guarantee results, accu- "10. Dry goods, notion or variety stores, racy, or assume liability for errors, omissions, ''11. Grocery, fruit or vegetable stores, meat or for information you may act upon.. This pub- markets, but not including the killing of live- lication does not purport to be engaged in the stock or poultry... practice of law or give legal advice, but is the 1120. Restaurants, lunch rooms, cafes, excluding opinion of the editor and publisher solely as a C drive-in establishments where refreshments are professional urban planner. October 21, 1988 Issue March 3, 1992 From: Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Crk Rd Scappoose, OR 97056 To: The Planning Commission City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your time in considering this new C-C zone. In spite of some controversy regarding building size, I feel that the staff has done an excellent job on your behalf in the drafting of the C-C zone. I believe that the discussion of building size last night was a response to the desires of all the participants to find the correct balance for communities in Tigard. I agree with the comments of the commissioners that the C-C zone criteria should not try to design the C-C areas but should be open enough to allow current and future development. The principal concern is to prohibit influx of traffic as would occt:r with a store like Costco. Mr. Woolery stated that Fred Meyer stores would not even consider a site of less than 20 acres. Therefore why not allow the building size to be dictated by criteria on page II-1. 4. Community Commercial of the 2/21/92 Draft; that is, facilities that provide for the local community. A 15,000 square foot stereo appliance store would probably draw business from outside the community, as would a Costco type store. The safety for the community and the city is that each application must be reviewed by the city. If the accepted grocery stores such as Safeway, Thriftway, Albertsons, etc., need up to 50,000 square feet why not allow it? Some areas will need stores of this size because of the zoned density in existence such as multi family designations, and other areas may need smaller stores due to the rural setting, such as the Bull Mountain Area. The approval process can handle these variations within one C-C zone. Thank you for your time and thank you for your service to the city. Respectfully, Scott Russell cc Mr. Jerzy Offer RECWW punn1NC MAR 0 6 1992 2115 5 eSAFE AYINC. March 6, 1992 16300 S.E. EVELYN, P.O. BOX 523 CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 Mr. Don Duncombe RECEIVED PLANNING Albertsons, Inc. 17001 N.E. San Rafael Street MAR 0 9 1992 Portland, Oregon 97230 Scholls Ferry/Murray Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Duncombe: Reference is made to the recent telephone conversation we had regarding information to present to the zoning committee for the City of Tigard. Specifically, you had inquired as to the size of stores Safeway is currently building in this market area. Safeway currently is building stores in the 50,000 square foot range and will be looking at increasing the size in ine near fuiuie. Safeway did construct some smaller stores recently, but those stores were not specifically built at that size, but were built smaller due to the restriction of available land at the particular location on which the store was built. Specifically, we have been increasing the size of our stores to close to 50,000 square feet from as far back as 1986. We opened stores in 1986, 1987, and 1988 at 48,000 square feet which included our store at Lower Boones Ferry and Interstate 5 in Tualatin. Our other recent stores opened were located at 181st and Halsey, 185th and Cornell, West Eugene and Jantzen Beach, all just over 53,000 square feet in size; a store in Hillsboro just over 48,000 square feet; and our most recent opening in Seaside was in excess of 42,000 square feet. The trend in food store size has been increasing over time. In the middle seventies, we were building 35,000 square feet. By the early eighties, we were building 42,000 square feet and now in the early 90's, we are building 53,000 to 60,000 square feet. It appears this trend may be continuing since it is noted that the Waremart stores will be 80,000 square feet both in the Beaverton Mall and in South Salem. It has been our experience that the increase in the size of grocery store buildings does not necessarily relate directly to the expansion of the trade areas served. The additional size has been taken up by special features that require additional floor space in a grocery store. Today, the amount of the individual products that the public expects in a food store has grown to the point that the amount of gondola space and peripheral specialty departments such as delis, bakeries, floral departments, pharmacies, fresh fish, butcher meat, etc. all require additional square footage and therefore, have driven the size of stores up. If small grocery stores were the only consumer choice available, the likely outcome for the trade area population would be C to go outside of the trade area to the larger more discount regional operators due to price differentials, and greater specialty offerings. % Recycled Paper Mr. Don Duncombe March 6, 1992 Page') In summary, a full service grocery store today is in the 45,000 to 65,000 square foot range and still serves basically the same trade area that a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot food store did fifteen ears ago. As stated above, this expansion of square footages is primarily generated by the additional offerings a grocery store is now necessitated to carry by customer demand. We appreciated discussing this issue with you over the telephone and would like to be kept informed as to the position the committee takes on this very important issue of food store size in ihe City of Tigard. Very truly yours, SAFEWAY INC. Wm. H. Jackso Store Development Director WHJ/mas albertsn a , S.E. Milwaukle Expressway at Pheasant Cf. memiog Box 3800 s~y11 d~ ~y s°® Portland, Oregon 97208 C8,~' pa B'id s , Inc. 5031654.9551 PORTLAND DIVISION March 3, 1992 RECEIVED PLANNING Mr. Don Duncombe Albertson MAR 0 9 17001 N.E. San Rafael 1992 Portland, Oregon 97230 RE: City of Tigard Commercial Use and Zoning Issue Dear Don: In response to your research inquiries, I can assure you that retail grocery outlets constructed by my firm exceed 50,000 sq.ft. _ in size within any metro marketing area we serve. Our current average square footage slightly exceeds 53,750 square feet. This size and requirement applies to either our conventional or warehouse concepts. Due to the constant increase of demands and needs by the consumer, a grocery retail outlet cannot meet and satisfy these needs in units less than 50,000 sq.ft. in size. Increased perishable departments, especially produce, frozen foods and deli areas have in turn increased our store size by some 41% during the past 6 years. Likewise, and due primarily to unrealistic landscape demands ` imposed by various governmental agencies, property size requirements have grown in proportion. In order,to facilitate the retail grocery store's needs, a minimum of 5.51 acres is now required or allocated to a freestanding facility. Should someone or group feel that by limiting the size considerably below the beforementioned square footage would alleviate traffic impaction does not fully grasp the needs of todays consumer. In part, this approach is correct. The consumers will leave the area and fill their needs elsewhere due to the lack of selection and convenience. Increased energy consumption along with polution becomes the major by-products of their thinking. Retail grocery stores of 30,000 sq.ft. or less within the Portland Metro area have either become or are becoming obsolete. This size of facility has experienced increased failure or at best has become extremely marginal in operation. Three primary examples of this within the Tigard, Oregon area are the grocery outlets located within the Canterbury, Payless and King City shopping 1 centers. Three additional cast-offs experienced within this trade area were Luther's, Zupon's and Prairie Market. All were 30,000 square feet in size or less. Exceptions will always exist as to the needs of our industry. In outlying and rural areas, we have recently opened 40,900 square foot units. Be advised however, that in the construction of these units we have amply allowed for future expansion. our expansion forecast provides for an increased area of approximately 20.91%. These expansion provisions are projected within the first five to sever, years of operation. We will not enter into a development agreement that does not allow this provision. I can only hope that this letter will assist you and our industry as well in the establishment of development guidelines that will be of mutual benefit to all concerned parties. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. S' cer y, x derso yore Develop ent Mgr. MDA/brh 1 Hill! Ill 11111~lll RECEDED PLANNING THE P ETR I E COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE VtggO1503) 246-7977 Ma19c~h 7, 1992 TO: The City of Tigard Planning Commission P.O. Box 23397 Tigard Oregon 97223 RE: Community Commercial Zoning District Written material for the record (allowed by Commissioners at Monday March 2, 1992 hearing for up to seven days.) Dear Commissioners, Having a Community Commercial zone in Tigard will fill a blank which has always existed in the zoning code. I applaud your action to move forward and fill this void. As we think about our future it is important to be able to fulfill everyday shopping needs close to one's home or residence. Gasoline will go to three or four dollars a gallon, if we don't provide shopping opportunities close by within the community people will just get on the arterials, continue to clog them up, and continue to waste gasoline; for instance a shopping opportunity on Bull Mountain will eliminate many trips people now make down onto Pacific Highway, just as a shopping opportunity in the western portion of Tigard will eliminate many traffic trips people will make onto Scholls Ferry east of 135th. The scale of a development in these or other potential areas within the City will most likely be different in each case and so it is important to have a code which has the flexibility to allow larger in some cases and at the same time allow smaller in other cases. As a commercial real estate broker I see the overloading of our arterial systems as a major threat to our general livability. Providing shopping opportunities within the community will help change this traffic pattern we have seen get out of hand in the Seattle area. A key component of this COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL zone is found in Jerry Offer's (Development Review Planner for City of Tigard) memo to the Planning Commission dated 2-24-92 on page I-2 under INTENT: He states that having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods (please note--more than one neighborhood) is a primary intent making easy access for residents "where they may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos." C 9500 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY + PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 2440123 sun= Page Two Please keep in mind that this COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL zone is intended to serve more than just one small neighborhood and in fact it is intended to serve a community area or "neighborhoods". From my professional experience as a broker I can tell you that the grocery business is made up of three segments: 1. Convenience stores 2. Grocery stores 3. and large warehouse stores such as Costco, and Cub foods This zone was not intended for warehouse stores which draw from a huge market far outside the community. One of the things this zone is intended for is grocery stores. From written testimony you have already received (received.in the planning department on January 31, 1992) from Marcott.'s Thriftway Stores it is clear that "The grocery industry is now building grocery stores which range from 15,000 Sq. Ft. to 50,000 Sq. Ft." Knowing this I feel as a Commission you should allow a grocery store up to 50,000 sq. ft. as an outright use. The staff has proposed 40,000 sq. ft. as an outright use (with up to 60,000 Sq. Ft. under conditional use) and I feel that at an appropriate location if someone wants to propose a 43, 45, or 47 or 50,000 sq. St. store that the staff, planning commission, and city council should not be burdened with the time and expense for a conditional use application for the square footage between 40,000 & 50,000 sq. ft.----This just seems like a huge waste of time and money. To put it in prospective the grocery store at Murryhill (43,500 sq. ft. in size) would be about 50,000 Sq. Ft if it was approx. 32 feet wider which is about 1 & 1/2 times as wide as your normal garage. I urge you to allow a grocery store to be 50,000 sq. St. in size as an outright use. Already in the proposed COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL zone are methods by which you can control where: you have larger grocery stores and where you have smaller stores. You do it by controlling the size (acreage) of any particular site. There are sites within the City where both larger and smaller stores are appropriate. Control the size of the site and you eliminate the possibility of a larger store where there should be a smaller store but at the same time don't restrict the zoning by size or over burden the system with needless "conditional use" which would prevent a larger store where a larger store should be. `s f S Page Three Clearly in this issue of grocery store scale or size comments by part of the grocery industry advocating smaller square footages are simply because they want to eliminate competition. a i Competition keeps us all sharp and competition is what provides + BETTER SERVICE and LOWER PRICES for communities and residents. The last issue I would like to address is the "draw" or the "market" for grocery stores. Warehouse stores definitely draw from a very large area, far greater than the Community area we are dealing with in this zone. Grocery stores up to 50,000 Sq. Ft, are the normal size stores in this day and age. Some are larger, some are smaller. These size stores are all shopped locally, and only locally. The buyer who happens to shop at a community store who lives somewhere else does so because he/she is going by the store on the way to somewhere else or they are visiting someone close by in the community) They are not drawn into the community because of that size of normal grocery store. CIS it was a warehouse size store than of course they would be drawn due to the size) These size stores serve local markets, they do not draw from the outside. The code as proposed allows you to control the scale of a project or site----some will be suited for, smaller, some for larger. I urge you to adopt a Community Commercial zoning district and to have up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. as an allowed grocery store use for the reasons cited above. Sincerely yours, Craig A etrie T cc: Jerry Offer/Development Review Planner City of Tigard r i r ;j 5 j1 f 1 f 7 r IBM mom= arc®t es THRIFTWAY stores HecadcV"ers 14555 S.W. Teal Beaverton, Oregon 97007 (5W) 626-6463 RECEIVED PLANNING March 9, 1992 MAR 0 9 1992 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 S.W. Fall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 Dear Commissioners: What we perceived from the last planning commission meeting of March 2nd 1992 was that you, the Commissioners, were concerned about allowing a 40,000 square foot supermarket in a residential setting. However, you were also concerned about setting size guidelines which would not attract the development of a supermarket. Also, there was concern as to whether a 25,000 sq ft store could effectively anchor a neighborhood shopping center. These points are addressed below. ##1 Will the grocery industry build a 25,000 sq ft store? YES! If you set your guidelines at 25,000 sq ft, our industry will build a store of this size. If you set it at 40,000 sq ft we will build one of that size. Our industry will build a store as large as you will let us. Setting city guidelines,at 25,000 sq ft will also not exclude anyone from developing a supermarket in a community commercial zone. It simply requires everyone to play by the city's rules and not force the cit,y to play by corporate agendas. A corporate agenda is base&on the maximization of profit. Cities are charged with protecting livability of neighborhoods. Attached, please find inforMation supporting the fact that you will find extreme interest and competition for sites with a 25,000 sq ft size limitation. #2. Can a 25,000 sq. ft. store effectively anchor a neighborhood shopping center? YES! This question is answered by looking at the existing shopping centers in our area, Below, we have sited over a dozen examples of successful centers anchored by stores of this size. These centers were build between about 1969 and 1990. That, however, is irrelevant. The customers of these centers do not care when they were built. It is only important to them that these stores provide the services needed by the neighborhood. These centers show that even an older 25,000 sq ft store can effectively anchor a shopping center in today's market. A new 25,000 sq ft store would only add to the viability of such a center. Following are supermarkets in the area that are successfully anchoring shopping centers: No-go Centees Location Anchor Tenant Canyon Lane Center 12,000 sq €t Thriftway Wizers Shopping Center 15,000 sq ft Wizers Store Mt. Park Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Thriftway Lake Grove Shopping Center 22,000 sq ft Lake Grove Market Baseline Shopping Center 24,000 sq ft'Thriftway Aloha Shopping Center 27,000 sq ft Safeway Willamette Shopping Center 18,000 sq ft Thriftway Bel Aire Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Thriftway Cedar Hills Shopping Center 22,000 sq ft Safeway Cedar Mill Shopping Center 2400 sq ft Safeway Raleigh Hills Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Kienows #3. Will Tigard stand alone in the development of a zone which limits the size of neighborhood supermarkets to 25,000 sq ft. NO! The City of Lake Oswego limits the size of grocery stores in their neighborhood commercial zone to 25,000 sq ft. The City of Tualatin limits the size of grocery stores in any commercial zone outside of General: Commercial to 10,000 sq.•ft. They further require a minimum of 25% landscaping. s The City of West Linn does not have a size restriction for any commercial zone. However we were informed by staff that any development which included a grocery store in excess of 25,000 sq ft would most likely not be allowed in any zone outside General Commercial. City of Gresham limits supermarkets in commercial zones other than General Commercial to 35,000 sq ft. They further limit the size of Other Retail/ Drugstores to 10,000 sq ft. The following cities allow conventional supermarkets only in General Commercial zones: The City of Milwaukie The City of Oregon City The City of Forest Grove ' The City of Gladstone The City of Hillsboro The only municipality we could locate that would allow a supermarket in excess of 35,000 sq ft in other than General Commercial zones is the City of Beaverton. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me regarding any of these issues. Sincerely, 1 Matthew Marcott l Sim .UNITED GROCERS Serving the West. March 4, 1992 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter regarding future sites for commercial development in the Tigard area which would include grocery stores. United is definitely interested in building grocery stores in this area. The size of these stores would be 30,000 square feet, which is large enough to include all the necessary amenities to serve the community. United Grocers is prepared to finance and support an individual for these stores when the sites become available and upon completion of the site studies. United Grocers presently serves 376 stores throughout the state of Oregon, Southern Washington, and Northern California and our stores vary in size from 3,000 to 80,000 square feet. We would be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience. Thank you for your onsideration. oine , ones and Chief Executive Officer vrd Headquarters • 6433 SE Lake Road • Portland, Oregon 97222-2198 • P.O. Box 22187 • Portland. Oregon 97222.0187 503-653-6330 • FAX 652.7378 Medford Division • 2195 Sage Road • Medford, Oregon 97501-1357 • P.O. Box 1647 • Medford, Oregon 97501-0249 503.773-7383 • FAX 773-7383 exc. 263 1.800.777.3305 IIIIII111111 IM UNITED GROCERS Sen,ing the-NA/est. January 6, 1992 Mr. Matt Marcott Murrayhill Thriftway 14555 SW Teal Beaverton, OR 97007 Dear Matt; You recently asked if I would give you some thoughts on sip of grocery store facilities. I understand you are going to address a local planning organization regarding this subject. .The size of a store will normally be determined by the area it is intended to serve. Incases where the stores are smaller, the trade area is quite limited, and may only reach into the immediate neighborhood. As you would expect, the larger store will draw many more customers from a greater distance. Most new supermarkets are larger than ever before in order to accommodate greater customer traffic into the expanded department offerings. Stores are now ranging from around 45,000 to over 80,000 square feet. These can draw customers from as far away as 15 miles, but their primary trade area is somewhere between 3 1/2 and 6 miles (keep in mind these are radius distances, so a 3 1/2 mile draw is a seven mile spread) United Grocers has no policy regarding the size of our stores. We will not decline a location merely because the store's size would not meet a minimum standard. In fact, some of our more successful stores are in the 20,000 to 30,000 square foot category. We have reviewed a number of sites both within and outside of the Portland general trade area where we felt a store of 20 or 25,000 feet would be suitable. As you know, we are in serious negotiation for a 15,000 square foot unit in the Hollywood district presently. We have also been looking at a location in the Barnes Road vicinity (for over two years) that would support a 20 to 25,000 square foot store. These are only two of a number we have considered or are considering. 1 In the recent past, we have seen the larger chain stores (Safeway, Albertson's, Fred Meyer, etc.) abandon a smaller location in favor of new, larger stores. We presently distribute to a number of United Grocers members at locations which were once chain stores and are { 9 7 i i a Ife"d p,aIIct, • t,t 11'l I -It 1; u,I • 1'••,tI .1, t 4, •n'17::.:'VN • I'.U. Nix 2:'187 . I`„rtland. (hci;,In 97222.01,87 ;1l r,; t 0 ltt -I AN 652-7379 ` A11-M.,rd I N%i,i.m . `W; ctrl- V-,-1 ".0, -h-t 1.t 1wcl•n1t7;01.11;7 oI'.0. Iks 1647 . K-dGird.Orct;nn 97501-0249 7,'t 7t~t.1 N\771.7181~•Ya.261 1 101 777 1105 ti '1 s 't M. Marcott, Jan 6, 1992 page 2 now being operated by independent grocers such as yourself. They are successful and profitable, and they continue to provide a very necessary service to a neighborhood area. You mentioned a portion of your conversation with the planning group would deal with appropriate sizes for the "neighborhood commercial" zone. If I didn't say it above, I certainly implied it. The larger the store, the more it will draw from outside its immediate k- neighborhood area. That area can be considered to be a radius from the store of approximately 1 1/2 miles. It is difficult to establish a maximum in size, but 20,000 to 25,000 square feet is probably appropriate for a neighborhood commercial zone. If the lower number were used, there should probably be a provision that it might be "variancable" 10 to 15%. As stores reach toward 30,000 square feet, they begin to bring customers in from outside the "neighborhood". There is no question a store exceeding 35,000 square feet is going to be more than a neighborhood grocery store. I could go on, but it would become repetitive. To summarize, a reasonable "limitation for a grocery store in a neighborhood commercial zone is 25,000 square feet. Anything more, with very limited exception, will bring customers from outside the neighborhood's boundaries. We at United Grocers believe these "smaller" stores have a definite place in the industry, and can fit into many well-selected locations. I hope this hasn't been too lengthy. If I can answer any questions please let me know. Sincerely, UNITED GROCERS, INC. Ic CI Roger aver i i ;y UNITED GROCERS Serving tine-West. Matt Marcott March 5, 1992 Murrayhill Thriftway 14555 SW Teal Beaverton, OR 97007 Dear Matt: 1 am writing to expand upon my letter to you of January 6, 1992, regarding store sizes in neighborhood commercial zones. United Grocers is continuously seeking new store locations and would never turn down a site merely because it is limited to 300,00 square feet of floor space. 1m ere has always been and will continue to be bona fide need for stores of this size in smaller communities and neighiborhoods where the. store would be intended to service the immediately surrounding residents. Not long ago, Bob Iamb was told he could not build a store exceeding 25,000 square feet in Mountain Park. True, he would have liked to build larger, but accepted the neighbor- hood zone limitation, building what is today a very successful store. We have looked at a site in the Rose City area of Portland. Our assessment of that location was a 28,000 square foot store would be quite suitable. One of the large chains, however, has come to the property owner with an offer of a 54,000 square foot "Marketplace' grocery, store. Such a store would reach out far beyond the immediate neighborhood. It would also create a great deal. more traffic than the 28,000 square foot store, probably be open 24 hours, and bring shoppers from as faf away as 4 or 5 miles. Turning this around, it is accurate to say that if United Grocers were told we could no longer build stores smaller than 30,000 square feet, our expansion efforts would be severely curtailed. Please feel free to prgvide a copy of this letter to the Tigard City Planning Commission in support of a 30,000 square foot limitation for the neighborhood commercial grocery store. You can further assure them that if properties become available within their city where such a store might be built, United Grocers would have genuine interest in examining any such location. Sincerely, Roger Staver Real Eistate Development Mapapier Ie,ndq viteta • 6411 SF L:, •e R„a( • „ttLwJ, 0TCV.01) 97112-2198 • P.O. !1„x 22187 • Pordand. Oregon 97222.01.47 i01.653.6330 • FAX 692-7178 Atedf,ml Division • 2105 Sogv It,md • I~Ir,lli,n!. C1n ~ m 97501.1357 • PA). 11<,x 1647 • Medford, orerom 97501.0249 501-771.7381 0 FAX 773.7181 ext. 263 1.800.777.1305 i UNITED GROCERS March 5, 1992 , Serving the West. Tigard Planning Commission: 13125 Southwest Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 To Whom It May Concern, arare has been a Great deal of rhetoric by certain parties pertaining to the sa.ze of grocery stores currently being built, both in the Portland metropolitan area, and across the nation. There is a fundamental difference between independent retailers' size requirements and two of the more recognizable grocery chains in Safeway and Albertsons. y The independent grocery store is built to service the needs of a specific community or neighborhood. Albertsons and Safeway have long since abandoned the strategy of developing stores in small towns, preferring larger stores in densely populated areas. Those specific chains have corporate policies which strictly prohibit the construction of stores less than 30,000 square feet, so, naturally their representatives would argue against building any store less then-their smallest "footprint" or standard design. It's interesting to note that another prominent grocery store chain, Food Lion, which opened 103 stokes in 1991 with plans to open an additional 125 units in 1992, constructs three different sizes of buildings, the largest of which barely exceeds 30,000 square feet. Food Lion targets sites that support one of those three "footprints". Their emergence as the fastest growing grocery chain in the country supports our claim that the:medium size store as a viable, primary grocery operation can more effectively cater to the needs of the consumer than a larger, policy driven chain. Sincerely Rick Benzel Store Development Mgr. United Grocers Inc. RB/dg C I Iealpmrtcrs • 6433 SF (nke Road • Portluul, Oregon 97222.2193 • P.O. I3 ox 22187 • Portland, Oregon 97222.0187 501-651.61It' • FAX 652.7378 Ktedfiv(l I..Vizion • 2195 Sage Road • Medford, Oregon 97501.1357 • P.O. N)x 1647'• Medford, Oregon 97501-0249 50i.773-7383 • FAX 773.7383 exc. 263 7 1-800.771.3305 lilMLAULA The Anest USOA M.a&t3 R60 Pnxtm ; March 6, 1992 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, OR Dear Sir/Madam: RE: SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THRIFTWAX STORES, INC. Thriftway commissions site studies of available locations and then makes decisions with the potential store owner on what size store would best fit the marketing area or individual community. Thriftway has built stores ranging in'size from 21,000 to 46,000 square feet. We also, on occasion, encourage operators to build, lets say a 25,000 square foot store that is easily expandable in future to 35,000 square feet. In todays market you can build a full service super market including large produce and meat departments, bakery, service. deli, floral and a full grocery department in a size range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet. i 4 If we can be of further help, please contact our office. Best regards, Jim Robinson, President Thriftway Stores, Inc. JR:cf ~ PO Box 22187. 6433 SE Lake Road • Pardand, OR 97222.5031553-8330 i AT'TACHMEN'T a r; The following organizations would not reject building a store simply because it was limited to 25,000 sq ft. Thriftway Stores consists of 58 independently. owned stores ranging from 11,000 to 46,000 sq ft. with a median size is 24,000 sq ft. Sentry Stores consists of 67 stores _-anging from 9" to 42,000 sq ft with a median size of 22,000 sq. ft. - F=H Fleming Foods represents IGA stores, the largest group of independent stores in the nation. These stores range in size from approximately 8000 to 60,000 sq ft. mmHg Select Stores range in size from 6,000 to 22,000 sq ft. Natures Food Stores range from 9000 to 22,000 sq ft. Other independent stores in the area: Q Stroheckers 28,000 sq ft Wizers 15,000 sq ft Lake Grove Market 22,000 sq ft Also, the fas,ed growing supermarket chain in the country is Food Lion. They have three standard sizes of stores: 21,000 sq ft, 27,000 sq ft and 31,000 sq ft. l i 1 tl: may, i ifs -ok -ig 00,10 is rCe I ° In!Pelliaize s. Net Rise ,or JAMES FAdt.ota4TH QUARTER RESULTS S slim MUSSELS, Belgium (FNS) . Qtr Ell u/ 01 1ZI31M z bv;, ef: tai es $9.58 billion $82t0oin Delhaize here attributed a 14% . Change +16.4% rise in net profits last year to the Net Income' $135.4 million $116.5 million strength of its'Food -Lion and 96 change +14% Super Discount Markets sub- 'At 32.34 eel ian francs to the $1. Net sidiaries in the United • States, income is estimated. RACHEL RIVER according to preliminary results.:. 1 Sales increased 16.4% to $9.58 second half of 1991. However, this r•> ` billion in calendar 1991.' Delhaize was not enough to offset losses in a° Tk'..ti said it will provide detailed profit the first half, the official said. figures later this year. However, Sales rose 9.2% to $253.6 million. the reported percentage increase The return to the black means " • ,~=t would raise group net profit to Delhaize is renewing its expan- i about $135.4 million in 1991. This sion program for Cub Foods, + c.o E na v compares with a profit of $116.5 including another Atlanta store in million on sales of $8.2 billion in the third quarter of 1992. 1990.' Delhaize's Belgium sales rose :ab !op[e. Entertainment Your Food Lion, the group's largest 7.3% to $2.65 billion. However, a unit, had a 15.3% rise in sales to higher wage agreement with the table stories. Family Can Count On. $6.4 billion last year. Food Lion's unions is expected to hold down STORY results are expected to be net profits. The group expects to released early next month. invest $80.37 million in Belgium 1 ]KNIE Food Lion opened 103 stores this year, with plans to open two 01991 Academy Em minmen= Im. dulling 1991, enlarging its chain to more supermarkets. 881 supermarkets in 12 states The group's Portuguese sub- .OMING IN APRIL FROM ' • `a from 778 the previous year. It sidiary, Pingo Doce, had a sales plans to open 125 supermarkets rise of 18.8% to $286.76 million, :~ADEMY ENTERTAINMENT 4 in 1992, a Delhaize official said. with a sharp increase in pretax ='•t Super Discount Markets, profits. Delhaize raised about. which operates eight Cub Foods $123.65 million this month from stores in the Atlanta area, the sale of about 472,000 shares to returned to profitability in the institutional investors. am "t"EN9FIR LS AORUE U.-T CREPAKU"Eueft Ahold's: Sees Overall. EQUALI, Saieskis6'0 Tops Cited ZAANDAM, The Netherlands of Ahold USA, Parsippany, N.J. The acquisition of Tops Mar- Other divisions are BI-LO, ' kets in the United States con- Mauldin, S.C.; Giant Food Stores, tributed heavily to an overall Carlisle, Pa., and First National sales increase at Ahold here the Supermarkets, Maple Heights grd 4 company said in its preliminary Ohio. financial results. Sales in the United States Tops, the Butfalo, N.Y: based totaled $5.6 billion, an increase of operator Ahold acquired last 27% over last year's sales. March, was responsible for 9.8% Of that increase, 21.8% was of Ahold's 18.5% increase in attributed by Ahold to the Tops worldMde sales. Ahold's sales acquisition. `or The - totaled $11.23 billion. Ahold's Netherlands opo a- ADDXTXONAL COMMENTS RECBX V.ED SXNCE APRXL 28TH MEETING 5 f i Cal Uoolery NPO ##7 Chairman 12356 SU 132nd Court Tigard, OR 97223 June B, 1992 City Council City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NEU COMMUNITY COMMERCIRL DISTRICT Council Members, NPO ##7 requests the Council to allow another civic use in the new Community Commercial district. Ue request the Council to include conaunity recreation as a permitted cluic use in the new district. Ue find community recreation is similar to those ci.uic uses which the new district would allow such as: a. libraries <a permitted use); b. civic assemblies (a conditional use); and c. religious assemblies (a conditional use). r This civic use would complement the nixed residential and connercial uses in the new district and sere nearby residential neighborhoods as well. Its omission as an allowed use in the new district appears to be an ouersight. Therefore, we request the Council to include community recreation as a permitted civic use in the new Community Commercial district. Respectfully, Cal Uoolery Copy: Jerry Offer Y f Cal Uoolery NPO #7 Chairman 12356 SlJ 132nd Court Tigard, OR 97223 May 9, 1992 City Council City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NEW COMMUNITY COMMERCIRL DISTRICT Council Members, NPO #S7 endorses the new Community Commercial.district. Our previous j written testimony to the Planning Commission on this new commercial district is our collective view on it and its city-mide application. We submit our previous written testimony on this new district to the Council at the invitation of planning staff. Our previous exhibit on possible shopping center build-outs in this new district warrants mention here. Our exhibit demonstrates the impact of grocery store and general retail store size on the variety of goods and services possible at one location. Ue note that the plan and ordinance language for this new district now excludes the conditional use process to enlarge grocery store size to more than 40,000 sq ft gfa or general retail store size to more than 10,000 sq ft gfa. Respectfully, Cal Uoolery Copy: Jerry Offer Encls: Planning Commission letter Matt Marcott exhibit Shopping Center Build-outs exhibit .r { i t 4 i Cal Uoolery MPG #7 Chairman 123S6 SU 132nd Court Tigard. OR 97223 February 26, 1992 0 Planning Commission City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard. OR 97223 RE- NEW COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Commissioners, NPO 87 endorses the new Community Commercial district. However, we advocate additional 11nits on scale. First, this district should include a lower 30.000 sq ft limit on single grocery store gross floor area. Second. this district should exclude the conditional use process to raise a limit on single store gross floor area. Third. this district should include a limit on total commercial gross floor area (versus civic gfa) equal to 2SX of site gross acres. Ue now agree with Mssrs. Bewersdorff and Offer that this commercial district could be compatible with residential areas at major collector- major collector intersections. Ue now understand that this district would be smaller than 8 acres at zone sites to be compatible with surrounding residential areas. Ue concede that this district could better :serve some residential areas from sites at zone major collector- major collector intersections. Ue sttll argue that this commercial district should include low limits for single grocery store gfa <30.000 sq ft) and single general retail store gfa <10.000 sq ft) to ensure that such stores would be compatible with residential areas. Low limits on gross floor area for single stores would- I 1) Soften storefronts within residential areas; 3) Promote stores that provide convenience shopping for nearby residents <see Matt Marcott exhibit); 3) Limit stores that provide coasparison shopping for general consumers; and 4) Promote a variety of goods and services at one location (see Shopping Center Build-out exhibit). i Page 2 C^ Ue also argue that this district should exclude the conditional use process to raise a limit on single store gross floor area. It is h;~ 3 right of residents to set limits on single store gfa now (versus hearings officers later) to ensure stores would be compatibl their neighborhoods. ' Hnd we still argue that this district should include a limit on total 41 commercial gross floor area to promote scee civic use (branch library) within residential areas. Ue suggest a limit on total commercial gfa equal to typical site coverage of one--story retail build-out. s Respect- ully. k Cal Ucolery l Enclosures Copy. Jerry Offer i t l i i I 1 1 t i Marc®t t s THRIFTWAY storm Headquarters 14555 S.W. Teal Beaverton. Oregon 97007 (503) 626-6483 § REMVEO PLANNING January 28, 1992 JAN 3- Jerry Offer Development Review Planner Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Jerry, ' I realize you and your staff have already developed your final proposal for the new Community Commercial District. However, I would appreciate it if you would consider the following points I have developed on this matter. They may be of some assistance in developing future recommendations regarding the possible application of this new zone. ORIGINAL INTENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL In determining the requirements for a supermarket within the newly proposed Community Commercial District, you should consider the reasoning for including supermarkets as a permitted use within this zone. The current Neighborhood Commercial zoning, which has always allowed for neighborhood oriented grocery stores, is considered outdated as it relates to supermarkets, due to the size limitations imposed. Therefore, in order for the City of Tigard to allow for neighborhood oriented grocery stores, they have 3 options: C 1) increase the size of food stores allowed under Neighborhood Beaverton West Slope Murrayhill Sandy Commercial 2) allow General Commercial zoning in residential areas 3) create a new commercial zone which would allow for today's neighborhood supermarkets. If a new zone is developed, the origin intent of Neighborhood Commercial, as it relates to grocery o should be adopted. 0 When NC was developed it was intended to allow for neighborhood grocery stores ( Ron's Metzger Grocery Store). At that time the grocery industry was building stores ranging in size from approximately 2,500 sq. ft. up to 25,000 sq.ft.,the lower end of the spectrum being allowed in "neighborhood areas". This protected neighborhoods from the development of unnecessarily large commercial operations. Times, however, have changed. The grocery industry is now building stores which range in size from 15,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 ( even larger for warehouse stores). Today,if the City of Tigard desires to have grocery stores built in neighborhood areas, they must allow for larger stores r than are permitted under Neighborhood Commercial. The question is, how large. In determining this, the original intent of protecting the neighborhoods from large commercial developments should not be disregarded. The new Community Commercial should again allow for the lower end of the spectrum of current supermarket sizes as did the original Neighborhood Commercial. This would suggest a store of no larger than 25,000 sq.ft.. If, adopted, this limitation in size would protect our neighborhoods livability for future generations as the limitation in size established in Neighborhood Commercial has in the past. VIABILITY OF A 25,000 s-, ft. SUPERMARKET The new Community Commercial District should allow for a size limitation which would allow a neighborhood grocery store to be a viable ooperation while still protecting Tigard's residential areas. We should define viability as both economically feasible and having the ability to satisfy the needs of today's consumers. The economic feasibility of a 25,000 sq. ft. or smaller store can be demonstrated by the number of those in operation today or in various stages of development. The average Thriftway store is 27,800 sq. _ 44 ft.. The mean size, however, is only 24,150 sq. ft.. We are c in negotiation for sites to construct stores of 13,500 sq. ft Hollywood District 22-24,000 sq. ft. ( SW Miller and Barn 27,000 sq.ft. ( Sellwood We also build very large supermarkets where the location allows ( Bales Milltowner: 44,000 sq. ft., Wilsonville: 46,000 sq. ft. and are currently considering a 46,000 sq. ft. store in the Tualatin area Safeway currently operates many stores between the 22,000 sq. ft. and 30,000 sq. ft. ( Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, 185th & TV HWY, 13th & SW Jefferson, Hall & Pacific HWY plus many others). Sentry Stores Inc. currently operates 67 stores in Oregon. All but 14 of these stores are less than 25,000 sq. ft. in size. They market themselves as being "Just Your Size" and target neighborhood areas. As for a 25,000 sq. ft. stores ability to satisfy the needs of today's consumers, I would again point to the number of these stores in operation today. It would be impossible for this many stores to be f operating and not be satisfying consumers needs. There are approximately 2 supermarkets in Oregon under 25,000 sq. ft. for every one supermarket between 35,000 sq. ft. and 40,000 sq. ft.. I can, as a businessman, appreciate the desire to build larger supermarkets. They pull customers from a much greater distance and can be extremely profitable. Howeverg that does not negate the fact that these super large stores are still best suited for General Commercial Districts where they have operated for years. MSSIIBLE COURSE OF ACTION If there is any question what size supermarket to allow in Community Commercial, I would suggest initially allowing for a 25,000 sq. ft. store. If this limitation does not promote the development of supermarkets in a timeframe which corresponds t i ' i e fi 1 f with the needs of residents ( not simply the needs of certain sectors ? MM- of the grocery industry), then the limitation on square footage could be increased. This will not happen however. Rior to any need arising, you will see intense competition from our industry for with a 25,000 sq. ft. limitation. If, on the other hand, you be ' allowing a commercial development of 40,000 sq. ft. within neighborhood areas and it is determined, as I am sure it will be, that these large stores are still best suited for General Commercial areas, it will be too late to remedy the situation by reducing the allowable square footage. One or more of Tigard's neighborhoods will already have been burdened by unnecessarily large commercial i operations. The development of a Community Commercial District is an extremely important issue which will have a lasting impact on many of Tigard's neighborhoods. The type of approach outlined above will insure the least impact on our neighborhoods livability to accomplish the goals of the Community Commercial -District. OEM Thank you for takin the time to consider these Y $ points. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (503)626-6463. riease :Keep me informed. Ism RIM t Sincerely, { Matt Marcott Bea.'ertonlTi-- R sident •C» t Marcott's Thriftway Stores, Inc. Thriftway Board of Directors 3 PROPOSED COMMUNITY COMMERCIRL DISTRICT POSSIBLE SHOPPING CENTER BUILD-OUTS EIGHT ACRE SCALE ESTABLISHMENTS GFR ACRES TOTAL SQ FT REQ'O EST'S CR> CB> THRIFTURY 25,000 2.30 CENTURY PHARMACY 4,000 0.37 HOMECOURT PIZZA 3,500 0.32 BASKIIN ROBBINS 1,000 0.09 US BANK 3,000 0.50 PERFECT LOOK SALON 2,000 0.18 STATE FARM 1,500 0.14 j 7-11 2,500 0.23 CHEURON 2,500 0.50 ENCHANTED FLORIST 2,300 0.21 ONE HOUR PHOTO 1,000 0.09 SHRRIS 4,600 0.42 ACE HRROUARE 10,000 0.92 MAIL BOX PLUS 1,500 0.14 SPROUSE REITZ 10,000 0.92 RLPIHE DRY CLEANERS 2,500 0.23 ; UIOEOLRHO 5,000 0.46 01,900 6.0z t? ESTABLISHMENTS GFA nCRES TOTAL SQ FT REQ'O EST'S CR> CB> RLBERTSONS 47,500 4.36 PAYLESS 30,000 2.7S CHEURON 2,500 0.50 SHRRIS 4,600 0.42 84,600 8.04 4 CA> In general, retail gross floor area CGFR> is similar to existing build-outs in Tigard and Beaverton. <B> In general, retail GFA requires four times as much land as GFA; and a small driue-through requires about 1t2 acre. HPO 7 EXHIBIT i PROPOSED COMMUNITY COMERCIRL DISTRICT } C POSSIBLE SHOPPING CENTER BUILD-OUTS SIX ACRE SCALE ESTABLISHMENTS GFR ACRES TOTAL s SO FT REW O EST" S (A> (B) THRIFTURY 25,000 2.30 CENTURY PHARMACY 4,000 0.37 ~L )J BASKIN ROBBINS 1.000 0.09 US BANK 3,000 0.50 PERFECT LOOK SALON 2.000 0.18 STATE FARM 1,500 0.14 } CHEURON 2,500 0.50 ENCHANTED FLORIST 2,300 0.21 SHARIS 4,600 0.42 ACE HRROURRE 10,000 0.92 ; ALPINE DRY CLEANERS 2,500 0.23 PARADISE UIOEO 2,100 0.19 60.500 6.05 12 i ESTRBLISHIIE14TS GFA RCRES TOTAL SQ FT REW O EST" S ALBERTSONS 47.500 4.36 ACE HRROUARE 10,000 0.92 CHEURON 2,500 0.50 PARADISE VIDEO 2,100 0.19 62100 S.97 4 <A> In general, retail gross floor area <GFR) is similar to existing build-outs in Tigard and Beaverton. (8) In general, retail GFA requires four tines nuch lend as GFR: and a small drive-through requires about 112 acre. C •NPO 7 EXHIBIT 11 11; ANN Balsam 0 PROPOSED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT POSSIBLE SHOPPING CENTER BUILD-OUTS EIGHT ACRE SCALE ESTABLISHMENTS GFA ACRES TOTAL SO FT RE®'D EST'S <A> <B> SENTRY 25,000 2.30 UALUE-RITE PHARMACY 3,700 0.34 GODFATHERS 5,000 0.% BASKIN ROBBINS 1,000 0.09 FIRST INT BANK 2,900 O.SO SHERR IMAGES SALON 1.000 0.09 STATE FARM 1,500 0.14 GENTRL DENTAL 2,000 0.18 7-11 1 , 500 0.14 CHEURON 2,500 0.50 s ENCHANTED FLORIST 2,300 0.21 ONE HOUR PHOTO 1,000 0.09 SUMMIT RESTAURANT 3,000 0.28 SCOTTY'S PUB 3,000 0.28 ACE HAROURRE 10,000 0.92 MAIL BOX PLUS 1,500 0.14 MAYTAG REPAIR 2,100 0.19 SUB SHOP 2,200 0.20 ELITE TAILORS 1.900 0.17 ALPINE DRY CLEANERS 2,500 0.23 EXPRESS SHOE REPAIR 1,000 0.09 UIDEOLANO 5,0u0 0.45 81,600 6.00 22 ESTABLISHMENTS GFA ACRES TOTAL SO FT REW D EST's <R> <B> ALBERTSONS 47,500 4.36 PAYLESS 30,000 2.75 GODFATHERS 5,000 0.46 CHEURON 2,500 0.50 ? Iffis 85,000 8.08 4 <R> In general, retail gross floor area <GFA> is similar to existing build-outs in Tigard and Beaverton. -MPG 7 EXHIBIT PROPOSED COMMUNITY COMERCIRL DISTRICT POSSIBLE SHOPPING CENTER BUILD-OUTS SIX RCRE SCRLE ESTRBLISHMEHTS GFR RCRES TOTRL SQ FT REQ'D EST'S CR) (8) SENTRY 25,000 2.30 O URLUE-RITE PHRRMRCY 3,700 0.34 BRSKIH ROBBINS 1,000 0.09 FIRST INT BRHK 2,900 0.50 SHERR IMRGES SRLON 1,000 0.09 STRTE FRRH 1,500 0.14 CHEURON 2,500 0.50 ENCHRHTEO FLORIST 2,300 0.21 ONE HOUR PHOTO 1,000 0.09 SUMMIT RESTRURRHT 3,000 O.28 ACE HRROURRE 10,000 0.92 PRPR RLDOS 1,500 0.14 RLPIHE DRY CLERHERS 1,500 0.14 PRRROISE UIDEO 2,100 0.19 59,000 5.92 14 ESTRBLISHMEHTS GFR RCRES TOTRL SO FT REQ90 EST's CR) (B) RLBERTSONS 47,500 4.36 URLUE-RITE PHRRMRCY 3,700 0.34 FIRST INT BRHK 2,900 0.50 CHEUROH 2,500 0.50 RLPIHE DRY CLERHERS 1,500 0.14 PRRROISE VIDEO 2,100 0.19 60,200 6.03 6 (R) In general, retail gross floor area ZGFR) is similar to existing build-outs in Tigard and Beaverton. (B) In general, retail GFR requires four times as much land as GFR; and a small drive-through requires about 1/2 acre. NPO 7 EXHIBIT i F f I THE PETRIE COMPANY } COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7077 June 5, 1992 Mayor Gerald Edwards City Of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard Oregon 97223 RE: Proposed Community Commercial Zone (CC) Dear Mayor Edwards, I represent owners of property in the City of Tigard which is one of the potential CC sites as outlined by the City Planning Staff. It is my understanding that in considering the creation of this zone the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council following the review of all submitted information will then make a decision on this matter. It seems reasonable that the Staff should provide the City Council all information submitted to the Planning Commission outlining the pros and cons so you can make an educated and informed decision. From a meeting I had with Ed Murphy (City Community Development Director) and Jerry Offer (City Planner) on Friday May 22, 1992 and also a meeting I had with Jerry Offer on June 4, 1992 I have concern about what information is being forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission file and also and more important what information is not being forwarded. It was clear i to me from comments made by Ed and Jerry that they were selectively forwarding information they felt relevant and supported their views and also that there was information they were not forwarding. For instance among other things Staff does not intend to forward to the City Council cart- petiLions in the planning commission file MOM with over 500 signatures of residents who support a full size grocery store on one of the potential CC sites. Where Staff may not like the existence of these petitions or may disagree with them the reasonable man would certainly any that since they are part of the Planning Commission file regarding the CC zone that City Council should be aware of them. In the debate over this CC zone the main issue between the interested parties seems to be the question of grocery store size. In spite of the fact that in a letter dated February 24, 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY w PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 1992 Jerry Offer had additional information regarding grocery store sizes, and age, Ed Murphy, with Jerry Offer's assistance, sent a memo to Pat Reilly (City Administrator) dated April 14, 1992 regarding the CC zone attaching a partial list of stores and their sizes and chose to leave that addit-konal information they had received 1 & 1/2 months earlier out of the memo, information which would present a much clearer picture of grocery stores, their sizes and age. They told me it was left out since it didn't necessarily support the Staff's view. I have since requested that they make that information available to council and they have zaid they would. I feel it is important that the Council have the benefit of all the information which has been submitted. For your convenience I have merged the original partial list which Staff has been using (provided by Thriftway/United Grocers) with the information provided by Safeway, Flemming Foods, and Albertsons; this outline gives you a clear and accurate picture of the respective grocery store sizes, and age. In a letter in the file dated January 28, 1992 Thrift.way has stated that the grocery store industry is now building stores which range from 15,000-50,000 Sq. Ft.; In an article published in the Zoning Report four years ago which Staff relies on as reference and authority it suggests grocery stores from 30,000- 50,040 Sq. Ft.; The Planning Commission has suggested a maximum of 40,000 Sq. Ft. in the CC zone. I am requesting that the Council consider and pass a 50,000 Sq. Ft. maximum for grocery.stores as this is consistent with the reference and authority the Staff relies on, is consistent with industry testimony, and frankly is just good planning. To create zoning which eliminates a portion of the grocery industry which the everyday citizen considers the normal full size neighborhood/or community grocery store is short sighted. Please pass the 50,000 Sq. Ft. maximum for grocery stores as part of the CC zone. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, 6~1 Z- -Pct W-, Craig Petrie ,f NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SUPERMARKETS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SIZE AND AGE The following list combines information provided to the Tigard Planning Staff by United Grocers/Thriftway, Safeway, Flemming Foods, and Albertsons. Not This list only Includes neighborhood and community grocery stores and not regional stores such as Fred Meyer, Cub Foods, and Costco which draw shoppers from outside the community and are usually in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. in size. Supermarket Location Size Age Food For Less McLoughlin Blvd, Milwaukie 53,000 1992 Albertsons McKenzie Hwy, Springfield 47,500 1992 Thriftway Wilsonville 47,000 1991 Safeway 181st and Glisan, Portland 53,600 1991 Safeway 185th, Aloha 53,600 1991 C )d For Less Hwy 26, Gresham 50,000 1991 Albertsons Ashland ' 47,000 1991 Albertsons 185th and Walker, Aloha 45,000 1991 Shop N Kart Woodburn 41,000 1991 Shop N Kart Albany 41,000 1991 Shop N Kart Hermiston 41,000 1991 Food For Less Tualatin 55,000 1990 ~afpvvav Wact 11 th Pi iryAnp ~n Ron 1 Clan 5 ~ JUN 4 2 1992 9;; i JOHN W. SHONKWILER, RC. ATTORNEYAT Lf Iv , e" " ' 13.125 S13r 72nd Avcnuc Tigard, Oregon 9722.7 jar: 684.8971 624-0917 E f - ti June 1, 1992 Jerald Edwards, Mayor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 i Re: Proposed Community Commercial ("CC") Plan and Zoning Districts Dear Mayor and City Council Members: On behalf of Albertson's, Inc., I would like to submit the following written testimony into the record for the June 23, 1992, public hearing on the proposed "Community Commercial" zone and text. First, I wish to praise the city staff in presenting this concept to the various interests in the community and trying to reach a common ground for agreement. As a result, it appears that most of the interests (neighborhood organization, city planners, business interest and active citizens) agree on the following: 1. There is a large gap in the zoning ordinance between General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. This gap creates a realistic need for a new zone - "Community Commercial" (CC). 2. The new "CC" zone should be flexible in size and allow for a range of 2 - 8 acre lot sizes. Lot sizes to be determined when lots are zoned based on that trade market (neighborhood) needs. 3. The new "CC" zone should have a trade area of a 1 and mile radius. 4. The new "CC" zone should provide for commercial uses that primarily draw their customers from the trade area of 1 and mile radius. Commercial uses that primarily draw customers C from outside that trade area should be located in General commercial zones. Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 2 5. The new "CC" zone should be flexible in allowing a range of gross leasable area from 30,000 to 100,000 sq.ft. In essence, it appears that the need for the "CC" zone and 95% of the text of the "CC" zone is accepted by the various interest in the city. The principal issue that remains in contention relates to the maximum size that should be allowed for grocery stores ("Food and Beverage Retail Sales " under 18.61.030 (2)(f.)]. We are recommending that the new "CC" zone allow for a range of grocery store sizes so that the grocery store will match the particular size need of the particular trade market (neighborhood area). This range should be a permitted use up to 50,000 sq.ft., or a conditional use to 60,000 sq.ft. United Grocers (Thrift-ay, Century etc), who operate a substantial number of smaller and older stores, recoia,«and a 25;000 sq.ft. maximum. The City Planning Commission and most of the NPO's have accepted a 40,000 sq.ft. maximum The City Staff earlier recommended and many NPO's agreed that a conditional use approach could allow grocery stores to 60,000 sq.ft. (with conditions applied by the City Hearings Officer). Reasons for the City allowing grocery stores a 50,000 sq ft. maximum as a permitted use or, alternatively, allow up to 40,000 sq.ft. as a permitted use and from 40,000 - 60,000 sq ft as a conditional use. A. Flexibility to meet particular neighborhood market needs. The potential neighborhood areas considered for possible future "CC" zoning are significantly different from each other as to their own market needs and area effected. As the staff pointed out, most neighborhoods where the zoning might apply are underdeveloped areas near or outside the city boundaries. These separate areas are also significantly different in their needs. For example, three of these potential neighborhood areas illustrate the difference in use and size requirements. 1. Bull Mountain Area. The Bull Mountain area is underdeveloped and is only planned for generally low to moderate densities. As result, City Planners and the NPO preliminary foresee a need for only a 2 - 4 acre "CC" zone in this area. Limiting the ultimate zoning of the land to a parcel that is less than 5 acres will Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 3 S preclude development of a grocery store of 50,000 sq.ft. (Albertson's gave testimony before the Planning Commission and the Fleming Companies, Inc. letter of March 3, 1992 concurs that less than 5 acres requires a smaller grocery store) Thus, a neighborhood's need for a smaller grocery store (25,000 - 40,000) could be effectively established when the particular parcel is zoned on less than a 5 acre parcel. f 2. Scholls Ferry Area. In contrast, the Scholls Ferry area near the future extension of Murray Blvd. is underdeveloped with substantial new multifamily dwelling densities planned for future. As a conservative estimate, over 6,000 additional people will be added to the 1 mile radius in this area (includes part of Tigard and Beaverton). This area potentially needs a "CC" zone between 5 - 8 acres in size to fulfill the absence of r shopper services in that NW 1/3 of the city. 3. 72nd Avenue and Bonita. This southeastern corner of the intersection is located within or near industrial and professional office zones. The site is less than 3 acres in size. There is little consumer demand in this area for full sized grocery store services. This small, but well located, site would best serve the area with "convenience sales, etc. Due to the surrounding market area and the small acreage, only a very small grocery store (less than 15,000 sq.ft.) would ever be located here. As there are different commercial needs for the different neighborhoods of the city, it is essential to allow sufficient flexibility in the "CC" zoning and plan text to enable the proper size grocery store to go into the particular neighborhood market. This flexibility should be to allow from the smallest to the normal full sized grocery stores being built today. B. Recognize and address realistic shopping patterns. The Zoning Report (October 21, 1988) was submitted by the City Staff as independent authority for what acceptable grocery stores sizes were as of 1988. That report recommended a range of store sizes from 30,000 - 50,000 sq.ft. of floor space. This four year old report still reflects what is being built today - 50,000 sq.ft. C_ stores. The report also illustrates the need for a flexible range of store sizes in the text of any zoning ordinance category (such i!: !B1411 up Osumi Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 4 as "CC") . 1. Grocery Markets Today. The grocery stores being built today generally are between 45,000 and 55,000 sq.ft. in size. See my letter dated February 24, 1992, attached as Exhibit "A". These include Albertson's, Safeway, Fleming Companies outlets and Fred Meyers (just grocery section), etc. Safeway identified in its letter (attached as Exhibit "B" that "the trend in food store size has been increasing over time" and that "Safeway currently is building stores in the 50,000 sq.ft. range." The Safeway letter also notes that although the grocery stores have grown to 50,000 sq.ft. in size since 1986, the trade area served has remained the same size. The store's additional size is due to the same customers wanting more choices in brands and specialty departments (deli's, bakeries, floral, pharmacies, fresh fish, butcher meats, etc.). The letter from Fleming Companies (attached as Exhibit "C") concurs that the new grocery stores being built today are 50,000 sq.ft. in size, but that the trade market for these stores has remained the same. In contrast, the letter identified how in the Tigard area, many of the 30,000 sq.ft. groceries are now financially obsolete: "Retail grocery stores of 30,000 sq.ft. or less within the Portland Metro area have either become or are becoming obsolete. This size of facility has experienced increased failure or at best has become extremely marginal in operation. Three primary examples of this within the Tigard, Oregon area are the grocery outlets located within the Canterbury, Payless and King City shopping centers. Three additional cast-offs experienced within this trade area were Luther's, Zupon's and Prairie Market. All were 30,000 sq.ft. in size or less." The overall grocery market includes other type stores than just to0ay's more common "supermarket." The market also includes "warehouse or box" stores that are generally over 80,000 sq.ft. in size and draw customers from 5 to 10 miles NONE 1 Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 5 away (such as Costco, Food for Less, Cub, etc.). These generally locate in industrial parks or general commercial sites near major highways (like I-5 and I-80). As a result they are not considered needed or appropriate for "CC" zone. The overall market also includes "convenience markets" (small grocery markets and even smaller "7-1111 type stores). However, of all groceries and non-groceries (drugs, floral, pharmacy items, etc.) sold by these types of stores, 54.6% are supermarkets, 11.2% are warehouse or box stores and less than 3% are convenience markets. See attached Exhibit "D", article from "Supermarket Business." 2. Smaller convenience markets - United Grocers Kienows etc. Grocery customer demands have clearly moved away from the old 25,000 - 35,000 sq.ft. grocery markets. However, Kienows, dfti some independent and United Grocers (Thriftway, Sentry, etc.) have remained in the market by either forming cooperatives or marketing specialty and convenience items generally at higher prices. Also, these-are generally the older stores (over 10 years) located in older established neighborhoods. In fact, see Exhibit "A" that identifies almost all stores of less than 40,000 sq.ft. are at least 10 -20 years old. The purposed "CC" zoning should allow for the possibility of these smaller markets, as well as, the standard sized supermarkets. For example, there may be a realistic need for a 30,000 to 40,000 sq.ft. grocery in the Bull Mountain area. Each neighborhood market needs are different and flexibility in the scale of grocery market is essential to address all these different market area needs. From a "realistic" point of view, however, it should be noted that even Thriftway (the principal smaller store chain) has built its newer stores at the larger than 40,000 sq.ft. size (See Exhibit "A" which identifies 3 new Thriftways of 47,000, 47,000 and 43,500 sq.ft.). C. Avoid Anti-competitive zoning. The zoning process in Oregon is suppose to be a method of implementing a plan that directs the City's existing activities and future growth toward a general welfare benefit. Zoning ordinances should not restrict competition in a given commercial zone to give a favored corporation a monopoly over all its competitors. Indeed, Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 6 such zoning has been deemed a violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Community Communications Co. Inc v City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982) [monopoly cable services]; Stauffer v. Town of Grand Lake, 1981-1 Trade Cases (CCH) par. 64, 029 (D.Colo. 1980); Ross v. Bremer, 1982-2 Trade Cases (CCH) par. 64, 747 (W.D. Wash. 1982) ; Hart Production v. Greater Cincinnati Convention & Visitors Bureau, 1990-2 Trade Cases (CCH) par. 69, 233 (S.D. Ohio 1990). Here, the proposed ordinance does not state that only Thriftway, Century or other United Grocery companies can locate in the "CC" zone. A maximum limitation of 40,000 sq.ft. for grocery stores, however, would suggest a possible defacto monopoly. This is because only United Grocers would even consider building a smaller grocery store today. If the maximum store size was reduced to 25,000 sq.ft. as the Untied Grocer's representative suggested, then the defacto monopoly is no longer a "possible", but becomes a "fact." Again, the proper solution is not to make the ordinance inflexible by setting square footages so low that they meet only the smallest neighborhood needs. The best answer is to provide a scale of sizes (0 - 50,000 sq.ft.) in the "CC" text. Then each neighborhood can address its own commercial needs when the zoning category is applied to a parcel in that neighborhood. { D. Traffic. One of the intended purposes of the new "CC" zone is to reduce traffic within the neighborhood market area. Staff planner, Jerry offer, stated in his February 24, 1992, report to the Planning Commission (at page I-2) that the intention of the "CC" zone is to provide commercial opportunities within neighborhoods: "where they may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos." If the new "CC" zone text limits stores to a too small size, the store will not be able to provide for all the common consumer needs. As a result, the consumers will get in their cars and drive out of the neighborhood to a full sized grocery'store to buy the products they need. Traffic is not reduced by under-sizing the grocery store. The letter from the Fleming Company (Exhibit "C") affirms that they have observed this effect of consumers driving away from a too small store to buy at a full sized store located outside the neighborhood. )A J Jill 111 1 Bill, i • 'i • i i i Edwards Letter June 1, 1992 Page 7 y i Another consideration is the actual shopping pattern of grocery buyers. People will make a short buying stop for a few items at convenience stores (such as a 117-1101 type or "boutique" markets). However, most grocery shopping is done once or twice a week where the buyer purchases 3 to 5 bags of groceries. Such large order purchases are not practical for carrying home by walking or riding a bicycle. Further, where the market area has a diameter of 1 to 2 miles, the distance is clearly not practical to walk or bike with such loads. A single auto trip from adequate sized stores in the neighborhood is more beneficial than all customers driving to an undersized store for some products and then driving across town for all the remaining products commonly needed. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST 1. Amend the "CC" zone and plan text to allow Food and Beverage retail sales to a maximum size of 50,000 sq.ft. (presently set at 40,000 sq.ft.) (Amends 18.61.030 and plan 4.a.(2)). 2. Amend the "CC" zone to allow up to 35,000 sq.ft. for general retail (presently 30,000 sq.ft.) (Amends 18.61.040A.3] (See Exhibit "A", February 4, 1992, letter). 3. Amend the "CC" zone to allow grocery stores to operate 24 hour service (as is the current trend and may be accomplished by condition use criteria). 4. Amend the "CC" zone to reduce the proposed 20% landscaping to the general accepted standard of 15% as used by nearly all other cities and counties. yn'er'ely, W. Shonkwiler JWS:jlfr 1 1 i i 1 r t I I• JOHN W. SHONKWILEP., PC A77oRK YAT JAW 4040 Douglas Way P.O. Bar 1568 Lake OswW, Orgon 97035 far 636-6745 624-0917 February 24, 1992 Mr. Jerry Offer Development Review Planner City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 IBM Ile: Community Commercial Plan and Zoning - Typical Sizes of Modern Grocery Stores Dear Jerry: Enclosed is a letter from Don Duncombe of Albertsons Inc. which identifies the sizes of grocery stores being built today. This information identifies that the average size for grocery stores built to serve community needs for today and tomorrow are between 45,000 and 55,000 square feet. In addition, the Marcott?s Thriftway inventory of "area supermarkets" was analyzed for accuracy. The ages of these stores are now identified, and establish that the stores of 40,000 square feet or less in size are generally 10 -20 years old. These stores. are out of date with the present market needs of the community. _ The Marcott's Thriftway list size is also very misleading. The list intentionally left off nearly all of the present day supermarkets that are over 45,000 square feet, including their own f Thriftway stores in Wilsonville and at Cornell Road in Beaverton (see Mr. Duncombe's list). Please include this material in the information package you -are presenting to the Planning Commission. I would also ask that you consider changing your recommendation to the Planning Commission and up grade the maximum grocery store size to 50,000 square feet as a "permitted use." Thank you for your cooperation. S' c rely W . kiv, W. Shonkwiler JWS:jlfr l cc: Don Duncombe ~,l Il EXHIBIT PA., OP AlbertsonsO February 17, 1992 i John Shonkwiler Hennagin & Shonkwiler 4040 Douglas Way P.O.Box 1568 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Road (walnut) Tigard, OR Dear John, As you know I received a list of supermarkets from the City of Tigard that had been presented to them by Marcott's Thriftway Stores. I have review Marcott°s list (of which I have enclosed a copy) and have talked to the grocery store chains in the Portland area, so that I could inform you of the correct information. The information presented by Marcott's Thriftway was grossly distorted and the only new stores mentioned on Marcott°s list was the Albertsons at 185th & Walker Road, which is 45,000 SF, the Safeway in Lake Grove at 47,000 SF and the Food Connections in Tigard and Aloha both at 40,000 SF. The above mentioned stores are three years old or less. All other stores on Marcott's list are over ten years old, most of them over fifteen years old. More accurate information is as followz: - SAFEWAH STORES According to Bill Jackson, of Safeway (my counterpart). 181st & Glisan, Portland Built 1991 53,600 SF Portland Built 1991 53,600 SF West 11th, Eugene Built 1990 53,600 SF Tanasbourne Mall, Aloha Built 1991 53,600 SF Esplanade, Hillsboro Built 1990 48,000 SF FLE MING FOODS According to Max Anderson, (my counterpart), 2/17/92. FOOD FOR LESS McLoughlin Blvd., Milwaukie Built 1992 53,000 SF (near Risley Road) Hwy.#'26, Gresham Built 1991 50,000 SF l~ EXHIBIT PAGE __7.- OF ALBERTSON'S. INC I OREGON DIVISION OFFICE 117001 NORTHEAST SAN RAFAEL STREET I PORTLAND. OREGON 97230 J 503.251.9500 Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin Built 1990 55,000 SF Flemming Foods also constructs a smaller store, called "Shop N' Kart", that they use mly in outlining communities. SHOP NIKART y Lebanon Built 1989 41,000 SF Albany Built 1991 41,000 SF Woodburn Built 1991 41,000 SF Hermiston Built 1991 41,000 SF ALBERTSONS .mtin1n '"--st recent stores.) 185th & Walker, Aloha Built 1991 45,000 SF Mohawk, Springfield Built 1990 45,000 SF McKenzie Hwy., Springfield Built 1992 47,500 SF Ashland St., Ashland Under construction 47,000 SF THRIFTWAY Cornell Road, Beaverton Built 1988 47,000 SF Wilsonville Built 1991 47,000 SF All of the Stores mentioned above are the most recent stores constructed in the Metropolitan Portland Area. As you can see the only stores constructed at 40,000 SF or less are Food Connection (which is a Thriftway operated facility). All other major grocery stores operating in the Metropolitan Portland area are 45,000 SF to 55,000 SF. If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please contact me. Very truly yours, Albertsons, Inc. Don Duncomb9 Real Estate Manager Northwest 's DD/mc Encl. tit n ~ EXHIBIT - PAGE OF AREA SUPERMARKETS THE RESPECTIVE SIZES In order to give you a better understanding of stores and their sizes, this list was obtained from United Grocers database. It is accurate to within 5%. SUPERMARKET LOCATION SIZE FOOD CONNECTION TIGARD 40,000 ~~Yg FOOD CONNBMON ALOHA 40.000 191 ALBERTSONS KING CITY 44.000 ALBERTSONS 185TH & WALKER 45,000 asst SAFEWAY LAKEGROVEffUALATIN 47.000-4--f p SAFEWAY TIGARD 30.000 I~ ~SAFEWAY CEDAR HILLS 22,000 SAFEWAY CEDAR ]MILL 2 5 , 0 0 0 ~ •SAFEWAY I0TH & JEFFERSON 23,000 a 3,0 '1" cow SAFEWAY BARBUR BLVD. 25 , 000' W'w 13 THRIFTWAY 185TH & BASELINE 24000 7- THRIFTWAY ALLEN & IAMBARD 25:000 THRIFTWAY f MT. PARK 26.000 THRIFTWAY WEST SLOPE 11.000" ~ ~ THRIFTWAY 25TH & SW GLISAN 16,000 a- ~r LAKE GROVE MARKET rBOONES FRY & BRYANT 23,000 rVi EXHIBIT PAGE OF MON. I I I'll'~l!l I jm~~[l :1110! Liz! 9*~ It W I Ql^ • g j/ • O • - • d a~ ~ ~~l .pQ" t so Wow \ ~C a o ~ • X61 d n as~we~s°~ ~ RIRIE JOHN ! i! SHONh'td'ILER, P. C. .4 7TOt EYATL4I,. RECEIVED PLANNING 4040 Douglas M 2i P.O. Bar 1566 p Y Lake Os •ego, Orept: 97035 F k B V. r iqq f far.• 6366745 6_4.0917 February 4, 1992 t Mr. Jerry Offer Development Review Planner City of Tigard Y 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 6 P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Community Commercial Plan and zoning Districts 3 S Dear Jerry: After reviewing the proposed language for the Community Commercial District (C-C), I have the following comments: 1. Section 18.61.010 A (Purpose). The proposed size of the C-C zone would be 2 to 8 acres in - size. This was changed from the earlier proposal of 2 to 10 acres in size. I recommend that the size of the zone be returned to a 10 acre maximum. First, the gross floor area in the proposed C-C zone would be 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The proposed Albertsons zone change identifies an 8 acre parcel with a grocery store and drug store totaling only 78,966 square feet. The Albertsons proposal has no extra land unaccounted for in the project. All of the property is taken up with setbacks, landscaping, the required parking and the size of the building. In essence, 8 acres will not support a 100,000 square foot floor area. It is inconsistent to limit the project to 8 acres in size but allow "theoretically" up to a 100,000 square feet of floor space. In addition, the comprehensive plan draft identifies in Section 4b(3) that the site size would be a maximum of 10 acres. This is inconsistent with the proposed zoning ordinance criteria. EXHIBIT PACE OF plgig Offer Letter February 4, 1992 Page 2 2. Section 18.61.020 B (Procedures and Approval Process). As part of the conditional use criteria this section identifies that the applicant must establish "that operating characteristics of the proposed use will not unduly affect adjacent residential uses". The concern here is the phrase "unduly affect". Oregon law requires that conditional use criteria be clear and unambiguous. There are no limitira. character:.sticc to this.phrasa "unduly affect". Any conceivable idea, whether factually. substantiated or not, could be conceived as an adverse affect. The application of additional criteria for approval should be clearly directed toward land use and zoning characteristics in the area. I propose that the above language be deleted and replaced with the following underlined language: "It is incumbent upon the applicant for conditional use approval to demonstrate that the intended use is consistent with the purposes of the Community Commercial Zone and that the proposed use will not alter the r character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the underlying district". 3. Section 18.61.030 A.2. 'Permitted Uses-Commercial Use Types'l. Subsection "f" identifies food and beverage retail sales as having a maximum size of 40,000 square feet. Originally it was proposed to be 50,000 square feet. I advocate that this be returned to 50,000 square feet. First, this category basically refers to grocery stores. It is clear from discussions with the neighborhood associations that they are not concerned about a large grocery store being placed in their neighborhood. They accept that grocery store have grown over the years in size by providing more service within the confines of the building, but that these types of services are still neighborhood oriented and do not.. draw customers from far outside the neighborhood. This is supported by the fact that grocery industry surveys show that very few customers will drive by an adequate sized grocery store to purchase groceries at another one significantly farther away. Secondly, it is also quite clear that grocery stores have continued to grow in size to the current consumer demand of approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet. Limiting the size of a grocery store to the standard size that was EXHIBIT PAGE --q- OF - 41~--- r offer Letter February 4, 1992 Page 3 being proposed five to seven years ago is not a proper solution for a zoning ordinance that is atterrpting to satisfy the city's needs from today forward. Thirdly, the difference between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet on existing grocery stores is a difference that can easily be accommodated by proper design of a building both externally and internally. There are nany examples -f. O__Cer s ores in the metropolitan area that are 40,000 square feet in size and look as large if not larger than other grocery stores that are 50,000 square feet in size. Proper design characteristics can easily alleviate any perceived adverse impacts by this addition. 10,000 square feet. Fourthly, there is little if any impact created by a 50,000 square foot grocery store over a 40,000 square foot grocery store. The market area and customer service is still the same. The only difference is that the grocery store is providing a larger variety of services and a larger variety of brands for the same item to be sold. Finally, it will make no significant difference to a neighborhood whether you have a 50,000 square foot grocery store or a 40,000 square foot grocery store on an eight acre parcel of land. This is particularly true since the zone would allow up to 100,000 square feet of a variety of uses. Given the current need for grocery stores to a be a least 45,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet in space, and the insignificant effect a 50,000 square foot grocery store would have over a 40,000 square foot grocery store to the surrounding neighborhood, I submit that there is no community purpose to require a conditional use approval for the extra 10,000 square feet. It would unnecessarily use up city time and the public hearing process for a chance in use that would produce, at. worst, a minuscule adverse effect on the neighborhood. In addition, virtually every grocery store in the C-C zone would be seeking this conditional use process, therefore, what purpose would it really serve? 4. Section 18.61.030 A.2. a and i. Subsection "e" and "i" establish that financial, insurance and real estate services,-as well as professional and administrative services, may be uses allowed as permitted uses in C-C zone. Elsewhere in the ordinance it would limit these uses to 5,000 square feet. The problem I perceive with this arrangement is that all of the items under subsection "e" and "i" are general office uses. If EXHIBIT PAGE _ OF 1 Offer Letter MWA February 4, 1992 Page 4 someone was to develop a building for general offices in the C-C zone, they would not want to develop a series of 5,000 square foot buildings or permanently walled sections of a building. General offices tend to change tenants and scope of uses constantly. What is normally done in the market place is to provide a given sized general office building and allow the internal partitions to be moved around in accordance to the size needed as tenants change. I suggest that this be revised to combine subsection "ell and "i" together as general offices that specifically identifies these types (financial, insurance, real estates, professional and administrative) and states that "where these uses are combined in one structure, each separate use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in size". I believe this would allow a general office structure with a variable partitioning in size. When a new tenant would come into a structure the city planning-and building department would have an opportunity to review whether the new tenant use exceeded the 5,000 square foot limitation before issuing the permits. 5. Section 18.61.040 A. 3. (conditional Uses-General Retail Sales. This section limits general retail sales to 30,000 square feet in size. There was some concern by neighborhood associations that general retail sales include too many things beyond a drug store use. Apparently they were not that concerned about a drug store activity. They were worried about the broad inclusion of other types of retail that might draw from outside the neighborhood market area. In contrast, the type of drug store associated with Albertsosis = : `Z project needs to be in excess of 30,000 square feet, but less than _ 35,000 square feet in size. I suggest that this figure be changed to 35,000 square feet in size for a maximum of the general retail sales. I do not believe that an additional 5,000 square feet in size will have any material adverse effect on a neighborhood. In.' addition, it must be remembered that the C-C zone was intended to. allow up to the 100,000 square feet of commercial activities. In the alternative, the neighborhood could identify those general retail sales uses that they believe draw from outside the -7: neighborhood, and we could specifically list them as uses that have. a smaller square footage limitation. All other general retail sales (including drug stores such as proposed in the Albertsons project) would be allowed to be up to 35,000 square feet in' size.: C ..Y ' E?CH1 B IT WAGE OF _ r 7 i Offer Letter February 4, 1992 Page 5 6. Section 18.61.040 A.2. (Conditional Use of Grocery Stores Being 40,000 and 60,000 Sctuare Feet in Size). I have advocated above in paragraph 3 that grocery stores be allowed as permitted use up to 50,000 square feet in size under Section 18.61.030 A.2.f. If this is allowed, subsection 2 under the conditional use item can be deleted. 7. Comprehensive Plan Language for Section 4.a.(2) (Gross Leasable Area for Food Sales at 40,000 Square Feet). As has been requested under the zoning ordinance, grocery stores should be allowed up to 50,000 square feet in size as a permitted use. Therefore, this section should be changed back to 50,000 square feet. 8. Comprehensive Plan Language for Section 4.b.(2)(a) (Locational Criteria-Access). This section identifies that the analysis of traffic impacts by proposed Community Commercial usage would be calculated to. ~y include "'traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone". This language could produce physical problems in planning for site. By limiting the analysis to "the most intensives uses allowed" would required analysis as if all the land was undeveloped. In effect, it doesn't allow for a traffic analysis based upon land already built out. That "built out" use may not be the most "intensive" use allowable in the zone. In short, this language could force the city to do "maximum impact" traffic analysis when reality could be substantially different. I suggest that this language be changed to state * * and the traffic generating characteristics of uses in the zone as built or the most intensive uses allowed in the zone on undeveloped property." I hope that this will be of some assistance to you. ' F „ cerely, V n W. Shonkwiler :jlfr cc: Don Duncombe EXHIBIT PAGE OF 5 SAFE L~~IPJc. March 6, 1992 16300 S.E. EvELYN, P.O. BOX 623 CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 Mr. Don Duncombe Albertsons, Inc. 17001 N.E. San Rafael Street Portland, Oregon 97230 Scholls Ferry/Murray Tigard. Or Dear Mr. Duncombe: Reference is made to the recent telephone conversation we had regarding information to present to the zoning committee for the City of Tigard. Specifically, you had inquired as to, the size of stores Safeway is currently building in this market area. Safeway currently is building stores in the 50,000 square foot range and will be looking at increasing the size in the near future. Safeway did construct some smaller stores recently, but those stores were not specifically built at that size, but were built smaller due to the restriction of available land at the particular location on which the store was built. Specifically, we have been increasing the size of our stores to close to 50,000 square feet from as far back as 1986. We opened stores in 1986, 1987, and 1988 at 48,000 square feet which included our store at Lower Boones Ferry and Interstate 5 in Tualatin. Our other recent stores opened were located at 181st and Halsey, 185th and Cornell, West Eugene and Jantzen Beach, all just over 53,000 square feet in size; a store in Hillsboro just over 48,000 square feet; and our most recent opening in Seaside was in excess of 42,000 square feet. The trend in food store size has been increasing over time. In the middle seventies, we were building 35,000 square feet. By the early eighties, we were building 42,000 square feet and now in the early 90's, we are building 53,000 to 60,000 square feet. It appears this trend may be continuing since it is noted that the Waremart stores will be 80,000 square feet both in the Beaverton Mall and in South Salem. It has been our experience that the increase in the size of grocery store buildings does not necessarily relate directly to the expansion of the trade areas served. The additional size has been taken up by special features that require additional floor space in a grocery store. Today, the amount of the individual products that the public expects in a food store has grown to the point that the amount of gondola space and peripheral specialty departments such as delis, bakeries, floral departments, pharmacies, fresh fish, butcher meat, etc. all require additional square footage and therefore, have driven the size of stores up. If small grocery stores were the only consumer choice available, the likely outcome for the trade area population would be to go outside of the trade area to the larger more discount regional operators due to price 't differentials, and greater specialty offerings. EXHIBIT PAGE a na,cloo Paps, s i 5 l . Mr. Don buncombe March 6, 1992 Page 2 log= SOW In summary, a full service grocery store today is in the 45,000 to 65,000 square foot range and still serves basically the same trade area that a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot food store did j fifteen years ago. As stated above, this expansion of square footages is primarily generated by the additional offerings a grocery store is now necessitated to carry by customer demand. We appreciated discussing this issue with you over the telephone and would like to be kept informed as to the position the committee takes on this very important issue of food store size in die City of Tigard. Very truly yours, SAFJEWAY INC. Wm. H. Yackso Store Developm nt Director WID/mas albertsn { S r, 7 r 7 1 1 i tl ~ PAGE 1 1111,1pic ii 111, 1! Ri ,A =92 MON 14 :4B P. 04 ® S.E. Milwaukig Expressway at Phee9ant Cf. IF em Port Inc. Box 3800 o p~nieis. Inc. 503 654 9551 n 97208 C PORYLAND DIVISION March 3, 1992 Mr. Don Duncombe Albertson 17001 N.E. San Rafael Portland, Oregon 97230 RE: City of Tigard Commercial use and zoning issue Dear Don: In response to your research inquiries, I can assure you that retail grocery outlets constructed by my firm exceed 50,000 sq.ft. in size within any metro marketing area we serve. Our current average square footage slightly exceeds 53,750 square feet. This size and requirement applies to either our conventional or warehouse concepts. Due to the constant increase of demands ai~u needs by the _ consumer, a grocery retail outlet cannot meet and satisfy these needs in units less than 50,000 sq.ft. in size. increased perishable departments, especially produce, frozen foods and deli areas have in turn increased our store size by some 41% during the Y past 6 years. Likewise, and due primarily to unrealistic landscape demands imposed by various governmental agencies, property size requirements have grown in proportion. In order to facilitate the retail grocery store's needs, a minimum of 5.51 acres is now required or allocated to a freestanding facility. Should someone or group feel that by limiting the size considerably below the beforementioned square footage would alleviate traffic impaction does not fully grasp the needs of E todays consumer. In part, this approach is correct. The consumers will leave the area and fill their need3 elsewhere due to the lack of selection and convenience. increased energy consumption along with polution becomes the major by-products of their thinking. J O Retail grocery stores of 30,000 sq.ft. or less within the / Portland Metro area have either become or are becoming obsolete. This size of facility has experienced increased failure or at best m W has become extremely marginal in operation. Three primary examples 2 of this within the Tigard, Oregon area are the grocery outlets X < located within the Canterbury, Payless and Ding City shopping t centers. Three additional cast-offs experienced within this trade area were Luther's, Zupon's and Prairie Market. All were 30,000 square feet in size or less. Exceptions will always exist as to the needs of our industry. In outlying and rural areas, we have recently opened 40,900 square foot unite. Be advised however, that in the construction of these units we have amply allowed for future expansion. our expansion forecast provides for an increased area of approximately 20.91%. These expansion provisions are projected within the first five to seven years of operation. ""'a uvi?1 not enter into a development agreement that does not allow this provision. i Can only hope that this letter will assist you and our industry an well in the establishment of development guidelines that will be of mutual benefit to all concerned parties. If 3 can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. S' cer ly, x ~lnderso f store Development Mgr. MDA/brh mom i ExHIBIT PAGE OF `f I VOLUME 47/NUMBER 3 $7.00 MARCH 1992 PER COPY 'p Yli 10 1 P U, f CA ~J'wj) ~ " NDE IS LEUp ^Np PB~dA (v~L+ .°~Sr.~ i./~~[t r r~. .A fOFi ApE ts•pµ6 / •~.r S~ • , \IT•.;T+. t F"fit:. 1 z•a hoe I ~.Y A. . 1. 9th Annual sr Product Preference Study OEZ46 bD oNVIiaod , An exclusive report on share IM M NVS 3N TOOti. 7N1 W 11S399tl of 313 categories by class of trade EO 38HOJN(1103 Nod HS IN OZOIL19£VSHS LO£ 0£Z46 NMId usrooososaososl . g.Xbi1BIT. PAGE +i .'ice ~•-~:"f'/•'~ r t i •i•r.^, ii:,:. a,il:T~':i~S ,:~i%~`':~','n ~.,i,~~•,:Y.:. i ! Talk to retailers across the country, and you will hear real concerns about the TI.J.'s upening down the road, or the The Nielsen Dolokslas - Trodlklg Movement and More In addition to this swrinel-0ased product movement data, role that Wal-Mart will play in their market Nielsen Marketing Research, from its inlernational head the information contained in the following pages was supple- area, or the sales they'll lose to a new quartets in Northbrook, It, supplies a wide range of services mented with consumer purchase behavior data gathered horn ' i Phar-Mor. that help the packaged goods industry screen, plan, test and Scmiu 's National Electronic Household Panel. j But do these other classes of trade really evaluate individual brands and marketing programs. Nielsen This panel includes 15,000 households (which will be cut into supermarket sales? And if so, in Marketing Research provides comprehensive information on expanded to 40,000 during 1992). Panel members use which categories have they done the most sales volume, shares, trends, pricing, promotion, dishibution handheld scanners to record their purchases, the prices they damage? To reveal the actual impact of and inventory levels to the grocery, health and beauty care, paid, and cousol data such as coupon usage. These purchase warehouse clubs, mass merchandisers, drug tobacco, snack foods, and beverage industries. records can then be tied back to the household demographic stores and convenience stores on superman- Since the early 1970s, Nielsen Marketing Research has files on each panel member. The panel is geogiophically and kets, SUPERMARKET HUStNEss presents this been associated with the electronic collection of sales data. demographically constituted to represent the entire U.S. Thor exclusive report of sales distribution by cat- Today, the company offals a full range of scannerfiosed copa- data in the study represents 52 weeks of purchase inloma- egory among the various classes of trade, bilioes, ranging from comprehensive national services to spe- non from bath the irrstara and household scanners, ending II The study uses information developed cific local market measures. Theta are more Ilion a dozen March 1991. by Nielsen Marketing Research, which client service offices located throughout the United States. Nielsen Marketing Resel also offers its clients a wide apportions the total unit sales of 313 prod- array of other exclusive services, including: Nielsen uct categories by giving the share of sales Now The Information Was Compiled Workstation, Nielsen Piocision, Nielsen Soles Advisor, through each type of outlet. The data for Suvitruxnl BustiEss's Ninth Annual Product Nielsen's Retail Information Group with its Spaceman III soh- Looking at 52 weeks of consumer pur- Plefetence Study was compiled by Nielsen Marketing wale and Nielsen's television, newspaper and magazine chases in these categories, it is clear that Research directly from its national SwitACt service. The data hacking services. supermar kets remain the dominant force, is based on Sumuct's national sample of 3,000 scanner for more information on any of these services, contact selling vastly more food than any other equipped stores. These states are pall of mote than 800 Nielsen Marketing Research, Nielsen Plaza, Northbrook, 11 class of trade. Even when all other relevant retail organizations in 50 markets. 60062.6288, at call (708) 498.6300. j classes of trade are combined, they take I I( only a small portion of the share now ! ' - - - - - - enjoyed by supermarkets. dise categories tracked for this study, mass Let's look at the "outside" competition, } However, as one moves into the non- merchandisers are clearly the dominant beginning with mass merchandisers. It I I foods areas, the shift in share totals players, appears that supermarkets have more to becomes pronounced. Actually, it may not be a matter of super- fear from those discounters than from any Supermarkets still sell the majority of market operators having lost sales share to the other class of trade, especially in the house- household supplies, but give up some share drug chains and mass merchandisers in the hold supplies and nonfoods categories. Out i to mass merchandisers in HBA categories, Han and Gm category gro ups. Rather, the super- of the 313 categories in this study, mass they run fairly close to mass merchandis- market may have taken businuss from these merchandisers have at least a 25% share in 1 ers, with drug outlets a close third in many other classes of trade over the past decade, over 80 categories. r product lines and in general merchan- and is now fighting to keep those gains. Continued on page 35 I ) Where Consumers Shop Mow Much They Spend Y I ~ I 100% 98.7% 100% 95.6% $2000 yr 90.8% I $1,836.86 80% ::I i• tC 60% 55.6% tiii, fy r' R 40% 96.6% $755.72 27.9% $SOO $4S2.43 20% at•, ; ' $378.42 - '1; 11 :h p2', y4 J; $166.33 $136.83 $75.15 171 a% GROCIRT CONVINIINU DRUG DISCOUNT MASS wAtINOUSS OTNIR NOW GROCIRY CONVINIINCI DRUG DISCOUNT Al aA1lNODU OINII NOM- CIWN DRUG Mick CSUI 6110=1 Stotts OWN DRUG Luau (lYl WO(Lrfloels Source: Nielson Marketing Research t 26 SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 ..!!pr. '~A.r a} W~ i,~:if~l~~:'•st'~'. ;t:~', :1• .•G 'V G i Stow ®f`t®n They Shop What They Spend Each Time ~o I loo y at sso $40 60 $so s2s.ra 40 522 7s 27 •4 $20 sties $98' - .85 I 24 20 11 $10 12 5636 it a ,y t' Ell a OeaC111 CONY1Ai1NC$ CMAIN u1scou91 8'A$$ wa t"go t 01111 Nml• $g WOCiIr COMYINIINC[ (MAIM DISCOUMi W1si WAlIM0U31 OIMSI Ka*• c4Ua DaUa Yf901 CLUB aeOC1IY $7091 UUG 09110 YI1CM CLUB NOCIY 61011 t Source: Nielsen Marketing Research Continued from page 26 attempt to blur the boundaries But while troublesome in Lifest4age Segments: between the classes of trade the high margin GM and Han even further with their blend- How Often They Shop Grocer Stores categories, these discounters ing of formats. have not yet cut into the food Drug stores still do not take 3 sections of the supermarket. [much of a bite out of the gro- The only food items in which cury business. Although these the discounters have a high outlets do their best business in share are a few categories of 140 a Aso wo rrmslr • An om ®I a an imm 6war a.au RBA, commanding 28% of OTC candy. remedies for example, their t With the recent inroads 1 124 shares trail those of mass mer- into the grocery business ? 180 117 116 114 chandisers and supermarkets in made by both Wal-Mart and ? most HBA categories, especially Kmart, it is certainly worth ; los rs l0a 105 beauty aids. pondering the future role of Drug stores fall far behind mass merchandisers in food i 100 both mass merchandisers and ; sales, as these discounters 91 90 Continued on page 36 i 94 i 88 74 18 77.;;vM.z• :.,.•e+ _.ic:. xrc.•eSi::,i..::~ t 73 - y Young Sinks • sngle-menIel house, ; . 7 1 Eslowshed Faadies households whoa hokh of either o female or mde aged 18.34. 60 chAen are over 12 years oW. ' Young Cea, hs • 2+ member households AUddle Aged singles • Wlgle member houu w th no ch ldren, and either o female head haws with eitim a female or male aged 35.54. aged 18 34with a male head age 18.44, 40 ik;ddla Aged Coulslas -1. member housr of a mole hand aged 18.34 with o female holds with a male at Iatwk hood aged 35.54 Wage 18.44. with no (wen under the age of 18. New Faa(Iks • households with mdy pre' 20 ' Empty masters •2*m ribei households mrh no LIfW01 age Children (wrier 6 years old). ' (Wen, mrd ether a lemok head aged 55. with rormnole heW at with a male head aged 55.. Atalwe Families • households with (a dram, at least I chW between 6 and 12 0 rouNa $ouea ow 11►TUIi 6yugn," DUFAeI A1D,AGI teen moo Older Singles single memhw houuhoNri years old. $nea$ COWS IAaeat #AMU$ IMUS WA% CoURts Aisne UWAH widl either a lemala or male head aged 55.. Source: Nielson Marketing Research SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 35 • t.• ~,e-f,.'.l~hjl4 by r ~ 'IH '1 iti aSfl~ I f i;K•fy ~t WHO 5994t9PS V! HAMS DEMOGRAPHIC ''i.f ^ INFLUENCES ON - - ` CLASP TRADE TOTAL TOTAL OYUO ASS aAKINU OINLI SHOPPED ED 11041S1I01OS TOIAA OLO(L13 C•STOU IOI•GIOC, 6tIAQL OOI ION•GICC D04ws Spw y s6.ppa/00141 $3,368.50 $1,67LS7 51,070.81 SIMS S1,505J0 520111 $160.33 6136.83 5755.72 $37L42 5152.42 U,dNst2,000 /0• Is, H• 363• 13• 11• 10• U• N• 21• 11• s1zoas1p,999 13 IS IS 101 11 91 94 it It N 74 520,000474,999 92 93 93 91 90 11 17 90 91 )6 W $25,000429,999 91 Is 9k 94 101 99 91 102 104 93 97 53D,000539,999 101 107 107 118 101 1D4 99 125 110 103 103 S4O,OOOS49,999 111 111 111 93 111 106 101 126 III 121 l u 550,000.559,999 III IIS ll5 19 120 IIS 112 130 109 174 ITS s 560,000. 121• 111 111 73 132 123 121 124 109 193 1S7 NOUSENOIO SIZE 1 FNnSu u u 63 71 69 16 90 11 62 40 43 7 Yu+Su 96 93 93 16 100 106 107 102 91, 11 109 3 4 Y.mbu III 119 111 112 114 103 99 120 120 133 102 5.1..536 139 IN 141 1(2 121 )03 IDS 11 ITS 174 105 eel IfYAIE NE/D OF NOUSLNOlO U0dw35Ysm 91 100 101 92 11 71 11 103 99 100 11 3S44 Ysm III 120 120 111 117 106 102 123 123 IN )u 654 Ywn )14 111 111 IDS 122 IIS Ilk 112 122 131 119 fA YOat 96 15 96 N 11 lit 121 91 91 11 93 SS-44 Ysm 105 103 104 74 104 122 121 IDS 110 102 101 Issism 11 u u S3 N 110 Its 90 u so N i I DO(OIG 10 Chdim Undo It 90 17 17 W 93 107 104 99 U u 103 Any (w U.da I I 119 124 125 )11 113. 14 12 102 114 131 94 Any QddUsduI lid 124 125 IDS 106 II N 1DO IIS 127 93 A.Y Ildd 5.12 Yws 121 121 111 121 114 90 19 11 129 132 92 byU13-17tows 126 132 131 122 120 105 IW 112 l74 IS) 92 IN Empl.ysd ll+mds hwd of 6whdd) IDS 104 IDS 19 IW 100 9k Ilk 110 111 9] j faT0.0 103 100 101 IS 106 19 93 123 109 177 99 90ttT0w 110 115 116 99 104 102 102 100 110 IDS 13 TO11ulmplay.d 103 IDS IDS 14 101 111 109 94 IDS 11 1S fNBaNphSdNd6adwts 112 113 112 174 110 111 121 71 lit 102 97 IN Kph Sdw( 60d.0ts 110 112 112 101 101 101 102 it 120 101 94 IN Sour cak. 100 100 101 73 100 101 91 114 102 )09 92 ill (060 rxwkw it 94 is 60 It 102 Is IV go its 104 IA(E 11 YNur 101 102 - 102 11 19 99 99 91 100 102 91 mww a. 95 11 LI 112 104 109 109 110 102 is I I I i Ougwiw d NN h"i. 11anwus 103 100 100 11 104 105 101 111 99 135 116 Ou.pw., of NN Nwd, W.,u (wa M 11 19 94 12 91 92 lit 11 99 94 OuaphmafM11wd:Lsa(auu 109 113 112 Ul IDS 90 90 II Its 107 94 NN W 1W I. Wart Fwn 92 92 12 It 92 104 Ito 0 92 61 95 IIFBIAGE SIGWIA)S Yawp SL,06 SI S3 53 N 0 U S9 71 55 S6 19 LM&uY.wgu(044 11 12 11 U 10 74 63 121 72 19 93 11"fa 5ss 104 113 Iii 100 101 19 13 115 104 122 94 uau+1 Fudm 122 121 121 129 114 91 90 92 129 131 IT Wabl,d ed FOmUm 123 124 )25 104 122 109 104 121 130 115 94 MA&A00d S44s 69 63 62 91 76 IS 86 11 68 46 97 ' ldd44d(hddbu C..* 114 106 105 149 124 121 119 130 113 123 144 EmVgRows lu 101 107 77 109 122 131 106 103 99 101 OWa Shia a u U _ 53 N 9S 103 N 62 33 II • WM at •IwppV whw. 6,. -ge dap dwppw, egad, 100. Th. hph., 6. 04a, t. wan 61.1y A,. d-",.phw 9,wp N q ,hap..., wtlw. Sw,c.. N..1•.n A,a, WMi W,.a.n \ Sf 36 SUPERMARKET OUSUVES& MARCH 1992 A. Total Dollars Spent By Type of Market (Grocery and Non-Grocery-Drugs, etc.) Supermarkets 54.6 $ Warehouse Clubs 11.2 $ Other (Mass & Non-Grocery) 31.95% Convenience Markets (35,000 or less) 2.25% B. Total Grocerv Supermarkets 97.8 Is Convenience Markets 2.2 % 14 EXHIBIT _ PAGE OF Continued from page 35 supermarkets when it comes Who are the Most Frequent Shoppers? to ctrl sales. On the food side, druggists are almost non-anti- ~ ~ t •1i ~ ~ ~ tins in most categories. Again, - - candy seems to be the only area in which drug stores have w a significant share of sales ® % OF HOUSEHOLDS r (15% of the total), ; ❑ % Of TOTAL OUTLET SHOPPING ~ In general, drug outlets fare E % Of GROCERY SHOPPING > better with the dry-grocery- nonfoods categories. Their share averages about 5%, and is much higher in such items ;,.t as household tape (21%), L4r insect repellents (15%), pre- moistened cleaning wipes d (16%), ilea/tick products l x (12%), hand soas (15%), and q bath additives (22%), and S $ - N o they sell 8% of ail tobacco ~e x - - products. With the exception of tobacco, most of these other x x x t • o x categories in which drug stares do relatively well are o a e v " fairly small in terms of total 54 , ~ . unit volume. r The warehouse club is the 5 format or class of Lrade un I YOUNG YOUNG NEW MATURE ESTARLLSHED MID-AGE MID-AGE EMPTY OLDER ``tti almost everyone's mind these "s SINUS COUPLES iAW11ES iAMlu[s EAMIaIS SINGLES COUPLES Willis SGlLlE j I days. In reality, the "big" S - i ~ threat is not so big as yet, at least on a WHAT CONSUMERS Bur Mon national level. However, if you operate 0e.1N SUPERMARKETS .../N 11.16E CLUBS across the street from one, you may have a different perspective. Warehouse clubs du nut account for a r 1: " s I significant share of sales in virtually any categories tracked in this study. In only l 1. Bieoklast/Snack/Nunitimcti ks 91% i~ 1. Non•NtohoBrV a 25% t three categories do they account fur 1U% 2. Frozen Vegetables, plain 90% L 2. Turkey, carved 21% f or more of the sales: non-alcoholic wines i 3. Frozen herA Toost/Pancake5/WaHbs 90% t 3. Refrigerated Entrees 10% (25%), canned turkey (21%) and refriger- ( 4. Cream Cheese 89% r i 4. Drink Wfives (add water at milk) 9% ated entrees (10%). In the latter category, j 1 5. frozen Prepared Vegetobes 89% f § 5. Temoto/Vegelowe lLete 8% the clubs are a factor because they sell foodservice packs, not consumer-sized ••1 6. $leadhoducts 89% 6. Tea licidd 8% products. 7. BteokJast Cereals, RTE 88% t 1. Water Co ditioners 8% t In all, there are only 28 categories in 8. Chili, canned 88% 1 8. Wino, domesfic dueler/IoUe 8% 1.' which warehouse clubs have 4% of sales or 9. Yogurt, iehigerated 88% 9. Frozen Poultry, plain/prepared 7% i , more. These are divided between food 10. American/Processed Cheese 88% 1 i 10. Vine, spadLling/clnmpagne 6% 1 . items (mostly drink categories, some frozen j and refrigerated poultry and entrees) and t 11. Frozen Dinners/Entrees 88% 11. Videe, Tapes, blank 6% household supplies, i 12. Frozen Corn an the Cob 88% i 12. Mushiowns, joried/conned 5% Just as there may be a tendency to over- 13. Frozen Potato Products 88%:T 13. Grapefruit Juice, corned 5% estimate the impact of the clubs, there may 14. Frozen Orange Juice Concentrate 88% •1 14. lnsranf Breakfast Drinks 5°% also be an inclination to dismiss theni too 15. Frozen Neakiml Entrees 88%i t'? 15. Automatic Dishwasher Compounds 5% easily, especially in light of the findings of this study. The fact is that the number of j J 16. Whipped Topping 87% 16. Frozen Breaklast Entrees 4% E club outlets is still expanding rapidly, 17. Mayonnoise/Maywunoisestyle Dressing 87% 17. Honey 4% They may become much more of a factor t 18. Pasta, packaged 87% 18. Pasro, jarred/canned 4°% within die next few years, especially in the 19. Spaghetti Sauce 87% 19. Nonstick Cocking Products, Aerosol 4% I markets they have penetrated with multiple 20. Flavored Instant Coffee 87% 20. Hash, tamed 4% 1, units, or even where competing club opera- r ? tors have opened. Also, not all clubs are 21. Margarine 87% 21. Fruirlukes/Drinks 4% a alike. Some are moving more and more 22. Sour Cream 87% 22. Vienna Sausage, wined 4°% ! into packaged groceries and fresh foods. • 23. Nallual (hem 87% 23. GrapefrdrJuice, refrigerated 4% Although convenience stores are like 24. frozen/Rehigemted Dough Products 87% j 24. Fabric Softener 4% gnats buzzing around supermarkets every. 25. Frozen Fish/Seafood 87% 25. Horn, tamed 4% where, they control a relatively insignifi- I 87% 4% cant share of sales in most supermarket cat- 84% egories. T j For instance, the food category groups in which convenience stores do best are &spraw is the cowgwies eat have do h Mu percen oge of cote nvouph each elan of trade. _ Continual on page 64 Source: Nielsen Marketing Research 36 SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 RA0 K11111dO OF OUTLET SWUM OF SALLMS FOR 35 MAJOR CSC ODUCIr CLASS115 4 rspma►m rsvahw obr pgSe,u aror.a. svp.m+►r svraw 6y m, I frozen foods log 88% 1% 0% 1% Breakfast foods 86% I% ON 2% Dairy 85% I% 0% 1% i Baby focds 64% 0% 0% 1% Oils/Dressing/Coadiments r 84% 2% 1% 2% Packaged Specialty foods ' 84% 2% 1% 2% Refrigeraled Meals 84% 2% 0% 1% Sauces 0 84% 2% 1% 2% Family Beverages 82% 2% 1% 3% Canned fruits/luices/yegaiables 82% 3% 1% 3% Desserls/Bakingingredienls 82% 1% 1% 2% Pei Products 81% 1% 1% 2% f Spices/Exlmcts/Misc. Grocery 76% 2% 3% 6% { 1 Baked Goods 75% 1% 1% l% 1 Laundry Supplies 73% 2% 3% 12% i Paper/PlaslicPraduccs 73% I% 4% 12% i I Snacks 71% 2% 4% 8% Soh Drinks 70% 2% 4% 4% Household (leaners 67% 1% 5% 11% Soaps, Non-Laundry 64% 2% 11% 14% wme ® 49% 6% 7% 3% 7i Beer A 48% 1% 6% 2% $ Tobacco 46% 2% B% 7% HBA 48% 1% 18% 27% Oral HBA 48% 2% 19% 25% f Household Supplies 46% 2% 9% 28% Candy 45% 3% 15% 21% OTC Remedies 42% 1% 28% 23% r I} Shaving Needs 41% 1% 22% 29% r F Baby/Children's HBA 39% 0% 17% 34% 4 PhiAid/SkinCare 6. 38% 2% 25% 28% Hair Care N 37% 1% 22% 34% Misc. General Merchandise 29% 1% 17% 39% Cosmetics 23% 0% 34% 34X Auto Supplies his" 15% 2% 3X 51% 5-.: Melwn hbheung 40 SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 a I I I ' Seri ~ ~ "G' `'•:r. ~ t~;,: ~t 't: . rat:" i NOW TO 619AD THE TABLES And What They Meg n (To You) GtWYf rd,.'r.,a.r rrr .sr r.. rr. w..v I •r... rs.e► +w.rr -.r 'V There's been no shortage of concern, (ant(P r.w~r.rba I versy and confusion of late over the current and Ic pnlrbJ V rr.r ,.s,•s.m,,, I,flse m a „ >x in ra „ potential effects of other retail segments an the - - r rw.e.rabw supermarket sales base. And while that impact sac a 13 IS3 vs a 3J+JOd erw~w.1 Il e .,...ra~luw+rb obviously varies in accordance with who and 4Z ¢ u lu M u where you are, there (an be dangers in either wbw momimill sla a3 n n a m I13 a underestimating or exaggerating the situation. SEE= ssta u3 a It a In 713 a Using the Nielson Marketing Information ms.v..~ n a 1% 83 ,I3 a sus 4% research presented exclusively in this Ninth ► s~arr t~ au m Is Is n sac as a Annual Summit BUSINESS Product Preference canWATtouu _ wv aw .x m 6% Isr 21% s« Study, you con focus mote closely on just who yaw competition really is. it What you already knew was that for the most part, other supermarkets remain your toughest A laid of 313 categories of products typically found in supermarkets were tracked for this competitors, particularly in the mainstream food study. Purchases of individual brands cqd products, reported by store and home scanners, were and related items. But you might not hove known combined to create cohesive categories. Many of the categories contain singular product types, exactly how much of a slice of your potential such as 'chewing gum; while others are a more complex assonmartt of products, such as business is taking place in outlets other than your 'miscellaneous juices and drinks.' supermarket rivals. If a new Kmart is set to open o mile from Watch out for the brightly colored flags that highlight some of the cotegotiesl We used them to your store, an understanding of the specific cote- alert you to larger-thameroge soles shares held by either warehouse dubs or moss metmao- gorses likely to be impacted by the event can dcsers. A red flog lo, indicates that 4% or more of the sales go through warehouse dubs o steer you away from on unproductive responsive blue flog k* means that at least 25% of the category's sales move through mass merdwndisers. strategy, and to a mote appropriate and realistic approach. Specifically, should you run special pro. ® motions on those items that mass merchandisers The horizontal bar charts graphically depict the way supermarket soles of each category stack emphasize to keep the new unit from getting a up to the most competitive other format in the category, and then moving to the tight, how foothold, or do you de-emphasize those products the cumulative share of both outlets compares to all the classes of trade. In the case of food and play to your own strengths? and dry grocery nonfood categories, supermarket sales shares are shown against those of warehouse dubs; for HBA and general merchandise categories, supermarket and moss met- Beyond the 'defensive' benefits to be chandiser soles shares are charted. derived from this in-depth picture of sales dstribP lion, another look at your own volume share by category may help you to identify untapped sales The 'Ali Outlet Unit Volume' column shows how much product in each category was sold by improvement opportunities that have been all outlets between March 1990 and March 1991 in unit terms. This serves as a frame of ref- neglected. j erence for interpreting all the other information in the study, because share of saes percent- ages for any outlet type can be converted back to actual unit volume in just o glance back at And if you thought you knew it all when it this column. Remember that all figures listed under this column are in millions, and that it is comes to "who sells what the best,' consider this necessary to drop the decimal point and odd 00,000 to the lost digit to arrive at the actual ornoy of sales facts: unit volume. ■ Mass merchandisers sell more units in more beauty care categories than drug stores. The seven columns under the heading 'Percent of Sales by Gass of Trade' represent the heart of the study. for the first time, volume for all outlets is broken out into its component n Mote wine is sold in supermarkets than parts. The share of sales for each of seven classes of trade is given. five are singled out and through liquor stores. given individual columns. The remaining two lasses represent miscellaneous formats. a The warehouse club is the king of canned turkey. 'Other food Stores' includes superettes and small grocery stores (other than convenience stores), as well as any specialty food stores. 'Other Nonfood Stores' includes such outlets as © Granola bars ate the supermarket's single l hardware/home centers, cosmetic and beauty aids do lots, tobacco shops, etc. highest shore item of all. ■ Druggists have the highest sales of both contraceptives and home pregnancy tests. I a Beer and tobacco products are the only cola- 9 oiies in which convenience stores have a f6 atively significant share of sales. I ~ 42 SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 I I R r 1 1 is 1111111111 1111 1 pay ar-®4C6ERY Fill 1 1( n r BABY FOODS The baby food business in Mall uses a Lyawalm awadaaao6r etOdr OAb Ya,ilaa 1P'l'r' (enmgote IYaadaee IMw ay A. One eon other than wparmarlen remains nits M-L-6aa11 as$a.1 Ear Wb raw sle Ssan Yad (dSkan inlanq,rahwpbshaldmpangl% shwa of Ian referrer in tbl cattpay. Baby food 1,705.2 84% ON O% fix 0% 1 % 2% Otba loud Stan combine la Ib tear - lapaci shag, 11%. , SolCereal&Sho s 190.2 84% ON O% 13% 0% 1% 2% 1 'Pill e- Roby7uices 253.1 86% 1% O% 9% 1% IX 2% CATEOORYTOTAL 'tip I' 2,148.5 84% 0% 0% 11% 0% 1% 2% I c flAICE® GOODS Pit packaged baked goods, as anh ■L;rmLe ■YraabweOrb yadlagdan AOrd MUm LgaaaSm (ananare walAan mew pp c"' aelea mostdalldorperrshoblehems,ore VI.Idasl IS ZiTI Swe Gab leads" Lae Ywas led Las sold prunarGy through suprmakkels US%). This is especially the case for Stead 6,750.3 78% 2% I% 12% 0% A. 4% curb Lick as bead and uoden I71% cood Gumbs/Coatittg Ili Ste mixes ad 158.4 86% O% 1% 10% O% 2% 1% (aokineaaua101$helcrl$$) chunk of the category ohm bead. Cookies RlE Sales of Ili dessart•rype baked 2,496.0 73% 2% 1% 10% 3% 8% 3% gam, swk as cokes and pin and taut rolls/posli ore more spl* Gaskets 1,976.0 78% 0% 3% 9% 2% 5% 2% tern. Although the malocily of sweet _ goods is still sold Ibrough wperma• WtNrts 419.8 17% I% 2% 10% IX SA' 4% I@tharouils:Bfouralererf pia ull Cokes &Pies eda:miPa~~~ 1,376.3 60% 4% 2% 13% I% 14% 1% Sluffingklhces/Producls 199.8 86% O% 1% 9% O% 2% 1% Ssra1 RoOs/Pmslries, ATE T 799.7 63% 5% 2% 13% 1% 10% 7% CATEGORY TOTAL 14,1764 75% 2% 1% 11% 1% 7% 4% i Pr =A BREAKFAST • ~l' (old venal in by for the most popular FOODS lLeaaa4a ■Waataa" ed OSa D" AloAlone sy,•,,aas«+ (a.,-' IYarwle a., oq tN„ tn,,u N. way to sell the day. And the moil Ydaa ltslael ISTer6oe.1 Swa GA fad Lora W. Ili (ad Lan papule plan to buy cold talent and breakfast foods IQ gearalaewpm i Breakfast Cereals, COW e A 2,860.8 88% O% 1% 9% O% 1% 1% markelsl1116%1. The b usl lost category consists of lop allln is wpraa kiss and a 9reakfast Cereals, Not 362.1 85% O% I% 10% 1% 2% 2% Is' raebom clubs. In foci, the shoe of Breakfrtst/Snatk/ beoklnt and nuunaad bore sold o RuUiliaalBars 15.6 91% 0% O% 1% O% 0% I% wprmadhestsh Itofmy is Tower Produtls wprs' bpnt shoe of any podu0 277.9 82% 1% 2% 8% 1% 4% 1% reW in The star. Wathouse dubs now sag 5% of all instant breakfast dints, 9 TobsSpup/kblosses 301.5 86% O% 1% 9% ON I% I% oad 4%of aBboay. Poncake/Wallla6lix 137.7 85% 0% 1% 10% 1% 2% 2% ~ • Honey 62.4 82% I% 4% 9% 1% 1% 2% ltutts/demas 400.6 81% 0% 3% 10% 2% 4% 1% Peanut Butler 427.2 84% 0% 3% 9% 1% 2% 1% Imlam BreakloslDrki 23.7 76% ON S% 15% 1% 2% 1% CATEOORY TOTAL • 4,869.6 86% 0% 1% 9% 0% 2% 1% Souris: Nielsen Mo.kmin0 Research DaY GROCERY/ FOOD Cal(ddaleei8 an tseus! p®8e SUPERMARKET BUSINESS: MARCH 1992 40 g Portland Metro Area Supermarkets Study Conducted by Wflianiette Research 1991 Size of Grocery Stores In Portand Metro Area S q. Ft. Independents Alber•tsons Safeway (x000) 15-25 25 1 9 26-30 7 3 6 31-35 1 5 7 36-40 7 2 3 41-50 5 8 4 51-60 3 (Food For Less) 0 4 60+ 2* (Cub) 0 0 Totals ISO 119 33 --A Independents Albertsons Safeway Total number of stores 50 19 33 % of stores 25,000 sq. ft & under 50% 50,10 27% % of stores 30,000 sq. ft. & under 64% 21% 46% % of stores 36,0W - 50,000 a ft. 24% 53% 21% Unit Share 4 of all stores in Portland Metro area 18,000 - 50,000 sq. ft.) Independents 40.3' ' Safeway 26.6% t Albertson 15.3% Others 17.7% r z i • t 4 t D O t' 1 i THRIFTWAY Stores Headquarters 14555 S.W. Teal Beaverton, Oregon 97007 (503) 626-6463 l June 23, 1992 Dear City Council Members, NEE= filmm afffim There has been a great deal of rhetoric by representatives in the Portland grocery industry, including myself, as to the appropriate size of limitation for a food store in the new Community Commercial Zone. This, conflicting rhetoric is difficult at best to sort through. I will do my best not to unduly burden you with further rhetoric tonight. What I would like to leave you with are some facts which will shed some light on the subject. I will let you draw your own conclusion from these facts. Columbia Research conducted a study in 1991 on Portland metro area supermarkets. The study was very detailed and included a tremendous amount of information. However, this is what they found about conventional supermarkets from 18,000 sq.ft.and up. (As a size reference, King City Kienows is about 18,000 sq.ft.) The following information excludes regional food markets such as Costco, Fred Meyer, Cub and Food for Less, which typically draw consumers from 10 mile radius, and would not be appropriate for neighborhood settings. Here are some facts from the study: * Of the 97 conventional stores in the study, 78% of were less than 40,000 sq. ft. * 58% of Albertson stores were less than 40,000 sq ft. * 90% of all independent stores were less than 40,000 sq.ft. (Thriftway, Sentry, Kienows Howards, etc.) * 76% of Safeway stores were less than 40,000 sq.ft. (Safeway acknowledges this in a letter dated March 6th and submitted to the planning Commission on March 9. They stated "Safeway did construct some smaller stores recently but those stores were not specifically built at that size but were built L smaller due to the restriction of available land at a particular location on which the store was built." In other words, where they could not build larger I stores they did nor abandon the market area. They built smaller stores of the size we are advocating and which make up the majority of their company.) C * 53% of all stores were 30,000 sq.ft. or less. i * Only 5 of the 97 stores were 50,000 sq.ft. or larger (this was the maximum size that Albertsons originally recommended for neighborhood stores.) i To say that stores smaller than 40,000 sq.ft, do not satisfy consumer needs or are financially obsolete is to say that almost 80% of all conventional supermarkets in the Portland metro area do not satisfy the needs of today's consumes or are financially t' obsolete. That is simply not correct. Given these facts, 1 would recommend amending the proposed locatio nal criteria to set a maximum of 30,000 sq.ft. for food store use. This would give you a niegborhood supermarket capable of meeting the needs of area residents while limiting its impact on the surrounding nieghborhoods. Thank you for your time and support. Sincerely, Matt Marcott Thriftway i a Y 3 L I ME --OEM 'arca t- es THRIFTWAY stores Headquarters 14555 S.W. Tool Beaverton, Oregon 97007 (503) 626-6463 March 9, 1992 Tigard Planning Commission 13125 S .W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 Dear Commissioners: What we perceived from the last planning commission meeting of March 2nd 1992 was that you, the Commissioners, were concerned about allowing a 40,000 square foot supermarket in a residential setting. However, you were also concerned about setting size guidelines which would not attract the development of a supermarket. Also, there was concern as to whether a 25,000 sq ft store could effectively anchor a neighborhood shopping center. These points are addressed below. f#1 Will the grocery industry build a 25,000 sq ft store? YES! If you set your guidelines at 25,000 sq ft, our industry will build a store of this size. If you set it at 40,000 sq ft we will build one of that size. Our industry will build a store as large as you will let us. Setting city guidelines at 25,000 sq ft will also not exclude anyone from developing a supermarket in a community commercial zone. It simply requires everyone to play by the city's rules and not force the city to play by corporate agendas. A corporate agenda is based on the maximization of profit. Cities are charged with protecting livability of neighborhoods. Attached, please find information supporting the fact that you will find extreme interest and competition for sites with a 25,000 sq ft size limitation. #2. Can a 25,000 sq. ft. store effectively anchor a neighborhood shopping center? YES! This question is answered by looking at the existing shopping centers in our area. Below, we have sited over a dozen examples of successful centers anchored by stores of this size. These centers were build between about 1969 and 1990. That, however, is irrelevant. The customers of these centers do not care when they were built. It is only important to them that these stores provide the services needed by the neighborhood. These centers show that even an older 25,000 sq ft store can effectively anchor a shopping center in today's market. A new 25,000 sq ft store would only add to the viability of such a center. Following are supermarkets in the area that are successfully anchoring shopping centers: ATTACHMENT C The following organizations have demonstrated they would not reject building a store simply because it was limited to 25,000 sq ft. • Safeway Stores just completed the constrution of a 25,000 sq. ft. store in a Seattle neighborhood. The division manager that approved the construction has recently been appointed to the Portland Division. In addition, 27% of their stores are ccur ently 25,000 sq. feet and under. In a letter submitted to the Planning Commission, Safeway states they have constructed stores of this general size recently, but only in areas which they could not build larger ones. • Thriftway Stores consists of 58 independently owned stores ranging from 11,000 to 46,000 sq ft. with a median size is 24,000 sq ft. • Sentry Stores consists of 6% stores ranging from 9000 to 42,000 sq ft with a median size of 22,000 sq. ft. • Fleming Foods represents IGA stores, the largest group of independent stores in the nation. These stores range in size from approximately 8000 to 60,000 sq ft. • Select Stores range in size from 6,000 to 22,000 sq ft. • Natures Food Stores range from 9000 to 22,000 sq ft. • Other independent stores in the area: Stroheckers 28,000 sq ft ' Wizers 15,000 sq ft Lake Grove Market 22,000 sq ft • Also, the fasted growing supermarket chain in the country is food Lion. They have three standard sizes of stores: 21,000 sq ft, 27,000 sq ft and 31,000 sq ft. a Center's Location Anchor Tenant Canyon Lane Center 12,000 sq ft Thriftway C Wizers Shopping Center 15,000 sq ft Wizers Store Mt. Park Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Thriftway Lake Grove Shopping Center 22,000 sq ft hake Grove Market Baseline Shopping Center 24,000 sq ft Thri€tway Aloha Shopping Center 27,000 sq ft Safeway Willamette Shopping Center 18,000 sq ft Thriftway Be] Aire Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Thrifttay Cedar Hills Shopping Center 22,000 sq €t Safeway Cedar Mill Shopping Center 24,000 sq ft Safeway Raleigh Hills Shopping Center 25,000 sq ft Kienows #3. Will Tigard stand alone in the development of a zone which limits the size of neighborhood supermarkets to 25,000 sq ft. 10101 The City of Lake Oswego limits the size of grocery stores in their neighborhood commercial zone to 25,000 sq ft. The City of Tualatin limits the size of grocery stores in any commercial zone outside of General Commercial to 10,000 sq. ft. They further require a minimum of 25% landscaping. The City of West Linn does not have a size restriction for any commercial zone. However we were informed by staff that any development which included a grocery store in excess of 25,000 sq ! €t would most likely not be allowed in any zone outside General Commercial. City of Gresham limits supermarkets in commercial zones other than General Commercial to 35,000 sq ft. They further limit the size of Other Retail /Drugstores to 10,000 sq ft. The following cities allow conventional supermarkets only in General Commercial zones: The City of Milwaukie The City of Oregon City The City of Forest Grove The City of Gladstone The City of Hillsboro The only municipality we could locate that would allow a supermarket in excess of 35,000 sq ft in other than General Commercial zones is the City of Beaverton. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me regarding any of these issues. Sincerely, C Matthew Marcott 0 IN IN MIN THE PETRIE COMPANY r. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 t a3 ~~z June 23, 1992 TO: Tigard City Council RE: Proposed Community Commercial Zone (CC) Dear City Council Members, My name is Craig Petrie, I am a commercial real estate broker in the greater Portland metropolitian area and my address is 9600 SW Capitol Hwy. Portland Oregon 97219. I have clients who own commercial property in the city of Tigard which is one of the potential CC sit-ea as outlined by the staff. In my opinion the proposed Community Commercial Zone is a good idea and will fill a gap which currently exists in the zoning code. The City Staff has done an incredible amount of work in analyzing and preparing this proposed code. When considering this code I feel it is important to ask where will it be applied (what area of town) and ask if the code proposed is reasonable given what is currently happening in that area of town as well as what is going to occur with existing land use and zoning all ready in place. The area of town I am going to discuss is western Tigard along the Scholls Ferry Roads. With existing zoning as highlighted in yellow of the map I am turning in there is an 4Eillowable density of 8,156 dwelling units and at 2.67 people per dwelling that translates to a population of 21,776. Last week a 443 lot subdivision (Bull Mountain Meadows) was approved on a site on the south side of Scholls Ferry Road. The density of this project was 47% of existing zoning and for looking at the area highlighted I calculated 40% of allowable density which would give you 3262 units, and a population of 8,710. One of the main areas considered when conceiving and drafting the CC zone was western Tigard and when you look at the existing zoning of serviced property inside the urban growth boundary highlighted on my map and realize that at a bare minimum there will be almost 9,000 people here it clearly identifies the need for the CC zone. If the people who are moving into this area don't have a place to do their shopping at a nearby local neighborhood/community supermarket they will just further contribute to the increasing traffic problem we are experiencing in the greater Portland area. In my mind one of the key items to livability is the ability to get around on our streets. 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY * PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 Anything we can do to lessen peoples trips across town will help ease the building traffic problem. One of the key methods of achieving that is to have shopping close by so people don't have to travel far. This helps ease traffic, saves gasoline, and lessens pollution. I am asking that you approve the proposed CC zone with a modification allowing grocery stores up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. in size, and allowing retail sales up to 30,000 Sq. Ft.. The Staff has indicated that a 40,000 Sq. Ft. cap is a size that "will not draw customers from a great distance" and also "gill not be so large as to attract significant amounts of traffic to sites surrounded by residential neighborhoods and therefore would not likely result in significant adverse impacts upon the sites neighbors". Previous grocery industry testimony has stated that today's normal size grocery stores are from 15,000 50,000 Sq. Ft., the Staff relies as authority a four year old article in The Zoning Report that states that neighborhood/community grocery stores are from 30,000--50,000 Sq. Ft., and finally the everyday citizen today considers the full size grocery stores up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. as part of the normal neighborhood--community supermarkets or grocery stores. I live in Lake Grove and don't drive to Wilsonville to the 47,000 Sq. Ft. Thriftway to do my shopping, I shop at my local stores----this shopping pattern is virtually what everyone else does when shopping for grocerys. The staff contention that above 40,000 Sq. Ft. will draw shoppers from great distances Just isn't true. People shop locally. What we are talking about is full Rize neighborhood/community grocery stores, not Fred Meyer, Cub Foods, Costco, K-Mart, G.I. Joes all which draw from distances greater than the local area. As it relates to traffic a store in western Tigard above 40,000 Sq. Ft. will not be the cause of additional traffic as staff has suggested. The traffic which is going to occur in western Tigard along the Scholls Ferry Roads is going to occur due to new dwellings being built. A store up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. is not going to create more traffic, the store will just be able to offer a greater selection of goods which todays consumer demands. The growth that will affect Tigard the greatest is the growth which I have outlined on the map. It is smart to plan for it and important to have a zone which allows the full size neighborhood/community grocery store (up to 50,000 Sq. Ft.) where a full should be and at the same time have a zone which allows a smaller store and scale where the smaller mcale should be. The zone needs to be flexible to address both larger and smaller scale. r Maw M For your consideration I have merged the store size information provided to the planning staff by United Grocer/Thriftway, Safeway, Flemming Foods, and Albertsons and am providing you this list of neighborhood/community grocery stores for your review. Staff has indicated that there is no public support for a grocery store size greater than 40,000 Sq. Ft------ this is just not true. Previously petitions with over 500 signatures were submitted showing support for a full size grocery store on one of the proposed CC sites. These were submitted to show support for a store larger than 40,000 Sq. Ft. I was responsible for those petitions and when they were collected the people were shown a site plan eight acres in size with a store up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. There is public support for a store size greater than 40,000 Sq. Ft. I am requesting that you approve the Community Commercial Zone with grocery stores being allowed up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. and retail sales up to 30,000. Don't exclude by size what the everyday citizen considers the normal size grocery store. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Craig A. Petrie a i a y 9 `t t C_ i i h 6 k' J~i Su ern ub- I NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY Gl~~~.i e SUPERMARKETS AND THEIR ~ s i RESPECTIVE SIZE AND AGE /a3l~2- The following list combines information provided to the Tigard Planning Staff by United Grocers/Thriftway, Safeway, Flemming Foods, and Albertsons. Note: This list only includes neighborhood and community grocery stores and not regional stores such as Fred Meyer, Cub Foods, and Costco which draw shoppers from outside the community and are usually in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. in size. Supermarket Location Size Age Food For Less McLoughlin Blvd, Milwaukie 53,000 1992 Albertsons McKenzie Hwy, Springfield 47,500 1992 Thriftway Wilsonville 47,000 1991 Safeway 181 stand Glisan, Portland 53,600 1991 1 Safeway 185th, Aloha 53,600 1991 Food For Less Hwy 26, Gresham 50,000 1991 )ertsons Ashland 47,000 1991 Albertsons 185th and Walker, Aloha 45,000 1991 Shop N Kart Woodburn 41,000 1991 Shop N Kart Albany 41,000 1991 Shop N Kart Hermiston 41,000 1991 Food For Less Tualatin 55,000 1990 Safeway West 11 th, Eugene 53,600 1990 Safeway Hillsboro 53,600 1990 Albertsons Springfield 45,000 1990 Food Connection Aloha 40,000 1990 Albertsons King City 44,000 1989 Shop N Kart Lebanon 41,000 1989 Thriftway Cornell Rd, Beaverton 47,000 1988 Thriftway Murrayhill 43,500 1987 Thriftway Mt. Park 26,000 Over 7 yrs old 'hertsons 185th and Farmington 42,000 1982 ,c ertsons 174th and Powell 42,000 1982 Albertsons Hall and Greenburg 42,000 1982 Howards Greenway Center 38,000 1980 Thriftway 185th and Baseline 24,000 Over 13 yrs old Safeway Tigard 30,000 Over 15 yrs old Thriftway Allen and Lombard 25,000 Over 15 yrs old Lake Grove Market Boones Ferry and Bryant 23,000 Over 15 yrs old Safeway Cedar Hills 22,000 Over 15 yrs old Thriftway 25th and Glisan 16,000 Over 15 yrs old t_ . iftway West Slope 11,000 Over 15 yrs old Safeway Cedar Mill 25,000 Over 20 yrs old Safeway Barbur Blvd 25,000 Over 20 yrs old Safeway 10th and Jefferson 23,000 Over 20 yrs old mum, IS: MrAw PRESTON Su. V fN UT d 3200 U.S. BANCORP TOWER yy / y g 111 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE THORGE~.IMSON PORTLAND, OR 97204-3635 L TELEPHONE: (503) 228-3200 SHIDLER FACSIMILE: (503)238.9085 GATES & ELLIS~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW -LL MEMORANDUM To: Tigard City Council From: Edward J. Sullivan on behalf of Matt Marcott Date: June 23, 1992 Re: Proposed Community Commercial zoning district Hearing date: June 23, 1992 Council l;as been asked to consider a new commercial zone, designed to bridge the gap between the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) and General Commercial (C-G) districts. No one seriously questions the need for the new zoning designation. The new zone, Community Commercial (C-C) is supposed to attract commercial uses which, alone or in combination, will serve and compliment the surrounding neighborhood but will not attract shoppers from outside of the community nor adversely affect the community or immediate neighborhood. The maximum sized store allowed under the current proposal before Council is 40,000 square feet (sf) in a commercial center of a maximum size of ,100,000 sf; however, a store that big cannot comply with the intent and policy guidelines established for this zone. This memorandum is submitted to Council in support of a change to the staff's proposal for the C-C zoning regulations. We ask that the maximum size of store allowed out-right in the C-C zone be limited to 30,000 s£ This entails a modification to the zoning . ordinance amendment proposed by staff (Exhibit B in Council's packet) but does not alter the proposed Comprehensive Plan language (Exhibit A in Council's packet). We have four arguments in support of this alternative proposal. 1. Introduction: There is little argument that the two commercial zones presently allowed in Tigard are insufficient to meet the needs of the City and that a third, intermediate zoning designation is needed. The proposal before Council is for a Community Commercial zone; however, to fully understand the role this new designation will play, it is important to understand two of the City's existing commercial zones: Neighborhood Commercial and Page 1 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS a General Commercial. The C-N zone is outlined in Section 12.2.1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (TCP) which deals with locational criteria. That section states that: Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to provide convenience goods and services within a cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for which people do not engage in comparison shopping. A typical C-N use is a 7-11 or similar convenience store because one of the primary limitations on stores in the C-N zone is a 4,000 sf maximum allowable floor area. However, uses in C-N zones are supposed to compliment and serve residential neighbor- hoods. Accordingly, C-N uses are required to be compatible with the residential neighborhoods in which they are located an be designed so as not to conflict. At the other end of the size spectrum is C-G. This zone, also described in Section 12.2.1 the TCP, is appropriate for: major retail goods and services. The uses classified as general commercial may include drive-in services, large space users, a combination of retail, - service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundry establishments. There is no upper limit on floor area of stores in the C-G zone. Also, to avoid conflicts with adjacent uses, C-G zones are deemed only appropriate when it is not surrounded by residential areas and has direct access onto major collectors or arterials. A regional shopping mall is a good example of a C-G zone development. The C-C zone is designed to fill the gap between these two commercial extremes. The Staff Report describes the new C-C zone as appropriate for "relatively small shopping centers or shopping districts." It would bring shopping "opportunities close to neighborhoods whereby residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets." Many shoppers may be able to eliminate automobile trips by walking or riding bicycles to these shopping centers. The staff also seeks to avoid commercial strip development and reduce the number of short, local trips on major collectors and arterials. Through the implementation of the C-C zone, staff seeks to create a "community feeling" by integrating the commercial uses with the surrounding residential areas. In fact, staff proposes to require a greater proportion of landscaped area in C-C developments than f Page 2 - MEMORANDUM 7 1311 15 PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS required in C-N developments. In that sense, stores in the C-C are intended to serve the immediate "community" than those in the C-N zone because the uses in the C-C zone will supply all of the day-to-day shopping needs of average residents, not just convenience items. Stores in the C-C zone should have all of the day-to-day necessities one finds in conve- nience stores, plus a much larger selection and of products and alternative products. However, the focus for the C-C zone remains the local residential neighborhood. Facilities in the C-C zone should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods." But they "shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location." 1 2. Stores as large as 40.000 sf goose severe adverse impacts for the neighborhoods where they will be sited: As proposed by staff, the C-C zone has a maximum floor area for grocery stores of 40,000 sf, a total retail floor area or 100,000 sf, and a total site area of 2 to A acres. Larger stores and larger shopping centers are designed to serve, and in fact do serve, a much larger market area than small stores and shopping centers. Stores in the range of 40,000 sf and shopping centers in the range of 100,000 sf total retail area are already common in the City's C-G zone. From the staff's proposal and from the Planning Commission's discussions on the subject, the overwhelming consensus is that businesses in the C-C zone shall serve the needs of the neighborhood. However, the eleven sites proposed by staff as eligible for this zone are mostly dominated by established residential and mixed residential uses with little commercial development. Businesses which would come in under the C-C zone must not only serve these communities but be compatible with them. This means that C-C uses must be completely compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods - the developments cannot rely on buffering to mitigate adverse impacts. The buildings must be of a scale and design that is compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Parking areas cannot be so large as to be out of proportion with the surrounding residential areas. And the developments must be integrated effectively with local and regional mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. This degree of compatibility is difficult, if not impossible, for a 40,000 sf grocery store in a 100,000 sf shopping center to achieve. Given the existing residential character of the eleven potential sites, these adverse impacts can be minimized significantly by limiting the absolute size of the anchor grocery store to a maximum of 30,000 sf and the size of the shopping center to well below 100,000 sf. Under the Community Development Code, grocery stores are required to provide 5 off-street parking spaces per 1000 sf. in a 100,000 sf shopping center, this translates into at least 500 parking spaces, or a multi-acre parking lot. This is a minimum requirement. i A parking lot of this size, not to mention the traffic feeding into and out of it, is not Page 3 - MEMORANDUM i `i PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS j i compatible with an existing residential neighborhood. xx(pp 3-4 of Zoning Report) Larger grocery stores, in the 40,000 sf range, usually exceed the minimum parking requirement by as much as double. Smaller stores, designed to cater to local, drop-in shoppers, do not - require nearly as much off-street parking. Moreover, local, i.e., neighborhood, shoppers make many more trips by foot or bicycle thus obviating the need for large parking lots. i - The locational criteria specify that the C-C district shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. However, developments of the scale proposed outright will have that effect. Additionally, if C-C developments are supposed to serve the neighbor- hood, access onto major collectors or arterials should be carefully evaluated rather than encouraged outright. If access is too easy, trade from outside the neighborhood will be encouraged at the expense of the local residents for whom the zone is designed. Access onto major collectors and arterials may also have the effect of over-burdening the intersections associated with each of the eleven proposed sites. Smaller scale developments, i.e., 30,000 sf or less grocery stores and shopping centers smaller than 100,000 sf, require access to major traffic thoroughfares and are not appropriate for smaller neighborhood streets. With regard to landscaping, staff has recommended a 20% minimum landscaped area, which is greater than that required in either the C-P1 or C-G zones. However, this is a far cry from the average of 50% landscaped area found in most residential areas. Landscaping is an important amenity in residential areas and contributes significantly to mitigating other more objectionable impacts of commercial development. Developments in the 100,000 sf range with larger, 40,000 sf grocery stores, will not be able to provide enough landscaped area to overcome the other adverse impacts - especially those associated with traffic and parking -and remain economically viable. Regardless, landscaped area is a very important factor considering the role the C-C zone is designed to play. The area ultimately required by Council should be commensurate to the surrounding residential character. 3. 40,000 sf stores have a regional rather than a community market attraction: As already mentioned, and as acknowledged by the staff and Planning Commission, the larger the store or shopping center, the larger the market area. It is clear from the proposal before the Council, that the market area of for C-C developments is strictly limited to the neighborhood and immediate community. While anchor grocery stores in the 25,000-30,000 sf range clearly meet this criterion, larger stores in the 40,000 sf range, frequently do not. These larger stores frequently provide specialty items or services such as a deli, butcher shop, bakery, fresh sea food, a small cafe, an expanded ethnic foods section, or a greater number of alternative brands. These added features require the extra space that a 40,000 sf store provides, but they do not cater to the needs of the neighborhood or Page 4 - MEMORANDUM PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS immediate communitv. Instead, these added features, possible only in larger stores, serve a regional not local market. This is especially true where the development has ready access onto an arterial or major collector and where there is more than 5 parking spaces per 1000 SE The problem of a regional draw is avoided by limiting the size of the anchor grocery store to a maximum of 30,000 sf. These neighborhood sized stores are large enough to stock more items than a convenience store, yet are not so large as to include the additional items or services described above. Limiting the size of the anchor grocery store will limit the geographic market area. A 25,000-30,000 sf limit will ensure the neighborhood and community orientation recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, where as stores as large as 40,000 will not. 4. 40,000 sf stores will suffocate competition within the community and within the City: Past experience in the greater Portland area market has shown that a single store designed to serve a regional market can quickly eliminate several smaller neighborhood stores. The invariable result from the movement to regional-sized stores is the elimination of local businesses and the suffocation of competition. Under the staff's recommendation, the 40,000 sf limit on anchor grocery stores will allow stores with a regional market to locate in the C-C zone. This has already happened in the City's C-G zone. However, large stores imposed on the already existing neighbor- hoods will have the effect of eliminating the smaller stores better suited to serving neighborhoods and the immediate community. Council should approach this proposal very cautiously in light of the serious negative implications it poses for local businesses which stand to be displaced. 5. Since the true impacts of 40,000 sf stores are unknown yet potentially significant, the City should limit the scale of development allowed out right in the C-C zone: Ultimately, the magnitude of the impacts from a 100,000 sf shopping center with a 40,000 sf anchor grocery store are unknown. This is especially true since the staff report states that traffic and existing development at the eleven suggested sites has not yet been analyzed. Moreover, the staff report states that the impact of stores as large as 40,000 and developments as large as eight acres are unknown. What is known, however, is that large, automobile-intensive commercial developments with a regional market draw will generate substantial amounts of traffic and are inherently incompatible with established residential neighborhoods. t In light of the uncertainties and the substantial harm which may result from allowing too large a development as a use permitted outright, the Council should reduce the scale of C-C developments. The City does not want to be faced with a large-scale commercial Page 5 - MEMORANDUM I s PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS development proposal, which meets all approval criteria, but which is clearly out of character with the neighborhood for which it is proposed. To avoid this situation, the City should limit the absolute size of C-C developments to 50,000 to 75,000 sf and 4 to 6 acres and limit the size of anchor grocery stores allowed out right to a maximum of 25,000 to 30,000 sf. From the letters and evidence already in ;Y the record, it is certain that an anchor grocery store of this scale can adequately serve the neighborhood and immediate community without becoming a threat to the character of that community. Moreover, by reducing the scale of development, solutions to site-specific J difficulties can be designed, such as increasing the amount of landscaped area, planning Y bicycle, pedestrian and transit accesses which actually work, reducing the amount of paved surface area dedicated to parking, and otherwise matching the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 6. Conclusion: We are in basic agreement with the staff recommended language for the Compre- hensive Plan and Community Development Cod(,; however, we recommend that the absolute size of the development allowed out right in the C-C zone be limited to no more than 4 to 6 acres, 50,000 to 75,000 sf of total retail space, and a maximum anchor grocery store of 25,000 to 30,000 sf. Additionally, the Council should seriously consider site design and locational criteria 3 r t for the C-C zone which: 1) place a maximum limit on the number of off-street parking spaces; 2) require bicycle, pedestrian and transit design features which encourage patronage by the residents of the immediate community; 3) require at least 20% landscaped area, depending upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood, as recommended by the Planning Commission; 4) condition rezoning approval on a showing by the applicant that near-by intersections and local traffic systems are adequate to handle the amount of traffic from the specific development proposed, and that the development will not overburden neighborhood streets as a result. i z I S j C Page 6 - MEMORANDUM i I f 1111150 McKeever/Morris, Inc. Tux-bt (G ~VSt i~ U (1 722 S.W. Second Avenue Suite 400 C! Portland, Oregon 97204 fax 503 228-7365 503 228-7352 MEMORANDUM TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Keith Liden on behalf of Matt Marcott RE: Community Commercial Land Use Designation DATE: June 23, 1992 INTRODUCTION The proposal for a Community Commercial (C-C) Plan and zone designation includes proposed Locational Criteria to be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan as well as related Community Development Code revisions. Establishment of a Community Commercial retail center will require a two-step process involving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change followed by Site Development Review approval for a specific project design. This proposal has a great deal of merit and can potentially be an important land use tool for Tigard. However, we have concerns that several of the criteria associated with this new land use designation may result in commercial development that is not consistent with its intent or compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. These concerns are related to: 4L • Neighborhood Orientation of the Zone • Minimizing Land Use Impacts • Size and Distribution of Commercial Services I. NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTATION OF THE ZONE It is clear in the Locational Criteria and the Purpose statement for the C-C zone that this designation is intended to serve adjacent neighborhoods and should not " attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods Because of its neighborhood orientation, the allowable size of the major commercial tenants should be carefully restricted for two major reasons. A. Floor area/market area relationship j Although variation occurs based on the commercial use, location, etc., market area generally expands with additional commercial floor area. In a related way, the amount of traffic going to and from a commercial center will rise with increases in floor area. The current 40,000 square foot grocery store limit is not significantly different from the size of the larger stores presently in the Tigard area. In many respects, new commercial centers developed under the proposed C-C requirements will have many of the same characteristics and impacts of the existing centers found in the Commercial General (C-G) zone. Planning Tigard C-C Zone - Page 1 Public Involvement Project Managenunt Landscape Architecture All 111: 1111 i;ili Sam= i B . Viable grocery store size Considerable information has been presented regarding the viability of different sizes of grocery stores. Two basic conclusions can be drawn from this information: 1. The size of successful stores ranges from approximately 25,000 square feet to over 80,000 square feet. 2. The size desired by different companies depends largely on the firm's market niche and business strategy. The proposed 40,000 square foot minimum grocery store size is not necessary from the standpoint of commercial feasibility. Since a major objective of the proposed Community Commercial designation is to serve adjoining neighborhoods and to be compatible with them, a smaller store (as well as total commercial center size) should be considered to enhance a compatible relationship with residential uses. II. MINIMIZING LAND USE IMPACTS At best, potential neighborhood impacts will be difficult to address because these Community Commercial sites will typically be surrounded by residential uses. Therefore the size, scale, and mix of commercial tenants is critical to the successful coexistence of these different land use activities. The allowable eight acre maximum site size and 40,000 square foot grocery store may be totally inappropriate in some locations, but the proposed criteria do not offer a clear method allowing the City to require a smaller site or tenant size in a particular situation. Three issues that support a smaller scale commercial development include: A. Variable neighborhood suitability By applying the proposed Locational Criteria, there are a number of possible C-C sites in the City, as illustrated in the map attachment in the staff report. Clearly, the appropriate size and scale of commercial development varies with each of these locations. However, the Locational Criteria and the C-C zone criteria do not give the City any definitive criteria for reducing the size of a proposed development if the potential impacts warrant such a limitation. Because service to and compatibility with neighborhoods is of primary importance, the maximum size standard for grocery stores should be limited so that permitted commercial activity does not adversely affect ' neighborhood livability. B. Traffic impacts The effect of a development on the transportation system and surrounding neighborhoods is an important issue relating to the C-C designation because it will be used near critical intersections that are typically surrounded by residential development. The exact mix of businesses is usually unknown at the time of zoning approval and tenants also will change over time. More significantly, due to the importance of the intersections of arterial and collector streets, the City should be careful not to allow development which is of a size and scale that can have an adverse impact on the function of these intersections. As the size of commercial centers increases, so does the potential traffic impact to major thoroughfares and neighborhood streets. These facilities represent a significant public investment that should be considered when intensification of C land use is proposed nearby. Tigard C-C Zone - Page 2 oil FM C. Impact Mitigation During Site Development Review The impacts of a commercial development are difficult to assess during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment stage. Even during Site Development Review, the precise number and nature of all of the tenants is rarely known. Since operational characteristics, compatibility issues, and traffic impacts can vary widely depending on the type and mix of commercial uses, it is prudent to be conservative when establishing allowable maximum floor areas for the major commercial use categories. The C-C proposal does include the use of the City's design requirements, such and landscaping and noise standards, that work well when the development is close to the correct size and scale for a particular location. If the basic character of a commercial development is too large (site size/floor area) for a certain location, design standards will only be able to make the best of a bad situation. Under the proposed site size and floor area limitations, the City (and the neighborhoods) risk of having to approve a development that meets all the criteria but is incompatible with its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed size criteria in both the Locational Criteria and the C-C zone should be conservative to ensure that resulting development under these provisions is in fact consistent with the intent of the C-C zone. III. SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES The purpose of the Community Commercial designation is to provide dispersed commercial services throughout the City for the convenience of the residents. As the size of these developments become larger, the market area also tends to grow, making it more likely that there will be fewer commercial centers located at greater distances from the residents they are intended to serve. The maximum size of grocery stores should be limited to 30,000 square feet rather than the 40,000 square foot size to encourage smaller centers that are more evenly distributed. While competition between commercial businesses is generally beneficial to the public because of the resulting improvement in price and availability of goods and services, the present Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations offer a certain amount of stability to existing businesses centers and residential neighborhoods. Many businesses and residential property owners have invested in a business climate that may change substantially with the introduction of the C-C designation. Another related area of importance is the emphasis which the Tigard Comprehensive Plan places on enhancing the economic viability of the downtown area. The creation of new commercial centers in Tigard with significant size and market area will tend to further weaken the redevelopment potential of downtown and its ability to provide a community identity for Tigard. IV. RECOMMENDATION Depending on the size and location of the resulting Community Commercial centers which ultimately result from the creation of this new land use designation the impacts on surrounding properties and the adjoining street system can be substantial. Because of the magnitude of these impacts and their relationship to the size of the commercial development, it is advisable that the maximum size limits imposed as part of this designation be conservative while remaining commercially viable and beneficial to the neighborhoods they are intended to serve. Tigard C-C Zone - Page 3 The following recommendations are made to achieve this objective. ` O Adopt a Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan and zone designation. • Amend the proposed Locational Criteria (Exhibit A) as follows: In Section 4.a. (2), change the maximum food sales square footage from 40,000 to 30,000. Change Section 4.b. (3) by adding the following section: (b) The maximum size of the site may be required to be less than eight acres if it is found that a smaller site is necessary to ensure consistency of community commercial development with other Plan policies and LocQtionf l CrUeria. • Amend the proposed Chapter 18.61 C-C Community Commercial District as follows: 18.61.030 A.2. Commercial use types (maximum total gross floor area of 100,000 square feet) 18.61.030 A.2.f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of 30,000 square feet) i i 3 Tigard C-C Zone - Page 4 ri' 3221, OUTLINE OF COMMENTS BY SCOT RUSSELL TO CITY COUNCIL 1. Introduction: Land Urbanization I am Scott Russell. My family has owned property in the western portion of Tigard in the Bull Mountain area and 135th Street in the area of the proposed extension of Walnut Street. The land on Bull Mountain was used for agricultural, pasture and woodlands, and the land along 135th Street was pasture land and a riding academy for many years. Over the years, the property mentioned has seen urbanization in the form of single and mutt-family residences coming to Bull Mountain, and single, mult-family and neighborhood commercial zone expansion from east to west toward the property we own to the south. It appears to us that Tiigard's future residential growth in the next 20 years will be in the western portion of the city. This means that residential growth in the next 20 years will require various ancillary support zoning for schools, churches, fire stations and commercial uses easily accessible to the growing population of families. The adoption of a Community Commercial Zone to fit between General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial is a sound strategy to now address the current and future needs of Tigard, especially in its western sector. General Commercial is too expansive and Neighborhood Commercial is too restrictive. The former allows all -sorts of uses not compatible to a residential community and the latter limits service to 7-11 stores, drycleaners, and small retail establishments. The Community Commercial Zone envisions a mid-range of retail Page 1 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing i i establishments between the small convenience stores and large region-wide, mega- sized stores or discount operations such Fred Meyer, Costco, Silo, etc. The zone's ultimate locations' criteria is in Section 18.61.010 of the zone's purpose, as follows: 'This district is intended to be located adjacent to veral residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two REM or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street." 2. CC Zone Restrictions on Size. There is some debate centered around the square footage size of the grocery store component in the zone. Mr. Marcott, owner and operator of several Thriftway Stores, one at Murray Hill, which has in excess of 43,000 square feet, has offered the view that a 30,000 square fogt maximum size is sufficient to attract the Thriftway, Sentry or United Grocers affiliated stores. However, in his letter of January 28 to the Tigard Planning Department, Mr. Marcott agrees: 'Times, however, have changed. The grocery industry is now building stores which range in size from 15,000 to 50,000 square feet..." On the other hand, letters from Safeway (Exhibit A, attached), Fleming Foods (Exhibit B, attached) and Albertson's advise that a 50,000 square foot size is appropriate to make the zone feasible to Safeway, Albertson's and Fleming Foods, etc. It seems to me that a 50,000 square feet maximum, serves the city, the landowner and the future neighborhoods the best as that size will encourage interest C, Page 2 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing _ from all grocery store owners and operators. But it will exclude the larger regionwide General Commercial operations such as Fred Meyer, Costco, Cub Foods, Silo, etc. The more diversity of users of CC zoned land are included within a zone, the more assurance the city has that the highest and best use of the CC land will be realized. All parties agree that stores have grown larger in the last 15 years. This is apparently due to three factors: (a) There has been an expansion in the variety of food and housewares brands, and products available expected by the present-day consumer. We used to have 5 or 10 choices of soft drinks and dry cereals. We now have 40 to 50 choices. (b) There has also been a geometric increase in services from store bakeries, delis, florists, video departments, cafes, etc., and this proliferation of services demanded by consumers continues. (c) Rather than travelling long distances between various stores, with the loading and unloading of kids, one-stop shopping has become not a convenience, but an expectation of working parents. You will note that United Grocers has said that 25,000 square feet is appropriate for a neighborhood store serving the immediate neighborhood. However, the Community Commercial zoning is designed to serve the community consisting of several neighborhoods, not just the adjacent neighborhood. It seems to me that sound planning should encourage the best utilization of land zoned Community Commercial. Thus, the size should be set, consistent with the C_ Page 3 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing purpose of the zone, so as to be a feasible use by the largest number of potential grocery store operators. The zone that excludes Safeway, Albertson's and Fleming Foods seems arbitrary, especially when all parties agree that the size expansion of stores in the last 15 years will continue for the next 20 years. This is due to Americans becoming more and more concerned about automobile fuel costs, pollution and traffic congestion, as well as the pressure of time on working parents with busy schedules. 3. Community Commercial Plans for 20 Years Not Just Today. The zone before you will not automatically apply to any property upon its adoption. Landowners must petition for a zone and comprehensive plan amendment Q~ to obtain CC zoning. The zoning of the land within Tigard is also limited to a few sites within the city due to its locational criteria. The use of the zone is prospective, and its first application may occur later this year or next, and in the years to follow. Therefore, its limitations and criteria of uses should be adopted for the coming years and their expected growth in the western portion of Tigard. Limitations that tie the hands of the city or decrease flexibility in the future should be avoided. The zone before you, wherever it is established in the city, will not be utilized until 1993, at the earliest, and thereafter for the next 20 or 30 years. I believe, as Mr. Craig Petrie has shown, that population growth in western Tigard will range from 4,000 to 12,000, with a maximum of 18,900, within the next 10 years. As the trends noted above regarding grocery store size growth continues, an C Page 4 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council ]Hearing mum arbitrary cap now of 40,000 square feet may already be obsolete. It will also result in further traffic congestion as the community residents drive a greater distance to obtain all the goods and services unavailable at the community store limited to 40,^010^0 square feet. 4. Acreage Limitation Will Control Store Sizg. The CC zone, as applied to different sites will undoubtedly vary in size and use depending upon the community the zone serves. Undoubtedly, one CC zone may have a grocery store of 20,000 square feet, while another may warrant 40,000 square feet, and another require a 50,000 square foot facility. The sizing of the stores located in a CC zone should be flexible to meet changing conditions. The city should have control of sizing, and in this ordinance, it does retain that control. The ordinance's efficient means of controlling store size on each specific site to which the zone is applied, occurs through the city's control of the total acreage of the CC zone between 2 and 8 acres. The zone also provides that the building and F: parking coverage of the site is a maximum of 80%, with a 35-foot height limitation. Two acres equals 83,760 square feet, and 80% of that is 67,009. I have been advised that in the grocery industry land to accommodate a grocery store must be four times the building's square footage. Thus, a 10,000 square foot store would require 40,000 square feet of parking. Using that rule of thumb, 67,009 feet usable space on a two-acre site would mean that a grocery store could only be 13,250 square feet, with 53,000 square feet of parking, utilizing a total Page 5 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing IBM of 66,250 square feet of the available 67,009 square feet. Thus, built into the ordinance is an automatic store size cap, depending upon the acreage of the zone, withot-d adopted by the planning commission and council on a site-specific basis. This acreage control is not only efficient, it is flexible to meet the unique needs of the neighborhoods comprising the community which the commercial use is to serve. 5. Flexibility is Desirable. Obviously, it is in everyone's best interest to have a Community Commercial zone which fits the future needs of the city. The ordinance before you has unique flexibility in controlling store sizes by the acreage placed under the actual zone created in the future. It is in the city's, landowners' and the applicants' best interest to have enough flexibility so that the best use can be made of the Community Commercial Zone on suitable land. The ordinance should allow a grocery store up to 50,000 square feet as a permitted use, and a retail space of 30,000 square feet, so that a large percentage of grocery store companies and drug stores are not deterred from providing community- orientated services. Therefore, I would urge that Section 18.61.030(A)(2)(g) be amended by deleting the 40,000 square foot limitation and replacing it with a 50,000 square foot limitation. The same section, subpart [h], should be amended to delete the 10,000 square foot limitation and replacing it with a 30,000 square foot limitation. By these simple amendments the proposed zone meets all the criteria of the Page 6 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing p! 11113''M MAMR1 purpose of the zone, it is flexible, and vests the city with automatic control of stores in the future through the acreage flexibility of the zone applied to specific sites. Thank you. R i Page 7 - Scott Russell Outline to City Council Hearing V SAF AYINC. March 6,'1992 16300 S.E. EVELYN. P.O. BOX 523 CLACKAMAS. OR 97015 Mr. Don Duncombe RECEIVED PLANNING Albertsons, Inc. 17001 N.E. San Rafael Street MAR 0 9 199_2 Portland, Oregon 97230 Scholls Ferry/Mu.rmy Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Duncombe: Reference is made to the recent telephone conversation we had regarding information to present to the zoning committee for the City of Tigard. Specifically, you had inquired as to the size of stores Safeway is currently building in this market area. Safeway currently is building stores in the 50,000 square foot range and will be looking at increasing the size in the near future. Safeway did construct some smaller stores recently, but those stores were not specifically built at that size, but were built smaller due to the restriction of available land at the particular location on which the store was built. Specifically, we have been increasing the size of our stores to close to 50,000 square feet from as far back as 1986. We opened stores in 1986, 1987, and 1988 at 48,000 square feet which included our store at Lower Boones Ferry and Interstate 5 in Tualatin. Our other recent stores opened were located at 181st and Halsey, 185th and Cornell, West Eugene and Jantzen Beach, all just over 53,000 square feet in size; a store in Hillsboro just over 48,000 square feet; and our most recent opening in Seaside was in excess of 42,000 square feet. The trend in food store size has been increasing over time. In the middle seventies, we were building 35,000 square feet. By the early eighties, we were building 42,000 square feet and now in the early 90's, we are building 53,000 to 60,000 square feet. It appears this trend may be continuing since it is noted that the Waremart stores will be 80,000 square feet both in the Beaverton Mall and in South Salem. It has been our experience that the increase in the size of grocery store buildings does not necessarily relate directly to the expansion of the trade areas served. The additional size has been taken up by special features that require additional floor space in a grocery store. Today, the amount of the individual products that the public expects in a food store has grown to the point that the amount of gondola space and peripheral specialty departments such as delis, bakeries, floral departments, pharmacies, fresh fish, butcher meat, etc. all require additional square footage and therefore, have driven the size of stores up. If small grocery stores were the only consumer choice available, the likely outcome for the trade area population would be ( to go outside of the trade area to the larger more discount regional operators due to price differentials, and greater specialty offerings. Exhibit A ~9$ Recvcleo Paper Mr. Don Duncombe March 6, 1992 Page 2 In summary, a full service grocery store today is in the 45,000 to 65,004 square foot range and still serves basically the same trade area that a 25,000 to 35,000 square foot food store did fifteen years ago. As stated above, this expansion of square footages is primarily generated by the additional offerings a grocery store is now necessitated to carry by customer demand. We appreciated discussing this issue with you over the telephone and would like to be kept informed as to the position the committee takes on this very important issue of food store size in use CiLy Of Tigard.. `Tery truly yours, SAFEWAY INC. i Wm. H. Jackson' Store Development Director WHI/mas albertsn Exhibit A h Aemipg S.E. Milwaukie Expressway at Pheasant Ct. C BOX 3800 Portland, 03/654 9551 on 97208 Companies, Inc. 5 PORTLAND DIVISION March 3, 1992 Mr. Don buncombe RECEIVED PLANNING Albertson ie~~l( O 9 17001 N.E. San Rafael 1992 Portland, Oregon 97230 RE : City of Tigard Commercial Use and Zoning Issue Dear Don: In response to your research inquiries, I can assure you that retail grocery outlets constructed by my firm exceed 50,000 sq.ft. in size within any metro marketing area we serve. Our current average square footage slightly exceeds 53,750 square feet. This size and requirement applies to either our conventional or warehouse concepts. Due to the constant increase of demands and needs by the consumer, a grocery retail outlet cannot meet and satisfy these needs in units less than 50,000 sq.ft. in size. Increased perishable departments, especially produce, frozen foods and deli areas have in turn increased our store size by some 41% during the past 6 years. Likewise, and due primarily to unrealistic landscape demands imposed by various governmental agencies, property size requirements have grown in proportion. In order to facilitate the retail grocery store's needs, a minimum of 5.51 acres is now required or allocated to a freestanding facility. Should someone or group feel that by limiting the size considerably below the beforementioned square footage would alleviate traffic impaction does not fully grasp the needs of todays consumer. In part, this approach is correct. The consumers will leave the area and fill their needs elsewhere due to the lack of selection and convenience. Increased energy consumption along with polution becomes the major by-products of their thinking. Retail grocery stores of 30,000 sq.ft. or less within the Portland Metro area have either become or are becoming obsolete. This size of facility has experienced increased failure or at best f has become extremely marginal in operation. Three primary examples of this within the Tigard, Oregon area are the grocery outlets located within the Canterbury, Payless and King City shopping Exhibit B OEM= centers. Three additional cast-offs experienced within this trade area were Luther's, Zupon's and Prairie Market. All were 30,000 j square feet in size or less. Exceptions will always exist as to the needs of our industry. In outlying and rural areas, we have recently opened 40,900 square foot units. Be advised however, that in the construction of these units we have amply allowed for future expansion. Our- expansion forecast provides for an increased area of approximately 20.91%. These expansion provisions are projected within the first five to seven years of operation. We will not enter into a development agreement that does not allow this provision. I can only hope that this letter will assist you and our industry as well in the establishment of development guidelines that will be of mutual benefit to all concerned parties. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at your earliest convenience. S ceroly, ` x D. Anderson store Development Mgr. MDA/brh C Exhibit B r v ~ ~ : [ r ` _ J S 3 s i ~ _ iei4RT$ i - A e~LAtYII~ I3`11~1~ " I ~ ~ ~ ~T~ iii ~ ~ ~ 3•~S E # IP ig i?E~ 1~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tai .t!)ff 2~~Oit IiMI~ 27gPs i141P ~ + s.P>rr' .ar_- ~ c ~ c ';yy"'~f^""~~#„fit' x.r~ j~k~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ! ; ~ ~ a friQl~it CHAT Ilg31E / ¢ n ~ ? ~ ~ ~ C#E SIY~f Fl111,Y +TE~f 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ! 3t 36 t . - 34 31iP.f fal`Y ~ i r ' - - ,mac a, _ M . 'M-'~~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - %L J6v 4. ff :12E u ~1FTMrA9fE of isf ;rp1.~, 5. s.'w: - %~/P4:'yK^. mC ae W+G.:. :'r `+ti s..~75<S~KRS ~ .g _ - E : y1k~. / _ ~ a.A »i::.c~,Ats. a oc5 ~ . ?s i '.v7:. -2 - - - ~r ~ q ~ - - iP` P %f6'M~~ 37/E SPIT ~ SAE:: T, 41 dP3Flft+- V g a +~A'.'~-tee rx~ ~ . d«~. sc%i l - - g° i ~ S • " ~ S " ~ i s.E~Er t w a~i fc- a6E E,~716rt f~:714 ~ ~ • I 2t I ~ , . _ . - s: FAtrln.!i2 ~ ac g E - 1; F . - :sA.«~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~s.~s,. d s _.aw-..- s,n.r.., ii+k:. " _ e ` e m ~ ~d P G 1 iP.,,.,,+..:~..FC k~ka M..Ia y xW'?et 3.9Wrx a,It. a s- ~r•wt~=at 4~ ~ . ,.c . ;.rr~ ;~E+t+• fj t ;.rw.F. ~ e 3~ ~ ~~'r~aWrrE r . R.. ~ ' a' 1 s + ,R _ F ; . _ ~,w j i+ 0.. ~a .n S S7i.~:zbFS' - n' Y ~ E '+.#r• i 1 1 mw!ii~.i ~ _ _ - af:MR6F. # 16 ~ x.~,~ ~ - .Wrur~lu - - 8 1~ ~`R*.+ , a.~ ih _e . ~3 :Tye r . ~,.a.= ~ cx~ 1 r ,1 w . -.aa n ~ Ma , 1 ~~~~yP~yr~f~i6y Ys RI, 1S ' P1. P{/+ ~ i. YS. S.. ~ ax *n 'R a1 nF t i~ ~wq ;`t nnrr " ~ 1. ~ 1 yam. PLAkik10+ • i ~ *nr• s:~x ~ ~ a.~ : ~:,ar~ BtRFER ~E a ! dir.' aka tMrd~eaPS«.~ . I i ' ' tA5E11ENT t;, 13 - ww anx I TYl'IC,4L 9TREFT ~'CtidJ h»:~',s>=r.wu,~Pc« „ r.les tl ~ , Lr ~ 1 ~ 1 + ~ t 1 P.4 I I ~ I ~ fNTERIOR PrI81.1G 9TREEiJ ~ ~ I - ~ ~ i1 I ' ~ I Dwarrt I srw y I . _ M. _ Ir ----1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o.a au ~ 1 I ~ - , I _ r I u I ~ F_-~ r acs-_..~ rp ~ 8 I 9 10 1 12 as I A,»o s.P. r,tm sr. r Too aP. ~ r.roo ss. 1,"ti I / I 1.1,0 Si. I r _ I o 1 I ~i L.. r 4ax! C a+RUtie m,GVFra l . I I ~ .f~ YlI T+r 6EYFIHq IR:1'fi 1 ! 10' PE0. CSWT. ® m ~ 1 P • ii.'. ; i \ --J ® ~ i I . - -rrhr~sale Atxrc _ _ 110~~ 'S I ~ CONSTRUCT PAIMWAT I ~ - T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ • I I ro cau+ecr ro i -Sp1T oasaRiNC I 432' I ' I } TYPICAL STREET 9EGT10N I I ensnuc PArR - i 7TNCE I I _ . '+1! i PRIVATE DRIVE ~ I I I E h G L E W 0 i0, D AI 0. 3 ,I i VICN~ITY MAP I ~ I I I~ I NQ SCALE ~ I REFERENCE INFORMATION AND NOTES: I~;RR ' ~ I T.c.u. 1,~0, RENAISSANCE HOMES, INC. ~"E 2096 3.W. 6TIi 3T. HART'S L A ND/NG ~ T.c.u. WEST LINN, OREGON 97068 r. RENSED SIREET ADORYENiS M£ILANDS EASENDl15 W.LMe. -10- W.LMt, , INC. cNCa,Tn HARRIS-McMONAGLE ASSOCIATES ' R"~ a DA,E ~'~"~-50~5 A PLANNED DEVE OP Tess s.w. INU e~w. L MENT 1 REFER TO TRACING FOR UTESi REVISION 4-21-92 PROND (w,)rws-,~4j PRELIMINARY PLAT oP - 1 ';r~ ; _ ~ tTF'~ ryTN38 D0471p~NT IS LESS u~ y~ ~ ' . « d~i~i~l T ~ql ~p~l~l I~ Ip~'I I ~ I~17~~~1 ql I)I IyIi,~lji I~I ql ql 1~1 I~1 I~I I ~ I~I I~i I'(7 f~ II I LEGIBI:E 'TRAM TRIS NOTATION, ~ I 4 I I I / ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ qp~~~:. LT;,IS DUE TO' THE QUALITY OP 8 ~ lO 1L ~ 1 26- 199_3 I TIIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. x.x p~.v- - I I E S - Z L I~ y I I RI [ B[ I [ [ 1[ I S L B 9 L Iyu~ l .hut m `I m~mi mduu u~W~u ~~m uuluu I ~ m muu VIII I~~II ouu~u uuuu III III III ~ ~ipi IIII~IIII mdu uWU uulu~~ ml~llll IIII~IIII IIII~IIII IIIIIIII IIIIII~I III~~IIII IIII~IIII IIII~IIII IIU~NI