City Council Packet - 07/13/1993AGENDA
CITE' OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. 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 test;fying be present by
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda Items can be heard In any
order after 7:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
• STUDY SESSION
Citizen Involvement Teams (CIT's) - Update on Applications for Facilitators
Agenda Review
7:30 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
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 p.m.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:45 p.m.
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 8 and 22, 1993
3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.3 Approve Reappointment of Carl Kostol to the Library Board - Resolution No. 93-30
3.4 Authorization for Mayor to sign letter to Washington County regarding Elsner Road/Beef
Bend Road Project.
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 1
7:50 P.M. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (®uasl Judiclal~ ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION
LOCATION: 11925 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 1013D, tax lot 1000) A request to
annex one parcel consisting of approximately 0.74 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/acre). The applicant is requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcel
to City sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1,
10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.3.1, 10.3.2 and Community Development Code Chapters and
Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-
4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential units, public
support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care,
home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses.
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony:
Proponents (in favor of annexation)
Opponents (opposed to annexation)
Rebuttal
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Staff Recommendation
g. Public Hearing Closed
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93-,7~L
( Ordinance No. 93-1-7
p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative): ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-20A 93-0004 SOLID
WASTE A proposal to adopt a new section (18.116) of the Community Development Code for
mixed solid waste recyclables in new multi-family residential and non-residential buildings.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2; Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.a, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 7.12.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and
18.116.
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony:
Proponents (in favor of amendment)
Opponents (opposed to amendment)
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Staff Recommendation
g. Public Hearing Closed
h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 93-_
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 2
8:30 p.m.
6. COUNCIL REVIEW: UPDATE ON HART PROPERTY CONCERNING TREE REMOVAL
ACTIVITY AS REPORTED DURING THE JUNE 22, 1993, VISITOR'S AGENDA
a. Staff Report - Community Development Department
8:45 p.m.
7. COUNCIL REVIEW: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS
TO PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
a. Staff Report (Engineering Department) - Sidewalks or Paths for S.W. Park, Watkins, and
72nd Avenue as Requested by Residents at the 6/22/93 Council Meeting (Adjustments
to Priority List). In addition, Staff Report on Approach to Potential Purchase of Link and
Shrauger Property.
9:10 p.m.
8. COUNCIL REVIEW: CHARTER AMENDMENTS - UPDATE ON STAFF RESEARCH AND
PROPOSALS
a. Staff Report - City Administrator
9:30 p.m.
9. PRESENTATION BY NOEL KLEIN REGARDING TIGARD TALKS SURVEY RESULTS.
9:50 p.m.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10:05 p.m.
11. 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.
10:20 p.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
haecorder\cca\=0713.93
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 3
Council Agenda Item
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993
3. I
Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz.
Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick
Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources
Director (for Study Session only); Carol Landsman, Senior
Planner; Bill Monahan, Legal Counsel; Liz Newton, Community
Relations Coordinator; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY SESSION
- AGENDA REVIEW
Clarification to June 22. 1993 Minutes: Councilor Hunt
noted that on Page 6 the following wording needed to be
clarified:
"Councilors Hunt and Schwartz clarified their
support of the concept in response to comments made
by Mr. Polans which he said he believed indicated
they were not in support. Other areas in the
community may benefit from this service if the
pilot program is successful."
Councilor Hunt noted the above wording indicates he was
in support of the Dial-A-Ride program expenditure which
is not the case. He advised that he was responding to
remarks from Mr. Polans (on June 22) who said Councilor
Hunt did not support the program because Summerfield
people are affluent enough and do not need the bus. This
was not why Councilor Hunt had concerns about expending
City dollars for this request. Rather, he noted, he took
issue with the Council saying yes to a social service
program when a great deal of time and effort was expended
by the Budget Committee during the Budget process to
allocate the funds among the agencies making requests.
He outlined his concerns with approving this item after
the Budget cycle was over; it was his understanding that
other requests, in the past, were not considered because
they came in too late. City Administrator clarified that
a social service request (Harmony House) was not declined
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 1
last year because of timing. The size of the request was
considerably larger than the Dial-A-Ride and the Council
did not want to add any new projects going into uncertain
financial times. Mayor Edwards added that also there was
question as to how many people from the City of Tigard
were actually being served by the Harmony House program.
Elsner Road/Beef Bend (Agenda Item No. 3.4)
Councilor Hunt questioned whether approval of this item
would represent encouragement of imminent extension of
Murray Road. City Administrator responded that approval
would not mean there would be an automatic impact toward
completing an extension between Beaverton and Tigard via
Murray Road. An agreement entered into by the two cities
outlines that Tigard would obstruct traffic between
Beaverton and Tigard at Murray until certain Fconditions
were met. One of those conditions was the n
project.
June 8 1993 Minutes:
Councilor Fessler clarified Page 2: She noted the County
is preparing to construct a pathway between 109th and
Fonner Street to Walnut (along the curve) to provide a
safer route to Fowler Middle School.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS (CIT'S) - UPDATE ON
APPLICATIONS FOR FACILITATORS
Community Relations Coordinator Newton and Human
Resources Director Deardorff discussed with Council CIT
Facilitator selection and training. Council decided that
all 22 applicants would be allowed to go through the
facilitator training. After completion of training, a
committee consisting of three Council members will select
the first team of facilitators for each of the four
CIT's. During discussion it was decided that the
training process would not be used for evaluation of CIT
facilitator applicants. The purpose of the training is
not to assess but to teach leadership skills. At least
two facilitators will be selected for each CIT with a
maximum of three and one alternate.
Mayor asked each Council member to advise of their
availability and if they would like to serve on the CIT
facilitator selection committee. Council members will
also be able to attend the facilitator training sessions.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 2
- POSSIBLE CODE AMENDMENT
City Administrator Reilly reviewed 7/12/93 memorandum to
Carol Landsman from Ron Pomeroy concerning definitions
for "developed residential property." (Reference Hart
property issue raised on June 22, 1993.) Mr. Reilly
reviewed the process to amend the Code which includes a
45-day advance notification to LCDC, a Planning
Commission Hearing and then a Council Hearing. In the
interim, however, Council may elect to direct staff to
interpret this area of the Code in a specific manner.
There was brief discussion by Council on balancing
property owner/developer/business/environmental rights.
After discussion, Council asked that an August 17, 1993,
meeting with the Planning Commission be called in order
to discuss the tree ordinance and whether it should be
amended.
UPDATE FROM COUNCILOR HUNT - WILSONVILLE SOLID WASTE
TRANSFER STATION
Councilor Hunt advised that the Wilsonville Solid Waste
Transfer Station may be in jeopardy as it appears that
Metro is reversing its earlier recommendation for support
t of this new facility. The City of Tigard supports the
Station because, long term, it is believed that this will
be less costly to the ratepayers in this area.
After discussion, Council directed City Administrator to
have letters prepared to Metro Councilors Devlin and
Kvistad reinforcing Tigard's position of support for the
Wilsonville Transfer Station.
BUSINESS MEETING
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
• Douglas A. Smithey, 11396 S. W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard,
Oregon 97223 submitted a letter dated July 13, 1993
concerning 11...the recent bulldozer activity on the Hart
property near Hart lake and the way the city handled the
problem." (Letter is on file with the Council packet
material.)
• Pete Davis, 11374 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon
97223 also testified about the Hart property (see Mr.
Smithey's comments above.) He called for a compromise
between development and environmental concerns.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 3
Monahan, noted for the record that he
a matter about four years ago.)
Sally Sills, 10390 S.W. Grant, Tigard, Oregon 97223, also
testified on the Hart property (see comments above). Ms
Sills read a letter written by Rita Hart (Ms. Sills
mother). Ms. Hart wrote that she remembered thwhen e ..the
immediate
Ellsons and the Harts were the only ones in
. We lost
area and the Englewood subdivision ewas built that we used
our private buffer and many animals
to see...were driven away from the area... We didn't run
to City Hall and voice opposition... We realized we were
in an urban growth area and progress was inevitable.,,
their
Mrs. ed Hart in her letter and of harassment towards ~them 1 and memberstoft
advised
family.
the
There were council inquiries with regard that incidents
being noted
harassment allegations with it
to the police.
should be reported
Mayor Edwards reported to those present that thAe gCoou cil
and Planning Commission would be holding an 17
joint meeting to consider increased restrictions in the
tree ordinance. Council review will this issue as. cites
have done to successfully address mayor
advised (Note agenda items were rearrange Agenda sIt m 8 wasaheard at his
must leave the meeting early.
point in the meeting.
RESEARCH
(Note: Legal Counsel, Bill
on
had represented Mrs. Hart o
8.
COUNCIL REVIEW:
AND PROPOSALS
a.
b.
CHARTER AMEMMENTS - UPDATE ON STAFF
Staff Report was summarized by the City Administrator.
Council discussed information presented in the Council
packet.
Councilor Hunt noted his preference, and a major reason was to ch
the why he wanted a rev the Council fromea,position number to
method of electing ositions were vacant and
11 at large. °f For example if two tPa two which received the
three candidates were running,
most votes would fill the two vacancies. Presently, a
candidate must file for a position number. If this
proposal was dropped from the amendments to be presented
to the voters, Councilor Hunt advised he did not think
the expense of the election was warranted.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley,
to drop the revision work on the Charter.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 4
The motion failed by a 2-3 vote of Council. Councilors
Hunt and Fessler voted "yes"; Mayor Edwards and
Councilors Hawley and Schwartz voted "no."
The majority of Council present decided to proceed with
consideration of Charter amendments to be placed for
voter approval on the November 2, 1993 ballot.
Amendments remaining under consideration include:
1. Eliminate mandatory appointment in the event of
vacancy;
2. Eliminate mandatory election in the event of
vacancy;
3. Repeal prohibition of interim appointment to
vacancy from filing as candidate for position; and
4. Delete resignation requirement to file as candidate
for position with concurrent term.
(Mayor Edwards left the meeting; Council President Schwartz
presided for the remainder of the meeting.)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by
Councilor Hawley, to approve the following Consent Agenda:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 8 and 22, 1993 (Note: See
Study Session minutes above for items which were
clarified.)
3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.3 Approve Reappointment of Carl Kostol to the Library Board
- Resolution No. 93-30
3.4 Authorization for Mayor to sign letter to Washington
County regarding Elsner Road/Beef Bend Road Project.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. PUBLIC HEARING (Ouasi-Judicial): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA
93-0002 BAKER LOCATION: 11925 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM
2S1 1OBD, tax lot 1000) A request to annex one parcel
consisting of approximately 0.74 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/acre). The applicant is requesting
annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcel to City
sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan
Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.3.1,
10.3.2 and Community Development Code Chapters and Sections
18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and
18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5
units/acre) The R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential
units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes,
farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 5
I
occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among
other uses.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the staff report.
d. Public testimony: None.
d. Upon hearing no Council questions or comments, the public
hearing was closed.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN
EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED.
f. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley,
to adopt Resolution No. 93-31.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present. (Council President Schwartz, and Councilors
Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted yes.)
g. ORDINANCE NO. 93-17 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 93-0002)
(BAKER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
h. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt,
to adopt Ordinance No. 93-17.
Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present. (Council President Schwartz, and Councilors
Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted yes.)
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Leaislative)• ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA
93-0004 SOLID WASTE A proposal to adopt a new section
(18.116) of the Community Development Code for mixed solid
waste recyclables in new multi-family residential and non-
residential buildings. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide
Planning Goals 1 and 2; Comprehensive Plan Policies l.l.a,
1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 7.12.1; Community Development Code
Chapters 18.30 and 18.116.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the staff report.
In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz, Mr.
/ Bewersdorff anticipated the proposed amendment would
i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 6
require relatively little staff time to implement.
C:
d. Public testimony: None*
e. Public hearing was closed.
(Note: The proposed
Council consideration
Staff provided Council
f.
g•
ordinance before Council was in error.
of this Item was heard after Item No. 7.
with correct copies of the ordinance.)
ORDINANCE NO. 93-18 - AN ORDINANCE TO ADD PROVISIONS TO
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (SECTION 18.116) RELATING
TO MIED MULTI-FAMILY SOLID RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENIAL BUILDINGS.
Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt,
to approve Ordinance No. 93-18. PROPERTY
ONCERNING 6, REMOVALL AC IIEW: VITY ASDATE
REPORTED DURING THE CJUNE 22, 1993E
REMOV
VISITOR'S AGENDA Mrs, Hart to stake
a. Staff was not granted permission by lain does not
the wetlands. The City map showing floodP
reconcile with a copy of the 1987 map from FEMA. Staff
will reconcile to assure the most current FEMA map is
being utilized.
(Note: See discussion held during Study Session and
Visitor's Agenda on this item.)
7. COUNCIL REVIEW: CAPITA IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - CONSIDER
ADJUSTMENTS TO PROJECT PRIORITY LIST Sidewalks or Paths for
Staff Report (Engineering Department) _ Residents
S.W. Park, Watkins, and 72nd Avenue as Requested by
at the 6/22/93 Council Meeting (Adjustments to Priority List).
In addition, Staff Report on Approach to Potential Purchase of
Link and Shrauger Property.
Link/Shrauger Property
City Administrator reviewed the information presented in the
Council packet. Council also heard requests from property
and
owner, Jill Link, concerning the effort sell her home discussed
proceed h
property before the City would purchase. whether the staff should be authorize to Administrator,
developing an agreement, as described by City
toward the possible purchase of the Link and Shrauger
properties. Councilor Hawley noted her concerns of balancing
the safety and welfare needs of the rest of the residents of to purchase
the City; she was not persuaded that committing Se also was
two properties should received priority.
concerned with the precedent this may be setting.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 7
Councilor Fessler noted she felt this property was unique
because the City "drew the line" for the road, and it is an
owner-occupied house on developed, existing residential
property. Councilor Schwartz noted he concurred with many or
the points expressed by Councilor Hawley. The only reason he
has agreed to looking at a purchase of these two properties
was because of the specific alignment of the road which
definitely affects these two homes. He said this was a unique
circumstance.
Council discussed basic criteria for the attempted sale by the
owners of the property as well identifying the funds to be set
aside. Councilor Schwartz clarified that his consideration at
this meeting would be to approve the policy and to give
permission staff to move ahead with the appraisal. Councilor
Hawley advised, for the record, that she disagrees with the
policy statement, as proposed, because it gives a false sense
of security for people who live in an urban area who must
realize that their homes may be subject for removal for
certain reasons. This creates a false sense that, if the City
draws a line on the map, that the City will purchase the
property. It also leaves the City vulnerable to problems
because the policy also states that if the criteria are met
the City will purchase the property "if adequate funds are
available..."
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to
instruct the staff to proceed with implementation of the
policy as presented with the change that the property must be
owner occupied.
The motion passed by a majority vote of Council present (3-1).
Council President Schwartz and Councilors Hunt and Fessler
voted "yes"; Councilor Hawley voted "no."
City Administrator advised he would authorize the appraisal.
Council consensus was that $330,000 would be set aside pending
the appraisal.
Capital Improvement List
Council affirmed the capital improvement list, with the
exception of Pedestrian Improvements and the 130th/Winterlake
Bridge design. Council will review these two items again to
determine priority and evaluate cost information.
9. PRESENTATION BY NOEL KLEIN REGARDING TIGARD TALKS SURVEY
RESULTS.
Mr. Klein reviewed major areas of conclusion from the Tigard
Talks Survey. In general, residents are fairly pleased with
Tigard as a place in which to live. On a scale of 1-10,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 8
respondents give the livability of the city a median average
rating of 7.7. Respondents to this survey offer two very
clear messages: 1) Work on resolving traffic problems,
particularly those associated with Highway 99W, and 2) Manage
growth-related issues in Tigard in advance of, or concurrent
with, further growth.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Councilor Fessler announced the upcoming "Tigard Country
Daze" event. She is involved with the parade portion of
the festivities which will occur on August 21 (Saturday).
She invited the Council to participate in the parade.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m.
Att st:
I herine Wheatley, City order
j i ,
-,Mayor, city of Tigard
Date:
ccm0713.93
4• CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1993 - PAGE 9
E
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
"City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
"Tigard, Oregon 97223
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
" ❑ Tearsheot Notice
" ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as.
1, Judith Koehler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the ~$ard Tines
a newspaper of general eireulaf on ea defined in ORS 193.016
and 193.020; published a 1 ar6-__ in the
of esaid cc nd st h 1
esrnR8` Aa y 2W nY,d Waste
e printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was published In the
entire Issue of said newspaper for_ ne successive and
consecutive In the following issues:
July 1, 1993
Subscribed and sworn to bef a me this-_~st -days_Qf 1111y,
Notary
e Ile for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
Legal
Notice IT 7617
Pi~S RtRTE31
The following will be considered by td a TdWCity.Council on J l3.
1993. at 7:30 P.M.. at Tigard Civic Center. HA Room, W.
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. FurMzr information may be obtained
from the Cammaniry Development Dlroctor or City Rocorder at fdw same
location or by calling 639.4171. You are Invited to submit written tes-
timony in odvano of ft public hearing, writrsn and 9W testimonyy will
be consklered s; ft hearing8. Ito public bowl j; will be condwed in ac-
cordance with the rP;ilirabtc ChMner 1532 of the Tigtrd Mw'dcipel Code
nd any rules of procedure adopted by the Cotuicil and available at City
AC1LbYiR~'. LY: • u (AD NrOs)
A proposal to adopt a new section (18.116) of ft Community Develop-
ment Code for miucd salad blew in now multi-family re;dden•
tial and non-residential bltildingsPLICABLE REVIEW CaZTTE U:
Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2; Comprehensive Plan Palieics 1.1 a,
1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.3. and 7.12.1; Community Development Co& Chapters
c E,r, 18 30--A to 119
ATT®Fi: 11925 S.W. Dull Mountai'i Road (WCTM ?S1 10( BD etax
kit 1000). A request to annex one parml c wsdng of 1 roalmatoly 0.74
acfas to the City of Tigand and to change the zone trom Washington
„r County R-6(Rcsidcnfial. 6 units/acm) to City of Tigard R 4 5 pieridras-
tial, 43 uftiW=e). Tho ~pplica~i 38 regtxttiaZ atinsxatian far tdu pupa
of connectingg the parcel W City sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1. 10.1.2,10.1.3. 10.2.1.
10.2.2,10.3.1. 103.2 and Community Development Code Chapters and
Sections 18.32.020.18.32.040,1832.130,18.136,1&138. and 18.138.020
(AXB). ZONE: R-4.3 (ReAdmial. 4.3 unitsbue). The R-4.5 zone allows
single fsmily residential units, public apppm facilitie6, residential ueat-
ment homes, fanning, tusavlackmcd hraaM f attilyday cue, home oc•
cupstlons, lemporuy uses, and accerssrq stra mee ttenattg onset rises.
TT7617 - Publish July 1. 1993.
1993, CF C;AL SEAL
RG6;N A BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 024552
MY COMM;SS,ON EXPIRES MAY 16.1997
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6940360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
s City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
att: Terry
• 13135 S,: Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, Or 97223
• • t
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )ae
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )
t•---------------'llitlith Knaiilar
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti oard Timas
e newspaper of general cI Aulatio as defined in ORS 193.010
end 193.020; published at_1.7.Sa ! in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
-CiI-ySounc_il_Jhrai naa_G =tti n~o-
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the
entire issue of said newspaper for Onf`-successive and
consecutive in the following Issues:
-duly 8,_1993
Subscribed and sworn to befo'e me this 8th (/By Of July-19 3
l• 7i I L' ~l t c -
NotaryPu for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
Tho following trit~edrt/ hlgldi lx patrl't' gr yatu Jrtfomtatfo 1.
Legal agendas may be obtained rem tho City orQer. 13125 S.W.
Notloe TT 7621 Boulcvud, Tigard, Omgop 97213, ar by tatting 639-4171.
Cn Y COUNCIL nusmSS MEETING
JULY 13,1993
TIGARDCITY HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Council Mccdng (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.)
Study Scasion:
• Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) - Update on Applications
Facilitators
Business. Meeting:
• Council Discussion/Rcporu from Staff
- Update on Hart Property
z..~ - Capitai improvement Projects
„ Staff !te{wrt on Sidewalks or Paths for P1 rks/Watkins and
S.W. 72nd Avenue and Adjustments to Project Priority List;
Link and Shrauger Property Proposal on how to Appraaeh
Potential Purchase;
- Update from Attorney on Status of NPO 3 Request to Appeal
Director's Letter and Related Issues Concerning Development
of Taco Bell and Hot 'n Now Property Along 99W and Abutting
Neighborhood
- Charter Amendments - Update on Staff Research
Public Hearings
- Tigard Municipal Code Amendment to Add Provision for
Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage Areas (TI/
18.116)
- Annexation Request ZCA 93-0002 (Baker). Location 119
S.W. Bull Mountain Road. A request to annex one par(
consisting of approximately 0.74 acres to the City of Ti a
to change the zone from Washington Courtly R-6 (Residential
units/acre) to City of Tigard R4.5 (Rcsidenual.4.5 uniWau
The applicant is requesting annexation for the purpose
connecting the parcel to City sewer line.
OrriAl. B SEA( Local Contract Review Board Meeting
ROBIN A. BURGESS
d NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executi
02,552 COMMISSION
N E XP N0. 18.1 Session under the proviiiiomof ORS 192.660 (1) (d). (e), k h) to disci
MY COMMi55K)HE tvIRES MAY 16.1997 labor relations, real property wanstictions. current and pending iitigad
issues.
TT7621 - Publish July 8, 1993.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
1, ' begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) 43-ill 4- 9 3- I Sr
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated %3, V03
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached an y r rence made a part hereof,
on the day of
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Comer of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 191_
OFFICIAL SEAL
CONNIE MARTIN
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
COMMISSION No. 015877
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4, 1996
VI,
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
logtn\Jo\affpost
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 93-_
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA
'13-0002) (BAKER) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by Walter and
Irene Baker who are the owners of the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on July 13, 1993 to consider
the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property;
and
AREAS, on July 13, 1993 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding
the annexation to the Portland Metro
olitan A
L
Commission;
p
rea
ocal Government Boundary
and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation as set forth in Section 1 below is
consistent with the City of Ti
ard'
C
g
s
omprehensive Plan Map.
THE CITY OF
TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is
consistent with policies 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Tax MaR/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
2S1 10BD / 1000 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-4.5
( SECTION 2:
The properties meet the definition for an established area as
defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code
and shall be desi
nated
h
g
as suc
on the development standards
area map.
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 u naryimoct 5 vote of all Council memben present
after in
d b
g rea
y number and title only, this _13 day
of . J:9 9 3 .
Catherine Wheatley, Cit Recorder
APPROVED: This 13M day of
/1993.
Approved as to form: Ohn Schcvari3, Count<Z PIV5,den4
Cit Attorney Date
ORDINANCE No. 93-1
Page 1
STAFF REPORT
July 13, 1993
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. CASE: Zone Change Annexation 93-02
REQUEST: To annex one parcel consisting of approximately 0.74
acres of unincorporated Washington County into the City of
Tigard, and for 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). The applicant requests
annexation to obtain sanitary sewer service.
IVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County
Residential, 6 units per
acre.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6
units per acre).
APPLICANT(S):' Walter and Irene Baker
11925 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, Oregon 97224
OWNER(S): Walter and Irene Baker
11925 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard, Oregon 97224
LOCATION: 11925 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 10BD, tax
lot 1000)
2. Background Information
No previous applications have been reviewed by the City
relating to this property.
3. vicinity Information
All properties to the north of the site are in the City
of Tigard and are zoned for single family residential
development at a density of 2 units per acre. Properties
to the east, and west are in the City of Tigard and zoned
ZCA 93-02 Staff Report 1
R-2 (Residential, 2 units per acre). All properties to
the south are in the City of Tigard and are zoned for
single family development at a density of 4.5 units per
acre.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property to be annexed has - one single family
residence with the remainder of the property undeveloped.
The property is primarily covered with some trees.
The applicant requested that their parcel be annexed into
the City of Tigard in order to obtain sanitary sewer
service. An existing sewer line is located at the
northeast corner of the property to be annexed.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
Tualatin Valley Water District, Metro Area Communication,
Tualatin Valley Fire District and Portland General
Electric have reviewed the proposal and have offered no
objections or comments.
6. Police Department's Consideration
The Police Department has reviewed the proposal and have
offered no objections.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established
Area; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary
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 area to be
annexed is designated as an established area on the
development standards map.
3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has
ZCA 93-02 Staff Report
conducted the Washington County Urban Services Study
which includes the subject property. This study
indicates 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 to respond to police emergencies. The land is
located within Tigard's Active Planning Area, 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
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.
Since the property is within Tigard's Active Planning
Area, the zone designation shall follow the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map designation for low density use.
The most appropriate zone is R-4.5, and would allow for
potential future development of the parcel.
2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the
property meets the definition for an established area and
is designated as such on the development standards area
map.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings noted above, the planning staff
recommends approval of ZCA 93-02.
ZCA 93-02 Staff Report 3
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 93-1g
AN ORDINANCE TO ADD PROVISIONS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(SECTION 18.116) RELATING TO MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE
i AREAS IN NEW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community
i Development Code periodically to improve the operation a:nd
I implementation, of the Code; and
WHEREAS, The City's Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.12.1 calls for
appropriate City participation in Metro's Solid Waste Management Plan;
and
EqHEREAS, The City of Tigard has included adoption of a model ordinance
in its 199293 Waste Reduction Program, a nd 3
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning ommi.ssion reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on , 1993 and voted to
recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on July 13, 1993 to
consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in
( Exhibit "A".
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 UOCLn" moa5 vote of all Council members
present after being-read by number and title only, this
13` day of 1993.
er. ine Wheatley, City Recover
1 ~l
APPROVED: This day of 1993
P ` i
Approved as to form:
+y C~Co~nEj _ 7/
ORDINANCE No. 93- 1~
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
-Christer 18.116
Mo D SAL%D wasm~ assn H12Xrr U W 222 A;S
IN PiBw T_ AND NQH ~~Q T~9IP.TI..T S4
~e~ Qt4.Ol1® i
18.116.010 Purpose
18.116.020 Applicability
18.116.030 Definitions
18.116.040 Materials Accepted
18.116.050 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance
18.116.060 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas
A. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that certain new construction
incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and
efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated recyclablea
prior to pick-up and removal by haulers.
A. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclables storage standards
shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or
more units and non-residential construction that are subject to full site
plan or design reviews and are located within urban zones that allow,
outright or by condition, for such uses.
A. The following definitions apply to ordinance standards dealing with solid
waste and recyclables storage areas and not to other chapters of local
government development codos.
1. 'Mixed Solid Waste' means solid waste that contains recoverable or
recyclable materials, and materials that are not capable of being
recycled or recovered for further use.
2. 'Source Separated Recyclables• means, at a minimum, recyclable
materials designated 'principle recyclable materials' by the State
Environmental Quality commission under ORS 495A.025, with the
exception of yard debris. Currently these materials include
newspaper, ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal, used motor oil,
corrugated cardboard, aluminum, container glass, office paper, and
tin cans (OAR 340-60-030).
3. 'Storage Area• means the space necessary to store mixed solid waste
and source separated recyclablee that accumulate between collection
days.
4. 'Multi-unit Residential Building, means a structure that contains
five or more dwellings units that share common walls or
floors/ceilings with one or more units.
5. 'Non-residential Building, means a structure that is used for any
non-residential function, including but not limited to office,
retail wholesale/warehouse/industrial, educational, and
institutional uses.
A. " Except as provided for in Section 18.116.050(0) and (1), the storage area
must be able to accept at least all •principle recyclable materials•
designated by the Oregon Znvironmental Quality commission and other
source-separated recyclables the local government identifies by
regulation.
1621162950 N thade of D=on®t atin Cg= an e
A. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate
compliance$
I
1. Minimum standardai
2. Waste assessmantj
3. Comprehensive recycling plan] or
4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off.
Be The following provisions apply to all four methods of demonstrating
compliance:
1. Section 18.116.060 of this ordinance (Location, Design and Access
Standards), except as provided in 18.116.050((1).
2.
The floor area of an interior or exterior storage area required by
i
this ordinance shall be excluded from the calculation of lot
coverage and from the calculation of building floor area for
purposes of determining minimum storage requirements.
C. Minimum Standards Method
1.
Description of Methods
This method specifies a minimum storage area requirement based on
the size and general use category of the new construction.
2.
Typical Application of Methods
This method is most appropriate when the specific use of a new
building is not known. it provides specific dimensional for the
minimum size of storage areas by general use category.
3.
Application Requirements and Review Prooodures
The size and location of the storage area(s) shall be indicated on
the site plan of any construction subject to this ordinance.
Through the site plan review process, compliance with the general
and specific requirements set forth below is verified.
t
D. General Requirements
is based on the predominant use(s) of
The storage area requirement
1• i.e. residential, office, retail, wholesale/
wathe bulge/manufaaturinqo ( . educational/institutional, or other). it
that
the uses
building has
use a b building hoe floor or area occupied or by a 1008 e of the floor !area of the buil ing, the
oao 20 percent that use shall be counted toward the floor
area of the predominant uses (s) . If m building has more than one o
the uses listed in herein and that use occupies more than 20 percent
of the floor area Of the building, than the storage area requirement
for the whole building shall be the sum of the requirement for the
area of each use. be combined and
a. storage areas for multiple uses on a single site may
shared.
a. The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of
4 feat t for for solid waste/reayalables.~ used to accommodate the snore
feet but no higher than 7 feet may ccommo ate the a of ential
reduction volume of storage in m reduced Where verticalloor stacked storage is
43% of specific requirements).
proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate t
layout of the storage area and dimensions of containers.
g~ specific Requirements:
« eside~«;~~ bui~dina~ containing 5x10 units shall provide
10 storage area of 50 square feet. Buildings containing more
a minimum
unit abovea 10* rovide an additional 5 Square feet
than 10 residential
per unit for
_ ~,~i buildings m minimum storage area of 10
shall provide
2.
square feet, BSSip_
of e= 4 square feet/11000 square feet gross !loot area (G8A)
= 10 square feet/1,000 square feet GFA
.+house/Ma urinal 6 square feet/1,000 square feet
~r►..~~eenlaii,s~ GFA
4 square feet/1,000 square feet
rnatitutl9~= GFA
4 square feet/1,000 square feet GFA
8. Waste Assessment Method
1. Description of Methods tailors The waste assessment
and ariagmethodprogram fore the storage users of aanew
assessment a
building.
a. Typical Application of Methods
appropriate when the specific use of a building
This and is the most typo and volume of mixed solid waste to be
known method
generated can be estimated.
4
3. Application Requirements and Review Procedure:
a. A pre-conference with the solid waste coordinator/plan check
staff is required if the waste assessment method is proposed.
The applicant shall obtain a waste assessment form from the
local jurisdiction.
b. The form shall be used to estimate the volumes of source
separated racyclables/mixed solid wasto generated. From this
information, the applicant can design a specific management,
storage and collection system. Techniques such as a compactor
or cardboard baler may be implemented to minimize the square
footage of the site which must be set aside for a storage
area.
C. The waste assessment form shall be completed and submitted
with site plans required by the local jurisdiction. The plans
must identify the size and location of interior or exterior
storage area(s), specialized equipment, collection schedule,
etc. required to accommodate the volumes projected in the
waste assessment. The solid waste coordinator for the local
jurisdiction shall review and approve the waste assessment as
part of the site plan or development review process.
4. Specific Requirement:
The application shall demonstrate that the mixed solid waste and
recyclables volumes expected to be generated can be stored in lose
space than is required by the minimum standards method.
0. Comprehensive Recycling Plan Method
1. Description of Method:
The comprehensive recycling plan method is most appropriate when an
applicant has independently developed a comprehensive recycling plan
that addresses materials collection and storage for the proposed
use.
2. Typical Application of Methods
This method can be used when a comprehensive recycling plan has been
developed for a specific facility. It is most suited to large non-
residential uses such as hospitals, schools and industrial
facilities. The comprehensive recycling plan method can be used for
new construction or expansion that is subject to full site plan
review.
3. Application Requirements and Review Procedure:
The comprehensive recycling plan shall be submitted to the local
solid waste coordinator at the same time site plans are submitted
for site plan review. The applicant shall submit plans and text
that show how mixed solid waste and recyclables generated by the
proposed development will be served under a comprehensive recycling
plan. The location, design and access standards not forth in
Section 18.116.060 are applicable to new storage areas only.
H. Franchised Hauler Review Method
1. The Franchised Hauler Review method is only available in
jurisdictions which franchise collection service areas because there
is certainty as to what hauler will actually provide service to the
proposed development, once it is constructed.
2. Description of Methods
This method provides for coordinated review of the proposed site
plan by the franchised hauler serving the subject property.
3. Typical Application of Methods
i This method is to be used when there are unique conditions
associated with the site, use or waste stream that make compliance
with any of the other three methods infeasible. The objective of
this method is to match a specific hauler program (types of
equipment, frequency of collection, etc.) to the unique
i characteristic(s) of the site or development.
The following constitute unique conditionss
a. Use of either of the three other methods of compliance would
interfere with the use of the proposed development by reducing
the productive space of the proposed development, or make it
impossible to comply with the minimum off-street parking
requirements of the underlying zone.
b. The site is of an irregular shape or possesses steep slopes
that do not allow for access by collection vehicles typically
used by the franchised hauler to serve uses similar in size
and scope to the proposed use.
C. The proposed use will generate unique wastes that can be
stacked, folded or easily consolidated without the need for
specialized equipment, such as a compactor, and can therefore
be stored in less space than is required by the Section
18.116.050(C) of this ordinance.
4. Application Requirements and Review Procedures
The applicant shall work with the franchised hauler to develop a
plan for storage and collection of source separated recyclables and
mixed solid waste expected to be generated from the new building.
A narrative describing how the proposed site meets one or more of
the unique site conditions described above plus site and building
plane showing the size and location of storage area(s) required to
accommodate anticipated volumes shall be submitted for site plan
review. Additionally, a letter from the franchised hauler shall be
submitted at the same time that describes the level of service to be
provided by the hauler, including any special equipment and
collection frequency, which will keep the storage area from
exceeding its capacity.
A. The following location, design and access standards for storage areas are
applicable to all four methods of compliances
1. Minimum standards;
2. Waste assessment;
3. Comprehensive recycling plan; and
4. Franchised hauler review.
8. Location Standards
1. To encourage its use, the storage area for source separated
recyclables shall be co-located with the storage area for residual
mixed solid waste.
2. indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building
and Fire code requirements.
3. Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single
location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and
exterior locations.
4. Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or
rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within
a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or
private street.
5. Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible
locations on a site to enhance security for users.
6. Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the
proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces
required for the use after deducting the area used for storage.
Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the
provisions in Section C, Design Standards.
7. The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and
located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or
vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent
to the site.
C. Design Standards
1. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers
consistent with current methods of local collection.
2. Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be
made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered
area.
3. Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight obscuring fence,
wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which
allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings
for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable
of being secured in a closed and open position.
4. Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate
the type of materials accepted.
D. Access Standards
1. Access to storage areas can be limited for security reasons.
However, the storage area shall be accessible to users at convenient
times of the day, and to collection service personnel on the day and
approximate time they are scheduled to provide collection service.
2. Storage areas shall be designed to be easily accessible to
collection trucks and equipment, considering paving, grade and
vehicle access. A minimum of 10 feet horizontal clearance and a
feet of vertical clearance is required if the storage area is
covered.
3. Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without
requiring backing out of a driveway onto a public street. If only
a single access point is available to the storage area, adequate
turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to
safety exit the site in a forward motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: July 1S. 1993
(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.
NAME & ADDRESS
TOPIC
STAFF
CONTACTED
7
`1-1 z~ 3
S )DIG 9W t
1 4-
Ro -Lv+~ dl9 nl`
472 5
~t3-7-1 Sw '1M w 4 Lcc~
~ ro
t 050 sWU.10.'v1V S
w"A -
ogin o v sitors.s t
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.
AGENDA ITE61i'd NO. 4 4 DATE: July 13, 199A
PUBLIC HEARING (GUBSI-Judicial): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93,0002 MAKER
LOCATION: 11925 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S1 101313, tax lot 1000) A request to annex one
parcel consisting of approximately 0.74 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/acre).
The applicant is requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcel to City sewer line.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2,
10.3.1, 10.3.2 and Community Development Code Chapters and Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040,
18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The
R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes,
farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory
structures among other uses.
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
No sq~n _
1
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.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5,7,
DA? E „ July .13, 1993
PUBLIC HEARING (LegiSla#ive)' ZONING ORDINANCE AMEN12 MIENT ZOA 93,0004 SOLID
WASTE A proposal to adopt a new section (18.116) of the Community Development Code for mixed
solid waste recyclables in new multi-family residential and non-residential buildings. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 1.1.2, 2.1.1,
2.1.3, and 7.12.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.116.
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
w Std
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator J
DATE: July 6, 1993
SUBJECT: CIT Facilitator Discussion
At the City Council meeting of July 13, we have scheduled a
discussion on the CIT Facilitator applications. As of this
writing, we have received 19 applications. There are at least 3
applications for each CIT area and in the central CIT, there are
seven.
The next step in the program is the Facilitator selection. The
Facilitators will play a key role in the success of the program.
The selection process needs to be designed to ensure the
Facilitators chosen posses the skills and abilities to carry out
the responsibilities.
The Council needs to decide the following:
1). The composition of the CIT Facilitator interview panel.
2). How the selections will be made.
3). The personal traits or qualities to look for in
candidates.
Below are alternatives and recommendations for each.
1). The CIT Facilitator interview panel.
OPTION A: Three City Councilors serve as the interview
panel. Janice Deardorff and I participate by
guiding the process (providing interview
questions, scoring matrix etc.) The interview
V~ Mp°'t'"~ panel is authorized to make the final
decisions.
OPTION B: Two City Councilors serve on the interview
panel with Janice or me. Janice and I guide
the process. The interview panel either is
authorized to make the final decision or makes
a recommendation to the full Council.
RECOMMENDATION: OPTION A. This allows a majority of council
to make the decision without involving the full Council in a
time consuming interview process. It also eliminates the need
for the Councilors who are not on the interview panel to vote
without the information that may be gained in the interview
process.
2). How to decide on Facilitators.
As mentioned above we have more applications than positions to
be filled. Below is a list of items that may be important.
Council may want to revise this list.
• Geographic representation
• Professional mix
• Demographic mix
• General civic and community involvement
• History with NPOs (may be used as a tie breaker).
Another related issue is how to determine who will be
appointed to which of the three staggered terms.
3). The personal traits or qualities to look for.
The following list was presented to Council at the June 8,
1993 meeting. Councilors may have additional revisions to
this list.
( Interested in pursuing a broad range of issues, not
focused on resolution of one issue.
• Recognize the importance of different opinions.
• Ability to be articulate.
• Ability to communicate with all types of people.
• Good listening skills.
• Leadership qualities.
• Self assured, confident.
• Ability to deal with conflict.
Once the Council provides direction on the interview panel, how to
decide on Facilitators, and the qualities to look for, Janice and
I will proceed. We will develop interview questions and a decision
matrix based on Council direction. I will coordinate and schedule
the interviews sometime in the next two weeks.
t
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: July 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Study Session, July 13, 1993
I would appreciate Council direction on the following two items.
1. OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN: LOC is requesting cities adopt
the attached resolution in support of the plan. I have
enclosed various support material. I have also spoken with
Tom Brian who chairs the subcommittee and expressed our
support. If Council is willing and supportive of the plan, I
would encourage adoption of the resolution during non-agenda.
If more information is needed, please advise.
2. METZGER PARK: A long time ago, Council asked Washington
County to redraw the LID to exclude properties now within the
city limits. The request was submitted to the county with no
response. During review, the county determined that if a
county extends an LID into a city, the extension must be
approved by the City Council. Thus, to continue the LID
assessment, council must authorize the county to do so.
County staff has asked me to determine the Council's attitude
toward this matter.
Apparently the Council, during the Metzger Annexation in 1986,
indicated to the Boundary Commission the city's willingness to
continue with the LID arrangement if the Metzger Community so
wished.
PJR/j h
attachment
h:\login\pat\study
r
League of ®U
re on Cities
Local Government Center, 1201 Court St. ME, P.O. Box 928, Salem 97308•Telephone: (503) 588-6550; 1-800-452-0338 toll free; FAX: 378-5859
July 2, 1993
TO: City Managers, Administrators and Recorders JAL 9993
L►~~,v jj FROM: Val Paulson, Sr. Staff Associate
RE: Oregon Transportation Plan Financing Package
Some cities still have reservations about the Oregon Transportation Plan and
what it will do for them. We want you to understand how it will affect your city. Then,
if you can, we would like you to contact your legislators and urge that they vote for
the key transportation package bills.
WHAT DOES THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN DO FOR MY CITY?
I am enclosing copies of two estimates that illustrate the financial impact that
the most important transportation bills now before the legislature will have on
individual cities. Cities should be aware that passage and implementation of the
financing package would provide substantial resources for streets, roads and bridges.
Highway Funding
The first enclosure is a list, dated June 29, 1993, that estimates the increase in
available highway funding over the period 1993 to 1998 if three of the OTP bills pass.
The bills are:
• HB 2415, which provides for a gas tax increase of 3¢ in each of the next two
years;
• 1-113 2416, which increases vehicle registration fees. For automobiles, a $15
increase that is dedicated to highway purposes would take effect on January 1, 1994;
an additional $20 would be imposed on January 1, 1995. The $20 amount will also go
into the Highway Trust Fund unless voters approve a constitutional amendment
proposed by HJR 7, in which case that sum will be available for public transportation
and other projects. (Details are provided below.)
(over)
OFFICERS Mike Lindberg, Commissioner, Portland, President • DIRECTORS- Larry GnBith, Councilor, Baker City • Roger Jordan, City Manager, Dallas • Di Lyn Larsen-Hill, Mayor, La Grande
Charles vars. Mayor. Conrallis. Vice-President • Marion Rossi. Mayor, • Randy MacDonald. Councilor. Eugene • Joe McLaughlin, Immediate Past President • Bill Peterson, City Manager. Grants
Independence, Treasurer • Richard Townsend. Executive Director. Pass • Susan Reid. Councilor, Ashland Bill Riegel. Councilor. Salem, • Steve Stole, Mayor, Tualatin.
P,.- m Rain, • Prim
• HB 2456, which accelerates the sunset date and effectively repeals the
ethanol tax credit.
Public Transportation Funding
The second list shows the annual funds that can be controlled by cities if the
constitutional amendment proposed by HJR 7 is passed. The formula is somewhat
complicated. These funds would first have to be used for projects that promote public
transportation and improve air quality, but--if all those needs have been met in a
community--the funds could be used for highway purposes. The plan also provides a
financial incentive for cooperation among the various transportation jurisdictions within
a county area. If HJR 7 does not pass, the funds are included and distributed with
other Highway Trust funds.
Examples
Some examples may be useful:
1. The City of Coquille would receive an estimated additional $322,197 in
Highway Trust funds over the initial six-year period. In addition, If HJR 7 passes,
Coquille could control a share of an annual figure of $466,164, which would be
allocated among the 7 cities in the county that are not covered by a transit or
transportation district.
2. The City of Albany would receive an additional $2,667,545 over the six-year
period in Highway Trust funds. Since Albany operates a fixed-route transit system, it
should receive an extra $602,006 annually if HJR 7 passes.
3. The City of Pendleton would receive an increase of approximately
$1,206,871 in six-year Highway Trust funds and would control-along with the other 11
cities in Umatilla County--a proportional share of an additional $463,681 per year if
HJR 7 passes.
ACTION NEEDED URGENTLY!
If you have not already done so, the League urges you to consider adopting a
resolution supporting the Oregon Transportation Plan funding package. Whether or
not you do, however, we also urge you to contact your legislators immediately and
ask that they support HB 2415, HB 2416, HB 2456 and HJR 7. it is important that
they understand that the Oregon Transportation Plan funding package does more
than provide the tools and resources that Oregon needs to be consistent with federal
transportation policy and funding. The financing plan will allow cities to continue to
meet their street, road and bridge maintenance and preservation needs.
As always, if you have questions about the bills or the financing package,
please don't hesitate to call Val Paulson at the League.
Benefits - Portland Metro Area
Clackamas, Multnomah, & Washington Counties
Vision
To meet Oregon's future population needs, the Oregon Transportation Plan (the state's
transportation policy) envisions the development of an expanded and integrated
transportation network of highways, intercity bus, transit, rail, marine, aviation, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Oregon Transportation Plan Benefits
The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) contains the following benefits for Portland
metropolitan area residents. Funding from the OTP 1993 legislative financial package will
advance these proposals.
Aviation
• Support improvements to increase commercial air service connections between
Portland, smaller Oregon cities and other national international cities.
• Support intercity connections by improving services at general aviation airports.
• Support expansion of air freight handling capabilities at Portland International
Airport.
( Bicycle/Pedestdan
• Construct additional bikeways and pedestrian walkways in urban areas.
Highway
• Expand use of demand management techniques, including ridesharing and high
occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways and arterials, to improve highway capacity and
reduce congestion.
• Continue to implement the Access Oregon Highway program for U.S. 26 and 30 and
Oregon Highway 99W.
Intercity Bus and Transit
• Expand urban transit services including park and ride facilities. Complete the light
rail system already planned.
• Expand commuter transit service to nearby communities.
• Establish hourly intercity bus service to major cities along I-5 in the Willamette
Valley.
• Develop intercity passenger bus services that allow at least one round trip to be made
within a day between Portland and Astoria/Seaside and Tillamook.
• Provide direct connections between intercity bus, air, rail, airport limousine services
and local transit services; and intercity passenger connections with local public
transit services and elderly and disadvantaged service providers.
• Develop an intermodal passenger terminal.
Port
• Connect railroads and trucking lines to port facilities to enable the Port of Portland to
operate in the international marketplace.
• Deepen the Columbia River channel. The project depends on the results of the Corps of
Engineers' feasibility study.
Bail - Freight
• Provide uncongested highway freight access to intermodal truck/rail terminals
during off--peak periods.
• Develop intermodal rail/truck facilities in Portland as the market demands.
Rail - Passenger
• Implement high speed train service traveling between Seattle and Eugene and
running at increased frequencies.
Additional Improvements
• Make specific regional transportation improvements that are included in the Metro
Regional Transportation Plan. This plan will become part of the OTP when it meets
performance guidelines. Improvements are expected to carry out LCDC
Transportation Planning Rule 12 reductions in vehicle miles travelled per capita and
local land use plans for compact cities within the urban growth boundaries.
Six-Year Program Benefits
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program for 1993-1998 schedules a number of
improvements that will benefit Portland metropolitan area residents. The following are
examples of projects that the Department of Transportation will carry out during the next six
years.
Bicycle/Pedestrian
• Construct bikeways and walkways whenever, in general, highways, roads or streets
are being constructed, reconstructed or relocated.
• Widen Barbur Boulevard to provide bike lanes between Terwilliger Boulevard and SW
Hamilton Street, and add bike lanes to Multnomah Boulevard between SW 71st Avenue
and Barbur.
Highway
• Retrofit the Marquam Bridge (I-5) with earthquake fittings.
Complete projects related to the westside light rail project:
• Widen U.S. 26 from Cedar Hills Boulevard to S.W. 76th Avenue.
• Construct the Golf Creek Access Road.
• Widen U.S. 26 and improve the zoo interchange.
• Widen Oregon Highway 217 and reconstruct interchange ramps near Sunset
Highway.
Provide funds to construct the Hillsboro light rail transit facility.
Widen U.S. 26 from Murray Road to Oregon Highway 217 to six lanes.
• Widen I-84 from NE 181st to Troutdale to six lanes and construct interchanges.
• Provide motorist advisory message signs on I-5 and U.S. 26.
Widen and realign Oregon Highway 47 to tie into the Forest Grove bypass.
• Reconstruct the Stafford interchange and the bridge over I-5.
• Widen Oregon Highway 8, and construct sidewalks and a bikeway in Hillsboro.
• Provide rockfall protection for five miles on Oregon Highway 99E near Oregon City.
• Construct a freeway to freeway interchange on I-5 and Oregon Highway 217[Kruse
Way.
• Construct ramps from Marquam Bridge (I-5) to Grand and Union Avenues.
• Construct the Sunnybrook interchange on I-205.
• Repair joints on the St. Johns Bridge.
Transit (during federal fiscal year 1993)
• Provide matching funds to construct the westside light rail.
• Purchase small buses and accessible vehicles, and fund planning and demonstration
projects for Tri-Met.
• Provide support for special transportation services for senior citizens and people with
disabilities in the tri-county area. (not shown in TIP)
MEMORANDUM S7z.~ SeSS Vtti
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
7
/13Jc3
TO: Carol Landsman
fits
FROM: Ron Femero%
zL-
DATE:July 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Additional definitions for "Developed Residential"
The Community Development Code does not currently provide a
definition for the term "Developed Residential Land". Below are
five definitions which provide.a range of parameters.
1) Developed residential land is that land which includes a
habitable structure and is not large enough to be further
partitioned or subdivided.
2) Developed residential land is that land which is within 100
feet of the perimeter of a habitable structure.
3) Developed residential land is that land which is one acre in
size or less and includes at least one habitable structure.
4) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:5 or greater. (i.e. A 7,500
square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 15,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 3,000 square feet in
size; etc...)
5) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:10 or greater. (i.e. A 15,000
square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 30,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 3,000'sguare feet in
size; etc...)
I contend that definition number one best meets the intent of the
purpose statement of Community Development Code Section 18.150
which states:
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary
removal of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the
development of those lots. At the time of development it may
be necessary to remove certain trees to accommodate
structures, streets, utilities and other needed or required
improvements within the development.
The more liberal the definition of Developed Residential Land, the
more "at risk" the remaining trees are which are located on
Tigard's remaining developable residential land.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly
FROM: Carol A. Landsman cA
DATE: July 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Goal5
The following is a chronology of our dealings with DLCD regarding Tigard's goal 5 periodic
review. It has been a convoluted process, in part because new case law seemed to change
definitions of what constitutes an inventory. For DLCD purposes, an inventory is a list of natural
resources that have been evaluated and sorted as 'significant' and 'not significant' based on
that evaluation.
In spite of the confusion and the somewhat painful process that may or may not have much
( `o do with wetlands protection, I think it is important for Tigard to evaluate its natural resources
and determine what it wants to protect and how. We should not confuse the administrative
process with the public policy issues and good natural resource planning. Tigard's natural
environment is a plus for quality of life as well as property values.
June 1992
We received a letter from DLCD, (attachment one) (that incidently went out to
the public before we received it) stating that because an objection had been
received regarding our wetlands inventory, we were required to explain why Hart
Lake as well as other wetlands in the SRI report were not included in our inventory.
Alternatively, we could include them and complete the goal five process
including determination of significance and protection strategies.
June-September 1992
Staff had numerous discussions with DLCD staff regarding what actions Tigard
needed to take to complete its periodic review process.
September 1992
Staff received a second letter from DLCD, (attachment two) stating that because
we had conducted a study of our wetlands (the SRI study) we had adequate
information to determine the quality of these sites and to conduct an inventory
process including determination of significance and development of protection
strategies based on balancing the value of the wetland with economic, social
and environmental factors. This letter went on to indicate that we did not need
to change our existing ordinance, just apply it to the wetlands in the inventory.
October 1992 - March 1993
Staff completed the goal five process as outlined by DLCD.
April 1993
Staff submitted goal five report to DLCD which reviewed it favorably, going so far
as to tell other communities Tiigard's was a good example.
May 1993
Staff took wetlands map and goal five report to NPOs for citizen input. Citizens
identified 12 potential wetland areas not identified on map. Staff hired SRI to
assess these areas.
June 1993
DLCD informed staff (attachment three) that because the SRI study only assessed
wildlife habitat, Tigard does not have enough information to conduct an inventory
process. Tigard must, therefore, adopt a program (called 1 B process) stating how
it will complete the goal five wetlands process. This will entail further study of
wetland functions such as erosion control and water recharge value. We do not
need to do this assessment to be in compliance; we only need to adopt a plan
stating how and when we're going to do this. Staff has requested a cost estimate
from SRI. DLCD recommends Tigard apply for one of its wetlands inventory grants
which must have a 50% local match. Last year only 4 of 20 were funded. DLCD
also maintains that Tigard must change its ordinance (I assume, offer completion
of inventory process) because it cannot rely on other government agencies to
protect its wetlands. Because staff questioned this, DLCD is now seeking a legal
opinion from the Attorney General.
WHAT NEXT?
So, this is what has been going on over the last year regarding our quest to be in compliance
with DLCD goal five regulations. What we must do now to be in compliance is:
A adopt a program for completion of the goal 5 process including activities and timeline.
Then according to our timeline we can complete our wetlands inventory. We do not do this
to be in compliance. SRI suggests the assessment will cost about $10, 0. As mentioned
earlier, we can apply for a 50% grant.
Now, regarding natural resource planning in general, staff is planning to ask CIT members to
participate in a self-selected citizen group to evaluate the existing natural resource plan
policies and strategies and make recommendations. This will be part of the local visioning and
plan review process we will undertake this fiscal year. We are collecting information on our
existing wetlands including public/private ownership and parcels that are more than 85%
wetlands to identify any potention takings issues. We are reviewing the status of natural areas
identified in the 1983 comprehensive plan. We are mapping all open spaces and will assess
them for their potential as buildable land or natural area. We have $5,000 in the budget to
assess forest lands in Tigard, although we may choose to apply that to the necessary wetlands
study.
l
PH/Wet.Mem
July 8. 1993
INW- SA A -E, 2q lM t L"&,
S O A-a 41,o-16a-p- -loo
June 2, 1992
Ed Murphy
Community Development Director
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
s
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):
P~4
i
-"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
wildlife habitat and should be determined
"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.
ii addition, it appears that the city has chosen
n3t_ to inventory any of the wetland sites
discussed in the SRI wetlands document, since the
city is still using the wetlands inventory map
developed in 1984. Considering that the SRI
report is certainly specific concerning location,
quality and quantity of specific resource sites
DEPARTMENT C
LAND
CONSERVATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
Barbara Roberts
Governor
a.---
1175 Court Street N)
Salem, OR 97310-051
(503) 373-0050
r . v M01% W,') (',70-,
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,
Michael J. Rupp
Plan Review Manager
<wet>
cc: Doug Smithey
Mel Lucas
t
s 4~
r
Y
September 21, 1992
Carol Landsman
Senior Planner
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Ms. Landsman:
The Department has reviewed the City of Tigard's
existing wetlands ordinances to determine compliance
with Statewide Goal 5. Based on this review, we have
the following observations and recommendations.
Problem with Tigard's Current Wetland Ordinances:
The City currently makes decisions regarding the
protection and development of wetlands without
first having gone through the Goal 5 ESEE
balancing process.
Tigard's current ordinance states that wetlands are.
"sensitive lands" and are "potentially unsuitable for
development..." (Ordinance 18.84.010(A)). Later
( sections of Chapter 18.84 list which uses of wetlands
are permitted and which are prohibited. These
ordinances constitute a regulatory wetlands program.
However, Statewide Goal 5 requires that a jurisdiction
must determine significance and balance conflicting
uses of specific sites before developing a program to
regulate wetland sites. (See OAR 660-16-000).
Your existing ordinance also states that wetland
locations "may include but are not limited to those
areas identified" in the 1990 Scientific Resources
Incorporated maps. (Ordinance 18.84.028). This is not
appropriate under Goal 5. The City may only regulate
areas clearly defined on an adopted inventory.
Otherwise, the public will not have certainty as to
what areas will be regulated. This is contrary to the
purpose and language of the Goal.
Goal 5 Requirements:
1. Based upon current information, the City must
determine which of its wetlands are "significant."
Jurisdictions may have an inventory of "potential"
resource sites if there is not yet adequate information
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND
CONSERVATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
Barbara Roberts
Govemor
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310-0590
(503) 373-0050
FAX (503) 362-6705
Tigard Wetlands 2 September 21, 1992
to determine the quality of these sites. This means that if the
t City had only inventoried the location and quantity of the
wetlands, (and not obtained information on their value as
wildlife habitat), it would not be necessary to complete Goal 5
at this time. Instead, due to a lack of "quality" information,
you could defer the determination of significance until a later
time.
However, the information contained in the Scientific Resources
Incorporated report addresses wetland location, quantity, and
quality. Given that the City now has available information
addressing all three elements, it is necessary to determine which
sites are "significant" and complete the Goal 5 process.
(OAR 660-16-000(5)). Sites which are determined not significant
do not need to be included on the City's final inventory.
Recommendations:
a. Decide which of the wetlands included on the inventory are
"significant." For example, perhaps decide that wetlands
ranked in the SRI report as Class 1 or 2 are to be
considered "significant" and Class 3 and 4 wetlands are not.
You should be aware that, for the sites you decide are not
significant, the SRI report should support your reasoning.
This agency, for one, would question a determination that
sites are not significant if the SRI report indicates they
have high wildlife habitat value.
b. A review of the SRI report on Tigard's wetlands indicates
that the wetlands along drainageways, specifically Fanno
Creek, provide the most valuable wildlife habitat. (No
other functions or values were assessed by SRI.) For this
reason, the City should focus its Goal 5 evaluation on Fanno
Creek and its associated wetlands.
2. After determining "significance," the City must develop a
program to protect the significant wetlands.
For significant wetlands that have potential conflicts, an ESEE
balancing test must be performed to balance conflicting uses
against the resource values. (OAR 660-16-005). Based on this
balancing test, a program must be developed specifying which
sites are to be protected and which can be developed.
(OAR 660-16-010).
The sites that should be protected are all those in which the
resource values outweigh the value of the conflicting use. If a
site is not protected, the city must demonstrate that the value
of the conflicting use outweighs the resource values. The third
option is to limit conflicting uses and maintain some protection
of the resource site.
Tigard Wetlands 3 September 21, 1992
Recommendations:
a. In most cases, the ESEE process can be fairly general;
similar wetlands can be grouped by biological type and land
use zone. For wetlands with unusual or unique biological or
development potential, a more site-specific analysis needs
to be conducted.
b. Keep your current ordinances. Simply apply them only to the
wetlands you determine are significant and map as such.
c. You may wish to add ordinances addressing the removal of
vegetation. Neither state nor federal law regulates this
and much damage can be done to wetland values simply by
removing the vegetative cover, without moving any dirt. The
Department is aware that the City is working to complete a
"tree" ordinance. Perhaps this ordinance could also address
removal of herbaceous and scrub-shrub vegetation in
wetlands.
The preceding issues must be addressed before Tigard's Periodic
Review can be terminated. The following is a suggestion only:
Request that DSL approve the SRI inventory as meeting the
"Local Wetlands Inventory Standards" set forth in
OAR 141-86-180 to 141-86-240. Once approved by DSL, permits
will be required from the state before development can occur
within these sites. This will result in better protection
of valuable wetlands and will reduce the number of
enforcement actions taken against landowners who build
without first obtaining the necessary permits. It will also
help ensure consistency between the DSL and DLCD programs.
Again, although we recommend that you request DSL approve your
inventory, you are not required to do so. The DSL L-and DLCD
processes are separate and the City does not have to obtain a DSL
certified inventory before Periodic Review can be terminated.
If you should require additional assistance as you complete the
Goal 5 process for wetlands, please contact me at 378-6127.
Sincerely,
~w
Lynn D. Beaton
Wetlands Specialist
tigard.2
RECEIVED .;;!L p 1 I99,4
June 30, 1993
Carol Landsman
Senior Planner
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Ms. Landsman:
This letter is in regard to the City of Tigard's
Periodic Review and relates to our conversation of June
10, 1993. During this conversation, we discussed
several planning options that will allow Tigard to
address outstanding wetland issues and close Periodic
Review. Those options are set out below.
We believe that the Oregon Supreme Court's
interpretation of Goal 5 in Columbia Steel Casting v.
City of Portland, 314 Or 422; P2d (1992), adds
complexity to the Goal 5 process. As a result, we
believe that local jurisdictions must have more
information about Goal 5 wetland resources than
previously anticipated. This information is necessary
to conduct adequately the required ESEE consequences
analysis. Specifically, in order to proceed through
the required ESEE analysis, we believe that
jurisdictions must have information available that
relates to a wetland's functions and attributes.
As you know, local jurisdictions may not regulate a
Goal 5 resource without completing the procedural and
substantive requirements of Goal 5. We feel that
jurisdictions that overlook this restriction or the
Columbia Steel Casting decision will be highly
vulnerable to legal challenges. Consequently, we met
to discuss planning options that may allow Tigard to
address its remaining wetland issues and close periodic
Review with a minimal amount of liability.
Our discussions are premised with the following
understandings: 1) Tigard has conducted a wildlife
habitat assessment for most, if not all, of the sites
the City terms wetlands, 2) the City has not assessed
other wetland functions and attributes and 3) that the
assessment completed will fulfill the required Goal 5
inventory for wildlife habitat but not for wetlands.
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND
CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
Barbara Roberts
covemor
800 NE Oregon St. k 18
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 731-4065
FAX (503) 731-4068
Carol Landsman Page 2 June 30, 1993
Of the options discussed, we focused on two in particular.
First, the City can view those wetlands with wildlife habitat
assessments as Goal 5 wildlife habitat resources. For these
resources, the City can enter the Goal 5 process which includes
identifying conflicting uses, ESEE consequences analysis,
conflict resolution, adopting appropriate ordinances for these
resources. However, because the City lacks the necessary
information concerning the wetland functions of these same areas,
Tigard can determine that there is insufficient information
available to the city and place these wetlands in the "1B"
category. Once sufficient information is available, you will
initiate the Goal 5 process and develop regulations based on the
analysis of the additional functions these areas provide as
wetlands.
The second option, which we understand is the City's preferred
option, is for the City to ignore the wildlife habitat
information and define the wetlands as "1B" resources because
there is insufficient information relating to wetland functions
and attributes. Again, once sufficient information is available,
the City will proceed through the Goal 5 process for these sites
as wetland resources.
Both options require the City to respond to the existing
challenge brought by Doug Smithey. However, based on
conversations between Mr. Smithey and our staff, we understand
the Mr. Smithey will withdraw his challenge to the City's
Periodic Review if the city meets certain conditions. First, the
City must agree to establish a time frame for completing Goal 5
for wetlands. This is also required as part of the "1B"
decision. Second, the City will have to define the criteria they
will use to determine "significant" wetlands. This is not
required by DLCD but is a negotiating point between Mr. Smithey
and the City. Third, to assist the City to meet the requirements
of Goal 5 as interpreted by the Columbia Steel Casting court, the
City should apply to DLCD and DSL for a competitive wetland
planning grant. The Department has already provided the City
with the 1992-93 grant application which, although dated,
contains important explanatory information regarding the grants
that will not be modified for the 1993-99 grant process. we
understand that the "Fans of Fanno Creek" is willing to assist
the City apply for this grant. We further understand that Mr.
Smithey will withdraw his challenge if the City meets these
conditions. However, we suggest that the City contact Mr.
Smithey to clarify his position in this matter and to formalize
his agreement to the City's preferred planning option.
In addition, you should understand that in the future, to meet
the Goal 5 requirements for a resource subject to a "1B"
classification, your jurisdiction can not rely on the state and
federal regulatory system as a protection program. Tigard will
Carol Landsman Page 3 June 30, 1993
have to adopt a program based on identification of conflicting
uses and supported by your ESEE analysis.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or require
assistance as you complete your Periodic Review, please contact
Mike Rupp or me at (503) 373-0050.
Sincerely,
Jam s Sitzman
nt rgovernmental Services Manager
cc: Mike Rupp, DLCD
Mel Lucas, DLCD
Frank Flynn, DLCD
File
t
Vis 1 s 0
July 13, 1993•
Ti.qard City Council
There's no doubt to you and to me that the homeowners on Ironwood Loop
are very angry. They have said and done some hurtful things. i
{
It must be very hard for them, thinking that they moved here and that
they had a private buffer area behind their home, screened by overgrown
blackberries and brush.
I remember when the Ellsons and the Harts were the only ones in the
immediate area and the Englewood sundivision was built. We lost our
private buffer and many of the animals that we used to see (black and
red fox and other animals) were driven away from the area.
We didn't run to City Hall and voice opposition or try to control
what each one did with his or her property. We realized that we were
in an urban growth area and progress was inevitable.
Life changes and if we look around most people who have had acreage have
had to break it up because theg.cbn~t afford to keep it.
So, in a way I can empathize with their feelings but the fury they are
unleashing makes me feel harassed and victimized..... the large JUDAS sign
hung over one's fence, so it f9ces my side, the woman who threatened
my grandsom with a shotgun. I'm beginning to think I know how the Indians
must have felt.
I would like to suggest:
that they look at their own stuff
that they look at their own yard
that they get on with their own lives and, please God, let me do the same.
Sincerely,
Rita Hart
4
"-Re CcP -
13 July 1993
11396 SW Ironwood Loop
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Mayor and City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
PO B=x 23397
Tigard, .Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors:
I am writing about the recent bulldozer activity on the Hart property near
Hart Lake and the way the city handled the problem. Many of the specifics of
this case are indicative of a larger problem which the City needs to address
in its Goal 5 analysis. The city staff were reluctant to get involved. The
city staff, particularly Mr.. Ed Murphy, denied that the city had authori•ty:to .
get-involved..
The city staff says that the Hart property is developed according to a
technical reading of the code. This means that tree cutting cannot be
regulated by the city tree ordinance. I have enclosed aerial photographs and
ground photographs of this area which make this determination seem illogical
even if correct. The city tree ordinance apparently needs to be strengthened.
I suggest protecting trees. more than 100 feet-from a primary residence.
Most of the subject land is in the 100 year floodplain and much of it is
delineated wetland. The city sensitive land code requires a permit to do land
form alteration within the 100 year floodplain. Land form alteration includes
among other things grading. The city staff.were unaware of this sensitive
lands code. My attorney advised me that this did indeed apply. .
"I .witnessed, large. tree's within 't'he' 25 foot bit€fer of 'the wetland (within 10'
feet) being knocked over into the wetland lake bed. The 'city staff says that
there really is no wetland buffer until a permit for development is filed.
Then it is made a condition of the permit. The problem is that anyone who
wishes to avoid protecting the buffer can simply knock all the trees over or
destroy other vegetation before applying and it is perfectly legal. This
amounts to huge loophole in the Tigard code. The code as written is not
effective and should be evaluated through the Goal 5 process.
The activity on the Hart property will not achieve the stated results Mrs.
Hart says she would like. Knocking over trees allows more sunlight to the
forest floor. Grading creates an environment favorable to invasive brush
species like blackberry. In about 3 years the brush will be back in this area
stronger than ever. The temptation will then be to institute a program of
spraying, which is not desireable next to this wetland for water quality
reasons.
This wetland is strategically place at the base of Hiteon Creek just before
the confluence with Fanno Creek. It could be managed as a key area to combat
water pollution. The water has been let out of the lake. It could easily be
restored. The effect of this is increased water pollution, wood ducks no
longer nest there, frog populations are down, and great blue heron use is now
A
rare. If the rains come before erosion control measures are taken there could
C be a significant amount of sedimentation into the stream.' The large brush
piles now on the Hart property constitute a fire hazard and will attract large
numbers of rodents if not dealt with soon.
The above mentioned specifics simply highlight the deficiencies in the city's
natural-resource management program. It is a useful case study in that it
gives--us--insight into the directions the Goal 5 process should take.--Mhese
kinds of problems must be dealt with comprehensively through-the Goal 5
process.
Sincerely,
A. I
Douglas A. Smithey
l
L~
leas mom
x
4~ !
µ 4- ~ ,~F 't '4 'L~ 4 Yy, Syr, t 1 i h
^4 tti, Y~
t
,y
Council Agenda Item
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE:
July 6, 1993
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL CALENDAR, July - September, 1993
Official
Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally
OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council
Calendars.
July 193
* 13
Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
* 20
Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Tentative
* 27
Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
August '93
* 10
Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
* 17
Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Tentative
20-22
Fri-Sun Tigard Country Daze
* 24
Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
September 193
6
Labor Day Holiday (City Offices Closed)
14
Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
21
Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Tentative
28
Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session
Business Meeting
AGENDA OF: July 13
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
DEPT HEAD OK
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
3 DATE SUBMITTED: June 29. 1993
Rpointment to PREVIOUS ACTION:
PREPARED BY:
CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
Reappointment of a current Library Board member to a second term.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of attached Resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Carl Kostol has just completed serving a four year term on the Library Board.
Section 2.36.030(3) allows individuals to serve two consecutive four year
terms. Carl has expressed an interest in reappointment. Attached is a
Resolution which, if adopted, would appoint Carl Kostol to a second term.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached Resolution.
2. Take no action.
FISCAL NOTES
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3
Council Agenda Item No. 3.4
WASHINGTON
COUNTY,
OREGON
June 11, 1993
Parick J. Reilly
City Administrator
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Reilly:
RE: ELSNER ROAD/BEEF BEND ROAD PROJECT
A 16 1993 ning to the was pleased with the good response d my Beef Bend Road. Folaowp g olur presentation at
proposed project on Elsner R
your East County City Council and Managers meeting on May 21st, Mike Borresen
presented the project to the city/County Engineers meeting. process, are
In order to proceed with the project design and land ushe pPro ectg Please re d the
asking for support from each of the cities impacted by oyal, return it
enclosed draft response letter and, if it meets with your city let council's
prr Mike
ene or
to Commissioner Roy Rogers by the end of July. Also, pease
Borresen (640-3406) know if you would like the County staff to present the project to
your council.
Sincerely,
,~~ii~
0441-
John E. Rosenberger
Director
Enclosures
c: Mike Borresen
Phone: 503 / 693-4530
155 North First Avenue Department of Land Use and Transportation, Administration FAX 503 / 693-4412
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Room 350-16
July 26, 1993
L~
Commissioner Roy Rogers
Washington County
155 North First Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Dear Commissioner Rogers:
Mayor Edwards was authorized by the Tigard City Council to sign the
enclosed letter concerning the extension of Elsner Road and
improvements to Tualatin-Sherwood Road..
Please contact me if you need anything further.
S ely,
eri Wheatley
City Recorder
cwc0726.93
13125 SW Hall Blvd., lilg rd. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772
June 11, 1993
Commissioner Roy Rogers
Washington County
155 North First Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Dear Commissioner Rogers:
t As you know, we have been concerned about the state of Scholls-Sherwood Road,
Eisner Road and Beef Bend Road for quite some time. With this letter, we formally
r request that the County begin taking the steps necessary to correct the long-standing
safety problems associated with these roadways. As a first step, we would like to
work with the County to initiate the Elsner Road extension to Beef Bend Road.
Eighteen months ago, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard entered into agreement with
Washington County stipulating that the portion of Murray Boulevard extension between
Schogs Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road would not be opened until the
completion of the Elsner extension to Beef Bend Road.
The safety and capacity problems which necessitated this Memorandum of
Understanding have worsened. Traffic on Elsner Road and Beef Bend Road has
increased. Traffic safety is now, we feel, seriously jeopardized by increased volumes,
speeds and restricted sight distance at several locations.
To assist you in moving this project forward, the cities of Sherwood, Tualatin,
Beaverton, Tigard and IGng City intend to be co-applicants with Washington County in
the land use permitting process for the Elsner Road extension project. We know that
by working together, we can resolve this serious transportation problem.
Elsner Road Extension
June 11, 1993
Page 2
Please let us know how we can best help you proceed.
Sincerely,
Rob Drake
Mayor of Beaverton
Steven L Stolze
Mayor of Tualatin
Walter Hitchcock Lynda Jenkins
Mayor of Sherwood Mayor of 1Gng City
dwards
of Tigard
4or
Dr. Mary Taylor
Mayor of Durham
V
a 8.
TARR
u
N q
Y ~ ~ ~ 4 5 M-t I
o ;
g AV t i
11101 R1 am=
!
8 ;
UL- A4
BEEF END a 12 ~ p
CH - H 4o v ,
• 1 ;
c ,
a1- a Y AO '
n UTOQ I
QTY
r r u Y + ~ I
CM a
VI
-WIM
o jV 2 sY,sm ~ I
t 4 I ~1
~ - I Ar i stir ISOiH 13 A r , +
I
,(L: t y 8 u IP p
+r+rc
*
0 a• ~ as \s It a Ar sQ~. 11 ~
\ i 1,Y \lMrau u , -
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
qff COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: July 13. 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/01/93
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Baker Annex. PREVIOUS ACTION None
DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OR
D BY: Victor Aaonrx
D BY: Ed Murphy
1VVVY u
Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of one parcel
consisting of approximately 0.74 acres located at 11925 SW Bull Mountain Road
to the Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission?.
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
.....properties.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This annexation request consists of one parcel totaling 0.74 acres that is
contiguous to the City of Tigard on SW Bull Mountain Road. The owner of the
property requested annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service. The
applicant requests annexation via the "expedited method". The "expedited
-nethod" requires no public hearing by the Boundary Commission. It will allow
Annexation approval within 28 days instead of the customary 45 days. Notices
were sent to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. There
has been no response from neighboring property owners to the notice.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to
the Boundary Commission and assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the
property.
2. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL NOTES
The City will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $140 for annexation.
The current tax assessment is $159,700 The City could increase its tax base
by approximately $309. (Assessed value multiplied by City tax base portion of
tax rate of $1.94/1000 as of 1/1/90 = $309.81).
t
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ••^Q ~9~~
AGENDA OF: srs•'•' 1993 DATE SUBMITTED. ang Cam
r• ndment to PREVIOUS ACTION: nn •
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: mn ea
- - - -.1---a r..., 4 A W==+.= Reoomme l2 Mak 3 _
DEPT HEAD ON CITY ADMIN Off:
PREPARED BY : Q$ l3eWe~~uc~ri
REQUESTED BY: E KU DhV----
Should the City add provisions to
Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage
and Non-Residential Buildings?
I& yvvea. +.+x
Development Code relating to Mixed
as for new Multi-Family Residential
r.,-~~.a-aaaa--=aaaOa'--°°a'°aaama-aaaaaaaaaaammaaamomamma
S~'AFF RECD o add sec It recommended waste a ndmrecyclables storage tareas in then m18.11 ulti-
to require uire mixed solid
and non-residential buildings.
__________===avoaaaaaaaacaaaaaaaxaasa
~NFORwtATZ0 SUMMARY
The City of Tigard is part of the Metro Waste Shed. It is required to meet One of the
in the
Cit Metro solid wase ereduction an ordinances to require mixed
non-
1992-93 Waste e R
solid waste and recyclabl6B Adoption o of the new provisions uwould add the review
residential buildings. .
of these storage areas to the development review process. The ordinance
lists standards for the storage areas such as a minimum of 50 square feet for
five to ten residential units, ten square feet/1000 square feet of gross
floor area (GFA) for retail uses, four square feet/1000 square feet GFA for
anal methods of gaining manufacturing compliance care •also
provides and six t t,a feet/1000
provide flexlexibiliY
available These include a waste assessment plan and a franchise hauler review method. Informati fromrehensive
recycling. Metro
that summarizes the Model r teal of the ordinance and a ugg sted t Pcontaclanning
commission recommended app
potential users and the haulers prior to Council review. A letter with the
ordinance materials was sent to the Chamber o changes Commerce and staff taf fs mgegtes with
the solid waste haulers.
__~___o=a_ aacaaaaaSaaaaaaaaacsaaaaamomnmaa
ammaaamaffimmaamamaseaa~==-=a=
rvnnn✓e~r, aT.mF.RNATIVES
1. Approve the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission by
adopting the attached ordinance.
2. Suggest revisions to the attached ordinance and direct staff to
incorporate them into the ordinance.
s_a=aaa--aaa=aasaaaaaaaam®ammaasaaa
~saasaaaaaaaaaa=aaaaaaxa~aaa--N°~TGC'j~j, NOTES
The City of Tigard pays $12,879 to the Washington County Waste Reduction
Program. As long as the City complies with the waste reduction work program,
the City's share.
Metro pay.
;C
THE MODEL ZONIIOIG OIDINANCE
FO1t MINCED SOLID w smAMD
B EC YCL A B L ES S T 'O R.4GE IN N E W
MiX T'I-IUNIT RESIDEN7ML AND
NON-RESIDENTLIL
BUILDINGS- Project Summary
• Model Ordinance • .
_ a Waste Assessment Form
Design Examples
August 1992
j R®. , .
' SoOd Waste Department
t 2000 SW 'F'irst Avenue'
i Portland, OR 97201-5398
Phonf-- `5003) 221-1646
Fax (5003) 273-5586
Printed on racycled paper
B kg o Y
The model zoning ordinance requires dhat devebpers
kchsde a for the OxW of mbwd solid
waste and recyclables in their developmesit plans. The
availability of adequate one storage areas will
provide the opportunity for increased keels of regcling
in the region in order to help in meeting the stat-s goal
of 50 percent waste recovery by 2000; and, the region's
waste reduction goal of 56 pest by 2010.
Impkmentation of the model a dinance by local
governments fulfills the "Buildwg Dcsiga Rrview"
el fof their Waste Reduction Pram for fiscal-
year 1992-93,. It also mal= isavplemart~iar~ of nu lti-
fim0y recycling pry, also eootaincd in the FY
92-93 Waste Reductim Pr grzmn more feasible. The
standards contained is the tiaodel orb pertaining
to new commercial, institutional and industrial
dev,clopment will make implantation ofa recyclables
ooUAdion program for those land uses more practicable
Such a program is listed in the State Recycling Act
(Senate Bill 66) as a potential program element for
local governments to iinpkznent in antler to most the
state's. waste recovery goal.
®Iijeetives ol'~hc lh~doiiel
The model ordinance mats the following objectives:
Provides objective standards that are easy and
efficient for local governments to administer;
:0 Provides objective standards to designers and
developers without limiting creativity; and
:0 Builds flexibility into the ordinance to make
compliance feasible without the need for a zoning
variance.
i~ ~ n .r • •.r 3.>a '.0.•nK~Y ~ry~~""'•^ •%~~Y4'#• ~n✓-,.~^' J ~j•Ce•.tr'"'h...ny~'n~'~:1,",~+XY^•y.1+".K~•3.
~3C dr4~f~,QE~6F3S~CC' L~8,,;ffi°~ald~„w'
'tae Mel t aas= Outlines fim Of
Each local pwaument in dw regim has .a =uivs and
3'L'vkw code which is unigacly bmamed
and The moM nuffinm=
Afinf ➢wn 6~tf V.)& Specifies a
's i; is
standat& and
coda bWOB&
e based an the
as a StAde so it caa.be used by low Swicrunnift to
si= u' = catwyefthepr6posed.
the stan&uds ofdwnum into
&NCIOPUMBL
local Codes.
to. =Ndvam and
fix..~_ ..n....n..
tm be can
Sb d ffi ih~ SS r ijuirod by ft
Ofam e w
Nwimm S xxL
.g t i sdoption by f1m.local goveimunts in d2c
=V n, l O staff 8g a to p[ovidG
ls~efv~ fa~GCi ~Il~ ~dl7iS dldEO~: Mal=
Womatim da ou&mcc and assistwith fitting
IiSC 6fOmVSChcns1VeI&7cft pleas =4 p
miff,
the i into tot
ppCd by : i OC odm USCS
vAlich-go be56ad tile. .orfthe i o&1
Ad d=& tm 6f the ovdinancC wiII neckline
OYamnoe to saYisfg!
re:VEC1i0 6f s~oe aad $ l tint
/cfpinposed seances fw=w
® sad FlauderMetdiod -To be used when
OF of vm6vatim of
• tb= we iin ipe'o assodaftd, with the sitc6.
; Qdsft&vdDPMCcL. SbG plari.aevieca staff or a lom
it i
solid w 0&
try cc vftsoe st> tlsai maw a liaaoe wide any ;
V
~
• •
.
c ~t the eml tearie~v ~nme ~o
.
bla. ~
- bf tix uthes threg -i
-maloath Iftr C Bav a desk wM be z 1. faimd
_
to ca a that . cfthe dainance does ii
,
to tliC $~D-p13II.i+s!i~9C3v.PmC s is
The lot ba, dcsagin gad aOr ,s6sdasds inchidiltdin
_ mAcm pia s*4 =aIm use c
t- tike OCdi oe saov h t SoiW -
-the "Waste Ate, "gip +eRecycling
.
= Ensiiz starige +cat are c hally±~ocaLcd :
~ ' $Daa~"'oar' 'fi't I•Fagt3a' ltevi~` >s++ct~s Of
ass n
` t _taff are also avaa'lalsle to
easy r
r
,
Alis -
tuk .
J
Mect d aad.80ccSS togsiu S for
ha-
Si6t~ YIfEYMiI: t
l
I
N~G
~O
i
Vtl
•
~
~
`
~
~
2reaS
' . 6f~rxste
Council Agenda tem No. 6
~Y
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff
DIXTE : July 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Hart Property Status
r(35 &0.
o The City has offered to survey and stake the wetlands
boundary. After initial agreement, Mrs. Hart felt she needed
to get legal advice before allowing the City to proceed. We
have not had an additional response.
o There is no buffer area requirement unless activity is part of
a development. No mechanized equipment is allowed in the
wetlands without a Corps of Engineers permit. Hand clearing
is allowed in wetlands.
o The Code Enforcement Officer has provided Mrs. Hart with
erosion control options including fabric barriers, hay bales
and hydro seeding. Mrs. Hart has indicated her willingness to
erect erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. As
of 7-6-93, the Code Enforcement officer was to give Pairs. Hart
10 days to complete the erosion control.
o Clearing of brush, blackberries and the like has not been
considered a land form alteration. The latter includes
addition of buildings, mining, quarrying, dredging, filling,
grading, earthwork construction, paving, excavation and
similar items.
o Mrs. Hart has indicated the work being done was to clean up
the property for her individual use and enjoyment. She
indicated that she has no development plans at this point.
July 6, 1993
To: Mayor and Council
From: Judy Fessler
Re: Hart Property- Tree cutting, etc.
At our last Council meeting, it was and still is very apparent that
the citizens, neighbors and to both attorneys, Monahan and Ramis,
that the portion of our Tree Ordinance TDC 18.150 to prevent
developers from clear cutting areas for development doesn't
specifically define "Developed". The intent of the ordinance
assumes that a "Developed" piece of land can have 1
house/residence with any number of acres.(eg. 1 house per 1,10,50,
100 acres, etc)
I am not opposed to the private landowner having a registered
private woodlot or tree farm as outlined in the already existing
exclusion of permit requirement, or the provision that all
residential property owners do not need a tree permit , but I feel
a ordinance to more specifically define" Developed" be addressed
immediately.
We do not currently have any provisions for Heritage Trees, but
I did express concerns in a letter to council over a year ago.
Currently, Nels Mikkelson is working on an overall concept for tree
canopy, and assessment of how much we have gained and lost in tree
canopy percentage over the years in Tigard.
For now, I am requesting the Council to direct staff to initiate
a change in Tree Removal Chapter 18.150 to add this definition. It
is my understanding that it will place a interim policy direction
to staff to prevent the Hart situation from occurring until it goes
through the standard process for Comp change, etc.
I am proposing the following language changes
TDC pg 385
Tree Removal 18.150.020
B. Add to " Any property or lot under 1 acre or any tree(s)
closer than 100 ft from the residence."
Note: All other purpose and intent of this chapter shall remain in
as before. See attached chap from TDC.
I would like to bring this up for discussion to Council on July 13,
1993 at our study session or business meeting
attach: TDC and File ltr
Chapter 18.150
TREE REMOVAL
r Sections:
18.150.010 Purpose
18.150.020 Permit Required/Applicability
18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of Permits \
18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation
18.150.040 Emergencies: Authority
18.150.050 Application Submission Requirements
18.150.010 Purpose
A. The City of Tigard is now benefitted by large numbers of trees, both
natural growth and those which have been planted throughout the
years by Tigard's residents. These varied wooded trees add to the
aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, and providg
noise barriers.
B. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary removal
of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the development of
those lots. At the time of development it may be necessary to
remove certain trees to accommodate structures, streets, utilities,
and other needed or required improvements within the development.
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)
18.150.020 Permit Required/Applicability
A. This provision shall apply to all undeveloped land, and developed
commercial and industrial land.
B. This provision excludes:
1. Developed residential property; and
2. Property registered with Washington County Small Woodlands
Association and certified as a West Coast Tree Farm by the
Industrial Forestry Association, and used for commercial log
harvesting or Christmas trees.
C. No person shall cut a tree(s) upon private or public property
without first obtaining a permit from the City, except as in
Subsection B.
D. For the purpose of this chapter, tree removal shall not include tree
topping and pruning under power and utility lines, or pruning of
trees located with visual clearance areas as defined in Chapter
18.102.
Revised 02/27/89
Page 385
E. For the purpose of this chapter, tree removal permits shall be required for
all trees having a trunk six inches or more in diameter, four feet above the
ground level. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52)
18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of Permits
A. The following criteria shall be used by the Director or designee for the
issuance or nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To issue a permit, the
following criteria must be satisfied:
1. The trees are diseased and there is a danger the trees may fall on
existing or proposed structures or interfere with utility services or
traffic safety;
2. There is a necessity to remove certain trees in order to construct
proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's
property in a reasonable manner;
3. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) due to the topography of
the land because there will be no effect from the tree removal on
erosion, soil retention, stability of earth, flow of surface waters;
4. There is not a need to retain the tree (s) to protect nearby trees as
windbreaks, and as a desirable balance between shade and open space;
5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely
affected by the tree removal; and
6. The applicant's proposals, if any, to plant new trees or vegetation
as a substitute for the tree(s) to be cut, will restore the aesthetic
value of the removed trees. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)
18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time Revocation
A. Approval of a Tree Removal Permit by the Director shall be effective for a
one and one-half year period.
i B. The Director shall renew the permit for a maximum period up to one year upon
finding that:
1. All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied;
2. There has been no change in the original application approved by the
Director;
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies on which the approval was based;
Revised 1/17/91 Page 386
August 4, 1992
To: Mayor Edwards and Council
From Judy Fessler
Late last week I discovered that a century old Catalpa Tree was cut
down on the old section of Gaarde street being converted to an
access road to serve Self service Furniture and the apartments.
I was shocked because there was no indication from Randy a few
weeks ago when we were talking about completion of Gaarde that an
access road to two pieces of property was to be a "boulevard". I
assumed that the frontage would at least remain the same or less.
When I called Randy late last week after seeing that the tree was
gone, he indicated to me that it was his understanding that no tree
removal had been slated for the project, but today he said that the
city did cut the tree, that the owner was compensated. I feel
really remiss that the History of Tree was not brought forward, but
of course I didn't feel the tree would be in peril.
The Catalpa Tree, according to enclosed letter I received last
year, was planted by Rosa Tigard's Mother. The woman who wrote the
letter to me lived in the house next to Self Service Furniture in
the 50's and was neighbors to Rosa Tigard and this is the story
Rosa told her.
When are we going to have a Preservation Policy to recognize
significant trees or specimens, etc. We (the City) need to address
this, so that an historical inventory can be made and documentation
and location is kept on file just as the Historic Overlay District
has been done.
First- Would be a Preservation Alert within the Engineering or
Building Dept. This might be done by the height and/or diameter of
Tree. If a tree meets this criteria it should be investigated and
researched for significance.
Second- While the tree might not be a rare species in general but
be rare in Tigard. I bet no one knows. Same could hold true for
Oak or large walnut, etc. Each should be reviewed by certified
arborist against a written City policy.
Third- A formal or informal hearing be set up via Historic
Districts Committee to assess the inventory on case by case until
inventory status is implemented.
I am enclosing some pictures of the Catalpa Tree taken in 1980. The
only reason I have the pictures is because when we moved the
Charles and Rosa Tigard House next door to the Catalpa tree
location we had to guarantee that the tree limbs only be trimmed
at a certain length or run the risk of a lawsuit from the apartment
owner. You can see from the pictures we had to make other ON_SITE
arrangements not to damage the tree and at the same time save the
7nd floor dormer of the house. We made small sacrifices in knowing
we did the right thing. Twelve years later, it was all for naught.
We need better City policy that will be written into a definite
avenue for tracing and protecting the heritage of our City
including trees.
PS I have other people who came forward last year to preserve
their trees on their property for future generations. The time
has come.
I would like the Council support to move forward and bring this up
before a council meeting in the future. It will not be that
painful.
Tha ks
/Y 4
Judy FesVe
Councilo
,j
e ,
w
0
1
1
1
ynd,`~ 13, ~i 9/
,g
/W Lp,
Ago.
l1 6 3 -;--.5 Z q v
vMan b P,a7ctseek magma
- Tjgsrd. praYon 97224
O.
r
y
MEMORANDUM S7-L~ Se SS W~,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
~7/r3~g3
TO: Carol Landsman
FROM: Ron Pomeroy b L
DATE:July 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Additional definitions for "Developed Residential"
The Community Development Code does not currently provide a
definition for the term "Developed Residential Land". Below are
five definitions which provide.a range of parameters.
1) Developed residential land is that land which includes a
habitable structure and is not large enough to be further
partitioned or subdivided.
2) Developed residential land is that land which is within 100
feet of the perimeter of a habitable structure.
3) Developed residential land is that land which is one acre in
size or less and includes at least one habitable structure.
4) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:5 or greater. (i.e. A 7,500
( square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 15,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 3,000 square feet in
size; etc...)
5) Developed residential land is that land which possesses a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:10 or greater. (i.e. A 15,000
square foot lot which contains a residence which is at least
1,500 square feet in size; a 30,000 square foot lot which
contains a residence which is at least 3,000 square feet in
size; etc...)
I contend that definition number one best meets the intent of the
purpose statement of Community Development Code Section 18.150
which states:
The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary
removal of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the
development of those lots. At the time of development it may
be necessary to remove certain trees to accommodate
structures, streets, utilities and other needed or required
improvements within the development.
The more liberal the definition of Developed Residential Land, the
more "at risk" the remaining trees are which are located on
Tigard's remaining developable residential land.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly
FROM: Carol A. Landsman
DATE: July 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Goal5
The following is a chronology of our dealings with DLCD regarding Tigard's goal 5 periodic
review. It has been a convoluted process, in part because new case law seemed to change
definitions of what constitutes an inventory. For DLCD purposes, an inventory is a list of natural
resources that have been evaluated and sorted as 'significant' and 'not significant' based on
that evaluation.
In spite of the confusion and the somewhat painful process that may or may not have much
( to do with wetlands protection, I think it is important for Tigard to evaluate its natural resources
and determine what it wants to protect and how. We should not confuse the administrative
process with the public policy issues and good natural resource planning. Tiigard's natural
environment is a plus for quality of life as well as property values.
June 1992
We received a letter from DLCD, (attachment one) (that incidently went out to
the public before we received it) stating that because an objection had been
received regarding our wetlands inventory, we were required to explain why Hart
Lake as well as other wetlands in the SRI report were not included in our inventory.
Alternatively, we could include them and complete the goal five process
including determination of significance and protection strategies.
June-September 1992
Staff had numerous discussions with DLCD staff regarding what actions Tigard
needed to take to complete its periodic review process.
September 1992
Staff received a second letter from DLCD, (attachment two) stating that because
we had conducted a study of our wetlands (the SRI study) we had adequate
information to determine the quality of these sites and to conduct an inventory
process including determination of significance and development of protection
strategies based on balancing the value of the wetland with economic, social
and environmental factors. This letter went on to indicate that we did not need
to change our existing ordinance, just apply it to the wetlands in the inventory.
October 1992 - March 1993
Staff completed the goal five process as outlined by DLCD.
April 1993
Staff submitted goal five report to DLCD which reviewed it favorably, going so far
as to tell other communities Tigard's was a good example.
May 1993
Staff took wetlands map and goal five report to NPOs for citizen input. Citizens
identified 12 potential wetland areas not identified on map. Staff hired SRI to
assess these areas.
June 1993
DLCD informed staff (attachment three) that because the SRI study only assessed
wildlife habitat, Tigard does not have enough information to conduct an inventory
process. Tigard must, therefore, adopt a program (called 1 B process) stating how
it will complete the goal five wetlands process. This will entail further study of
wetland functions such as erosion control and water recharge value. We do not
need to do this assessment to be in compliance; we only need to adopt a plan
stating how and when we're going to do this. Staff has requested a cost estimate
from SRI. DLCD recommends Tigard apply for one of its wetlands inventory grants
which must have a 50% local match. Last year only 4 of 20 were funded. DLCD
also maintains that Tigard must change its ordinance (I assume, offer completion
of inventory process) because it cannot rely on other government agencies to
protect its wetlands. Because staff questioned this, DLCD is now seeking a legal
opinion from the Attorney General.
WHAT NEXT?
So, this is what has been going on over the last year regarding our quest to be in compliance
with DLCD goal five regulations. What we must do now to be in compliance is:
• adopt a program for completion of the goal 5 process including activities and timeline.
Then according to our timeline we can complete our wetlands inventory. We do not do this
to be in compliance. SRI suggests the assessment will cost about $10,000. As mentioned
earlier, we can apply for a 50% grant.
Now, regarding natural resource planning in general, staff is planning to ask CIT members to
participate in a self-selected citizen group to evaluate the existing natural resource plan
policies and strategies and make recommendations. This will be part of the local visioning and
plan review process we will undertake this fiscal year. We are collecting information on our 3
existing wetlands including public/private ownership and parcels that are more than 85%
wetlands to identify any potention takings issues. We are reviewing the status of natural areas i
identified in the 1983 comprehensive plan. We are mapping all open spaces and will assess
them for their potential as buildable land or natural area. We have $5,000 in the budget to
assess forest lands in Tigard, although we may choose to apply that to the necessary wetlands
study.
PIIJWet.Mem
July 8, 1,93
W
June 2, 1992 tlZ
Ed Murphy
Community Development Director
13125 S.W- Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Murphy:
We have received an objection from Doug Smithey to the
the revie ly,
city's f nnis that°tthe orderwdoesenot includecalspecific
site on its Goal 5 wetlands inventory. As
wetland objection
provided by OAR 660-16-000(5)(a):
-"The local government is not re uireddecision
justify in its comprehensive plan a
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
89
a wetlands report conducted for theScity i claims
by Scientific Resources, Inc. Mr.
the report demonstrates that a wetland deslvaluable
(labelled B-2 in SRIs report) provi
wildlife habitat and should be determined We
"significant" and protected under Goal S.
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 an of the wetland sites
discussed in the SRI wetlands document, since the
city is still using the wetlands inventory map
developed in 1984. Considering that the SRI
report is certainly specific concerning location,
quality and quantity of specific resource sites
DEPARTMENT C
LAND
CONSERVATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
Barbara Roberts
Governor
1175 Court Street NI
Salem, OR 97310-05~
(503) 373-0050
r. n v tSln1 4F.')-h70:;
• 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,
411~
Michael J. Rupp
Plan Review Manager
<wet>
cc: Doug Smithey
Mel Lucas
h C.~
f/ A/1
r
September 21, 1992
Carol Landsman
Senior Planner
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Ms. Landsman:
The Department has reviewed the City of Tigard's
existing wetlands ordinances to determine compliance
with Statewide Goal 5. Based on this review, we have
the following observations and recommendations.
Problem with Tigard's Current Wetland ordinances:
The City currently makes decisions regarding the
protection and development of wetlands without
first having gone through the Goal 5 ESEE
balancing process.
Tigard's current ordinance states that wetlands are
"sensitive lands" and are "potentially unsuitable for
development..." (Ordinance 18.84.010(A)). Later
sections of Chapter 18.84 list which uses of wetlands
are permitted and which are prohibited. These
ordinances constitute a regulatory wetlands program.
However, Statewide Goal 5 requires that a jurisdiction
must determine significance and balance conflicting
uses of specific sites before developing a program to
regulate wetland sites. (See OAR 660-16-000).
Your existing ordinance also states that wetland
locations "may include but are not limited to those
areas identified" in the 1990 Scientific Resources
Incorporated maps. (Ordinance 18.84.028). This is not
appropriate under Goal 5. The City may only regulate
areas clearly defined on an adopted inventory.
Otherwise, the public will not have certainty as to
what areas will be regulated. This is contrary to the
purpose and language of the Goal.
Goal 5 Requirements:
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND
CONSERVATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
1. Based upon current information, the City must Barbara Roberts
determine which of its wetlands are "significant." Covemor
Jurisdictions may have an inventory of "potential"
resource sites if there is not yet adequate information
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310-0590
(503) 373-0050
FAX (503) 362-6705
Tigard Wetlands 2 September 21, 1992
to determine the quality of these sites. This means that if the
City had only inventoried the location and quantity of the
wetlands, (and not obtained information on their value as
wildlife habitat), it would not be necessary to complete Goal 5
at this time. Instead, due to a lack of "quality" information,
you could defer the determination of significance until a later
time.
However, the information contained in the Scientific Resources
Incorporated report addresses wetland location, quantity, and
quality. Given that the City now has available information
addressing all three elements, it is necessary to determine which
sites are "significant" and complete the Goal 5 process.
(OAR 660-16-000(5)). Sites which are determined not significant
do not need to be included on the City's final inventory.
Recommendations:
a. Decide which of the wetlands included on the inventory are
"significant." For example, perhaps decide that wetlands
ranked in the SRI report as Class 1 or 2 are to be
considered "significant" and Class 3 and 4 wetlands are not.
You should be aware that, for the sites you decide are not
significant, the SRI report should support your reasoning.
This agency, for one, would question a determination that
sites are not significant if the SRI report indicates they
have high wildlife habitat value.
t
b. A review of the SRI report on Tigard's wetlands indicates
that the wetlands along drainageways, specifically Fanno
Creek, provide the most valuable wildlife habitat. (No
other functions or values were assessed by SRI.) For this
reason, the City should focus its Goal 5 evaluation on Fanno
Creek and its associated wetlands.
2. After determining "significance," the City must develop a
program to protect the significant wetlands.
For significant wetlands that have potential conflicts, an ESEE
balancing test must be performed to balance conflicting uses
against the resource values. (OAR 660-16-005). Based on this
balancing test, a program must be developed specifying which
sites are to be protected and which can be developed.
(OAR 660-16-010).
The sites that should be protected are all those in which the
resource values outweigh the value of the conflicting use. If a
site is not protected, the city must demonstrate that the value
of the conflicting use outweighs the resource values. The third
option is to limit conflicting uses and maintain some protection
of the resource site.
Tigard Wetlands
Recommendations:
a. In most cases, the ESEE
similar wetlands can be
use zone. For wetlands
development potential,
to be conducted.
3 September 21, 1992
process can be fairly general;
grouped by biological type and land
with unusual or unique biological or
s more site-specific analysis needs
b. Keep your current ordinances. Simply apply them only to the
wetlands you determine are significant and map as such.
c. You may wish to add ordinances addressing the removal of
vegetation. Neither state nor federal law regulates this
and much damage can be done to wetland values simply by
removing the vegetative cover, without moving any dirt. The
Department is aware L-hat the City is working to complete a
"tree" ordinance. Perhaps this ordinance could also address
removal of herbaceous and scrub-shrub vegetation in
wetlands.
The preceding issues must be addressed before Tigard's Periodic
Review can be terminated. The following is a suggestion only:
Request that DSL approve the SRI inventory as meeting the
"Local Wetlands Inventory Standards" set forth in
OAR 141-86-180 to 141-86-240. Once approved by DSL, permits
will be required from the state before development can occur
within these sites. This will result in better protection
of valuable wetlands and will reduce the number of
enforcement actions taken against landowners who build
without first obtaining the necessary permits. It will also
help ensure consistency between the DSL and DLCD programs.
Again, although we recommend that you request DSL approve your
inventory, you are not required to do so. The DSL and DLCD
processes are separate and the City does not have to obtain a DSL
certified inventory before Periodic Review can be terminated.
If you should require additional assistance as you complete the
Goal 5 process for wetlands, please contact me at 378-6127.
Sincerely,
U
Lynn D. Beaton
Wetlands Specialist
4 tigard.2
RECEIVED .1,1j 0 1 1993
0
June 30, 1993
DEPARTMENT OF
Carol Landsman LAND
Senior Planner CONSERVATION &
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397 DEVELOPMENT
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Ms. Landsman:
This letter is in regard to the City of Tigard's
Periodic Review and relates to our conversation of June
10, 1993. During this conversation, we discussed
several planning options that will allow Tigard to
address outstanding wetland issues and close Periodic
Review. Those options are set out below.
We believe that the Oregon Supreme Court's
interpretation of Goal 5 in Columbia Steel Casting v.
City of Portland, 314 Or 422; _ P2d _ (1992), adds
complexity to the Goal 5 process. As a result, we
believe that local jurisdictions must have more
information about Goal 5 wetland resources than
previously anticipated. This information is necessary
to conduct adequately the required ESEE consequences
analysis. Specifically, in order to proceed through
the required ESEE analysis, we believe that
jurisdictions must have information available that
relates to a wetland's functions and attributes.
As you know, local jurisdictions may not regulate a
Goal 5 resource without completing the procedural and
substantive requirements of Goal 5. We feel that
jurisdictions that overlook this restriction or the
Columbia Steel Castina decision will be highly
vulnerable to legal challenges. Consequently, we met
to discuss planning options that may allow Tigard to
address its remaining wetland issues and close periodic
Review with a minimal amount of liability.
Our discussions are premised with the following
understandings: 1) Tigard has conducted a wildlife
habitat assessment for most, if not all, of the sites
the City terms wetlands, 2) the City has not assessed
other wetland functions and attributes and 3) that the
assessment completed will fulfill the required Goal 5 Barbara Roberts
inventory for wildlife habitat but not for wetlands. Govemor
800 NE Oregon St. # 18
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 731-4065
FAX (503) 731-4063
Carol Landsman Page 2 June 30, 1993
Of the options discussed, we focused on two in particular.
First, the City can view those wetlands with wildlife habitat
assessments as Goal 5 wildlife habitat resources. For these
resources, the City can enter the Goal 5 process which includes
identifying conflicting uses, ESEE consequences analysis,
conflict resolution, adopting appropriate ordinances for these
resources. However, because the City lacks the necessary
information concerning the wetland functions of these same areas,
Tigard can determine that there is insufficient information
available to the city and place these wetlands in the 111B"
category. Once sufficient information is available, you will
initiate the Goal 5 process and develop regulations based on the
analysis of the additional functions these areas provide as
wetlands.
The second option, which we understand is the City's preferred
option, is for the City to ignore the wildlife habitat
information and define the wetlands as "1B" resources because
there is insufficient information relating to wetland functions
and attributes. Again, once sufficient information is available,
the City will proceed through the Goal 5 process for these sites
as wetland resources.
Both options require the City to respond to the existing
challenge brought by Doug Smithey. However, based on
conversations between Mr. Smithey and our staff, we understand
the Mr. Smithey will withdraw his challenge to the City's
Periodic Review if the city meets certain conditions. First, the
City must agree to establish a time frame for completing Goal 5
for wetlands. This is also required as part of the "1B"
decision. Second, the City will have to define the criteria they
will use to determine "significant" wetlands. This is not
required by DLCD but is a negotiating point between Mr. Smithey
and the City. Third, to assist the City to meet the requirements
of Goal 5 as interpreted by the Columbia Steel Casting court, the
City should apply to DLCD and DSL for a competitive wetland
planning grant. The Department has already provided the City
with the 1992-93 grant application which, although dated,
contains important explanatory information regarding the grants
that will not be modified for the 1993-94 grant process. we
understand that the "Fans of Fanno Creek" is willing to assist
the City apply for this grant. We further understand that Mr.
Smithey will withdraw his challenge if the City meets these
conditions. However, we suggest that the City contact Mr.
Smithey to clarify his position in this matter and to formalize
his agreement to the City's preferred planning option.
In addition, you should understand that in the future, to meet
the Goal 5 requirements for a resource subject to a "1B"
classification, your jurisdiction can not rely on the state and
federal regulatory system as a protection program. Tigard will
Carol Landsman Page 3 June 30, 1993
have to adopt a program based on identification of conflicting
uses and supported by your ESEE analysis.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or require
assistance as you complete your Periodic Review, please contact
Mike Rupp or me at (503) 373-0050.
Sincerely,
Jam s Sitzman
Int rgovernmental Services Manager
cc: Mike Rupp, DLCD
Mel Lucas, DLCD
Frank Flynn, DLCD
File
3
Council Agenda It No.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Pat Reilly July 6, 1993
FROM: Randy Woole
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program
Here is additional information to assist the Council in selecting
projects to be funded in the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program.
Gas Tax Projects:
There is $288,000 of gas tax funding available for new projects.
Council has tentatively approved $248,000 of this funding for the
Pavement Major Maintenance Program. This leaves $40,000 for other
projects. Testimony at the June 22nd meeting mostly favored using the
$40,000 for pedestrian improvements along existing collector streets.
TIF Projects:
There is $374,000 of TIF funding available for new projects. At the
June 22nd meeting, the Council discussed setting aside a portion of
this funding to purchase property for right of way for the future
extension of Gaarde Street. The set-aside money would be used only
if the property owners want to sell and are unable to sell after
making a reasonable attempt to sell for a fair market price. I
recommend that the set-aside amount be $330,000. If the money proves
to be unnecessary for property purchase, it could be used for other
TIF-eligible projects next year.
If $330,000 is set aside for right of way, then $44,000 will remain
for other TIF-eligible projects. I recommend that the $44,000 be used
for design of the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection.
Pedestrian Pathways:
The Council heard requests for pedestrian improvements along Park
Street, Watkins Avenue, and 72nd Avenue. As noted by Council, other
streets throughout the City also are in need of pedestrian
improvements.
If the Council decides to fund pedestrian improvements, I suggest that
the Council specify the funding level and the street or neighborhood
where the funding is to be used. Staff could then prepare some
preliminary design information and work with the neighborhood to
select the pathway type and location that best uses the available
funding. This would be similar to the process used on Bull Mountain
Road.
Page 1
The $40,000 available in gas tax funds would be adequate to complete
a path along a substantial section of Park Street or Watkins Avenue.
Or it could be used to construct a pathway along one side of SW 72nd
Avenue between Dartmouth Street and the elementary school. If the
path on 72nd were limited to the area between Hermosa Street and the
school, the cost would be about $20,000
Park and Watkins Streets are not eligible for TIF funds. SW 72nd is
generally eligible for TIF but a pathway improvement may not meet
other TIF criteria. Depending on how the pathway is designed, the TIF
eligible portion would range between 0% and 40% of project costs.
Because the TIF eligibility would be questionable at best, I recommend
against relying on TIF funding for pathways.
There was a suggestion that the path could be placed behind the ditch
(i.e., the ditch would be between the road and the path). This is an
option but one I do not recommend in most areas. Generally, placing
the path behind the ditch costs the same or more than providing
roadway shoulders. The separated path reduces the need for drainage
revisions but it increases the need for acquisition of right of way
and easements and increases the conflicts with existing landscaping.
Separated paths are more difficult to construct and to maintain due
to inconvenient access for equipment. Also, once paths are in,
property owners frequently stop mowing and landscaping the area
between the path and the road.
There was also a question of whether we should build gravel shoulders
` rather than paved shoulders. Doing so might reduce the initial
construction costs by approximately 50%. However, I do not recommend
this option. Gravel pathways do not accommodate bicycles, baby
strollers, or wheelchairs. They require substantially more
maintenance. They cause problems next to lawns and ditches with
gravel being kicked into the lawn (making it hard to mow) or into the
ditch (requiring more ditch maintenance).
Property Acquisition
Since the last Council meeting, I have talked to several people in the
real estate appraisal and relocation business, hoping to find
guidelines for acquiring property for future projects. It appears
that it is rare for an agency to acquire right of way prior to the
more detailed design stage. So, I have been unable to locate any
existing guidelines. We will need to develop our own guidelines.
Based on discussions with appraisers, it appears that a good faith
effort to sell a residence in the current market should include
listing the property with a licensed real estate agent for inclusion
in a multiple listing service. I understand that, on average, it
takes 60 to 90 days to sell a home currently in Tigard. Older homes
and homes on collector streets may take longer to sell. It appears
that a good-faith effort would require that the home be on the market
at least 4 to 6 months at a fair market price and actively promoted
by the real estate agent.
Page 2
Based on this information, I recommend the following policy statement
to expand on the process outlined by Council:
The Council will consider City acquisition of a
property that is in the route of the proposed Gaarde
Street extension (Note 2 on the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map), if all of the following criteria
are satisfied:
It can be shown that the future street will
require removal of an existing residential
structure.
The owner of the property has requested that the
City purchase the property.
Evidence is provided that the owner has actively
attempted to sell the property over a period of
at least six months at a fair market price. The
attempt to sell shall include a listing with a
licensed real estate agent affiliated with a
multiple listing service.
If Council determines that the above criteria have
been met and if adequate funds are available in the
City's capital improvement budget, the Council will
authorize negotiations with the property owner for
City purchase of the property.
So that the property owner and the Council can determine the fair
market value, I recommend that the City have appraisals prepared
before the property owners begin to market the property. This will
allow the property owner to know whether their asking price will
satisfy the City's criteria.
It may be appropriate to enter into a formal agreement with each
property owner prior to their offering the property for sale. The
agreement would clarify what the property owner must do to satisfy the
City's criteria. It would also clarify the price and terms under
which the City would purchase the property. It would be necessary to
have an appraisal completed before the agreement could be drafted.
It should be noted that, when the City purchases property, the City
is generally required to pay certain relocation costs in accordance
with state law. Relocation costs can sometimes be substantial. The
proposed $330,000 budget for right of way includes an allowance for
relocation costs, appraisal fees and legal fees.
Sanitary sewer and storm drainage:
At the June 22nd meeting, no testimony was received regarding the
sanitary sewer and storm drainage projects. Therefore, my
recommendations on these projects are unchanged.
Page 3
Summary
If adopted as outlined above, the capital improvement program for FY
1993-94 would be as follows:
Streets - Gas Tax:
Committed projects $252,000
Pavement major maintenance program proceed 248,000
Pedestrian improvement project* deer 40,000
Total Gas Tax - $540,000
Streets - TIF:
Committed projects $819,000
Transit reserve 177,000
Reserve for Gaarde St. right of way 330,000
130th/Winterlake bridge design defer 44,000
Total TIF $1,370,000
Sanitary sewer - unrestricted funds PkocpPd
Terrace Trails access pathway*** $ 5,000
Sewer major maintenance 15,000
Reserve** 885,500
Total sewer unrestricted funds $905,500
Sanitary sewer - old SDC
Reserve** $639,500
Sanitary sewer - new SDC
t Committed projects $ 81,000
Reserve## 374,000
Total new SDc $455,000
Storm drainage - unrestricted funds
Lakeside Drive pipe replacement
$ 25,000
SW 69th at Alfred Street
6,000
SW 98th/Scott Court
5,000
Thorn Street cul de sac
7,000
Main Street inlet improvements
4,000
72nd Avenue pipe replacement
10,000
Storm drainage major maintenance
10,000
Reserve#
182,000
Total storm unrestricted funds
$249,000
Storm drainage - old SDC
100th/McDonald Street project
$ 40,000
Cascade area drainage
10,000
Reserve#
249,743
Total storm old SDC
$299,743
Storm drainage - new SDC
USA reserve##
$451,257
Page 4
Footnotes:
* Council to select the street or neighborhood for project
funding.
Staff to develop a list of potential projects to extend sewer
to areas with current septic problems, and return for further
Council review later this year.
Terrace Trails project was incorrectly shown under storm
drainage in the previous report.
# Staff to review project needs and recommend additional
projects for funding.
This reserve fund cannot be expended until USA completes a
master plan.
0.
rw/cip2
'1. Page 5
Council Agenda Item No. 8
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator.,
DATE: July 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Charter Modifications
1. The City Attorney is rewriting the section of the Charter to
reflect Council direction as of June 22. I anticipate
forwarding you the draft with my Thursday newsletter.
Essentially the changes are as follows:
A. Eliminate mandatory appointment in the event of vacancy;
B. Eliminate mandatory election in the event of vacancy;
C. Repeal prohibition of interim appointment to vacancy from
filing as candidate for position; and
D. Delete resignation requirement to file as candidate for
( position with concurrent term.
2. The cost of the September election is estimated at $8,500.
3. Timeframe: Council must consider a resolution authorizing a
September election on July 27.
4. Change of Method of electing City Councilors: Tualatin has
changed from the "at large... whoever gets most vote wins" to
running for numbered positions. The change was prompted by
concerns that under the former system, Councilors could be
elected without obtaining a majority of votes. Also, they
wanted to allow people to run against other candidates.
However, Tualatin does allow prospective candidates to
circulate petitions for more than one position at a time. It
needs to be noted that the Tualatin signature requirement is
far less than ours.
5. The term "concurrent" is not clarified through research of our
files. Use of the word is eliminated if Council repeals the
provision requiring resignation before filing.
6. FYI, the League of Oregon cities apprised us they knew of no
cities which had changed the method of electing Councilors.
PJR/j h
h:\lo9in\pat\charter
ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jul 9.93 10:53 No.uus r.u1
OMOATATEI.T PUMIS, CREW & CORIUCLAN
ATFORPM AT TAW
1?i7 N.Y,il.1G~t 8itert
Fot'IfiSld. crw= "M
-181 M (b= 223-4M
PAM CM 300"
DATE: July 9, 1993
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
City of Tigard
FROM: William A. Monahan, City-Attorney's office
RE: ~Y~AS:Adt Amglg~onto to section 7 of the Oharter
Based upon our meeting of July B, 1993, I have prepared the
following proposed language to address the Council:* concerns
regarding the Charter. The changes are as follows&
1. Elimination of the second paragraph of Section 7, which
requires that any member of the Council wishing to seek a City
office with a term concurrent with the term of their existing
office, submit a written resignation at the time of filing for
the other office.
2. 1 revised the third paragraph to eliminate the mandatory
requirement that the Council hdid an election to. fill an
unexpired term. I have suggested language to allow the
Council the opportunity to appoint, if an election cannot be
hold, to allow for at least a -one-yen terse. Finally,
language which has been eliminated which required that a
person Action tpo o that position at a vacancy vnogg filling candidate for election.
The suggested content of Section 7 is as follows:
"Section 7. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. The elective
officers of the city @hall be a mayor and four councilors
who together shall constitute the City Council. At the
general election held in 1990 and every fourth year
thereafter, a mayor shall be elected for a term of four
years. No councilor shall nerve the city as councilor
for more than eight consecutive years, nor shall the
mayor serve as mayor for more than eight consecutive
years. In no case shall any person serve on the City
council for'more than twelve consecutive years. Thecae
limitations do not apply to the filling of an unexpired
term.
ODONNELL RAMM ET AL 503-243-2944
OVONNAIJ, MMI9, & C®RRIa M
Jul 9993 lu:5s NO.vuJ r.U6
P3amo ro: Proposed Amendments to Section 7 of the Charter
jU'.y 90 1992
Page 2
In the event the office of mayor or councilor
becomes vacant bafaie the normal expiration of its term
a special election may be held at the next ava¢labla dato
to fill the office for the ussupired term. such an -
election shall only talcs place if the Council can
schedule and hold a special elections at least twelve
months before the term would otherwise empire. If an
election is hold, it shall be held In accordance with the
election lama of the State of Oregon and city ordinances
not inconsistent with such election laws. The Council
may appoint a person to fill a vacancy until an election
can be hold."
Pleases advise us whether the suggested language meets the intent
of the council.
WAM: smc
[7/9/93,
original to: Pat Reilly, City of Tigard
Copy to: Tigard/General File
Council Agenda Item No. 9
"TIGA" TALKS"
A
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY
for
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Conducted by
WESTERN ATTITUDES
17321 SW Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
(503) 635-1224
{ April 1993
{
INTRODUCTION
Like other local governments, the City of Tigard provides many opportunities for citizens
to become involved. However, experience shows that people usually don't do this unless
an issue affects them personally. Yet each person does have a stake in, and an opinion
on, what happens in the city. So often, public debate on issues is shaped by the vocal few
who get involved, while the views and opinions of the majority of citizens are never
heard. Broad public participation is a significant value of the Tigard City Council and
both the Council and city staff have a solid record of innovative programs that attempt to
reach out and involve this "silent majority".
"Tigard Talks" is one such attempt to encourage citizens to speak out and become
involved in the process of shaping public debate, decisions and actions. It consists of two
phases. In Phase One, a Community Attitude Survey was sent to 2,500 Tigard citizens.
In Phase Two, people responding to the survey were invited to attend a series of
neighborhood meetings where the survey results were revealed and attendees had an
opportunity to share their reactions with City Council members, city staff and one
another.
The survey of community attitudes held by residents of the City of Tigard was conducted,
during the month of April, 1993. Its purpose was to obtain current information about the
attitudes, perceptions and opinions of Tigard residents as they relate to city services,
issues and needs in the community.
The survey was designed as a mail survey, in which some 2,500 registered voters in the
city, selected at random to ensure an adequate cross-section of the community was polled,
received a survey form in the mail. 483 responses have been tabulated. A representative
sample of this size is sufficient to ensure that the margin of error, even if opinions are
evenly divided, is within plus or minus 5 points at the 95% confidence interval.
Questions for the survey were developed by Western Attitudes in consultation with city
staff. The survey was field tested prior to the general mailing.
Responses have been cross-tabbed to indicate how the views of respondents differ
according to different groupings:
♦ Length of time in Tigard
♦ Annual Household Income
♦ Geographic areas of residence
♦ Homeowner/renter status
♦ Age
e Gender
Tables displaying this detail are contained in the appendix to the principal report, on file
at the City Administrator's office. In reviewing this report, readers should be aware that,
as the size of the sample under review diminishes, the potential margin for sampling
/ variability error is likely to increase. Cross-tab analysis for each question is therefore less
reliable than figures for the entire sample.
i
The data has also been aggregated to separate the opinions of people who live east of
Highway 99W (Sections 2 & 6 on the map accompanying the survey); those who live
west of Highway 99W (Sections 3, 4 & 5 on the map) and those from Section 1, which
straddles Highway 99W in the middle of the city.
Following compilation of survey responses, a series of six neighborhood meetings was
held during the first two weeks of May, 1993. A record of issues raised at these meetings
is contained in the Appendix to the principal report.
Note: This survey report, and all materials generated in the conduct of the survey, are
the property of the City of Tigard. All questions concerning the use of information
presented in this report should be directed to the City Administrator.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As in surveys we have performed in neighboring communities, respondents to this survey
offer two very clear messages to the City Council. Work on resolving traffic problems,
particularly the congestion associated with Highway 99W, and manage growth related
issues in Tigard in advance of, or concurrent with, further growth.
Quality of Life
In general, residents are fairly pleased with Tigard as a place in which to live. On a scale
of 1-10, respondents give the livability of the city a median average rating of 7.7.
People enjoy living in Tigard because of its convenient location (32%); its small town
feel, community spirit and neighborhoods (340/o), and its sense of safety, peace and quiet
and country atmosphere (19%).
Development, growth and planning issues (45%), and traffic/transportation concerns
(27%), are the biggest threats people identify to the quality of life they now enjoy in
Tigard.
Asked to indicate what has to be done to maintain or improve the quality of life over the
next two to five years, 40% of the respondents believe the city has to address planning,
zoning and growth control issues, while 32% cite the need for transportation
improvements to accommodate the traffic that originates in, or passes through, Tigard.
Safety Issues
While some people express concern about the possible encroachment of gang activity into
Tigard, the majority of people feel very safe living in the community. On a 1-5 scale,
where 1 is Very unsafe and 5 is Very safe, over two-thirds of those responding rate their
sense of safety as a 4 or 5.
Asked what would make them feel safer, respondents cited more visibility and patrols
through neighborhoods (22%), tougher laws, particularly aimed at keeping gangs and
drugs out of the community (20%) and more neighborhood watch/community policing
activities (14%).
Government Operations
General
Asked to indicate how well different levels of government are operating, using a 1-5
scale, where 1 = Very poor and 5 = Very well, respondents give their highest marks to the
Fire District (average rating of 4.2), followed by the Water District (3.8) and the City of
Tigard (3.7). State government receives the lowest rating of 2.2.
Dissatisfaction with the way governments are operating is focused primarily at the state,
federal and regional level, with the greatest areas of concern being waste and inefficiency
(46%), finance and budget issues (37%), a sense that government is controlled by special
interests (28%) and a lack of confidence in leadership and the ability of the government to
be effective (21%).
City of Tigard
Asked to rate the overall quality of Tigard city services on a 1-5 scale, where 1 is Very
low and 5 is Very high, respondents give high marks to the Library (4.4), services to
seniors (4. 1), Police (4.0) and Parks (4.0). Planning and zoning is at the bottom of list
with a rating of 2.8. Among those who are dissatisfied with service quality, the greatest
areas of concern are with planning and zoning, street maintenance and code enforcement.
There are large numbers of people who do not directly experience city services and who
are unable to rate the quality of those services. Among respondents to this survey, 62%
said they were unable to rate building inspection services, 52% didn't rate services to
seniors and 48% failed to rate code enforcement activities.
In response to questions about use of, and satisfaction with, city facilities and services,
those who used a facility or service were generally quite satisfied. However, there are
large numbers of people who are not directly exposed to either the facilities or services.
The only two facilities or services used by a majority of responding households were the
Library (79%) and Cook Park (58%). 48% said they had walked or biked on city trails
and 43% had requested some form of information from the city.
Public Involvement and Communications
30% of the respondents say they have attended a city meeting in the past year. 22% say
they have seen a City Council meeting on cable television. 45% say members of their
household have ridden Tri-Met. 30% have attended the Old Fashioned July 4th
Celebration. 18% said they attended Cookin' in the Park.
Asked to indicate how well the City does keeping residents informed about City issues,
using the 1-5 scale where 1 is Very poorly and 5 is Very Well, two-thirds give the city a 4
or 5 for an overall average rating of 4.1. .
By a 50% to 14% majority, with a large 36% undecided, respondents believe the Council
provides adequate opportunities for people to participate and influence decisions made by
the City.
Asked to indicate how responsive the City is to citizen concerns, the average response on
the 1-5 scale was a 3.4. This is a lower rating than the one given for keeping people
informed (4.1). Almost half (43%) of the respondents failed to rate the City's efforts in
this regard. Among those who did, one-quarter gave those efforts a 4 or 5.
The City newsletter "Cityscape" is a valuable tool in communicating with the public.
82% say it is one of their top two sources of information about city services and
activities, followed by Tigard Times (49%) and The Oregonian (27%).
Work Outside the Home
74% of the responding households have household members who work outside the home.
Households report a total of 615 workers, an average of 1.7 per household; 142 (or 23%)
work in Tigard, while 473 (or 77%) work outside the City.
43% of those who leave the City for work commute to downtown Portland or other
locations in Multnomah County; 26% go to other locations in Washington County and
12% to work sites in Clackamas County.
General Issues
Asked what one thing the City of Tigard does well, respondents give the City high marks
for their public information and communications efforts (17%) and the level of citizen
involvement (11%). Other items mentioned include the fact that the city it well-run
Parks
(16%), the feeling of safety and relatively low crime rate (11%), Library ( )
(10%).
Consistent with responses to earlier questions, the two areas respondents would like to
n
see the Council concentrate its efforts nninl development controls (27%).
improvements (37%) and growth planning and
While almost half the respondents did not identify any neighborhood lproblems
safety issues issues
the City should address, among those who did, transportation and Pub
were the major areas of interest.
SURVEY OVERVIEW
Quality of Life
Question 1: On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent, how would you
rate Tigard as a place to live today?
Overall, respondents give the city a median average rating of 7.7 on a ten point scale.
Table 1.1 Rating Tigard as a Place to Live
Table 1.1
(1= Poor,
%
10 = Excellent)
1
0%
2
0%
3
1%
4
1%
5
6%
6
10%
7
22%
8
42%
9
11%
10
7%
Table 1.2 How Tigard compares to other communities
Table 1.2
City/County
Overall Rating
City of Lake Oswego
8.4
City of Grants Pass
7.9
City of Tualatin
7.8
City of Tigard
7.7
' City of Wilsonville
7.7
City of Post Falls, Id.
7.7
City of Newberg
7.6
Deschutes County
7.4
Washington County
7.1
• People who have lived in the community over 20 years give Tigard a slightly lower
7.6 rating.
e There is no difference among homeowners and renters in their perceptions about the
quality of life in Tigard.
o Perceptions do differ by age group. Those 65 and over are most positive about living
in the community and rate it as an 8.0. Those under 35 give it a rating of 7.8, while
other age groups give it lower than average ratings.
s By gender, both males and females have the same average rating of 7.7.
Observations:
The highest overall ratings are provided by those who are over 65 years of age. Those
with higher levels of income, and people who are under 35 are also inclined to be more
positive about living in the community.
Compared to other communities, satisfaction levels among different cross tab groups are
fairly uniform and there does not appear to be any segment of the community that is
dissatisfied with living in Tigard.
Question 2: If you were to name the one thing you most enjoy about living in
Tigard, what would that be?
For almost one-third of the respondents, 32%, Tigard's convenient location is the most
significant advantage to living in the area. This is true across all sub .groups.
Convenient access to work, shopping and recreation was even more important for those
who have lived here five years or less (41%); those with incomes between $25-$50,000
(39%); those from Section 5 (48%) and Section 6 (67%); those who live west of Highway
99W (39%) and those under 44 (39%).
Table 2.1 Things People Most Enjoy About Living in Tigard
Table 2.1
Response
%
Convenient location
32%
Small town
13%
Neighborhood
11%
People, community spirit
10%
Country atmosphere
7%
Peace & quiet
6%
Safe
6%
Services
5%
Environment
4%
Other
5%
o Among people who have lived in the community five years or less, there are higher
than average responses naming convenient location (41%) and peace & quiet (10%).
Those who have been here over ten years give high ratings to convenient location, but
also place higher value on things like small town feeling, the people & community
spirit and their neighborhood.
o Among income groups, those with lower incomes place higher value on people &
community spirit and a feeling of safety.
Observations:
Tigard's convenient location and access to work; shopping and other facilities within, or
in easy reach of, the city are primary factors people enjoy about living in the community.
They also place a high value on those qualities normally associated with small towns -
people and community spirit and a sense of neighborhood and personal safety. For
many, Tigard's country atmosphere and peace & quiet are also valuable assets.
The challenge for the City Council is to manage growth and development in such a way
as to maintain and enhance those things that people enjoy about the community. These
are the qualities that give Tigard its unique sense of charm and character.
Question 3: What do you see as the biggest threat to the quality of life you now
enjoy in Tigard?
For 45%, issues associated with development, growth and planning are the biggest threat
to the quality of life in Tigard. 27% identify concerns about traffic and transportation
issues and 15% are concerned about public safety and crime.
Table 3.1 Threats to Quality of Life
Table 3.1
Response
%
Development & growth
41%
Traffic/Transportation
27%
Safety/Crime
15%
Taxes & costs
5%
Poor planning
4%
Ed ucation/Schools
4%
Other
4% J
t
e Development and growth issues are of greater concern among respondents from
Section 2 (49%); and those in the 35-44 age group (47%).
e Traffic and transportation issues are more likely to be mentioned by those who
have lived here over 20 years (35%); those with incomes below $25,000 (36%);
respondents from Section 1 (37%) and those 65 and older (34%).
e Concerns about safety and crime draw higher than average responses among those
who lived here for five years or less (19%); those from Section 3 (32%) and renters
(21%).
e For those who live in the middle of the city, traffic and transportation problems are
perceived as the bigger threat. Those living east of Highway 99W are more likely to
articulate the biggest threat in terms of development, growth and planning issues.
Those who live west of Highway 99W are also concerned about growth and
development and traffic issues in that order and also express a higher concern about
crime and safety issues.
Question 4: In your opinion, what needs to happen over the next 2-5 years to
maintain or improve the quality of life in Tigard?
Like Q2 & 3, this was an open-ended question, meaning that people responded to the
question in their own words. Responses were then sorted into categories during the
analysis of the information. The primary area of concern for just under one-third of the
respondents is transportation related. Improvements to relieve traffic congestion on
Highway 99 and Highway 217 are the most significant transportation issues. Growth
related issues - the management and control of growth (25%) and better planning &
zoning (150/6), are also significant concerns.
Table 4.1 Perception of Needs to Maintain or Improve Quality of Life
Table 4.1
Improvement Needed %
Transportation Improvements
32%
Growth Control
25%
Better City Planning & Zoning
15%
Crime/Public Safety
8%
School Financing
6%
Open Space & Natural Areas
4%
Lower Taxes & Costs
4%
Other
6%
e Transportation improvements are of even greater importance among those at the
top end of the income groups (41%); renters (37%); those 65 & over (42%) and males
(38%).
Growth controls are an even more important issue for those in the $25-$50,000
income group and those from Section 2 (33%). Better planning & zoning is more
important to those earning over $75,000 (22%) and those in the 55-64 age group
(26%).
Observations:
Transportation improvements, specifically relieving congestion on Highway 99 and
Highway 217, are regarded as the most significant need to address in order to protect the
future quality of life in Tigard. Closely allied to this is the need to manage and control
growth in the area through better planning & zoning.
At the city level, dissemination of information about the way the City is managing growth
and development will be key to improving the perception that Council is meeting
community needs.
Public Safety
Question 5: How safe do you feel living in Tigard?
the average response is a 3.8.
® On a 1-5 scale, where 1 is Very Unsafe and 5 is Very Safe,
Over two-thirds of those responding rated their sense of safety as a 4 or 5, which is a very
good rating. Again, there is little variation among the different cross tab groups.
Table 5.1 Perception of Personal Safety Living in Tigard
Table 5.1
Response %
1 = Very Unsafe
1 %
2
2%
3
31%
4
53%
5 = Very Safe
14%
Question 6: What would make you feel safer?
Higher visibility through more neighborhood patrols (22%); tougher laws (20%); and
expanded neighborhood watch/community policing activities (14%), are the top
suggestions for ways in which to make people feel safer.
Table 6.1 Ways to Help People Feel Safer
Table 6.1
Response %
Visibility/Patrols
22%
Tougher Laws
20%
Community Policing/Neighborhood Watch
14%
More Police
11%
Street Lights
8%
Transportation Improvements
3%
More Aggressive Traffic Enforcement
3%
Other
17%
There is greater interest in higher visibility and more neighborhood patrols among
those who have lived here less than five years (30%); those from Section 2 (26%) and
among those from Section 4 (27%).
Tougher laws are supported more by those who have lived here over 20 years (29%);
those at both the higher and lower ends of the income spectrum; and Section 6
respondents (27%).
Interest in community policing/neighborhood watch activities is greater among
those with incomes under $25,000 (19%); residents from Section 1 (19%) and Section
6 (20%); renters (22%) and those under 35 (20%).
By section of the city, respondents from the central area are more interested in
community policing and street lights; those from east of Highway 99W also have a
higher level of interest in community policing and more visible patrols, while those
from west of Highway 99W are also interested in more visible patrols and tougher
laws.
Observations:
While some residents are concerned about the encroachment of gang activity into
Tigard, and about the level of burglary and petty theft, the majority of respondents feel
very safe living in Tigard.
Government Operations
Question 7: In general, how well would you say each of the following governments
are operating?
Asked to rate the overall performance of nine levels of governments on a 1-5 scale, where
1 = Very Poor and 5 = Very Well, the Fire District receives the highest average rating of
4.2, the Water District a 3.8 and the City a rating of 3.7. State government received the
lowest rating at 2.2.
Table 7.1 Assessment of How Well Various Governments Are Operating
Table 7.1
Type of Government
Rating
Fire District
4.2
Water District
3.8
City of Tigard
3.7
Unified Sewerage Agency
3.4
Washington County
3.2
School District
3.1
Metro
2.8
Federal Government
2.4
State Government
2.2
♦ Fire District ratings are higher than average among those who lived here over 20
years (4.4); those with incomes under $25,000 (4.4); renters (4.4) and those aged 65
and over (4.6). They are lower than average among those under 35 (3.9).
♦ Water District ratings are higher than average among 20+ year residents (4.1) and
those aged 65 & over (4.2). They are lower among more recent arrivals (3.6); those
from Section 3 (3.6); those under 35 (3.5) and between 35-44 (3.6).
♦ City of Tigard ratings are higher than average among renters (3.9) and those over 65
(4.0). They are lower than average among those with incomes over $75,000 (3.5);
those from Section 3 (3.4) and Section 6 (3.5) and 45-54 year olds (3.5). Those from
the central area give the City lower marks (3.6) than do those from west of Highway
99W (3.7) and those from east of Highway 99W (3.8).
♦ Unified Sewerage Agency ratings are higher than average among those from Sections
5 (3.7) and 6 (3.9); renters (3.7) and those 65 and older (3.6). They are lower in
Sections 3 (3.1) and 4 (3.2) and among 45-55 year olds (3.2).
s Washington County is rated higher by those who have lived here over 20 years (3.4);
renters (3.4) and those over 65 (3.6). It has lower ratings among those with incomes
over $75,000 (3.0); those from Section 6 (2.8) and those aged 35-54 (3.0).
o School district ratings are higher among those with incomes under $25,000 ( 3.4);
renters (3.3)those in the 55-64 age group (3.3) and those aged over 65 (3.5). They are
lower among those with incomes over $75,000 (2.9); respondents from Section 6
(2.9); those aged under 44 (2.9) and between 45-54 (2.7). Ratings range from a low
of 3.0 among those who live west of Highway 99W, to 3.1 among those who live east
of Highway 99W, to 3.2 among those who live in the central part of the city.
o Metro draws higher ratings from renters (3.0) and lower ratings from Section 6
respondents (2.5) and males (2.6).
o The federal government gets higher marks from those who have incomes below
$25,000 (2.6); Section 3 respondents (2.6); renters (2.7) and those over 55 (2.7). It
gets lower grades from those aged under 44 (2.2).
o The state government is rated higher by those with incomes under $25,000 (2.5);
Section 3 respondents (2.5); renters (2.6) and those over 55 (2.6).
Question 7A: If you rated any government(s) poorly, please indicate why?
Respondents were able to offer responses about two levels of government (for this reason
percentages do not add to 100%). 72% of the respondents made comments about the
poor performance of one or more levels of government.
The majority of these comments relate to those agencies that rank lowest in the previous
question i.e. State government, Federal government and Metro. Concerns about waste
and inefficiency were mentioned by 46% of those responding, followed by concerns
about finance and budgeting (37%); a sense that agencies were too political and beholden
to special interests (28%) and a lack of confidence in the ability of the agency to be
effective (21
Question 8: What is your perception of the overall quality of the following services
offered by the City of Tigard?
A 1-5 rating scale was used for this question. 1 represents "very low" quality, while 5
represents "very high " quality. Not all respondents are familiar with each of the services
so a "don't know" option was included as 6. Table 8.1 shows ratings expressed as a
weighted average of all the responses (excluding the "don't knows"). A higher number
signifies a higher overall perception of quality among users of that service.
Library, services to seniors, police and parks are regarded as the highest quality service
across practically all cross-tabs. At the bottom end of the list, respondents were generally
unimpressed with the effectiveness of planning & zoning and code enforcement services.
It should be pointed out that, in other surveys we have conducted throughout Oregon,
these regulatory activities are always rated towards the bottom end of any list of services.
Table 8.1 Service Ratings (in descending order of perceived quality.)
Table 8.1
Service
Rating
Library
4.4
Services to Seniors
4.1
Police
4.0
Parks
4.0
Sewer Maintenance
3.7
Building Inspection
3.3
Street Maintenance
3.3
Code Enforcement
3.2
Planning & Zoning
2.8
As Table 8.2 shows, there are large numbers of people who are unaware of certain
services. For example, 62% said they couldn't rate building inspection services, while
52% felt they were unable to rate the service quality of Services to Seniors, and 41% did
not provide a rating for sewer maintenance.
Table
8.2
Service
Quality
1= Very
2
3
4
5= Very
6= Don't
Low
High
Know
Library Services
1%
1%
7%
30%
46%
14%
Services to Seniors
1%
1%
10%
20%
17%
52%
Police Services
1%
3%
18%
44%
25%
8%
Parks Services
1%
3%
17%
38%
26%
14%
Sewer Maintenance
2%
3%
17%
25%
12%
41%
Street Maintenance
7%
11%
33%
33%
10%
6%
Building Inspection
1%
5%
16%
11%
4%
62%
Code Enforcement
4%
7%
20%
16%
5%
48%
Planning & Zoning
12%
16%
24%
16%
3%
29%
Table 8.2 Service Ratings (Spread of support)
Table 8.2 indicates the breadth of feeling people have about city services. Library
services are clearly perceived as "the" quality service garnering 46% of the top ratings.
Parks and Police run second with a quarter of the respondents giving these services the
highest rating. At the other end of the scale, planning & zoning receive proportionately
more lowest ratings. The table also shows the percentage of "don't know" responses for
each service, i.e., people who, for whatever reason, felt uncomfortable rating a particular
service.
♦ By area of the city, those who live in the central section gave lower than average
ratings for planning & zoning, while those who live west of Highway 99W gave
higher than average grades to code enforcement. Ratings for other services were
fairly uniform throughout the city.
Question 8A: If you rate any service(s) as low, please indicate why?
Like Q7A, this was an open-ended question where respondents were free to identify up to
two services and indicate why they thought service quality was poor (totals add up to
more than 100%). 44% chose to make comments in this question.
Consistent with other responses, 45% of these respondents expressed some concern
about planning and development issues. 25% mentioned a concern about maintenance
and repair services, 13% commented on transportation issues, 12% mentioned
responsiveness concerns, 11% were concerned about the influence of special interests,
10% questioned the way the City develops priorities and 10% expressed concern about
work quality.
♦ By sections of the community, planning & development issues were of greater
concern among those from east of Highway 99W (52%), than they were for those
from the central area (44%) and those from west of Highway 99W (39%).
Transportation concerns were higher among those from the central area (18%).
Observations:
The ranking of services in Table 8.1 reflects user's impressions of overall service quality.
Library services, Services to Seniors, Parks and Police are the city's highest rated
services in terms of overall quality.
Planning & zoning is perceived as the service with the lowest overall quality. The
relatively low rating for planning & zoning is not unique to Tigard. Surveys in other
communities throughout the state and nation also place planning and development at the
low end ofany list ofservices.
Actual survey responses include comments by respondents who gave lower ratings for
individual services. Council members and City staff are encouraged to review these
response sheets carefully to obtain a good understanding of citizen concerns about these
services.
Question 9: If, in the past year or so, you or any member of your household have
done any of the following, please indicate your level of satisfaction with that activity?
In general, people who used a city facility or service are very satisfied with that
experience. However it is significant to note that many respondents either do not use, or
did not rate many city services. Table 9.1 shows the percentages of respondents in these
categories and Table 9.2 indicates the ratings provided by those who have actually used
the facility or service.
Table 9.1 Percentage of Users and Non-Users of City Facilities and Services
Table 9.1
Facility/Service
Users
Don't
Non-
Know
Users
City Library
79%
3%
18%
Cook Park
58%
4%
38%
Summerlake Park
23%
8%
69%
Fanno Creek Park
21%
7%
72%
Biked/Walked City Trails
48%
6%
46%
Senior Center Activities
14%
5%
81%
Class offered by City
11%
7%
82%
Crime Prevention Program
36%
7%
57%
Non-traffic Contact with Tigard Police
37%
5%
58%
Traffic-related Contact with Tigard PD
15%
7%
78%
Street Maintenance
12%
6%
82%
Sewer Maintenance
6%
7%
87%
Done Business with Building Dept.
12%
7%
81%
one Business with Planning & Zoning
17%
7%
76%
Done Business with Engineering Dept.
11%
6%
83%
Called City Requesting Information
43%
5%
52%
At a time when attention is being focused on making public and private sector businesses
more focused on "customer service", this table suggests that a local government such as
the City of Tigard provides services to many "customers" including those who vote on
funding measures; those who pay to provide city services; those who use those services,
and those who deliver the services, to name but a few. Often, the interests of these
different customers are not the same and may be diametrically opposed. The special
challenge for the city is to align as many of these interests as possible.
While city residents are impacted by the services the City provides, the average city
resident has little direct interaction with the city. Attention is only drawn to many
activities when they breakdown, or are not performed. Hopefully, the City's C.I.T.
program will be an additional tool to reach out to its customers among the silent majority
of citizens.
In Table 9.2, satisfaction is measured on a 1-5 scale, where 1 = Very Dissatisfied and 5 =
Very Satisfied. The number shown in the table reflects the average rating provided for
each service by those responding; A number closer to 5 reflects a higher level of
satisfaction with a particular service. Because this rating is provided only by those who
have used a service, i.e., those in the User column in Table 9. 1, the number of
respondents rating each service varies considerably, from 79% of all respondents for
library services to only 6% for sewer maintenance.
Table 9.2 Satisfaction Ratings for City Services
Table 9.2
Service Rating
0
Library
4.5
Senior Center Activities
4.5
Used Cook Park
4.4
Used Summerlake Park
4.4
Taken a City Class
4.4
Biked/walked a City Trail
4.3
Crime Prevention
4.3
Non-traffic contact with Tigard PD
4.3
Used Fanno Creek Park
4.0
Requested Information from City
4.0
Used Building Department
3.8
Traffic-related contact with Tigard PD
3.6
Street Maintenance Assistance
3.5
Sewer Maintenance Assistance
3.5
Used Planning & Zoning Dept.
3.4
Used Engineering Dept.
3.3
♦ Generally, those with lower incomes tend to give higher overall ratings for city
services than did those with higher incomes. For example the average rating, over all
services, provided by those with incomes of less than $25,000 is a 4.4, compared to a
3.8 among those with incomes over $75,000. The difference lies in lower levels of
satisfaction with the Engineering and Building Departments and the use of Fanno
Creek Park among higher end income earners and higher than average levels of
satisfaction with those services, as well as street and sewer maintenance among low
income respondents.
r
o There are also observable differences in the generosity of ratings on the basis of age.
Those under 35 tend to give lower average scores (3.7) than do those in the 65 and
over age group (4.4). The differences are greatest in the ratings given for traffic
related contact with the Police Department, street and sewer maintenance and contact
with the Engineering Department.
Differences are also seen in the ratings provided by respondents from different
sections of the city. Fanno Creek Park ratings range from a 3.8 among those from
the central area to 4.3 among those from west of Highway 99W. Senior Center
Activities range from a high of 5.0 among those from the central area to 4.3 from
those west of Highway 99W. Traffic-related contact ratings range from 3.2 among
those from east of Highway 99W to 4.1 among those from the west of the Highway.
Sewer maintenance ratings are really low (2.3), in the central area and 3.7 elsewhere.
Similarly, planning & zoning ratings are only 2.9 in the central area and 3.6
elsewhere.
Observations:
Among those who use them, city services enjoy relatively high ratings. There are
relatively high numbers of non-users of certain services and a more adequate measure of
the quality of these services may be a specific user survey among the "customers" who
actually receive that service.
In some aspects of its business activities, the City is like a business that competes
for its revenues from sales of products or services to a particular segment of the
marketplace e.g. classes offered by the City. In others, it sells services to a specific user
group e.g. development interests, but does so in a non-competitive environment. In still
others, there is no transaction-based relationship between the cost of the service used
and the use of that service e.g. taxes are levied on property owners to pay for services
like library, parks and police, regardless of their use of those services. Identifying the
City's many "customers"; recognizing their different interests and devising strategies to
keep as many of these interests aligned for as long as possible is the City Council's
biggest challenge.
Question 9A: If you are dissatisfied with an amenity or service, please indicate why?
Like Q7A and 8A, this was an open-ended question where respondents were free to
identify up to two services and indicate why they thought service quality was poor.
(Responses will add up to more than 100%). 22% choose to make comments in this
question.
30% of these respondents expressed some concern about staffing and personnel issues.
24% mentioned a concern about parks and recreation, 23% commented on public safety
concems, 18% mentioned that issues they were concerned about were not adequately
r resolved and 10% were concerned about neighborhood issues.
Question 9B: If your household is not a user of either the library or city parks, is
there a particular reason why?
23% responded to this question. For 44% of them, these services are not being used
because people have no occasion to use them.
19% cite not enough time. For 11% (12 people), the issue is poor service, or the
availability of better service elsewhere e.g. people who work in downtown Portland or
who go to school, have access to either the Multnomah County Library or
University/College libraries. Ignorance about location and lack of proximity to parks is
mentioned by 22%.
Question 10: In the past year, have you, or a member of your household, done any
of the following?
The purpose of this question was to find out if households in Tigard participated in
specific community activities.
e 30% of the responding households say a member of that household has attended a
City meeting, either of Council or other public meetings on city issues.
• 22% say they have watched a City Council meeting on Cable Television
s 45% say household members have ridden a Tri-Met bus in the past year or so.
e 30% say household members attended the Old Fashioned July 4th celebration.
♦ 18% say they attended Cookin' in the Park.
Responses for attending city meetings and cable television viewing are consistent with
experience in other communities. Participation in transit ridership is higher than other
communities.
Public Involvement and Communications
Question 11: How well does the City keep you informed about city issues?
On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = Very poorly and 5 = Very well, respondents give the City a
median average rating of 4.1. Two-thirds of the respondents rate the City's efforts as
either a 4 or a 5.
Table 11.1: Rating How Well the City Keeps the Public Informed
Table 11.1
Rating
%
1 = Very Poorly
3%
2
4%
3
23%
4
33%
5 = Very Well
33%
6 = Don't Know
5%
♦ Those who have lived here less than five years give the City the same rating for
keeping them informed as do those who have been in the community 20 years or
more (4.0).
o By section of town, those who live in the central area give the city lower ratings,
(3.8), than do those who live west of Highway 99W (4. 1), and those on the east side
(4.2).
o Renters give higher ratings (4.2), than do owners (4.0).
e Ratings increase with different age groups, ranging from. 3.8 for those under 45 to a
4.5 among those over 65.
Question 12: Do you believe the City provides adequate opportunities for people to
participate and influence decisions made by the City?
By a 50% to 14% majority (with a large 36% undecided), respondents believe the City
does provide adequate opportunities for citizen involvement.
• Even more inclined to feel positively on this issue are those who have lived here
between 6-10 years (62%) and those with incomes between $50-75,000.
e More likely to react negatively are those who live in the central area of the city
(23%).
o In the large undecided category, there are higher than average numbers for those who
have lived here five years or less (46%); renters (40%) and those under 35 (40%).
In Table 12. 1, we look at these responses by sections of the city.
Table 12.1. Perception of Opportunity to Participate and Influence City Decisions.
Table 12.1
Section
Yes
No
Don't
Margin between
Know
Yes and No
Central City area
44%
23%
34%
+21%
West of Highway 99W
52%
11%
37%
+39%
East of Highway 99W
51%
12%
36%
+39%
Question 13: How responsive is the City to Citizen Concerns?
On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = Not at all responsive and 5 = Very responsive, respondents
give the City a median average rating of 3.4. Almost half, 43%, of the respondents chose
not to rate the City's efforts in this regard. Among those who did, one-quarter gave those
efforts a 4 or 5.
'f'able 13.1: Rating the City's Responsiveness to Citizen Concerns
'f'able 13.1
Rating %
1 = Not at all responsive 3%
2 9%
3 20%
4 20%
5 = Very responsive 7%
6 = Don't Know 43%
♦ Average ratings range from a high of 3.7 among those who have lived here between
' 6-10 years to 3.3 among those who have been here over 10 years.
♦ Renters give higher ratings (3.6), than do owners (3.4).
• Ratings are lower among the 45-64 age group (3.2), but higher among those over 65
(3.7).
s Females rate the City's efforts higher (3.5), than do males (3.3).
Observation:
The City should feel good about the high rating respondents provide for its public
information efforts and for the opportunities it creates for citizens to participate and
influence decisions made by the city. The city should work to maintain this perception
and, in particular, seek out opportunities with residents of Section 1, the central city
area, to do some fence mending.
Grades on the level of responsiveness to citizen concerns are lower and the City
should review not only the extent to which it feels it is responsive, but also the degree to
which it communicates its responsiveness to the general public.
The high number of undecideds may be reflective of the earlier observation that a
large number of respondents don't have any contact with the City.
Question 14: Which of the following do you consider to be your two best sources of
information about services and activities in Tigard?
Clearly, the City's newsletter "Cityscape" is an important communications tool not only
for the City but also among the citizens of Tigard. 82% of those responding to this
question identify it as one of their top two sources of information about city services and
activities. This high level of association with a City publication probably accounts for the
very high public information rating given by respondents in answer to Q11.
Table 14.1 Most Important Information Sources For Tigard Services and Activities
Table 14.1
Information Source %
Cityscape 82%
Tigard Times 49%
The Oregonian 27%
Friends & Neighbors 16%
Other 17%
♦ The Tigard Times is mentioned more often by those who have lived here longer;
those with higher levels of income; those from the central area of the city;
homeowners; those in the 35-54 age group and females.
• The Oregonian is more likely to be mentioned by more recent arrivals; those with
incomes at the lower end of the scale; those from west of Highway 99W; renters;
those aged over 55 and males.
Work Outside the Home
Question 15: How many people who live in your household work outside the home?
Of the 483 households responding, 356, or 74%, had one or more members who worked
outside the home.
• Over half (54%) of these households had two members who worked, while 37% had
only one household member who worked outside the home. 10% had three or more
household members who worked outside the home
Question 16: Where do these people work?
Reporting households have a total of 615 workers (an average of 1.7 workers per
household)
♦ Of the 615 people reported as working outside the home, 142, or 23%, work in
Tigard. 473, or 77%, work outside the city.
e 50% of the renter households report having one or more household members who
work in Tigard, compared to 39% of the owner occupied households.
Among those who leave the city for their employment, 31% commute to downtown
Portland and a further 12% go to other locations in Multnomah County; 26% to locations
in Washington County; 12% to locations in Clackamas County and 19% to other
locations including Salem.
e Among those who commute to downtown Portland, there is a higher number of
respondents who have lived in the area five years or less, and who are under age 35.
s There are higher percentages of local workers among those households that have been
established in Tigard for over 10 years. Local employment numbers are also higher
among households from the central area of the city.
Observations:
Over three-quarters of the workforce from responding households leaves Tigard to go to
their place of work Just under half of the job locations for Tigard residents who work
outside the city are to the north of Tigard and downtown Portland is still a major
employment center for local residents. A quarter of the Tigard workers who leave the
city commute to other locations throughout Washington County, making improved intra-
county transportation alternatives an important consideration for the City Council.
These commuting patterns help to explain the high Tri-Met ridership noted in response to
an earlier question. Without adequate public transit links, not only to downtown
Portland, but also within the County, commuters have little alternative but to use private
automobiles to get to work
General Issues
Question 17: What is One Thing the City of Tigard Does Well?
This was another open-ended question in which respondents were able to describe, in
their own words, something the City does well. 62% of the respondents took the
opportunity to do so and the City drew good marks for public information and
communications (17%) and citizen involvement efforts (11
Table 17.1 Things the Council Does Well
Table 17.1
Function %
Public Information/Communications 17%
Citizen Involvement 11%
Well-run City 16%
Feeling of Safety/Low Crime 11%
Library 11%
Parks 10%
Other 23%
Table 18.1 Most Important Council Issue Over Next Twelve Months
Table 18.1
Issue Rating
o Public information and communication efforts are given even higher ratings by
those who have lived here five years or less, those in the $25-$75,000 income brackets;
those over 65 and females.
Question 18: What in your opinion is the one most important issue you want to see
the Tigard City Council work on over the next twelve months?
While 23% did not identify any particular item, among those who did transportation
improvements were a priority, suggested by 37% of the respondents. Growth and
development controls, along with long range planning were mentioned by 27%.
Transportation Improvements
37%
Growth & Development Controls
22%
Long Range Planning
5%
Tax and Finance Controls
9%
Crime & Public Safety
8%
Environment, Parks & Open Spaces
6%
Other
14%
o Transportation improvements are even more important for longer term residents
(47%); those with incomes under $25,000 (46%); those from the central section of the
city (45%); renters (55%); and those over 65 (49%).
e Growth and development controls are more likely to be mentioned by 6-10 year
residents (32%); those from east of Highway 99W (25%) and 45-54 year olds.
Question 19: Is there a specific problem or project that the City should address in
your neighborhood?
43% did not identify a problem or project. Among those who did, transportation and
public safety issues are the most frequently mentioned items.
Table 19.1 Neighborhood Problem or Issue City Should Address
Table 19.1
Issue Rating
Transportation Issues
33%
Safety Patrols, Lights, Sidewalks
19%
Speeders
11%
Crime Issues and Gangs
5%
Environment, Parks & Open Spaces
9%
Cleanliness & Maintenance
7%
Code Enforcement
3%
Other
E%
♦ Transportation issues are even more important for longer term residents (38%);
those Nvith incomes under $25,000 (421/6); renters (50%); and those over 65 (42%).
Demographics
Question 20: How long have you lived in Tigard?
Overall, respondents have lived in the community for a median average of 10.2 years.
One-third of the respondents have lived in the area less than five years.
C
Table 20.1 Length of Time in Tigard
Table 20.1
Response
%
Less than 5 years
33%
6-10 Years
21%
11-20 Years
24%
Over 20 Years
21%
♦ Renters, with an average length of residence of 4.9 years, have lived in the
community for a shorter time period than homeowners, who average 11.1 years.
• The average length of residence also differs by section of the city. Respondents from
the central section have lived here an average of 11.9 years, compared to 9.9
elsewhere.
s Looking at income levels, the average length of residence for those with incomes
under $25,000 is 13.9 years. It is 12.1 years for those with incomes over $75,000 and
much lower for those in between.
Question 21: In which section of the City do you live?
45% of the respondents were drawn from the area to the east of Highway 99W
encompassing Police Department Service areas #2 and #6 (see map in Appendix). 38%
were drawn from the area to the west of Highway 99W in Police Service areas #3, #4 &
#5. 17% are from Police Department Service area #1, in the central part of the city.
Question 22: In which of the following age groups are you?
The median average age of the sample group is just over 48 years. .
Table 22.1 Respondents by Age Group
Table 22.1
Age
%
Under 35
18%
35-44
26%
45-54
20%
55-64
12%
65 & Over
25%
( e Renters have an average age of 49.2, while homeowners average 48.1 years of age.
1
® The average age of respondents from the central section of the city is 43.5 years. It is
45.7 among those from west of Highway 99W, and 54.1 among respondents who live
east of Highway 99W.
o The average age of those with incomes under $25,000 is over 65.
Question 23: In which of file following categories was your total household income,
before taxes, in 1992?
945 of the respondents answered this question. The median average household income
among these respondents was $50,300.
Table 23.1 Respondents by Income Group
Table 23.1
Income Group
%
Under $25,000
16%
$25,001450,000
34%
$50,001-$75,000
34%
Over $75,000
16%
e Higher levels of annual income are recorded by respondents from the central section
of the city ($56,300), when compared to those from east of Highway 99W ($49,800),
and west of 99W ($48,700).
e Homeowners have higher average incomes ($54,100), than renters ($30,500).
Table 23.2. Income Levels By Age Group
Table 23.2
Age Group
Median Average Income
Under 35
$54,700
35-44
$56,800
45-54
$62,100
55-64
$52,200
Over 65
$35,300
r Question 24: Do you rent or own your own residence?
In this sample, only 12% are renters, while 88% are homeowners. The number of rental
units in the community is much higher. Where the views of renters differ from those of
homeowners, those differences are highlighted in the report. From a sense of impact on
city affairs, renters are less likely to be registered voters and usually less involved in city
issues.
s Renters are characterized by having higher responses in the under five years
residence category (22%); the under $25,000 income group (40%); the under 35 age
group (20%) as well as the over 65 age group (17%).
Question 25: Gender
56% of the respondents are female; 44% are male. Given the nature of the survey i.e.
calling for written responses to be completed within each household, it is highly likely
that responses to the survey are the result of a collaborative effort among household
members.
By section of the city, a higher percentage of males (49%) responded from the area east
of 99W, while a higher percentage of females responded from the area to the west of 99W
(61%).