City Council Packet - 11/15/1994 NIEWE
Revised 11/14/94
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBUC 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 Mymated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be
present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Susiness agwd ~
care be heard In amr order after 7:30 m
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should
be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices
for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services.
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to
allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above.
639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (rDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 1
MORI=
MEW_
Ilia
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
AGENDA
1. STUDY MEETING (6:80 p.m.)
1.1 Cali to Order. - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Cali
1.3 - Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 182.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss
employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property
transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues.
3. CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECRUr"AENT UPDATE
mayor Schwartz
4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: DRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATING TREE REMOVAL
Staff Report Summary: Senior Planner Beweoersdorff
5. COUNCIL. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CREATING A TASK FORCE TO
ASSESS TREE PROTECTION ISSUES FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
• Staff Report: Senior Planner Rewersdorff
6. RECEDE AND FILE: STATUS REPORT ON UNFINISHED COUNCIL
BUSINESS ITEMS (Written Report)
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8. ADJOURNMENT
coal 115.94
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEISAF3ER 15, 1894 - PAGE 2
,1
Council Agenda Item
TI'GARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994
• Meeting was called to order at 6:35 P.M. by Mayor John Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wend! Conover Hawley, Paul
Bunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior
Planner; Liz- Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Chuck Corrigan
(Executive Session only), Tim Ramis and Ty Nyman, Legal Counsel; Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer (Executive Session
only).
• Council Communications - Mayor Schwartz advised he had received a letter from
the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, thanking the City of Tigard for the support of
their grant application to the National Fire Protection Association and International
Fire Chief°s Association for the "Learn Not to Burn: Save Cities" program.
Mayor Schwartz also reported on a recent Western Bypass meeting. Consensus
of the Mayors and people who attended that meeting was to not go any further
with the study until it is known what the Oregon Department of Transportation will
prepare as possible alternatives to the Western Bypass.
Councilor Hawley questioned a letter received in the Council mail from King City
with regard to concerns relative to the proposed shopping center to be located
directly across from King City in the area east of the intersection of Royalty
Parkway and Highway 99W. Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised Council that City
Administrator Monahan had sent a letter to the Mayor and Council of King City.
A copy of this response will be included with the next Council newsletter (see
newsletter dated November 17, 1994).
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
6:39 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss
employment of public officers and employees, labor relations, real property
transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues.
Council reconvened into regular session at 7:12 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 1
ME= FEE=
3. City Administrator Recruitment Update - Mayor Schwartz announced that the City
has offered Bill Monahan the position of City Administrator, and Mr. Monahan has
accepted.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to accept Bill Monahan
as the City Administrator for the City of Tigard and tentatively approve a contract.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. Council Discussion: Draft Ordinance Regulating "Free Removal - Senior Planner
Bewersdorff reviewed the memorandum contained in the Council packet (Agenda
Item No. 3). He reviewed the portions which were new; these new additions were
underlined in the new draft which was also included with the packet material.
Proposed actions for the Council included the following:
• Definition of a residential lot;
• Whether to allow system development charge reductions;
• The stop work/revocation process;
• Fees;
• Direct staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption or for another public
hearing.
Legal Counsel Ty Wyman underscored the fact that the proposed stop order
provisions being added to the code enforcement provisions would be applied
code-wide.
In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Legal Counsel Wyman explained
the penalty provisions contained in the proposed ordinance would not be such that
violations would be at a "criminal level." With respect to notification of property
owners, Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that notification should be provided
to at least those property owners within 100 feet of the tree removal property. The
proposed wording adds tree removal permits to require notice to be sent to all
surrounding property owners within 250 feet.
There was additional discussion on the elements of the tree ordinance, including
the cost.
Public Testimony:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 2
Sally Christensen, 156€35 SW 763th, 'Tigard, Oregon, noted her concerns about
personal property rights. She reminded Council of a previous petition which had
been submitted to City Council with regard to private property rights. She advised
she thought Council should approve the ordinance as re-written and to leave
landscaping issues of Individual property owners alone. She also requested that
the residential lot be defined to Include contiguous lots which were owned by the
same person or persons. Ms. Christensen advised that limiting properly rights
creates an adversarial relationship.
Doug Smithey, 11356 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised the
draft tree ordinance was not based on public testimony nor anything the Planning
Commission created. He noted the need to protect trees in the City and large
areas. In addition, sensitive lands should be protected. He noted he was not in
favor of regulating small back yards. He referred to the Urban Growth Boundary
issues, and noted the need to save as many trees as possible. He mentioned a
problem with the definition of how land is defined and the provisions of the
ordinance, noting this provision is a "trojan horse." He advised that one could
partition their land and those with an inclination could cut down trees to make a
profit. He noted the opportunity to save trees will be lost.
Mr. Smithey advised he disagreed with the proposed task force structure. He
noted the existing tree ordinance protects trees as property is developing. He
noted concerns that this protection would be lost. He advised the
recommendation does not match the purposes section of the draft ordinance. Mr.
Smithey noted anyone would be powerless to save trees under the proposed
definition. He requested the City try a consensus effort with the task force.
Councilor Hawley advised she agreed with the task force recommendation
presented in this Council packet. She noted this was strictly a development code
ordinance to provide some "teeth" for developers. She noted review of the
proposed ordinance was only the beginning of the work. The citizen-based task
force would create the underpinning of what the City would do with regard to tree
removal provisions. The proposed ordinance would not be intended to take the
place of the entire tree ordinance.
Mr. Smithey advised he did not see how the definition of "developed property" as
proposed in the ordinance would be of help.
Mayor Schwartz advised that Council needs to make a determination of what a
developed residential lot is. He noted the remainder of the ordinance talks about
land that is being developed. The ordinance is meant to be put in place for now,
until the task force brings back other recommendations.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PACE 3
Mr. Smithey noted the proposed ordinance would open up doors for a lot of tree
cutting.
Councilor Rohlf advised he had heard from those who had testified in the past that
there was a consensus that developers needed to be regulated. Council was
urged to move quickly to get something on the books. Councilor Rohif advised
the proposed ordinance Is an attempt to move forward.
Mr. Smithey noted he does not like the definition. He said it created problems and
would provide more opportunity to cut trees while there were discussions on how
to save trees.
Discussion followed on this issue. In response to questions from Council, Legal
Counsel Ramis advised the City does not have strong protection now with regard
to trees. The proposed ordinance deals with developers primarily, but does not
control large lots within the City.
Brigitte Partington, 10085 SW Inez, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she has lived
in the Tigard area for 24 years. She said she has managed without the help of her
neighbors. She advised she has doubled the amount of trees on her property
since she moved there. She noted new owi s plant trees on their property. She
questioned why the City was bothering to spend the time on this because it isn't
a problem. She was also concerned about how the City would enforce such an
Ash ordinance.
Tom Cox, 14530 SW 92nd Avenue, 'Tigard, Oregon, 97224, advised he was not a
proponent nor an opponent of this issue. He advised his profession was that of
a facilitator for complex issues. He identified what issues so far seemed to be of
concern to those who had testified. Those issues included the definitions of
property, property rights, the value of trees, and do the private property owners
scalp trees off their land? He noted it was important to determine which goals of
property rights/tree protection individuals are compatible.
Jack Polaris, 16000 SW Queen Victoria, Wng City, Oregon, 97224, noted he had
interviewed three professionals and advised that one of the questions given to
them was whether they thought the tree ordinance should be tabled. He said all
three said "yes." Mr. Polaris then went through a series of questions with regard
to the tree ordinance. In response to one of Mr. Polans' questions, Mr. Wyman
advised under the definition of removal, that any activity that would cause the tree
to fall or endanger the tree would be prohibited.
In addition, Mr. Polaris had questions about Goal 2. Sensor Planner Bewersdorff
responded that LCDC has been notified. Legal Counsel Ramis affirmed that the
notice requirement to LCDC has been met.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 4
r
ii Ig 11
will Ill 1,11 I'm All IS
ti
4 2J111;11,1111 11,11:11, ,1 1111 1
r With regard to inventory of trees and Goal 5 issues, these are some of the items
the task force would be reviewing.
Mayor Schwartz responded to one of Mr. Polaris' questions, advising that Council
was not sure how or if residents would be regulated. He noted there were
incentives proposed to save trees.
Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, advised she owned
property adjacent to the Hart property. She noted the Hart property would be
excluded from the permit process under the proposed ordinance. She advised
that such provisions do "not make sense." She referred to the court case with
regard to the Hart issue, noting the outcome of that decision. She noted with
regard to the Hart situation, the trees are gone which were of benefit to the entire
area for air quality and noise abatement. She advised she thought if the proposed
ordinance was adopted, it would be "back to square one" because large parcels
with a house would be exempted from the provisions.
Brigitte Partiington questioned how they would take a tree inventory. Mr. Smithey
responded that different methods could be used, including aerial photos or actual
site visits upon permission of the property owner.
Mayor Schwartz asked for Council to give direction on the proposed ordinance.
• Councilor Hawley asked that an ordinance be brought back with what has
been presented this evening. She noted there must be a place to start and
there was a need to do something immediately about developers and "this
does it." She noted that if the task force should come back with something
different, she would be willing to consider their proposal. She noted the
need to get started and that the proposed ordinance gave some teeth to
provisions and also there would be repercussions for disregarding the code.
• Councilor Scheckia expressed concerns about providing enough
information to the task force. Specifically, he noted the concerns over the
definition of residential lots.
• Councilor Rohif noted the discussion outlined key assignment areas for the
task force. He proposed Council wait to adopt the ordinance until the task
force comes back with more information.
• Councilor Hawley noted the Hart and Waymire incidents with regard to tree
removal were learning experiences. She noted a definition for a residential
lot would be a subject for the task force to discuss and to develop a
definition to bring back to City Council. She advised again that she liked
the proposed ordinance the way it was viritten.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 5
'111M EM
i
Council discussion continued on different affects the tree ordinance could have or
the potential problems with enforcement because of outside pressure, such as the
2040 Plan.
• Councilor Rohlf noted he had no problem with the change of incentives or
the proposal with regard to system development charges. He noted he did
like the section on the stop work or revocation provisions, because this
would give the ordinance some "teeth."
• Mayor Schwartz agreed with Councilor Rohlf, noting that such provision
would make developers more conscious of what the requirements would
be.
• Councilor Hunt requested more discussion on whether the residential
zoning or residential use should be used as part of the definition.
• Councilor Hawley and Councilor Rohif noted they would prefer language
refer to residential zoning.
• Councilor Hunt noted he would prefer residential use.
• Councilor Scheckla advised he could go either way.
• Mayor Schwartz also advised he would prefer residential zoning, noting staff
would be working with the task force and they should explain to those
citizens the differences and concerns with residential properties and
commercial properties.
Majority consensus of Council was that contiguous lots under the same ownership
would be treated as if they were one property for purposes of the tree ordinance.
Council meeting recessed at 9:46 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
5. Council Consideration of Resolution Creating a Task Force to Assess Tree
Protection Issues for the City of Tigard
Senior Planner Bewersdorff facilitated discussion on this item, noting the emphasis
with the task force is to determine what do trees mean to the community. He
noted that how the City will deal with residential property needs to be reviewed;
i.e., to what degree is protection needed or perhaps a heritage tree ordinance
could be proposed. He noted the need to balance property owner rights and tree
removal protection concerns. He noted there was a need to define community
values with regard to trees.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 6
MIN
There was discussion on the people who had submitted their names for
membership on the task force. Jim Nicoli noted he had some concerns from the
business standpoint, noting that businesses should get the same consideration as
residential people do.
Councilor Hawley advised she would like the task force to work on:
a definition of developed residential land,
• formulating a recommendation as to whether there should be a tree
inventory,
® and recommend whether there should be restrictions on commercial
development.
Councilor Hunt noted he would like to see a definition of historic/significant trees.
There was discussion on Goal 5 requirements. Legal Counsel Ramis cautioned
that if the task force's duties were expanded to Goal 5 resource identification, then
the task force would have a "huge agenda." It was suggested that Goal 5 issues
be a limited part of the discussion. Mayor Schwartz cautioned that Goal 5 issues
should not be considered by the task force.
Mayor Schwartz summarized that the task force would be making
recommendations as discussed by Council with regard to definitions, identify areas
of importance but not develop an ordinance at this time, (areas of importance
should be related to trees; i.e., historic trees); if necessary, the timeframe for the
task force would be extended.
Councilor Rohlf encouraged the task force to look at alternate ways to protect
trees. The thirteen individuals who had expressed interest in signing up for the
task force to assess tree protection issues for the City of Tigard were appointed
by consensus of Council.
Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution
No. 94•-50A.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-50A - IN THE MATTER OF THE CREATION OF A TASK
FORCE TO ASSESS TREE PROTECTION ISSUES FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz
and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohif, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994• - PAGE 7
F
6. Non-Agenda - In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Legal Counsel
Ramis noted the City pays for the cost of an election for initiative vote. In addition,
it is the City Attorney's responsibility to write the ballot title for the Initiative
measure. The City does not pay for preparing the tent of the Initiative measure.
Mayor Schwartz advised he received a communicatlon from Bonnie Mays,
Washington County Chair, advising there was a vacancy on the Metropolitan Policy
Advisory Committee (MPAC). Mr. ICdd, who was not re-elected as Mayor for the
City of Forest Grove and was the MPAC representative for this area. After
discussion, consensus of Council was to send by facsimile transmission to
Commissioner Mays, the name of Tigard Councilor Bob Rohlf as a nominee for the
vacant MPAC position.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 9:26 p.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recordel~
yor, City of Tigard
Date:
eaml i ib.9A
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 - PAGE 8
1
i
t`
J,y1y .
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INCo Legal
Notice TT 8 0 41 I
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising R E C E i V E L
® ❑ Tearsheat Notice WOV 171994
'
_ City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
*'igard,Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD
® ® The:followmg-meeting highlights are publisW: forgo nforn~a sos~. Fill
_ agendas maybe obtained:from the Cify, te6 fde~1312 S W. Hail
' Poulevard,:Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by call:ng 639-4171
TIf3ARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOVBr+IBI;R 15,1994 6 30 P M
T1CrAR17 CTTY HALT; TOW HALL
STATE OF OREGON, )ss 13125 S W FiA'l L BOULH~IAItB, TIGARD, ®RHCOI~F
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) • _K1 , Resolution to Form the T:W,Ordinance Task PoIM
I, Kathy Snyder • DPUSS:Y}raft ad~napce Regulating TreeRemova~ (~getsda u3ill
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising include public test~moaty ogportumty) arcs
Director, or his principal clerk, of the m; rra rA -m„ a i a t ; n mimes • Possible Agpeal of ltalloi `Ti.le 'A l trot Wile has beets gtep y_.
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 the C><ty Attorney for ti.prbogied lmtlathr rrteastiie The ballot title
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the y captionis "TigardCOmprehensivePlareAmendaientProgos ed~iq
aforesaid county and state; that the Intuatiye Wcn[erlakeJ130th Connector"It>! _u owwguimetaf
City Council Fleeting pregarataon of'this agenda highligh6d'in~ttary,<~an a~geal v~ill he
filed. The appeal2ieadlme is November 11;1994; therefore, after €bAt
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ,.date,anyone_may call the City Recorder to determ>!ne whether ads`
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and appeal°has beenfiled.
consecutive in the following issues: e Executive Session. The Tigard City Countrtl may- go wto Executive
Session under.the provisions-of.ORS;192.660 (1) fa), (d); (e)> (f)
November 10 ,19 9 4 (h)' to discuss enigloyment of public Officers and employes, labor
relatians, real property transactions; e~ctrpt gulzltc ma ~ccls and
current4rd yiindwg litigation issWs.
f804~ P }blish miember,10;19g4:'~
Subscribed and sworn to f e me this 1 Ot'h day of November,,' CrF'Clr'L SEAL
RCtE:- A. su;%,^,EBS
~ NUTA' Y t i!2L!C - OREGON
Notary P c for Oregon'` CC' :`5 t)N NO. 024552
My COMy! ;OPt pms If.AY 18,1597
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT-.
iFF
AG EN®A ITEM NO.
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
® < <-~2 Se am ~ f ~ lvt o`~
Address MUUMUU
Name o
Sm i
Add 1i a q Co► w~ o<A Ad resa
e e
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address . Address
Gn-e Nam®
dress Address
Name hlame
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
I
ORIONIS,
1,
ME 1
AGENDA ITEM # 3
FOR AGENDA OF < < 9
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: City Council
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: November 3, 1994
SUBJECT: Tree Removal Ordinance Revisions
BACKGROUND
.After the October 11, 1994 public hearing on the revised tree
removal ordinance, the City Council directed staff to come back
with a revised draft that focused on developers. At a future date,
a task force was to be established to address other tree
preservation issues. The latter could include issues such as
establishing overall tree protection goals and reviewing issues
such as significant trees, heritage trees, significant treed areas
and street tree programs among others.
REVISED TREE REMOVAL ORDINANCE
A revised tree removal ordinance is attached (labeled Exhibit A to
Ordinance No Additions to the new draft are underlined.
Material to be deleted from the October 11, 1994 draft is
bracketed. The new draft, dated November 4, 1994 suggests the
following:
Developed Residential Lot The proposal changes the definition of
developed residential lot to any lot or parcel with an established
existing residential use. This means that if a residence is on a
lot or parcel, a tree removal permit would not be required. Only
vacant residential land, land under review for partitions and
subdivision; as well as commercial and industrially zoned
properties would require a tree removal permit. This alternative
would be consistent with how the existing code provisions were
`q interpreted in the past.
Properties like the Hart property would not require a tree removal
permit unless under development review. Vacant residential
property such as the Waymire property near the High School and Cook
Park would require a tree removal permit. This alternative will
certainly make some unhappy. but may be reasonable given the
existing ordinance, the need to explore overall tree issues by a
task force as well as the desire to emphasize development. While
some larger parcels with a residence will undoubtedly be developed,
many will not and not all properties will have trees cut prior to
development application.
r
3
ig !I!
11:101 NEW= fiallm
min=
With this change, Section 18.150.035 can be eliminated (two free
trees provision).
Alternatives would be to define a developed residential lot as (1)
less than a certain size (such as three acres) with a residence or
(2) as a lot or parcel with a residence that could not be
subdivided into four or more lots according to the provisions of
Section 18.160 (Subdivision regulations) and the density of the
underlying zone. With either of these alternatives, Section
18.150.035 should be retained. (Other cities allow up to four
trees to be removed with no size restrictions.)
Tree Exemptions Developed residential lots are listed as exempt
from tree removal permits in the new draft. Exemptions do not
include properties where applications for partitioning,
subdivision, planned development, conditional use or site
development review have been filed. The draft also adds an
exemption for land which is registered with the Washington County
Assessor's office as property tax deferred forest lands or small
woodlands.
Notification The new draft adds tree removal permits under Section
18.132.120 b. to require notice to be sent to all surrounding
property owners within 250 feet. (This is indicated in the Exhibit
labeled "B" Ordinance .No_.) Notification is required with land
use decisions involving discretion. The effect of this addition
will be that a decision on a tree removal permit will be final only
after a minimum 10 day appeal period. No work could be done until
after the appeal period.
Incentives The proposal adds a Section 18.150.045 D. that allows
the City Engineer to adjust design specifications to accommodate
tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with
safe design or increase maintenance costs.
It may not be well known but there are numerous examples where this
type of flexibility has been utilized. These include moving curbs
and sidewalks on 74th Avenue, meandering sidewalks at 72nd and
Boones Ferry, narrower sidewalks at the Hampton Apartments on 72nd
and curb, sidewalk and street alterations in Summer-field all to
help preserve existing trees.
The provision for rebate of System Development Charges has been
dropped. Staff believes the cost to the system development charge
fund would be excessive. It may be stretching the relationship to
consider system development charges for all but park system
development charges in exchange for tree preservation. The fees
for parks are especially difficult to accumulate in amounts enough
to make park improvements and park purchase feasible.
If the Council wishes to return this incentive, staff suggests that
it be limited to the Parks System Development Charge and the size
of the tree be increased to at least 36 inches.
AII
Stopwork - Development Permit Revocation The Section 18.150.070,
which covers illegal tree removals, has been rewritten and
reorganized. New provisions allow the Director to issue a stop
work order and begin the process for.,revocation of the not only the
tree removal permit but the development approval as well if there
is a violation of the tree removal chapter. The Section also
provides for initiation of a public hearing to consider the
revocation of approval or to determine if a violation has occurred.
The stop work order provisions are shown in the Exhibit labeled "B"
and amend Section 18.24.070.
This is a tough measure and should be given careful consideration.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Fees The Planning Commission suggested a fee of $75 per tree plus
$10 per additional tree. This suggestion was made prior to the
last ordinance revisions and addition of the notification process.
The estimated average cost to process a tree removal permit is
approximately $180. Based on a resolution by the City Council-on
September 24, 1994 to establish planning fees at 80 percent of the
cost, staff recommends adoption of a fee of $144 plus $5 per
additional tree.
Construction Protection Measures Designating trees for protection
is only part of the battle. The best of standards combined with
the best of intent by the most sympathetic developer can be
undermined by careless construction activities. Bulldozing near
tree roots or trunks, utility trenching, soil compaction and the
dumping of construction wastes near a tree can cause the defacto
removal of a tree that was to be protected.
The City needs guidelines to add as conditions of approval for tree
removal. Examples of control or conditions would include:
o Forbidding construction or other activity within the
critical root zone. This is a relatively simple
technique that has been gaining wider acceptance
throughout the country.
The critical. root zone can be defined as the circular
area surrounding a tree, of which the center is the
center of the tree trunk and the radius is the distance
from the outside of the trunk to any point 12 times the
diameter at breast height (DBH), which points constitute
the circumference of the critical root zone. The
critical root zone extends to a depth of five feet below
surface ground level.
In other words, for each inch of tree diameter at breast
height, the critical zone is a circle around the tree
with a radius of 12 inches. Driplines have been also
utilized but are not generally as satisfactory a
INVIA PIPE
,,F,'-
protection.
o Provision of site trenching or excavation plan for
approval prior to construction to minimize the
encroachment of a tree's protected zone. Tunneling is
preferred to trenching in most cases.
o The attached list of methods and treatments to minimize
tree damage was provided by the City Operations Division
Arborist. These would be applied to permit approvals.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
The Council should consider making decisions on the following
aspects of the draft ordinance:
o definition of a residential lot
o whether to allow system development charge reductions
o the stop work/revocation process
o fees
o direct staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption or for
another public hearing
liggivil
i I: 1: 161111 li 15,
Table 1: Major Construction Impacts and Methods to Minimize Damage .
IMPACT TO TREE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY METHODWREATMENTS TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE
Root loss Stripping site of organic surface Restrict stripping of topsoil around trees. Any woody vegetation to be
soil ducting mass grading removed adjacent to trees to remain should be cut at ground level and not
pulled out by equipment, or root injury to remaining trees may result.
Lowering grade, scarifying, Use retaining walls with discontinuous footings to maintain natural grade as far
preparing subgrade for fills, as possible from trees (Fig. 21 & 22). Excavate to finish grade by hand and
structures cut exposed roots with a saw to avoid root wrenching and shattMirl by
equipment, or cut with root pruning equipment. Spoil beyond cut face can be
removed by equipment sitting outside the dripline of the tree.
Subgrade preparation for Use paving materials requiring a minimum amount of excavation (e g.
pavement reinforced concrete instead of asphalt). Design traffic patterns to avoid heavy
loads adjacent to trees (heavy load bearing pavements require thicker base
material and subgrade compaction). Specify minimum subgrade compaction
under pavement within driptine (extra reinforcement in concrete or gcot2ztile
under asphalt may be needed).
Excavation for footings, walls, Design walls/structures with discontinuous footings, pier foundations (Fig. 22).
foundations Excavate by hand. Avoid slab foundations, post and beam footings.
Trenching for utilities, drainage Coordinate utility trench locations with installation contractors. Consolidate
utility trenches. Excavate trenches by hand in areas with roots larger than 1"
diameter. Tunnel under woody roots rather than cutting then.
Wounding top, of tree Injury from equipment Fence trees to enclose low branches and protect trunk. Report all damage
promptly so arborist can treat appropriately.
Pruning for vertical clearance for Prune to minimum height required prior to construction. Consider mini
building, traffic, and construction height requirements of construction equipment and emergency vehicles owr
equipment toads. All pruning should be perforrseed by an arborist, not by construction
personnel.
Wavorable conditions Compacted soils Fence trees to keep traffic and storage out of root area. In areas of ereg(neered
for root growth, fills, specify minimum compaction (usually 85%) if fill will not support a
eltmnic stress from structure. Provide a storage yard and traffic areas for construction activity
reduced Riot systems well away from trees. Protect soil surface from traffic compaction with thick
mulch. Following construction, vertical mulch c° tqd areas. Install
aeration vents (Fig. 17)AT - L-cuss % L ii
$pills, waste disposal (e.g. paint, Post notices on fend prohibiting dumping and disposal of waste around
rill, fuel) trees. Require immediate cleanup of accidental spills.
Soil stt rilants (herbicides) applied Use herbicides safe for use around existing vegetation and follow directions on
tender pavement the label.
ImperAlatts pavement over soil Utilize pervious paving materials (e.g. interlocking blocks set on sand, Fig. 23).
surface - Install aeration vents in impervious paving (Fig. 24).
Inadequate soil Rechannelizattion of stream flow; In some cases it may be possible to design systems to allow low flows through
moisture redirecting runoff; lowering water normal stream alignments and provide bypass into storm drains for peak flaw
table; lower grade conditions. (Usually flood control and engineering specifications are not
flexible where the possibility of flooding occurs.) Provide supplemental
irrigation in similar volumes and seasonal distribution as would normally occur.
Excess soil moisture Underground flow backup; raising Fills placed across drainage courses must have culverts placed at the bottom of
water table the low flow so that water is not backed up before rising to the elevation of the
culvert. Study the geotechnical report for ground water characteristics to see
that walls and fills will not intercept underground flow.
Lark of surface drainage away Where surface grades are to be modified, make sure that water will flow away
from tree from the trunk, i.e. that the trunk is not at the lowest point. If the tree is placed
in a well, drainage must be provided from the bottom of the well.
Compacted soils; irrigation of Compacted soils have few macropores and many micropores." Core vent to
exotic landscapes improve drainage. Some species cannot tolerate frequent irrigation required to
maintain lawns, flowers, and other shallow-rooted plants. Avoid landscaping
under those trees, or utilize plants that do not require irrigation:
Increased exposure Thinning stands, removal of Preserve species that perform poorly in single stands as groups or clusters of
undergrowth trees. Maintain the natural undergrowth"
Reflected heat from surrounding Minimize use of hard surfaces around trees. Monitor soil moisture needs f
hard surfaces where water use is expected to increase.
Pruning Avoid severe pruning where previously shaded bark would be exposed
to sun. Where pruning is unavoidable, provide protection to bark from
sun.
.s
r
•r
I ~
1110
4ree - ear, b
- D R A. F T -
Nav 3, 1994
CITY OF TIGARD
EXHIBIT "h3" TO
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION 18.24.070
1. Mapter 18.24 is amended by adding Section 181.24.070 to read
as follows:
"18.24.070 Stop Order Hearing.
A. Whenever any work is being done in violation of the
provisions of the Code or a condition of any permit
or other approval granted pursuant .hereto, the
Director may order the work stopped by notice in
writing served on persons engaged in doing such work
or causing such work to be done. All work under the
permit or approval shall cease until it is
authorized to continue.
B. The Director shall schedule a hearing on the stop
order for the soonest practicable date, but not more
than- seven (7) days after the effectiveness of any
required notice. At the discretion of the Director,
such hearing may beg
1. Part of a hearing on revocation of the
underlying permit or approval pursuant to
Section 18.32.390. or
2. Solely to determine whether a violation has
occurred. The Hearings officer shall hold this
hearing and shall make written findings as to
the violation within seven (7) days. Upon a
finding of no violation, the Hearings Officer
shall require the issuance of a resume work
order. Upon finding a violation, the stop
order shall continue to be effective until the
violating party furnishes sufficient proof to
the Hearings officer that the violations has
been abated. The Hearings officer's decision
is subject to review under Section
18.32.310.H."
3. Subsection 18.32.120.A.1.H. is amended by adding paragraph (v)
to read as follows
EXHIBIT "Bu TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 1
lip
DR~aF T "
November 3,, 1994
Tree removal Psrmits."
e~~w To go. 9~-
page 2
INIO NO
_ h
Dra.f t
November 4, 1994
CITY OF TIGARD
EXHIBIT "All TO
ORDINANCE NO.
CHAPTER 18.150
TREE REMOVAL
Sections:
18.150.010 Purpose
18.150.020 Definitions
18.150.030 Permit Requirement
[18.150.035 Permit Criteria - Nondiscretionary]
18.150.040 General Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation
18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention
18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time
Revocation]
18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements
18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal--Violation - Replacement of Trees
18.150.010 Purpose.
A. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents,
the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees
of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community,
help clean the air, and provide noise barriers.
B. The purposes of this chapter are to:
1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of
trees in the City;
2. Protect major vegetation on undeveloped land in the City;
3. Regulate the removal of trees on all land in the City to
eliminate unnecessary removal of trees;
4. Allow homeowners to remove trees within the area
immediately surrounding their homes; and
5. Protect sensitive lands from erosion.
C. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the
time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees
in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and
other needed or required improvements within the development.
11111113111 I=,
maim
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)
18.150.020 Definitions.
A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in
this chapter:
1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area above ground which is
covered by the trunk and branches of the tree.
2. "Developed residential lot" shall mean a lot or parcel in
a residential zone, (which cannot be further partitioned or
subdivided, and] which contains an established, existing
residential use.
3. "Director" shall mean the City's Planning Director or his
or her designee.
4. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of
disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a
known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or
private property.
5. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in
a manner which is consistent with recognized tree
maintenance practices.
6. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent
(50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree,
resulting in the loss of aesthetic or physiological
viability, or any activity causing the tree to fall or be
in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not
include pruning.
7. "Residence" shall mean a dwelling and any attached garage.
8. "Tree" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such,
having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size
when measured four feet from ground level.
9. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at
Chapter 18.84 of the Code.
B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in
the present tense shall include the future and words in the
singular shall include the plural.
18.150.030 Permit Reguirement.
A. Except as set out in Subsection B of this section, the removal
of any tree shall take place only pursuant to a tree removal
permit.
B. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of
EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 2
a tree which:
1. Interferes with, or prevents safe access to, underground or
overhead utility lines;
2. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of
the Code;
3. Is a dead or hazardous tree;
4. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in chapter
7.40 of the Code;
5. Is used for Christmas tree production or land registered
with the Washington County Assessor's. Off ice as property
tax deferred forest lands or small woodlands, but does not
stand on sensitive lands; or
6. Stands on a developed residential lot, except where an
application for partitioning subdivision, planned
development, conditional use or site development review has
been filed.
[6. Stands within 50 feet, as measured from the nearest point
of both objects, of a residence on the same lot, but does
not stand on sensitive lands.]
[18.150.035 Permit Criteria - Nondiscretionary.
A. The Director shall approve a tree removal permit application
meeting the approval standards of this section without notice,
opportunity for hearing, or opportunity for appeal.
B. Notwithstanding Section 18.150.040, the following approval
standards apply to the removal of a tree on any residential lot
which contains a residence:
1. Two trees may be removed on the lot in any calendar year,
subject to the following:
a. the trees must have trunks no more than twenty-four
inches in combined caliper size when measured four
feet from ground level; and
b. the trees must not stand on sensitive lands.
2. For all other trees, the applicable approval standards of
this Chapter apply.
C. Any permit granted under Subsection B.1 of this section shall be
free of charge.]
EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 3
18 150 040 Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation.
A. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
tree removal permit under this section in accordance• with
Section 18.32.090.A, applying the standards set forth herein.
Notice of the decision by the Directore shall be according to
the'provisions of Section 18.32.120 A.I.
B. Notwithstanding Subsection C of this section, the following
approval standards shall apply to an application for a tree
removal permit on sensitive lands:
1. Removal of the tree must not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks.
2. a. On a developed residential lot, the removal must not
be for purposes of development or profit.
b. On all other sensitive lands, the removal must be
necessary in order to use the property in accordance
with an allowed use, and the impact of the removal
must be mitigated by tree replacement as described in
Section 18.150.170.D.
C. The following approval standards apply to an application for a
tree removal permit:
1. Removal of the tree must be necessary in order to do one of
the following:
a. construct an approved improvement;
b. use the property in accordance with an allowed use;
C. allow use of passive or active solar devices; or
d. prevent interference with existing improvements.
2. Any alternative to removal of the tree must either:
a. fail to reduce the overall net amount of caliper size
of tree loss;
b. fail to advance the applicant's objective under
Subsection C.1 of this section in removing the tree;
or
c. place an additional documented cost on allowed
improvements being made to the property.
J. Removal of the tree must not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks.
EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 4
11 !!11 11
{
!:i 1:110 :ill 1
6
D. Either in lieu of the process described in this section or upon
denial of an application for a tree removal permit, an
application may be submitted for consideration, accompanied by
a proposal to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed tree
removal. Such a mitigation proposal must provide for the
replacement of removed trees in the manner set out in Section
18.150.070.D. The following approval standards apply to an
application with accompanying mitigation proposal made under
this section:
1. Removal of the tree must not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks.
2. Removal of the tree must not be for purposes of development
or profit.
18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention.
A. In order to assist in the preservation and retention of existing
trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following
incentives as part of development review approval:
1. Density Bonus. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover
provided by existing trees over six inches in caliper that
are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a
one percent (1%) bonus may be applied to density
computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a twenty
percent (20%) bonus may be granted for any one development.
The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number
of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone.
2. Lot Size Averaging. In order to retain existing trees over
six inches in caliper in the development plan for any land
division under chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to
allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the
underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all
lots and private open space is not less than that allowed
by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than
eighty percent (80%) of the minimum lot size allowed in the
zone.
3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees
over six inches in caliper in the development plan for any
land division under Chapter 18.160, lot width and lot depth
may be reduced up to twenty percent (20%) of that required
by the underlying zone.
4. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Parking. For each two
percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees
over six inches in caliper that are preserved and
incorporated into a development plan for commercial,
industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.106.030,
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a one percent (1%)
EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 5
liggigis
ME R
r
reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted.
No more than a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the
required amount of parking may be granted for any one
development.
5. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Landscaping. For each two
percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees
over six inches in caliper that are preserved and
incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1%)
reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be
granted. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the required
amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one
development.
[6. System Development Charges. System development charges may
be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value of
any existing tree over six inches in caliper that is
preserved and incorporated into a development plan. The
value of any such tree is to be determined by a written
appraisal of a certified aborist retained by the City using
the most current International Society of Aboriculture°s
Guide for Plant Appraisal. The full cost of such arborist
services will be deducted from any system development
charge credit given under this section. Said reductions
may be substituted for any of the above incentives, but if
reduction of system development charges is chosen as the
means of incentive, no other incentive in whole or in part
may be utilized, except Setback Adjustment.]
6.[7] Setback Adjustment. The Director may grant a modification
from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the
purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of
proposed development. Such modification may reduce the
required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than
is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site.
The setback modification described in this section shall
supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions
set out elsewhere in this Code, including but not limited
to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Section
18.96.020.
B. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section
may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out at
Section 18.150.030.B.1 through 18.150.030.8.4, and shall not be
subject to removal under any other section of this Chapter. The
property owner shall record a deed restriction to this effect as
a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by
this section. The form of this deed restriction shall be
subject to approval by the Director.
C. A modification to development requirements granted under this
section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use
of the property, including but not limited to easements and
conditions of development approval.
EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 6
WA JM1.
u
D. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of oublic
improvements to accomodate tree retention where- Dosszble and
where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance
costs.
18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation.
A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half
years from the date of approval.
B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of
the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for
a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the
applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit
approval and that no material facts stated in the original
application have changed.
(C. Upon written notification, the Director may revoke a tree
removal permit upon finding that any material fact supporting
the application has changed, including but not limited to
misrepresentations and false statements, or that any condition
of approval of the permit has not been satisfied. This
revocation may be appealed by the applicant as provided in
Section 18.32.310.A.]
18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements.
A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form
provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist
of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative
set out in Subsection B or this section, and the required fee.
Applications shall not be accepted unless they are complete as.
defined herein.
B.. The supplemental data and narrative shall include:
1. The specific location of the property by address,
assessor's map number, and tax lot;
2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s) to be
cut;
3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s);
4. The reason for the removal of the tree(s); and
5. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting
of new trees; and
6. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this
chapter, for example, Section 18.150.040.0, are satisfied.
C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the Director may waive any
of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional
EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
page 7
IMM, 1i
Marmcm
MA
information.
18_.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-violation - Replacement of Trees.
A. The following constitute'a violation of this chapter:
1. Removal of a tree:
a. without a valid tree removal permit; or
b. in noncompliance with any condition of approval of a
tree removal permit; or
c. in noncompliance with any condition of any City permit
or development approval; or
d. in noncompliance with any other section of the Code
2. Breach of a condition any any City permit or development
approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root
system.
B.[A]If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this
chapter has [the removal of a tree] occurred, [contrary to the
purposes of this chapter,] then he or she may do any or all of
the following:
1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located
to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a
written statement from a qualified arborist or forester,
showing that tree removal was permitted by this chapter.
2. Pursuant to Section 18.32.390, initiate a hearing on
revocation of the tree removal Kermit and/or any other
permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval
standard.[Take any enforcement action permitted by law.]
3. Issue a stop work order pursuant to Section 18.24.070 of
the Code.
4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Code
5. Take any other action allowed by law.
[B. The following constitute a violation of this chapter, subject to
citation and disposition under Section 1.16 of the Code, Civil
Infractions:
1. Removal of a tree without a valid tree removal permit, in
noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree
removal permit, or in noncompliance with any other section
of the Code.
2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development
EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94-'
Page 8
MWOM
BOB%
approval which results in damage to a tree or its root
system.]
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any party
found to be in violation of this chapter shall be subject to a T..
civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any
damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
1. replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees -in
accordance with Subsection D.of this section; and
2. payment of an additional civil penalty representing the
estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree,
as determined using the most current International Society
of Aboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal.
D. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the
following guidelines:
1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species
considering site characteristics.
2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or
damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow
replacement with a different species of equivalent natural
resource value.
3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably
available on the local market or would not be viable, the
Director shall require replacement with more than one tree
in accordance with the following formula: [in Subsection
F D.4 of this section.]
The number of replacement trees required shall be
determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the
tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest
reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of
trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the
Director may require one or more replacement trees to be
planted on other property within the City, either public
property or, with the consent of the owner, private
property.
(5] The planting of a replacement tree shall be in a manner
reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity.
E. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section,
a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to
compensate the City for the costs of such tree replacement.
F. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive.
EXHIBIT G1Ar' TO ORDINANCE No. 94-
Page 9
,
17-77
Le,
.
AGENDA ITEM # 3
FOR AGENDA OF I t 5 q
m
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON w.?N
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrator
DATE: November 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Task Force to Assess Tree Protection Issues
Below are ten names of people who have contacted staff advising
they want to participate on the Task Force to Assess Tree
Protection Issues. It is possible that more names will be added.
Volunteers - Task Force to
Assess Tree Protection Issues
• Evelyn Beach • Dan Mitchell
P • Sally Christensen T • Kent Patton
• R. E. Gillmour '7`• Casey Schleich
F' Dave Glaubke 1P • Michael Smith
T Christy Herr -775 Doug Smithey
Also attached is a resolution forming the T&s-kForce submitted for
Council approval. In addition, Council should discuss and give
direction on how they would like to review the candidates for
selection to serve on the Task Force.
cwc4108.94
1
SEES; W
bk="
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
'RESOLUTION NO. 947
IN THE MATTER OF THE CREATION OF A TASK FORCE TO ASSESS TREE PROTECTION
ISSUES FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed a new community Development
Code Section 18.150 (Tree Removal) drafted by the Tigard Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a series of public meetings on the
Tree Removal regulations as follows:
- ~lic Hearing on July" i2, 1~ F-R
- Council Work Session on August 2, 1994
- Public Hearing on October 11, 1994; and
- Council Work Session on November 15, 1994; and
WHEREAS, a number of issues were brought forth by individuals both in
support and in opposition to the proposed draft; and
WHEREAS, the City Council decided to form a Task Force to review the
issues and develop options for Council consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City of Tigard hereby creates the Task Force to
assess tree protection issues to work with City of Tigard
Staff to develop goals, policies, directions and
implementing procedures that will respond to community
a values and protect trees accordingly.
Section 2: The Task Force shall be comprised of seven individuals to
be appointed by the City Council. The term of the
appointments shall be for the duration of the Task. Force
Activity.
Section 3: One member of the City Council shall be designated by the
Mayor as the liaison to the Task Force. Senior Planners
Carol Landsman and Dick Bewersdorff, or th:.Ar designees,
shall serve as the staff resource and coordinator to the
Task Force, and be notified of all Committee meetings.
Section 4: The Task Force shall be composed of a cross-section of
community interests including representation froms those
who favor the regulations (as proposed in the draft
reviewed by Council on October 11, 1994) and those who
would favor another approach to regulating tree removal
(i.e., represented as individual "property rights"
concerns during the October 11, 1994, Council public
hearing).
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
Page 1
P'
Section 5: The Task Force shall comply with all requirements of the
- so-called Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 -
192.710.
Section 6: The Task Force is charged with the responsibility for the
following:
- identify goals, policies and issues and recommend
implementing strategies.
- Report to Council the Task Force°s findings and
recommendations to achieve the goal of regulations
which preserve trees and protect livability as
property develops within the City of Tigard. This
report shall be presented to the City Council for
its consideration.
omumin"
Section 7: The Task Force shall complete its Bork by February 28,
1995. It shall provide a progress and status report to
the City Council by January 24, 1995.
PASSED: This day of , 1994.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
r City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
Page 2
woommmum
ti
1
Aj-e tj JC. ,/-P-M
+ II/r5/~i y
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council `r~
FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrator WI'
DATE: November 9, 1994
SUBJECT: Council Meeting of November 15, 1994 - Unfinished
Business Status Report
• Pollock Case - The jury has ruled in this matter. T`3016
City Attorney's office will brief you on the decision and
options in Executive Session on the 15th.
• Petrie (Reimbursement District) Matter - The City
Attorney does not believe there is jurisdiction at LUBA
as this is not a land use decision. It is likely that
the matter will be transferred to Circuit Court. The
City Attorney's office has tendered the case to the
City's insurance carrier since it is possible the matter
may be eligible for insurance coverage thereby saving the
City legal expense.
• Initiative Ballot Title - The attached initiative ballot
title was prepared by the City Attorney's office, as
required by our Code and after receipt of information
from Greg Gerking, one of the chief petitioners. No
appeal of language was filed by the 5 p.m. deadline on
November 8, 1994.
• Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Change - The Planning
commission recommended approval of the Albertson's
proposal off Scholls Ferry Road. It will move on to the
December 13 Council Agenda.
• Council Calendar for December - We have cancelled the
December 6 and 20 meetings.
I-5/217 - The first meeting of the Study Committee was
held last week.. We will need to appoint our
representatives from the Triangle and business community
to the study group.
® Western Bypass - A meeting on the Bypass status is
scheduled for November 10. Mayor Schwartz will attend.
• Water - Ed, Wayne and I will meet today with the Lake
Oswego negotiating team to discuss the governance section
of the draft agreement. We have not received the capital
assets portion of the agreement for review.
Community Development Director - I would like to discuss
my preference/alternatives for the filling of the CD
Director position in a study session prior to the
November 29 meeting.
• Human Resources Director - aanice's last day is
November 10. We will initiate the hiring process to fill
this vacancy. In the interim, I will assign Liz Newton
as Acting Human Resources Director. Liz will be assisted
by Human Resources Analyst Brian Ries. Some of Liz's
duties will be reassigned as we go through the hiring
process. I expect a strong applicant pool as we attempt
to fill the position by February 1, 1995.
• Taco Bell (Approval on Pacific Highway) - The decision
was appealed to LUBA by an adjacent property owner.
Responsibility for the defense will shift to the
applicant. The applicant will likely raise some
procedural claims seeking dismissal of the appeal. We
will need to expend some legal resources when this
occurs. Pam Beery will brief you on the expected action.
• Annexations - The Planning Staff is reviewing the status
of the island annexations. Several small annexations
will come forth in the next few months. The Walnut
Island annexation will be the subject of a study session
in late November or early December.
• Chamber Scholarships - All five scholarships were
accepted by Council's top choices. The first session has
been held. Based upon the questions raised by
participants at the first session,the participants wish
to receive information on several issues and processes of
the City.
h:\to91n\ca4h W=1109.94
BALLOT TITLE
CAPTION: TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAIT AMENDMENT PROPOSED
BY INITIATIVE WINTERLAKE/ 13 0TH CONNECTOR
QUESTION: Shall the Tigard City Council initiate and
facilitate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to
remove the Winterlake/130th street connector?
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1983, calls
for completion of a street connection between
130th Avenue and Winterlake Drive. The
connection cross Summer Creek. This
measure, if approved, will advise the Tigard
City Council to initiate and facilitate a
comprehensive plan text and map amendment. The
purpose of the amendment would be to delete the
planned street connection between Winterlake
Drive and 130th Avenue. Design of the street
connection was approved by the City Council in
August 1994 after a public hearing.
Prepared by Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney
for the City of Tigard
November 4, 1994
Pc.
• .A
IJIIIXIZI~ IN, I. 1 1, Sig 11 111 1
MEMO=
TT3 , x,
WESTEUBLUN BYPASS S. iD
Oregon Department of Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 25, 1994
O C T 3 11994
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
Technical Advisory Committee L4 61 t,L'11
Steering Committee -
' FRniI ! Study Team
SUBJECT: Meeting Notice
Hello againl The last round of Western Bypass Study (WBS) Committee meetings was held in May of
1993. At those meetings, the Study Team gave an overview of,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
process and STOP requested consideration of an additional alternative. Please review your minutes of
those meetings (they were mailed July 15, 1993), or contact us if you need a copy.
We are reconvening the Committees this November and December to discuss with you recent developments
and the continuing direction of the Study. An agenda for the first round of meetings is attached. The
dates, times and locations of the meetings are listed below:
First Hound Second Round
Steering Committee Steering Committee
November 10, 1994 December 7, 1994
3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. 3:30 - 6:00 p.m.
Tigard Water District Tigard Water District
8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard
Citizens Adviscry Committee Citizens Advisory Committee
November 10, 1994 December 1, 1994
7:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. 6:00 - 9:00 P.M.
Tigard Water District Tigard Water District
8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard
Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee
November 16, 1994 December 1, 1994
9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. 1:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Tigard Water District Tigard Water District
8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard
For those who are new to one of the Western Bypass Study Committees, we are also enclosing a set of
newsletters that summarize the Study process and key decisions. If you would also like to meet, receive a
personal briefing and ask questions, we would be happy to do so. Please call
Bill Ciz, ODOT Project Manager (731-8239) or Debie Garner, Public Involvement Coordinator
(235-5881) if you have questions or would like to arrange a briefing.
Attachments for all.• Draft Meeting Agendas
Attachments for Now Committee Members: Draft Meeting Agendas, Minutes of May 1993 Committee
meetings and IRIBS Newsletters
~ '~4;, ?Vl4t"
Agenda Item No. LL`
Council Meeting of l1 15194
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrator
DATE: November 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Status Report on unfinished Council Business Items
This report will be submitted to the City Council in the Thursday
Council mail packet.
cwc1108.942
-~L