City Council Packet - 02/08/2000
OR~G/NR L
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
COUNCIL MEETING ILL TELEVISED
i:%admyolxpktt.doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 654-2772
- n
x
Ttc~►~ CITY ceuN~;IL - ,
d j
nr aar,dFee 1uf/•t'TIA1r" r
{fir' 1D4131IVGJ3t7L~ar4 t Lanvr r - CITY OF ~ O~~ wP~~~A
\7 iAl I f L V ~
,~2~0~0'Q r t` 6,~xpMr
E~/RARf
`IAQ~'~~%'1GL ~f t 17 'i 6 ' kt r a 1
4-L; -rl-i
s.'i'1r t n~ w ' s xY
Y N y~~L xyiy ~y t: ~ .?y
r ^ rIr a ,
1CGAt2~';fJRI;G®A4 9~223K
L~ f^.5:,~" 1 t}~':~ty ts J Lt. 1 r t o 1 r J jt.
ft , kf } L y .
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 Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying 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.
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
0 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, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACKED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2000 - PAGE 1
m
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
6:30 PM
STUDY SESSION
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) ax (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and
pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session,
but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
> Review Public Hearing Process - Walnut Island Annexation
7:30 PM
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Cali
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
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: November 16, 23, 1999
3.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
3.3 Support Application for Federal Assistance for Constructing a Portion of the
' Fanno Creek Trail - Resolution No. 00- 0(p
i
i
a Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
' immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 0, 2000 - PAGE 2
7:45 PM
4. PUBLIC HEARING: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS, FILE NOS. ZCA
1999-00006 THROUGH ZCA 1999-00020
At issue is whether the City should annex the territory referred to as the Walnut
Island, which consists of 15 areas completely surrounded by the City of Tigard.
The areas proposed for annexation are indicated on the map that is displayed in the
City Hall Lobby and at the Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hail Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon.
Also at issue is whether the territory proposed for annexation should be withdrawn
from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County
Street Lighting District # 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
The City initiated this annexation proceeding under ORS 222.750. Approval
standards for annexation are set out in Community Development Code Section
18.32.020, and Chapter 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policy 10, ORS Chapter
222, and Metro Code Chapter 3.09.
The Council will hear testimony regarding any or all of the territories proposed for
annexation in this hearing. However, it may consider any one or more of the
territories separately. The Council may choose to annex all areas, none of the
areas, or some of the areas. For those who are going to testify, please specify
whether your comments are directed at all areas or only at a specific area.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
- Do any members of the Council wish to report any ex parte contact
or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits?
- Do any members of the Council wish to report and actual or potential
conflicts of interest?
- Do any members of the Council with to abstain for any reason?
- Have all members familiarized themselves with the application?
Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the
Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter?
Are there any challenges to the participation of any Council member?
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony
Please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or
evidence sufficient to afford the Council and others an Opportunity to
respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of
COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 8, 2000 - PAGE 3
a
Appeals on the issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed to the
criteria described by staff or to other criteria in the plan or land use
regulation that you believe apply to the decision.
Proponents
- Opponents
Neutral comments or questions
Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration: Each area has a proposed ordinance for Council
consideration. Each ordinance requires a separate motion. pR0 00- o 3
L Appeal information ~h n _-t oe~
Any private person with standing may appeal the Council's decision to the 1-7
Land Use Board of Appeals according to applicable state statutes and the
rules adopted by that Board. Additional information concerning appeals is
available from staff.
Any necessary party, as that term is used in the Metro Code, may appeal this
decision under the applicable Metro Code provisions.
9:15 PM
5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM JANUARY 25, 2000 -
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER - CPA 1999-00002/ZON 1999-
00001 /ZOA 1999-00004WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
REQUEST: A request for approval of a legislative Comprehensive Plan map and
development code language, rezone, and text amendments to the Tigard
Development Code within the area designated as the Washington Square Regional
Center. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density
Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential,
Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial Professional, and
Industrial Professional to the new designation of Mixed Use Commercial, Mixed Use
Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed Use Residential-1, Mixed Use
Residential-2, and to the existing R-12 zone. The findings of this plan will be
forwarded to the Beaverton City Council, and Washington County Commissioners
for their consideration.
LOCATION: Generally, south and west of Hall Boulevard; north of Highway 217;
the Nimbus Business Park area between Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota;
Cascade retail center south of Scholls Ferry Road and north of Greenburg Road.
ZONE: CG (General Commercial), CP (Commercial Professional), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), IP (Industrial Professional), R-4.5 (Low-Density
Residential), R-12 Medium-Density Residential, R-25 Medium High-Density
Residential, R-40 Medium High-Density Residential.
COUNCIL AGENDA- FEBRUARY 8, 2000 - PACE 4
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13;
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1,
6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.1, and Community
Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32., Metro Functional Plan.
a. Continuation Public Hearing from January 25, 2000
b. Public Testimony Portion was closed on January 25, 2000; written testimony
closed February 1, 2000
C. Staff Recommendation: Community Development Department
d. Council Deliberation: Direction to Staff to Prepare Final Order and Set Date
for Consideration of the Final Order
9:45 PM
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:55 PM
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS
10:00 PM
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation
issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore
nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information
discussed during this session.
10:15 PM
9. ADJOURNMENT
1 AADM\CATHY\CCA\000208.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 2800 - PAGE 5
Tai
Agenda Item No. 3JJ
Meeting of b
TIGARID CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 2000
• STUDY SESSION
> Councilor Brian Moore called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
> Council Present: Councilors Paul Hunt, Council President Brian Moore, and Joyce Patton
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Long Range
Planning Manager Nadine Smith; Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson; John
Spencer
> EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues.
> Council President Moore reconvened the study session at 6:55 p.m.
> Water issues
Bill Monahan, City Manager, reminded the Council of the annual Intergovernmental Water Board
meeting scheduled for Monday, February 28, at the Tigard Water Building.
Councilor Hunt reported that he met with the Mayor of King City and Gretchen Buehner of the
Tigard Water District. He said that Ms. Buehner agreed to wait on any action until after the City
found out more information from the South Fork Water District. He mentioned that both the cities
of Durham and King City backed Tigard in investigating this possibility.
Councilor Patton asked if South Fork has talked to the media. She mentioned people in her office
commenting to her about Tigard looking into the South Fork alternative. Councilor Hunt said that,
although they were not advertising the matter, they did not meet in closed session and they
answered questions if asked.
> Atfalati
Mr. Monahan reported that staff was ready to put the survey out in the Cityscape and on the City's
website.
Councilor Hunt discussed his concern that with this process, saying that it appears the City is
promoting Atfalati rather than taking a neutral position. Councilor Scheckla concurred.
The Council discussed the issue. Council President Moore disagreed that the survey promoted the
district. He spoke to using the survey to gather information from the citizens to help the Council
make its decision on whether or not to put the district on the ballot. Councilor Hunt said that the
survey asked if citizens would support Atfalati at three different amounts without giving them any
information on which to base their thinking.
Mr. Monahan said that the question was whether the Council wanted public input from a survey. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 1
mentioned that the City of Durham survey results showed little support for the district. He
commented that it may be that the Tigard survey results would not find a majority of people willing
to support the district at any cost. He explained that it was not possible to provide information on
the funding detail because that detail had not yet been developed. He indicated that the 95-cent
option included the $12 million facility but the other amounts were for scaled down versions.
Councilor Patton commented that she thought that the article gave the people a general idea of the
district with its estimated costs and projected annual costs broken down into operations cost and
debt service costs. She spoke to getting information from Tigard residents on this specific issue.
She pointed out that a low survey response indicated that people were not interested in a recreation
district. She noted that conducting an opinion poll was not indicative that the City has already
decided to go forward with the recreation district.
Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Ramis for verification that, if the City sent this to the ballot (along with
the other jurisdictions), and Tigard voted it down but the other jurisdictions voted for it, then Tigard
was in the district. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, confirmed that theoretically that could happen.
Councilor Hunt asked if a City Council deciding not to send the district to the ballot automatically
removed that city from participating in the district, even if the other City Councils voted to put the
district on the ballot. Mr. Ramis said that the other jurisdictions could not force a Council into the
district. Mr. Monahan explained that each jurisdiction became a part of the district when its Council
adopted a resolution to join the district.
Council President Moore reported on the meeting he attended Wednesday night. He said that
neither Sherwood nor Durham appeared likely to participate in Atfalati. He mentioned the
discussion of lowering the cost of participating in the recreation district, and of removing areas
within the district, such as Summerfield.
Councilor Scheckla questioned what good the survey would do if areas could opt out. Council
President Moore said that the survey would not hurt and it would provide the Council with input
from more people on whether or not participating in the recreation district was a good idea.
Councilor Hunt noted he did not support conducting the survey. Councilor Scheckla concurred.
Mr. Monahan said that staff would take the survey out of the Cityscape and it would not appear on
the website.
> Sewer Reimbursement Districts
Mr. Monahan recalled that the Council granted the Delmonte Sewer Reimbursement District the
option of paying the $8,000 cap for the district fee in the first year but not hooking up to the sewer
until a later year, due to the high financial cost. He mentioned that the property owner would pay
whatever the connection fee was in the year that he hooked up, not what it would have been if he
had hooked up the first year. He indicated that Council decided to make this option part of the
policy for the reimbursement districts.
Mr. Monahan referenced the City Engineer's memo discussing the impact of this policy on the
program. He explained that the intent of the program was to connect people to the system in order
to prevent potential septic system problems. He noted the City Engineer's recommendation that the
Council allow this exception for the Delmonte Reimbursement District (since the Council publicly
committed to it) but re-consider making it the policy for all reimbursement districts.
Mr. Monahan noted Mr. Duenas' description of another way to run the program: the property
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 2
owner paying the full district fee on day one and receiving a rebate of the difference between the
$8,000 cap and the full district fee when he demonstrated that he has connected to the system. He
commented that doing it this way would be a bookkeeping nightmare.
Councilor Hunt observed that a homeowner not connecting to the sewer immediately did not cost
the City anything except the connection fee (the monthly sewer fee went to USA). He stated that he
saw the City as doing USA a favor in allowing a combination sewer/water bill because the people
thought of it as a water bill and had less good will towards the City than they would if the two bills
came separately. He discussed another reason that he did not like the proposal was that it defeated
the purpose behind the $8,000 cap: consideration of the homeowners' lack of financial ability to
fund the true cost of a sewer.
Mr. Monahan reiterated Mr. Duenas' recommendation to maintain the current resolution with the
people playing the discounted share of $8,000 and the connection fee and then the City issuing a
permit.
Council President Moore observed that the question was whether or not to maintain the resolution
as originally written. He spoke in support of maintaining the original resolution while making an
exception for the Delmonte residents, per the Council's public commitment.
At Councilor Hunt's request, Mr. Monahan recalled how the Council arrived at this policy. He said
that a citizen asked if it was okay, the Mayor made a comment that the City could make it okay, the
Council discussed the issue, the City Attorney indicated that the Council could make policy with a
decision in the public record, and the Council agreed unanimously to set the policy.
Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if a resident sold his house without connecting to sewer.
Mr. Monahan stated that the City only recaptured the money when someone decided to connect,
whether or not a property owner sold his house. He reiterated that the $8,000 cap in year one (not
available to the purchaser) and the waiting out the 15 years still applied. Mr. Ramis commented that
someone selling his house might have to hook up because of financing requirements.
Mr. Monahan spoke to the Council considering changing the resolution during its review of the
program scheduled for October.
The Council agreed by consensus to maintain the resolution as written, making an exception for the
Delmonte group as discussed, with the understanding that the Council would review the resolution
this October.
Councilor Scheckla spoke to making sure that the Delmonte residents were aware that they had one
year to pay the $8,000.
> Review Public Hearing Process - Walnut Island Annexation
The Council set the testimony time limits at five minutes per individual.
Councilor Hunt asked if this annexation covered every island in the city. Jim Hendryx,
{ Community Development Director, stated that there were no other islands in the city.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -i~EBRUARY 8,2000- Page 3
H~ffllllwffl 11111111MI, I -111111MIJ
r
The Council discussed the motion for adopting the annexation ordinances. Mr. Ramis said that the
Council could adopt all the ordinances in one motion or take them in batches. He asked the staff to
track who testified on what island, so that the Council could pull out the controversial islands for
f„rther discussion if it so desired. He suggested that the Council ask the elected officials to speak
immediately following the staff report and before the public testimony.
> Council President Moore adjourned the study session at 7:31 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Councilor Brian Moore called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Councilors Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt and Council President Brian Moore
were present.
1.4 Council Communications: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Moore,
Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve Council Minutes of. November 16, 23, 1999
3.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
3.3 Support Application for Federal Assistance for Constructing a Portion of the Fanno
Creek Trail - Resolution No. 00-06
4. PUBLIC HEARING: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS, FILE NOS. ZCA 1999-00006
THROUGH ZCA 1999-00020
At issue is whether the City should annex the territory referred to as the Walnut Island, which
consists of 15 areas completely surrounded by the City of Tigard. The areas proposed for
annexation are indicated on the map that is displayed in the City Hall Lobby and at the Tigard
Public Library, 1315 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
Also at issue is whether the territory proposed for annexation would be withdrawn from the Tigard
Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban
Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 4
IMIM 11111011 =11 Mill
The City initiated this annexation proceeding under ORS 222.750. Approval standards for
annexation are set out in the Community Development Code Section 18.32.020, and Chapter
18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policy 10, ORS Chapter 222, and Metro Code Chapter 3.09.
a. Council President Moore opened the public hearing and reviewed the testimony
procedures
b. Declarations or Challenges
There were no declarations of ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were no challenges.
c. StafVApplicant Report
Mr. Ramis reviewed the changes made to the annexation process by the Oregon legislature. He
explained that because the Legislature eliminated the Boundary Commission, the Council's decision
tonight on the annexations was the final decision.
Mr. Ramis noted that in the public hearing format, the Council based its decision on the evidence in
the record. He emphasized that this was the forum for residents to make their case to the Council
and to submit evidence into the record.
Mr. Ramis asked that any testimony address the two broad criteria: land use and provision of
services.
Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report using a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated that 496 lots
comprised the 15 island areas (equaling 310 acres). He reviewed the process used by the City staff
to achieve the Council's goal of annexing the Walnut Island this year. He mentioned the feasibility
study and the two public open houses held in October.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the steps that the City followed to complete the island annexation process
(without an election) described in ORS 222.750. He mentioned the resolution initiating the process
in December, the noticing requirements, the staff report, and the public hearing.
Mr. Hendryx described the steps that the City took to comply with the relevant criteria. He
discussed meeting the ongoing citizen involvement policy (TCP 2.11), the delivery of adequate
service to annexed parcels (TCP 10.1.1), the boundary criteria (TCP 10.1.2), and the Metro urban
service, planning, boundary changes, and public facilities standards.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that by annexing the 15 areas, the City consolidated its boundaries and
provided for a simpler delivery of services. He stated that the staff found the proposal consistent
with the Metro standards and urban plans as well as with the City's Development Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Metro sent completed annexations to the Department of Revenue,
which included all annexations completed by March 31, 2000, on next year's fiscal year tax rolls.
He presented slides showing each of the 15 areas. He recommended that Council adopt the 15
separate Walnut Island annexation ordinances tonight.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 5
=91110 0113
COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Councilor Scheckla asked if an existing home business in the island would be grandfathered in with
the annexation. Mr. Hendryx explained that any legal business in the County would be
grandfathered into the City. He mentioned that all businesses, including home businesses, needed
to get a business license from the City (the County did not require one).
d. Public Testimony
Council President Moore recognized County Chair Tom Brian, County Administrator Charlie
Cameron and Director of Land Use and Transportation John Rosenberger.
o Tom Brian, 7630 SW Fir, Tigard, Washington County Board of Commissioners Chair
Mr. Brian mentioned that Bob Kruse of the United Sewage Agency was present to answer
questions.
Mr. Brian stated that the County Board and staff supported the Walnut Island annexations as good
public policy. He pointed out that the City of Tigard was capable of serving the area and was the
most logical provider of urban services. He recalled that Tigard already provided planning, building
inspection, road maintenance and law enforcement services to the Walnut Island. He mentioned the
issue of septic systems versus sewer systems, speaking to the City partnering with USA to resolve
septic system problems.
Mr. Brian commented that the cities, as the most efficient providers of urban services, allowed the
County to concentrate on the county-wide services, such as corrections, prosecution, public safety,
health and human services, and transportation. He said that areas within the Urban Services
Boundary annexing to the cities was consistent with the County 2000 policy.
Mr. Brian recounted the appreciation he gained for the services offered by the City when his
property was newly annexed years ago. He reiterated the County's support of the annexation as
good for the residents and for the County. '
Councilor Scheckla asked how the County would handle the reduction in revenue as it lost territory
to the cities. Mr. Brian pointed out that none of the other cities had islands the size of Walnut
Island; smaller annexations had a less obvious financial impact and service shift. He indicated that
the County would either downsize its staff as needed to adjust for the loss in territory or find general
fund monies to replace the lost revenue.
Councilor Scheckla observed that this annexation was not a moneymaker for either the City or the
County. Mr. Brian concurred that annexations were not moneymakers but expressed his confidence
that the City did research the financial impacts. He emphasized that this was a sustainable longer-
term policy choice that was better for the community and the County because it shifted the service
delivery system to the agency best suited to deliver services.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the traffic and density coming into Tigard from the Washington Square
Regional Center would offset the overall future of Tigard's density problem. Mr. Brian observed
that density was a difficult issue. He mentioned the 56,000 units allocated to the County. He noted
the County's work with the neighborhoods in getting everyone to take their fair share of the density.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 6
Council President Moore reviewed the land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits.
PROPONENTS
Wayne Jeffers, 13170 SW Howard Drive, Area 1
Mr. Jeffers said that he supported the annexation on a provisional basis. He asked the Council to
assure the Howard Drive residents that the City would bury the sanitary sewer line deep enough to
allow gravity flow from their properties. He described the situation on Howard Drive that could
result in the residents having to install a pumping system to access the main sewer line, if the line
was not buried deep enough. He argued that not having a gravity flow sewer would reduce the
property value of the homes.
Council President Moore said that, although it was unlikely that the engineering staff could answer
that question without an engineering study, it was the Council's goal to not place abnormal
requirements on the homeowners. He stated that the City would make every effort to make sure that
it met Mr. Jeffers' request within the engineers' ability to do so.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the City would most likely install a sewer through the reimbursement
district program. He explained that the public did have input into the design process. He said that
the City Engineer would consider Mr. Jeffers' request as a criteria. He suggested leaving the issue
to a later date with the understanding that the public would have an opportunity to see the drawings
and to comment before the Council.
Councilor Hunt commented that it was more likely that the City would take on the responsibility for
pumping into the main line.
o Brunhilde E. Bublitz, 10855 SW Errol Street, Area 1
Mrs. Bublitz indicated that she spoke on behalf of herself and her husband, Rudolf. She explained
that they were in Europe last year and missed the October public meetings. She asked several
questions with respect to specific concerns she had with the impact of the annexation.
Ms. Bublitz asked if there would be any difference in the cost to convert from a septic system to a
sewer system before the annexation as opposed to after the annexation. Mr. Hendryx said that he
did not know what the County's cost would be. He explained the terms of the City's sewer
reimbursement district program, including the $8,000 cap in the first year plus the connection fee.
Mr. Monahan indicated that they could not compare the cost before and after the annexation because
the County had no comparable program to the City's reimbursement district program. He pointed
out that the residents had no opportunity to connect to sewer today because there were no sewer
lines in their area.
Mr. Hendryx explained that the City had to extend the sewer lines in a continuous and logically
sequential fashion from where the sewer lines existed today to where the neighborhoods wanted to
connect to sewer. He indicated that the Engineering staff would likely give a higher priority to a
neighborhood coming forward and asking to connect. Mr. Monahan mentioned the likelihood that
the Engineering Department (if the annexations went forward) would start identifying where to
make the logical connections to the existing lines and solicit neighborhood input. He noted the
priorities of the logical connections and those areas with the greatest nced.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 7
Ms. Bublitz Walnut ked if the commuter rail line between Wilsonville and Beaverton would come
through the Island. Mr. Hendryx explained that the commuter rail would use the existing
rail line that from Beaverton through Tigard to Tualatin and Wilsonville. He said that it had no
relationship to the annexation proposal.
Ms. Bublitz mentioned their frustration with the construction work on the straightening of Walnut
Street. She indicated that she thought that it was supposed to be done last September. Mr.
Monahan explained that tine Engineering Department scheduled that project for completion this year
after the weather changed. He noted that they started it last year because certain elements had to be
finished before school started.
Ms. Bublitz asked if the City would widen and pave Errol Street. Mr. Hendryx explained that in
order for the City to accept responsibility for all the roads in the Walnut Island, the roads had to
meet an engineering standard with respect to the quality and width of the pavement. He noted that
the County agreed to bring its roads up to a minimum standard as part of the annexation agreement
(but not to full pavement standards). He said that the City would work with the property owners
over time to improve the streets to the full City standard. He said that he could not speak to the
specifics of Errol Street.
Roger Potith, 11710 SW Anne Street, Area 1
Mr. Potith encouraged the City to complete the annexation. He discussed the need to address the
septic system situation as soon as possible. He conceded that the cost of sewers would present some
financial difficulties to the residents but he reiterated that this was something that they needed to do.
He described a role of government as bringing to the community the engineering expertise and
financing resources to address problems in neighborhoods. He held that this was long over due.
OPPONENTS
o John Setnicker, 11830 SW Gaarde Street, Area 1
Mr. Setnicker stated that he opposed the annexation. He mentioned his ownership of businesses in
Tigard since 1954. He recounted anecdotes of his interaction with the Tigard police. He asserted
that the police did not do the follow-up that they promised to do with respect to the break-ins he
reported.
o Perry Hutchinson, 11890 SW Anne Street, Area 1
Mr. Hutchinson said that he preferred not to be annexed at this time. He discussed his concerns
with efficient delivery of services. He described a methodology that staff could use to calculate
whether the area received a net loss or net gain in road maintenance funding through withdrawal
from the Urban Road Maintenance District and annexation into the City of Tigard. He said that the
Engineering Department did not have those figures today when he checked. He suggested obtaining
that information before making a decision.
Mr. Hutchinson argued that the irregular boundaries of the City of Tigard were a badge of honor
signifying the City's long-time practice of annexing only those who wished to be annexed while not
imposing itself on those who did not wish to be annexed. He suggested conducting an informal poll
of the residents to find out which areas were ready to be annexed and which were not.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 8
Sharon Gibb, 13380 SW Howard Drive, Area 1
Ms. Gibb said that she was not opposed as much as she was frustrated. She said that she could not
attend the October meetings and staff did not return her phone calls. She described the location of
the septic tanks on Howard Drive that created a unique situation requiring a deep sewer line (as Mr.
Jeffers indicated) to accommodate the houses on the upper street. She asked where the line would
run that residents connected to. She asked if the neighbors connecting off Terrace Trails would
have to contribute to an LID to run a sewer down the middle of Howard, a sewer that they could not
connect to. She indicated that the Engincering Department had many questions to answer for
citizens.
Ms. Gibb asked if the City would force them to go on sewer if annexed. She observed that some
residents did not have thousands of dollars available to accommodate someone else's decision. She
agreed with Mr. Hutchinson that the neighbors needed more information and a chance to be heard.
Mr. Hendryx referenced the information staff developed with respect to the tax difference between
unincorporated Washington County and the City of Tigard. He said that annexation would add
approximately $194 in taxes on a $150,000 house. At Councilor Scheckla's request, staff reviewed
the specifics of the City sewer reimbursement district program, including the $8,000 cap in the first
year, waiting out the 15 years, and paying the connection fee at the rate it was in the year that the
property owner connected. Mr. Monahan clarified that the City did not require a sewer connection
upon sale of property, although the financing bank might do so.
Steve Allen, 12540 SW 121st Avenue
Mr. Allen commented that he was familiar with the hidden costs of a sewer to a homeowner, having
come from the Eastside sewer project. He observed that the initial connection fee was low
compared to the costs of rerouting a house's plumbing for hookup. He asked the Council for
clarification on exactly how wide the street improvements would make SW 121". He said that the
60-foot easement staff told him about would put the curbs 15 feet from his front door, plus whatever
additional area the City needed for the approach to the intersection.
Mr. Allen asked how far was the City prepared to go to help homeowners like him who would be
significantly impacted by the road widening. He commented that he was having difficulty getting
an answer from staff. He said that a City planner told him that the City would not leave substandard
lots for homeowners. He questioned what that meant for his next-door neighbor on the corner of
Walnut and 121St who stood to lose his home based on the measurements provided by staff. He
mentioned that he was more frustrated by the lack of answers than opposed to the annexation.
Council President Moore said that, although the County has slated Walnut and 1215` for
improvements, (as far as he knew) the engineering for the project has not started yet. He mentioned
the City's consideration of including improvements on Walnut and 1215` as part of a bond measure.
He pointed out that annexation gave the residents the right to vote on those projects. He
emphasized the opportunity for public input at the public hearings before the Planning Commission
and the Council on the street improvement projects. He indicated that the preliminary engineering
for a street improvement project included discussions with the property owners on how to
accommodate their concerns about accessing their properties.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 9
Mr. Allen commented that, although he would rather not be annexed, he was resigned to it because
he saw it as inevitable.
Councilor Hunt asked what impact Mr. Allen thought the annexation would have on his street. Mr.
Allen said that City planners told him that the corner of Walnut and 12151 was on the books and
scheduled for next summer. Councilor Patton reiterated that that was a Washington County project.
She noted the three open houses this month on the City proposed transportation projects for its road
bond where citizens could make comments.
Councilor Scheckla requested John Rosenberger to address these questions.
e John Rosenberger, Washington County Land Use and Transportation Department
Director
Mr. Rosenberger explained that there was a County MSTIP project for the 121" and Walnut
intersection. He described the County's process to involve citizens and property owners in the
design process in order to address their concerns, and in the purchase of any additional right-of-way
needed by the County (property purchased at fair market value). He suggested that concerned
citizens look at how the County successfully handled the roads recently built that impacted a
number of homes, mentioning Baseline in Hillsboro and Greenburg in Tigard.
Mr. Rosenberger indicated to Councilor Scheckla that he did not know if the home mentioned by
Mr. Allen would be removed because it depended on the project design. He said that all the
information on the County's compensation process and design process was available to property
owners. He described the County's use of a citizen task force on each project to recommend the
best design alternative for that project. He mentioned Tigard's active participation in developing
the MSTIP program with the County.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx reiterated the public involvement process used by staff to get information to property
owners. He said that he was sorry if some people did not get return phone calls and staff could look
into that. He asked the Council to consider the fact that this project involved 496 property owners
on 310 acres of land yet only six property owners testified tonight. He recommended that the
Council pass all 15 ordinances.
f. Council Questions
g. Council President Moore closed the public hearing
h. Council Consideration:
Mr. Ramis noted that the Council heard testimony from residents of Areas 1 and 2. He reviewed the
Council's options: approval, denial or modification of all or some of the annexation ordinances. He
confirmed that the Council could consider all ordinances in one motion or consider groups of
ordinances.
In response to Council President Moore's request, Mr. Ramis discussed the appeal process. He said
that appeals on land use issues went to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) while appeals on
non-land use issues went to the Circuit Court. He explained that his office found that, under an
island annexation, the island residents themselves could not take a vote on whether or not to annex;
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000- Page 10
9
that option existed only for the city as a whole.
Councilor Hunt spoke in support of voting on all the ordinances in one motion. He discussed the
supcriar job the staff did this time in inforp„inao the public of the facts of the annexation (as
compared to six years ago when the City faced an overwhelming objection to annexation from the
Walnut Island residents). He held that was a reason why the Council heard from only seven people
tonight (three in opposition). He described another reason for the residents' acceptance of the
annexation as their understanding that now was the time to deal with the septic tank problem, given
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Councilor Patton concurred with Councilor Hunt. She said that the City had a lot to offer the
residents of Walnut Island, mentioning the sewer reimbursement district in particular. She asked
staff to investigate Ms. Gibb's comment about not receiving a return phone call. She commented
that the City as a whole was responsive to the citizens and she hoped that this was an aberration to
be avoided in the future rather than a consistent problem.
Councilor Patton conceded that the specifics of road maintenance were an unknown, given the
differing levels of maintenance expected by the City and the County. She commented that any road
improvements would be a long-term process, given the number of roads already within the city
needing maintenance or upgrades. She emphasized that the public would have the opportunity to
comment on any road improvement projects. She stated that this annexation was a good thing for
the City and for the Walnut Island residents. She supported one motion for all ordinances.
Councilor Scheckla asked staff to look into the Mr. Setnicker's issues with the police department
and Ms. Gibb's comments about not receiving a return phone call.
Council President Moore commented that, in addition to the question of why would the island
residents want to come into the city, there was the question of why would the City want the island to
come in. He discussed his view that it was his responsibility as an elected official representing the
people to provide services to the citizens of the city. He mentioned that the City currently provided
police protection to the island without compensation, and the opportunity for the City to provide
sewer service to unsewered areas. He spoke in support of annexing the islands into the city and
providing the residents with the services they deserved.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinances No. 2000-3
through No. 2000-17.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinances.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-3 THROUGH 2000-17, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE ANNEXATIONS. 99-0006 THROUGH 99-0020, AREAS 1
THROUGH 15, WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION, AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES
FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S
PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1, AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton
and Scheckla voted "yes.') [4-0]
Council President Moore recessed the meeting for a break at 9:15 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 11
W1110 011001
Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM- JANUARY 25, 2000
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER - CPA 1999-00002/ZON 1999-
00001/ZOA 1999-00004 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
REQUEST: A request for approval of a legislative Comprehensive Plan map and
development code language, rezone, and text amendments to the Tigard
Development Code within the area designated as the Washington Square
regional Center. Specifically, the request includes re-designation from Low
Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Medium-High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial
Professional, and Industrial Professional to the new designation of Mixed Use
Commercial, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed
Use Residential-1, Mixed Use Residential-2, and to the existing R-12 zone.
The findings of this plan will be forwarded to Beaverton City Council,
Washington County Commissioners, and Portland City Council for their
approval.
LOCATION: Generally, south and west of Hall Boulevard; north of Highway 217; the
Nimbus Business Park area between Schools Ferry Road and SW North
Dakota; Cascade retail center south of Scholls Ferry Road and north of
Greenburg Road.
ZONE: CG (General Commercial), CP (Commercial Professional), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), IP (Industrial Professional), R-4.5 (Low-
Density Residential), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential, R-25 (Medium
High-Density Residential), R-40 (Medium High Density Residential).
APPLICABLE Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12;
REVIEW Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1,
CRITERIA: 9.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.2, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22
and 18.32, Metro Functional Plan.
a. Council President Moore reconvened the public hearing.
b. Public Testimony Portion was closed on January 25, 2000; written testimony closed
February 1, 2000
Council President Moore noted that the Council did received additional written testimony in its
packet.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the hearing procedures for the evening. He informed the Council that he
cautioned staff to stick to the evidence in the record when responding to Council questions. He
asked the Council to do the same in framing its questions. He listed the options available to Council
during its deliberations: adoption as proposed, denial, modification of the proposal or tabling the
proposal indefinitely or for a specific time. He suggested, if the Council chose to modify the
proposal, that the Councilors state what their modifications were and allow staff to return with a
draft of those modifications.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 12
fills ssv~~
Mr. Ramis mentioned the opportunity to adopt the proposal and to delay the implementation to a
specified date or until certain tasks were accomplished. He said that this option was similar to the
Planning Commission's recommendation of "endorsement followed by implementation steps." He
pointed out that the City did not have a legal tool called "endorsement" but the Council could delay
the implementation of an adopted plan to a date certain or indefinitely.
c. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recalled that staff made its overall presentation on December 15 followed by a public
hearing on January 25 to hear public testimony and receive written comments. He noted that the
Council closed the oral testimony on January 25 but held the record open until February 1 to receive
written testimony. He stated that the public testimony comments that staff intended to rebut tonight
fell into three areas: the public involvement process, environmental issues, and implementation and
infrastructure issues.
Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens and Cogan, addressing the public involvement process
Ms. Cogan mentioned her 25 years of experience in a consulting firm that specialized in designing
and facilitating processes. She stated that she has rarely seen a public involvement process so
inclusive. She discussed the 25-member Citizen Task Force appointed by Council at the beginning
of the process, noting the careful selection of representative interests and the allocation of three
representatives to the Metzger area. She indicated that all Task Force members (except one Metzger
representative) recommended adoption of the report.
Ms. Cogan discussed the public involvement at the 18 Task Force meetings (from June 1998 to
August 1999), the four public events, and the questionnaires. She emphasized that the Washington
Square event allowed them to reach people who would not attend a meeting or fill out a
questionnaire. She stated that the Task Force listened carefully to all citizen input, weighing that
input along with the information provided by the consultants.
Ms. Cogan described the Task Force process of developing a plan based upon the guiding principles
that the members agreed upon at the start of the process. She emphasized that this was a citizen-
driven and citizen-derived plan, thoroughly discussed and reviewed by the Citizen Task Force. She
stated that the recommendation was a balance between the wishes and the wants of a responsible
group of people who worked long and hard to deal with the issues of land use, aesthetics,
transportation and environment.
Councilor Patton noted the comment heard several times by the Council that the public events were
inadequate for the purpose of making this kind of recommendation. She asked for Ms. Cogan's
opinion on whether a more formal process (as opposed to the informal process used) would have
made a difference in the decision-making process. Ms. Cogan explained that the more formal
events, such as a City Council meeting, provided those who were well-organized and good public
speakers a better forum for stating their opinions than it did the average citizen. She said that the
informal process they used provided the average citizens with many opportunities to present their
viewpoint without the expectation of having to be a polished speaker.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 13
Ms. Cogan said that, in her experience, the informal process garnered more breadth and depth of
information than the formal process did because of the number of opportunities to present input and
the lack of intimidation. She cited the Washington Square public event as an example of the
informal process bringing in people who normally would have said nothing. She stated that, while
she understood the criticism of the informal process, she thought that they needed to use the
informal process when they really wanted to hear from the people.
Nadine Smith, Long Range Planning Manager, addressing the environmental issues
Ms. Smith stated that the Task Force recommendation did not propose any development in any
wetlands or required wetlands buffers. She said that staff did not count wetlands and undevelopable
sensitive areas in its distribution of housing and jobs in the area, as required by Metro. She noted
that any development proposed for the area would have to go through the same rigorous review
process that any development in sensitive areas in the City of Tigard (or the region) would have to
go through to meet the applicable federal, state and local regulations.
Ms. Smith said that staff would incorporate any changes made to federal and state regulations into
Tigard's regulations. She noted the recent adoption of Title 3 by USA into their design and
construction standards. She said that the City now had to apply those standards to development in
the city.
Mr. Hendryx confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that those standards went into effect countywide on
Friday, February 4, 2000.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern with the requirement that Tigard use Metro's jobs and
housing numbers. Mr. Ramis confirmed that Metro was powerful enough to require Tigard to use
those numbers or face losing access to transportation dollars. Councilor Scheckla commented that
he did not think that Tigard received much transportation funding from Metro.
Councilor Patton noted comments made that the Task Force ended up with more density than
required by Metro. She asked for clarification from staff. Ms. Smith explained that Washington
County had identified rezoning a portion of the Metzger neighborhood to high density residential as
one way to meet the number of housing units Metro assigned to the County. She said that staff
asked the Task Force to look at adding 200 plus units to the density of the Washington Square
Regional Center area (given the vacant land and redevelopment ability available) so that the County
would not have to rezone a portion of single-family residential Metzger to high density residential.
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, clarified that the County's plan to accommodate the Metro
j numbers allocated 660 units as the Regional Center's share.
Councilor Patton mentioned the comments made with respect to development resulting from the
upzoning of wetland and sensitive areas. She asked for staff clarification on the Plan
recommendation to upzone those areas when staff said that those areas would not be developed.
Ms. Smith explained that the upzoning was part of the mixed-use zoning concept intended to build
up with a smaller footprint than out with a larger footprint over more land area.
Ms. Smith said that the mixed-use concept also looked at developing the area as a single
development rather as a series of single-family lots. She indicated that one property owner could do
more to restore the degraded wetlands in the area than having a series of single-family lots adjacent
to a wetland.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 14
MON E 1115" 1114011111131"
Councilor Patton asked why the Plan slated those areas for upzoning when the concern was to
preserve those sensitive areas from development. She commented that upzoning appeared to create
an incentive for development.
John Spencer, Planner, explained that the City of Tigard zoned all land for residential, commercial
or industrial uses. The City placed other layers of zoning (called overlay zones) on top of the base
zone to create environmental and other protection zones. He confirmed that these sensitive areas
would have a new base zone but he emphasized that the environmental protection overlay zones still
prevailed with respect to development. He indicated that development would focus on the upzoned
uplands property.
Mr. Spencer said that upzoning would stimulate new development activity. He said that staff saw
that as a positive thing because a major redevelopment could bring more resources for
environmental enhancement and wetland improvement than single-family lots with backyards
abutting a wetland could. He pointed out that if growth did not go in the upzoned areas, then it
would probably go somewhere else at lower densities than proposed by the Plan. Lower densities
used more land, created impervious surface, and had more potential environmental impacts than
concentrating density in a smaller area did..
Councilor Patton asked staff to address the issue of variances to the environmental rules allowing
wetlands mitigation in other locations. Mr. Spencer conceded that wetlands mitigation in other
locations was possible. He explained that the wetlands mitigation process was a function of how the
City wanted to implement its own ordinances. He indicated that it was a federal process with
environmental protection regulations imposed on all jurisdictions in the region. He commented that
these regulations already closed some of the "loopholes" mentioned in the testimony tonight.
Mr. Ramis confirmed to Councilor Patton that the Council choosing to adopt but not to implement
the plan immediately afforded the Council the opportunity to study the implications of the new
regulations and how to implement them with respect to the City's regulations. He said that adopting
but not implementing left the current regulations in place.
Councilor Hunt asked if Council could set a final implementation date, given that the environmental
regulations changed continually. Mr. Ramis agreed that the regulations were a moving target. He
said that Council could set an outside date for implementation or for staff to return with a completed
proposal for Council consideration.
Councilor Scheckla asked why Tigard did not ask for more time to fine-tune its plan before
adoption, as other Washington County jurisdictions did. Ms. Smith indicated that she did not think
that they needed more time to deal with Metro, as they were ready to explain how they could
accommodate the numbers. Councilor Scheckla stated that he thought that they did need more time.
Ms. Smith confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that staff recommended taking out Policy 11.8.3.
Councilor Scheckla questioned the Plan's recommendation to upzone wetlands areas in residential
areas, given that the 2040 Plan no longer required that. Mr. Hendryx explained that when Metro
looked at the capacity within the Urban Growth Boundary, it deducted out the areas with wetlands
and resources areas from their inventory of vacant land. Councilor Scheckla mentioned his concern
that people in the upzoned residential area would sell out and move.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 15
Council President Moore explained that staffs recommendation was to adopt but not implement the
plan in order to gain sufficient time to answer the types of questions raised by Councilor Scheckla
and to deal with issues on an individual basis. He emphasized that adoption without
implementation changed nothing in the City's development regulations and process.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the process would continue to allow public input. Mr. Ramis assured
the Councilor that staff could craft the ordinance to state clearly that the existing regulations
remained in effect, not the new ones, and to itemize which specific issues Council wanted
addressed. He confirmed that staff would continue to receive public input.
Mr. Hendryx stated that he took exception to the statement that the City's Safe Harbor regulations
contained loopholes. He referenced the extensive process staff went through to develop the City's
environmental protection regulations, acknowledged by the State and other agencies as meeting the
standard. He argued that staff built flexibility, not loopholes, into the Safe Harbor regulations at the
Council's request as recognition of the unique circumstances in Tigard.
Mr. Hendryx addressed the issue of implementation. He mentioned the staff recommendations to
develop a storm water drainage plan, to refine the open space opportunities, and to develop
strategies and a financial plan for public improvements. He commented that staff needed an
adopted plan in order to develop the strategies or they were shooting at a moving target.
Mr. Hcndryx discussed his regret that the issue of the $80,000 grant came up because it put the
Council in an awkward position. He said that the Council should not consider the grant in making
its decision with respect to the Plan, as it was a separate issue that staff would deal with at the
appropriate time.
Mr. Hendryx discussed the staff solution outlined in the February 4, 2000, memo. He recommended
adoption of the Plan and amendments with implementation delayed until staff presented a strategy
addressing four components: developing a recommendation for storm water drainage, refining
recommendations for open space development, preparing a strategy on a financial plan for public
improvements, and leaving the interim existing land use regulations in effect.
Mr. Ramis reiterated that staff could craft the ordinance to require the public involvement wanted by
Council, to clarify that the existing regulations remained in effect, and to clarify that staff would not
implement the adopted plan until the Council satisfied itself with respect to the implementation
process.
Councilor Patton observed that many adopted plans were never implemented. She asked what the
term "public improvements" encompassed. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff intended "public
improvements" to include all the public facility and infrastructure needs in the area, including
transportation.
Councilor Patton noted that the Plan recommended parks but did not identify any particular parks.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the plan could not designate properties as parks without raising legal
issues. He said that staff needed to identify the acreage and type of lands needed, and then to
develop a financial plan to acquire the land. He mentioned dedication of land from developers as a
possible tool.
Mr. Hendryx spoke to the issue of public process. He emphasized that staff would continue to
converse with the public throughout this process. He indicated that staff could revisit the public
involvement process or consider a different type of process at Council's direction.
A
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 16
Coune-Alui -lent asked for a comparison of this process with the Tigard Triangle process. Mr.
Hendryx indicated that the Triangle process was more of a focus public involvement process as
opposed to the broadscale nature and issues of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Ms.
Nicholson cited the difficulties that staff ran into during the implementation of the Triangle Plan (as
developments came through the process) as a reason why staff wanted to iron out the issues in the
Washington Square Plan before implementing it.
Councilor Scheckla observed that a plan without maintenance would eventually fall apart.
d. Council Deliberation
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan, including the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Councilor Patton thanked the Task Force for their excellent work in tackling a difficult issue. She
characterized the Plan as providing the City with a foundation to start from in addressing the issues
raised by the citizens this evening. She commented that she would not have supported adoption
with immediate implementation but she could support the staff recommendation to adopt the Plan as
the first step and to develop more detailed and focused implementation strategies as the second step.
Council President Moore pointed out that this area would develop with or without a plan. He spoke
to the importance of having a plan that protected the area from poor development, as has occurred in
other areas of the city developed without a plan. He supported the Plan and the amendments with
adoption without immediate implementation as a solution to their dilemma.
Motion was approved by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore,
Councilors Hunt and Patton voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") [3-1]
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Council President Moore mentioned the Transportation Bond Measure Open House tomorrow night
at Fowler Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:22 p.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor er
Brian J. Moore, Council President
Date: ohJ,//oL)
OAD WCATHY\CCM\000Z0S. D OC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8,2000- Page 17
gloom
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9568
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
•City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 S67 Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,O.regon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable °
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thdT gard-Tua 1 at i n Mmes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti gArd in the
aforesaid county and state; that the Loc4l Contract
flee-tint Highlights/ 2/8f00 Review Board
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONT' successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
February 3,2000
Subscribed and sworn to efore me this3rd day cLf February, 2000
i OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
Not(itk Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
{ COMMISSION NO. 062071
My Commission Expires: I MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full I
i agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
a AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETII! '
February 8, 2000 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL'- TOWN HALL
3 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
q Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
a * Executive Session
Business Meeting (7:30 p.m.)
* Conduct Public Hearing: Annexation of Island Areas in the City
(Note: Deadline for written testimony was 1/25!00.)
* Washington Square Regional Center Plan Deliberation
(Note: Deadline ft Written testimony was V1100.)
j TT9568 - Publish February 3, 2000.
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1_egaf
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 No:lce TT 9560
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97076
Legal Notice Advertising
®City of Tigard ! ❑ Tearsheot Notice
01312 5 Sod Hall Blvd. ® ❑ Duplicate AflidaX j
Tigard,Oregon 97223
Accounts Payable m j
i
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, ) I
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
1, Kathy Snydpr
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti Gard-Tun 1 at-i n mimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti qartq in the
aforesaid county and state; that the alnut Island Annexation
ZrA I C199-0171171171f; Thr„ 7.(1A 1 QcA=()n020
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for T170 successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 20,27,2000 OFFICIAL SEAL
0 SUZETTE 1. CURRAN
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 329400
MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003
i
KaIJ
i
Subscribed and sworn to be ore me this 2Zt January, 2000
Notary Public for Oregon
I
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
mill
The following will be considered by th% TIGARD CITY COUNCIL on for twenty-five cents (250) per page, or the current rate charged for copies
FEBRUARY 8, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., Lit the Tigard Civic Center -Town at the time of the request. Information is available at the location listed
Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. above or by calling the staff Planners, Julia Powell Hajduk or Laurie
Public testimony, either oral or written, is invited. Written testimony may Nicholson at (503) 639-4171.
be submitted any time before the closing of the hearing. Oral testimony
may be submitted during the public testimony portion of the hearing. The PUBLIC HEARING:
hearing will follow the rules of procedure set out in Community Develop- ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION
ment Code Section 18.390.060E and the rule,, and procedures of the (ZCA) 1999-00006 THROUGH ZCA1999-00020
' Tigard City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at > WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS <
some point prior to the close of the hearing on the rcqucst accompanied by The territory being annexed is referred to as the Walnut Island. It consists
statements or evidence sufficient to allow the I learings Authority and all of 15 areas completely surrounded by the City of Tigard City Limits. The
parties to respond may preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Ap- map included with this notice identifies the areas under consideration. As
peals (LUBA) on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the part of the annexation, withdrawal of the territory from the Tigard Water
Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a com- District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District,
ment is directed may preclude an appeal based on that criterion. Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington
All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector
for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents Control District is also proposed. APPLICABLE REVIEW
(250) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the re- CRITERIA: Community Deveiopment Code Chapters 18.320.020 and
quest. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, a copy of the staff 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policy 10 (Urbanization), ORS Chapter 222
report will be available for inspection at no cost, or a copy can be obtained and Metro Code Chapter 3.09.
L, s.eu.•wm ..r........ .m..
i ,
or
Walnut island
Island Annexations
ZCA1999-00006 '
lilt f 8 ZCI999-0 THROUGH
20 i
Logenci
z`
( thban Servkm Boumbries
1 Wak" WwWfveas
10-ii ZCA1999-00006
z ZCA1999-00007
3 ZCA1999-00006
a ZCA1999-00009
s ZCA1999-00010
15 s ZC,,A1999-Mil
ZCA1999.00012
I N& ZCAIM-00013
JOB ZCAIM-00014
ZCAi 999.00015
is ZCA1999-00016 '
sz ZCA1999-00017
ZCA1999-MIS
ZCA1999-00019
r *s ZCA1999-Ot>020
1
i
1
ro
f I
' - I
r..+oowe
yn- 77M
T I
(Sty of3iya+d
Corrrotxwty Da~~wb(tment -
TT9560 - Publish January 20, 27, 2000.
1 t
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. ~
Legal TT 9559
J
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice 1
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076
I
Legal Notice Advertising
City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd. ;
02igard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i
f
1~ccounts Payable •
i~
z
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
i
STATE OF OREGON, ) j
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )$a'
I,_ Kathy Gnyr7pr
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ticfar-_TUajat j j..
s +
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tj garr7 in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
CPA 1 -0000?,/ZQN/7QB/_jjaczh Rcr Re- Ctr.
i
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and j
consecutive in the following issues: }
January 20,2000 OFFICIALSiAL I
SUZETTE 1. CURRAN
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 329400
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003 1
i
Subscribed and sworn to be re me this 20th day of January, 2000
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
Val ~..r
Tl ~S-~+-..-..v", wsr tL' 1 i .L an1eO! 3 AQiI .AN4-es
,
~+~xa ~ ,w,y uu~;tsmrg~.v ~.as a :a,is"v?v%iL ON
TJES#r~is?, !ii' , 417;1';1 INCISION At the
Tigard
gard Civic Center= Town Hall'Room; 13125"SW IaIt Blvd., ,
Oregon 97223,'Ttie,public hearing on tliis'inatter-will be conducted in ac-
cordance:with the rules off Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code
and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City! Council.
Failure to raise an igs'ue, i{t pe~sq± 1 int prior to the
A of /the hearing on th;c ee tfftt a m artyad byr; statements. or.
evidence sufficient to allb.* thwfffth' 7~t atty atdd all parties to
respond on the request, pzistsflt~d~siral use Board of Ap=
peals based on that issue, anal f*i we: to specs y'the criterion from the
Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a com-
ment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further infor-
mation is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community
Development Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling
(503) 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
CPA 1999.00002/ZON 1999-00001/ZOA 1999-OM4
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
REQUEST: A request for approval of ,a legislative Comprehensive Plan
map and development code language, rezone, and text amendments to the
Tigard Development Code within the area designated as the Washington
Square Regional Center. Specifically, the request includes redesignation
from Low Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Medium=
High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, General Commer-
cial, Commercial Professional, and Industrial Professional to the new
I designation of Mixed Use Commercial, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed
Use Employment-2, Mixed Use Residential-1, Mixed Use Residential-2,
and to the existing R-12 zone. The findings of this plan will be forwarded
to Beaverton City Council, Washington County Commissioners, and
Portland City Council for their approval: L• TIONe Generally, south
and west of Hall Boulevard; north of Highway 217; the Nimbus:Business
Park area between Scholls Ferry, Road and SW North Dakota; Cascade
retail center. south' of Scholls Ferry Road and north of Greenburg Road.
ZONE: CG (General Commercial), CP (Commercial Professional), CN
(Neighborhood Commercial), IP (Industrial Professional), R-4.5 (Low-
Density Residential), R-12,Medium-Density Residential; R=25'Medium
High-Density Residential, R-40 Medium High-Density. Residential. AP-
PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and
13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies
1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2,9.1.1,9.1'.3,12.1.1, and 12.2.1, and
Community. Development Code, Chapter 18.22-and 18.32, Metro Func-
tional Plan.
TT9559 -Publish January 20, 2tR10.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) A 60b - Oq ~AL_ Q b - 1-1
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated Ll _ l h 0 copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto fttached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
1!9 -day of -A.. 1 A M" 11W1 ADQ .
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
JA.
14-
Subscribed and sworn-to before me this o2 `4 day of OOo
' OFFICIAL SEAL ✓J
D L WISE Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
COiJMW4M NO. 320W2
V~ . i 'Z08~
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. ii, 2009 My Commission Expires: ~
a
a
1 Aadm\ jo\attpost. doc
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 03
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00006 - AREA 1 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATE'><? DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENT-IANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRIC'T',
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #I, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 340 parcels of land consisting of 222.2 acres and withdrawal of said properties
from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice was given and the City held a public
hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of those annexed properties from the
Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance
District, Washington County Street Lighting District # 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion
of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro Code Chapter Local 3.09 Local
Government Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found
to be met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITE' OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-L)3 is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 1 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zonin
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By t1 G 11 M)CAAS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this V-y' dayof SAC y,tt~,u 2000.
t~ Wheatley, City Recorder
l=lti
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thisaS - day of A~LIUILMII-k 2000.
A roved as to or`'
V Brian J. Moore, Council President
M I
Date
7
ORDINANCE NO.2000-1.26_ is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-I.ord
Page 2 of2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
VATTT1
1-.1 %..L A A. S I l
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
arld is San's led Wecause:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.055;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional. plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/812000 PUBLIC HEARING
E X H 1.1511 I3
DESCRIPTION OF THE TIGARD ISLAND ANNEXATION
This description was prepared by using various maps with various bearing bases therefore
this description may not be the same as if it were surveyed and should not be used for Land
Surveys or Legal Descriptions. A bearing base was used to try and put all maps of the same
basis therefore the bearings shown may not agree with record bearings.
Description 1
A tract of land situated in Section 3 and the east one-half of Section 4, and the north 1/2 of
Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County,
Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the comer to sections 3,4,9, and 10 Township 2 South Range 1 West,
Willamette Meridian; thence N 00° 05'32" E a distance of 527.99 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence N 89° 35'00" E a distance of 809.75 feet to the westerly right-of-way
of SW 121st Avenue; thence S 01° 04' 42" W, along said right-of-way, a distance of
548.12 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street; thence N 89° 35' 00" E,
along said southerly right-of-way, a distance of 175.70 feet to the easterly line of Arlington
Ridge as recorded in Book 91 Pages 33 & 34 of the Washington County Subdivision
Records; thence S 00° 01' 06" W, along said easterly line, a distance of 180.00 feet to the
northwest corner of lot xx Redwood Vista as recorded in Book 122 Page 1-3 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 89° 11' 54" E, along the north line of
said Redwood Vista, a distance of 135.00 feet; thence N 00° 01' 06" E a distance of 224.09
feet to the north right of way of SW. Gaarde Street; thence N 891 35' 00" E, along said
north right of way, a distance of 211.05 feet; thence S 00° 01' 15" E a distance of 355.28
feet; thence N 89° 10' 44" E a distance of 317.50 feet; thence N 00° 01' 15" W a distance
of 308.04 feet to the south right of way of SW Gaarde Street; thence S 89° 35' W, along the
said south line, a distance of 159.57 feet to the extension of the east line of Colonial View as
recorded in Book 18 Page 14 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 01 °
11' 00" E, along said east line and the extension thereof, a distance of 476.11 feet to the
southeast corner of lot 5 of said Colonial View; thence S 76° 54'00 W along the southerly
line of said lot 5, a distance of 182.62 feet to a point on curve; thence along said curve to
the left with a radius of 85.00 feet a delta of 28° 50'07" (a chord which bears N 240 15'44"
W, 42.33 feet) a distance of 42.78 feet to the northwest comer of said lot 5; thence N 45°
40' 00" E, along the northerly line of said lot 5, a distance of 278.52 feet to the northeast
comer of said lot 5; thence N 30° 07'48" E leaving said plat of Colonial View along the
westerly line of the plat of Creekside Park Recorded in Book 50 Pages 1 and 2 Washington
County Subdivision Records and the westerly line of the Plat of Terrace Trails Recorded in
Book 34 Page 37 Washington County Subdivision Records a distance of 399.10 deed;
thence N 82° 03'00" W a distance of 548.94 feet; thence N 71 ° 2426" W a distance of
90.22 feet to the center line of SW 121st Avenue; thence S 29° 26' 00" W, along said
center line; a distance of 229.50 feet; thence N 83° 00' 00" W a distance of 150.80 feet;
thence N 00° 25'00" E a distance of 250.60 feet; thence N 61° 22' 30" E a distance of
ISLAND ANNEXATION
18.30 feet; thence N 30" 26' 20" E a distance of 100.23 feet; thence S 76° 42' 00" E a
distance of 260.80 feet to the center line of SW 121st Avenue; thence N 29° 26'00" E,
along the center line of 121st Avenue, a distance of 177.57 feet to the southerly line of
Woodcrest, recorded in Book 22 Page 18 of the Washington County Subdivision Records,
extended; thence S 67° 19' 20" E, along the south line of Woodcrest, a distance of 276.92
feet to the southwest corner of lot 4 Woodcrest; thence N 29° 26'00" E , along the westerly
line of said lot 4, a distance of 172.97 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW. Howard
Drive; thence S 61° 16'45' ' E , along said southerly right-of-way, a distance of 36.05 feet
to the point of curve; thence along said curve with a radius of 167.42 feet, a delta of 390 01'
14" (a chord which bears S 800 47' 20" E, 111.83 feet), and a length of 114.02 feet to the
northeast comer of lot 5 Woodcrest; thence S 10° 18' 00" E, along the easterly line of lot 5,
a distance of 233.56 feet to the southwest comer of lot 6 Woodcrest; thence S 67° 19' 20"
E, along the south line of Woodcrest, a distance of 23.38 feet to the southeast corner of
Woodcrest; thence N 30° 25' 39" E, along the east line of Woodcrest and the east line of
Woodcrest no 2, recorded in Book 23 Page 11 of the Washington County Subdivision
Records, a distance of 1224.34 feet to the northwest corner Terrace Trails, recorded in Book
34 Page 37 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 75° 06' 02" E, along
the North line of Terrace Trails, a distance of 270.40 feet to the east right-of-way of SW
115th Avenue and the west line of Genesis No. 3, recorded in Book 52 Pages 32 and 33;
thence N 00° 33' 01" E , along said east right-of-way, a distance of 389.29 feet to the
northwest corner of Genesis No.3; thence N 89° 47' 52" E, along the north line of Genesis
No. 3, a distance of 291.04 feet; thence N 00° 49'02" E, along the most easterly west line
of Genesis No. 3, a distance of 140.12 feet to the northwest comer of lot 80 Genesis No.3;
thence N 89° 53' 00" W a distance of 291.60 feet to the east line of SW 115th Avenue;
thence S 001 33' 01" E, along said east line, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence N 89° 32' 49"
W, along the south line of SW Fonner Street, a distance of 441.02 feet; thence N 00° 31'
46" E a distance of 503.25 feet to the southeast corner of lot 8 Carmen Park, recorded in
Book 23 page 23 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 44' 52" W,
along the south line of sad lot 8, a distance of 88.71 feet to the southwest comer of said lot 8;
thence N 00° 15' 18" W, along the west line of lot 8 and its extension, a distance of 217.01
feet to the north line of SW Carmen Street; thence N 89" 44' 52" E, along said north line, a
distance of 92.44 feet to the southwest corner of lot 12 Hunters Glen recorded in Book 105
pages 47-50 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 00° 23' 16" E,
along the west boundary line of said Hunters Glen, a distance of 798.39 feet to the south line
of SW Walnut Street; thence S 78° 21'40" W, along said right of way, a distance of 167.60
feet; thence S 00° 23' 16" W a distance of 521.30 feet to the northerly boundary line of
Carmen Park; thence S 77° 42' 42" W, along said northerly boundary line, a distance of
144.00 feet; thence N 04° 12' 18" W a distance of 364.92 feet; thence N 87° 18' 42" W a
distance of 116.00 feet; thence N 10° 06' 09" W a distance of 207.75 feet to the northerly
line of SW Walnut Street; thence N 78° 21' 40" E, along said northerly line, a distance of
702.04 feet; thence N 00° 34' 16"E a distance of 279.16 feet to the southeast comer of
Leron Heights, recorded in Book 19 Page 27 of the Washington County Subdivision
Records; thence N 89° 25' 44" W, along the south line of Leron Heights, a distance of
146.62 feet to the southwest comer of lot 19 Leron Heights; thence N 00° 51' 16" E, along
ISLAND ANNEXATION 2
M11111111111101 1 0 Elm III
the east line of lot 19, a distance of 25.06 feet to the north center line of SW Ann Street;
thence N 851 10'44" W, along said center line a distance of 677.48 feet to the extension of
the west line of lot 4 Leron Heights; thence S 04° 56' 16" W, along said west line, a
distance of 169.28 fcct to the southwest comer of lot 4; thence N 820 46' 44" W, along the
south line of lot 3 Leron Heights, a distance of 40.08 feet to a point; thence S 07° 30' 00"
W a distance of 120.00 feet; thence N 82° 30'00" W a distance of 130.00 feet; thence S
07° 30' 00" W a distance of 218.05 feet; thence S 86° 22' 10" W a distance of 203.83 feet
to the center line of SW 121st Avenue; thence S 07° 30' 00" W, along said center line, a
distance of 39.32 feet; thence N 87° 28'57" W a distance of 290.91 feet to the east line of
Lake Terrace, recorded in Book 34 Page 20 of the Washington County Subdivision
Records; thence S 07° 31' 20" W, along said east line, a distance of 187.18 feet to the
center line of SW Walnut Street; thence S 62° 16'38" W, along said centerline, a distance
of 555.25 feet to the extension of the west line of Tippitt Place, recorded in Book 35 Page 15
of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 01' 2742" E, along said west
line, a distance of 274.25 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence N 89" 54' 20" E,
along the south line of Tippitt Place, a distance of 830.90 feet to the southeast corner of
Tippitt Place; thence S 04° 10'50" E a distance of 51.00 feet; thence S 89° 54' 20" W a
distance of 145.05 feet to the east line of Fyrestone, recorded in Book 73 Page 12 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 04° 51' 57" E, along the west line of
Fryestone, a distance of 366.88 feet to the southeast corner of Fryestone; thence S 89° 54'
20" W, along the south line of Fryestone and its extension, a distance of 1317.4 feet to the
Section line between sections 3 & 4; thence N 00° 29' 08" E, along the said Section line, a
distance of 209.8 feet to the southwest comer of Curl Acres, recorded in Book 29 Page 9 of
the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 62" 20'20" E, along the south line
of Curl Acres, a distance of 158.2 feet to the southeast comer of lot 2 block 1 Curl Acres;
thence N 00° 29'08" E, along the west line of lot 2 block 1, a distance of 149.73 feet to the
center line of SW Walnut Street; thence S 63° 14'58" W, along said center line, a distance
of 169.52 feet to a point of curve; thence along said curve to the right with a radius of
384.54 feet, a delta of 29° 09' 15" (a chord which bears N 77° 49'36" E, 193.56 feet) and a
length of 195.67 feet to the point of tangency; thence N 87° 35'47" W, along said center
line, a distance of 469.24 feet; thence S 01 ° 46' 13" W a distance of 677.08 feet to the
center line of Section 4; thence N 89° 19' 54" W, along said center line of Section, a
distance of 388.33 feet; thence N 01' 46' 13" E a distance of 325.00 feet; thence N 89°19'
54" W a distance of 132.68 feet; thence S 01* 46' 13" W a distance of 325.00 feet to the
center line of Section 4; thence N 89° 19' 54" W, along said center line of Section, a
distance of 436.82 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW 132nd Avenue; thence S 00° 03'
30" W, along said right-of-way, a distance of 1309.80 feet; thence N 89° 48' 45" E a
distance of 1320.39 feet; thence S 00° 05' 32" W a distance of 822.62 feet to the True Point
of Beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 3
r~•.: GEO GRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
C^
Walnut Island
x Area 1
w
® 8 C Legend
M Urban Services BDOndend4
i
Walnut IsWrd Area
• 1
Cr
U
z
I.i
II,
y i l
~I
♦ II I 4
(I
II I
T A•
1y1
`~N • II V
0 400 800 1200 Feet
1'= 600 feet
I III.
18~ II
t vT
SINGWtDEbT . L.It4' IIr' 1 ~~ATia
In be on rn Nish ff%BP ft is for general location Division-
lrudd ld be vodCled wiN Dava'opna+t Services s SW Hall BW
13125 and
Tigard, oR 97223
(503) 639-4171
AKpJtvnmd.tipwo ms
Community povelopmant
- TIT.T Q Z .T.TgTgTT)r TY
a
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2000-Oki
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00007 - AREA 2 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, '.Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 88 parcels of land consisting of 46.5 acres and withdrawal of said properties
from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice'
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District # 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
on=
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000 is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Pagel of2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
# 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of "Tigard R4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By f lClnl I ? vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this day of~ 2000.
'h pct
a erine heatley, City Recor er
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of P ~2 d l'L 2000.
proved as to orm-
' Brian J. Moore, Council President
ty Attorney
J
Date
ORDINANCE N0.2000- is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXH I I', I T A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely; orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT H
Description 2
A tract of land situated in Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of the plat of Wilderness; thence N 24° 38'00" W, along
said the westerly line of the Plat of Wilderness recorded in Book 40 Page 48 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 357.14 feet to the angle corner in the
Plat of Wilderness; thence N 00° 48' 27" E, along said westerly line, a distance of 140.25
feet to the northwest corner of said Plat; thence N 89° 03' 00" E, along the north line of said
Plat, a distance of 451.55 feet to the northeast corner of said Plat; thence S 00° 47' 00" W,
along the easterly line of said Plat and the extension thereof, a distance of 483.04 feet to the
center line of S.W. Fonner Street; thence N 87° 59' 00" E, along said Street, a distance of
137.97 feet; thence N 63° 38' 00" E, along said center line, a distance of 582.04 feet;
thence N 53° 38'00" E, along said center line, a distance of 211.60 feet; thence S 00° 57'
00" W a distance of 14.47 feet to the point on the extension of the westerly line of Yolo
Estates recorded in Book 47 Page 35 of the Washington County Subdivision Records;
thence N 46° 11' 43" E, along said westerly line, distance of 413.78 feet; thence N 74° 18'
16" W a distance of 189.56 feet; thence N 89° 03' 16" W a distance of 90.55 feet to the
easterly right of way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 00° 57' W, along said easterly right of
way, a distance of 80.00 feet; thence N 89 13' 00" W a distance of 40.00 feet to the
westerly right of SW Fonner Street; thence N 00° 57' E, along said westerly right of way, a
distance of 79.2 feet to the northerly right of way of SW Errol Street; thence N 89° 13' E,
along said northerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet; thence N 00° 57' E a distance
of 202.49 feet; thence S 89° 13' 00" VII a distance of 172.25 feet; thence N 00" 57' E a
distance of 41.78; thence S 89° 13' 00" W a distance of 165 feet; thence S 00° 57' W a
distance of 84.19 feet; thence S 89° 13' 00" W a distance of 165 feet; thence N 00° 57' E a
i distance of 12.46 feet; thence N 83° 30' 33" W a distance of 82.85 feet; thence N 00° 57' E
1
a distance of 305.50 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Walnut Street; thence S 89"
13" W a distance of 412.5 feet to the extension of the easterly boundary of McMichael
Heights as recorded in Book 5 Page 32 of the Washington County Subdivision Records;
thence N 00° 57' E a distance of 20.00 feet to the center fine of SW Walnut Street; thence S
89° 13' 00" W, along said center line, a distance of 282.02 feet; thence N 00° 36' 46" E a
distance of 665.27 feet; to the southeast corner of Meadowglade, recorded in Book 83 Page
ISLAND ANNEXATION 4
16 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 89° 44' 04" W, along the
south line of Meadowglade, a distance of 553.82 feet to the southwest corner of
Meadowglade and the west line of J.L. Hicklin D.L.C. No 37; thence S 25° 01' 00" E,
along said D.L.C. line, a distance of 422.89 feet; thence S 08° 28' 59" E a distance of
311.25 feet to the centerline of S.W. Walnut Street; thence S 78° 25' 40" W, along said
center line, a distance of 161.84 feet to the northeast corner of Walnut Grove, recorded in
Book 80 Page 14 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence along the
boundary of Walnut Grove the following 4 courses, S 07° 50'43" E a distance of 625.31
feet; thence N 86° 16' 59" E a distance of 37.20 feet; thence S 12° 35' 00" W a distance of
23.76 feet; thence S 55° 33' 18" W a distance of 121.28 feet to the northeast comer of
Partition Plat 1997-080; thence S O1 ° 43' 24" W, along the east line of said Partition Plat, a
distance of 463.52 feet to the northerly right of way of SW Fonner Street; thence N 87° 33'
57" E, alone the said northerly right of way, a distance of 494.84; thence N 00" 59' E a
distance of 199.36 feet; thence S 89" 58' E a distance of 83.45 feet; thence S 00° 59' W a
distance of 195.76 feet to the northerly right of way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 87° 33'
57" W, along said northerly right of way, a distance of 212.04 to the point of beginning.
a
i
{
{
3
ISLAND ANNEXATION 5
IRS
OSO, "Polo is
NN atnu►t ~~land
t` A~aa 2
~.e9Q~d
Wool,
i. ~tl ~ W afoot wla~ lea
2
Q
w s~ c
r 4
WAL
N
gy{ gA}A81 W
P y
• bao ceet
T . aoo
0 1., ypo 1ea1
ti...■■•(~\ ~a/y Sind
N QP C P ,m«ma+~or`°"""s"+av~,~sasa~~`.
vnh1~ V'O
r WATKIN 13125 97223
IrVad 09
15031 O. ' 71 us
• wjt w*,O. a'
I-mom
milli
717 T C1 S 7 7~~~~~
1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- C6
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00008 - AREA 3 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, ,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 5 parcels of land consisting of 4.2 acres and withdrawal of said properties
from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected `
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
OltDINANCE NO. 2000-_n) is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page I of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shalt be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION S: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By l~ 11 i11-CUS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this fZL~~ day of 4L1 2000.
a Brine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 'LtIQ' .2000.
i
{
{
j Ap roved as to f rcn~
V I Brian J. Moore, Council President
+ Ci Attorney
'D L - b v
Date
i
I
ORDINANCE NO.2000- i:\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-I.ord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXHi:
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Developmeat Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
i economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
3 If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
.ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
Elm 01111E III
EXHIBIT B
Description 3
A tract of land situated in Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Genesis No. 3as recorded in Book 52 pages 32 & 33 of
the Washington County Subdivision Records and the westerly line of Pathfinder II, recorded
in Book 37 Page 32 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 24° 38'00
W, along said westerly line, a distance of 354.44 feet to the northwest corner of Pathfinder
11; thence N 87° 25' 10" E, along the north line of Pathfinder H, a distance of 90.63 feet to
the northeast comer of lot 43 Pathfinder H; thence N 24° 55' 30" W a distance of 180.35
feet to southerly right of way line of S.W. Fonner Street; thence S 87° 46'00" W, along said
right of way line, a distance of 464.61 feet; thence S 00° 53' W a distance of 317.00 feet;
thence N 87° 46' E a distance of 70.00 feet; thence N 02° 00' 30" W a distance of 98.00
feet; thence N 87° 46' E a distance of 98.00 feet; thence S 02° 00' 30" E a distance of
95.37 feet; thence N 87° 46' E a distance of 173.18; thence S 14° 32' 10" E a distance of
175.59 feet to the north line of Genesis No. 3 as recorded in book 52 page 53 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 53' E, along said north line, a
distance of 218.00 feet to the point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 6
~ • YSZEu
GEOGRAPHIC IHFORMAiION i
a~nut Island
Area
J
Legend
U bound'
11j
wls~~a
3
J
CL.
r ~
1 N \ QP
300 Feel
200
500
0 t~a200Seet
i
t)1ZIdWtt1
1AA
gyslnaCSslIXOe^e oVAIII
T OR 9T223
p~7
V)s39•'1571
pRDj'd'~,a.us
V" r
O~
10
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- CD
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND. CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00009 - AREA 4 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 4 parcels of land consisting of 2.5 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conform ing to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-j12(L- is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page l of 2 Julia P H 18-January2000 5:30 PM
~7
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION S: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By (WO/71kY)O -0 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this __S ~ day of 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ~~day of~11L1 LlL2 2000.
4
janteaNiceli'May
i roved as t fqr
ki, I- Brian J. Moore, Council President
tgy AAttomey.
J
te ( /0
Date
7
a
Isom
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
1 EXHifirr A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
+ economic provisions of public facilities and services;
i The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
a the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because.the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
3 If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
a Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
J
EXHIBIT B
Description 4
A tract of land situated in Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Walnut Grove as recorded in Book 80 Pages 14 & 15
of the Washington County Subdivision Records also being the northwest corner of Partition
Plat 1997-080; thence N 870 46' E, along the south line of said partition plat, a distance of
115.00 feet; thence S 000 53' W, along the west line and it's extension of said Partition Plat,
a distance of 372.91 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 87°
46' W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 202.04 feet; thence S 000 53' W a
distance of 226.87 feet; thence N 89° 53' W a distance of 125.6 feet; thence S 00° 53' W a
distance of 53.00 feet; thence N 89° 53' W a distance of 171.00 feet to the easterly right of
way of SW 115°i Avenue; thence N 00° 53'E, along said right of way, a distance of 307.75
feet to the northerly right of way of SW Fomier Street; thence S 87° 46' W, along said
northerly right of way a distance of 20.03 feet; thence N 00° 53' E a distance of 332.85 feet
to the point of beginning.
i
I~
ISLAND ANNEXATION 7
11
6
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
/
V~
Walnut Island
Area 4
a Legend
Urban Services Boundaries
soomp
ST : M
r' Walnut Island Area
r
t!? can ~ .
z
.
z
-
0 t00 200 300 Feet I
rn~~, III v 1'- 200 feet
•
4
tn~ ~
•1 r' tit, Iai Tigmzl
2t~ Intamation on this naP is for general bcation Gril}' and
should be veri0ed Wnh the DevWOpmeM SenhCeS Dmsloo.
13125 SW V-0 Blvd
4171
Tigard, (5031639.4171
(503) 63
^ \ hIIpJA~.Ci-Iigard.or.Ys
•V\lc~
Community Development
~ITII
r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- OT7
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00010 - AREA 5 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 1 parcel of land consisting of 1 acre and withdrawal of said properties from the
Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance
District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District # I, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
" and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
a County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- L-)`? is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 1 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 Pl%t
I
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By f lit Ct. n i 01L- tS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this day of .2000.
2 < 2Z-C
erine Wheatley, City Recorder
--4 1
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this S day of 2000.
J 1 GJ
Ap ved as to~'or : •
V Brian J. Moore, Council President
Ci A~ttLoTm~ ~Q J
Date
ORDINANCE NO.2000-is\citywide\ord\Walnut island Area- Lord
Page 2 of2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXHIBIT A.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8!2000 PUBLIC HEARING
10111 M I MINES, III IN
EXHIBIT B
Description 5
A tract of land situated in Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the center of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West thence N 000 46'
32" E, along the center line of said Section 3 and the center line of SW 115'h Avenue, a
distance of 120.34 feet; thence S 89° 47' 46" W a distance of 20.00 feet to the west right of
way of SW 115'h Avenue and The True Point of Beginning; thence S 890 57' 46" W a
distance of 205.00 feet; thence N 000 46' 32" E a distance of 194.00 feet; thence N 890 57'
46" E a distance of 205.00 feet; thence S 00° 46' 32" W a distance of 194.00 feet to the true
point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 8
GEOGRAPHIC INi ORIAATION SYSTEM
Walnut Island
r~
Area 5
a Legend
CARMEN ST;
Urban Swims Boundaries
M '
r
r
Walnut Island Area
V J 5
~
1N
1
0 100 200 300 Feet
1': 200 foal
0
Information on this map is for general bastion only and
shouts be verified with the Deveopnant Sxvbes Division.
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tgard.OR 97723
(503) 6391171
httpllwww.ci.tigwd.or.us
Community Development
s TT7T T n T T TrrTCTTr%IZTT
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 01?
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00011 - AREA. 5 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WPI11DRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #l, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of I parcel of land consisting of 0.4 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000- l i:\citywide\ord\Wainut Island Area-Lord
Page 1 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
# 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Turd Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By UV) Q l1 l~'lyll/~ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this S"4" day of ef~z L 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of .2000.
Ap roved as to f m•
V Brian J. Moore, Council President
Atto
Date
ORDINANCE NO.2000- is\citywidc\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXHIBIT A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and Is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained In the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
M the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00005-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT B
Description 6
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 2 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of lot 2 Cole's Acres as recorded in Book 11 Page 38 of
the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 30' 33" W, along the south line
of said lot 2and the extension thereof, a distance of 177.50 feet to the center of SW 114'
;venue; thence N 00° 04' 05" W, along said center line, a distance of 110.00 feet; thence
N 89° 30' 33" E, along the south line of Partition Plat 1994-042, a distance of 177.50 feet to
the east line of said lot 2; thence S 00° 04' 05" E, along the said east line, a distance of
110.00 feet to the point of beginning.
a
i
i
ISLAND ANNEXATION 9
Ems
--1
o e
I __j
VIEWMQUN LL-Lt i GEOGRAPHIC INf OR YA TION 5Y6TEY
--1
= Walnut Island
Area 6
Legend
Urban Services BourMaries
e~j•
VIEWM®UNT
Walnut Island Area
~6
T
I
n
0 100 200 300 Feet
1•= 200 feet
t. its ut'Ti~i.ra
Information on this map is for general location only and
should be verified with the Development Services Division.
13125 SW Rao Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503)639.4171
http:IMww.cl.tlgard.or.us
Community Development
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- Oq
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00012 - AREA 7 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which. currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 2 parcels of land consisting of 0.5 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #I, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000- M_ is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page I of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance. '
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
# 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zonin
City of Tigard R4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By I.1.V)k(1tn)6UJ' vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this ' day of _ E E2t t k a--C!1' 2000.
a erine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 0 day of 2000.
Ap ved qs to fo
9~T► Brian J. Moore, Council President
~Ci~{ol ! Dy J
DDae
ORDINANCE N0.2000-_J_ is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 1 S-January2000 5:30 PM Mal' El 1111111 ji 1011
EXHIBIT A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
a economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
i the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City Surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and wili eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
a Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/812000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT B
Description 7
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 20 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point which is S 000 05' E a distance of 25.00 feet from the north one-quarter
corner of Section 10 Township 2 South Range 1 West, also being the northwest corner of
Lot 20 Cole's Acres as recorded in Book 11 Page 38 of the Washington County Subdivision
Records; thenc S 00° 05' E, along the west line of lot 20, a distance of 150.00 feet to the
north right of way line of SW Cole Lane; thence N 89° 30'30" E, along said north right of
way line, a distance of 152.5 feet to the east line of said lot 2; thence N 00° 05' W, along
said east line, a distance of 150.00 feet to the south right of way of SW Walnut Street;
thence S 89° 30' 30" W, along said right of way, a distance of 152.5 feet to the point of
beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 10
0£O GRIP NIC INi~RYATION SYSTEY
1 (0
VIEWMOUN
Walnut Island
= Area 7
Legend
Urban Services Boundaries
r
Walnut Island Area
VIEWMOUNT 7
T
3
I
B Tap 200 300 Feet
1'=200 feet
0.1 L 1T% r.(' Ti: i.El
Inlorrlation on this MP is for general location lay and
should be verified with the Devetopnrent Services DrrisiW
13125 SW Watt Blvd
0 r,ga!d, OR 97223
(503)63 39.4171
771
haD'1twww-v.bgard.or us
Community Development
r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- /0
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00013 - AREA 8 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District 91, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 1 parcel of land consisting of 0.4 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
muffim
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF T IGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-JL) is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-l.ord
Pagel of 2 Julia 1' H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
r
WON 1:11 31
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for adniinistrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTIONS: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By 0 P a f11 /11061S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this cS _ r day of-2-e 0--L/ 40- t"1~a 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ~tt day of ~L,~2~2G[CGu 2000.
jamos Ni 'mil: M-
^I
n A roved a~' to f
N
Brian J. Moore, Council President
74
Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 1Q is\citywide\ord\Watnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EX~IIBIT A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 196.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, .by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAFdD ANNEXATION 2/812000 PUBLIC HEARING
r
EXHIBIT B
Description 8
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 20 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north one-quarter Corner of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range one
West; thence S 89° 10' W, along section line, a distance of 346.5 feet' thence S 00° 05' E,
along the westerly line of the Evergreen Springs as recorded in Bookl21 Pages 29& 30 of
the Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 207.50 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence S 00° 05' E, along said westerly line, a distance of 135.00 feet; thence
S 89° 10' W a distance of 131.75 feet; thence N 00° 05' W a distance of 27.04 feet to a
point of curve of a curve to the right; thence along said curve with a radius of 120.00 feet, a
delta of 34° 45' 54" (a chord which bears N 17° 17' 57" E 71.70 feet) and a length of 72.81
feet to a point of tangency; thence N 43° 40' 54" E a distance of 32.92 feet to a point of
curve of a curve to the left; thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 65.00 feet, a
delta of 10° 06' 05" (a chord which bears N 29° 37' 51" E 11.44 feet) and a length of 11.46
feet; thence n 89° 10' E a distance of 84.44 feet to the true point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION. 11
CJ r
=1
- 1 ~ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Walnut Island
F- Area 8
ao VIEW MOUNT
Legend
Urban Services Boundaries
♦
Walnut Island Area
♦
♦
•
t
j
ril
0 100 207 300 Feet
I
1'= 200 feet
A~
Information on Olis rrap is for general Iccation only and
shoWd be verified with the Devcloprnent Services Division.
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard. OR 37223
(503) 6334171
htlplhw+w.a.tigard.a.us
Community Development
0
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- /f
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00014 - AREA 9 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFFS PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporat-- boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 1 parcel of land consisting of 0.3 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District # 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- tj is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page I of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
---m 1101111121MIN111111
s
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "S" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By (,(00.YIIYY WS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this 00 day of b-'Lkto.20--00,0..
therine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this May of ~~C Z c 2000.
38mes
Ap ved as.to fo , l
V Brian J. Moore, Council President
Atto 7ey `
c9
Date
3
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXH 1
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 7/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT B
Description 9
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 20 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north one-quarter Corner of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range one
west; thence S 89' 10' W, along section line, a distance of 346.5 feet' thence S 00' 05' E,
along the -westerly line of the Evergreen Springs as recorded in Bookl21 Pages 29& 30 of
the Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 430.0 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence S 00' 05' E, along said westerly line, a distance of 115.00 feet; thence
S 89' 10' W a distance of 131.75 feet; thence N 00' 05' W a distance of 115.00 feet;
thence N 89' 10' E a distance of 131.75 feet to the true point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 12
mom
1 FM-
t W GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 4,SyEM
VIEWMOUNT
Walnut Island
1
Area 9
Legend
Urban Services boundaries
Walnut Island Area
SS~
S
d Cr
D 10: 200 300 Feet
1'= 200 feet
i
Information on this map is for gen" IocatiOrl Only and
should be vertfiad vnlh the Development Services Division.
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 5344171
Community Development hflPyfv++ Ci.Iigard.«.uS
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2000-12
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00015 - AREA 10 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUN'T'Y URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #I, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 6 parcels of land consisting of 2.2 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS
222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of
the annexation into the City and withdrawal of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County
Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street
Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
i WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-_Lais\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Pagel of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
1
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specific Ily adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Eguivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION S: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By M G 11 iMiuS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this day of - -~2a 4~Q ti` 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Record
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of F-c 2.'1 uC4, /t 1 2000.
j A proved as to Co m:
Brian J. Moore, Council President
Yroey l
Date
s
1
1
ORDINANCE NO.2000-1a i:\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
-own
EXH1'IT A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not ins erfbre sa3t:: t':c 9!„ OrrlnA. -n-
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
SIR 1111111WHIM118
EXHI-131T B
Description 10
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 20 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north one-quarter Comer of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range one
West; thence S 89° 10' W, along section line, a distance of 660.0 feet' thence S 001 05' E a
distance of 20.00 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Gaarde Street and the True
Point of Beginning; thence S 00° 05' E a distance of 640.0 feet to the northerly line of
Shadow Hills as recorded in Book 42 Pages 41 & 41A of the Washington County
Subdivision Records; thence N 89° 10' E , along said northerly line, a distance of 131.75
feet; thence N 00° 05' W a distance of 345.19 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the
right; thence along said curve with a radius of 170 feet, a delta of 34° 45' 54" (a chord
which bears N 17° 17' 57" E, 101.57 feet) and a length of 103.15 feet; thence N 34° 40'
54" E a distance of 32.92 feet to a point of curve of a curve to the left; thence along said
curve to the left with a radius of 15 feet a delta of 34° 45' 54" (a chord which bears N 17°
17' 54" E, 8.96 feet; thence N 00° 05' W a distance of 163.17 feet to the southerly right of
way of SW Gaarde Street; thence S 89° 10' W, along said southerly right of way, a distance
of 183.54 feet to the true point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 13
r l : • OEOO RAPNIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Walnut Island
Area 10
w
Legend
oho V I EW IVlt Urban Sely M Boundaries
f
Walnut Island Area
10
,;w rni P:
»
0 10O 200 300 Feet
1'c 200 feet
O t:ity of 'Ti jud
LVD Informetbn on Lti1s map k for yenerd bcetbn ony and
st>atld be verifiod Wth ft Development S-i- MIWM
13125 SW Nag Blvd
Tigard, OR 97723
(503)639.4171
httpJAvww.d.tipard.or.us
s
Community Development
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING Fiji tDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00016 - AREA 11 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS W-E'nENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and. ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 1 parcel of land consisting of 0.3 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-4.5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDNANCE N0.2000- hkitywid6ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 1 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
-mill
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-4.5
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-4.5
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By LAhaM*moU.S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this day of 2000.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this - day of p ub 12000.
Ap roved as to form:
Brian J. Moore, Council President
v ~
Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- /3 is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-l.ord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
' ~XH1' J `r ,4
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following frnd.angs:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-40006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXH[I ,'ff B
Description 11
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a potion of lot 20 Cole's Acres, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north one-quarter Corner of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range one
West; thence S 90° 00' W, along Section line, a distance of 792.0 feet' thence S 00° 44' W
a distance of 20 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Gaarde Street and the 't'rue Point
of Beginning; thence S 000 44' W a distance of 127.00 feet; thence N 90° W a distance of
118.00 feet; thence N 00° 44' E a distance of 127.00 feet to the southerly right of way of
SW Gaarde Street; thence N 90° E, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 118.00
feet to the true point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 14
r ,
OEOORAVHrO INF00.YATlON SY6 r'Y
Walnut Island
Area 11
Legend
VIEI Urban SOMM
Walnut Island Area
11
-
I
4
0 t0O 2DO 300 Feet
1'= ZOO feel
® C LIty of TIr1Ri()
LVID Inform itbn on dds map is for general boatioo ody and
should be %wff d with the Devebpment Senloee DMOcin.
13125 SW Hatt Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 639-4171
h1tp1twww.d.ti9ard.0f
Community development
11 fill
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- J'-tt
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00017 - AREA 12 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 2 parcels of land consisting of 2 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-7 is City of Tigard R-7; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-_Iq is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Pagel of2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
_Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa.Co.R7
Eguivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-7
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By jj-QO&MID1,15 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this gk<' day of lkr _ .2000.
gripe Wheatley, City Record
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this' day of -P-b qua r . 2000.
AM roved as,,to form:
Brian J. Moore, Council President
i Atto ey
Date L
ORDINANCE NO.2000- is\citywide\ord\Wainut Island Area-l.ord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXH11111 `r A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the s
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and ' satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
' the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
I currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
f If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99.00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 218!2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIL r'~ B
Description 12
A tract of land situated in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette, and
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of lot 50 Shadow Hills No. 2 as recorded in Book 59
Pages 28 & 29 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 860 39' 46" W a
distance of 175.10 feet; thence S 00° 40' 32" W a distance of 292.31 feet to the northerly
right of way of SW Bull Mountain Road; thence N 860 42' 40" E, along said right of way, a
distance of 304.14 feet; thence N 00° 37' 30" E a distance of 292.81 feet to the southerly
boundary line of Shadow Hills No. 2; thence S 86° 35' 42" W, along the southerly line of
Shadow Hills No. 2, a distance of 127.81 feet to the point of beginning.
i
i
1
i
i
I
ISLAND ANNEXATION 15
srsr£~
a~QQAI.PNIC iNFOAM~t ION
\Natr~ut ~s4a"~d
A~~a 12
I.e9end
O CT
. OC
W
r
30 F
s~
l'i~7 otti~~
uta ~~,~cs+ DMO
staldb° ,3,25 g777~
7g~; 639A
cc ~p1Mwx.d't~ans
• s~
i
i ~3R
• ~T
.i T T
pi low
t
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2000- J~
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00018 - AREA 13 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 1 parcel of land consisting of 2.8 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the. assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-7 is City of Tigard R-7; and
"
c WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
" Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-_t5-_ is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Pagel of 2 Julia P H 18-January2000 5:30 PM
EIR11111011 mi
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Currant Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-7
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-7
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By U 174 A rXIIS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this day of•tkl/ZUCc a.~ 1 12000.
~~l~r? -2l rLF (.UI~Q t>~
Catherine Wheatley, City Re der
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this clay of 2000.
- vv-x-"~
4anwa4
A roved as to fo m:
c
Brian J. Moore, Council President
i
~Qia Atto ey
Date
7
ORDINANCE NO.2000-1 't~_ is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXH1iI]T A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with 'icable ° detro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and corpre~,,;:nsive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question e.inder state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/812000 PUBLIC HEARING
r
EXHIDIF B
Description 13
A tract of land situated in Section 9, Township 2 South, Mange 1 West, Willamette, and
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 9; thence S 00° 00' 00" E, along the
east line of said Section 9, a distance of 750.95 feet to The True Point of Beginning;
thence S 89° 50' 30" W a distance of 660 feet; thence S 00° 00' 00" E a distance of 182.7
feet; thence N 89" 50' 30" E a distance of 660 feet to the east line of Section 9; thence N
00° 00' 00" E, along said Section line, a distance of 182.7 feet to the point of beginning.
ISLAND ANNEXATION 16
MEN 1111
6Ep6A~yNIC {lif{{RMAt{ON 6YSYE~
AMES ~,pNE ~ al~u~ Isi~►nd
r Pgea 13
N
P
N
P
pR1VE Legend
'N : SW CHANDLER
{
13
Oki
o
J
~v
app Fae{
IW
C*T
co
• ~~;~tae~`~ Syrkec
{3~ T ' AM
fldtd► tmjw,m us
J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- Ito
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00019 - AREA 14 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 8 parcels of land consisting of 7 acres and withdrawal of said properties from
the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-7 is City of Tigard R-7; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annexation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District # 1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO.2000-1(.a is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-Lord
Page I of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
loll
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
# 1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
_Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa. Co. R-7
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zonine
City of Tigard R-7
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District 41, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By UOAn, A1111..n vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this 1;1&1 day of - -r 4i L icCt.v , 2000.
Cr!?
atG therine Wheatley, City Recorder 19
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ` day of ~~2 t t 2000.
imnes
hfayA
Ap roved as.to for
V.
Brian J. Moore, Council President
Att
~ J~
orjt x
Date T
3
ORDINANCE NO.2000-~ is\citywide\ord\Watnut Island Area-Lord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January2000 5:30 PM
V
EXH1 ;r•r A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code.and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
i Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
4
t If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
a Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00008-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXHIBIT B
Description 14
A tract of land situated in Section 9, Tow.,-sbp 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette, and
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast comer of lot 1 Blue Ridge as recorded in Book 24 Page 16 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 00° 00' 00" E, along said east line, a
distance of 568.7 feet to the northeast corner of Blue Ridge; thence S 89° 50' 30" W, along
the north line of Blue ridge, a distance of 597.0 feet to the northwest corner of lot 6 blue
ridge; thence S 00° 00' 00" W, along the west of Blue Ridge and its extension, a distance of
606.53 feet to the northerly right of way of SW Bull Mountain Road; thence N 86° 13' E,
along said northerly right of way, a distance of 190 feet; thence N 00° 00' 00" E a distance
of 319.9 feet to the south line of lot 7 Blue Ridge; thence N 89° 50' 30" E, a long the south
line of said lot 7; a distance of 125.9 feet to the southeast corner of lot 7 also being on the
west right of way of SW 126 Th Ave.; thence S 00° 00' 00" E, along said westerly right of
way, a distance of 311.93 feet to the northerly right of way of SW Bull Mountain Road;
thence N 86° 13' E, along said right of way, a distance of 282.1 feet to point of beginning.
i
i
i
i
3
ISLAND ANNEXATION 17
i
OEOORAVHiG tHFORYA~IOH SY SSEM
~a►Inut ts~and
co C f
Legend
U~t
d!
Weuu~l~pre'
is
Cfl
300 Feat
200
100
0 2c~pt~
1••
~ypna.~ e~!S
~pistU9,ypcDiY~10M1'
It~toM'stgR vilih 0~0
MFRVi 13,25 OR ST03
(5031 a.u•~
httpt~' .
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.2000-1-)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-
00020 - AREA 15 - -WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE
TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT,
WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by
the corporate boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and ORS 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently
lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington
County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County
Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on
February 8, 2000 to consider the annexation of 35 parcels of land consisting of 17.8 acres and withdrawal of said properties
from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District for certain debt obligations, however,
in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to
be made; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes, ORS 222.120, 222.524 and ORS 227.175, notice
was given and the City held a public hearing on February 8, 2000 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal
of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water
District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the
annexation by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning
most closely conforming to the County zoning; and
WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-7 is City of Tigard R-7; and
WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 Local Government
Boundary Changes, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and the applicable criteria are found to be met;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that the annex.ation
into the City of Tigard and withdrawal of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,
Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation is in the best interest of the City of Tigard and the affected
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-_!j is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-l.ord
Page I of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
L
SECTION 1: The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff report and in accordance with the Metro
3.09 requirements, the City Council specifically adopts the findir_gs and conclusions regarding the Metro 3.09
criteria on page 3 of the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C"
and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District
#1, and the Washington County Vector Control District.
SECTION 3: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows:
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
Wa.Co.R7
Equivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning
City of Tigard R-7
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting
by the City Recorder.
SECTION 5: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative
processing.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water
District shall be July 1, 2000.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to ORS 222.120, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Washington
County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District,
Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District
shall be the effective date of the annexation.
SECTION 8: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By U nammous vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,
this _ day of e- 2000.
erine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this?S= day of 2000.
james ieel ,,,r,,.
A roved ~s V~im:
Brian J. Moore, Council President
r)
o~ I \j
Date
ORDINANCE NO.2000- is\citywide\ord\Walnut Island Area-l.ord
Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 18-January 2000 5:30 PM
EXHI:A
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties to the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached o the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and comprehensive plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, it satisfied.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan
requirements, by complying with the development code and comprehensive plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable functional plan and Regional Framework plan.
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the walnut
island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria for the in question under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
EXH~ T B
Description 15
A tract of land situated in Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette, and
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of lot 6 Obrs Heights as recorded in Book 22 Page 43 of
the Was: dagton County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 30' W, along the north line of
said lot 6 a distance of 169.06 feet to the northwest Comer of said lot 6; thence S 000 30' E,
along the west line of lot 6 and lot 8 , a distance of 289.83 feet to the southeast corner of lot
8 Obrs Heights; thence S 89° 37' W, along the south line of lot 8, a distance of 46.56 feet to
the northeast corner of lot 9 Obrs Heights; thence S 00° 43' W, along the east line of said
lot 9, a distance of 175.00 feet to the southeast comer of lot 9; thence S 890 37' W, along
the South line of said lot 9, a distance of 155.98 feet to the southwest comer of said lot 9;
thence S 00° 43' W, along the east line of lot 2 Obrs Heights, a distance of 19.80 feet to the
southeast comer of said lot 2; thence S 89° 37' W, along the south line of said lot 2, a
distance of 144.02 feet to the southwest comer of said lot 2 and the northwest corner of lot 1
Obrs Heights; thence S 00° 43' W, along the west line of said lot 1, a distance of 155.21
feet to the southwest corner of said lot 1; thence N 89° 37' E, along the south line of lots
1,10,& 11 a distance of 340.00 feet to the extension of the east line of lot 29 Handy Acres as
recorded in Book 10 Page 31 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 00°
42' 55" W, along the east line of said lot 29 and the west line of Vista Lake as recorded in
Book 26 Page 44 of the Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 369.73;
thence S 89° 32' 41" W a distance of 139.78 feet; thence N 00° 42' 55" E a distance of
319.98 feet to the southerly right of way of SW Fern Street; thence S 89° 37' W, along said
southerly right of way, a distance of 50.02 feet; thence S 00° 42' 55" W a distance of
319.81; thence S 89° 32' 41" W a distance of 100.09 feet; thence S 00° 42' 55" W a
distance of 319.60 to the north line of Hillshire as recorded in Book 85 Pages 45 -50 of the
Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 89° 43' 30" E, along said north line, a
distance of 509.84 feet to the east right of way of SW 135 h Street; thence N 00° 43' E,
along said east right of way, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence N 88° 01' E a distance of
150.00 feet; thence S 00° 43' W a distance of 120.00 feet to the north line of Handy Acres;
thence N 88° 01' E, along said north line a distance of 50.21 feet; thence S 00° 43' W a
distance of 6.29 feet; thence N 89° 36' 09" E along the center line of Section 4, a distance
of 163.91 feet to the extension of the east line of lot 31 Handy Acres; thence N 00° 51' E,
ISLAND ANNEXATION 18
along the east line of lots 31 and 33 Handy Acres, a distance of 847.35 feet to the center
line of SW Walnut Street being a point on a curve to the right; thence along said curve with
a radius of 573.00 feet a delta of 24° 42' 59" (a chord which bears N 511 22'29" W, 245.27
feet; and a length of 247.18 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 39° 01' W, along said
center line, a distance of 151.29 feet to a point of curve to the right; thence along said curve
with a radius of 477.50 feet a delta of 26° 31' 30" (a chord which bears N 25° 31'30" W,
222.81 feet; and a length of 224.88 feet to a point which is on the extension of the north line
of lot 6 Obrs Heights; thence S 89° 30' W, along the extension of said north line, a distance
of 25.00 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
Commencing at the southeast comer of lot 32 Handy Acres; thence N 000 54' W, along the
east line of said lot 32, a distance of 114.77 feet to the initial point of Partition Plat 1997-
031as recorded in Washington County Subdivision records and the True Point Beginning;
thence N 001 54' W, along the east line of said Partition Plat, a distance of 115.41 feet to the
northeast corner of said Partition Plat; thence S 88° 00' 14" W, along the north line of said
Partition Plat, a distance of 182.59 feet to the east right of way of SW 135a' Avenue; thence
S 00° 48' 25" W, along the west line of said Partition Plat and said east right of way, a
distance of 115.41 feet to the southwest comer of said Partition Plat; thence S 88° 00'04"
W, along the south line of said Partition Plat, a distance of 182.40 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
ALSO EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
Commencing at the southeast corner of lot 32 Handy Acres; thence N 00° 54' W, along the
east line of said lot 32, a distance of 345.58 feet to the True Point Beginning; thence N
00° 54' W, along the east line of said lot 32, a distance of 115.41 feet; thence S 88° 00' 14"
W a distance of 182.59 feet to the east right of way of SW 135' Avenue; thence S 00° 48'
25" W, said east right of way, a distance of 115.41 feet; thence S 88° 00' 14" W, along a
distance of 182.40 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
i
ISLAND ANNEXATION 19
IRMIM
OE060. APN10 INF ORMAT IOR SY ST Eu
abut lsla~d
Area 15
o
Legend
SVV
r '
r
CO ''r ur'7
I M M
SW p0E 1.N 14
I' u 'I 30 Feet
50~
~ 20f}legit
y:
~.~.~1fOFb an
%la9•'^'~ c vY,es~
1etjpB 00
woto
vn>l+ybe gtYd
,,Ob'-I 13125 of g77t3
T~~631A171
Stu T ~ T t -{tl"i
0
CITY OF TIGARD
Engineering IDepartrnent
p Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 503-639-4171
Fax: 503-624-0752
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas
City Engineer
DATE: February 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program
The Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program established in Resolution No. 98-51
(attached) is intended to encourage actual sewer connections during the first year after sewer
extension construction is completed and sewer becomes available to the residents of the district
formed. It is worded such that connections must be completed for the City to subsidize the
payment of the cost of installing the sewer. Actual connection is"the key factor for the following
reasons:
■ The connection process allows residents to close their septic systems (some of which are
failing) and hook on to City sewer. This is our goal from an environmental standpoint.
■ The connections initiate the billing process so that the City can begin to receive revenue
from monthly sewer fees.
I feel the benefits to be reaped from actual connections justify the City subsidy which pays for
costs above $8,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 (potentially a subsidy of $7,000 maximum). If
residents are allowed to pay for their fair share of the costs at the discounted rate without actually
connecting to the system, the incentive program for connection ceases to exists and becomes a
straight subsidy without benefit of the key ingredient that created the program in the first place.
It is my understanding that City Council authorized payment of the fair share without connection
for the Reimbursement District on Del Monte Drive during the Council meeting on September 14,
1999. Because of the commitment made during that meeting, we may have to live with what was
authorized during the meeting for that district alone. However, I strongly recommend that the
provisions of Resolution No. 98-51 be retained and that the subsidy by the City continue to be tied
directly to actual connections.
Technically, the way to ensure that connections are actually made is to have the residents pay the
full fair share fee, then receive reimbursement for the difference between the cap and the actual
cost upon submittal of proof of connection (sewer billing, etc.). However, this may prove to be
cumbersome and requires more administrative effort on our part to reimburse a portion of the fee.
We feel payment of the discounted fair share fee, the connection fee, and issuance of a plumbing
permit is sufficient proof of intent to connect. We therefore feel this is the more practical approach
and is the process we recommend.
Recommendation
I recommend that the provisions of Resolution No. 98-51 be retained and followed henceforth. I
further recommend that payment of the fair share discounted fee during the first year, together
with payment of the connection fee (currently $2,335) and issuance of a plumbing permit for the
work be authorized as sufficient to show intent to connect for purposes of meeting the provisions
of the resolution.
Attachment
c: Greg Berry
I:\Eng\Gus\Word Documents\Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program
Memo on Greyhound Bus Issue
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 51
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT
DISTRIC'T' INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers
through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and
WHEREAS, the amounts reimbursed by residential lot owners in the past have been below $8,000 per
connection; and
WHEREAS, the reimbursement districts that are currently under consideration have estimated
reimbursement costs ranging from $9,000 to $14,000 per connection; and
WHEREAS, the costs of reversing residential plumbing, closing the existing septic tank, installation of a
sewer lateral to connect to the public system, and payment of the connection fee add severallhousand
dollarsmore to the burden of a residential lot owner who wishes to connect to City sewer, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to initiate an incentive program to encourage residents to connect to
public sewer, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that establishing a maximum reimbursement.fee for residents to pay
will further the objectives of the program by encouraging formation of sewer reimbursement districts and
actual connections to public sewer;-and
WHEREAS, based on previous reimbursement districts, the amount of $8,000 appears to be a reasonable
amount to establish as the maximum fee for reimbursement by residential lot owners; and.
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs that the sum of $15,000 should be established as the maximum cost
per connection; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to offer this incentive program for a two-year period, after which the
program will be evaluated for continuation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SEC'T'ION 1: An incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension
Program with a maximum fee of $8,000 for reimbursement by residential lot owners.
This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the
connection fee, which is still payable upon application for sewer connection.
SECTION 2: This Resolution shall apply to sewer connections provided through sewer
reimbursement districts established by October 12, 2000. All connections qualifying
RESOLUTION NO. 98- Jr J
Page I
under this incentive program must be completed within one year after Council approval .
of the final City Engineer's Report following a fins! public hearing conducted in
accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105.
SECTION 3: - The City Engineer's Report rcquidred by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall include a provision
that to the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section
13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot
zoned single-famiry residential shall not exceed $8,000 per connection, provided the lot
owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over 515,000 shall be
reimbursed by the owner. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in
accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by
the final City Engineer's Report.
SEC'T'ION 4: The funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program shall
provide the funding for the installation costs over $8,000 up to a maximum of $15,000
per connection.
PASSED: This S 3 day of OCA-cDVJAA- 1998.
y r -City of rgard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
tlotywi4Mslninilot
i
-1
a~
i
RESOLUTION NO. 98--5(
Page 2
lng-OEM
Agenda Item No..3_ ~ .
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON A
.s
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: February 1, 2000
SUBJECT: COUNCIL. CALENDAR, February 2000 - April 2000
Regularly. scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can
proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars.
February
* 8 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
* 15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
21 Mon President's Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
* 22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
March
*14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
* 21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
* 28 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
Viral
*11 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
*18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
* 25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
jAadm\cathy\cound1\ccca1.doc
f
Tigard City Counci4
Tentative Agenda
3114100 -Business N
CD 2122100 - Business Due; 312100
2115100 - Worksh°p Due; 2110100 Study Session
Due; 213100 Study Session
VVorkshop ToPics - 6:30 PM pilot Youth Program - UZ -10 min
Disiscuco
(p
6:30 Dssion with ,in Ramis re: Service & Water Update 601 to 2128 IWB)
Resources - Bill - 30 minute~mmission City sponsored Events
7:30 Joint Meeting with planning
- Jim H-1 Fit
Consent Agenda
1. U date on Tigard Central Bus Dist Assoc TPOA
Activities - Jlm H - 30 min Consent Agenda ion Catch Basin
2. Metro - Goat 5 Update - Jim - 20 min Approve Purchase of Combinat
3. Greenspaces Update - Jim H -15 min and Sewer Cleaning Truck - Ed W/Eric
ton Square R&F - photo Radar Proposal -Ron
Reserve time Washing Council Goals
Decision ?
Business Meeting
pledge of Allegiance &
Business Meeting to Brownie Troop - Susan - 15 min
Res - Acquire property for Improvements patriotic Songs -
participate in ODOT Open House and
Fanno Creek Trail -Gus -5 min
Reserve time Washington Square possible announcement/presentation by ODOT
Decision ? -Cathy Update -Gus -10 min
Transportation Bond Up
Update on Summer Creek Wetlands
(Merestone)-Gus-10 min
Enhancement project
I:ladmigreer/tentaty ag/year99-0.xls
Agenda fteM NO. 3
Meeting Of 2
az~ss ~sz~gz~~z
City Tigard Council Tentative Agenda
4111100 • Business T1
Due; 3130100
Business study Session
-
3123100
Due; 3116100
Workshop mP
3121100 ' Stu session
dy ent ~lassl Study
Co
319100 Mana9em
a tocal
~ue• tcs
~ofahop ToP Climate Change
lion "Making in ends
presents oll Kurt Nichols ' 10 mpistcict - Consent Ag d ustment
issue - tfalat~ Recceat~on Solid Rate A 1
presentation on committee - 20 min nds
g ro ect - SurVe e -10 min
-Ed g Steerin La
Consent Age
' Tn-Met Dem° p jim
purham Quarry "
eetiny police Deft
gusinEx editures -
pN -Gran
R ecreati~on pistcict -
gettny
gusiness M ort for Pj 3.1 C~
Res 1 Qum nutes
Ed - i ear99'O.xls
I:ladrnl9reerltenta~ ay Y
I
J
AGENDA ITEM # ~.3
FOR AGENDA OF 2/8/00
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Recreational Trails Grant Application
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK 4i*z~_,Y MGR OK Wt=
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council authorize the Council President to sign the attached resolution endorsing the submittal of a
federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP) grant application?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The RTP is a federal-aid assistance program to help States provide and maintain recreational trails for both
motorized and non-motorized trail use. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department administers the RTP in
Oregon. Projects sponsors must provide at least 20 percent of the projects cost. The program is highly
competitive. City, state, and federal agencies are all eligible to receive funds.
Staff proposes to submit an application for 80% of the cost of the Tiedeman/Jolmson Street segment of the
Fanno Creek Trail. Previously committed city CIP funds for this project have been reassigned to Cook Park,
leaving this project unfunded. The required local match is proposed to include local share Greenspace funds
and city in-kind design services.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not submit a project proposal this fiscal year.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Parks and Recreation Goal #I calls for the pursuit of grant funding opportunities.
FISCAL NOTES
The grant amount requested is $50,000. The local contribution will consist of local share Greenspace dollars
and in-kind services.
i/ciWMde/swn.RTPapplication
AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: FEBRUARY 81 2000
PULeIC HEARING
(QUASI -J U ®ICIAL.)
TESTIMONY
SIGN-UP SHEETS
Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on:
WA L N U T I Z"i L 'Am N D
ANNEXATION
Genera I.Testi on
Y
(Not Related to a Specific Area)
File Nos. ZCA 1999-00006 through ZCA 1999-00020
IAADM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY QJ.DOC
t
r ~
AGENDA ITEM No. 4
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
~Cty~b ~E yS
13 x -7 o S ~pwG ra
~b18~
Na Address Pho Name, Address & Ph Name, Address & Phone No.
r
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
s~D ZZ ~
Name, Address & Phone o. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
~Gfololf' F. BN 1 x
10 8 55 S ,1~1 rro 15t,
Tj'a rd 172-23
and
~r htiilde~,~ublifz
Name,76A~z Addre~ & Phone No. Name, Addre & Ph ne o. Name, Address & Phone No.
,
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
AGENDA ITEM # 4
FOR AGENDA OF February 8, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation of Island Areas in the City
PREPARED BY: Laurie N. & Julia H. DEPT HEAD OK /tuO- CITY MGR OK _LA4-,f'v-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Before City Council are 15 proposed ordinances to annex island areas that are currently completely surrounded
by the Tigard city limits, but part of unincorporated Washington County. The issue before Council is whether
to complete annexations for all the islands. If Council does not adopt the 15 proposed ordinances, these island
areas will remain in unincorporated Washington County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached island annexation ordinances.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
One of City Council's goals is to annex the existing islands in the City that are still part of unincorporated
Washington County. Staff researched the costs of annexing the island areas, including the cost of providing
sewer service in the area, as well as the estimated net increase in property taxes for an individual homeowner
located in an unincorporated island area. There would not be a net loss to the City because the study found that
the revenue collected from the island property owners would equal or exceed the increased expenditures. Staff
from the City, Washington County, and USA presented information to property owners at two workshops.
Attached is a letter from Tom Brian to Walnut Island residents explaining the Walnut Island annexation issue.
Property owners appeared to be somewhat receptive to the concept of annexing into the City. Officials from
Washington County emphasized that the County's policy is to cease being the provider of urban services to
unincorporated, urbanized areas and that the City of Tigard is the appropriate service provider for the Walnut
Island area.
Following the workshops, a letter was sent out to property owners in the area informing them of the City's
intent to initiate annexation. Staff received two letters from island property owners opposing annexation into
the City because they believe the costs of being annexed into the City outweigh the benefits of receiving City
services. In both of these letters, they appear to be concerned primarily with the cost of installing sewer in their
neighborhood. These letters were included in the City Council packet for the December 7"i, 1999, meeting
when the island annexations were initiated.
The annexation process involves several steps. As far as an island annexation, the first step was for Council to
adopt resolutions initiating the annexation process. This was done December 7, 1999. Metro requires that
necessary parties be notified 45 days prior to the hearing. As per Metro requirements, the staff report must be
completed 30 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the proposed annexation must be given to property owners
within 500 feet of the annexation, 20 days prior to the hearing. Staff has followed these steps in providing the
proper notice and meeting the proper deadline requirements. The completed annexation would be sent to Metro
and, in turn, Metro will forward all annexation documentation to the Department of Revenue. The annexation
must be completed by March 31St for the annexed property to be included in next fiscal year's tax rolls. To meet
this deadline, the attached ordinances must be adopted prior to March 1, 2000. Staff recommends adopting the
ordinances at the February 8, 2000, City Council hearing.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1.) City Council can deny the proposed island annexation ordinances and wait at least one year before re-
initiating the island annexation process.
2.) City Council could adopt some of the proposed island annexation ordinances and not adopt others.
3.) If Council does not adopt the island annexation ordinances, the City Council goal of establishing an
annexation policy for the City will need to be revised.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth Management Goal #2, Strategy 1.) Adopt a plan for the orderly annexation of Walnut Island.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
iAcitywidc\2-8-00 Walnut Island.sum.dot
4
• 01/24/00 RON 17:10 r'AA 503 6.93-4545
_ - - WASd1NG1'UN CUUN'1'Y ADb11N
Vj UUz
Item No.
For Coundl Newsletter dated r f 10/6
WASHINGTON COUNTY
January 4, 2000 OREGON
Dear Walnut Area Resident:
The following information is in regard to.potential annexation.of your area by the City of
Tigard.
We all know that our part of the planet is changing rapidly. The worldwide forces of
emerging technology and economic expansion are concentrating very specific pressures on
our county. As well, the sheer numbers of our growing population-and its makeup in terms of
age, ethnic background, income levels, education and other characteristics are affecting how
-we live with one another. For those of us that work in the area of local government (through
your county, the cities and special districts) ebange is a staple in our daily diet. Our ongoing
mission is to deliver a foundation of local government services that allows you to pursue your
life goals.., even while this change is occurring.
The recent talk about annexation in your area stems from our efforts in this regard- As a
result, Washington County is working with our partner, the City of Tigard in their analysis of
whether or not to annex the Walnut neighborhood.
You may have attended two information sessions held in October at Fowler Middle School
that were sponsored by Tigard in an effort to learn more about your concerns and answer your
questions. County representatives were there as well. As a result 'of both of those meetings,
several diverse topics emerged. This letter attempts to provide you the County's perspective
on many of those issues.
Building Inspection and Land Development
These construction related services are currently provided by the City of Tigard via a
contractual relationship with the County. The goal of this arrangement is to increase customer
convenience by not requiring professional and amateur builders to travel to Hillsboro to
process permits. Any construction related business can now be-done through Tigard City
Hall.
Local Plawaing
Washington County employs 11 land use planners to address the long-term land use scheme
for the entire unincorporated County. These planners, among the best in their field, have
responsibility for well over 600 square miles. The land is diverse, ranging from dense
residential, complex industrial, to the most rural of uses. The County currently does not have
the resources to provide the kind of neighborhood-based personal attention to planning issues
that the cities do. There are no plans to expand the service, as any expansion would have to
be funded by city taxpayers as well as the unincorporated taxpayers, leading to legitimate
claims by cities of "double taxation".
Doublc taxation occurs when, for example, the'County cotlects a uniform tax county-wide (inside cities and
outside cities) and spends that county-wide money only in the unincorporated area.
Board of County C,omunissioners
c„UP :too. MS 22, MIUsboro. OR 97124-2072
i i r!
Rftwmm~
01/24/00 MON 17:11 FAX 503 693 4545
WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMIN
10003
January 4, 2000
Page 2
Neighborhood Traffic Management and Enforcement
As the County grows in population and density, neighborhood traffic problems increase.
Many of Washington County's unincorporated neighborhoods are requesting services from
the County that would reduce, slow down or otherwise "calm" traffic in their area. While
there are reconstruction options available and opportunities for increased traffic law
enforcement, the County does not, nor will it in the foreseeable future, provide these city type
services.
Zonin"nd Code Enforcement
The County currently has two code enforcement officers to serve the 200,000 unincorporated
residents and 72,630 commercial, industrial and residential properties. These officers enforce
the County cddes that regulate zoning and the condition of property. There are no plans to
increase service beyond this base level.
Emergency (Priority 1) Police Response
ether the area is annexed or not, timely emergency police response will occur. The
County Sheriff and every Washington County city police department have entered an
agreement that dispatches the closest police unit, regardless of jurisdiction..As it happens in
the Walnut area, most of the first responses to emergency calls are from the Tigard P'ol'ice
Department as their units generally surround the area. These services are provided free-of-
charge by the current residents of Tigard. In other pants of the county, it is a given that
assistance back and forth between departments cancels out any imbalance over time. The
situation in the Walnut area, however, shows an ongoing significant imbalance as a result of
the island configuration of the area.
_Non-Emergency Police Response
The larger cities in Washington County have more police unit availability than does the
County in the unincorporated area. Until a more sophisticated measure of service levels is
developed, we will rely on an officers-per-thousand-of-residents measure. As it currently
stands, Washington County fields slightly less than 1 officer per thousand unincorporated
residents. Tigard fields 1.5 officers per thousand residents (50% more).
As a result, Tigard is able to provide a higher level of service with regard to non-emergency
crimes. Like situations described above, these calculations are not a reflection on the quality
of these two fine police agencies or their officers. They are simply measures of the resources
available to theca.
Road Maintenance 'and Construction
Road maintenance and construction are very complicated issues as the funding sources for
these services are numerous. Simply stated, the State of Oregon has responsibility for the
construction and maintenance of state highways like highways 217 and 99. Not much has
occurred in the construction side of the equation; in recent years and that is a source of
frustration for local public officials and residents alike. The cities and the county have
defined a county road system that serves as a backbone of major streets throughout the county
that is the responsibility of the County government. This system is generally in an excellent
• 01/24/00 MON 17:11 FAX 503 693 4545 WASHINGTON COUNTY ARKIN
wi 004
January 4, 2000
Page 3
state of maintenance, but many components are inadequate to the amount of traffic. For over
ten years, the County and the cities have used the Major Streets Transportation Improvement
Program (MS11P) to upgrade the capacity of these streets. A great deal bas been
accomplished. More work is needed.
Cities have responsibility for non-County system streets that carry significant local traffic.
Cities also maintain local neighborhood or subdivision streets. Neighborhood streets in the
unincorporated area are maintained via the Urban Road Maintenance District Program
(administered by the County) and funded by a special property tax collected only in the urban
unincorporated area. As a result of this program, the pavement condition of unincorporated
neighborhood streets is generally very good.
While there are strategies in place to improve the capacity of the larger street system
countywide, there are not programs or funds available to local unincorporated neighborhoods
to take care of their traffic problems. Annexation to an adjoining city is the only way those
needs can be addressed?
Sewer Service
The Walnut neighborhood is the largest concentration of unsewered residences in Washington
County. Over time septic systems will cease to be a viable option in these older, developed
subdivisions. While septic systems work well from a public health and economic perspective
in rural areas, they can be a threat to public welfare in neighborhoods. A single failed system
in a developed neighborhood can easily become a significant public health event. As well,
with all the new regulations and standards regarding septic systems, replacement of a failed
system can be very difficult and costly. For example, a simple system replacement can cost
$7,000. A more complicated sand filter system (used when adequate soil and land areas
aren't available) can cost $20,000.
It is a fact of life that increasing pressure will be brought upon the Walnut area to replace
septic systems with sewer. Recognizing that conversion is complicated and expensive, each
family should calculate increases in home value and marketability as well as the health
benefits when factoring the pluses and minuses of going from septic to sewer. With the City
of Tigard as a partner, it is almost a certainty that conversion costs will be cheaper than if the
area stays unincorporated.
The Couniyls Long Term Rode
Population will increase and life will get more complicated. As a result, the County will have
to continually attend to its traditional or core business and work on new issues that present
themselves. If County government does nothing to transfer some of its former city-type
responsibilities to capable partners like Tigard; the organization will grow and grow. Your
County officials do not want to administer an unmanageable bureaucracy. So while we work
with our cities on sensible annexation plates, we are also taking on new responsibilities in ;he
Z Tlie State formula for distribution of gas tax revenues back to local communities provides more money to cities
per registered vehicle than it does to counties. Therefore, as cities annex, more gas tax comes back to our area.
Q1/24/00 MON 17:12 FAX 503 683 4545
WASHING'1'U1V (UUIV'1'Y AUd111V WJ UUD
January 4, 2000
Page 4
areas of public safety (new jail and corrections center) and transportation (trying to bring a
commuter rail system between Wilsonville and Beaverton, through Tigard). The County has
to focus its agenda on the services that affect the widest range of residents and make the
biggest impact. We cannot secure our core services, work on the big projects that make a
difference and operate in the unincorporated areas as a city all at once. Given that we have
very capable cities in Washington County, annexation emerges as the best option to improve
the quality of County government.
In closing, please consider this information carefully, and more importantly, if you have any
questions or concerns, call, write or email the City of Tigard. If you have any questions of the
County, feel free to contact us as well.
City of Tigard, City Administrator's Office
Phone: 639-4171, E-mail: bill@ci.tigard.or.us
Washington County, County Administrative Office ,
Phone: 648-8685, E-mail: ellen cooper@co.washington.or.us
Sincerely,
Tom Brian, Chairman
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Item:
Hearing Date: Februarv 8, 2000 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL CITY OFUGARD
Development
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Community
Shaping A Better
Community
SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE: FILE NAME: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS
Zone Change Annexation ZCA 1999-0006-ZCA1999-00020
PROPOSAL: To annex 15 island of un-incorporated Washington County land into the
City of Tigard. The 15 areas combined include 496 lots and 310 acres
of land.
CURRENT
ZONING
DESIGNATION: Washington County R-4.5 and Washington county R-7
Equivalent City
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-4.5 and R-7
LOCATION: The island areas being annexed are located in Walnut Island,
generally between SW Walnut and SW Bull Mountain Road. The
attached vicinity map provides the locations of the 15 areas under
consideration.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Flan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 and 10.1.3;
Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.320 and 18.390,
and Metro Code Chapter 3.09
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council find that the proposed annexations will not adversely
L affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends
APPROVAL. of the annexations by adoption of the attached Ordinances.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2900 PUBLIC HEARING
SECTION 111111. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site information and proposal description:
The area referred to as Walnut Island is bordered generally by Walnut Street on the north and
Gaarde Street on the south. Island areas numbered 12-14 are further south of the main island areas
and are bordered by Bull Mountain Road to the south. The predominant land use in this area is
single-family residential development.
The proposal is to annex 496 parcels consisting of approximately 310 acres of land. The City has
initiated the annexation as permitted by ORS 222.750 because the properties are within an area
entirely surrounded by property inside the City limits.
Vicinity Information:
The total area to be annexed is 310 acres. Each of the 15 island areas are surrounded on all sides
by property inside the Tigard City Limits. Areas 1-11 are zoned R-4.5 and Areas 12-15 are zoned R-
7.
Public comments
Notice of the proposed annexations was sent to property owners in the areas under consideration for
annexation, as well as the property owners within 500 feet of the areas. Staff received four letters,
three in opposition to the annexations and one in support of the annexations and an e-mail in support
of the annexations. Copies are attached to this staff report.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2,
and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.136, 18.138 and Metro
Code Chapter 3.09.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive
Plan based on the following findings:
Policy 2.1.1:
This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program. The West CIT and surrounding
property owners have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been
published in a newspaper of general circulation. In addition, there have been several informational
meeting and on-going articles in the newspaper and City council discussions on this proposal. This
policy is satisfied.
r
Policy 10.1.1:
This Policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. !n August 1999,when
the City was first investigating the feasibility of annexing the Walnut Island areas, a study was done
that evaluated the availability of urban services including: Fire, Parks and Recreation, Police, School
Districts, Sewer, Street lighting, Transportation, and Water. The study identified that Urban Services
are or could be made available to the annexed areas. There is adequate capacity to accommodate
the additional properties. For services such as police and tire, additional personnel would be
needed, however, this would be funded from the additional tax revenues obtained from the properties
being included in the City's tax base. In addition, the City is in the process of evaluating mechanisms
to fund the extension or improvements of Urban Services such as sewer, roads and water.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
Policy 10.1.2:
This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations and is satisfied. The areas are surrounded
by the Tigard city limits on all sides, thus forming an "island" of un-incorporated land within the
Tigard Urban Planning area. By annexing the 15 areas, the City will be eliminating islands of un-
incorporated territory thus creating more uniformity and ease in determining emergency service
providers. The Police have had an opportunity to comment on the proposal and are in support of the
annexations.
Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the
Community Development Code based on the following findings:
Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals
and is satisfied because:
The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have
been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report.
When the City took responsibility for Urban Services through the Urban Services Agreement, the
County re-zoned the properties tc the equivalent City of Tigard zoning at that time, therefore the
appropriate City zoning is already attached to the properties.
Metro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in
addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as
discussed below:
Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or
annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements.
According to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington
County, "The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY'S Active Planning
Area." As defined by the Urban Planning Area Agreement, the island areas under consideration for
island annexation are located in the Active Planning Area.
Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other
than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a
necessary party;
The process required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
Urban Planning Agreement for annexations.
Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans;
This has been discussed previously in this report and is satisfied.
! Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional (Framework Plan or any functional plans;
Because the development code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro Functional Plan
I
requirements, by complying with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is
consistent with applicable Functional Plan and Regional Framework plan.
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 2/8/2000 PUBLIC HEARING
Whether the proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services;
The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provisions of public facilities or services because
the City of Tigard completely surrounds the subject parcels. Because the City surrounds the Walnut
Island area, the proposed annexation will facilitate more orderly provision of public services than is
currently the case and will eliminate confusion regarding service providers in this area.
If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by
Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be
the primary criterion for approval;
The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries.
Consistency with other applicable criteria under state and local law.
Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report.
SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Engineering, Public Works, Police, and Water Departments have all reviewed this
proposal and have offered no comments or objections.
SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
The Metro Area Boundary Commission, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Unified Sewerage
Agency, Columbia Cable, Metro Area Communications, TCI, Tualatin Valley Water District, PGE, NW
Natural Gas, US West Communications, GTE, and Washington County have had the opportunity to
review the proposal and have offered no objections.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS INDICATED ABOVE, PLANNING STAFF
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATIONS
(ZCA) 1999-00006 through 1999-00020 - WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS.
January 31, 2000
PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Hajduk DATE
Associate Planner
i
a
i
i
January 31. 2000
APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff DATE
s Planning Manager
is\curplnVulia\annex\wainut\staff report.doc
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 4
ZCA 99-00006-ZCA 99-00020 WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION 202000 PUBLIC HEARING
111111E IN 111111IM111 pill
William Monahan
City Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd. RECEIVED C.U.T.
Tigard Oregon, 97223 h1ov 2 91999
Mr. Monahan,
attended both of your annexation meetings in October. I would like you to forward
to the City Council our desire to be annexed into the city of Tigard. I was impressed
with the city employees at the meeting, and that you had answers for our concerns.
Thank you,
Roo
Rod and Anita Olsen
10540 SW Errol St
Tigard Oregon, 97223
BiII Monahan - Re: Walnut Island annexation Page 1
From: Bill Monahan
To: "KLZ97@aoi.com".GWIA.COT_D0
Date: 1127/00 12:34PM
Subject: Re: Walnut Island annexation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman,
Thank you for your note regarding annexation. I will make sure that your comments are included in the
record before the City Council at the meeting on February 8.
I hope that the information that we have provided to you has been helpful. This proposal has been
discussed many times and there are many ways to look at the pros and cons (both for the property owner
and the City). I believe that more residents of the Walnut Island than ever agree with your point of view.
Best wishes,
Bill Monahan
Bill Monahan
City Manager
(503) 639-4171, ext 306
bill@ci.tigard.or.us
<KLZ97@aol.com> 01/27/00 07:40AM
My husband and I have lived in the Walnut Is area for 22 years. At one time
we opposed annexation. Now, however, we wish to be annexed. The main
reason, of course, is on going problems in the area with septic tanks. We
have had problems from time to time with ours, especially with so much rain.
Our neighbors have problems with their systems. Secondly, it just seems
fair that we pay our share in Tigard taxes when we use all the Tigard
resources: eg police and library. While it may be true we now have access
to such services without addl taxation, it's not fair to those who do pay
the Tigard taxes. In any case, it's just plain time to put us out of our
misery! Annex this area PLEASE and quit talking about it. Kathy and
Lin Zimmerman, 11990 SW Rose Vista DR, Tigard.
INNER
RECEIVED G.O.I.
November 22, 1999 NOV 2 91999 ,
Bill Monaghan, City Manager
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: ANNEXATION OF WALNUT ISLAND
At one of the recent meetings regarding the above mentioned annexation
we, the property owners, were encouraged to express our views as to the
annexation.
My husband and I have owned my present home for over 29 years, and have
also owned property on Greenburg Rd., which is included in the City of
Tigard. It has been my experience that we received prompt and efficient
service from Washington County, and have no reason to be included in the
City of Tigard. I am, therefore, quite unhappy over the prospect of
being forcibly annexed into the city. I fail to see the benefit of
paying more taxes for less service, and the added cost of running a
sewer line to my property. Howard Drive has been adequately maintained
by Washington County, and our experience with the Sheriff's office has
been satisfactory.
Please accept this letter as my vote against annexation.
Joan M. Holmes
13050 S.W. Howard Dr.
Tigard, OR 97223
Phone 590-5558
RECEIVED c,o,%
NOV 131999
-Ta
lisle q~e !.v ~f~~t Op ~o S ~f °-l
4 i9 /1 ~xcZ 7~[O~ IA /
ifu'~ ~ .Sl 4,16 t
Coir•,~ C lose, 7~0 >ez rie~ hsn 7``ie /roc r~asect~
c7 e .f Qn ~CSr~ e3.lr cen e t b Ccli~ /.a c h~ ,,,C~S l diz .
P.e o" le, l e- 6" 40,
Z e c,q.u f e e 7;r- / f.S r #A/ <-I k'O r K- • % 6 ~ /--e c 4an 7["
de Ue.~v Pn±an Q ro unc~ u.S ~ S e ve,-, 5 ~~a0/vl3canS jn -,~'ls1
Gi o/as J S ~Q ~cf~lf CG.n.es 4nG~ ~roalCS 7LLi
14-
l3 Y C-~t A n+ tnc~. ar~a~ /~i~e_ C~JJ/~-ln u7z- ~'S l~ nc~
Gt f-~{ C.vV i! I v/ o e , /pn 4V
lrc / ~vcds cl e
o u,~ Q -4-4Q-- QJ.e ck. see. K- il~~ -c. bird Aiv CAArAk
O a.i e r` C t ~-ce S le i~' e,<9 fie- Q~ c e
Uf- Lc keO c.tea9 0 AAS done- a- J6- o re,*tlinrt
/fS c. rc i na f Cl c',l2 cz C,~lt i I e.. h ~ f- S !o tA..s cif, c~ o cs.~n Q
~ .!n /i1Gre~tc.~ ~25 act ~ lC,eS D/~ ~n oA/~eyoflo~
~;~.t, : ~~<f a.~c Q ~ o Q tt1i~ ~-e✓ Q ~ f1z2 CLs►-ll~.~I
cS ~G T /"P SICI P2 Tf !y4 G~_ 7f C_ C,. L
kECEIVEU C.CU.I.
Date: Nov. 1$, 1999 NOV 18 1999
To: William A Monahan
From: Ronald R Wilson
13200 SW 121
Subj.: Walnut Island annexation
Having attended the workshops on the proposed annexation, I and my wife have
come to the conclusion that whatever benefits may result are outweighed by the costs to
us in the form of increased taxes and the expense of sewer installation. In other words,
we do not want to be annexed into the City of Tigard.
"MUM M111 1111NEW
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Division
DATE: February 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Definition of Necessary Party & Appeal procedures related to the Walnut Island
annexation
A question has arisen regarding what constitutes a "necessary party" in an annexation. The
question, specifically, is the definition as per applicable Metro code in the annexation process.
According to Metro Code 3.09 Local Government Changes, a "necessary party" is defined as the
following:
"...any county, city or district whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area includes
any part of the affected territory or who provides any urban service to any portion of the affected
territory, Metro, and any other unit of local government, as defined in ORS 190.003, that is party to
any agreement for provision of an urban service to the affected territory."
In the case of the Walnut Island annexation the following districts/agencies would be considered
necessary parties: Washington County, USA, Portland General Electric, Tigard Water District,
Bonneville Power Administration, Tigard/Tualatin School District, Metro Area Communications, NW
Natural Gas Company, TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Tri-Met, US West Communications and
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.
The following are the legal procedures most likely to be used by individuals to challenge the City's
decision:
Walnut Island residents or City residents who are a party to the procedure could appeal the
land use aspects of the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The land use aspects of
I the annexation decision would include the change in zoning or withdrawal from the districts
(Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District). A LUBA appeal would not stop the annexation. `
® Walnut Island residents or City residents who are a party to the procedure could take this
decision to Circuit Court for a writ of review to appeal the quasi-judicial decision. The court
would then review the record to determine if the decision was consistent with applicable law by
reviewing the evidence in the record. Filing for a writ of review in the courts does not stop the
annexation. The annexation could be stopped if a judge's order or if the courts reverse the
annexation; therefore, the annexation is valid unless one of these two actions occur.
Tigard residents only could refer the Walnut Island annexation to Tigard voters. No referendum
process exists for Walnut Island residents. To refer this ordinance to the ballot, signatures from
10% of registered Tigard voters would need to be collected. That exact number required would
be determined at the time the prospective referendum is filed. The required number of
signatures would have to be collected by no later than the 30th day after adoption of ordinance,
which would be March 9th if the ordinance is adopted on February 8th. The prospective
petitioner would have to get the forms from the City elections officer and the City attorney drafts
the ballot title within five days of being notified by the City elections officer. The referendum
procedure exists for any ordinance the City approves and it applies to each ordinance. To
reverse the entire Walnut Island annexation, all 15 ordinances would have to be placed on the
ballot; therefore, 15 separate petitions would require signatures of 10% registered voters or
approximately 2,125 voters who reside in Tigard. The last special election in Tigard cost
$11,772.00.
• The City would receive tax revenue from the Walnut Island area residents, so long as the
County Tax assessor is notified of the annexation before March 31st of 2000. The annexation
is considered valid, unless it reversed.
Metro has no role in an appeal process, unless the appeal involves an appeal by a service
district or another jurisdiction. Under the Metro rules, an annexation would not be final if a
district or another jurisdiction appeals the annexation to Metro. City staff submitted the Walnut
Island annexation proposals to the following agencies for review: Tigard Water District,
Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads
Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington
County Vector Control District. These agencies either said they had no comment, or did not
provide comments.
I:UrplnUaurieWecessary parties.doe
r ,
Pagel of 3
Subject: Walnut Island Annexation
From: Perry Hutchinson
I have several comments and questions regarding Tom Brian's letter of perry@pluto.rain.com
1/4/2000 concerning possible annexation of the Walnut area to Tigard. To: Bill Monahan
I am sending this message to both the city and the county, and inviting bill@ci.tigard.or.us
response from both, since their perspectives on the issues may differ. Date: February 7, 2000
The message is organized according to the sections in the letter, and
the order does not signify the relative importance of the issues raised.
The overall impression I get from the letter is that the county favors
annexation of the entire Walnut island in the near future. I am
frankly not yet convinced that this would be beneficial either to the Item No. 4
city or to the residents of the island. In particular, I expect that February 8, 2000
both the city and the island residents would benefit by annexing only
a part of the island at any one time, and only when the residents of
the part being annexed are ready to support such action.
Building Inspection and Land Development
I do not see why this topic was even included. As noted therein,
these services are already being provided by the city, under contract.
Presumably the city would continue to provide these services were the
area to be annexed. Thus it seems to me that building services are
irrelevant to the question of annexation. However, the described
method of contracting services via intergovernmental agreement
may provide a useful model for handling other county services in
unincorporated urbanized areas.
Local Planning
Much of the Walnut island is already developed, and is therefore
unlikely to need further planning services. If such services are
needed for some parts of the Walnut island, that may be a reason to
annex those parts, although an intergovernmental agreement could be set
up instead. (Funding should not be an issue, since planning should be
paid for by fees assessed on the new development being planned for.)
In any event, planning does not seem like a good reason to annex the
already-developed parts unless increased density or other redevelopment
i is anticipated.
Neighborhood traffic management
Based on recent experience in the neighborhood of 79th St., I am
concerned that the city may tend to pursue its own agenda rather than
honor neighborhood preferences regarding traffic management. As long
as the Walnut island remains unincorporated, this kind of issue will
presumably not arise.
Zoning and code enforcement
Is there reason to believe that the current service level is inadequate?
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00001.HTM 2/8/00
WNW I MIN- 1
Page 2 of 3
Police Response
These two sections fail to mention that Walnut island residents are
already paying for an urban level of police patrol through the Enhanced
Sheriffs Patrol (ESP) district.
Eased on the county's level of service, the Walnut island's estimated
population of 1098 [1] should be sufficient to justify assigning an
ESP deputy to it. Given the proximity of the island to Tigard patrol
areas, it might make sense for this deputy to be based at the Tigard
police station and to operate as a Tigard officer the most sensible
arrangement of patrol assignments does not necessarily follow municipal
boundaries. Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, ESP revenues could
be used to fund a Tigard police officer through an intergovernmental
agreement.
[1] This estimate is from the city planning department.
I was unable to get an estimate from the county.
Emergency Police Response
If the above suggestion for integration between ESP and Tigard Police
operations cannot be implemented, there should at least be some sharing
of ESP revenues with the Tigard Police Department to cover its expenses
in providing emergency response. This matter should be addressed
forthwith by an intergovernmental agreement. It should not depend
upon, nor have to wait for, annexation.
Road Maintenance
The letter acknowledges that Walnut island residents are already paying
for this through the Urban Road Maintenance district. Will annexation
return enough additional gas tax to make up for the loss of URM
revenues in annexed areas? If not, annexation will reduce rather
than increase the total road maintenance funds available. This
would adversely impact the city by increasing road maintenance
needs disproportionately to the increase in funding.
Road Construction
The county assesses a Traffic Impact Fee on new development to pay for
road improvements needed to handle the increased traffic resulting from
the development. The last I heard, this fee was being assessed at only
21 % of the estimated impact. Additional road capacity is needed only
to handle increased traffic resulting from new development, so the
percentage should be increased if more road constriction funds are
needed.
Sewer Service
file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOO 1.HTM 2/8/00 IBM=
Page 3 of 3
According to a recent communication from the city, there is a one-
year deadline from annexation to project commitment if reimbursement
funds are to be used. If the entire Walnut island were annexed at
the same time, it is virtually certain that there would not be enough
reimbursement funds available to sewer the entire area within one
year. The parts not funded in that first year would be permanently
cut off from this important funding mechanism. This is one reason for
my earlier assertion that both the city and the island residents would
benefit by annexing only a part of the island at any one time.
Septic systems seem to have been adequate for the existing density of
this area for quite a few years. Is there any particular reason to
think that this situation will change absent increases in density?
Any parts of the Walnut island which seek to increase their existing .
density should probably be annexed, primarily for improved planning
services, and the developers can pay for the sewers. Those parts
which do not seek increased density do not need to be annexed, and
should be left alone.
In any event, it seems clear that annexation per se is not going to
make sewer service available: my next door neighbor has been in the
city for many years, but there is no sewer line close enough to make
hooking up economically feasible.
The County's Long Term Role
Voters in the unincorporated urbanized parts of Washington County,
including the Walnut island, have shown by their support of the ESP and
URM districts, as well as the cooperative library service, that they
are willing to fund specific urban needs which exceed the basic county
services provided in rural areas. Similar mechanisms could be used to
fund any other urban-oriented services which may be needed.
Should the county prefer not to provide such services itself, the
implementation can be delegated to the city or another suitable
provider once funding is obtained. The current building services
contract provides a model for this sort of arrangement.
file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOO l .HTM 2/8/00
N~Mw
MAPS - WALNUT ISLANDS
PROPOSED
ANNEXATIONS
TO BE CONSIDERED
2/B/00 BY THE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
RMATION SYSTEM
INFO
< ut Island
7Wa
Area 1
Ei
RR Legend
x - _ Urban Servkes Boudedes
r Ci
Walro Island Arm
st
i rr
T
m Z r h
Y F
t i - ~ .4'Z r ;r
C yI '
i{ L t~ • rte},.
g ~ri' S » !i z
NI ;r4 T
r`'•; tip. 0 400 630 1200 Feat
5
1'= 600 feel
O
sw[NYinE$T City offigad
~ t
InSxmetlon on 64a map is for generd location only and
TVZ F ehlsAd be verHkd M1tlt the Devalopn+ent Bervlces DWlsion.
13125 SW HON BWd
Tigard, OR 97723
(503)639.4171
ld1p•JAYww.d.6gerd.or.us
rommilnity (lpvalnnmant
Walnut Island Area i
1/14!00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
MS, PAUL T/PATRICIA 11865 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3800
Pd, ELIZABETH A & STEVEN P 12540 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0900
WEN, STEVEN P & ELIZABETH A 12540 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0901
ARELLANO, SALVADOR A & MARIA 13135 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00205
AVOLIO, MARGARET E 11855 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02800
BACHOFNER, JEFFREY L AND 12325 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01200
BALDWIN, JAMES RONALD JR. 11675 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO4300
BAUER, KATHRYN E TRUSTEE 13155 SW 124TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03500
BEATY, NORMA A 12170 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02200
BECKER, GORDON S AND 12905 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01700
BERGQUIST, R KELLY 12660 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO1300
BERGSTROM, EDWARD A 12165 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02600
BERINGER, BRIAN J & ANN L 12290 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04100
BETTENCOURT, RICHARD ELLIS & 13240 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00303
BIEHL, PHILIP D & LINDA M 11940 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2700
BLEDSOE, ROBERT C & CAROLYN S 11800 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0300
BOLEN, RICHARD L & GERALDINE L 12185 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BB07000
BOOTH, DAVID & MARY P 11865 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00800
BORST, DONNA S 12150 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02300
BOYTE, HOWARD W 11560 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CA00208
BRAK, EDITH A 11850 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0400
BRANCH, ELDON R DORIS E 13185 SW 115TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CAOOIOI
BREITENSTEIN, ROBERT W JR. & 12525 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BCOOIOO
BRIEN, KENNETH G & 12060 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030002100
BRIGGS, STEPHEN W & ELLA F 13110 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00211
BRONSON, THOMAS E & BRENDA J T 12325 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02400
BRUMLEY, SCOTT B & JANINE K 12045 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2S 1030000900
BRUNO, RICHARD J JANET A 11815 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BDO4001
HOLZ, KARL PAUL JR 12120 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02700
Y, LAURA E TRUSTEE 12745 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01400
C LAWAY, CAROL W 13140 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00212
CALLAWAY, KEVIN JOHN & LORI F 13345 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CAOIOOI
CAMERON, DONNA IRENE 12490 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC04000
CAPPOEN, RAYMOND J 11710 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0200
CARLTON, MARK M AND 12600 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD03900
CHING-HOSKINS, BARBARA Y & 13205 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02400
CLARK, OSCAR H & DELORIS L TRS 11800 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2400
COLLINS, KEVIN A 12225 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02800
COPELAND, MAUREEN T (TERRI) 11805 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2100
CRISTEA, LIVIU & VIOLETA 12295 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC06000
CROUCH, FRED L & KARIN M 12220 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02000
DAHL, STEPHEN MARION S 12170 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04700
DANIEL, JAMES W 12025 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO1500
DANIELS, ROLLAND J 12200 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC00400
DAVIDSON, ROGER J AND 12315 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03100
DAVIS, JEFFREY L 13235 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02500
i DAWES, RICHARD C & LISA A 12205 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02000
DE SILVA, CONSTANCE JEAN 12780 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3000
i DEANGELO, STEPHEN T 13215 SW 124TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03700
DECKER, JAMES W & RUTH C 12195 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC05400
DELANO, NELLIE M 12185 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB02601
DEPAOLI, PETER JAMES & TONI-ANN 12235 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC05600
DIMM, ERIC JON & 11830 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00105
DOWNING, JOHN D & JANICE M TRS 12020 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2900
DOYLE, CAROLENE S 12135 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC05100
EDWARDS, WILLIAM M 13105 SW 115TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CAOOIOO
EMNELD, BRIAN L LINDA 12295 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CBOI 100
DONALD D 13760 SW 121 ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103CCO0600
E T, DONALD D DOROTHY P Tigard, OR 97223 2S 1030000700
1
MINIM=
Walnut Island Area 1
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
A/PAMELA S 13185 SW 124TR Tigard, OV 97223 19Th dZ10
FENNELL, DELBERT S 12355 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02500
AftTNER, WALLACE G & KELLI L 12330 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04000
H, PETER M & GINIA L 12330 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03400
FINSTAD, TERRANCE E 12065 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD01400
FITZPATRICK, WESLEY RUTH 12360 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01400
FL'EWELLYN, WILLIAM D & SUANNE 12180 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC00300
FOGO, JAMES E AND 11920 SW JAMES CT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02500
FOSTER, EUGENE P & VANESSA K 13085 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00206
FRANCE, JON E & KATHY K 11925 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97223 251030001300
FREDERICK, CHRISTOPHER J & 12240 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01900
FURUKAWA, MASAHIRO 11825 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00204
GAARDE, RICHARD J & DOROTHY A 11765 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00600
GAARDE, RICHARD J II AND 11825 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00700
GEIL, WILLIAM M 11840 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02100
GENTIS, STEVEN W 12175 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01900
GIBB, JESSE L SHERON M 13380 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA01500
GIBERT, JOHN A AND NANCY L 12215 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BC05500
GRIFFIN, CLAIRE R 11725 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD04200
GROSSE, E R E F 12185 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00500
HAHN, DOUGLAS K & KATHLEEN A 12220 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC00700
HALL, JOANNE P & 12175 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC05300
HARBOUR, KELLY 12475 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BB07100
HARRIS, RONALD C AND LILA S 12285 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB03I;
HAZARD, JOHN GERALD & 12040 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CC02000
HOLMES, DONALD W 13050 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00209
HOLMES, DONALD W & JOAN M 13080 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00210
HOOGENDAM, MAARTEN & JACOBA 13125 SW 115TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00104
HOYT, MILDRED L 13230 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00215
H FMAN, DAVID S & 12025 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CC0I 100
GVES, JACK D TR & 12580 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD0IOOI
ER, GEORGE JR. & VICKIE LYNN 13215 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103CA00202
HUTCHISON, PERRY C 11890 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00104
IADANZA, NICHOLAS E AND 11865 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD01900
ISAACSON, JAMES H GARLA E 12520 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AD04400
JAGOSH, JOHN 12145 SW JAMES ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00300
JEFFERS, WAYNE A & CAROL A 13170 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00213
JENOVICH, M GLYNN MAXINE 11525 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00200
JOHNSON, DAVID W 11835 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD02000
JOHNSON, DONALD R & CYNTHIA D 11970 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BD00600
JOHNSON, H DALE AND 12245 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02900
JOHNSON, WARREN A 11945 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD01700
JOHNSTONE, THOMAS H TRUSTEE 12275 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBOI000
JONES, PAUL AND RUTH WOOD Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00309
JONES, PAUL AND RUTH WOOD Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00310
JONES, PAUL AND RUTH WOOD Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00311
JONES, RICHARD W 12190 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04600
JORDAN, MICHAEL P & JENNIFER A 13260 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA0I I00
JULIANA, MICHAEL A AND JEANINE 12240 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03100
KARLSON, E J V I 11765 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD02200
KAWASAKI, NOBUO SHARON LE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD04000
KELLEY, ALTHEA R TR & 13745 SW 121 STAVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CC00300
KELLY, DANIEL D & MELODIE 12180 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02900
KELLY, JAMES F NANCY A 12385 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BC02600
KESSLER, MARGUERITE
E 12425 SW ALBERTA ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S103BC03800
KIRCHER, ROBERT B 12970 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BD03500
KLEIN, CHARLES H & 12065 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BA01003
K GHT, GREGORY S/PAMELA L 13870 SW 121STAVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CC02300
, WWILFERD & WANDA M 13265 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00700
PATSY Y TRUSTEE 12540 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD04100
LANCASTER, MICHAEL T AND 13035 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBOOIOO
2
Walnut Island Area 1
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
RIAN G AND 12000 SW DE ST 'Tigard, OV -37TIT- 2MUMUff00
LAPLANTE, FELIX F AND SALLY J 12145 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01800
WLN, JAMES G 11720 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00305
JOE JR. & JOANN 13065 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00200
LEE, RENEE LYNETTE 11590 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00109
LEWIS, EUGENE R 11885 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02700
LIEBL, THOMAS R AND BONNIE 11905 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S103BDO1800
LINDQUIST, MARVIN T & JACKI S 11565 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00300
LOEWER, STEPHEN J 12275 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC05800
LOFGREN, RICHARD W & PATRICIA M 11935 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3600
LONG, ROBERT LILLIAN J 11975 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA01001
LORENCE, WALTER P & DEBI D 12950 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD03301
LUCAS, DANIEL B & DOROTHY L 12335 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03200
MADDOX, CLIFFORD L AND 11900 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2600
MAKI, KENNETH E & 13910 SW 121 ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CCO2400
MALONE, THOMAS E 11985 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO1600
MAPES, L V JOYCE 13730 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030000200
MAY, WILLIAM A 13375 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00600
MCGOFFIN, JAMES L & G M 13235 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00201
MCMULLIN, EDWIN R & PHYLLIS M 11860 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02200
MCPHERSON, L,ORIN F/LAURA N 12055 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030000800
MENDE, MICHAEL J 11880 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00301
MICALLEF, RICO F 12255 SW TIPPITT PL Tigard, OR 97223 2S10313C05700
MIDDLETON, STEVEN WAYNE 12390 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03800
MILOS, MARK A & BRENDA S 12020 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00302
MODE, DEBRA KAY 11820 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00203
MOORE, GORDON H Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD04900
MORGAN, MICHAEL JOHN & 12000 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001800
MUNSON, KURT R AND JULIA H 12205 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02700
MURPHY, SHARON V 12470 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC04100
DOUGLAS E 12270 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03200
NMWEN, BICH LIEN THI 13350 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA01400
NICHOL, RICHARD E AND 11780 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00304
NIEMEYER, ROBERT H III & 13200 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00214
NIHILL, GERALD T & DEANNA LYN 11545 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00201
NIX, LOY CARL MARSHA A 12630 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO1200
NORMAN, JACK J JR AND 11930 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0602
NORRIS, LONNIE D AND 13300 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00500
NORSWORTHY, HOLLY 11660 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00306
NORTON, CLAYTON E 12210 SW MARION S'r Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04500
OCHSNER, MICHAEL A & JOYCE 11785 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO4101
OLIVER, CHARLES A/BETH M 12300 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2S103BC03300
OLSON, DENNIS D Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AD04200
OLSON, KENNETH & ELEANOR F 12730 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD03700
OLSON, NORRIS A Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD03800
OSGOOD, CHERYL & 12845 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01600
OTTERSON, JACK W/ESTHER M 13305 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CA00900
OTTING, JOHN H 12210 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03000
OWNBEY, DAVID LLOYD & PATRICIA 12230 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04400
PARKER, BENJAMIN J & KIMBERLY A 13305 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04800
PARKER, DANIAL D & E KELLY WRIG 11788 SW FONNER RD Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00300
PARSONS, JOE P MARLYNN 11 770 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00106
PATTISON, MATTHEW A & 11710 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00107
PEDERSEN, NORMAN LEROY & ALIC 12265 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02200
PETITT, THOMAS J 13400 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00603
PICKELL, HELEN C 11975 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001400
POLING, JAMES M & CAROLE J 13950 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CCO2500
POPENEY, DOROTHY TR 13660 SW 121ST Tig ;rd, OR 97223 2SI03C000100
P Y, MICHAEL R & 13320 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA01300
Q HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB12400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07000
3
Walnut Island Area I
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
QUA[LHUMM-TIGARD LLC igaT~, 01 ~ - - CBOMO
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06800
L HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06700
OL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06100
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB06000
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07100
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBI 1800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11900
QV 41L HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12000
W L HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB12100
HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB08800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB08200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB08100
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08000
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB07800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBI 1500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11300
i
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11200
~
i QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBI 1100
i QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CBI1000
i QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB10900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB11400
3 QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB08900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09000
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09100
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09200
HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09300
HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09500
4
Walnut Island Area t
1 / 14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
QUAIL HOLLO~✓-TIGARD LLC igar , 79Tl'E~ IST6 00
QUA-IL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09700
AMMIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09800
L HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB09900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBI000O
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI63CBIOIOO
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB12600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB10200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00400
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00300
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DAOI 100
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S104DA00200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA01200
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DAOOIOO
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00500
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00600
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00700
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2S 104DA00800
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DA00900
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04DAOI000
QUAIL HOLLOW-TIGARD LLC Tigard, OR 97223 2SIO40000200
RADFORD, MIRIAM B 12300 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CB01700
RAMIREZ, EDUARDO & LUCIA 12840 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3200
RASMUSSEN, WILBUR L 12365 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03300
EkCK, GEORGIA J 12795 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC01500
S, MICHAEL D AND NADINE K 11980 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2800
RALPH N 12340 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01500
RHONE, HENRY JR 11860 SW CARMEN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO2500
ROBNETT, KEITH A 12015 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001600
ROGERS, EUGENE P 11695 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00500
ROLL, WAYNE J DEMETRA T 13830 5W 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030002200
ROSHAK, ANTONE/MARY M 12420 SW ALBERTA ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03700
SCHMIDTMANN, BRANDT& KAREN 12215 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00600
SCHMIDTMANN, BRANDT & KAREN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00501
SCHUN, KARL E ELLEN 11900 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CA02400
SCOTT, BLAKE J 12260 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CBOISOO
SELNER, JOHN JOSEPH & MAXINI? EL 12280 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01701
SETNIKER, JOHN WILLIAM 11830 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBA02000
SEVERSON, EVERETT O Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD04300
SHULTS, MITCHELL. T/CARLA 1' 13030 SW 115TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03DBOOIOO
SITZMAN, DEANE D/ANNA L 12235 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02100
SJULIN, JAMES M AND 13360 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00602
SMITH, GENE F MARY E 12015 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001200
SMITH, HOPE Y 12005 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001500
SMITH, NANCY SELINA 12630 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AD03802
SMITH, SANDRA T Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3100
SMITH, SANDRA T Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3900
SMITH, SANDRA T 12880 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3300
SPANGLER, JAMES 11 & KAREN 1. 13270 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00400
SPANGLER, JAMES 11 & KAREN 1. 13285 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00800
SPENCER, STEVEN W AND MARVIS J 13620 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CDO4100
SPRAGUE, MICHAEL M 11650 SW ANN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00108
j WEDLEY, NKE, BENJAMIN M 12165 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00400
LYNN 1 12920 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3400
NS, JAMES 11 AND LYNN N 12605 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03B000600
STINSON, JAMES C AND CIERIS 11905 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02600
5
Walnut Island Area 1
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
STOVER, LAWR NCE W & SHARON A 12155 SW TrPPM PL igar , MrMc o
ST NDING, EDWARD MARIANN 12150 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02800
WD, RICHARD 11880 SW JAMES CT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02300
R, KRISTEN E 12355 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01300
TEDDER, JAMES O 13290 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2S103CAO1200
THORIN, G KARIN 12190 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB02100
TIBBETS, KATHLEEN M & Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00800
TIBBETS, KATHLEEN M & 12235 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00700
TRIGG, CHARLES L 12570 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AD04000
TUCKER, ANTHONY K AND 13470 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA01800
TURNER, JEFFREY VERN 12390 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03600
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA N A 11625 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BA00401
VAN THIEL, TOM 12360 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC03500
VANGOETHEM, EDITH TRUSTEE 12295 SW ALBERTA AVEN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BC02300
VELONI, RONALD R. 13590 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CDO4200
VENEZIO, BONNIE J 12020 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0700
VENTURE PROPERTIES, INC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB05300
VOPAT, ROBERTA 11905 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO3700
VRVILO, WANDA 1 12565 SW 121STAVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03B000200
WALKER, MARILYS 12320 SW JAMES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB01600
WEEKS, JACK A ELIZABETH E 13465 SW HOWARD DR Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00601
WHEELON, DEAN CLIFFORD 13460 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA02000
WILHELM, MICHAEL W TRUSTEE 13085 SW 124TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB00900
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL R 12250 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04300
WILLIAMS, PETER ERNEST 13430 SW 121ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA01900
WILSON, RONALD R DIANE M 13200 SW 121 ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03CA00307
WILSON, SHIRLEY 1 12360 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03900
WINKELMAN, ELIZABETH G 12265 SW MARION Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB03000
WISER, KENT C & BRENDA D 12020 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI030001900
W OD, ROLAND R. 12070 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO0800
W LEY, MICHAEL & CASSANDRA 11590 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CA00207
H, NORMA J & 12270 SW MARION ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03CB04200
YARNELL, ROBERT ROSS 12695 SW 121ST AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03BC06100
ZIMMERMAN, LIN A 11990 SW ROSE VIST Tigard, OR 97223 2S1030001700
ZUBER, JOHN H 13125 SW 124TH Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103CB03400
1
i
i
i
3
Aggftk
Al~
6
tc~
r srs
o~ooa~~w~c lot oawas~ow
Y STS ~~n~~~ %land
moon
Arga 2
OAw"'~ ~ gnd
4 1-~g
Wd~ ~ Ptao
2
Q
N
7
W
a All
fee
u~
N P ~
y'~VBAM~ ~ ! ~ t,~,wpted
d
a+v
N °"s1~sW"a~
s*) a. w
QP
r
N
■
Walnut Island Area 2
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
TMANN, KENNETH E 11305 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00404
ARRETT, BRUCE E 11105 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02700
BEEBE, ALLEN D AND KUNIE 10805 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00102
BENNETT, JERRY A 11345 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S103AB00800
BLAKELY, JERRY C 10720 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI02BC02100
BLANCHARD, CARL V JR AND 10690 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S102BC02000
BLAZER HOMES, INC Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC06000 j
BOSWELL, WILLIAM R & 11070 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00503
BOYD, H DEWITTE 11070 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO1201
BRADFORD, ERIC S G & DANICA M 10855 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00600
BRISLIN, JOSEPH A AND Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00405
BRISLIN, JOSEPH A AND 10935 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00403
BROOKS, W SHARKEY & MELINDA A 11220 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03A000502
BUBLITZ, RUDOLF F 10855 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01401
BURK, RICK R 12687 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05500
CAMPBELL, BARBARA J 11400 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO2600
CARPENTER, DELINA 12435 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO1400
CHAMBERS, JULIAN K & 10840 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00200
CLOUD, CLAUDIA G 11285 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00403
CONNELL, JAMES J 12731 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05300
DAHLEN, MARK S & 12775 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05100
DAILY, THOMAS C III & CINDY E 10705 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2S103AD00107
DOMINGUEZ, EUTIQUIO & EVELIA 10725 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00105
DUNG, KEVIN K Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03A000204
ELSNER, IVAN EDITH 12520 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC03100
EMME, LARRY M 11215 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03A000600
ERICKSON, GEORGE W JR 11175 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01504
ERWERT, MARK A & DEBRA K 11380 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO2500
CKLER, EDWARD D AND COLENE K 11030 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2S103AA00801
NCHER, JOHN CARL & LOUISE M TR 10765 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00103
FLEMING, DAVID L 11227 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01401
FRANK, CRAIG E & LORI A 12797 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05000
FRANTZ, DOUGLAS R & JANICE J 11110 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00506
GARNER, DANNY A & KAREN E 12753 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05200
GEORGE, F WAYNE & 11020 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103AD00505
GOOSELAW, CORNELIA 10940 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00407
HAMMONS, ALICE M NOW MILES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00300
HARVEY, DON A JEANETTE E 12440 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO1300
HELLHAKE, FRANK J & 12709 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05400
HOBBS, RONALD E AND JUNE E 11235 S.W. FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01400
HUKE, CHRISTOPHER J 10960 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00404
HUKE, STEVEN C & 10980 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103AD00400
HUMBOLT CREEK ESTATES OWNERS OF Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05900
JOHNSON, MICHAEL B & VALERIE L 12525 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC03300
KAHN, STEPHEN M AND ANN L 11100 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2S103ABOI 100
i KERNAN, WAYNE L 10905 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00402
KURTZ, CONNIE 10915 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01200
LEHMAN, DONALD A & KATHLEEN M 10965 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01000
i LESAGE, PETER C AND ANN T 12495 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC03200
i LIDAY, GARRY & LOUISE A 12621 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05800
LINDBLOM, RUSSELL J JR 10780 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00100
LLOYD, RANDAHL B & ROLISE P 12570 SW 112TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S103AD00502
3 MCMICHAEL, FRANCES Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO2700
MEEKER, TIM JANE A 11180 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00507
MILES, ALICE M HAMMONS AND 10825 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00106
MONACO, NORMAN L & SUSAN A 12555 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03A000501
,dMYERS, THOMAS L AND Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00407
YERS, THOMAS L DIANE E 11325 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00401
NGUYEN, ANH-TUYET 10980 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01001
1
Walnut Island Area 2
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
OAK, RICRYT& BARBARA T 11245 SW FO ER Tigard, OR '97223- 2ST63ACOI 0
OLSEN, RODNEY L & ANITA E 10540 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00104
SON, RANDY S & NANCY 11015 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA00802
RISH, , FRED C & LORETA ARANT TR Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103A000900
PARISH, FRED C & LORETA ARANT TR 11385 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01200
PHAN, LANH THANH 10885 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01300
PIERCE, DARREN F & AMY J 11075 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02800
POLLOCK, DONALD E Tigard, OR 97223 2S I03AA01703
RABURN, BRIAN JAY & 11340 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO2400
ROGERS, ANDREW D & ANGEI.O D 11130 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB01000
ROGERS, THOMAS J & KRISTIN R 11045 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA00800
ROSCH, MERIDETH ANNE & 10775 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01704
ROUTON, CLYDE A 10915 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00406
RUDNICK, KATHLEEN P 11320 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03ABO2300
SAKHITAB, HOMA 10700 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2S102BC02003
SALING, WALTER ALLEN 12465 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02900
SANDERS, CURTIS L AND 12405 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00900
SAVAGE, FRANKLIN WILLIAM 10825 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA01400
SEVCIK, FRANK E JOAN L 10880 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00401
SHIPLEY, LANE A & LUCY A 12665 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2S103AC05600
SHRUM, JULIE MARIE Tigard, OR 97223 2S 103A000202
SMITH, GARY C & ANNE H 11275 SW WALNUT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AB00406
STEPHENS, JAMES F & GAIL. OLSON Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03A000203
THOMPSON, WAYNE 12480 SW 112TH Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC03000
TUMA, DALE A/LINDA J 11000 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AA00900
VOORHEES, JOHN J Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01501
VOORHEES, JOHN J 11145 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01502
WEINRAUCH, WILHELM A AND 10920 SW ERROL ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00409
WISNER, LEONARD P & KATHLEEN L 12643 SW 113TH PL Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC05700
Aft
i
i
i
i
i
3
Adft
22
to
0
0
3
SW 113TH PL
t
}act u. U~4 ~'x
to C r~ ~ k A
n
tl *la"[tM",.e~'•Lt 4 ply.
go ink
x ~~i°~~~9~yt~'1j 1 ,fit
~F~}1,14'•
td!
V
S 4i
v
8 w
0
s Ike, S m _
H
Walnut Island Area 3
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TA%LOT ID
OSS, JOHN H & ELIZABETH 11130 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01600
RRIGAN, MICHAEL B/JEAN M 11090 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AD00801
ETCALF, JESSE C & RUTH G 11200 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01800
MORTENSEN, COLIN N 11160 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01701
ROGERS, PAUL 11230 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01900
1
i
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Walnut island
r Area 4
Legend
a
= uew Sm*-
l ST M M
r. WSIIWI latend AreS
r 4
vJ
- r ia:fep~;{j4~
t~
4
D
07 F'
Y
M
too zoo 300
r-soorosl
NO "0
2 DfT
Gannua
Sovsm
ojd be YerMkd~GIS =
W25 SW MEW
TV; OR 97713
(503) 14
httpJhwnv.dtlgerda.us
Community Development
Walnut Island Area 4
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
A"PRNIN, BRYAN P AND JULIE 11465 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC01100
LEI;, DAVID E & MARY C 11500 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02400
HOLMES, ROBERT W 11400 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02200
QUIMBY, ELEANOR N & EARL 11480 SW FONNER Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03AC02300
i
N
1
Y
Tt~K 8Y6TEM
6EOpF~►M1C
almst Island
~ W
cn prey 5
Legend
M
r ws~n+stK~ rues
S'T
f
n
~Pot
20
~dy a~'Ci&~ a+Y
nepyta9 d°`t
~tA
I trGac~~pi°,~t,tlsor+~~
drxWb° t3 oFt 97223
(31gi9l171
~p1Ner~si'tl9~'at
Cr
Walnut Island Area 5
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
-AKAITH, WILLIAM L 11565 SW FONNER ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI03BDO4401
i
i
a
3
1
iiiiiiiiiii I Ili MEIN
OEOORI~INIC INf ORMRT,ON SYStEM
alnut Island
®v~ p~raa 6
vl~~
,legend
r ~
6
vIE gM0U
T
y
n
3W Fid
lOD 2m
d
1..200
t':ttY ort~t~
wo'.410,A
trdon~°'" Bw
yevedlbd 13123?
.Mo. OR STW
Irk
Walnut Island Area 6
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
GNER, MICHAEL A & DON 14070 SW 114TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOABO1600
Aft
i
i
3
1
f
~ rslew
~fC~yA110H 0
~ ~ aEQ6RAlH1C IM
u Y y'~"" Island
Y vy almsL7
vI~CWNI~UN Area 7
F--
S i egey'I
P
t
V~1M~UNT
vl~.
yE
AM
M
2W
i00
d O Uo
~caa~" vAS+ gtd
4 p~.a~ ~'gttNib
strA►~ 13115 972
(A31~171aru4 i~
~JtMMM
Q CT
r
Walnut Island Area 7
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
DAPP, ELDON J JUDITH L 11460 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2S110AB04100
EY, NEIL EIDON14A M 11480 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2S110ABO4200
n
N
AML
I
` IRRORNATIOH ►T►TEM
OEOORA►HIC
Walnut Island
Area 8
VIEWout~T
r Legend
r
C3
w.kwt lae►
8
i
i
ri
zoo r-ad
0 10D
742001W
O C!
C►n of Ti~
ay«d
mv1f'6wrslJl7M~a
I MIN-111
COMMURAY Cevelopment mmom-
Walnut Island Area 8
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
LARK, DARREL & DEBORAH 14100 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBA00400
1
e 8 0
F-
00 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ISYSTEY
r VIEWfVfOUNl`
Walnut Island
Area 9
Legend
Sorvkft WIN do (a
W&hA IsMM Arm
~B
O CT A,
0 100 200 000 Feet
7'• 200 w
City orriswd ai
kiamm5m m ft Rep k for yal I bcadm oliy cld
WfoA be w kW w0h ft DoWWrod SwAm MiWom
}0125 SW !M SW
T1pm4, OR RM
(503) M4171
MqpJA~.c.4grd.orim
rnmmllnifii tlnvolnnman}
.k ty -
Walnut Island Area 9
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
LLER, CARL T 14190 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2S110BA00600
i
i
a~
i
1
s
LL' 171.U1U11 i O.L Ell r
i
. -r
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Walnut Island
Area 10
Legend
VI M Urbw SWAM BoudMtes
W*0 ftWM Aron
M10
L- GAA DE 1
f
Ila
0 too 200 300 Aid
1*- 200 feat
o C, City ofTipid
trdammtlon Cn "6 MW 1 S fG, ge - * 1 8 ady.,a
0aA be.e rW Rk91AS QtNe Wmart SeMOa WSJ=
13125 SW Hal BW
71gmd.OR 97713
(503)8394177
z F-1 Id~1/wMw.cl.bWda.Gf
Communitv Deveionment
10111 MINIM
Walnut Island Area 10
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID ,
,MELWDERSON, ERIK F/JILL C 14105 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBAO1200
DERSON, KAREN RAE TRUSTE 14225 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI 10BA00900
BRADSHAW, NICK A & 11720 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBA01400
HICKOK, WILLIAM H & SHARON 14185 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBAO1000
HURD, SUSAN J • 14145 SW 117TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI 10BA01100
YOUNG, ROBERT W & HAZEL G 11770 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2SI IOBAO1300
AML
I
l
TEM
pE00a5PN~0 IMF pRM5T10M 5T5
1.~9end
C3
7
't
e
N
200
i00
0
is ail
316
~ylot~ e~ may,.
CT dbs ~ jA2S! g'Vp
~~g.41T1 Tqwa.
tdl~~
Y
e~
Walnut Island Area 11
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
RRY, THOMAS R 11746 SW GAARDE ST Tigard, OR 97224 2SI10BA01600
1
Sam
OEOOA"",c 1NfOANAt10% S.45
Walnut Island
Araa ~12
~ Leggy
Q
0 CT
o~
w
LU
Lu.
15. re
w BtgLL
VO Foo
a
SW
cotb
h wgn sw
ose 171
CT TOO.
SW
ii
Walnut Island Area 12 ~
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT IID
dMA SSELLE, COURTNEY DAME 12175 SW BULL MOUN Tigard, OR 97224 2S110B000100
WSSELLE, COURTNEY D 12175 SW BULL MOUN Tigard, OR 97224 2S110B000200
n
N
:'3
1riF00.4~C1041 8Y y1E4
~rjulD~3.l. 1 D l 6EOORAPritC
Q Walnut Island
Area 13
- P
t
SW CHANDLER DRllIE N Legend
LWW S00,0
a
13
r t0Y~ w
co C*T
0 10d V. ~20
1'' C►tY u~T~
ay ata
~p~kdh°vs 13125svi
TOV,LOft
tp ~p~tipru~
Ly,. ~
J
U.1 W
wainut Asians Area ls
1/14/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
OND, MILFORD L & SHERRI T 14335 SW 125TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AA00800
a
3
a
a
1
LL+' UIB1L1'1' Y 5'1'tuv
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Walnut Island
Area 14
CO CT
Legend
r ~
l)dmn Setvicee BolRdatfee
a "r
~ LL
LLLU Weird Island Nee
U
W
JIE < w
F-
-t y J
- - - - -
W
cslj~
i t
-TTT]
VI
f
0 100 200 300 Feet
1'• 200 feel
cT
C~ orr~a
Inf«meUm on Cis map is f« gw&W maw only and
ahmM be wified YdSI the DerMW-d S-i- DMlsk n
13125M Hal Blvd
O Ttpeld.OR 97223
(503) 6394171
. ~ htip'IMww.d.n9na.«.us
Community OPvalonment
11 7
Walnut Island Area 14
. mmmmmm
014/00
OWNER NAME SITE ADDRESS SITE CITY ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
RNHART, RICHARD L & NA 14620 SW 126TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00200
OWN, KEVIN R AND MARY 14505 SW 126TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00600
CRINO, ARTHUR D & SALLY J 14580 SW 126TH Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00300
HALL, ELIZABETH 12585 SW BULL MOUN Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00100
LARSON, STUART C 14540 SW 126TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00400
ROGERS, CHARLES A JR TRUS 14500 SW 126TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00500
STRICKLER, WILLARD J 12705 SW BULL MOUN Tigard, OR 97224 2S109AD00900'
TRAUTMAN, PAUL JR 14545 SW 126TH AVE Tigard, OR 97224 2SI09AD00700
1
C)
3
3
o
CD
0
SW 138TH AVE
N ;
(n oxn_
cn
r ~ G
SW 136TH Z
w r:k~. rr r.~
t a ~a k
le
w.. il. I # { •t . )~atT
0ENO.
' A~,
,`r. 7,1210%,-
1 ;t?~m-: 3 a 6~
t_. ~ 7~Kr"•: ~r ta~+-±~vi
35TH AVE
{ Sa i ~Jx~,,'CA 11 u
9 y°V 9.5 - ~ 6M wf
Yid, 4t r ~ V F+F7 ^-'`ILF'~~5~ } .i Tf' 'F b f
.~~~v t
MM
,-a cl cc L
c~
01 y
r A m
O. -sue
N ~c3j~s C3'1 _
N ry• O
o N >
m
C
a ki
i
Walnut Island Area 15
1/14100
OWNER NAME Si T E CITY SITE ADDRESS ZIPCODE TAXLOT ID
EXANDER, MARION & DOM 12645 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BD01000
ARI, DAVID J & FARIMAH A 13620 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO2300
BARNES, MARK E AND DERNA 12660 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC12800
BAXTER, BARRY FREDRICK A 12950 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC13400
BECKHAM, GARVE A & MARIL 12620 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12600
BERARDI, GERARD TRUSTEE 12985 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO2800
BUCKNAM, BRIAN & JULIE L 13530 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S104BDO2400
DEER POINTE OWNER OF LOT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12400
DEER POINTE OWNER OF LOT Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12300
DEER POINTE OWNERS OF LO Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC12500 :tho
HANSON, RUSSELL R & G RUT 13540 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO0900
HAVILAND, RANDALL AND 13625 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO1300
JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN 13535 SW WALNUT ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BD00100
KHALEGHI, GHASSEM AND 12780 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC13000
KVISTAD, RODERICK 13535 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BD01100
LAMORA, SHIRLEY A TR AND 13585 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S104BDO1200
MAGI, REIN 12905 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO2606
MAY, RICK V 12945 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO2700
MCGINLEY, KEITH A & CHERY 12640 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12700
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISH 13665 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2S104BDO1400
ROUSE, ALLEN V & MARTHA 12890 SW 135TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC13300
SALMONESE, JOSEPH & DARL 13553 SW DOE LN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC11800
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12720 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11000
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12740 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104ACI 1100
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12760 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11200
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12820 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC11300
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12800 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11400
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 12840 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11600
NTURE PROPERTIES INC 12860 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11500
NTURE PROPERTIES INC 12880 SW 134TH AVE Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11700
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 13377 SW DOE LN Tigard, OR 97223 2S104AC11900
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 13400 SW DOE LN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12200
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 13370 SW DOE LN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12100
VENTURE PROPERTIES INC 13350 SW DOE LN Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04AC12000
VIESTENZ, KERRY D & JANICE 13570 SW FERN ST Tigard, OR 97223 2SI04BDO2500
1
I
AGENDA ITEM # J~--
FOR AGENDA OF February_$, 2000
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Square Regional Center Decision
PREPARED BY: Laurie N. DEPT HEAD OK 410 i CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The issue before City Council is whether to adopt the Washington Square Regional Center Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This hearing will be part three of the three hearings regarding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
Staff and consultants presented the Washington Square Regional Center Plan to City Council at the December
15'h City Council meeting. Opportunity for public testimony was given at the January 25`h City Council
meeting.
At this meeting, staff will present rebuttal and answer questions raised at the January 25" City Council meeting.
Memos addressing issues brought up at the public hearings are attached.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1.) Council could deny the recommended plan, comprehensive plan amendments, and zoning ordinance.
2.) Council could modify and approve the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
3.) Council could adopt the plan.
4.) Council could approve the plan and delay implementation. The Planning Commission recommended
endorsing the plan and not adopting it until issues with implementation have been addressed. This especially
relates to facility improvements to support the proposed land use changes. Staff believes that these issues will
be addressed in the upcoming work on the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Grant. One of
i the primary tasks of this planning effort will be to perform the detailed level of analysis to address
i transportation improvements that is requested in the Planning Commission's motion.
i
3 VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
a 110011 mill
Crowth Management Goal #1 Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and
established areas; Strategy 3) Address planning and growth issues associated with the Regional Center.
Growth Management Goal #3 The City encourages and supports private sector programs to maintain diverse and
affordable housing; Strategy 4) Incorporate affordable housing policies into study of Downtown, Washington
Square Regional Center, and other mixed use areas.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
iAcitywide\2-8-00 Washington Square.sum.do►
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Division
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Issues
DATE: February 1, 2000
As indicated at the January 251n City Council meeting, staff will respond to questions
that had arisen during this meeting. We will also provide further information on general
issues that have been brought up throughout the public hearing process as part of our
rebuttal at the beginning of the hearing on February 8tn
Enclosed with this memo is additional information from Brenda Bernards, a staff planner
with Metro to answer questions of Metro and from Lidwien Rahman, TGM Grant
Manager with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the proposed
implementation grant.
Jere Retzer of the Tualatin Riverkeepers in his testimony indicated that "holes" existed
in the Tigard Development Code (TDC) as it relates to water resources. Standards for
protecting wetlands are applied throughout the City and our Safe Harbor standards
were accepted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Water
resource protection standards in the TDC were adopted to comply with Safe Harbor
standards. What Mr. Retzer characterizes as "holes" were intended to provide flexibility
in development standards while protecting wetlands by providing for variances when
the appropriate criteria can be met. These standards will be applied throughout the
City.
Additionally as of January 31, 2000, Title 3 water resource protection standards and,
through USA's design and construction standards are now in effect.
On several occasions, members of the public mentioned the Beaverton Round project
which is a public/private project funded by both developers and the City of Beaverton.
There is no proposal for the City of Tigard to be directly involved in funding
development projects in the Washington Square Regional Center. What is proposed in
the plan is to change the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Washington
Square Regional Center area to accommodate expected future growth in the area.
Questions have been raised regarding how improvements will be implemented. As is
the case for development in Tigard, staff applies the rough proportionality standard on
development projects. Development projects are evaluated in terms of what impacts
the development will create on facilities in rough proportion to conditions that will be
placed on development. The amount of infrastructure that will be funded-by private
development will depend on the type and intensity of development that occurs.
The Transportation Growth Management Grant (TGM) will perform planning for
transportation projects that are regional in scope. This grant, for example, will do
detailed planning on overcrossings over Highway 217, which are part of the proposed
transportation plan for the Washington Square Regional Center.
In response to concerns expressed by members of the pubic regarding the impact of
the plan on existing single-family neighborhoods, the Plan protects the Metzger
neighborhood. Enhancing the single-family character of the Metzger neighborhood
north of Locust Street is a major element of the Regional Center Plan. No changes to
the existing R-5 zoning are proposed, and the retention of Metzger School and play
fields is a high priority. The Task Force rejected Washington County's proposal to up-
zone this entire area to R-24, and to provide for the County's 600 unit housing
allocation in other areas of the Regional Center, primarily within the City of Tigard.
Further, the property owners support mixed-uses along Ash Creek. The Lincoln
Center-Ash Creek area south of Locust Street is proposed for mixed-use employment
and housing areas. All of the major property owners in this area participated on the
Task Force and support this recommendation. The employment and housing growth
targeted for this area assumed none of the wetlands and floodplain along Ash Creek
would be developed.
Concerns have been expressed about the lack of parks in the area. Neighborhood
parks are provided for in the plan. The plan calls for 8 acres of neighborhood parks
located in the Lincoln Center-Ash Creek area. Four additional acres of park and plazas
are planned for other areas in the Regional Center. Specific sites are not identified, but
upland areas were assumed for all park locations.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIOARD
TO: City Council
^,o
FROM: Nadine Smith
Long Range Planning Manager
DATE: January 31, 2000
SUBJECT: Attached Memo
Attached is a memo from Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner with Metro. We requested
that she respond to some of the issues that were brought up by the public that concerned Metro
and the 2040 planning process and Metro greenspace issues.
I
0 miss=
January 28, 2000
Prepared by: Brenda Bernards
Subject: Response to Metro-related issues raised at the January 25,
2000 Tigard City Council public hearing on the Washington
Square Regional Center
At the January 25, 2000 public hearing for the Washington Square Regional
Center, a number of Metro related issues were raised. These included the
designation of the area as a regional center, the redesignation of the Milwaukie
Regional Center to the Milwaukie Town Center, the assumptions made in the
September 1999 update to the Urban Growth Report and the acquisition by
Metro of property along Ash Creek. These issues are addressed below.
'I. Designation of Washington Square as a Regional Center
Regional Centers are a key element of Metro's growth management strategy.
The 2040 Growth Concept, adopted by Metro Council in 1995, provides a
general approach to where and how to accommodate future growth. The
majority of the growth will be directed to mixed-use areas including centers and
main streets.
The centers and main streets are compact areas of housing and employment in
close proximity to transit service. This compact development in a walkable
environment provides efficient access to goods and services and alternatives to
auto travel such as walking, bicycling and transit. The 2040 Growth Concept
provides a hierarchy of centers that are interrelated: the Central City, Regional
Centers and Town Centers.
There are seven Regional Centers on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. These
include the downtowns of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and Oregon City as
well as three large regional shopping areas, Clackamas Town Center, Gateway
and Washington Square. Regional centers act as major nodes along regional
transportation routes and serve hundreds of thousands of people and include
commercial, recreational, institutional, cultural, employment and residential uses.
Metro staff in consultation with local jurisdictions and citizens recommended that
the Washington Square area be designated as a regional center. This area had
many of the characteristics of a regional center. These included the local
government zoning in place, the intensity of existing development, and its size
and location in proximity to downtown Portland, Beaverton and Hillsboro. The
possibility of commuter rail and the consideration of the area as a potential light
rail corridor were also consistent with its regional center designation.
me=
The Washington Square area was included in the 2040 Growth Concept map
that was adopted by resolution by Metro Council in December 1994. The City
and County staff and planning commissions, the City Council and the County
Commissioners were aware of the regional center designation. Over the course
of 1995, many comments were received from local jurisdictions, citizens and
other interested groups that were affected by the 2040 Growth Concept. While
many changes were made to the original vision to respond to suggestions and
concerns, Metro received no requests to alter the Washington Square regional
center designation. The 2040 Growth Concept map was adopted by ordinance in
December 1995. Metro Council's decision was reached through consultation and
consensus with the citizens of the region and with its partners, the cities and
counties.
2. City of Milwaukie
Redesignation to Town Center
The City of Milwaukie was originally designated as a Regional Center on the
2040 Growth Concept. In 1999, the City requested and Metro Council granted a
change in designation from Regional Center to Town Center. Milwaukie
requested the change because it was concerned about the impact of a regional
center designation on the adjacent neighborhoods and the potential loss of the
small town feel in the downtown.
Milwaukie began the process of planning for its downtown in 1995 with the
Milwaukie Vision project. The project stated a vision for the City that included a
downtown with civic, commercial and cultural activities. The next step
undertaken was the Regional Center Master Plan study. The purpose of this
study was to establish the framework for the city center envisioned by the
Milwaukie Vision statement. A key component of this study was to determine if
Metro's regional center designation was appropriate for the Milwaukie downtown.
Milwaukie's target capacities for housing and employment are as follows:
City of Milwaukie City Wide Targets Mixed-Use Areas
Housing 3,514 2,571
Employment 7,478 6,444
Through the regional center planning undertaken between June 1996 and
October 1997, the City was able to plan capacity in the downtown to reach 69
percent of the mixed-use housing target and 33 percent of the mixed-use
employment target in the Metro Code. The City anticipates that the proposed
town center will include all of the redevelopment opportunity sites of the regional
center and the planned capacity will remain the same. Milwaukie is able to meet
its citywide housing targets. This indicates that, while the City meets the overall
target, the housing will be distributed more widely with less focus on the
downtown and at an intensity that may be more appropriate for a town center.
MIN OEM
Comparison of Town Centers and Regional Centers
Town Centers Regional Center
• 30 town centers • 7 regional centers
• serve a 2-3 mile radius • provides services of a regional
• provides day to day services primarily character
• can include "regional draw" activities • also provides day to day services for
but focus is on local shopping, employees and residents in the area
employment and recreational
opportunities
• emphasis on all modes of transport - • focus for regional transportation system
walking, bicycling and transit use are (roads, rail - cars, buses, light rail)
considered as important as car use • given priority for transportation
spending
• (all modes: cars, transit, walking,
bicycle
• third level of the hierarchy of centers • second level of the "hierarchy" of
• serves tens of thousands of people centers - the first level is the central
• at this time, there are 29 town centers city - downtown Portland - serving the
throughout the region entire Metro region
• generally located in areas of existing • regional centers serve hundreds of
commercial and residential thousands of people
development • limited in number
• development is more concentrated 6 concentrated focus of housing and
than surrounding employment opportunities
neighborhood/employment areas
• lower density and generally smaller in
area than regional centers
3. 1997 Urban Growth Report Update - September 1999
A number of speakers at the January 25, 2000 Tigard Council meeting referred
to the update of the 1997 Urban Growth Report (UGR) to demonstrate that Metro
does not require the area around Ash Creek to be upzoned. This is an incorrect
interpretation of the Urban Growth Report.
The purpose of the Urban Growth Report is to estimate a regional capacity and
need for housing. This estimation is required by the State to ensure that there is
sufficient capacity to accommodate a 20-year housing need. The Growth Report
was completed in 1997. An update was undertaken in 1999 to refresh the data
and assumptions of the Report. Cities and Counties in the region had made
substantial progress in compliance with the requirements of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan; density assumptions in the Report were updated
to reflect these changes.
-MINIIIIIIIIIIIIII SIEMENS
Zoning is a local responsibility. Now that Cities and Count,--s are in substantial
compliance with the 2040 Growth Concept for neighborhood densities, the
Report no longer assumes the need to upzone current densities because the
new zoning regulations recently adopted by Cities and Counties reflect the
necessary assumptions to accomplish 2040 Growth Concept goals.
However, because local compliance work is still incomplete in many of the
centers, the vacant buildable land in these regional and town centers still require
the additional step of upzoning. Until more jurisdictions come into compliance
with the Functional Plan through local code amendments, this step of assuming
up-zoning is necessary in the analysis of residential capacity for the UGR.
4. Metro Acquisition of Property Along Ash Creek
The property along Ash Creek in the southern end of the Regional Center is not
included in the target area in Metro's open spaces acquisition program. The
program objectives for the Fanno Creek area are to establish a continuous
greenway along the main stem of the river. Local jurisdictions and non-profit
groups are encouraged to participate in the protection and enhancement of the
tributaries of Fanno Creek. Metro has a challenge grant program for the
tributaries where a jurisdiction or non-profit group would have to provide a 25
percent match.
The Metro program is a "willing seller" program; that is, Metro cannot require an
owner to sell. In addition, when purchasing a property, Metro cannot exceed
market value. Discussions have been held between Metro staff and the property
owner on the possible purchase of this property. To date, the asking price for the
property cannot be met by Metro.
i:\gm\community_development`staff\bernards\Tigard\Nadine Smith.doc
Page 1 7 1
The TGM program has been asked to make a determination about eligibility of
funding the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Implementation grant even
if the City Council elects not to adopt some or all of the plan and zoning
map amendments recommended in the Plan. In essence, the City has asked for a
grant to implement the WSRC plan. Our understanding in committing to fund
this grant was and is that the Council supports and is prepared to adopt
that plan. If the Council decides not to adopt the plan, TGM is obligated
to reconsider whether the grant should proceed.
> The recommended Plan is a comprehensive plan which includes an overall
> Vision, Urban Design Concepts, Urban Design by District, Parks and Open
> Space recommendations, new land use districts, a parking strategy, and
> recommendations for implementation. City staff has prepared specific
> Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments to implement the recommended
> Plan. Provided Council adopt the majority of the Plan's recommendations,
> including the transportation recommendations and the new Mixed Use zones
> and associated development standards, and including plan/zone amendments
> for the majority of property in the planning area, the TGM program does
> not object to funding a follow-up grant to further implementation of the
> Plan's transportation recommendations. It has been our understanding that
> most of the transportation recommendations in the Plan would be prudent
> and necessary regardless of any changes in land use. We understand
> citizens' concern about approving any increase in density without
> assurance that the needed transportation improvements can be built, from a
> financial, environmental, and/or engineering standpoint. The follow-up
> grant is supposed to provide that assurance.
> At the same time, it has been the intent of the Regional Center Plan to
> reduce traffic by providing for a mix of uses in close proximity and at a
> density and design which can support transportation alternatives such as
> transit, carpooling, commuter rail, walking, and bicycling. Therefore, if
> Council were to defer adoption of the new mixed-use zones and development
> standards, and their application to a majority of parcels in the planning
> area, then this action would jeopardize receipt of the 1999-2001 TGM grant
> on the basis of failure to adopt the recommendations of the previous
> 1997-1999 grant. The Program acknowledges Council's responsibility to be
> responsive to the citizens of Tigard, and to make minor amendments to a
> staff and consultant proposal to reflect unique circumstances. However, if
> the deviation from the recommendations were such as to compromise the
> integrity of the Plan and the City's ability to comply with the Metro 2040
> growth targets, then such action would constitute ground to rescind the
> TGM grant.
> Lidwien Rahman
> TGM Grant Manager
> ODOT Region 1
> 1.23 NW Flankers
> Portland OR 97209
> phone: (503) 731-8229
> fax: (503)731-8259
> e-mail: lidwien.rahman@odot.state.or.us
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00005.HTM 2/1/00
mony
Testio
Received after
January 25, 2000
Public Hearing
Fann
Fans o
Volunteers dedicated to the restoration and protection of Fanno Creek and its tri but~o
~R ZppO
January 31, 2000 V0
1!t
To the Tigard City Council: 0001
Thank you for extending the comment period to submit new testimony regarding the
Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Fans of Fanno Creek has concerns regarding
the proposed Plan. While we are not opposed to meeting housing and employment
density goals as set forth in the Metro 2040 Plan, we are opposed to developing
floodplains and wetlands to meet those goals. Metro Executive Mike Burton has said in
writing that protecting floodplains and wetlands supercedes meeting density goals.
All the testimony provided in numerous meetings and staff reports indicate that
floodplains and wetlands are protected. The problem is that off-site mitigation can be
applied in every case and, unfortunately, off-site mitigation is becoming the rule rather
than the exception. USA recently announced that it is opening up more land at Fern Hill
Wetlands for mitigation purposes. It makes no sense whatsoever to fill floodplains and
wetlands in one watershed and dig a hole in the ground in some other watershed. When
we look at the remaining 30 plus acres of floodplain and wetland in the Plan study area,
the delineation's should be looked at as minimums, not maximums. We know for a fact
that flooding will increase in the years to come.
The proposed zoning/plan maps prepared for the Washington Square Regional Plan need
to clearly show that floodplains and wetlands are off limits to development. Healthy
communities need healthy watersheds. Please consider the attached documents. The first
document, currently in draft form, provides more evidence of the presence of salmon,
steelhead, and cutthroat in the Fanno Basin. "Fish Stories" will be updated on an annual
basis, as more information becomes available. The second document is a snapshot that
looks at how development in floodplains and wetlands will be reviewed through the
regulatory eyes of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
i
Thank you for your consideration of these issues,
David Drescher
President, Fans of Fanno Creek
AENLV
Fcru of
Post Consumer Contont non-profit 501 (c)(3) c gWBox 25U5 kc fi Pe d~ 97 8
"Fimsh Stories"
The Historical Occurrence
of Salmonids
Fanno Creek
A Report of
Fans of Fann® Creels
January 12, 2000
Researched and written by
' Joe Blowers
,
"PINNIM Mal
~g li lil 1Mj`*:` Fans of Fanno Creek
71
Volunteers dedicated to the restoration and protection of Fanno Creek and its tributaries
Fish Stories:
The Historical Occurrence
of Salmonids in Fanno Creek
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fans of Fanno Creek (Fans) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit group dedicated to protecting and preserving
Fanno Creek by encouraging citizen involvement in advocacy and watershed restoration projects.
Fans is in the third year of a major restoration project in Englewood Park with the City of Tigard and
the Unified Sewerage Agency, and been an active part of the community for almost ten years.
Fans commissioned this report in April 1999 and research was carried out between April and
November 1999. It is intended to be a working document, with subsequent editions, as new
information becomes available. The purpose of this report is to examine the historical habitat
conditions and the evidence for the occurrence of salmonid species in Fanno Creek and its tributaries.
Particular attention is given to steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki). Evidence was collected in the form of anecdotal stories, photographs, and memoirs.
Whenever possible, eyewitness accounts were collected. Accounts with relatively high levels of
certainty were documented and are listed in the report ('T'able 3). For accounts concerning steelhead,
interviewees were asked to submit a signed testimonial (Appendix B).
Before settlement, Fanno Creek was a pristine stream with high quality water. Much of its watershed
was old-growth Douglas fir forest. Beavers were common and wetlands were widespread. The creek
was prime habitat for cutthroat trout and other aquatic species. Heavy shade, undercut banks,
downed woody debris and numerous pools characterized the stream. In the upper tributaries, at least,
gravel beds were common. Farming and logging changed the character of much of the land between
1846 and the 1950's. Still, the stream was able to retain its spring-fed, trout-stream character well
into the 1950's. With urbanization, however, Fanno Creek lost many of the characteristics of good
aquatic habitat.
In spite of its problems, Fanno Creek has retained a population of salmonids. There is overwhelming
evidence for a reproducing population of cutthroat trout. There are at least five eyewitness accounts
of steelhead, several of which were undoubtedly native fish. It appears that a small population of
steelhead occurred naturally in Fanno Creek, at least into the 1950's. Since then there is little
evidence of successful spawning by steelhead, but the sighting of several steelhead, one of which had
spawned, indicates that the creek is capable of attracting some strays.
With protection of existing habitat, improvements in both water quality and quantity, and
enhancement of previously disturbed areas, it is possible that steelbead may once again spawn
successfully in Fanno Creek. In light of the recent ESA listing for steelhead and a potential listing for
cutthroat trout, Fanno Creek and its tributaries warrant full protection as critical habitat. We must
work to fully restore and protect Fanno Creek's native cutthroat trout and steelhead populations,
leaving future generations a creek much more healthy and full of life than the creek we inherited.
20'/e Post Consumer Content Fors of Fanno Creek P.o. Box 25835 Porflmd. OR 97225
A nonlDrort 501(c)(3) orga*crtion
Pill
FISH! STORIES TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. Introduction P. 1
SECTION 2. Methods Used p• 3
SECTION 3. Background Information on the Salmonid Species
Of the Fanno Creek Watershed pp. 4-6
3A. Steelhead p. 4
313. Cutthroat Trout P. 5
3C. Other Salmonid Species PP• 5-6
SECTION 4. Current Conditions in the Fanno Creek Watershed pp. 6-10
4A. The Habitat of Fanno Creek pp. 6-7
4B. Fish Populations in Fanno Creek pp. 7-9
4C. Water Quality and Flooding Issues pp. 9-10
SECTION 5. Historical Accounts of Habitat in the
Fanno Creek Watershed pp. 10-18
5A. Upper Fanno Creek and Its Tributaries p. 10
5B. Sylvan Creek and the Raleigh Hills Area p. 14
5C. Middle and Lower Fanno Creek
(including Hiteon Creek) pp. 14-16
5D. Ash Creek pp. 16-18
5E. Summer Creek P. 18
SECTION 6. Historical Accounts of Fish and other Aquatic Wildlife
In the Fanno Creek Watershed pp. 21-24
6A. Miscellaneous Species p. 21
613. Cutthroat Trout pp. 21-22
6C. Steelhead pp. 22-24
SECTION 7. Conclusion pp. 25
TABLES AND FIGURES:
Table 1: Informal Habitat Survey on Fanno, Vermont, & Woods Creeks p. 6
Table 2: Fish Collected in 1993-94 Fanno Creek Survey P. 8
Table 3: Fish Stories Interviewees and Pertinent Facts pp. 19-20
Figure 1: Map of the Fanno Creek Watershed p. 2
Figure 2: Pre-1919 View of Tualatin Valley p. 11
i Figure 3:1945 Aerial View of Upper Fanno Creek p. 12
Figure 4:1920's Panoramic View of Upper Fanno Creek p. 13
Figure 5:1945 View of Middle Fanno Creek p. 15
Figure 6:1930 View of Fanno Creek near Robinson, OR p. 17
Figure 7: Gene Dusevoir Holding Steelhead Found in Fanno Creek p. 24
APPENDICES:
A: Sample Incident Report
B: Steelhead Documentation
C: DEQ 1993 Waste Spill Report
D: References
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Fanno Creek is a major tributary of the Tualatin River in northwestern Oregon.
It flows south and west from its headwaters in the West Hills of Portland to its
confluence with the Tualatin River in the city of Durham. Approximately 15 miles
long, it has iwo major tributaries, Ash and Summer Creeks, as well as a number of
smaller tributaries such as Sylvan, Vermont, Ivey, Woods, and Hiteon Creeks (Figure
1).
Fanno Creek's watershed covers some 32 square miles in southwest
Portland, southeast Beaverton, unincorporated Washington County, and much of the
cities of Durham and Tigard. It also includes small portions of unincorporated
Multnomah County and the City of Lake Oswego. The large number of jurisdictions
makes coordinating management a challenge. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)
in Washington County manages surface water in the western two-thirds of the
watershed, while most of the remainder is under the jurisdiction of the City of
Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES). A small tributary, Ball Creek,
drains the extreme northwest corner of Clackamas County and falls under the
management of the City of Lake Oswego. The entire Fanno Creek watershed is
within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Portland metropolitan region (USA, 1997).
The watershed was once heavily wooded ih its upper reaches with a mixture
of woods, wet meadows, and "beaverlands" in its lower sections. Beginning in the
1840's, much of the land was converted into dairies, orchards, and small farms.
Since the 1940's it has become increasingly urban and suburban in nature, with a
corresponding rise in water pollution and peak stormwater runoff. In spite of these
impacts, Fanno Creek retains a reproducing population of cutthroat trout.
Occasional steelhead are seen as well.
The purpose of this report is to examine the historical habitat conditions and
the evidence for the occurrence of various salmonid species in Fanno Creek and its
tributaries. Particular attention is given to steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which
has been listed as "threatened" by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(Federal Register, February 5, 1999), and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). A
recent survey of the Tualatin River tributaries by the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) clearly describes present fish populations (Friesen & Ward, 1995),
but historical fish distribution was never carefully documented. Evidence for the
historical presence of both cutthroat trout and steelhead exists, however, in the form
of anecdotal stories, photographs, and memoirs. Such information tells an important
story about Fanno Creek. It should help guide efforts to restore the creek's water
quality as well as its historic fish and wildlife populations.
WAPM-.
za po'~arn'' A .
AK ~,.vKtll
cn""ES qb
4fl /
iy
KtMS RD RD
AIERt J ~ 6700
U gE/NERTON tMl'F'
ul
aver
N /
HOME
gry Rp ~u
0
~t . RD k'Y
Yp(, O
OC $t SEN
R
Z, ~ W ay
app Npa RD QREEMBL m c d( J
8Q 3
2 Sol
r
V ' { pct
r { wnt ¢ < WAY
0 ss
G GRE [Res RD
O rtp ~ ~pCAU
j y
R¢ 4,
> VJRR R Y
d 1
2 \ 1
Q ~ l
W
uffi
gE
REF ~ ~ ~t~a^""
m f
4R TUpU,S1N
16100
1 ~►iies
p.5
q.5 Water shed
nano ,creek
1
Figure
2
I~
SECTION 2. METHODS USED
The research for this report was conducted between April and November
1999. There were two main goals:
• To document the historical evidence for salmonid species in Fanno Creek and its
tributaries.
• To document the historical habitat conditions in Fanno Creek and its tributaries.
As a first step, existing documentation of current and past conditions in Fanno
Creek was examined. Government agencies contacted for this information include
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), BES, NMFS, and several individuals at both USA and ODFW. Both
published and unpublished materials were examined. Fans of Fanno Creek, the
Tualatin Riverkeepers and the Oregon Chapter of The Nature Conservancy provided
additional assistance.
To reach as wide a group as possible of people who had firsthand knowledge
regarding Fanno Creek, this study was advertised through a number of
environmental organization's newsletters and at environmental and water quality
workshops. Fishing groups and government agencies also assisted in locating
potential interviewees. By far the most productive method, however, was by word-of-
mouth. Most of the people interviewed were reached as a result of personal
references.
A standard Incident Report form was developed on which to record
information from each interview (Appendix A). In addition to recording their story,
each interviewee was asked if they knew of photographs, published materials, or
other forms of documentation. If possible, details were double-checked with other
witnesses and/or sources. Every fish story was assessed to determine its level of
certainty. Each story was then assigned to one of three levels:
Level 1. Stories with unclear details, species, or second-hand references
Level 2. Eyewitness stories with clear details
Level 3. Stories accompanied by additional evidence such as photographs,
newspaper accounts, or corroborating witnesses.
i
Stories at level #1 were not always recorded formally. Some were recorded
while others were used only as leads for further investigation. Stories at levels #2
3 and #3 were recorded as completely as possible using the Incident Report form
(Appendix A). For accounts concerning steelhead, interviewees were asked to
submit a signed testimonial (Appendix B).
3
11111H111 OEM=
SECTION 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SAILMONID SPECIES OF
THE FANNO CREEK WATERSHED
Several salmonid species are probably native to Fanno Creek. The two
species for which there is strongest evidence of historical presence are steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). Less certain, but
nevertheless a possibility, are coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
3A. Steelhead
Steelhead are the anadromous (adult portion of life cycle spent at sea) version
of the rainbow trout. They grow up to 45 inches in length (Page & Burr, 1991). As a
trout they depend more on the freshwater environment than do most salmon, relying
heavily on rivers and streams as rearing areas. Steelhead reach much farther into
headwater areas than do most salmon (NMFS, 1999). They are indigenous to the
Tualatin River system, where they spawn in late winter and early spring (ODFW,
1986).
Since the early 1970's, approximately 10,000 smolts per year have been
stocked in Gales Creek and in the rnainstem of the Tualatin River near Scoggin's
Creek as mitigation for habitat lost when the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
constructed Scoggin's Dam. Some of the natural reproduction in the Tualatin River
is now due to these returning hatchery fish (Murtagh, et al., 1992), which may be
interbreeding with the native population. In the 10-year period from 1981-91, based
on counts at Willamette Falls, the estimated average annual run for the Tualatin
River was 1,810 returning fish. Returns have ranged from a high of 3,208 in 1985-86
to a low of 384 in 1990-91 (ibid). While Gales Creek and the upper Tualatin River
now represent the best steelhead rearing habitat in the watershed (ibid), some
biologists believe it is likely that most of the tributaries, including Fanno Creek, once
had steelhead populations (Grimes, 1999).
On March 25,1999, NMFS listed the Upper Willamette River ESU
(Evolutionarily Significant Unit) of the steelhead as a threatened species. This
includes the entire Tualatin River, of which Fanno Creek is a tributary (Federal
I Register, February 5, 1999). Within this ESU, winter steelhead are in steep decline
+ after exhibiting wildly fluctuating abundance. Recent average adult abundance has
been estimated at 3,000 fish. Natural fish adult returns in 1995 were the lowest in 30
+ years. Declines have been recorded in almost all-natural populations. (NMFS,
1999).
! As of May 1999, federal rules (under the Endangered Species Act) are in
effect for all activities on federal lands, for all projects that require a federal permit,
and for all projects using federal funds that may impact steelhead populations.
Examples include wetland fills and road construction using federal highway funds.
On non-federal lands, however, NMFS has up to three years from the listing date to
decide on 4(d) rules governing the protection of the species. NMt=S will endeavor to
mesh these rules with existing state and local conservation initiatives (NMFS, 1999).
4
3B. Cutthroat Trout
Cutthroat trout are the indigenous trout of the Tualatin system (Murtagh, et al.,
1992). At least as far back as the 1880's there are historical references to trout in
Fanno Creek tributaries (Jeffcott, 1954; Hambach, 1930). These were undoubtedly
cutthroat trout (Massey, personal communication). In this study, by far the most
reports of salmonids in Fanno Creek were of cutthroat trout (Tables 2 & 3). Hatchery
cutthroat trout were released into Dairy Creek, Gales Creek, and the Tualatin River
in the late 1950's and 60's (Hutchinson and Aney, 1964), but there is no evidence of
any such release in Fanno Creek (Massey, personal communication).
While extremely variable in color, cutthroat trout can usually be distinguished
by the red cutthroat mark on their lower jaw (Page & Burr, 1991). In Fanno Creek
they have been reported to grow up to about 18 inches in length (Henningson,
interview, Table 3). In recent surveys, they were the only salmonid found above the
mouth of Fanno Creek (Table 2). Although the ODFW considers them to be
intolerant of warm water, sedimentation and organic pollution, they appear to be
reproducing to at least a limited degree in Fanno Creek (Friesen & Ward, 1995).
They typically migrate upstream in late winter or early spring into the smaller
tributaries where they spawn in gravel beds. Some, but not all, move into the
mainstem Tualatin or Willamette Rivers during the summer and fall (Murtagh, et al.,
1992). Some cutthroat appear to use Fanno Creek as a summer seasonal refuge
from high water temperatures elsewhere in the basin (Friesen & Ward, 1995).
NMFS is currently considering whether cutthroat trout warrant listing under the
Endangered Species Act (NMFS, 1999). Only if they were determined to be
anadromous would NMFS take jurisdiction over their recovery. Any listed ESU
upstream from Willamette Falls would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Chris Allen, personal communication).
3C. Other Salmonid Species
There are a few reports from the 1940's and 1950's of rainbow trout in Fanno
Creek, although the details are unclear (see Table 3). It is possible that these were
either juvenile steelhead or misidentified trout. On the other hand, some rainbows
may have been stocked in Fanno Creek during that period, although it seems
unlikely (Massey, personal communication). ODFW did stock them in Dairy and
Gales Creeks as well as the Upper Tualatin River until the early 1980's.
Nevertheless, rainbow trout are not indigenous to Fanno Creek or the Tualatin River
(Murtagh, et al., 1992), nor were they found in Fanno Creek in recent surveys
(Friesen & Ward, 1995).
ODFW biolog,;.:s believe that coho salmon were probably not present in the
Tualatin River watershed prior to the late 1800's when fish ladder was constructed at
Willamette Falls. The "Tualatin River Management Plan" concludes that "while the
falls were passable by spring chinook and winter steelhead, apparently they were not
passable during early-run coho migration. Late-run coho present in the Clackamas
River did not occur above Willamette Falls, but given their migration timing and flows
at the falls, it seems that passage of some fish could have been possible." (Murtagh,
5
et al., 1992). Some 60,000 coho juveniles are released upstream in the Tualatin
annually as part of the same program that releases hatchery steelhead (Il urtagh, et
al., 1992). A recent survey of Fanno Creek found coho juveniles near the confluence
with the Tualatin River (Table 2). Three of these were "finmarked", indicating
hatchery origin (Friesen & Ward, 1995). The origin of the other coho juveniles is not
clear.
Spring Chinook salmon may have used the Tualatin River, especially the
upper reaches of Gales Creek into the 1940'8. Spring Chinook were reported
spawning in Gales Creek in September 1945 (Parkhurst, et al., 1950) but no further
records have been received. Hutchinson and Aney (1964) wrote "the scarcity of cool
summer resting pools for adults is suspected to have contributed to the
disappearance of this species". According to the ODFW they do not occur in the
Tualatin watershed at present (Murtagh, et al., 1992).
SECTION 4. CURRENT CONDITIONS IN THE FANNO CREEK WATERSHED
4A. The Habitat of Fanno Creek
The "Fanno Creek Watershed management Plan" states that "the urbanization
of the watershed has reduced the stream's ability to repair itself. [The] hydrology,
water quality, channel stability and fish and wildlife habitat have changed
dramatically. However, the system still contains areas of good habitat..." (USA,
1997). A June 13, 1992 informal survey by ODFW (Table 1) of several stretches of
Fanno, Vermont and Woods Creeks shows that some spawning habitat still exists in
these streams. It has been heavily degraded, however, by sedimentation (ODFW
files, 1989-92).
Table 1: Informal Habitat Survey on Fanno, Vermont, & Woods Creeks
Location # Pools >6" deep Spawning -gravel (s-g, ft.). Condition
Fanno Creek-
Shattuck to 65th 11 pools 420-sq. ft. Heavily silted
Vermont- 63rd to 55th 10 pools 109-sq. ft. Heavily silted
Vermont- 52nd to 45th 7 pools 85-sq. ft. Heavily silted
Woods- 60th upstream 5 pools 15 sq. ft. Heavily silted
150 yards
Source: ODFW Fanno Creek file (ODFW, 1989-92)
Obviously, sedimentation is a serious problem. Existing spawning beds are in
danger of being silted over. An ODFW study commissioned by USA found that, for
Fanno, Ash, and Summer Creeks, eroding banks characterized an average of nearly
78% of the sites surveyed. Other problems detailed in the study include insufficient
overhead cover, few pools (glides dominate), and a very low incidence of both large
6
woody debris and undercut banks. Suggested habitat improvements include
increasing cover with riparian plantings, allowing undercut banks at root wads, and
adding rocks and woody debris in the stream (USA, 1997).
Further upstream, the City of Portland's BES commissioned a stream habitat
survey using the Oregon DEQ's bioassessment methodologies. The results reported
in BES Fanno Creek Resource Management Plan show all but one-surveyed units
on Fanno Creek to be in marginal condition. Fourteen units of Vermont Creek were
reported to be marginal, one sub-optimal, and one poor. Thirteen units of Woods
Creek were reported marginal and five sub-optimal. The BES report concludes that
"collectively, instream habitat quality in Fanno, Vermont and Woods Creeks is
extremely impaired or threatened, primarily due to adverse effects from excessive
amounts of fine sediment (BES, 1998).
4B. Fish Populations in Fanno Creek
In spite of degraded habitat, cutthroat trout are still surprisingly common in
Fanno Creek. Between 1989 and 1992, informal fish surveys were conducted by
ODFW personnel using electrofishing equipment at five sites on Fanno Creek, two
sites on Vermont Creek, and two sites on Woods Creek. Speckled dace, cutthroat
trout, crayfish, largescale sucker, bluegill, redside shiner, brown bullhead, carp sp.,
sculpin sp., and gambusia sp. were all present; with dace, sculpins, and shiners the
most abundant. A total of 28 cutthroat trout were collected at the Fanno Creek sites.
They ranged from nearly 9 inches to less than 3 inches in length. No trout were
found in either Vermont Creek or Woods Creek (ODFW files, 1989-92).
Ward and Friesen (1995) conducted extensive fish surveys for most urban
tributaries of the Tualatin River during the spring, summer, and autumn of 1994 and
the winter of 1995. These fish surveys were part of a major cooperative research
effort by ODFW and USA, which also looked at habitat in the same stream reaches.
The study used the relationship between existing fish populations and aquatic habitat
to determine which urban streams would most likely benefit from habitat
enhancement efforts (Ward, 1995). Nine of the 38 reaches selected for study were
on Fanno Creek and its major tributaries (Friesen & Ward, 1995).
Table 2 contains the list of fish collected from the Fanno Creek watershed
during the survey. Particularly interesting is the distribution of the so-called intolerant
species, those less able to survive conditions of poor water quality (the intolerant
species are the first five on the list and the torrent sculpin, second from the bottom).
Apparently cutthroat trout now reside only in the main stem of Fanno Creek. No
intolerant species at all were found in Ash Creek while only two species of lampreys
were collected from the lower and middle sections of Summer Creek (below 121 st
Avenue). Conversely, both Ash and Summer Creeks had relatively
7
Table 2% (Reprinted by permission from Friesen, Thomas A. & David L.
Ward. "Status and Condition of Fish Populations in Streams of the
Tualatin River Basin, Oregon." 1995.)
Fish collected in reaches of Fanno Creek and its tributaries, all
seasons combined, 1994-95. L = lower reach, M = middle reach, U = upper reach.
Creek
Fanno Ash Summer
Species L M U L M U L M U
Western brook lamprey 1 16 12 0 0 0 3 2 0
Pacific lamprey 1 2 3 0 0 0 25 1 0
Cutthroat trout 11 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rainbow trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coho salmon 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redside shiner 0 668 122 468 870 40 106 204 0
Speckled dace 1 15 39 9 8 5 2 0 0
Goldfisha 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 7 0
Fathead minnowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Northern squawfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Largescale sucker 5 1 0 133 17 0 50 102 0
Yellow bullheada 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 75 5
Brown bullheada 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mosquitofisha 3 2 4 106 0 0 5 137 236
Threespine
stickleback 7 0 0 117 0 0 0 1 0
Black crappiea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
White crappiea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bluegilla 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 33 204
Pumpkinseeda 1 01 0 42 0 0 19 56 133
Warmoutha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Largemouth bassa 2 0 0 5 0 0 11 55 24
Yellow percha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1
Reticulate sculpin 534 1947 1002 1761 1809 852 752 837 0
Torrent sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prickly sculpin 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of surveys 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
a Introduced species.
I OWN, MM 11~
high numbers of temperature-tolerant, introduced species such as the sunfish family
(Centrarchidae) and mosquitofish. Nearly 45% of all sunfish species and
mosquitofish collected came from theses two creeks, indicating possible water
temperature problems there. Friesen and Ward (1995) collected most (61.5%) of
these tolerant species from three sites near large ponds or wetlands on Ash and
Summer Creeks. The authors believe this reflects the ability of these families to
proliferate in warm, shallow, weedy water, and should be a consideration for future
mitigation projects specifying the construction of wetlands.
The researchers then used characteristics of the sampled fish populations to
develop an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for each reach. In general, Fanno Creek
had fair IBI's, with middle Fanno Creek scoring only one point below a good rating.
Ash Creek had mostly poor IBI's. Summer Creek rankings were from poor to very
poor (Ward & Friesen, 1995). When the IBI's were compared with habitat scores for
each reach, it yielded a list of streams most likely to achieve increased biotic integrity
if their habitat were enhanced. On that list, middle Fanno Creek ranks as one of the
highest priority sections due to a particularly high IBI relative to habitat quality.
Lower Fanno Creek, lower and middle Ash Creeks, and lower Summer Creek are
also likely to benefit from habitat enhancement. Fish populations in the middle and
upper reaches of Summer Creek are among the least likely to benefit from habitat
improvements because other factors, such as poor water quality, need to be
addressed first. Upper Fanno Creek had a high habitat score but a lower than
expected IBI, causing the authors to conclude that some factor or factors other than
habitat may be limiting fish populations at that location (Ward, 1995).
4C. Water (duality & Flooding Issues
The other factors referred to in the Ward report (1995) are most likely related
to poor water quality. In its 1994/1996 303d List of Water Quality Limited
Waterbodies, DEQ designated Fanno Creek as a water quality limited stream.
According to USA, Fanno Creek and its major tributaries do not fully support
beneficial uses based on current levels of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a,
temperature, and bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria levels exceed DEQ's maximum
standard much of the time in Fanno, Summer, and Ash Creeks. Possible sources
include pet wastes, wildlife wastes, livestock, or septic systems. Total phosphorus
levels typically exceed the standard at each of the sampling sites. While upper and
lower Fanno Creek meet the standards for dissolved oxygen most of the time,
summertime dissolved oxygen levels in middle Fanno, Ash and Summer Creeks are
often below the minimum concentration of 6.5 mg/I. needed by aquatic wildlife.
Stream temperatures follow a similar, but inverse, pattern for Ash and Summer
Creeks, exceeding the maximum during much of the summer season (USA, 1997).
Water quantity is another issue of concern for aquatic wildlife. Increased peak
flows and subsequent flooding during storm events are consequences of urban
development. These runoff surges damage already degraded fish habitat by eroding
stream banks and silting in spawning grounds. Factors leading to increased flooding
include filling and development in the flood plain, stream modifications, and
undersized or plugged culverts. Increasing impervious surfaces (roofs, driveways,
9
parking lots, etc.) within the watershed is also a major contributor, preventing water
infiltration and storage in the soil. This has the secondary effect of reducing the
amount of groundwater available to cool streams during warm, dry periods.
Unfortunately, impervious area in the Fanno Creek watershed is expected to
increase from 33% to 52% by the year 2040 (USA, 1997).
SECTION 5. HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OF HABITAT IN THE FANNO CREEK
WATERSHED
5A. Upper Fannno Creek and Its Tributaries (above SW 65th Ave.)
By 1886, when young Percy Jeffcott's family moved to Mount Zion (near SW
Patton and Humphrey Blvd.), the Tualatin Valley to the west was already dotted with
farms. In his memoirs, Jeffcott describes an adventurous boyhood roaming old-
growth forests and fishing for trout. Northwest of the family home, straddling the
divide between Tanner and Fanno Creeks lay the 400-acre Ladd farm. The farm
was covered with a "fine growth of timber, but it was soon denuded by a large gang
of Chinamen, who in the course of a couple of years, converted the timber into
cordwood which was hauled down Canyon Road and sold in Portland for firewood"
(Jeffcott, 1954). By the end of the 19th century, most of the flat to gently sloping
land in the watershed had been converted to small farms, dairies and orchards
(Figure 2). The steeper slopes retained their cover longer. Well into the 1940's and
50's, some of the tributaries still had substantial forests (Figure 3). Gradually, most
were cleared for firewood, farming and, later, for housing developments.
Mel Ivey echoes this scenario. (Ivey Creek, an upper tributary of Fanno
Creek, is named after him.) When he moved to his house above Dosch Road on
Ivey Creek in 1939, the creek still flowed through thick woods. He cut most of his
trees for firewood over the next several years. Neighboring groves met a similar
fate, and by the 1950's, most of the forest was gone. In 1940, a dam was
constructed in the creek. It filled completely with sediment the first winter,
presumably from the clear-cutting higher up (Ivey, interview, Table 3).
In spite of these changes, Fanno Creek in the 1950's retained many of the
characteristics of a healthy stream. Thick riparian forest shaded the water. Beaver
and crawfish were abundant (Rogers, interview, Table 3). The creek was a classic
trout stream. Undercut banks and fallen logs were common, providing a refuge for
numerous cutthroat. There was a particularly good fishing hole near where SW 56th
Ave. crosses Fanno Creek today (Jacob, interview, Table 3). Bill Tattam, another
childhood fisherman in the 1950's, regularly fished from SW Shattuck Road down to
near SW 55th Avenue. He can recall 9 trout holes in a stretch only about 1/4 mile in
length (see Figure 4). In between holes, the current flowed over gravel beds that
made great spawning habitat. Several ancient firs stood like sentinels over his
personal fishing grounds (Tattam, interview, Table 3).
10
a
w.~a.
r
Figure 2: Pre-1919 photograph of the Tualatin Valley looking south-
west from Council Crest. Shattuck Road crosses Fanno Creek near the
left side of the photo. Scholl's Ferry Road climbs the hill which
divides the Fannc Creek and Beaverton Creek watersheds near the cen-
ter of the photo. Note the forested uplands and the farms dotting
' the lowlands. (Oregon Historical Society, OrHi 64586)
I
~1
{
{
I
Figure 3: 1945 Aerial view of upper Fanno Creek watershed.
North is to the top. Council Crest is in the upper right-
hand corner. Fanno Creek flows along Beaverton-Hillsdale
Hwy. in the lower one-third of the photo. Note the re-
sidual forest along several upper tributaries. (Oregon
Historical Society; cropped from U.S.C.G.S. photo #487,
OrHi
Right-hand section
c+.
A"
Left-hand section
Figure 4: 1920's panorama of the upper Fanno Creek valley, looking
north and northeast. "Mt. Zion" and Council Crest are the highest
points on the ridge. Fanno Creek runs from right to left across the
foreground. Note the riparian vegetation along the creek and the two
large Douglas firs near the center of the photo. The Rogers' Store
is located in the right-hand section of the photograph near the in-
tersection of Shattuck Road and Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.
(Photo courtesy of Bridlemile Elementary School)
(3
MINE imilillimilsilli milli
5B. Sylvan Creek and the Raleigh Hills Area
Less iniformation is available for Sylvan Creek, which joins Fanno Creek after
passing under SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway. Although housing developments
are encroaching, much of its upper canyon remains forested today. In the 1940's,
the lower half-mile of the creek flowed through a dairy farmer's pasture, since
converted to houses and apartments. In a 1945 aerial photo, a large wetland area
(not flooded when the photo was taken in early July) is clearly visible as a darker
area in the pasture on either side of both creeks (Figure 5).
Many interviewees recalled that wetland, and it was mentioned far more
frequently than any other location (Table 3). It spread over approximately 5 acres at
the confluence of the two creeks, but has now been mostly buried under the
intersection of SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway and Scholls Ferry Road along with
adjacent parking lots and businesses. Remnants of the wetland can still be found in
Raleighwood Park and on the south side of SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.
George Oules, the owner of a store that once perched on a rise above the wetland,
remembers the area well. It was beautiful, he reminisces, The water was almost
drinkable. The Dekas family grazed sheep there in the summer, but it flooded every
winter. It was full of cattails, rushes, and willows. Kids from all over the area used to
come there to fish for trout (Oules, interview, Table 3).
5C. Middle and Lower Fanno Creek
Middle Fanno Creek stretches from SW Oleson Road down to near
Washington Square Shopping Center. Lower Fanno Creek runs through Tigard from
the Washington Square area to the Tualatin River. Once Fanno Creek reaches the
flat valley floor near SW Oleson Road, it slows down and assumes a meandering
course (Figure 5). This was once a land of extensive beaver ponds and wet
meadows interspersed with riparian forests dominated by Oregon ash. In fact, when
Augustus Fanno arrived in 1846, his land claim specifically referred to his 640 acre
parcel as being on a creek surrounded by beaverdam land. An old Native American
trail from Oregon City to the Twality Plains (since replaced more or less by SW Hall
Boulevard) passed within 10 feet of where the Fannos would build their farmhouse.
In the summer they grew onions and ran cattle. In the winter, all the lower fields and
pastures flooded. On particularly still mornings, they could hear the roar of
Willamette Falls 12 miles away (Mapes, 1993).
In the 1880's, drainage districts were formed to drain the lowlands. In her
account of the lands around Beaverton Creek, pioneer schoolgirl Isabelle Strong
describes the demise of these extensive beaverlands. The story is also generally
true for Fanno Creek, which is just a short distance to the south over an almost
imperceptible divide:
III "The land was on over-flowed beaver dam swamp, so the homesteaders
settled around it on more raised portions. No one thought the low swamps
amounted to anything. In fact, they could not drain it, as it covered miles and
miles through the valley. Oh, I can hear those frogs yet, armies and armies of
them, all in training to hold all-night concerts.
14
/ I
1~ r
~ I
I
,t
"i • t I
I~.
Arw
z
4
'v
a
1 t,
' f II~ 1 it I 1 v~h~ ~r11,
. ~ as ••yl~r.. I i I I I~ I~ I 'il I I ~ ~
•r
AW
i
>n
Figure 5~. _,A 3 ann3 r.aek. sv, va_^ _ree<
;r ?v ^J F e rY, ~reg~r.
_al 3
cm ~ . ono`i:D
Finally, rich men came to Portland from the East, who knew the untold wealth
of beaver dam land. They bought up or took up these mosquito froglands and
put whole armies of Chinese to work to dig a real creek. For centuries the
beavers had thought it their business to build homes and dwell there. The
drained land was all composed of leaf mold 8 to 10 inches deep" (Mapes,
1993).
Some areas along the middle section of Fanno Creek evidently retained an
extensive riparian forest well into the 20th century. A 1930 photo of Robinson,
Oregon, a railroad stop just west of where Washington Square is today, shows SW
Scholls Ferry Road heading southwest toward Fanno Creek. A western redcedar
forest appears to dominate the riparian zone in the center of the photo (in the vicinity
of today's Englewood Park), with willow and other deciduous trees growing thickly
elsewhere along the creek. On slightly higher ground behind the creek stands a
mature forest of Douglas fir and grand fir. Ponderosa pines poke through the canopy
here and there, while large-leaved lupines line the roadside where they are very
scarce today (Figure 6). Robinson Crossing was a popular location with the locals
for fishing and skinny-dipping (Hite; Bacon, interview, Table 3).
Ernest Hite's father moved to the area just west of Robinson (near SW 125th
Ave. and Scholls Ferry Road) over 125 years ago. Ernest remembers drinking out of
the small creek that flowed through the family farm down to Fanno Creek. It was
later named Hiteon Creek after the elder Hite and a Mr. Olson who together founded
Hiteon School. About 1948, Ernest had an extensive Oregon ash wetland along
Hiteon Creek bulldozed in order to create more pasture. At the time, much of the
slope above the creek was covered with mature, second-growth conifer forest. The
land where Conestoga Middle School stands today was logged in the 1960's, and
some of the Douglas firs removed had trunks 3 feet in diameter (Hite, interview,
Table 3).
Bob Bacon describes the woods on the north side of SW Scholls Ferry Road
as coming nearly all the way down to SW 121 st (interview, Table 3). Farther
downstream, ponderosa pines became common, scattered here and there in the
extensive pastures that lay on either side of Fanno Creek. Willows grew thickly
along the banks and Oregon ash wetlands were common. Several extensive holes
"deep enough to drown in" provided refuges for aquatic wildlife as well as swimming
areas for the local kids (Tigard, interview, Table 3).
513. Ash Creek
The south fork of Ash Creek once had extensive old-growth western redcedar
and Oregon ash forests along its lower reaches and at the bottom of its canyon.
These lowlands flooded during most winters. On the slopes of the canyon stood old-
growth Douglas firs and bigleaf maples. West of SW 80th Avenue, the land had
largely been logged off in the 1930's, but the old forest still existed two decades later
16
F j7~•;•,~•ti6!.:~ roil:+'_
{ I~
Figure 6: 1930 View of Scholl's Ferry Road looking west across the
railroad tracks at Robinson, Oregon, just below where Washington
Square is today. Note the extensive forest along Fanno Creek in the
background and the large-leaved lupines in bloom along the roadsides.
The very large Douglas firs in the center are in the vicinity of
today's Englewood Park. (Oregon Historical Society, OrHi 100890)
!-7
in a 1300-foot stretch from SW 71 st to the Multnomah County line. It was owned by
the Sittel family and was highly favored by the neighborhood kids. A six-foot
waterfall at the county line stopped fish passage up one channel, but cutthroat
spawned higher up in the adjoining channel, flowing down from near where Portland
Community College is located today. Within the deep forest, numerous fallen logs .
created 2 or 3 foot deep holes where cutthroat trout took cover. The forest was
finally logged in the mid-1950's and was eventually converted to a housing tract
(Sittel; McMullen, interview, Table 3).
The North Fork of Ash Creek, located between SW Taylor's Ferry and Garden
Home Roads, had similar habitat. Its many pools were inhabited by abundant
fingerling cutthroat trout. Pacific giant salamanders could be caught (by kids who
knew where to look for them) under the cutbanks. Mature second-growth forest
shaded the clear, cool water. It too was logged off in the 1950's (Swope, interview,
Table 3).
5E. Summer Creek
In 1879, William Caldwell established his farm at the headwaters of Summer
Creek, near where the Morse Brothers Quarry is today. His granddaughter, Patricia
Keerins, grew up on a farm downstream near SW 121 st and Walnut. A common
memory from her childhood was of her father walking up from the creek with a string
of cutthroat trout for the family dinner table. Much of the land was in pasture at that
time, but along the creek, willows, wild plums, and the occasional Douglas fir
provided deep shade. The lowlands often flooded during the rainy season,
occasionally blocking SW 121 st (then Christensen Road). True to its name, the
creek flowed year round, so her grandpa put cattle in the bottomland pasture each
summer.
In a side ravine near SW Walnut Street, Patricia's uncle constructed an
earthen dam to facilitate irrigation. It blew out two or three times during winter
storms, but it was always replaced. It still exists in the center of a housing
development. Increasingly, urban development in the 1960's led to the removal of
streamside vegetation and the building of several off-line ponds. By the 1970's,
Summer Creek itself had been dammed to create Summer Lake, drastically altering
the nature of the habitat (Keerins, interview, Table 3).
18
Table 3: List of Interviewees and (Pertinent Facts'
Last Name Date Creek Species Certainty?
Hancock (grandfather) 1890-00 U. Fanno catfish, trout, clams 1
Tigard 1915-30 L. Fanno trout, suckers 1
L. Fanno crawfish 2
Rogers 1921-55 U. Fanno crawfish, beavers 2
Brandt (father-in-law) 1930's Summer trout 1
Hite 1930's M. Fanno trout, crawfish 1
Hambach, E. 1930-55 L. Fanno trout, sucker, crawfish 1
Sittel 1932-50's S. Ash cutthroat trout 3
steelhead 2 (Append. B).
Bacon 1938-39 M. Fanno trout 1
Keerins 1938-45 Summer cutthroat trout, crawfish 2
Oules 1939-99 M. Fanno trout, crawfish 1
Ivey 1939-99 Ivey trout 1
Labbe 1940-40's M. Fanno cutthroat trout, crawfish 2
suckers 1
Taylor 1945-50 S. Ash cutthroat trout 2
sculpin sp. 1
Swope 1947-53 U. Fanno cutthroat trout 2
N. Ash cutthroat trout 2
P. giant salamander
Woods cutthroat trout 2
Tattam 1948-53 U. Fanno cutthroat trout 3
McMullen. 1950-55 S. Ash P. giant salamander 2
crawfish
sculpin 1
cutthroat trout 3
Dimbat 1950-54 U/M Fanno cutthroat trout 3
rainbow trout 2
Sylvan cutthroat trout 3
Jacob 1950-54 U/M Fanno cutthroat trout 3
Sylvan cutthroat trout 3
19
Table 3: List of Interviews and Pertinent Facts' (continued)
Last Name Date reek species Certainty?
Slaybaugh 1953 N. Ash trout 1
M. Fanno trout
Dusevoir 1955 M. Fanno cutthroat trout 2 (Append. B).
steelhead
Henningson 1955 Sylvan cutthroat trout 2
Johnson 1956 S. Ash cutthroat trout 3
steelhead 2 (Append. B).
Massey 1967-97 All Fanno black-sid. dace 2
sculpin sp., sucker sp
1993 M. Fanno cutthroat trout 3
Hambach, M. 1970-73 L. Fanno cutthroat trout 2
Volpe 1987-92 M. Fanno cutthroat tr. 2
brown bullheads, bluegill
1989 steelhead 2 (Append. B).
Roberg 1988-90 L. Fanno cutthroat trout 2
Dusevoir 1989 M. Fanno steelhead 3 (Append. B).
Dusevoir 1990 M. Fanno peamouth 2
Gottfried 1991 M. Fanno cutthroat trout, carp sp. 3
1993 M. Fanno crawfish, cutthroat trout 3b
Stanton 1997 M. Fanno trout 1
Gottfried 1999 M. Fanno largescale suckers 3
a. Levels of certainty:
1. Stories with unclear details, species, or second-hand references;
2. Eyewitness stories with clear details;
3. Stories accompanied by additional evidence such as photographs, newspaper
accounts, or corroborating witnesses.
3 b. Fans of Fanno Creek has two preserved cutthroat trout specimens (12 and 8)
killed in middle Fanno Creek at Vista Brook Park by a waste spill (see Appendix C).
* For information concerning individuals interviewed, call Fans of Fanno Creek at
768-9592.
20
SECTION 6. HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OF FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC
WILDLIFE IN THE FANNO CREEK WATERSHED
6A. Miscellaneous Species
People who remember Fanno Creek and its tributaries in the early part of this
century describe a wide varieiy of wildlife. Non-salmonid fish species include
suckers, brown bullheads, and reticulate and torrent sculpin (Table 3). Beaver were
common in the watershed near the turn of the century (Rogers, interview, Table 3)
and are still present in small numbers (personal observation). Freshwater mussels
apparently were abundant enough in the upper Fanno watershed for pioneer families
to eat them regularly (Hancock, interview, Table 3). In an 1890's irrigation pond on
an upper tributary, Percy Jeffcott (1954) describes seeing a species that sounds a lot
like the western pond turtle, now listed as a sensitive species under the Oregon
Endangered Species Law (ODFW, 1991). Another listed species, the northern red-
legged frog (ODFW, 1991), was probably common in the watershed early in the 20th
century (Corkran; Waggy, personal communication). Well into the 1950's, the old-
growth forest along the south fork of Ash Creek nurtured a small population of Pacific
giant salamanders (McMullen, interview, Table 3). Based on the oral history
accounts, however, crawfish may have been most common species of all (Table 3).
Curtis Tigard recalls catching 600 in one night along lower Fanno Creek (interview,
Table 3).
6B. Cutthroat Trout
When the once abundant trout in Tanner Creek (then along SW Canyon
Road) had been fished out in the late 1800's, Percy Jeffcott and his brothers
expanded their fishing into the Fanno Creek drainage. The closest tributary to their
home they called Rogers Creek after the family that lived along the creek near
Shattuck Road. They caught many trout, most likely cutthroat, in Rogers Creek
(Jeffcott, 1954). The Rogers family also caught trout there (Hancock, interview,
Table 3). There are numerous stories of people fishing for cutthroat trout from the
mouth of Fanno Creek all the way into the upper tributaries (Table 3). Spawning
gravel was abundant in the upper tributaries in the 1950's, while holes, undercut
banks, and woody debris were common throughout the system (Tattam; Sittel;
McMullen; Swope, interview, Table 3).
One fishing location favored by 1930's- to 1950's-era youngsters was a
farmer's pond located 1/2 to 1 mile up Sylvan Creek from its confluence with Fanno
Creek. Several people mentioned sneaking up to that pond to catch fish. There was
some question about how the cutthroat had gotten into the pond, but the general
feeling was that they probably swam in during high water in the winter. The largest
cutthroat mentioned (18+ inches) was caught in that pond (Jacob; Dimbat;
Henningson, interview, Table 3). Others favored Ash Creek. Still others preferred
lower Summer Creek. Fanno was fished along its entire length. By far the most
commonly mentioned location, however, was the large wetland in the Raleigh Hills
neighborhood at the intersection of SW Beaverton-Hillsdale and Scholl's Ferry Road
(Table 3).
21
Fanno Creek occasionally outperformed creeks in more wild and remote
locations. After a nearly fruitless day of fishing in the Coast Range during the
1940's, Ralph Sittel tells of returning to his home on the South Fork of Ash Creek
and catching five big cutthroat in thirty minutes (Sittel, interview, Table 3). Dick
Jacob fished upper Fanno Creek in the early 1950's. He tells of catching beautiful
speckled cutthroat from 10 to 16 inches in length. Once, as a 12 year old boy, he
entered the Meier and Frank Department Store Annual Trout Fishing Contest. The
winner was the person with the greatest cumulative length for one day's catch (limit:
10 fish). Dick brought in 10 cutthroat from Fanno Creek. He was awarded second
place! The first place finisher had fished the Alsea River for sea-run cutthroat!
(Jacob, interview, Table 3).
The cutthroat trout population seems to have taken a big dip in the late 1960's
and 70's. Except for one record from lower Fanno Creek, this study could find no
evidence for their presence during that time period. They may have temporarily
disappeared from portions of Fanno Creek. Jay Massey, retired ODFW fish biologist,
says that ODFW seining in Fanno during the 1970's turned up no cutthroat or any
other game fish (personal communication). Waste discharges were impacting Fanno
Creek with overwhelming levels of pollution during those years (ibid). Due to low
levels of dissolved oxygen or some other pollution-related factor, cutthroat trout may
have been absent from some sections of the creek until water quality begun to
improve in the 1980's. In 1993, when Alpenrose Dairy spilled waste into the creek,
Massey found dead cutthroat trout at Vista Brook Park (Massey, personal
communication; DEQ files, 1993). Fans of Fanno Creek has a preserved 12"
cutthroat trout from that fish kill (personal observation). Even before that incident,
however, as early as 1989, people were once again finding cutthroat trout in Fanno
Creek (Volpe; Gottfried; Roberg, interview, Table 3; ODFW files, 1989-92).
6C. steelhead
At least 4 people have seen steelhead in Fanno Creek, some on multiple
occasions. Three of those sightings occurred in the 1940's and 50's, long before the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers began stocking them in the upper Tualatin River in
1976 (Murtagh, et al., 1992). Ralph Sittel, whose family has lived along the South
Fork of Ash Creek since 1939, saw a very large (36 inches) steelhead on his family's
property one winter in the early 1940's. It jumped right in front of him, giving him a
very close look. Bob Johnson, Ralph's nephew, saw several somewhat smaller
steelhead on at least two occasions during the winter of 1956-57. They were at the
base of a small dam that had been constructed in the main stem of Ash Creek just
below Greenburg Road. Both Bob and Ralph are lifetime fishermen for steelhead,
salmon, and trout. They are very experienced in fish identification (Appendix B).
Gene Dusevoir has spotted steelhead in Fanno Creek on at least two
occasions. Once, about 1955, he saw several small steelhead at the base of an old
dam upstream from SW Scholl's Ferry Road near SW Allen Blvd. Later, in May,
1989, Gene, who lives along middle Fanno Creek, found two dead steelhead lodged
in woody debris in the creek. One fish was a 30-inch female and the second was a
shorter male. The female, a fin-clipped hatchery fish, appeared to be spawned out. It
22
is not clear whether the male was a hatchery or a wild fish. A photo was taken
showing Gene holding the female with Fanno Creek in the background (Figure 7).
Gene, like Bob and Ralph, is experienced in fish identification. He has worked in
hatcheries and on ships, has extensive fishing experience, and has made fish his
life-long hobby (Appendix B).
Chris Volpe made the most recent sighting of a steelhead in Fanno Creek in
June 1989 at Vista Brook Park. Chris, who at the time was doing a lot of cutthroat
trout fishing on Fanno Creek, saw a 26-inch steelhead rise to the surface right in
front of him. He took special note of it because it surprised him to see a steelhead
so late in the season. Chris presently works for ODFW as a fish biologist (Appendix
B).
23
r
ti
r
v
r
Figure 7: Gene Dusevoir holding a "spawned out" steelhead female he
fcund in Fanno Creek just behind his home near SW Denney Road in may,
1989. The riparian forest along Fanno Creek is in the immediate
background. Note the cLipped adipose fin. (Photo courtesy of Gene
Dusevoir)
Z~
SECTION 7. CONCLUSION
When white settlers first came to the area, Fanno Creek was a pristine stream
with high quality water. Much of its watershed was old-growth Douglas fir forest.
Beavers were common, especially lower in the watershed. Wetlands were
widespread in the lower watershed and common in the flatter portions of the upper
watershed. The creek was prime habitat for cutthroat trout and other aquatic
species. Heavy shade, undercut banks, downed woody debris and numerous pools
characterized the stream. In the upper tributaries, at least, gravel beds were
common.
Farming and logging changed the character of much of the land between
1846 and the 1950's. Still, the stream was able to retain its spring-fed, trout-stream
character well into the 1950's. As urbanization increased, however, the spread of
impervious surfaces caused a drastic increase in the amount of runoff draining
directly into the creek. With increased peak flows and decreased groundwater, the
Fanno Creek watershed lost many of the characteristics of good aquatic habitat.
Development often penetrated far into the riparian zone, severely compromising the
stream's ability to heal itself. As a result, Fanno Creek is now listed by DEQ as a
water quality-limited stream for several parameters.
In spite of its problems, Fanno Creek has retained a population of salmonids.
There is overwhelming evidence for a reproducing population of cutthroat trout.
There are a number of eyewitness accounts of steelhead, several of which were
undoubtedly native fish. It appears that a small population of steelhead occurred
naturally in Fanno Creek, at least into the 1950's. Since then there is little evidence
of successful spawning by steelhead, but the sighting of several steelhead, one of
which had spawned, indicates that the creek is capable of attracting some strays.
With protection of existing habitat, improvements in both water quality and
quantity, and enhancement of previously disturbed areas, it is possible that
steelhead may once again spawn successfully in Fanno Creek. In light of the recent
ESA listing for steelhead and a potential listing for cutthroat trout, Fanno Creek and
its tributaries warrant full protection as critical habitat. We must work to fully restore
and protect Fanno Creek's native cutthroat trout and steelhead populations, leaving
future generations a creek much more healthy and full of life than the creek we
inherited.
25
Appendix A
Sample
Fish Stories
Incident Report
* For contact information concerning individuals interviewed, call Fans
of Fanno Creek at 768-9592.
i
i
3
26
Fans of Fanno Creek Name(s):
"Fish Stories" Project
Incident Report Address: Phone:
DATE (Approximate: SITE DESCRIPTION:
FISH SPECIES & DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY:
DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE?
LOCATION OF DOCUMENTATION:
INTERVIEWER NAME: INTERVIEW DATE:
INTERVIEWER COMMENTS:
Appendix B
Fish Stories
Steelhead Documentation
27
Fanno Creek "Fish Story" Documentation
Chris Volpe
77 California Street, #11
Ashland, OR 97620
My name is Chris Volpe and 1 grew up in Multnomah County. During the years of 1987
until 1992, 1 often fished in Fanno Creek, mainly in the stretch from Vista Brook Park
downstream to near SW 92nd Avenue. We caught (or saw) a variety of fish Including
sculpin species, carp, brown bullheads and bluegill. Our main quarry was cutthroat
trout. We caught cutthroat up to 14" in length. I and my friends also fished the pools
below SW Shattuck Rd., near where the Albertson's Supermarket is located. Today I
am a fish biologist. I am working for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am
very experienced in fish Identification.
In June, 1989, in Vista Brook Park, I saw a 7 or 8 lb. steelhead (approximately 26") in
Fanno Creek. It surprised me because it seemed quite late in the season for
steelhead to be in such a location. 1 believe the fish I saw was a steelhead because of
its large size, very bright silver color, and fusiform body shape.
Signed,
Signature:
Date: L11 I
i
i
i
i
28
r
pli: iii!
Fanno Creek "Fish Story" Documentation
Gene Dusevoir
10405 SW Denney Rd. #59
Beaverton, OR 97008
My name is Gene Dusevoir. I am experienced at identifying fish, having made fish a
hobby of mine. For over 15 years I have lived on the bank of Fanno Creek just
northeast of the Intersection of Denney Road and Oregon Highway 217. The area Is
heavily wooded, especially on the northern bank, with large Douglas firs shading the
water and red alders or other deciduous trees overhanging the creek. The stretch
used to be a deep pool created behind a beaver dam, although It has gotten shallower
as the beavers have moved on in the last few years.
In May, 1989, I found two steelhead carcasses in the woody debris at the head of the
pool. The largest, a female (see photo), was approximately 30" long, very long and
narrow in body, and appeared to be "spawned out". She had a clipped adipose fin
which indicated she was a hatchery steelhead. The mate was stockier and
approximately 20" long. i had a photo taken in my yard of myself holding the female
with Fanno Creek and its woods in the background.
While fishing in Fanno Creek around 1955, 1 also saw live steelhead up to 18" long.
They were In the pool at the base of the an old dam about 50 feet upstream from
where Scholl's Ferry Rd. crosses the creek.
Signed, ~f
Signature:
Date: S' 2' ly ?
29
Fanno Creek "Fish Story" Documentation
Bob Johnson
14618 SE Topaz
Mllwaull OR 97267
My name Is Bob Johnson. I am an experienced fisherman, having fished for trout as a
kid and for steelhead and salmon for more than 35 years. I am a nephew of Ralph
Sittel, whose family in the 1940's and 50's owned a 30 acre parcel along the South
Fork of Ash Creek between SW 72nd Avenue and the Multnomah County line. The
property was eventually divided up and my family received a 2.5 acre parcel where we
lived in the 1950's. I caught a number of cutthroat trout in the South Fork of Ash Creek,
the main stem of Ash Creek below Metzger Park, and in Fanno Creek as it flowed
through Tigard.
In the winter of 1956-1957 (estimate), while trout fishing in Ash Creek below
Greenburg Road, I saw several medium-sized steelhead (approximately 6 or 7 lbs.).
There was a small dam on the creek just below Greenburg. It was concrete with
wooden boards for controlling the water level. I saw the steelhead surface below the
dam on at least two different occasions. I knew they were steelhead because of their
trout like shape and their much larger size.
Signed,
Signature: 1~. /¢n
Date:
30
Ell !!I'll ISBN
Fanno Creek "Fish Story" Documentation
Ralph Sittel
10560 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, FOR 97223
My name is Ralph Sittel. I have been fishing for trout, salmon, and steelhead for over
70 years. From 1932 through the 1950's, my family owned a 30 acre parcel along the
canyon of the South Fork of Ash Creek between SW 71 st Avenue and the Mus:;iomah
County line. We had approximately 1300' of creek frontage (where Washington
Square Estates is today). The land to the west had been logged but only four or five
acres on our property had been cleared for pasture. The rest was old-growth forest.
Just west of the county line the creek plunged over a 6' high rock ledge and flowed
quickly past huge boulders. Further downhill the land spread out and the creek
stowed down. The leaf mold was 1' deep in that forest along Ash Creek. Western red
cedars were abundant in the bottomiand, with numerous large Douglas firs and bigleaf
maples on the slopes. Many !ogs had fallen into the creek. "Holes", often two or three
feet-deep even in the summer had formed below the largest of these logs.
The creek through our place provided wonderful habitat for cutthroat trout. Many of
the neighborhood kids fished there. In November, during the fall run, the hole below
the falls often had twenty-five 12-15" trout. It was not unusual to be able to catch your
limit of trout In a few minutes. In the early 1940's I saw a steelhead in Ash Creek on
our property, approximately 36" in length (15 Ibs.). It was winter time and the water
was high. The pool where I saw it was about 4' deep at the time. It' jumped right in
front of me. I knew it was a steelhead because of Its long, narrow shape and its silver
color. Undoubtedly there were others but I remembered this one because it jumped
so close and startled me.
Signed,
Signature: 4 0z1t1-
31
Appendix C
Fish Stories
DECD 1993 Waste Spill Report*
* The spill resulted in a fish kill at Vista Brook Park and downstream.
Fans of Fanno has two preserved specimens from those fish: a 12-inch
and an 8-inch cutthroat trout.
32
gill'
Sir-t/C-1SJJ 14:31 IJEU N R P CJRTUi+iV-0R 503 229 6945 P.03/08
SpUI/Reletse Report and Evaluation Yorm.
Date Reaortrd to DEQ .!2 Time Reported MD f 93-06AC Spill a
First Reported To: EMD ' Oiher • 00 T: J EMD contact Aam LA K-
Sy. Pexioa' i/ s, Bl ~pamy 'OGGo.t TOO ri PhOOe
DEO i'er10A Raaiyinr Reaorf J!QG phaoe = 3®f`a'.733rt ~t Y[sit Condacteda Y N
Other Aaeadsm Cent 657-'t o~tl 't• FylP' 4z'z' FAr+N7 Ga..+~ Lisa cuiYa ®aRo,
rty Res ortsr'b(e ter the SPIM, 497'~~~ go= _ At-ewa<xs k- //L+7
Person E-G ~lo+srt,~, S S"6n" Stmet ~~¢2SLJ ~iN~p'rrtXx. {~e~oP.?
Phone Z f9 ° l/ 3 cityizip nT~- °,177 1.9
RP Notified? VN Assumed Responsibility? ®N ConU-t-r Hired? Y
Coatractar Field Rep_ Phone
dacaKoR ofSa_Ilf• Namt F~.ro~JGohr~-
ddKJ t7b r-aLwsiJ &+a1i~~ Ig e~//eiw (:OnA IyIV~Trd+rAN
Where On Si/ s ~Y ~✓ari COt//+7~
Directions Zoo Address Nena2 r j=gALsoA6 tgVU4.
Spill Site Plop" Owner: Spiker CgE: S~ oo ~ts,Go~
Date of Release y 8c,s,.r-o 014/9, Time Release Heaao G./,c Eadod ,,,rx. Pruon. T- S/~°J3
Release Stopped? W' N Contained? Y NIA Emergency Response Needed? Y N
Potential for Fubam Releases? Y N Explain Ua- W, I ' 81+r^5 w/ byt V (P-
Subsrortee Salllyd MtGer i~ tkvt5 t Seracs AAA
Quantlty Released fi.✓1c. Potential t'jusotiry tr &b Coft imrdf N
Now Release Occurred:_ /trKnaG.rN /.~vtPartt ero.PM
Disposal of Cleaaup Ddataiale
MediaAffraad r-w Yes Po/ewtlol S'crvartdtr crT Y N
1~ Strrfae~ Walt~rT C>N P w er sadr _ f o -Ne Te enh' Y N 'V
War them a th 10 Ad Le Saf~Plx; Y Public Affairs Notified? OWNot Needed
Nefes/Narmdw Summary of the Release: Describe the site, spill incident, cleanup actions, and ndonale for whether or
not Author deanris needed. Attack all eorrecpeadease, field notes, Motu, tits siteenhm. etc. -
dOPuJ t ~✓~7 P ~ Q.N 00b9,'-- -.o .5 At ~kog, L _ fw 4PQI M>.S'JtE-W + 91b.
r- 4- C~ iiJS_`~9~- ieL•$7ib4"azf / ryriisi o~
TQteur OJiCW r9r~i✓f~+tK ro r~ GiMX s4°
f/eS'r.V Y'OeaClO~ a6yo _ cSTR~✓6 t~~-. y /.•11r1R-• SJQlyd.tJPS Ar,t ,O/iGN 7ltOGab 11/7'GJ
7b .Br tai-^~Qxt `ZYl~Z . CG O Y: L>i tom. 7 u C+• /R.Prs/ag AMio g~fgBUb-q WIIIY
tSQ?yiri. Ot.fG~✓D t AgRA'~4!L LAOS t•.b'T OAW4-0-,W , Fiuv~ Pa1AS
--~~-it.~ /34CC.V.r!/17:d 7v~ e~J/?mh/e. /~,K.e.-o.a.s✓ sry?PQIM-ice ,~~~5►7s1s e'+4wcC.t».-s•
• iD~.r✓~s. F~.~s.,~_{/Iiya•f~= uNa, sA+r~vcu>:- BL3-? ~ .
33
5tr-ee-1li`J la:sv Ltu Mj6 t•tittLk4D,uk 503 229 6945 P.U/ee
At. vs.+ayst/ !9-r- ti,.et.v S/M,u i.~uo aeobeu.,e'' Id? nAv
,Atr 1e6?lL1/ Kok TnYOT ~nw 6ro~R NAn
_ Fichl 914-,ts_ 00FtJ Mr
OX ins P--J Srn.F~~ 2 E& s- 7at.N.v -4' 44s .(tsar R r-.Irsr,,.~aerr- d,r 374„ 7Y47- V97
~OftwN+ LVdVft - w00'y ,feAr J rr.a+ a ~M1rts w.4 A 0544444t010 SA.e nF'-'V &4~" ao'yet 0.0
Prod6N To kiw &SN Os,dr~ a.CQ.dA. S!7/ rts•r p~iY.~ - FV--•, c,a nn.,_
411--Jon-.0 S"h.oec Fri SA, ^►G~~FIfN Patri-*--Pcsr &MSF)
Xvaiu ti2a of the &Jease
Relem MAY POSE a signiRcaat threat; further review or investigation under ECD authority is recommended.
X_ Release POSES NO significant threat; ad-further action required.
De minimus release - Spill to ground surface, cleaned up, and there is no apparent thrrat to
groundwater, surface water, humans, or sensitive enivoameats.
<50 Salloaa Gasoline or Diesel Fuel.
<100 gdlom Oil, not ioeludiag Waste Oil.
<13 gallons Other Hanardous Substances, including Waste Oil.
Release by its nature rapidly dissipates (air ,m-+t«^^•, sewage spills).
Release is permitted or otherwise authorized.
Release has been cleaned up to a protective ]eve..
Release otherwiso requires to atditioaal invatlwan, ,oo, long term
environmeahlor Institutional controls. gad naaonMwd,e 710 '0'4V-"V ud'GVR-Cr/41<~
Fro
~ri lualor'r~Fr+totorr Drsa
filar the SOM Been ddeauarab Gemred flo► Y N of 8o Data
Completed
Wbo ootapleled the eksaup? ' s
Brief description of cleanup method:
Sa legit ReSIteskd"/M N Dies Due 9 s s~„t.3 Date Roeeived ✓ ~7 'l
Seo[y 2Lne Seem ~t~ (in hoar, and tearhr)
:'oc If a permitted source, File:
Pmergatey Racponsa Program, &CD " Air Quality
Rational Operations Water Quality
Public Affairs Hazardous Waste `
Reecaal ECD Review by Referral Dom? Y N Dace
34
Appendix
Fish Stories
References
References
Allen, Chris. Personal communication, September, 1999. Biologist, U. S. Fish and
. Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
Corkran, Charlotte C. Personal communication, April, 1999. Herpetologist, Portland,
OR.
Friesen, Thomas A. and Ward, David L.. 1995. Status and Condition of Fish
Populations in Streams of the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon, pp. 5-17 in David
L. Ward, editor, Distribution of Fish and Crayfish, and Measurement of
Available Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin, Research Report by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Unified Sewerage Agency, Hillsboro,
OR.
Friesen, Thomas A. and Ward, David L. 1996. Status and Condition of Fish
Assemblages in Streams of the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon. Northwest
Science, Vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 120-131.
Grimes, Jim. Letter to CPO 4-M Chairwoman, Pat Whiting, March 8, 1999. Urban
habitat biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, OR.
Hambach, Ernie. ca. 1930. Unpublished diary. Contact Mike Hambach, Tigard, OR.
Hutchinson, James W. and Aney, Warren W. 1964. Basin Investigations: The Fish
and Wildlife Resources of the Lower Willamette Basin, Oregon, and Their
Water Use Requirements. Oregon State Game Commission (now ODFW),
Portland, OR.
Jeffcott, Percival R. 1954. Boyhood Days In and Around Portland: Being an
Account of the Author's Experiences and Reminiscences from 1876 to 1900.
Unpublished memoirs, Oregon Historical Society, Portland, OR.
Mapes, Virginia. 1993. Chakeipi, The Place of the Beaver: The History of Beaverton,
OR. Community Newspapers, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Massey, Jay. Personal communication, August, 1999. Fisheries biologist, retired;
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.
35
Murtagh, Tom; Niles-Raethke, Vicki; Rohrer, Robert; Gray, Mike; Rien, Tom; and
Massey, Jay. 1992. Tualatin Subbasin Fish Management Plan, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, Oregon.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) web site at www.nwr.noaa.gov, August,
1999. Protected Resources Division, Portland, OR.
Neill, Thomas C.; Leader, Kevin A.; and Ward, David L.. 1995. Status of Fish
Habitat in Streams of the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon, pp. 18-30 in David L.
Ward, editor, Distribution of Fish and Crayfish, and Measurement of Available
Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin, Research Report by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Unified Sewerage Agency, Hillsboro,
OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Fanno Creek Files 1989-1992.
Contact Don Bennett, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas,
OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1986. Steelhead Management
Plan, 1986-19926. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1991. Sensitive Species List,
Wildlife Diversity Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem,
OR.
Page, Lawrence M. and Burr, Brooks M.. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes.
Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Parkhurst, Zell E., Bryant, Floyd G., and Nielson, Reed S. 1950. Survey of the
Columbia River and Its Tributaries. Part III. Special Scientific Report:
Fisheries No. 26. U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), Portland, OR. 1998. Fanno
Creek Resource Management Plan.
Waggy, Mel. Personal communication, May, 1999. Biologist, Tualatin Hills and
Parks District, Beaverton, OR.
Ward, David L. and Friesen, Thomas A. 1995. Biotic Integrity and Aquatic Habitat in
the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon: Criteria for Protecting and Enhancing
Habitat, pp. 31-48 in David L. Ward, editor, Distribution of Fish and Crayfish,
and Measurement of Available Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin, Research
Report by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Unified
Sewerage Agency, Hillsboro, OR.
36
Ward, David L., editor. 1995. Executive Summary of Distribution of Fish and
Crayfish, and Measurement of Available Habitat in the Tualatin River Basin,
Research Report for the Unified Sewerage Agency, Hillsboro, OR.
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), Hillsboro, Oregon, 1997. Fanno Creek Watershed
Management Plan.
i
i
ai
i
9
37
Aquatic Habitat Evaluation.
Ash Creep Drainage
Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Tigard, Oregon
Prepared for:
FANS OF FANNO CREEK
Portland, Oregon
Prepared by:
H
ca
PBS ENVIRONMENTAL
1310 Main Street
Vancouver, Washington 98660
(360) 690-4331
January 20, 2000
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington rigard, Oregon
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PBS Environmental was contacted by the Fans of Fanno Creek to complete a
preliminary evaluation of Ash Creek at the site of a proposed development that
includes the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. This evaiuation was
prepared to address existing conditions and possible impacts on the Ash Creek
habitat and fishery within the designated ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit) of
two species of salmonids currently listed as threatened. The analysis integrated
recent 4(d) regulations and considerations pertinent to the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).
2.0 STUDY AREA
Ash Creek is a second order tributary of Fanno Creek located in Washington
County, Oregon (Figure. 1). The legal location Is Township 1W, Range 1W,
Section 35 (USGS 7.5 quadrangle Beaverton, Oregon). The study area extends
from Hall Boulevard downstream to the confluence with Fanno Creek.
3.0 HISTORY
Ash Creek is a multi-use area that consists of commercial, residential and
agricultural development. Development has Impacted the environmental
conditions along Ash Creek. Some of these impacts Include channelization, a
decline of riparian habitat, a reduction of wetlands, and changes in hydrology
due to alterations in topography. Present habitat is highly degraded due to
historic land use practices (Blowers 2000).
Ash Creek resides within the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) for two
anadromous salmonids, as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in 1999. The upper Willamette River spring-run chinook salmon and the
upper Willamette River winter-run steelhead were listed as threatened (ESA
section 3(19)) on March 24, 1999 and March 25, 1999 respectively. Inclusion of
Ash Creek within these two ESU's was verified by NMFS (Langston pers. com.
2000).
A species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires protection of
critical habitat including direct "take" as defined by NMFS. In December of 1999,
NMFS produced the 4(d) rules to apply to threatened species specifically. This
1
M
day 9T 9r ~ 1~ ~v~.
Y I
.r , ,ti sex 'fly ~h-
r
l
:r
,
a
v
. An
I'
' ~ M 9f l
IN ~
x
avg.. ~j ~ tF IF ,
3
~d
, r
1
TA
'e
d
pry Pi. ~ ~4
N
LEGEND ASH CREEK STUDY AREA
PBS ® =SAMPLING LOCATIONS
= APPROXIMATE STUDY BOUNDARY FIGURE 1
510r4MaprEIIIAL
wwt 70048.00
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
was designed to allow for limited "take" and is composed of 13 limits on
activities. The 4(d) rule can be applied to Ash Creek for enhancement, as well as
development. Restoration of Ash Creek could occur under the 4(d) rules for a
two-year period before a watershed restoration plan must be developed and
approved by NMFS. These 4(d) rules are not fully incorporated into the current
NMFS guidelines. Responses from city, state and private entities are required to
incorporate NMFS standards into their local developmental plans. These plans
will be acceptable only if approved by NMFS.
4.® METHODS
Information was gathered through literature searches, personal communications,
and a site visitation. Habitat was evaluated using Salmon Trout Enhancement
Program (STEP) protocol (More et al. 1998), to supply appropriate data for the
NMFS matrix of pathways and indicators (NMFS 1996). These observations will
supply the essential habitat data. Fish species assemblage and water quality data
were supported by previously attained information (Ward 1995; Blowers 2000).
Ash Creek was evaluated for the following physical habitat components: unit
characteristics, percent substrate, instream woody debris, slope (gradient),
riparian shade and active erosion. Riparian vegetation analyses is included in the
physical portion of sampling. Sampling occurred at three locations: the
intersection of Hall Boulevard. and Oak Street (upper), the Highway 217 bridge
(middle), and Greenburg Road. The Department of Environmental Quality Water
Limited Streams List (DEQ 1998) supplies the appropriate information needed to
assess water quality of Ash Creek.
5.® RESULTS
Ash Creek supports both native and introduced fish species. Native fish species
present include redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled dace
(Rhinichthys osculus), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrchei/us), threespine
stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and reticulate sculpin (Cottus perplexus).
Introduced species that inhabit Ash Creek are goldfish (Carassius auratus),
mosquito fish (Gambusia afnis), bluegill (Lepomis macrocl*us), pumpkinseed
(Lepomisgibbosus), and largemouth bass (Micropterussalmoides) (Ward 1995).
Salmonids are not currently listed as present in Ash Creek. Historical accounts
show the presence of both steelhead and cutthroat trout, possibly for spawning
and rearing (Blowers 2000). Steelhead have been reported in Fanno Creek,
leaving potential for repopulation of Ash Creek if the required habitat is available
2
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
(Blowers 2000). Unpublished data received from ODFW shows coho salmon
present in Fanno Creek. Although not considered native to this system, their
presence could be a reflection of improving habitat conditions (Leader 2000 pers.
com.)
Channel types in the three locations sampled were dominated by glides (low
gradient, uniform flow areas with no surface turbulence). Pool and rifle habitat
was observed only in the upper portions of the study area and appeared to be
artificially induced (ie.bridge). Channel characteristics presented a width/depth
ratio ranging from 4-12. Slope, represented by gradient, is low, typically found
to be 0 in glides of these types. Shade was estimated to be nonexistent in most
locations to marginal (20%) in others. Substrates in all three locations consist
mostly of silt/organics, with some gravel that was embedded. Active erosion was
observed at all sites, increasing as it progresses downstream. A lack of large
woody debris (LWD) is apparent with no potential recruitment due to the lack of
a mature, intact riparian zone with in the site.
Riparian areas were assessed in transects perpendicular to Ash Creek using 10
meter increments. Most areas were void of large mature trees. Grasses and
forbs mostly dominate vegetation after the first 10 meters. Canopy closure is
negligible in most areas, with some trees supplying closure in the upper reach.
Water quality data as analyzed by the DEQ 303 (d) list shows that significant
perturbations exist (DEQ 1998). Temperature criteria failed to meet standards
set for summer rearing (64 F) 58% of the time (DEQ 1998). Biotic integrity
scored lower than 30 in two of the three reaches sampled (DEQ 1998). This
biotic integrity score is classified as low. Dissolved oxygen levels, supplied by the
USDA, show failure to maintain the standard 6.5 mg/I level set to protect cool-
water aquatic resources from May to October (DEQ 1998). Bacterial
contaminants (fecal coliform-96 Std) exceeded values 100% of the time from fall
through spring. Compliance to these standards was not met 69% of the time in
summer months (DEQ 1998).
6.0 CONCLUSION
A comparison of aquatic indicators as listed in Column 2 of Table 1 with NMFS
criteria in Columns 3 through 6 indicat; (dark color) that water quality, habitat
and channel condition are either "loot functioning properly" or are "at risk".
Failure to meet the criteria may result in the initiation of legal action to force
compliance to the NMFS habitat standards as set forth in the matrix of pathways
and indicators. A "take" must be proven either by direct evidence of a listed
3
T pJ3LE NOT
d indicators NOT pROPER►'Y p~TERM►N~p
~~Fg Matrix of Pathways an
FUNCTIONING
pROP~RI'Y AT R15K
FUNCTIONING
INDICATORThWpYS Tem erasure
Sediment
ical Contaminafion and
Chem Nutrients
ph steal aan1ers
Substrate
a Wood Debris
t.ar
pool Fre uenc
poolOuati
0►{.channel Habitat
Refu to
WtdthlDe tl► Ratio
Streambank Condition
Flood fain ConneCtivi
Flows
~ peaKlBase
praina a t1eM►ork Increase
i and ►-ocation
Road pens nce Htsto
Disturbance
Ri avian
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
species mortality, or by habitat degradation that may cause an indirect take
within the watershed.
In general, existing and historical land use has impacted this section of Ash
Creek. It is our professional opinion that based upon the NMFS 4(d) guidelines,
this aquatic habitat needs to be protected and enhanced to restore the
functioning of this salmonid habitat. Water quality needs to be improved within
the watershed and onsite through establishment of a riparian corridor with
adequate buffers and revegetation along the bankline. The bankline is degraded
and needs to be stabilized to prevent on-going erosion and alteration of stream
substrate. Stormwater management within the watershed and onsite, and an
erosion control plan will also provide additional measures to improve a degraded
nutrient and water quality condition.
The current substrate conditions within Ash Creek are not favorable for salmonid
spawning. Stream temperatures and pool quality limit the availability of adult
salmonid habitat. No quality pools were located within the study area and pool
formation is unlikely without structural components (ie. large woody debris)
causing scour pools or sinuosity creating lateral pools to form.
Large woody debris (LWD) is an important habitat component for juvenile
salmonids, supplying protection from predators, forage habitat and flow
alterations. Virtually no LWD exist on the Ash Creek study site. Recruitment is
unlikely with the current state of the riparian zone. Any input of LWD would
have to occur from the reach upstream from Hall Boulevard.
Wetland protection along Ash Creek is also recommend to provide opportunities
for improvement of aquatic habitat and water quality along this drainage. Road
crossings and any structural development near the drainage needs to be
minimized or avoided to further impact a degraded aquatic habitat.
Proposed actions at this site will require a response to the 13 limits listed in
NMFS 4(d) rules. Specifically the "Limit on Take Prohibitions for New Urban
Density Development" is applicable to the plans as outlined in the Washington
Center Regional Center Plan. This requires consideration of 12 principles
outlined by NMFS (Department of Commerce, NOAA, 1999 pg. 73493-73494).
The 12 principles were designed to assure development is consistent with ESA
requirements and avoids or minimizes the risk of take of listed salmonids. In
accordance with these principles new urban development must:
® Be sited in appropriate areas, avoiding unstable slopes, wetlands,
areas of high habitat value, and similarly constrained sites.
4
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
♦ Avoid stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and quantity, and
move toward returning stream flow patterns closer to historic
conditions. This may include reduction of impervious surface, runoff
detention, and establishment of required buffers to prevent sediment
and other pollutants from reaching the watercourse.
o Establish and/or retain adequate riparian buffers along all perennial
and intermittent streams. Within the riparian buffer all existing native
vegetation must be retained. Where the riparian area contains non-
native vegetation or is cropped, native vegetation vegetation must be
added to achieve mix of conifer, deciduous trees, understory and
ground cover within the riparian buffer.
Avoid stream crossings by roads, wherever possible, and where one
must be provided, minimize impacts through choice of mode, sizing,
and placement. Bridges and culverts must be designed to pass at
least the 100-year flood and associated debris and must meet ODFW
criteria; regular monitoring and maintenance will be required.
♦ Protect historic stream meander patterns, flood plains and channel
migration zones; do not allow hardening of the stream banks. Where
riparian buffers do not adequately prevent streambank erosion,
erosion should be controlled through vegetation or carefully
bioengineered solutions.
e Protect wetlands and the vegetation surrounding them to maintain
wetland functions. Retain all existing natural wetlands.
o Preserve the hydrologic capacity of all intermittent and perennial
streams to pass peak flows and meet the Flood Management
Performance Standards of Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan.
Landscape to reduce need for watering and appplication of herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizer. This will include planting native vegetation,
reducing lawn area, and reducing water use.
Prevent erosion and sediment runoff during and after construction to
prevent discharge of sediments. Assure that, at a minimum, the
requirements of Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Plan
area applied to all development.
5
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
o Assure that water supply demands for the new development can be
met without impacting flows needs for threatened salmonids either
directly or through groundwater withdrawals.
o Assure regular monitoring and maintenance of any detention basins
and other stormwater management tools over the long term. Requires
adaptation of such practices as needed based on monitoring results.
s Provide all enforcement, funding, monitoring, reporting, and
implementation mechanisms needed to assure that ultimate
development will comply with the ordinances or the Metro Urban
Growth Mangement Functional Plan.
These principles as presented in the NMFS document must be addressed and
incorporated as ordinances by the jurisdictional body in direct control of the
development of the area. Upon adoption of these new ordinances by the
jurisdictional body (City or County), they must be submitted to NMFS for
approval before any alterations can occur on Ash Creek (Furfey pers. com.
2000). NMFS will not apply take prohibitions to new developments governed by
the ordinances that NMFS has determined as adequate to help protect
anadromous salmonids.
6
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
7.0 REFERENCES
Blowers, J. 2000. "Fish Stories" The Historical Occurrence of Salmonids in Fanno
Creek. A Report of Fans of Fanno Creek. P.0 Box 25835 Portland, OR.
Department of Environmental Quality, 1998. Oregon's Final 1998 Water Quality
Limited Streams - 303(d) List. Salem, OR.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
1998. Federal Register/ Vol. 63: 11482-11520, No. 45/ Monday, March 9,
1998/ Proposed Rules.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
1999. Federal Register/ Vol. 64: 73479-73506, No. 250/ Thursday,
December 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1999. Questions and Answers about the ESA
Proposed 4(d) Rules for Pacific Salmon. Portland, OR.
National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental and Technical Services Division
Habitat Conservation Branch, 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the
Watershed Scale (Appendix 2). Portland, OR.
More, K. et al., 1998. Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys Aquatic Inventory
Project Natural Production Program: Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Version 8.1, June 1998. Corvallis, OR, 97330.
National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region, 1999. The ESA Proposed
4(d) Rules for Pacific Salmon. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, undated. Salmon-Trout Enhancement
Program and Aquatic Inventory Project, Basic Level Stream Survey
Manual.
I Spencer and Kupper et al., 1999. Washington Square Regional Center Plan. City
of Tigard, Oregon, September 1999.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. 7.5 Minute Topograghic Quadrangle for
Beaverton, Oregon. (1:24,000).
7
NONE IMMUNE
Fishery Evaluation of
PBS Environmental Ash Creek Drainage
Vancouver, Washington Tigard, Oregon
Ward, D.L. 1995. Distribution of Crayfish, and Measurements of Available Habitat
in the Tualatin River Basin (ODFW) 17330 SE Evelyn Street Clackamas,
OR.
COOPERATORS AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Friesen, Thomas A. (January 2000) Natural Resource Specialist, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Investigations,
Clackamas, Oregon.
Furfey, Rosemary. (January 2000) Natural Resource Management Specialist,
Protected Resource Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland,
Oregon.
Langston, Amy. (January 2000) National Marine Fisheries Service (Northwest
Region), Data Administrator, Portland, Oregon.
Leader, Kevin. (January 2000) Natural Resource Specialist, Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Investigations, Clackamas, Oregon.
s
KEY PERSONNEL
RON RAC HBURN T)DIS
PROJECT MANAGER/SENIOR ECOLOGIST
■ w v t a c M r a r T r L
Project Experience: 27 years
Education: Ph.D., Western States University (Post-1974)
Post Graduate Studies (Ecology) University of California (1971-1973)
M.S., (Ecology), University of California (1971)
B.S., (Zoology), California State University (1958)
Acereditations: State Certified A. Watershed Ecology
Certified Senior Ecologist
Certified Fishery Biologist
Certified Environmental Inspector
Dr. Rathburn is a Principal and Senior Ecologist for PBS Environmental. His extensive academic
studies in wildlife, fisheries and plant ecology (11 years) combined with the applied consulting
experience during the past 23 years in the Pacific Northwest provides a practical and technical
foundation to manage and provide scientific support for the City of Wilsonville on these environmental
projects.
Dr. Rathbum has been active as a resource consultant in the analyses of approximately 186 regional
and site specific biological and ecological investigations. This work has involved field data collection,
analyses, report preparation and permit acquisition. These projects have included SEPA evaluations,
NPDES studies, environmental impact assessments, baseline studies, resource inventories,
threatened and endangered species review, mitigation assessments and enhancement, critical
habitat usage, Goal 5 Analysis, ESEE reports and wetland delineation's.
He was recently involved in the management of a Natural Resource Evaluation for the Department
of Correction's Wiilsonville site. This work involved site specific and regional overview of natural
resource issues identified by the City, METRO and the State agencies. This work involved wetlands,
fisheries, habitat and wildife issues that would be impacted by the proposed development. Most
recently, Dr. Rathburn is managing a Goal 5/ESEE analysis of natural resources adjacent to the on
the Willamette River. He is coordinating with legal staff on ESA issues pertaining to salmon, turtles
and the Oregon Chub. Issues pertaining to Section 7 and 10 consultation are presently being
strategized. His regulatory experience has provided considerable opportunity to work with the Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife, Department of Environmental Quality, METRO and Oregon
Department of State Lands.
Representative Project Experience:
• Principal scientist and manager of ESA evaluation of steelhead and chinook salmon on Willamette River
in coordination with NIViFS, ODFW and USFWS agencies. Section 7 and 10 of ESA applicable to this
project.
• Fishery and wildlife evaluation to support EIS for Skamania Lodge and golf course development.
Evaluated the fisheries, wetlands, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, and water quality
considerations that would be influenced by the project elements..
KEY PERSONNEL
-P-RS
■MVINorrrrTAL
• Baseline evaluation of pond turtles (Federal Listed Species) according to ESA regulations to determine
habitat use and sensitivity to resort and golf course development.
• ESA evaluation of steelhead populations on Clatskanie River to determine applicability to ESA
regulations.
• Manager and Principal Scientist for Fish and Wildlife Resource Analysis of site specific and regional
investigation for Oregon Department of Correction's Wilsonville site.
• Principal scientist and manager of natural resource evaluation for the analysis of 3 URA's for METRO
to support urban expansion in Washington County.
• Evaluation of fishery resources at East Fork Lewis River in Washington to assess impact from gravel
mining operations. The fishery work included a preliminary evaluation of the riparian shoreline habitat
followed by detailed stream surveys of the Lewis River and Dean Creek.
• Principal scientist and manager of environmental baseline and Impact assessment for U.S. Borax mining
project in SE Alaska. Managed multi-disciplined team (24 scientists) and coordinated work with client and
18 Federal/State regulatory representatives.
e Mitigation of wetland impacts associated with Kalama Port development. Evaluated impacts from un-
permitted shoreline modification to natural resources along Columbia River.
s Principal scientist in evaluation of eagles and geese populations impacted from proposed airport in SW
Washington.
• Project manager and consulting scientist in evaluation of industrial developments along Columbia River
in SW Washington to support SEPA review process.
i Coordinating ecologist in preparation of various wetland delineation's and mitigation plans in Portland-
Vancouver area to support permitting requirements.
Principal scientist and project manager for multi-year baseline evaluation of wildlife associated with
commercial development near Columbia River. Evaluation involved federal review of investigation and
approval of conclusions and mitigation to resolve agency concerns.
C Principal scientist of wildlife management plans for the protection of sensitive osprey, herons and pond
turtles to support the development of industrial site along the Willamette River.
• Principal scientist in the preparation of a Biological Assessment of bald eagles and falcons to support US
Fish & Wildlife requirements for EIS documentation of impacts of road expansion.
I
I • Principal scientist and manager of wildlife restoration and enhancement work along Columbia River to
support impacts. Project provided national certification for client and resulted in an ongoing educational
program for the community.
C Principal scientist and manager of EIS and permitting for coal mine in Montana. Responsible for
coordination of 8 agencies and technical work of 8 scientist in wildlife biology, fishery and plant ecology.
Y
KEY PERSONNEL
PEGGY ®'NEILL
SENIOR ECOLOGI ST/BOTANIST PBS
• N Y I A O M Y 0 M T A L
Education Portland State University, M.S., 1999, Environmental
Science
Western OregonUniversity, B.S., 1991, Earth Science
Certification/ Wetland Sedges, Grasses, Rushes
'raining Wetland Mitigation, Construction, Installation
Memberships Society of Wetland Scientists
Native Plant Society
The Wetlands Conservancy
Ecological Society of America
Peggy O'Neill is a Senior Ecologist/ Botanist; she is responsible for conducting
biological investigations including riparian corridor assessment, wetland
delineations, vegetative analysis and threatened and endangered species
evaluation. She provides a strong academic background in the environmental
sciences with particular expertise in urban riparian ecology, as well as applied
experience as a biologoist on wetland and riparian investigations in the greater
metropolitan area.
Ms. ONeill's master's thesis research examines some effects of urbanization on
riparian zones. A majority of this research was focused in the Fanno Creek
Watershed with some work in several other Portland-area watersheds.
Consequently, Ms. ONeill has a strong working knowledge of watershed
characteristics and conditions in the Portland metropolitan region.
In addition to her experience with EnviroScience, Ms. ONeill also worked as a
Stewardship Assistant for the Community Wateshed Stewardship Program
(PSU/City of Portland BES), working with local citizen groups to facilitate stream
and riparian habitat restoration and watershed enhancement. She has extensive
experience working on watershed enhancement projects and issues with citizen
groups in Portland area watersheds.
Ms. O'Neill has also conducted Local Wetland and Riparian Inventories with
Shapiro & Associates, and assisted Dr. J. Richard Pratt (PSU) with research on
the Portland Metro section of the State of the Environment report.
Representative Projects
• Lone Star Northwest, Inc.; Clackamette Cove Mitigation Monitoring
• B&H Properties; Wetland Delineation & Mitigation
• Darin Parr; Riparian Buffer Restoration
• City of Portland BES/Fans of Fanno Creek; Fans of Fanno Creek Annual Tree
Planting Festival
• City of Portland BES; 106th Street Stream Bank Stabilization and Restoration
KEY PERSONNEL
BERNARD A. KLATTE
SENIOR FISHERIES BIOLOGIST PBS
■ M V I A D A N i A T A L
Education M.S., Natural Resources, 1999, Humboldt State University
B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, 1989, University of Vermont
Mr. Klatte has experience and education in several areas of natural resources;
his major emphasis is on anadromous salmonid ecology, which incorporates
biological sciences, wildlife science and freshwater ecology. He has planned and
designed watershed restoration projects in the state of Washington for
conservation districts and enhancement groups. Bern has also worked as a
fisheries biologist in Washington and California with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish & Game and the National Fisheries
Research Center at the Columbia River Field Station.
In addition to his fisheries experience, Bern also has experience with areas of
study including population dynamics, hydrology, geomorphology, and ecology.
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
Fisheries Biologist, Columbia Pacific Resource Conservation and Development
Council, Aberdeen, Washington, 1998-99.
- worked with non-profit organizations responsible for planning and designing
watershed restoration projects in four counties in Southwest Washington.
• Fisheries Biologist, Thomas R. Payne & Associates, Arcata, California, 1994-98.
- collected data and analyzed information for Instream Flow Studies (IFIM); perform
biological assessments, conducted snorkel surveys for fish population indices;
electrofishing.
• Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arcata, California, 1994.
- conducted field investigations, studies and surveys including stream habitat
inventories, fish trapping and tagging, population estimation and inventories through
snorkeling, spawning and ground surveys.
® Scientific Aide, California Department of Fish & Game, Long Beach, California, 1993.
- assisted biologists with shark tagging study and live fish trap management; managed
and analyzed fishery data.
e Fisheries Biologist, National Fisheries Research Center, Cook, Washington, 1992.
- conducted research investigating predator-prey relationship of squaw fish and
salmonids around hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River using telemetry,
GPS and GIS systems. Planned, developed and executed field and laboratory
research projects. Trained others to use GPS and GIS in research projects
o Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, 1991.
- responsible for assessment and analysis of anadromous salmonid habitat using
GPS equipment. Managed and analyzed fishery data and provided assistance with
fishery management studies including studies of salmonid hatchery production
plans, outplanting techniques, and the effects of hatchery outplanting on existing
wild runs of salmon and steelhead.
KEY PERSONNEL
Ian B. Chane PBS
Ecologist/Field Biologist
■ M Y I N O N Y5 N T A L
Education: B.S., [Fisheries Science] Oregon State University
B.S., [Wildlife Science] Oregon State University
Ian is an ecologist and field biologist for PBS Environmental. His academic studies focused on
fisheries and wildlife sciences including coursework in wetland science (aquatic botany, wetland and
riparian ecology). He has extensive experience in private, state, federal, tribal and academic natural
resource based research. Experience includes detailed lab work at Oregon State University, fisheries
sampling expertise and evaluations of wetland and riparian habitats. He provides strong support for
wetland, wildlife and fisheries projects, and coordinates field research for PBS Environmental.
Mr. Chane has been active as a wetland consultant, including experience as a project leader. He has
extensive boat operations experience including night navigation with the majority of his time spent on
the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Ian has also performed aquatic inventories for the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife using STEP protocol. Ian is very familiar with northwest fish and
wildlife species including vegetation.
Career Highlights
• Fishery biologist in evaluation of aquatic habitat for Steelhead and Chinook Salmon in the
Willamette River.
• Fishery biologist in field and technical evaluation of endangered Oregon Chub in backwaters of
Willamette River.
• Lab Technician for Oregon State University (Oregon Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit).
• Performed Natural Resource Evaluation for East Vancouver facilities Master Plan.
• Wetland delineation verification for CIDA at Reeser's Beaverton plant.
• Project manager for Watersheds Unlimited Inc. Conrad Farms Enhancement Project. Authored
a grant proposal for enhancement of wetlands in Linn Co. Oregon. Extensive use of GIS, soil
profiles and management of field activities.
• Experimental Biological Aide for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• Lead fish culturist at Oregon State University Fisheries Performance and Genetics Laboratory.
• Quinalt Nation salmon spawning ground surveyor, Washington's Olympic Peninsula.
4
~EB 1 Z~Q Pat Whiting, Chair
~MM~N~FI DEVELOQMENT CPO 4 c/o
8122 S. W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon 97223
February 1, 2000
Tigard City Council
c/o Brian Moore, Presiding Officer
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Proposed Washington Square
Regional Center Plan Boundary,
Up-zoning and Infastructure
Dear Councilman Moore and City Council:
January 26, 2000, Citizen Participation organization 4-M
(CPO 4-M) adopted a resolution supporting Tigard's city-wide
Policy 7.1.2 as pretains to mandatory infastructure facility
preceding development and opposing staff-proposed Policy 11.8.3
which contains language that will allow develpment before
proper water and drainage facilities are in place. Also, any
proposed policies that seek to allow development before
transportational infastructure is also opposed given the
possible impacdts to the existing communilty and to any new
community that may develop.
During the Task Force meetings a letter from the U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service dated July 28, 1999,
and a second letter dated Agusut 23, 1999, noted that although
the Service regularly assumes a regulatory role (Section 404 -
permits, etc.), they "prefer to provide technical assistance
in earlier planning stages when more options are typically
available and natural resource problems can be avoided more
easily and less expensively." (Please refer to attached letters).
The Task Force did not invite important agency personnel
to our meetings to heap shed light on the fd~btions and values
of floodplains, riparian zones, wetland and wildlife despite
requests from some Task Force members and two letters dated
July 19, 1999, from Tualatin Riverkeepers and from Crestwood
Headwaters Group of Ash Creek.
• 2 Pat Whiting
1/1/2000
TCC:WSRC Proposal
During the Planning Commission public hearing on November
15, 1999, the staff for the regional center proposal were asked
if employees of government agencies were asked to speak or
participate in discussions regarding natural resources and the
values of water quality, fish and habitat. The response seemed
to be that there wasn't much response.
Attached for your rek~ew are the letters listing the agency
employees of seven major areas who are experts in their fields
and interact with jurisdictions in Washington County. Some are
:involved in Fanno Creek management. As of this writing three
of the seven people listed in these letters who I called
yesterday, January 31, 2000, had not been called or contacted.
I've not heard back at this time from the remaining people listed.
Before the Council considers finalizing any portion of this
regional center plan or the plan itself, we are requesting
that you hold a City Council worksession with the state and
federal agencies to discuss the issues at hand that impact
floodplains, wetlands, wildlife and habitat as well as fish and air
quality. Your deliberations and decisions should be predicated
upon as m,tuch informatMn as possible given the enormity of the
proposal before you. It is requested that you opt for greater
dialogue and resolve problems that face this proposal prior to
adoption.
a
a
Therefore, it is requested that you consider giving this
planning process more time to evolve and not make final decisions
at your meeting of February 8th.
r
If you opt to not secure more factual dialogue with state and
federal agencies regarding these issues, given the potential
high-density development/redevelopment activity through proposed
regional center up-zoning i~la major sensitive lands area and
3 Pat Whiting
1/1/2000
TCC:WSRC Proposal
and an existing residential community, we request that the
regional center plan boundary to the east be S.W. Greenburg
Road. This would effectively eliminate most of the problems
with the current proposal that are in conflict wilth the
Up-dated 2040 Plan of September, 1999. Sensitive lands and
existing residential communities are not to be subject to
increased denisty provisions within a regional center.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat Whiting
07/22/99 09:30 12503 664 7297 CITY OF TSGMW 16001/001
TUALATIN Riverkeepers
_ )6340 SW Beef Bend Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140
(503) 590 5813 Fax: (503) 590-6702 • triverk@teleport.com
www.tcleport.cotn1-triverk
July 19, 1999
Laurie Nicholson, Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Ms. Nicholson,
The Tualatin Riverkeepers are dedicated to protecting and preserving the natural systems of the
Tualatin River and its tributaries. We feel that the best time to work at protecting these resources
is early on in the land-use planning process. It is essential that those involved with land-use
planning get the best advice possible on how to protect these resources. Thus far, the
Washington Square Regional Center Task Force has not involved employees of government
agencies who could best advise the task force on protecting wetlands and floodplain for the
values of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and. flood preventiorL The Tualatin
Riverkmpers request that you invite the followingiigency representatives to participate in the
next Task Force meeting:
Jan Stuart, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jennifer Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Chimes, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Bill Parks, Oregon Division of Stare Lands
Tom Melville, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Jim Turner, National Marine Fisheries Service
Yvonne Vallette, Environm,errtel Protection Agency
We believe that involving these agencies now will help ptutect wetland and floodplain resources,
and v.'di preveia costly plan revisions later in the developureut process_
Sincerely,
Brian. Wegener
President, Tualatin Riverkeepers
c: Jim Nicoli, Mayor of Tigard
Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan
07/27/99 15:17 0503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD
r+&n:. em W. Retm To: Laurie Nichakon w= "J"4- • • • 001 /001
j .
1 ~
y ' Crestwood Headwaters Group
5115 Sal Alted St
s> Portland, OR 97219
July 19, 1999
Elaine Cogan Laurie Nicholson/Planner
Cogan Owens Cogan City of Tigard .
8313 S.W. Alder Street 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Portland, OR 97302 Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Laurie and Elaine;
Please invite the following people to speak for a few minutes at Wednesday, July 28.
1999 Task Force for the Washington Square Regional Center. I believe it is very
important that the task force have their perspective.
Jan Stuart Yvonne Vallette
Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Parks Jennifer Thompson
Division of State Lands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tom Melville Jim Grimes
Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jim Turner
National Marine Fisheries Service
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jer Retzer
estwood Headwaters oup
MOORE 11i
~vd~128/99 WED 11:48 FAIT 5032016195 FWS-OSO Q002
KT O \ ~ .
_ .yam
'United Mates Department of the Interior
_ nS11 AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Oregon State Office
2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portlanc, Oregon 97266
(503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231--6195
RW.y Tc: 6500.3001 July 28, 1999
File Name: WA5QUAF.E.WPD
Washington Square Re,( e ReQiona1 Center Task Force
c/o Elaine Cogan
Cogan Owens Cogan
813 SW Alder
Portland, OR 97205 .
Dear Task Force Members:
The U.S. Fish.-4-0 Wildlife Service (Service) is submitting this letter to urge the Task Force not
to recommend-rapzoning of the wetlands and goodplains within the proposed Washington Square
Regional Center development area- -in particular,'the Service is'concerned about the wetlands
and floodplains associated with Ash Greek that would be impacted if the area between Oak and
Hwy 217 is upzoned to allow,for a minimum of.50 units per acre. The Service encourages the
conservation of these valuable and sensitive natural resources by maintaining the mop protective
zoning..
-In addition to She numerous fish and wildlife species typically associated with wetland and
floodp Win;. u., ifing
1'c: estscYl N _ IqA
lain habitats "
aaortheirid-leggg. flu adcit 3on iJ perilla'm t elver sfeelhea``d,wh eh are listed under
the Endangered Species Act as threatened, occur downstream and may occur in Ash Creek.
Unfortunately, Ash Creek is currently included on the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality's 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Waterbodies for decli in fish communities due
to poor water quality, low dissolved oxygen, high summer temperatures, and fecal coliform.
The recovery and sustainability of fish and wildlife species requires bonservation efforts that lead
to improved watershed health. This is a challenging goal to achieve in an urban area, not only
because of direct development pressures on sensitive areas, but also because of the intensive oft
site and indirect impacts related to urbanization. Long-term planning and sound policy
development are two of the most effective protection mechanisms available for minimizing both
direct and indirect impacts to natural resources and their associated functions and values. Local
conservation efforts can play a key role in complimenting, supporting, and expanding upon those
at the regional, state and Federal levels. To ensure that local resources continue to provide
benefits to fish, wildlife and people, and for consistency with regulations that will affect the site,
the Service recommends that the Task Force work to protect Ash creek and associated riparian
areas, floodplains, wetlands and buffers by supporting zoning and other conservation strategies
that will prevent resource degradation.
• :,r, r.. A; ..V{• ♦L.VQ rM auJL~loltla r'wS-USU IND-
Z
The following is a list of some of the many functions that ffloodplains, riparian zones, and
Wetlands. provide.
Fish and Wildli f - NahitAt-
• There are currently 54 Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and
special concern species within Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties. over
80% of these species depend on wetlands, riparian habitat, or the functions they provide
for one or more stages in their life cycles. Riparian, floodplain and wetland area
protection can benefit listed species, as well as prevent the future listing of other species.
• Healthy riparian areas provide connected, protected corridors for wildlife to travel
between seasonal ranges and alternate habitats, allowing for species dispersal. This
mobility facilitates genetic exchange and allows utilization of a wider range of potential
habitat.
• Undisturbed riparian vegetation composed of a mosaic of various successional stages and
plant communities equates to high habitat diversity necessary to support diverse
communities and.populations.
• Undisturbed riparian systems typically contain an assortment of habitat characteristics
including multiple canopy layers, snags, woody debris, irregular edges (which provide a
diverse interface between riparian areas and differing habitat types, furthering habitat
diversity), undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. These complex characteristics
provide the diverse habitat requirements necessary to support a. wide range ofnaturally
occurring fish and wildlife species.
• Although riparian and wetland areas cannot ameliorate all adverse upland impacts, they
provide the greatest resources receded by fish and wildlife in the smallest area, and thus
are a priority for protection.
• In developed and developing landscapes, ripariap,and wetland areas can provide critical
refuge when adjacent habitat is lost or degraded.
Role of Flood ai ssnd_Riparian Tones During Flood Fvents-
• Floodplains naturally accumulate the appropriate type and balanced amount of organic
matter and dissolved nutrients which are flushed into streams and rivers during runoff
events. At natural levels, this material supplies fish and aquatic invertebrates with a rich
source of food that can enhance production.
Intact vegetation buffos the impact and erosive forces of rain as it hits the ground, and
helps to slow and store water as it flows across the landscape. The greater the vegetative
cover in a watershed, the greater the amount of water that can be slowed and held for
gradual release. Riparian areas and floodplains moderate both high and low stream
flows, providing more consistent flows throughout the year.
~ • Water moves from the active stream channel onto floodplains during storm events,
9 providing natural areas for flood storage. Alterations to floodplains, such as the removal
co of vegetation or creation of impervious surfaces, reduces the flood storage capacity and
E infiltrations of water over the floodphdn. In turn, this results in increased and expedited
a flows moving downstream, leading to stream degradation and potential flooding
problems that may affect life and property.
Wad Quality-
W
Riparian Riparian buffers which retain adequate vegetation and intact soils intercept,.store, and
biodegrade significant portions of pollutants.
• Riparian buffers filter and break down nutrients. By preventing nutrient loading and
excessive aquatic plant and algal growth (which can ultimately cause oxygen depletion
and excess ammonia), an increase in water acidity is avoided, which would otherwise
r
28/19 WED 11:48 FAX 5032316195 FWS-OSO Q004
3
• adversely impact fish and other wildlife by slowing fish growth and negatively impacting
reproduction in some species.
• Plant roots help to stabilize the soil. Maintaining woody vegetation and limiting soil
disturbance in riparian areas will prevent significant quantities of sediment from entering
stream s_jstems.
Efforts are needed not only to maintain, but to improve watershed health throughout the
metropolitan region. Locally lead and supported efforts are needed more now than ever to
recover species %uch as threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead. The opportunity is still
available at the loroposed Washington Square Regional Center to avoid impacts to natural
resources, whicL is much more effective than fixing problems later both in terms of preventing
irreplaceable resource losses, maintaining environmental health and preventing the unnecessary
costs of repair, n:storation, or attempting to recreate lost functions through artificial means.
Please ensure that all Task Force members receive a copy of this letter, and that it is included in
the Task Force Record and in the Regional Center Plan Appendix for consideration by local
jurisdictions. Feel free to contact Jennifer Thompson or Kumari Sivam of my staff at (503) 231-
6179 if you would like to discuss these comments, or if we can provide you with any additional
information. Thank you in advance for considering our input and keeping us informed o£your
decision regarding this issue.
Sin erel ,
1
State Sup ' or
oo!''e-
cc: Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Members
Tigard City Council
Tigard Planning Commission
:ar oa r
0 bF
United States Department of the Interior
RECEIVED C.O.T.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
~4RCH Oregon State Office AUG 26 1999
2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
(503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231-6195.
Reply To, 6500.3001 August 23, 1999
File Name: WASQDAVI.WPD
Dr. Gene Davis, President
Foreign Mission Foundation
•10875 S.W. 89d' Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Dr. Davis:
Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1999 in regard to our letter dated July 28, 1999 that was
sent to the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service's) comments focused on the issue of development in the wetlands and
floodplains associated - th Ash Crcck -Within the Washington Square Regional Center planning
boundary.
Rackg or and
The issue of upzoning within the Washington Square Regional Center planning area was brought
to the Service's attention by six different public and private organizations. Our comments are
not intended to represent the views of any other organization or agency. The letter is advisory in
nature and has no regulatory significance. The Service is mainly concerned about avoiding
adverse impacts to Ash Creek and associated riparian vegetation, wetlands and floodplains by
ensuring that decisions to upzone do not compromise natural resources by allowing development
in these sensitive and productive areas.
It is generally in the best interest of all stakeholders for the Service to provide comments as early
during planning processes as possible. Opportunities for early involvement allow the Service to
provide technical input that may aid in project planning and resource conservation 'and could
result in the resolution of potential conflicts prior to the investment of significant resources. For
example, pre-application meetings held prior to the submittal of Clean Water Act, Section 404
wetland dredge and fill permit applications can be beneficial to both natural resource agencies
and project proporients. Coordination during the early planning stages typically allows for
greater flexibility in project designs, increasing the likelihood that potential conflicts will be
resolved prior to the expenditure of irretrievable resources.
The Service regularly assumes a regulatory role (through the review of Section 404 permits or
consultation under the Endangered Species Act) in later stages of project planning and design.
Unfortunately, it is often more difficult and expensive to alter projects at this point in the
process. It is for this reason that we prefer to provide technical assistance (like we have done
here) in earlier planning stages when more options are typically available and natural resource
problems can be avoided more easily and less expensively.
2
Fish and Wildlife Resources
The main intent of the Service's letter was to describe the functions and values that floodplains,
riparian zones, and wetlands provide for fish and wildlife species, as well as humans. Under
natural conditions, many wildlife species depend on these habitats due to the availability and
.proximity of food, water, and cover. Therefore, the conservation of these areas can be .very.
effective in maintaining habitat for fish and wildlife over the long-term, and can be useful for
recovering and supporting both common and at-risk species.
You raised concerns regarding the presence of the species mentioned in our letter. Washington
County is within the range of distribution for northern red-legged frogs (Csuti, B. et al., 1997),
and occurrences are well documented in Washington County (Pers. comm., Cockran, C.).
Typical habitats for this species include meadows, woodlands, and forests, usually near streams,
ponds, and wetlands. During the non-breeding season, they occur up to 300 meters upland of
standing water (Csuti, B. et al., 1997). They are currently threatened by direct loss of habitat,
pesticides and herbicides, and displacement by bullfrogs (Nussbaum, 1983).
The Service appreciates the data you sent from the Oregon Department of Fish-and Wildlife
report entitled "Distribution of Fish and Crayfish, and Measurement of Available Habitat in the
Tualatin River Basin." The summarized data shows that no cutthroat trout were observed in Ash
reek during the survey period from 1994-95. Although this is disturbing data, the survey period
is too limited to provide conclusive evidence that cutthroat trout have been extirpated from the
system. It is our understanding that additional survey work will be conducted to follow up the
initial study (Pers. comm., Robart, G.). It is also important to note that this same report lists the
lower and middle portions of Ash Creek as reaches that are likely to benefit from habitat
enhancement. Because. evidence indicates that Ash Creek has supported salmonid species in the
past (Oregon Department of Forestry, 1996), and the report mentioned above and other sources
indicate that cutthroat trout occur throughout Fanno Creek, efforts to protect and restore habitat
in Ash Creek can aid in the recovery of cutthroat trout both in Ash Creek as well as downstream.
It is important to recognize that the recovery and sustainability of these species will require
conservation efforts that lead to improved watershed health. , To be effective, efforts must include
.the protection and restoration of streams, riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands.
Wetland Fill Permit
Your letter mentions a Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 1988 authorizing 2.3 acres of wetland fill. The COE letter states that 7.3 acres of
wetland had been delineated on the site when the permit was issued. - It also mentions that due to
changes in policies for delineation methods since that time, a redelineation of those wetlands will
be required. This requirement would apply to any proposed future work. The information
indicates that wetlands are likely to exist on the property, even if the 2.3 acres were filled as
authorized by the permit. A current delineation would be useful in determining the extent of the
jurisdictional wetlands on the property (i.e., those for which permits would be required prior to
alteration).
Service Contacts
As was done in our letter to the Task Force, the Service typically lists the names of primary
contacts to assist those interested in obtaining additional information, or to enable the contacting
of lead biologists. We apologize if the primary contact for this issue was unclear.
► 3
Cnnclusion
The- Service believes that it is possible to conserve natural resources while allowhig dense
development in urban areas through the implementation of sound long-term planning and
effective policies. Local conservation efforts can play a key role in complementing, supporting,
and expanding upon those at the regional, state, and Federal levels. Locally supported efforts are
needed to recover and sustain at-rislc species, such as the fish species which have been listed and
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Regarding Washington Square Regional
Center, as stated earlier, the Service was simply providing technical assistance early in the
planning process.
The Service is interested in exchanging additional information and discussing outstanding
concerns regarding Washington Square Regional Center. If we can be of assistance, or if you
would like to discuss these comments further, feel free to contact Paul Henson or Jennifer
Thompson of my staff at (503) 231-6179.
Sincerely,
Sta a Supervisor
Mill
Enclosures
cc: Washington Square Regional Center Task Force, c/o Elaine Cogan
Tigard City Council
Tigard Planning Commission
John Spencer, Spencer and Kupper
Nadine Smith, City of Tigard
a
i
i
3
4
File Number: 6500.3001
File Name: WASQDAVI.WPD
References
Cockran,.Char. 1999. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. Northwest- Ecological
Research Institute. Portland, Oregon.
Csuti, B., Kimerling, A.J., O'Neil, T.A., Shaughnessy, M.M., Gaines, E.P., and Huso, M.M.P.
1997. Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History, Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State
University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.
Department of Forestry. 1996. Department of Forestry Survey Map. Unpublished map held by
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clackamas,. Oregon.
Nussbaum, R.A, Brodie, Jr., E.D., and Storm, R.M. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, Idaho.
Robart, Greg. 1999. Personal communication. Region Habitat Protection Biologist. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clackamas, Oregon.
Jill Tellez
9280 S.W. 80th Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
JAN. 31, 2000
Brian Moore, Presiding Officer
TIGA
13125RS..W. Hall Bl CIL v00
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: PROPOSED
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN r O~yELO~n `
ISSUES OF NON-COMPLIANCE !`AW►ot\
TO METRO'S 2040 FUNCTIONAL. PLAN
I would like this testimony to be submitted into the record to the Tigard City Council in reference to
the Washington Square Regional Center proposed plan.
There are several aspects of this plan which do not conform to Metro's 2040 Functional Plan.
Excerpts taken from Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Commission Agenda Item 4, Sept. 23-24, 1999, LCDC Meeting. Following referenced
goals are adopted State-wide LCDC Goals. The following italic text are observed
deficiencies in the proposed plan which I wish to draw your attention to.
Metro's Urban Growth Report contains an analysis of key factors that influence regional urban
form and the amount of land needed in the UGB and in future urban reserves. Examples of
analysis included in the Growth Report include:
a. GIS land information research;
b. field investigations and expert testimony on infill and redevelopment activity levels;
c. evaluations of various "inefficiencies" (impacts from slope, soil conditions and existing
development for example) that occur during the land development process.
<There have been no impact reports submitted by governmental agencies or private consultants
concerning the risk of building high density inside a floodplain, or of the environmental impacts
upon the Ash Creek wetland/floodplain.>
The proposed regional center plan conflicts with the following:
Goal 5-7 resources are made considerations for UGB expansions in Policy 1.7 and the Metro Code
governing UGB amendments requires compliance with Goal 14. which included consideration of
the environment. Policy 1.1 requires attention to providing access to nature as part of the regional
urban form. Urban Form is defined as "the net results of efforts to preserve environmental quality,
coordinate the development of jobs, housing, and public services and facilities, and inter-relate the
benefits and consequences of growth in one part of the region with the benefits and consequences
of growth in another." <The City of Beaverton is not being impacted by higher density up zones,
yet the Nimbus area is still in the proposed plan>. Thus, concern for environmental quality is a
primary concern in creating the preferred urban form. The 2040 Growth Concept designates open
spaces and trail corridors that include parks, stream and trail corridors, wetlands and floodplains,
a and largely undeveloped upland areas. <The proposed high density up zoning is being
concentrated in one small area (please refer to sub area "C" of proposed plan), a sensitive lands
area, and not being absorbed by the other proposed sub areas.>
r ,
Goal g Recreational is addressed both through the open spaces and trail corridors policies but also
in a recommendation to cities and counties to set area to population ration for recreational facilities.
<There are no new recreational facilities employed in this high density plan.>
The Goal 9 Economy expectation that an economic opportunity analysis be prepared is addressed
in Metro's employment forecasts. Adequate land is included for economic development in
designated Industrial Areas, Employment Areas and mixed-use design type areas. These
designations have been identified for continuing review to determine whether the locations
designated for jobs are dispersed appropriate for desirable sub-regional jobs to housing balance.
<This plan has not provided an analysis of jobs to housing balance.>
Metro's Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), objective 2.4.2, and with Metro
Code governing UGB amendments, both cite to state statutes and the statewide Goals as being part
of the Metro's standard for amending the UGB. "Type, mix and wages of existing and anticipated
jobs" are not explicit standards found either in statutes or in the goals. While"type, mix and
wages of... jobs" within an area may be preferable, there is no basis in statutes or Goals for
allowing them to override explicit Goal values such as agricultural and forestry land protection.
<Compromising a sensitive lands area to accommodate growth targets violates this objective.>
Growth Management
Growth management policy 1.6: "The management of the urban land supply shall occur in a
manner consistent with state law that:
Encourages the evolution of an efficient urban (growth) form.
<This plan has no prescribed stages of evolution.>
There is no basis in state policy to permit the maintenance of distinct communities to override
automatically other goals, for example the goal of protecting resource lands. <Compromising a
sensitive lands area to accommodate growth targets violates this objective.>
l[te Wnal Centers
According to Metro: variation from the recommended design type densities may in the long run
work for station communities, town centers and main streets. It is questionable, however, whether
much if any leeway from design densities is workable in regional centers. Market and fiscal
demands would appear likely to require close adherence to the regional center design type densities
in both housing units and employment. <Regional center designations cannot exist without
inventing a new high density zoning designation. This aggressive growth concept has failed
repeatedly and resulted in bankruptcy proceedings for Laguna West in Sacramento, CA, and The
Beaverton Round, Beaverton, OR. A "regional center "is a gambling prospect at best with
knowledge of possible failure.>
The Department recommends inclusion of an update item in the Acknowledgment Order for Metro
to research, monitor and evaluate whether the functions of Regional Centers are adequately
implemented by current measures. <There has been no research, monitoring or evaluation of this
proposed regional center or if it will function properly.>
Combining Natural and Built Environments
The 2040 Framework Plan exhibits a high degree of sensitivity to the opportunities for positive
interaction between natural and built features of an urban environment. Policies supporting and
fostering these interactions result in blending will the purposes of Goals 3 thmp-g 7 with those of
Goals 8 through_ 14. Included among these policies are:
Preserving access to nature,
Designating and protecting open spaces inside the UGB and in rural reserves,
Applying regional standards to designated water quality and flood management areas, and
Directing a region-wide Goal 5 riparian corridor protection plan.
<There is no Goal 5 riparian corridor protection plan in this plan>.
Co 31~rchensive flan Coordination With All Levels Of Government
" Goal 2 requires, in part, that comprehensive plans be "coordinated" with the plans of affected
government units. Comprehensive plans are "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of
government have been considered and accommodated as much as possible." ORS 197.015(5)
Brown v. Coos County, 31 Or LUBA 142, 145(1996). Comprehensive plan coordination is a two
step process, which requires:
1. The makers of the (comprehensive) plan engaged in an exchange of information
between planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units, or at least invite such an
exchange."
2. The jurisdiction used the information to balance the needs of all governmental
units***in the plan formulation or revision". Brown, 31 Or LUBA at 146, citing
Rajneesh v. Wasco County, 13 Or LUBA 202,210 (1985).
3. A local government is not required to `accede to every request that may be made
by a state agency.' Brown at 146. It must, however, `adopt findings responding to
legitimate concerns.' Id., citing Waugh v. Coos County, 26 Or LUBA 300,314 (1993).
The essence of coordination must be a cooperative effort on the part of the governmental bodies
involved. LUBA and the courts can require findings or other procedural devices to demonstrate that
the necessary efforts have been undertaken. But in the last analysis, the participating bodies alone
are responsible for undertaking the efforts. It is difficult to imagine a process that depends more
for its success than this one on the participants' active desire and efforts to make it successful. The
findings and other procedural trappings that LUBA and the courts may require can be nothing more
than shadows if the parties are not committed to achieving any underlying substance for them to
reflect." (State of Oregon Court of Appeals, 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro, Jan. 20, 20000).
<The concern of local conservation groups to preserve the Ash Creek wetland/floodplain has not
been addressed. CP04M does not endorse this proposed plan in it's current form. Cohesive
elements that are necessary for a succesful regional center are being compromised in this draft.
The upzoning to high density in a sensitive lands area conflicts with the Metzger/Progress
Community Plan drafted December 27, 1983, Washington County>.
The 1997 Urban Growth Report Update (by Metro), published in September, 1999, states:
H
"There is now no new up zone applied to neighborhoods and parks and open space lands".
I am respectfully requesting that these regional center elements be incorporated into this proposed
a plan. Therefore, prior to consideration of adoption of this proposal or any portion of this proposal,
a these elements should be incorporated to create an economically and environmentally balanced
regional center plan. Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
J
RECEIVED C.O.T.
F E 8 012000
Shea & Terry Cutler 11346 SW Ironwood Lp.
(503) 524-5069 Tigard, OR 97223
Dear members of the City Council:
We live in the Englewood development, which borders the proposed Washington Square Regional Center. We are
concerned with the potential development of 60- to 85-foot buildings on the other side of the wetlands area, directly
behind our home. We request that additional citizen input, specifically from residents in Englewood, be given to this
proposed project to resolve our concerns and provide a greater understanding of future developments.
We understand the request from the city of Portland to absorb the growth that is expected to occur during the next 20
years. We also understand that the development currently proposed will be a 20-year project. However, we are
greatly concerned with the location and size of buildings proposed Also, there is concern that the infrastructure of
roads, and wetland impact have not been fully addressed
Lade of Input from Citizens in Englewood
It is our understanding that the people of Metzger were informed of the proposed project prior to the City Council
hearing, due to the impact on their neighborhood We feel that although our residential area is only adjacent to the
proposed regional center, the wetlands and environment bordering us are included and have a direct impact on our
property. We were not notified of the Task Force hearings. We were informed only once about this issue, when it
seemed well past time for citizen input; the plans were already developed and being presented to the Council. In
short, we think the process is incomplete and we request further input from the public surrounding the affected areas
Wetland Impact and Flooding Issues
taring the first Council meeting about the regional center, citizens raised the concern about affected wetlands. We
are concerned about possible flooding issues if developers are given the option to "cut and fill." In theory, this idea
may seem plausible. However, in reality there are other factors to consider such as the water absorption of the soil,
surrounding plants and animal life, potential bottlenecks during flooding, etc. Are Council members aware that the
Fanno Creek wetlands between the Englewood development and Nimbus road flood annually? How will this
development change the drainage and flow of water? Will this cause flooding to surrounding homes and businesses?
This is not something that should be left to be discovered after the fact Also, it is our understanding that Fanno
Creek once supported trout and other fish Today, only a few crawfish can be found in it It is still visited by a blue
heron, white crane, Canadian geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Has consideration been given to the impact of
wildlife and the environment?
Building Height
We moved to Englewood, excited about the beautiful view we have out our back windows. If six-story buildings are
permitted to be built across the wetlands, we would no longer see a skyline, but brick walls, which is what we
thought we had escaped by choosing Tigard as our home. It is a drastic change to allow six-story buildings where
there were once one-story offices. Is there really a need for so much office space or will the buildings remain empty
and become a possible vandal attraction? From what we understand, there is already an excess of available office
space. We know that growth must occur, a more moderate approach (a maximum of three-story buildings) would be
more aesthetically pleasing and create less damage to our property values.
Transportation Infrastructure
On a daily commute perspective, there are additional concerns. The proposed plans show an additional freeway
overpass between Scholls Ferry and Greenburg Road Will this really help with traffic flow, and as an additional
access path to the Washington Square Mall? The connecting overpass will be to Nimbus or Cascade roads.
However, a majority of the residential traffic will continue to come on Hall, Scholls Ferry, and Greenburg This
relates back to the transportation infrastructure question. Has this been correctly and fully considered?
We would strongly recommend that the Tigard City Council refer the proposed plans back to the public for additional
input and consideration. The growth of the area is imminent, but it can be done with fewer concerns and possible
regrets. We also request that this letter be added to the record
Thank you,
Shea & Terry Cutler
MEN.
;.,lziuliuu Tuh 1z:1a MA ouJLdlblaa rn~-usc: w~~~l
U.S. 17AX Transmittal
iFISH & WIRMLIFE
SERVICE
Jennifer Thompson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Oregon State Office
2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266-1398
d o¢
Qfflcephone:„(5-03) 231-6179
of x*~~` FAXNumber: (S03) 231-6195
E-Mail: Jennifer Thompson@mail; fivs.gov
Date: February 1, 2000 Number of pages (including transmittal sheet): d•
To: Brian Moore, Presiding Officer, Tigard itv Council FAX Number: 6847297
Subject: Washington Square Regional Center
I'm faxing you a letter that was submitted in July 1999 regarding the Washington Square
Regional Center. This letter was directed to the Task Force, and copied to the Tigard City
Council and Planning Commission. Because it was not mentioned in the staff report and we still
have concerns about impacts to natural resources in the area, we wanted to resubmit it for your
consideration as you deliberate on the development plans for this project. Please copy the letter
for all of the Tigard City Councilors and make this letter part of the record.
,
{
i
{
3
02/01/00 Tuh 12:18 FAA 5032316185 FWS-OSO LO 002
o t
United States Department of the Interior
a
FISH AND WILDLIFi; SERvicE
"C " Oregon State Office
2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
(503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231-6195
Reply To:. 6so0.3001 July 28, 1999
File Name: WASQUARBMM
Washington Square Regional Center Task Force
c/o Blaine Cogan
Cogan Owens Cogan
813 SW Alder
Portland, OR 97205.
Dear Task Force Members:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is submitting this letter to urge the Task Force not
-to recomnnmd upzoning of the wetlands and floodpla.ins within the proposed Washington Square
Regional Center development area. In particular, the Service is'concerned about the wetlands
and floodplains associated with Ash Creek that would be impacted if the area between Oak and
Hwy 217 is upzoned to allow.for a minimum of.50 units per acre. The Service encourages the
conservation of these valuable and sensitive natural resources by maintaining the more protective
zoning.,
In addition to the numerous fish and wildlife species typically associated with wetland and
floodplain habitats, Ash creek is known to support sensitive species such as cutthroat and the
northern red-legged frog. In addition, Upper Willamette River steelhead, which are listed under
the Endangered Species Act as threatened, occur downstream and may occur in Ash Creek.
Unfortunately, Ash Creek is currently included on the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality's 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Waterbodies for declining fish communities due
to poor water quality, low dissolved oxygen, high sinner temperatures, and.fecal coliform.
The recovery and sustainability of fish and wildlife species requires conservation efforts that lead
to improved watershed health. This is a challenging goal to achieve in an urban area, not only
because of direct development pressures on sensitive areas, but also because of the intensive off-
site and indirect impacts related to urbanization. Long-term planning and sound policy
development are two of the most effective protection mechanisms available for minimizing both
direct and indirect impacts to natural resources and their associated functions and values. Local
conservation efforts can play a key role in complimenting, supporting, and expanding upon those
at the regional, state and Federal levels. To ensure that local resources continue to provide
benefits to fish, wildlife and people, and for consistency with regulations that will affect the site,
the Service recommends that the Task Force work to protect Ash creek and associated riparian
areas, floodplains, wetlands and buffers by supporting zoning and other conservation strategies
that will prevent resource degradation,
02/01/00 T'UE 12:20 FAX 5032316195 FWS-OSO , U00.P.
2
The following is a list of some of the many functions that floodplaips, riparian zones, and
wetlands provide.
Fish Paid Wildlife H hi a
• There are currently 54 Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidates and
specittl concern species within Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties. Over
80% of these species depend on wetlands, riparian habitat, or the functions they provide
for one or more stages in their life cycles. Riparian, floodplain and wetland area
protection can benefit listed species, as well as prevent the future listing of other species.
• Healthy riparian areas provide connected, protected corridors for wildlife to travel
between seasonal ranges and alternate habitats,.allowing for species dispersal. This
mobility facilitates genetic exchange and allows utilization of a wider range of potential
habitat.
• Undisturbed riparian-vegetation composed of a mosaic of various successional stages and
plant communities equates to high habitat diversity necessary to support diverse
communities and populations.
• Undisturbed riparian systems typically contain an assortment of habitat characteristics
including multiple canopy layers, snags, woody debris, irregular edges (which provide a
diverse interface between riparian areas and differing habitat types, furthering habitat
diversity), undercut banks and overhanging vegetation. These complex characteristics
provide the diverse habitat requirements necessary to support a. wide range of naturally
occurring fish and wildlife species.
• Although riparian and wetland areas cannot ameliorate all adverse upland impacts, they
provide the greatest resources needed by fish and wildlife in the smallest area, and thus
arc a priority for protection.
• In developed and developing landscapes, riparian and wetland areas can provide critical
refuge when adjacent habitat is lost or degraded.
mole bf F1eodj2laind Rip Arian 7o es During Flood fiver a•
• Floodplains naturally accumulate the appropriate type and balanced amount of organic
matter and dissolved nutrients which are flushed into streams and rivers during runoff
events. At natural levels, this material supplies fish and aquatic invertebrates with a rich
source of food that can enhance production.
• Intact vegetation buffers the impact and erosive forces of rain as it hits the ground, and
helps to slow and store water as it flows across the landscape. The greater the vegetative
cover in a watershed, the greater the amount of water that can be slowed and held for
gradual release. Riparian areas and floodplains moderate both high and low stream
flows, providing more consistent flows throughout the year.
• Water moves from the active stream channel onto floodplains during storm events,
a providing natural areas for flood storage. Alterations to floodplains, such as the removal
of vegetation or creation of impervious surfaces, reduces the flood storage capacity and
infiltration of water over the floodplain. In turn, this results in increased and expedited
flows moving downstream., leading to stream degradation and potential floodin&
problems that may affect life and property.
Water ,ality
• Riparian buffers which retain adequate vegetation and intact soils intercept,. store, and
biodegrade significant portions of pollutants.
• Riparian buffers filter and break down nutrients. By preventing nutrient loading and
excessive aquatic plant and algal growth (which can ultimately cause oxygen depletion
and excess ammonia), an increase in water acidity is avoided, which would otherwise
02/01/00 TUB 12:21 FAX 5032316195 FWS-OSO 1Q 004
. _ 3
adversely impact fish and other wildlife by slowing fish growth and negatively impacting
reproduction in some species,
• Plant roots help to stabilize the soil. Maintaining woody vegetation and limiting soil
disturbance in riparian areas will prevent significant quantities of sediment from entering
stream systems.
Efforts are needed not only to maintain, but to improve watershed health throughout the
metropolitan region. Locally lead and supported efforts are needed more nova-than ever to
recover species such as threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead. The opportunity is still
available at the proposed Washington Square Regional Center to avoid impacts to natural
resources, which is much more effective than fixing problems later both in terms of preventing
irreplaceable resource losses, maintaining environmental health and preventing the unnecessary
costs of repair, restoration, or attempting to recreate lost functions through artificial means.
Please ensure that all Task Force members receive a copy of this letter, and that it is included in
the Task Force Record and in the Regional Center Plan Appendix for consideration by local
jurisdictions. Feel free to contact Jennifer Thompson or Kumari Sivam of my staff at (503) 231-
6179 if you would like to discuss these comments, or if we can provide you with any additional
information. Thank you in advance for considering our input and keeping us informed of your
decision regarding this issue.
~lSin ere ,
< • ~ &
State Sup i or
cc: Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Members
Tigard City Council
Tigard Planning Commission
J
i •
January 31, 2000 JAN 31 2000
Mr. Brian Moore
Presiding Officer
Tigard City Council - City Hall
13124 Southwest Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Council Member Moore:
RE: WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL TOWN CENTER PLAN
METZGER NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
I am a resident of the Metzger Neighborhood, Washington County, Oregon. As such, I have
concerns regarding the Washington Square Regional Town Center (WSRTC) plan and the City of
Tigard's (City's) potential position to adopt the plan as is. Therefore, as a representative of the City
of Tigard, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to communicate my concerns to you.
First, I understand that the City of Tigard is encouraging an unprecedented rate of growth for high
density development in the WSRTC without initially establishing the funds, means, or intentions to
accommodate the resulting impact of such development on existing and over-stressed utilities,
specifically, storm and sanitary sewer discharge collection systems. Surely, the City Council must
consider that existing systems often fail under current conditions. The City of Tigard should not
even consider supporting new development in the WSRTC without obtaining the funds for such
proposed efforts. Nor should the City of Tigard approve of new development without carefully
soliciting, reviewing, and adopting appropriately-designed utility improvement plans. I urge the City
of Tigard to employ caution before launching unprepared into high-density development.
Second, I am concerned about the future ecological and hydrological health of Ash Creek, which
flows through Metzger. I understand that the City Council may support development on the
bottomlands of Ash Creek south of Oak Street and west of Hall Boulevard, thereby augmenting the
stress and risk to the ecological health and hydrological characteristics of the watershed. As it is,
the creek currently struggles to support a minimum of wildlife, such as the little fish I have observed,
families of nutria, amphibians, great blue herons, which occasionally adom rooftops in Metzger, and
various flocks of migratory birds. I disapprove of the likelihood that these bottomlands will be
threatened by high-density development, if approved by the City of Tigard.
ALL development in this watershed affects Ash Creek. I am sure you are aware that natural
percolation to groundwater is interrupted by the construction of impervious surfaces, such as roofs,
patios, driveway, and roads. These types of impervious surfaces increase artificially-induced runoff,
thereby increasing the risk of flooding and the sedimentation rate, both of which are detrimental to
Mr. Brian Moore
January 31, 2000
Page 2
aquatic habitats and local residents. The creek is having trouble enough accommodating runoff
from current development, as evidenced by frequently flooded basements and crawl spaces in
nearby structures. Stormwater management levels should be identified and enforced for new
development in the WSRTC. I offer a model approach to stormwater management in the City of
Portland's Stormwater Management Manual, adopted July 1999. Let's not exacerbate the problem
by upgrading the zoning to high-density land uses along the Ash Creek bottomlands. Let's not
make a bad problem worse.
Third, I am disappointed and alarmed at the lack of outreach to inform potentially-affected citizens
of the City of Tigard's position and intent in regards to the WSRTC. Development using the
WSRTC plan is a high-impact proposition, and I perceive that many local residents are not aware
of the likely effects of the WSRTC plan. I strongly request that the City of Tigard make a sufficient
effort to inform local citizens of the possible impacts to their neighborhoods as the result of the
proposed WSRTC implementation.
Lastly, the WSRTC includes the City of Portland Golf Course, located north of Washington Square
Mall, as a public, usable "greenspace" to fulfill plan requirements for greenspaces. The golf course
is a sports field open to paying golfers ONLY. There are no walking paths, like those provided at
Portland's Glendoveer and Rose City golf courses, and public use by children is not
accommodated. Thus, it is not usable to everyone. Please do not consider the golf course as a
public greenspace.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions expressed here. I look forward to the City
of Tigard making the best choices for local citizens and the environment. Please make sure that
this letter is entered into the record.
Sincerely,
Eileen L. Webb, R. P.G.
8050 SW Larch Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223-5842
(503)452-7941
beadster@uswest.net
c Ms. Pat Whiting, President, Metzger CPO
Vivian Davis I~EC~vkL~ G.C~.i.
10875 SW 89th Street JAN 1 2~Ofl
Tigard, Oregon 97223 USA Jp
Tel: 503 246-5862, fax: 503 977-9343
Tigard City Council January 25, 2000
13125 SW Hall
Tigard OR 97223
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Vivian Davis; we have lived on this 24 acres south of Oak since September 1966. We
have raised seven children with our name and dozens of others in this home and on the property here.
In 1986 we mitigated and created a lake and a detention pond, making a gorgeous wetland amenity, we
annexed into the City of Tigard making it possible for all of Washington Square to become part of the
City of Tigard. My husband retired five years ago. When we mitigated our wetland issues we created a
lake and a retention pond and 12 acres of commercial property, we put six and a half acres away for a
future park so that we would have the opportunity to develop the remaining property as zoning and
codes allowed. We did such a good job that now many of the environmentalists are saying, let's takes
the whole property. The City of Tigard has plenty of safeguards as to what is, and is not permitted, on
wetlands, along creek corridors and so forth. Title 3 is in place, and Goal 5 is on the way. I plead with
the City Counsel not to put more restrictions than the USA, METRO, FEDS, the Army Corp. of
Engineers, the State of Oregon, State Fish & Wildlife and the City of Tigard already has to protect and
enhance land such as ours. I plead with you to give us the same rights as anyone else in our
community to develop within the present and future codes. This is our main asset. We should have the
same rights to develop our property as any other citizen in our community. So please do not impose
further restrictions as is being requested.
The mitigation we did reduced the flooding along Thorn Street and on Oak Street, many neighbors
expressed their appreciation. Wanting to remove all the land possible out of the flood plain we took all
the allowable earth from the creek bed and sides and used this as fill, thereby substantially improving
-the flow and reducing the flooding in Ash Creek as well as Fanno Creek. We have formed a roadbed
using wood chips, (from tree trimming companies) on our land near Ash Creek. Not a single chip was
moved in the 1996 series of 500-year floods.
Studies, not protesters, should dictate what is and what is not useable land
I request you approve the plan, as is, so that funding can be applied for and acquired to accomplish the
transportation, parks and other amenities necessary for this plan to work. If we do not have a plan in
place how can we move towards the future. This plan will facilitate the highest quality of life in our
community, or any other community in the state. We will have the most amenities, housing will be
located close to the work place with mixed use zonings, with hiking and bike trails, shuttles and an
outstanding general transportation system.
I encourage you to approve this plan, as is.
n
~Z,-r~L i J-z.Z
Vivian Davis
January 27, 2000
Tigard City Council
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd. JAf'.-1 J 1 2000
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Attn: Mr. Brian Moore
Presiding Officer
Dear Mr. Moore
My name is Gus .Anderson, with present address at 9135 SW 80th since
July, 1950, before City of Tigard became a City in 1961, before the
Washington Square complex and the Progress Golf Course. My wife
and I raised three children who attended Metzger Elementary Grade
School, Fowler Junior High and the present Tigard High School.
Our son, David Anderson a graduate of Tigard High in 1967 was an.
outstanding_ Football and Track Athlete with established records
in several scholastic events. Our daughter,Virginia Anderson was also
an active student with:.participation as first runner up for City of
Tigard during the Seaside Summer Pageant in July, 1968. As parents,
we supported many events held at Tigard High , including students and
faculty members.
As for my part, I am well known in the Metzger community, having
served as a Board member for 22 years at Metzger Water District until
merger with Wolf Creek Water District, presently I serve as Budget
Committee member for Tualatin Valley Water District and Advisory
Board member at Metzger Park.
During the Public Meeting held on January 25th, I had the opportunity
to hear the pros and cons regarding The Washington Square Regional
Center covering future ,growth. At this time, I wish to address my
concerns regarding the proposed 23 acre Ash Creek development.
Strong opposition has already been raised by several organizations,
public testimony and several editorials--in The Oregonian. As Council
members for The City of Tigard, you can no longer hide behind a Smoke
Screen by failing to provide honest answers regarding whose interests
you support. Is it the land- owners, potential developers or the actual
windfall from increased tax revenues? It should not be difficult for
Council members to come forward with honest answers in order to satisfy
the many concerns now held by residents of Metzger. Again, I urge
careful attention to the following concerns which need to be addressed:
1. Additional risk for potential flooding from Ash Creek which flows
through my property and adjoining neighbors on Cedarcrest Street,
Washington Drive, the Ash Creek Apartments lower level units, Nursery
on Hall Blvd, SW 80th and Taylors Ferry Road-plus many other areas
during the 1996 flood.
2. Impact on Metzger Elementary School following increased enrollment
due to high density growth. Will require funding for expansion
through increased property taxes.
Page -1-
3. Increased demands on Metzger Park facilities and park grounds
due to high density growth as a result of the Ash Creek project.
4. Increase in traffic from new apartments, commercial and business
offices will spill over on Collector roads, namely, SW 80th, Hall Blvd.,
Greenburg Road, Oak Street, Taylors Ferry Road, and worst of all,
City of Tigard proper.
I personally urge all Council members to give serious consideration
and careful planning in addressing the above concerns. Of most concern,
is the risk of potential flooding if proper planning from Ash Creek
run-off intc the 23 acre Ash Creek wetlands is not implemented in
due course should the the project be approved. Failure to do so,
will surely lay the ground work for possible lawsuits. In this regard,
I call your attention to Oregonian article of January 27th by Sue Marshall,
policy director for Tualatin Riverkeepers. It refers to Section 404
permit for building on Wetlands which without question, provides
positive protection to the present 23 acre Ash Creek proposed development.
Once again, I urge all Council members representing the City of Tigard,
to consider all possible options when the time comes for a final vote.
Let's not ignore or push aside the concerns already on record by
residents within the Metzger community. With this thought in mind,
the City of Tigard cannot afford a repeat of the A-Boy scenario which
landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In closing, I am confident The Tigard City Council will act in good
faith in taking into consideration the concerns raised in this letter.
Also, my thoughts and prayers are for a quick recovery for Mayor
Jim Nicoli.
Sincerely yours,
us Anderson
Page -2-
RECEIVED C.O.T.
.1'a%lify 26, 2000
JAN 2 a 2000
Trudy Knowles
PO Box 230275
Tigard, Oregon 97281
To the Members of Tigard City Council:
I would like to add the following comments to my public testimony regarding the
proposed Washington Square Regional Center to be submitted into the record.
My comments are in response to testimony I heard on Tuesday, January 25,
2000:
1. As I listened to the 11:00 Channel 8 news, I heard this comment from Nadine
Smith. "We envision this community plan to be like the Lloyd Center area.' Well,
this may be the vision the city staff and the task force members have, but it is
certainly not mine or my neighbors. We do not relish the idea of solid concrete
covering the landscape and high rise apartments and duplexes surrounding our
neighborhood. We do not relish the idea of non existent open greenspace in
our neighborhood. We do not relish the idea of traffic congestion on our
neighborhood streets. We do not relish the idea of multi use development
adorning our neighborhood. If we wanted to live in the Lloyd Center
neighborhood, all of us would have moved there. We love our neighborhood
and livability. We all want to preserve the neighborhood just like the plan
promised. We do. not want to be lied to and treated unfairly.
2. As for Mr. Bob Rohlf comment as to the history, I would like to know where he
got his facts. I would like to know where these huge amounts of people are who
are moving out of the area. My neighbors and I have lived in the area for years.
Most of have no intention of moving. We, also, do not want to be forced out of
our homes due to increase taxes, condemnation of our homes or any other
reason. We may have our share of families moving out of the area, but not any
more than any other neighborhood. People move because we live in a mobile
society and the reasons vary. Those who have moved that I am aware of are for
the same reasons other people in other neighborhoods move: job related,
wanting a bigger house, moving closer to family, taking care of family members.
The list is endless. Most of my neighbors are witnessing infill and the
development of new homes where there are new families moving into the area.
These families have young children, too. I would like to ask Mr. Rohlf to
rephrase his comments. It is very hard to support his statement of the mass
exiting of homeowners when he does not even reside in the area. I would like
him to walk through the area with me. I would like him to show me where
everyone is moving out of the area from. I will personally introduce him to my
neighbors and the citizens and let them tell their stories of how long they have
lived here. There are people who went to school at Metzger El. and still reside
in the area and their children are living here as well. He should get his facts
straight. In addition, the citizens of this area were never asked about the
Regional Center to be located in our neighborhood and should have been
upfront. Their input should have began from the very beginning and not at the
end. It is our lives being so drastically affected and have very high stakes as to
what happens to us. Where are Mr. Rohlfs' priorities regarding my
neighborhood? What is his stake in this plan? It is not his backyard being
bombarded. He is residing in an area of Tigard that will not be subject to the
rezoning, flooding, high rise office buildings and apartments and traffic
congestion. This plan does not affect him as drastically as it will my neighbors
and myself.
3. My final comment regards the testimony given by Mr. Jack Reardon and his
associates. I, too, want to know more about the $80,000 grant to be extended to
the city to implement this proposal. Is this grant going to allow more citizen
input? If not, I believe it should. Is this grant going to pay for more consultants
testimony to tell us the citizens what is going to happen to us? Is this grant
going to go for infrastructure to be put in place? Is this grant money going to be
used to condemn property and buy it to allow for the five lane road throughout
the area? This plan should be adopted on its own merits or not adopted
because of the lack of whatever criteria you as council members seem fit. As I
have stated in previous communication, the city needs to be open and honest
about how it conducts itself. It should not say one thing and do another. This
has been going on throughout the process of the task force meetings, the
scheduling of events. This plan should not be contingent on a mere $80,000
grant from whomever, when this development will cost millions.
I absolutely urge you to consider these comments. I truly am advocating for my
neighborhood. I want it to remain livable and viable. I want my neighborhood to
enjoy the advantages of quiet streets. I want my neighborhood a safe place for
the children to play. I want to be able to walk and bicycle throughout the area. I
want the greenspace that we so richly want to preserve and enjoy. I want the
wildlife and habitat to remain in the area. Please have this plan revisited and
redesigned with more public involvement by the community who will so
drastically be affected by it.
Trudy Knowles
resident of Metzger.
ERIC G. KENT, PH.D. PECEIV "
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY ~D L U•
6690 SOUTH WEST VENTURA DRIVE ~ooo
PORTLAND. OREGON 97223
TELEPHONE 503-245.6UO4
LL"
® dam! v
. , GY • cti ~,Z, Z~
ire. i • ~
-e ._4-AI
pojac&Jdt
`
C'pt y
d
04 Cpkg yp-
I-w 'raw
o
mkc-
-00 17:40 Tualatin River NWR 503-590-6702 P-02
TC.IALA IN ~Ziverkeepers
16340 SW Beef Bend Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140
(503) 590-5813 • fax: (503) S90-6702 • www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
email: info@tualatinriverkeepers.org
January 25, 2000
Mayor Nicoli
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Master Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Council Members:
The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a citizen-based organization with over 700 members
working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We are not able to attend the
hearing tonight but submit these comments for the record and request that our time be
given to Jere Retzer who has prepared in-depth comments on behalf of the Ash Creek
Coalition for which the Tualatin Riverkeepers is a member. The Tualatin Riverkeepers
concur with Mr. Retzer's testimony.
The Tualatin Riverkeepers agree that it is good public policy to build up rather than out.
We further agree with Metro position that the increase in density within the urban growth
boundary should not come at the expense of natural resources. It is our position that the
Washington Square Regional Center Master Plan in recommending an upzone of the
wetland/floodplain area of Ash Creek will have a negative impact on water quality, local
flooding, and fish and wildlife habitat. We oppose the Washington Square Regional
Center Master Plan in its recommendation to upzone the wetlandJfloodplain of Ash
Creek.
Repeatedly we have requested consultation with resource agencies: Unified Sewerage
Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S
Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Division
of State Lands, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. City of Tigard Planning staff
informed us that these agencies have been notified. Much more than a simple notifiction
to comment, the agencies needed to be brought in during the planning process to help
assure that natural resources were protected, upland alternatives were identified and
flooding/stormwater issues were resolved. This proactive involvement would have
assured the community that adequate consideration was being given to concerns about
flooding, fish, and water quality. We perceive a resistance to this consultation that we do
not understand.
Thom Tualatin Riverkeeoers is a citizen-based organization working to restore and protect Oregon's Tualatin River system.
-00 17:40 Tualatin River NWR 503-S90-6702 P-03
Given the lack of a comprehensive natural resource plan for Washington Square Regional
Center, the Tualatin Riverkeepers believe that the best approach to protect the
environmentally sensitive areas surrounding Ash Creek is to leave the zoning at
4.5units/acre aor those properties within the wetland/floodplain. Maintaining a low-
density designation allows for reasonable, appropriate development of these properties,
including realistic density transfers within a single property without providing an
economic incentive to build in areas better left undeveloped.
We urge the Council to maintain the current zoning designation within the
wetland/lloodplain of Ash Creek and engage a taskforce made up of citizens and the
above mentioned resource agencies to develop a comprehensive plan to protect and
restore this natural resource.
Thank you for you thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
S uexshil i
Public Policy Director
Tualatin Riverkeepers
o Audubon Society of Pdx Fax:503-292-1021 Jan 25 '00 13:33 P.01/04
A.UDU_ BON SOCIETY OF P,ORTLA.ND
7i*iriug.'&npfi ro love rind prorect•'starure.
-January 24, 2000
Ti„ and City Council
City of Tigard _
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223 ;
To: Mayor Nicoli.and: Tigard City Council
I am,submitting this:testimoriy.on•behalf ofthe Audubon.Societyof•P.ortland,•an 8,500
member local chapter.d.Nati:onal AUdubozi Society, dedicated tq.the. protection of fish
and wildlife habitat-in both the rural and- urban environment, I am commenting ori'the.
proposal-by the.Washington.Square Regional'Center•Task Force to upzpne the 23=aare .
wetland/floodplain on Ash Creek bdween..highway 2177 and O.ak, Hall Blvd and
Greenburg :Rd.
Before i address.issues speci c to•the.Task'Force°.s'proposal I.want xo address a few mare
overarching issues for your consideration.
Upzoning this:sife -is. nconsistent with P etra's•Regioh 2040 Growth Concept. It will be
a gued. that Tigard is-beink-,mquired under. Nletra's 2040-Growth: Concept .to "de'nsify".
While that statement is general,ly'true, arld one we. support, 2Q40 also is. very specific
about the need to integrate. natural resource- protection;
'While we strongly support Metio's Growth Concept and'the•need for higher. density,
mixed use-developziients, e..do not support biiilding;on siteathat seriously compromise
natural resource,protection. We believe;.the upzoning of the Ash Creek
wetland/floodplain•would• iesult.in•such a•compr9inise:•:M6tro has made'it abundantly
olear•that it is this region's .policy to protect, and. where. necessary to'restore water•quality, .
wetlands, stream corridors and Greenspaces as'an integral element of 2040
' implementation. These environmentally sensitive areas were excluded froth the buildable
lands inventorywhY nMetro developed their grouith.projectioris. In fact, with .the
concurrence of MPAC, Metro Council passed •a Greenspaces Resolution that explicitly
states.1hat (I have excerpted portions that we believe are most relevant to the site):, •
"Whereas; 'the Region-2040. Growth Concept wcs de eio ed to ndaintuin the
charactet• of:existinj neighborhoods, vhile. providing the,opportiinity for.ozOtioiudl new
gruwth:in gppru W2le locations and alarig [rtw•isii.corrjdors*,:main sIreets,'.and centers,
and;
sl51.NW'Corncit. Road; Portlula,.Oregon 9 210'.(503) 392-6855 FAX (503) 292-11121
=111MIN NINE III IIIIN 11110111101
Audubon Society of Pdx Fax:503-292-1021 Jan 25 '00 13:34 P.02/04
Whereas, the Region 2040 Growth Concept was designed to integrate
development and the protection of Greenspaces, parks and open space within the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB), and;
Whereas, it is consistent with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan for
local jurisdictions to identify additional Goal S resource lands which should be protected
partially or fully within the UGB n_nd for .Metro to include these in the "unbuildable
lands" inventory, and,
Whereas, the existing 20,600 acres of park and open .space lands currently within
the UGB contributes to the region's water quality, flood protection, quality of life, and
economic vitality of the entire region, now therefore;
BEITRESOLVED TRA%
1. It is the policy of the Metro Council that lands identified as "unbuildable" in Metro's
Urban Growth Report should be protected from development to the rrurdmum extent
possible by local jurisdictions and to the maximum extent of the law;
2. Metro encourages all local jurisdictions in the Metro region to actively protect in
perpetuity parks, open space, recreational trails, and other sensitive natural areas,
through acquisition of property rights including conservation easements,
regulation, or other effective measures, even if they include what has been
classified as "buildable" lands in Metro's inventory;
3. The protection of environmentally sensitive lands from development could result
in a decline in net buildable acres in a local. jurisdiction. Upon demonstration by a
local jurisdiction flied such protection results in an inability to meet jobs, housing
and other targets established in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,
the Metro i~!ou.ncil will grant an exception consistent -with Title 8 of the Functional
Plan The exception -will be granted to the extent the local jurisdiction establishes
that decline in net buildable acres is the result of lands being protected from:
development by locally adopted and implemented regulations,"
While this resolution largely focuses on the region's "unbuildable lands" (floodplains,
wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors), it is certainly intended to protect existing
Greenspaces and to encourage local jurisdictions to acquire and protect additional parks
and Greenspaces. The Ash Creek wetland/floodplain clearly falls under the resolution's
intent.
I am pointing this out because all too frequently local jurisdictions and applicants use
Region 2040 as a mechanism to avoid adequately protecting natural resources. I want to
make it very clear that the Audubon Society of Portland strongly endorses all elements of
Region 2040. This laudable goal, however, must not be achieved at the expense of the
neighborhood's, the city's, or the region's quality of life. Metro has made it abundantly
F•
Audubon Society of Pdx Fax:503-292-1021 Jan 25 '00 1334 P.03i04
clear, within 2040 planning documents as well as the resolution cited above, that density
goals will not be achieved through compromising natural resource protection.
As I have stated above, the Audubon Society of Portland feels that the Ash Creek site is
inappropriate for the proposed upzoning and the expected resulting development. We
offer the following comments:
• This is a fish-bearing waterway that is water quality limited under the Clean Water
Act. The Task Force's planning efforts should include provisions for restoration and
establishment of a protected riparian buffer. There is no mention of this in the Task
Force's report and no provisions to address these issues.
• There are existing flooding problems that would be exacerbated by the proposed
upzoning and development levels. Any development in the floodplain would harm
adjacent and downstream properties. Again, there are no provisions to address this
issue in the report.
• The Task Force states that development should preserve "open space, wetlands and
floodpiains" (page 18) and proposes a vision that highlights streams and wetlands as a*
community resource. While this is a laudable goal, the proposed upzoning is
inconsistent with this statement and will, in fact, make protection of this resource
extremely difficult if not impossible,
• "Regulations for development within and adjacent to these natural resource areas,
consistent with the requirements of Metro Title 3 and rules and standards utilized by
the Unified Sewerage Agency..." (Page 70). USA's current draft standards require
restoration within the Water Quality Resource Area. The Task Force report makes no
mention of restoration activities.
• There is no reference to Metro's current development of a regional Goal 5 program or
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NIVIFS) proposed rule that will require
protection of 200' around all streams and a buffer around all wetlands. The Task
Force should be anticipating both Metro's and NMFS's work and be consistent with
current natural resource agency thinking on these issues.
• The Task Force report states targeted six to eight acres of wetland and floodplain
for preservation as open space" (page 30). This is far smaller than the Water
Resources Overlay District or floodplain shown on current Tigard maps. The report
continues "these sensitive lands lie within an area that is envisioned to absorb nearly
half of the regional center's projected residential growth." (Page 30). And later offers
this remedy, "the Task Force strongly supports the protection standards included in
the Water Resources Overlay District Additional incentives for enhancing natural
resources along these corridors are proposed in zoning code amendments." (Page
70), i hese incentives, an amendment to city code 18.630.040 limit maximum density
to 110% of minimum density unless the property owner improves the resources. This
would allow 55 units per acre with no enhancement. This minimal incentive would
tr.
Audubon Society of Pdx Fax:503-292-1021 Jan 25 'Od 13:35 P.04/04
likely be outweighed by Tigard's code that reduces protection to a degraded resource.
West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District Director Jere Retzer does an
excellent job of illustrating this issue in his testimony. An exceipt states:
"Whale Tigard has implemented water resource areas in the code, including buffers
as shown in Figure I the Community Development Code allows several exceptions
that can be used to effectively circumvent the overlay district as well as Metro Title 3.
It seems especially likely that these exceptions will be requested in the event the land
is upzoned as proposed... It seems particularly likely that the exceptions for
"reasonable economic use, " to prevent "hardship" or "adverse economic
consequences" -will be requested and granted in the event that the upzoning is
approved... Under the current low density zoning several of the properties notably
along the northern and eastern sides could be developed up to their full potential by
allowing a density transfer and clustering the units outside the water resource area-
If, on the other hand these properties are upzoned it will not be possible to develop
even close to the full potential economic value of the property which -will in turn
argue much more strongly for an exception".
We agree with Director Retzer's conclusions and support his testimony in this regard.
Task Force (Page 20): "When implementing the framework plan, iocal governments
must avoid excessive. development regulations that will stifle new construction..."
(Page 26) "Furthermore, aggressive regulations intended to promote the vision,
protect the environment, encourage transit use, etc., may result in discouraging
development. Local government and community members must be prepared to work
with the development community to ensure that property development remains an
attractive investment..." The implied conclusion is that environmental protection and
responsible development are mutually exclusive, a position that the Audubon Society-
of Portland disagrees with.
The upzoning proposed for Ash Creek wetland/floodplain will not only put a sensitive
natural resource at risk but will increase the difficulty to protect this resource ill the future
due to the increased valuation. The bottom line is that this site is inappropriate for
development and should not be evaluated as developable at the proposed zoning. Metro
i did not include it in their buildable lands inventory. The zoning and the land valuation
should reflect these facts.
i
The Audubon Society of Portland recommends that the Ash Creek wetland and
floodplain be protected as an environmental and community resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
a
a
Respectfull ,
Ron Carle T Conservationist
Test-iomony.
Received during
January-25, 2000
Public Hearing
City Council Tigard Oregon
January 25, 2000
My name is Bill Brewer. I live at 11344 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard,
Oregon . I am an Associate Broker for a residential real estate firm and have
been active in this area for the past 20 years .
I have several issues with this project:
First of all I do not believe the task force activities were adequately
publicized. LCDC Goal One requires that plenty of publicity be given land
use planning. I do not believe this occurred till the task force presented their
findings to the planning commission last November. The public information
provided about the smaller Town Centers such as Raleigh Hills and Cedar
Mill is much better then that provided for the Washington Square Regional
Center. I would have thought they would have had something somewhat
close to the mailings the town centers had. Last year I attended more than a
half dozen citizen meetings three of which involved Metro and I never came
across anything referencing the intense development proposed for SW
Nimbus.
The comprehensive plan 2.1.1 calls for notifying citizens within 500 feet of
a development about any changes. The western portion of this study area is
Fanno Creek which abuts the neighborhoods of Englewood, Black Bull and
Windsor Park and I do not believe I ever received information about the task
force hearings. I did receive a notice of the presentation of the task force to
the planning commission which I assumed was prompted by my call to the
planning department after reading about the plan in the Oregonian in
November.
I see the phrase "stakeholder" used by the compiler of the report to be
descriptive of people who may have a stake in this project but I do not see
anyone on this list who lives west of Hwy. 217 other then the Metro
Councilor and Planning commission member who were representing their
committees. There are many of us who have lived and worked in the area for
the past twenty years I would consider us stakeholders.
By the time I became aware of the plan the task force had already determined
to recommend a change in zoning of the Nimbus Business Parks from IP to
MUE 2 which would allow buildings heights to go from basically one story
to 60 foot or six story buildings. At the planning commission presentation
one developer was already asking that the MUE 2 zoning be amended to
allow for 100 foot or 10 story buildings.
I am opposed to the rezoning the area designated as District D. the area
along Nimbus from Scholls Ferry to North Dakota from IP to MUE 2.
Buildings of this height will loom over much of the Englewood, Black Bull
and Windsor Park subdivisions. The comprehensive plan (12.3.1) states
that IP zoning be buffered from residential areas to ensure privacy and the
residential character of the area be preserved.
The description of the Nimbus area now as a business park is very accurate.
In the day the area provides thousands of jobs. In the evenings and weekends
they truly are parks with a good variety of wildlife., peace and solitude. In
fact those business parks contribute far more to open space then the fenced in
Progress Golf Course and they are more practical then the Crest Grove
Cemetery which is included in the inventory of open space.
Not only would buildings of this height create a visual problem but it would
create an intolerable traffic situation. We can hardly pull out SW Scholls
Ferry Road now. These proposed buildings may meet the Floor Area Ratios
of the code but they need to be considered in view of the impact on traffic,
and adjoining property values. The comprehensive plan 5.1.1 states that
i • the city shall provide for a safe efficient street and roadway system. We
i don't have the money now to make it safe to walk down Gaarde, Walnut or
121 st let alone cross over Hwy. 217 to get to the Mall. These situations have
existed for over twenty years.
a
a The Tigard Triangle proposed roads have still not been put in. Putting 5,000
more jobs in this area will only further degrade the quality of life.
111M limillililill
I am also concerned about the loss of wet land. This proposal starts us down
a slippery slope.,,We know that it is possible to mitigate loss of wet land but
is that fair to us y4m live here. It basically exports our open space to another
part of the region.
An example is the Murray Town Center at Scholls and Murray. They
mitigated wet land by moving it three miles away to land owned by the city
of Tigard. It may be argued that there was no loss of wet land but the area of
Murray and Scholl~ow has less. The same thing can happen with Ash
Creek or Fanno Creek.
As I have sat in on the past three presentations I have heard nothing but
praise among the participants of the task force. I can see why. They have a
nice brochure and drawings but few of them have to live in the area involved.
Conceivably we residents will be here long after they have gone on to other
jobs. I ask you to look seriously at the ramification of this proposal. It is
hard to criticize a plan you have paid this much for but this plan has flaws
affecting the livability of Tigard.
,c~ l
FOR A F F O R D A B L E HOUSING, INC. P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 9728 i -3206 Tel: 503-968-2724 Fax: 503-598-8923
January 25, 2000
City Council Members
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear City Council Members:
Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) is pleased to have the
opportunity to comment on the proposed Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The
plan provides an excellent opportunity for our community to grow and develop "by
choice rather than by chance." The plan's guiding principles are ones we can all
embrace, including: "Retain and develop quality housing, including affordable
housing, for all income levels." As with many of the plan's goals, it is unclear how we
will achieve this, given the cost of land and existing housing in the regional center.
CPAH is willing and ready to work together with the City towards the achievement of
this important task. Your endorsement of the plan in February is an important step that is
necessary for us to begin to work together on this and other goals.
The 23 representatives who met 18+ times over the past few years are a diverse group.
They engaged in lively debate, although a consensus process was used to reach
agreement on key goals. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the real debate is
occurring after the task force concluded its work. The concerns expressed by those
who oppose the plan are valid, and are the concerns we face throughout the region.
They are by no means unique to the Washington Square area.
Accommodating growth has become the Portland metropolitan region's toughest
challenge during the past decade. Housing prices have escalated much more quickly than
salaries, and the location of new housing development has not matched the location of
job growth. Hence the imbalance in jurisdictions such as Tigard, and in the Washington
Square area specifically. In data recently released by Metro, Tigard ranks third worst
out of 24 local cities in the Portland area for jobs-housing balance. We have lots of
lower-end jobs matched with lots of higher-end housing. In the Washington Square study
area we currently have about 18,000 jobs and only about 2,300 housing units. Is there
any question why we have transportation problems in this area?
While the Washington Square Plan proposes higher residential densities than some other
parts of Tigard, the plans are commensurate with regions such as the Triangle and the
Central Business District-areas targeted for legitimate reasons. They boast concentrated
employment and transportation options. They are close to senlices, such as the Senior
Center and schools. It makes sense to plan for growth where growth can best be
accommodated, and where market demand is the greatest.
S~
Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc.
Page Two
The U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated in many court cases involving local jurisdictions
that you simply cannot outlaw growth (much as many of us might like to). U.S. citizens
have a constitutional "right to travel" and settle where they please, and local jurisdictions,
such as Petaluma, California, who have tried to limit such development through
moratoriums or minimum lot sizes have been soundly defeated.
We may want to keep our community just as it is, but this simply will not happen.
Whether or not a plan is adopted, the Washington Square area will continue to develop.
We should seize the opportunity to guide growth rather than letting unbridled growth
guide us. By implementing a Regional Center Plan with a balanced approach to
jobs, housing, transportation and green space, we can more competitively apply for
scarce public resources to pursue our vision for these components. Without such a
plan, we are effectively limiting our chances of success, as CPAH found recently in a
funding round for federal housing dollars. Until we have some land that is appropriately
zoned in Tigard, our jobs-housing balance will remain at the bottom of the barrel.
T lie :;'ashlnrg,Lon Square l'larl notcs that t1lere are i', acres of land available V1r residential
development in the study area. In addition to the undeveloped land available for new
construction, the plan contemplates some in-fill and accessory units. The latter two types
of development can take place in a way that does not change the character of existing
neighborhoods. There was ongoing and open discussion of where higher density/new
construction made sense. It was encouraged in areas (such as Hall Boulevard) with
access to transit. The reason is simple. If people can live near their work, they may not
need a car.
In downtown Portland, several new developments, including condominiums for sale,
have absolutely no parking on-site. While CPAH is not likely to support development in
the Tigard area with no associated parking, we certainly find that we are "over paved" at
the two apartment complexes we operate in the Washington Square area. We are
currently conducting a parking study to determine how many families have no car. It is
certainly a higher number than we would have speculated when purchasing the
complexes. We propose not to "over pave" future projects, but ask that storm drainage
and green space are treated with high accord.
CPAH has a keen interest in the Washington Square Plan for many reasons. First and
foremost, we house 117 families (over 300 individuals) who are residents and
employees in the study area (in one single family and two multifamily properties).
We have invested over $1.5 million dollars in renovating these properties, and
through Neighborhood Watch and other initiatives have had a positive impact in
improving the quality of life in these neighborhoods. Prior to our involvement, both
were owned by absentee landlords.
Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc.
Page Three
Secondly, we believe that at least a portion of the new units planned in the area must be
affordable. This is a critical component of dealing with transportation problems. We
have a deficit throughout Washington County of affordable units, but Tigard is by far the
hardest hit. CPAH regularly updates its market research, which includes an inventory of
all the multifamily complexes in the Tigard-Tualatin area. In a 1998 update, we were
able to gather data from about 50 multifamily complexes in Tigard with a total of about
4,000 units. The majority of these are 2-bedroom units (2,215), with some 1-bedrooms
(992), a few studios (61), and some 3-bedrooms (116). The universe of 3-bedroom units
which is "affordable" to someone at 50-60% of the area median income, for example, is
only about 50 units (that rent for $850 or less). There is seldom a vacancy among these
3-bedrooms. We simply must expand the universe of affordable housing in the Tigard
area if we are to begin to address our transportation problems.
While affordable units should not be concentrated in any one region, they should be
planned to balance with job opportunities. The percentage of affordable units should
be considerably higher in the Washington Square area than in other parts of town
which are not walking distance to work for some 18,000 employees. Allowing
employees the opportunity to live in the community in which they work stabilizes their
commitment to family, the schools and the broader community.
On a personal note, I live in the Garden Home area, contiguous to the Washington Square
study area. Everyday my commute, by bike or car, takes me down 801', Locust, and Hall
Boulevard. I am personally and professionally pleased with the growth plan which I
believe will be advantageous to "my neighborhood." We are completing a parallel
planning process in Garden Home, with many of the same concerns. The plans we create
will never please everyone, but they will allow us to move forward with a common
vision-and to secure the resources we need to make our communities even better than
they currently are.
The planning process which guided the redevelopment of roads and retail in the Garden
Home area significantly improved the quality of life for me, in accessing the recreation
center, library and shopping opportunities. It is visually pleasing and takes into
consideration bikers and pedestrians. Growth and change were a good thing, because of
the many dedicated residents also helped guide it, and the public dollars which were
attracted to implement it. I hope the City of Tigard takes the same opportunity to move
forward, acting on the guiding principles which have been laid out by area residents and
employers in the Washington Square Plan. Nothing worthwhile comes easily.
Sincerely,
Sheila Greenlaw-Fink
Executive Director
Affordable housing
o ~
a p blem,
-r
ZS thu'r
a
Affordable housing is getting
Have you ever wondered why housing prices harder to find
A and rent have increased so much in the Portland
metropolitan region during the past decade? A strong regional economy has brought many new
residents to the area, causing the region's growth rate
• Do you hope your children and grandchildren (2 percent a year) to be about twice the national rate
can afford to buy or rent a home near you? during the past several years. This additional demand
also has fueled housing price increases.
a If you own your own home, could you afford
to buy it today if you paid its current market Since 1990, the median cost of single-family housing
value? in the region has increased by about 100 percent. In
the same period, the median household income (MHI)
• Could you afford to stay in your home if your increased by only 41 percent. This is illustrated in the
income was suddenly reduced due to illness, following graph:
injury or layoff?
Changes in housing prices vs.
Having a home is one of the most fundamental household income in the Portland
human needs. A home represents shelter, safety and metro region
security. It's the place where we gather with family $180.000
and friends and retreat fron, outside cares. It's where $160,000 his
we do most of our living. $140.000
$120,000 .
A home can be found in r.,any different types of sloo.ooo
structures. The traditional single-family house comes $80.000 660.000
to mind very readily, but clearly other types of $40.000 e o s ♦ o o ° ._o--
„ housing meet the economic and lifestyle needs of our $20.000
diversifying population. Row houses, condominiums, s0 ;
manufa Ctnred houses, apartments and even house- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
boats provide homes for people in our region. Medan npwel.old mmm Medinn M1Ome tale pate
Source. US Department of Housinq and Urban De,elopment. Metro 1999.
For most of Lls, the cost of housing is a major consid- Note. Median household intone is fo, a family of four.
eration in the selection of our home. ]Ninny factors can
affect the cost, including housing market demand,
neighborhood amenities and character, vitality of the
region's economy and the availability of housing by
type within various price ranges. What is affordable housing?
` Throughout the 1990s, demand for housing in the
Portland metropolitan region was strong due in large The United States Department Housing and
Winter 2000 part to a strong economy. Because of the economy, jobs Urban Development defines affordable housing as
costing
sed and the population in the region grew a household no more than 30 percent of
increa
ncrea I So the jobs are located e corn muni ties its income. For renters, housing costs include rent
includes prin-
that have limited affordable housing. A large portion cipleand, utilities. interest, For taxes, property homeowners, it i insurance and
of a family's income is then spent getting to and from
work. Additionally, the number of people in a house_ mortgage insurance, if applicable. The American
past 20 years as Housing Survey for the Portland metropolitan area
h has leave been shhrinome, the e for population p past ages and more estimated that 36,800 households (82 percent)
children old
single households arc created thus increasing the earning less than 30 percent of median house-
demand for housing. Because of limited affordable hold income paid more than 30 percent of their
housing, some people have no housing and many income for housing costs in 1995.
rr;nrrd tm rrnrltal• people are purchasing more than they can afford.
t wnr1•nr 11,11UT.
rnnsnmer waste.
1
LM M
Who is trying t® find affordable housing?
Horne is The shortage of affordable housing affects a wide Yearly income $26,880
range of residentS - particularly for households earning (57 percent of median household
iUhere the 50 percent or less of the region's median household income for family of three)
income as shown in the chart below. For a family of \Ionthh• income $2,240
heart is four in the region, the 1999 median annual inc0111e Taxcs/other witholdings 740
was $ 52,400. Utilities 80
According to American I lousing Survey estimates in Czar pavnu•nt 225
1995, 189,000 renter hOUSCllO1ds (S I percent) and Car insurance 78
21 1,500 homeowners (49 percent) met the regional Health insurance 50
definition of nxrdcrate or low income (up to 130 Rent 560
percent of median annual income) Remaitrin[; In once $507
Between 1990 and 1997, the anwunt of housing Ben - lien is a 92-year-old widower
affordable to lower-income louseholds decreased while
who receives $665 per month in Social
the numut,er of households in lower income categories
Security henefits. He lives in a
increased. In other words, the supply has not kept up subsidized apartment complex
with demand.
designed for older residents. He pays
The scenarios $503 per month in rent and utilities.
Sonya - Sonya owns it two- lien has publicly funded housekeeping
described bedroom bonze in Southeast Portland «}1;c services and personal care. Without
j
here are real- with her newborn baby and 6-yearv this assistance, he would need to move to a care facility
life examples s Y,' old daughter. She is on maternity and lose his independence.
Ie.tt•e from a full-rims' job as a c:1ec
of in Yearly income $7,980
people manager at it nonprofit public
our region defenders office specializing in (21 percent of median household
who are juvenile justice. Sonya earns $2,380 income for a family of one)
per month at her job and receives \Iontllly income $665
struggling $ 3,35 in child support for her older daughter. With a Monthl.v rent and utilities 503
With housing house payment of $764, child care and education %lonthb• insurance Is
affordability expenses at $600, health insurance for her haby at $260 Ren ainirt,r; income $147
per nwnth, Sonya has only $231 remaining for other
cApcnscs including trod. Molly - Nlolly rents a
two- income S32,580 hedroont apartment in Clackamas
(62 pCrCCnr of nn•dian household r count), with her 16-year-old son. She
u,COnx for fan„ly of thrrcl drives a school hus full time and
f cane roughly $1,885 per month.
\fonthl) income 52,-1.5 y. Because of the heavy harden of past
laws/other witholduugs 435 debt, dolly is ctrl)' able to make
1111litiCS 135
ends ntect through the subsidized
Child care/education 600 rent provided by Northwest Housing Alternatives.
Car paynlent/insura,tce 300
\Iorrgage/insurance/taxes 764 Yearly income $22,620
1 lealth insurance 260 (53 percent of median household
Rc•ntatoting irrContc $221 income for family of two)
Monthly income $1,585
Mike and Jenny - \like and 'I;txcs/other tvitholdings 467
.jenny are a young married Couple Utilities 75
r , with a baby who live in the Tigard fast hills and credit debt 7l l
area. Both wort: in retail sales. Mike C;tt• insurance 60
works full time. jenny just returned Health insurance 36
to work hart-time as a cashier for a Relit' 231
I department %tore. Together they earn RCnlairn11"41 nfomC $305
WW_j In $36,850 annualb•. Because of tile
cost of child care, they stagger their "subsidized through Northwest Housing Alternatives
work shifts NO that one of then) Can Ile 110111C With the
11.111). I hC fan)h is („cr n1C0t7tC 101any public benefits.
( )u1b (lie b.tby h.ts medical +11sura)cc.
Affordable
Housing
What's being done to improve the Te
chnical
Advisory of affordable housing? mmee
Multnomah County
~hc \Icu'o (:uunctl crratcd :ut ad, i,un• conunitu'c
.cun„011g of ?ti rcl,rrunt,tti,c, from Ioclll govern ~l♦ v~ F-1hn' 111'01;1 de,rlolu'rs, the hu,nlr„ ,11111 fuloncial conununit,, affordable housing Land-use
ofessionals
pr
a,boc.uc,,utal rcl1re,c11tatn'cs front the gu,crnor', :~nn
„fl,1c. (lrcgorl I luu,ing and (:onu11unn~' Scr,icc, I h harnnrnt and the l .5. I h l,artnlrnt of I lousing and M
~r
1'111,111 Ih•tclul,nu•nt. Thc cunnnittcc i, called the nn Profit affordable
.lfford,lble I lousing-Icehnii;tl Adviu,rv (.onunlttec n n Non housingprovider -
I I- I 1. n n Clackamas County
® m nnnnn
Affordable Housing Technical a Nonprofit affordable
gDJMDEE~IEIEIJEI LOJEL~ housing provider -
Advisory Committee goal Multnomah County
I'he cottttttitnr i, ih.ll'gCcl with ad,lsing the \letro !~f-
( c,uncll on affordable housing policies and strategic, 10 L_R_ 1 n
for the )T;>;ion. Some of the committCC I,1•l,dtCts will 0 - 0 Nonprofit affordable
lncludc recollllnendell affordable 11UU,1ng goals for- _ housing provider -
cadt IUrr,diCtion and a Regional Affordable I lousing - Washington County
tin at , t 11.111 that Will contain ,oal, and obiective,, r
lntl•lrmcntaton ,t'atcg;ic, and 11trthud, of evaluating ,,;.,i,,. ~i:,..
HITICmentation. 1,11c"L' gOal, arc intended to provide a What types of strategies or tools
dnc'r,c range of Mtl,rdable hun,ing throughout the are being considered to address the For-profit housing
providers
re;;,cm with every iUri,diction ,haring in the re,l,onsi- region's affordable housing needs? i,.,,.„i `•',.i,. ,`,t
hilt,. I he ~omnllttcr\ l,roccs, lnclnde, cominunitc
,nttrach throughout thr I,rocc„ to grr nll,ut (rum the t,
huhlic,uld other Interested l,arUe,. the Affordable l lousing;'tcch11ical Adeisorv
Co11unittce has diVidCLl the nuuly Iw,siblc srratc-
gie, and tools to address affordable housing into Clackamas County
Public Housing
three Categories: Authority
Why is affordable housing a Cost-reduction strategies - devcloping
regional issue? progra11ltnoric approaches to address factors that
increaSC the cost of hoUSiltg;. EN31111-11" could Multnomah County
The livability of our region is directly include incentive, to &\-cIOpcr,, permit process Public Housing
affected b the availability of a sufficient Authority
by Y tncennves, fee ,vaivcrs and land banking;. •
amount of housing that's affordable. One
aspect of livability is the ability of people of Regulatory strategies - develoll61g land-use
Washington County
all income levels to have a variety of regulations 011dincd in the Regional Franuwt't 1` Public Housing
housing choices. Another aspect is the Plan. I•:xaml,lcs could include regional rchlacc- Authority
ab;hty of the elderly and young adults to 111cnt housing ordi11,ulCCS, dCI)SltV 1101111, inccn
live in the community where they spent rives, urban growth poundal- ConSideratit,11s and Hu:,;rn;E•r:;r,a
their lives. i11clusio11arv '/.otuttg. City of Portland
the Portland metropolitan region functions Regional funding strategies - dcvelol„ng r"" s""
as one housing market. People may live in options for the regional futldi11g of affordable Clackamas County
pn,.n t.trC~.+,~•..
one part, work in another and shop in yet housing. I?xaml'IC, Could include a
,1 third part of the region. In some commu- possible real estate trallsfer tax for
nitles, there may be limited housing affordable housing or a Washington County
options for the people who work there. t•cgional acyuiSition fund for o n n
1-his means that workers must find trans- affordable housing. itnn
portation from other parts of the region,
Cities of Clackamas
using time and scarce resources while fl t! tin county
ncreasing congestion and pollution. ,111
r-,y„
Committee continued
Cities of Multnomah
County
Chris Lassen, Gresham
Cities of Washington
County
David Lawrence,
Hillsboro The decision-making process Metro - planning that protects the nature
of our region
Metro Policy Advisory All Affordable Housing Technical Advisory
Committee
Mayor Rob Drake, Committee and subcommittee meetings are open It's better to plan for growth than ignore it. Metro
Beaverton to public. The public will have the opportunity to serves 1.3 million people who live in Clackamas,
Financing institutions comment on preliminary strategies and on the Multnomah and Washington counties and the 24
David Summers, Bank of draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Plan. cities in the Portland metropolitan area. Metro
America The plan will be reviewed by the Metro Policy provides transportation and land-use planning
Ivtargaret Nelson, Key Advisory Committee before it is submitted to the services and oversees regional garbage disposal
Bank Metro Council in spring 2000. and recycling and waste reduction programs.
Residents of Metro manages regional parks and greenspaces
affordable housing
Lora Berry, Cascade and the Oregon Zoo and oversees the trade,
AIDS Project Key tasks and products spectator and arts centers managed by the Metro-
afford bl housing - Recommend affordable housing goals for each Politan Exposition-Recreation Commission.
Dana Brown, jurisdiction to the Metro Council and Metro Metro is governed by an executive officer, elected
Community Alliance of Policy Advisory Committee. regionwide, and a seven-member council elected
Tenants by districts. An auditor, also elected regionwide,
Residents of - Develop implementation strategies to provide
reviews Metro's operations.
affordable housing jurisdictions with tools to achieve goals and to
Tasha Harmon, encourage the development of additional
Community Develop- Executive Officer - Mike Burton; Auditor - Alexis
ment Network affordable housing, with consideration of both Dow, CPA; Metro Council - Presiding Officer -
Business community land-use and non-land-use strategies. David Bragdon, District 7; Deputy Presiding
and major employers -
Pat Ritz, Oregon Title Recommend a Regional Affordable Housing Officer - Ed Washington, District 5; Rod Park,
Insurance Co. Strategy Plan. District l; Bill Atherton, District 2; Jon Kvistad,
The Governor's Task District 3; Susan McLain, District 4; Rod
Force on Aging (non- Monroe, District 6.
voting) Hove can 1 get involved?
Alice Neely, Governor's
Commission on Senior
Services Call (503) 797-1888 or send an e-mail to s? q Metro Regional Services
Oregon Housing and ubag0a nietro.dst.or.us r Creating livable communities
Community Services - to be added to the Affordable Housing
Department
(non-voting) Technical Advisory Committee mailing list
Vince Cli oni, Oregon
Housing and Connnu1uly - request a speaker
Services Department
- leave a comment on what you think.
Federal Housing
Administration (non-
voting)
Torn Cusack, U S. Timeline
Department of Housing
and Urban Development - Public forums - April 2000
Metro Council liaison - Public hearing - May 2000
Councilor Ed
Washington - Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy to
Metro Council - June 2000
L 4 1974 - 104.12 - (;,11S
9 9 6 0 8 11/1-1
Tell rt
Cd
INPERFIZ:P ERYI E
A 0116Ak~Y! O611f1 CAit4~4bRy ° IIk401r~!
tr~fd) , /r
*~)w
T=, W =M*M" elmd"ZZU N =g am= tout 9
felf-19 V OR. &T.4
Sue Marshall <Sue. Marshall @tualatinriverkeepers.org>
Unknown
m - - Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:51:45 -0500
a - Testimony Washington Square Regional Center
Tualatin Riverkeepers
16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
January 25, 2000
Mayor Nicoli
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Master Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Council Members:
The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a citizen-based organization with over 700
members working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We are
not able to attend the hearing tonight but submit these comments for the
record and request that our time be given to Jere Retzer who has prepared
in-depth comments on behalf of the Ash Creek Coalition for which the
Tualatin Riverkeepers is a member. The Tualatin Riverkeepers concur with
Mr. Retzer's testimony.
The Tualatin Riverkeepers agree that it is good public policy to build up
rather than out. We further agree with. Metro position that the increase in
density within the urban growth boundary should not come at the expense of
natural resources. It is our position that the Washington Square Regional
Center Master Plan in recommending an upzone of the wetland/floodplain area
G of Ash Creek will have a negative impact on water quality, local flooding,
and fish and wildlife habitat. We oppose the Washington Square Regional
Q Center Master Plan in its recommendation to upzone the wetland/floodplain
H of Ash Creek.
i I Repeatedly we have requested consultation with resource agencies: Unified
Sewerage Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Environmental
y Quality, Oregon Division of State Lands, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. City of Tigard Planning staff informed us that these agencies have
been notified. Much more than a simple notifiction to comment, the
agencies needed to be brought in during the planning process to help assure
that natural resources were protected, upland alternatives were identified
and flooding/stormwater issues were resolved. This proactive involvement
would have assured the community that adequate consideration was being
given to concerns about flooding, fish, and water quality. We perceive a
resistance to this consultation that we do not understand.
Given the tack of a comprehensive natural resource plan for Washington
Square Regional Center, the Tualatin Riverkeepers believe that the best
approach to protect the environmentally sensitive areas surrounding Ash
Creek is to leave the zoning at 4.5units/acre for those properties within
the wetland/floodplain. Maintaining a low- density designation allows for
reasonable, appropriate development of these properties, including
realistic density transfers within a single property without providing an
economic incentive to build in areas better left undeveloped.
We urge the Council to maintain the current zoning designation within the
wetland/floodplain of Ash Creek and engage a taskforce made up of citizens
and the above mentioned resource agencies to develop a comprehensive plan
to protect and restore this natural resource.
Thank you for you thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Sue Marshall
Public Policy Director
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Sue Marshall
Public Policy Director
Tualatin Riverkeepers
16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
Ph: (503) 590-7484
Fax: (503) 590-6702
www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
Buys sell awl stuff.
W6
~~25 I aG
David Knowles
PO Box 230275
Tigard, Oregon 97281
January 25, 2000
To the members of Tigard City Council:
I would like to submit the following testimony regarding the proposed
Washington Square Regional Center. I am definitely opposed to this plan. After
looking over the implementation plan, I have the following questions:
1. How are the developers going to acquire the land?
2. What is the process for enforcing this plan?
3. What development is going where?
Please consider this tesimony in your deliberations.
Dave Knowles
~ j
406N V"
resident of Metzger area
MINE 111111 P
P,~ o-
/z Z ►
January 25, 2000
Trudy Knowles
PO Box 230275
Tigard, Oregon 97281
To the Members of City of Tigard Council:
As a resident of the Metzger community, I would like to submit the following
testimony tonight, January 25, 2000. 1 reside at 10430 SW 82nd St. I have lived
there for the last 24 years.
I have followed the proceedings of the Washington Square Regional Center and
am very opposed to this development. The Washington Square Regional Center
task force was sent forth to plan a Regional Center, a dream environment for the
area. It envisioned providing jobs and housing for the future. Its dream was to
provide a spectacular community for all to see.. Metro thought a community
around the Washington Square would be ideal. Let's allow 950 new housing
units provide jobs for some 8,000 people. The task force members who were led
like sheep by the paid consultants and paid city staff decided to go for the gusto
and provide 1500 housing units and over 9,00 jobs creating a bigger
development. The consultants led the task force to increase traffic capacity by
widening every single road leading into the area to five lanes. Let's ignore the
community ideals and wants and make it the largest and most distinguished
development in the Tri County area. To whose benefit is this development
benefiting? To the task force members and paid consultants and paid city staff
this was the most wonderful plan ever conceived. To them they could get away
with the following: Let's forget what businesses are in the area and misplace
them. Let's allow the highest density to occur right near the floodplains and
wetlands. Let's allow the water surface problem and flooding to occur both
upstream and downstream. Who cares where the water goes? Who cares what
flooding will occur? It's not our problem as task force members, or paid city
staff, or paid consultants? Our job is to just plan and move on. We won't be left
with the implementation of this, or the constant problems relating to the actual
building, the financing of it?
Well, I beg to differ! This city council needs to rise to the occasion and say no to
this plan. it needs to send this back to the staff and have them scale this back.
The city council needs to have this plan reevaluated by having an environmental
impact study done to really determine what effects it will have on the
community. I want to know the answers to these questions:
1. Does this plan really adhere to the Title 3 guidelines?
2. Does this plan really adhere to the Goal 5 goals being proposed by Metro?
3. Does this plan really adhere to the Endangered Species Act?
4. Is there a true need for this kind of development in this area? Is this the best
use of this land?
5. Is there a need to increase every single road into the area? Why widen every
road to allow more traffic flowing into the area? Why shouldn't we discourage
traffic instead of promoting it.
6. What impact will all this high rise density and populations have on all the
natural habitat? What impact will a five lane highway right next to Ash Creek
have?
7. What is the cost to us as city council members willing to preserve in the event
of a lawsuit when flooding occurs and someone files a law suit against the city
8. Does this plan adhere to the new 4D goals by the National Fish and Wildlife
Service?
I would just like to formally state I have some real reservations to the criteria said
the city said they met by implementing this plan. My cause of concern is on
Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 12. 1 have questions regarding Policy 1.1.1a; 2. 1.1
and 6. 1.1 Most of these I have addressed in testimony prior to tonight.
Trudy Knowles
e A-1
To: Washington Square Task Force & Tigard City Council
Subject: Metro Flan for the Washington Square Area
Date: January 24, 2000
Gentlemen,
I would like to comment on the information and data that I have seen relating to the
Washington Square Task Force findings and recommendations for the Metro center.
I have lived in the Metzger area for nearly 10 years. I have chosen to raise my two children
there, both are attending Metzger elementary (1st grade and 4th grade). I chose Metzger for its
open spaces and "country feel", but am concerned that this will be lost t:•ith the current
proposal for the Metro center.
I attended two open forum meetings for the regional center proposal and provided input along
with many other Metzger residents. Later, reading through the task force report and
recommendations, it seems that much of our input was acknowledged, but not much action
has been taken to support our position. Specifically, many folks in the area voiced concern
about the east border and pushed for Greenberg, rather than Hall. Designating Hall as the
Eastern border will likely uproot many single family homes and force people to move, this is
especially true for the folks that live north of Locust, west of Hall and east of Greenburg - this
is a large, single family residential area. I would ask the council to seriously consider our
request to change the Eastern border from Hall Blvd. to Greenburg Road.
In addition, the report is recommending that Hall Blvd. be improved to a 3 lane roadway (phase
1) with phase II taking it to a 5 lane roadway. Upgrading Hall to a 5 lane will likely push the
small business owners out, further taking away from the quality of our neighborhood. It seems
likely if funding is available, phase I may not happen and things will move right to phase II. This
will increase the traffic and noise in the Metzger area and further degrade the livibility for near-
by residential homes. My home is less than one block off Hall, if it becomes a 5 lane roadway, I
will seriously consider moving my family to another area.
I understand and agree with the need for change, its good for all of us when it's implemented
properly. I hope that the council will have the foresight and courage to help guide this project in
a manner consistent with the wants of the people and with regard for the preservation of the
natural resources.
Sincerely,
r
ick Moriniti
Nick Moriniti 8355 SW Hemlock Street Tigard, Oregon 97223
.,r
Maceriach Company
.,We Makc (food Things Happen"
January 25, 2000
Mayor Jim Nicoli
Members of the City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council:
I am the general manager of Washington Square and a member of the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan Task Force. I applaud the work of staff, the consultant team and the other
task force members and thank all concerned for the gracious consideration of my input during
the process.
I do, however, want to express (and have entered into the record) my concerns. These concerns
are the same as those I have expressed on a regular basis to the task force members, to staff, to
the consultant team, and to Metro officials during the process, and in other venues as well. A
senior representative of The Macerich Company, owner and operator of Washington Square
Shopping Center, and counsel representing Macerich will express related concerns in more
detail.
Do I feel this is a good plan? Yes, I feel it is as good a plan as could be formulated under the
guidelines. It is those guidelines, however, that give rise to my concern.
Metro's vision for the Regional Center concept and resulting guidelines are in stark contrast to
the reality of what a major regional shopping center is, how it has evolved, and how it functions.
More importantly, how it will function in the future. The notion that you can urbanize around a
suburban shopping complex, without addressing the elements necessary to make a regional
shopping center successful, is unrealistic and will only serve to slowly but surely decrease its
viability.
Washington Square • Square Too
9585 S.W. Washington Square Road • Portland, Oregon 97223
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 23635 ° Tigard, Oregon 97281-3635
Telephone 503.639.8860 • Facsimile 503.620.5612
www.macerich.com
milli ~Ell Milli
V,
Page 2
Mayor Jim Nicoli
January 25, 2000
The basis for my conclusions and remarks is, I believe, much the same as the basis for concerns
expressed by the City Planning Commission, as well as many other business leaders and City and
County officials. That basis is the transportation piece of the puzzle. There are three segments
of the transportation issue
1. How will the funding for those improvements identified in the plan be derived? There is an
extensive transportation segment of the plan - including everything from overpasses to
people movers and bike/pedestrian considerations to street standards for parking lot
roadways - for which there is no recognizable funding. In addition, the improvements
identified in the plan are secondary to the most important transportation issue, which is the
need for access to the center by automobiles from a very wide region. This access is
paramount if the shopping center is to sustain its viability.
2. There is no recognition for the need to provide an increase in the capacity of the major
roadway system serving the regional center. Without major road improvements, there will be
no way to accommodate the increased traffic that will result. Funding in this arena is even
more in questions and, it appears, will be for a long time to come.
3. It is questionable whether the public transit alternative will be able to serve the regional
center adequately, now or in the future. As a member of the Transit Choices for Livability
Committee, it became clear to me that Metro's vision for increased ridership of public transit
in the foreseeable future is not achievable because transit cannot function effectively in a
suburban setting.
It is these issues that are causing more business leaders, City and County officials, and the public
to question the feasibility of many aspects of the 2040 plan. And I believe it is these issues that
you should keep in mind as you consider approval of the Washington Square Regional Center
Plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sin y,
ck F. a on, CSM/CMD
General Manager
JFR:crw
Jere W Retzer
5115 SW Alfred St
Portland, OR 97219
January 25, 2000
Re: Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Tigard City Council:
The following summarizes my testimony planned for the City Council.
I am a co-founder of the Crestwood Headwaters Group and a director for the West
Multnomah County Soil and Water Conservation District. For those who may not be
aware, every county in Oregon has at least one SWCD. These special districts are created
under Oregon law for the purpose of working with property owners and government
entities for the conservation of natural resources. SWCD directors are elected by the
public in general elections and are the only elected public officials in the state with duties
focused solely on resource conservation.
The Washington Square Regional Center plan that you are evaluating will have
substantial impacts upon Ash Creek. Ash Creek is a major stream and a tributary of
Fanno Creek. The headwaters of Ash Creek are in my neighborhood. My fellow
headwaters group members and I consider it a valuable resource for the community and
the environment. Members of my group recall catching cutthroat trout in Ash Creek near
our homes not long ago and we have documented reports of steelhead trout in the creek.
Just last year, Moon Shadow Park in Washington County was reported to have cutthroat
trout returning to spawn. All these waters are upstream of the lower reach of Ash Creek
that you are considering upzoning from the current 4.5 units per acre to over 50 units per
acre. The protection and restoration of Ash Creek were primary reasons why we formed
the Crestwood Headwaters Group. When I learned about the plans of the Washington
Square Regional Center I joined with Fans of Fanno Creek, the Tualatin Riverkeepers,
Portland Audubon Society and people from Tigard and Metzger to form the Ash Creek
Coalition to try to ensure that the plan you adopt adequately protects this sensitive and
valuable resource. I am very sad to say that the plan before you today does not provide
the protections that we think are needed.
The area that particularly concerns us is an approximately 23-acre floodpiain and wetland
area between Hall Blvd and Greenburg Rd, Oak St and Highway 217. Figure 1 from the
Tigard Water Resources Overlay District shows the creek, wetland and buffer zones and
Figure 2 from the Tigard Buildable Lands Map also shows the floodplain area. Both
maps show water resources in blue and the floodplain is shown in green. Buildable
lands, meaning currently vacant lands not in wetlands or floodpiain are gray.
Ash Creek Water Resources Overlay District from the
City of Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map
a
l
i~
7%.d Rip. b. S4VXKk
USA Water 0"W"y B&Abt ? z
City O(TWd
/Area d hdmtat
Mau Sarvfoe Nea
http:l/www. ci.tigard. or. uslMAPSlwrad.pdf
Figure 1. Ash Creek Water Resources Overlay District
Everyone, including the task force consultants and city planner appear to agree that the
creek and floodplain should be protected. Consider the following:
® Metro Title 3 and the Tigard Water Resource Overlay require protection
e Ash Creek is a major fish-bearing and a water quality limited stream under the
Clean Water Act and needs a full riparian buffer to protect/improve water quality;
Tigard and USA are required to reduce pollution under the US Clean Water Act
® Tualatin and Fanno Creek have threatened steelhead trout that would be harmed
by taking or degrading any riparian buffer or wetland in this reach. The National
Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS is proposing a rule that will require protection
200' around all streams and a buffer around all wetlands. Metro Goal 5 is
expected to include the same recommendation.
® Ash Creek floodplain experiences regular flooding, which is expected to grow
worse; USA projects peak storm runoff will increase by over 50% in 2040
because of upstream development. Any development in the floodplain would
harm adjacent and downstream properties
® USA has a proposed project in the Fanno Management Plan to use this area for
flood storage and water quality; metro green space funds are available to support
this acquisition if Tigard supports it
• Metro excluded this wetland/floodplain from the urban growth targets and
consistently says floodplains, wetlands and streams should not be developed
Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain from the
City of Tigard Buildable Lands ?NTap
,,.1u pats p
`i~ ~icSl Yic• ,';is.,yy ~t 1~ ,af tiF,Lr•y ~f ,y
OUR N
w
P
~ ~ 4Y t ~ a § h G
Buildable Land %
Wetlands 4 A~
P% I Fl odPlains p
s city Boundaries y yet r '
King ClIt p t ,.'s ~ ~~r 9Via::
http://www.ei.tigard.or.us/MAPS/buildab] .pdf
Figure 2. Ash Creek Wetland in the Tigard Buildable Lands Map
9 The Task Force report itself says development should preserve "open space,
wetlands and floodplains" (page 18) and proposes a vision that highlights streams
and wetlands as a community resource.
In spite of general agreement that these lands should be protected, the task force proposal
targets its greatest zoning increase for this area based upon the apparent faith that Tigard
development codes will protect these resources. An examination of Tigard codes
however shows that this faith is misplaced and may cause the city to make a very
unfortunate and costly mistake.
While Tigard has implemented water resource areas in the code, including buffers as
shown in Figure I the Community Development Code allows several exceptions that can
be used to effectively circumvent the overlay district as well as Metro Title 3. It seems
especially likely that these exceptions will be requested in the event the land is upzoned
as proposed. These allowable exceptions include:
o TABLE 18.797.2 allows local streets within the Water Resource Overlay District
(WROD), reduction of setback and hardship variances to other codes as a Type II
or type III procedure
• 18.797.100 allows riparian setback reductions by up to 67% in the event the
applicant proves that the resource is degraded and proposes restoration of the
remainder
• 18.797.130 allows a variance "to allow reasonable economic use," if other
provisions would result in an "unbuildable site" or in the event of "hardship"
• 18.797.140 allows a plan amendment option that can remove the WROD entirely
either by showing that "the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the
conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource" or
else that "the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable significance
threshold defined by Goal 5"
It seems particularly likely that the exceptions for "reasonable economic use," to prevent
"hardship" or "adverse economic consequences" will be requested and granted in the
event that the upzoning is approved. Figure 3 illustrates the current zoning of the
properties in this area. Tile yellow areas are currently zoned 4.5 units per acre and the
purple areas are currently zoned commercial, CP. A number of these properties are very
oddly shaped. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan proposes that these
properties be upzoned to two new categories, MUE1 and MUR1. Both of these new
categories carry a minimum density of 50 units per acre.
Zoning of the Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain
from the Tigard Comprehensive Plan
p
4 { ~ K
i 0 C 'ti t•P
yy s.
r (i7 f t!t,+r~ ~i Stied (£f?fifii.i `t ! ^~Ji ,f , ~
u> LL f , r
p ! t t 1 f .II ,t .t 1~ 1 {
7 77
Figure 3. Current Comprehensive Plan Zoning of the Ash Creek Wetland/F'loodplain
These same lot lines are also shown in Figures 1 and 2. If you examine Figure 2 you can
see that the reason why we are so concerned is that 11 properties are either entirely or
mostly within the water resource area or the floodplain. I have marked these properties
with a circled "P" in figures 2 and 3 with the annotation that these properties in particular
should not be upzoned. Tigard code, paragraph 18.797.120 already allows a density
transfer in the event that a property includes an area in the Water Resource Overlay
District from the protected area to the area outside the overlay within the same lot. Under
the current low density zoning several of the properties notably along the northern and
eastern sides could be developed up to their full potential by allowing a density transfer
and clustering the units outside the water resource area. If, on the other hand these
properties are upzoned it will not be possible to develop even close to the full potential
economic value of the property which will in turn argue much more strongly for an
exception.
Upzoning is a discretionary- decision by the community that has the power to make a
property much more valuable. No one has a property right to have his or her zoning
density increased. They do, however have the right to expect that if the city approves a
zoning change that they will be allowed to develop their property up to the economic
potential represented by the new zone. By approving this upzoning Tigard will be setting
itself up to either waive watershed protections or for a potential confrontation in court
with the property owners which could be quite expensive for the city and its taxpayers.
We've seen that current protections will dictate exceptions if these properties are
upzoned. We also know that watershed protections will likely be increased in the near
future as a result of the Endangered Species Act and Metro Goal 5 so an eventual
confrontation seems very likely if the upzoning is approved.
It seems nonsensical for the task force to argue on the one hand that these properties can
be upzoned and on the other that they should be protected. Which is the desired end
result? Since we all agree that these properties should be protected the sensible action
would seem to be to keep the current zoning. Ideally, this wetland and floodplain should
be restored for the environmental properties. We currently have flooding and water
quality problems that would be lessened if these properties were restored and used for
flood storage as proposed by the Unified Sewerage Agency. We would strongly support
Metro support for acquisition for this purpose. Forested wetlands in good condition can
store up to a million and a half gallons of floodwater per acre for slow release according
to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands also provide substantial water quality
benefits and valuable habitat for fish. This won't happen, however if you approve this
proposed upzoning.
The task force proposal claims to includes incentives for protecting the environment. The
proposed incentive is described on page 70 of the plan, which states "The Task Force
strongly supports the protection standards include in the Water Resources Overlay
District Additional incentives for enhancing natural resources along these corridors
are proposed in zoning code amendments." These incentives, an amendment to city code
18.630.040 limits maximum density to 110% of minimum density unless the property
owner improves the resources. This would allow 55 units per acre with no enhancement.
will MINIMUM 11111111l1NM1111111
You've already seen that it will not be possible to develop 11 of these propertied without
substantial variances to the overlay district so it seems that this minimal incentive will
likely not be effective or used.
Finally, I would urge that you ensure that any and all development in the proposed
regional center occur in a manner that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods. You
should, in particular require that infrastructure improvements be timed so that the
infrastructure is in place to support new development. This is allowed under Oregon
Revised Statutes in the form of an "Infrastructure strategy." This will be particularly
important to handle increased runoff in a manner that prevents flooding and pollution, as
well as to maintain the livability of an area in transition.
ank yo for your co s' ration,
ere W Retzer
- !emu /i C tv ~ NiSf'~J d cft'~~t'
SE
®17U
a onoaNdmcam C:Ofl1p0i1~/ r"n o)
T=1 Am=
N=g 1'1t=
FYI MR WIM . .
• Sue Marshall <Sue.Marshall@tualatin riverkeepers.org>
• Unknown
e . - Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:51:45 -0800
• - Testimony Washington Square Regional Center
Tualatin Riverkeepers
16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
January 25, 2000
Mayor Nicoli
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Washington Square Regional Center Master Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Council Members:
The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a citizen-based organization with over 700
members working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We are
not able to attend the hearing tonight but submit these comments for the
record and request that our time be given to Jere Retzer who has prepared
in-depth comments on behalf of the Ash Creek Coalition for which the
Tualatin Riverkeepers is a member. The Tualatin Riverkeepers concur with
Mr. Retzer's testimony.
The Tualatin Riverkeepers agree that it is good public policy to build up
rather than out. We further agree with Metro position that the increase in
density within the urban growth boundary should not come at the expense of
natural resources. It is our position that the Washington Square Regional
Center Master Plan in recommending an upzone of the wetland/floodplain area
of Ash Creek will have a negative impact on water quality, local flooding,
and fish and wildlife habitat. We oppose the Washington Square Regional
Center Master Plan in its recommendation to upzone the wetland/floodplain
of Ash Creek.
Repeatedly we have requested consultation with resource agencies: Unified
Sewerage Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Oregon Division of State Lands, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. City of Tigard Planning staff informed us that these agencies have
been notified. Much more than a simple notifiction to comment, the
agencies needed to be brought in during the planning process to help assure
that natural resources were protected, upland alternatives were identified
and flooding/stormwater issues were resolved. This proactive involvement
would have assured the community that adequate consideration was being
given to concerns about flooding, fish, and water quality. We perceive a
resistance to this consultation that we do not understand.
Imp 11111
Given the lack of a comprehensive natural resource plan for Washington
Square Regional Center, the Tualatin Riverkeepers believe that the best
approach to protect the environmentally sensitive areas surrounding Ash
Creek is to leave the zoning at 4.5units/acre for those properties within
the wetland/floodplain. Maintaining a low- density designation allows for
reasonable, appropriate development of these properties, including
realistic density transfers within a single property without providing an
economic incentive to build in areas better left undeveloped.
We urge the Council to maintain the current zoning designation within the
wetland/floodplain of Ash Creek and engage a taskforce made up of citizens
and the above mentioned resource agencies to develop a comprehensive plan
to protect and restore this natural resource.
Thank you for you thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Sue Marshall
Public Policy Director
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Sue Marshall
Public Policy Director
Tualatin Riverkeepers
16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
Ph: (503) 590-7484
Fax: (503) 590-5702
www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
Buy and sell Mal stuff.
i
i
milli IN
Jill Tellez
9280 S.W. 80th Ave.
Portland, OR 97223
January 25, 2000
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OR THE
CITY COUNCIL/TIGARD
WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER
PROPOSED PLAN
My name is Jill Tellez. My address is 9280 S.W. 80th Ave., Portland, OR. I would like
the following testimony to be included in the record.
I am not opposed to planning for increased density into the year 2040. The proposed
plan has some issues that need to be addressed, however, before it can be adopted.
1. The City of Tigard is basing this regional center plan on Metro's 2040 Plan, which
was adopted in 1996. In the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update published by the
Growth Management Services Department, on pg. 65, it states, "one of the significant
changes to the updated 1997 UGR is the adjustment to the 2040 up zone factor. There is
now no 2040 up-zone applied to neighborhoods and parks and open space lands. This
change is consistent with preliminary compliance reports by local jurisdictions and with
2040 policies of concentrating growth in town centers and regional centers".
(1997 Urban Growth Report Update, September, 1999).
The format of this regional center plan is contingent upon the up zoning of the existing
community. Without changing the zoning designations, this plan could not exist.
To rely on the credo, "Metro made me do it", has no basis in fact. ("REA-SON, F=e
Minds, Free Markets, The New Urban Planning Nightmare", by Randal O'Toole,
January, 1999, pg. 5).
2. The 2040 Plan was conceptualized by Peter Calthrope and John Fregonese. Peter
Calthrope's opus was a high profile development in Sacramento, CA, called Laguna
West, which went bankrupt for 60 million dollars in 1996. The developer who
purchased the development from Bank of America (at a discount) after the bankruptcy
had to change the specs of the development to conform to market driven standards.
Now it looks like any other suburb in America. (Letter from Melvin Zucker, President,
Yale Corporation, to Metro Councilor Don Morissette, April 10, 1996, pg. 4).
This regional center plan is trying to employ mixed zoning designations which have
never been used before. It is a gamble at best to invest taxpayer's dollars in something
that has never been tried before. To put high density in a floodpiain only exacerbates
the high risk factor.
Laguna West and the Beaverton Round are examples of the weaknesses of aggressive
new urban growth concepts. Regional governments end up playing private lender
with taxpayer dollars in desperate attempts to salvage what's left of their project after it
fails. That is what gives them confidence to try a new concept in urban growth. There is
great development incentive when this process holds the taxpayers, not the
developers, financially responsible in the event of a financial downfall.
After a failed attempt at a development plan, the project's value plummets, and needs
to be sold at a reduced price. For example, the land the Beaverton Round project is on
has devalued from $2.8 million, to $2 million. ("Relief in sight for Round's lienholders",
The Oregonian, January 14, 2000).
The fact that the density figures for this plan exceed what was initially projected, makes
it that much more vulnerable to high cost recovery.
The regional center plan goes contrary to the Metzger-Progress Community Plan
adopted December 27,1983, Washington County. (1).
Because the minority report was downplayed as much as possible, and the
environmental, health and safety issues never got a fair shake at the table, I request
that taxpayer dollars not be employed in any recovery process in the event of a
bankruptcy.
This regional center plan is slated toward the development and political interests that
are directly involved. The community has nothing but destruction, increased density,
increased pollution and degradation of our existing quality of life to look forward to.
These include:
1. The destruction of a natural resource, the Ash Creek wetland/floodplain.
This includes not only the destruction of wildlife habitat and compromising
water quality for fish, but seriously endangers the health and safety of
neighbors and new businesses and residents who are in the vicinity.
2. The razing of the existing residential community.
The task force wants to employ a "redevelopment agency", which would further
remove the residents and citizens from having any sort of power or voice in
how their taxpayer dollars are spent.
3. Eventual widening of Hall Blvd. to 5 lanes.
Accident reports consistently prove that pedestrian fatalities and accidents
increase three-fold on arterial roads. When there is a church and an elementary
school in the middle of the regional center boundary, this data needs to be
seriously considered. (Annual ODOT accident report, 1998).
4. The vintage trees in the area will most certainly be destroyed to make way
for new development. I request that there be a penalty for cutting down any
mature trees.
5. No new parks plan.
The city staff and planners are being deliberately vague in what exactly will transpire in
the event that this plan is realized. Items that need disclosure are:
1. What exactly are the businesses lined up for development? How are the
planners going to employ these mixed-use designations?
2. Who are the developers and what are their track records?
3. Transparency overlays need to be provided to give a clear visual picture
of the plan.
4. Scientific impact reports need to be provided by a non-biased third party,
reflecting the extra costs of stormwater management, pollution impacts on
endangered fish, and flooding projections on existing neighbors and potential
businesses and residences.
5. Any scientific reports conducted in regards to this plan need to be brought
forth now.
The planners are failing to bear the burden of proof for the success of this high scale
development.
Because of the high risk nature and destructive aspects of this plan, I would ask that
City Council members obtain the impact reports needed to calculate the exra costs to
the taxpayers whose taxes will go up to support the massive new infrastructure needed
to support this high-scale plan.
Signed;
j
ez -
ill Tell
(1). Lots which include portions of the Ash Creek floodplain between Oak Street and
Hwy 217 make up Area of Special Concern 8. Development of structures and land
divisions within this Area shall be planned and reviewed under the Master Planning-
Planned Development (Type III) provisions of the Community Development Code.
Because of the importance of trees and other natural vegetation to the wildlife habitat
and scenery of the community, development shall be designed to minimize the area to
be disturbed.
No modification of the flood plain topography shall be permitted without detailed
specific improvements to the wildlife habitat which have been prepared by a qualified
wildlife biologist. Floodwater storage capacity shall be maintained.
Any proposed development for the portion of this site above the flood plain and
adjacent to Hwy. 217 shall have access only from SW 89th Ave. and shall be effectively
buffered from the traffic noise on Hwy 217.
Master planning for the development on this site shall provide for open space for the
non-buildable flood plain portion in cooperation with the appropriate parks/ open
space managing agency, in order to preserve as much as practicable of this wetland
along Ash Creek.
REIIIIIN
encl:
1. 1997 Urban Growth Report Update, September 1999, pg. 65.
2. "REASON. Free Minds and Free M rkets. the New Urban Planning
Nightmare", by Randal O'Toole, January, 1999.
3. Letter from Mel Zucker, President, Yale Corporation, to Metro Councilor
Don Morisette, April 10, 1996.
4. "Relief in sight for Round's lien-holders", the Oregonian, January 14, 2000.
5. Annual ODOT Report, 1998.
I
lands that are classified as vacant. All land 2040 Up-zone
within the UGB is defined as vacant,
developed, or partially vacant. The vacant One of the most significant changes to the
acres become the basis for the gross updated 1997 UGR is the adjustment to the
buildable land supply in the UGR. 2040 up-zone factor. There is now no 2040
up-zone applied to neighborhoods and parks
Local Zoning Update and open space lands. This change is
consistent with preliminary compliance
The current zoning data layer has been reports by local jurisdictions and with 2040
updated to reflect local zoning changes policies of concentrating growth in town
through May 1999. Zoning updates are centers and regional centers.
received from local jurisdictions when the
local government has formally adopted
changes. The 1997 UGR was based on Summary
comprehensive plan designations.
Table 41 summarizes and explains the
Standard mooning Categories changes in each factor between the two
The standard zoning categories that are used reports.
to aggregate the region's different zoning The preceding items highlight the main
classifications into comparable zoning differences by theme.
categories have been refined. Additional
zoning categories have been added to
caprice new zoning that implements 2040
Growth Concepts and to add more
categories to refine the process. There are
now 25 categories.
Refreshed Data and Map Refinements
The 1999 UGR is an update (using 1998
data) of the 1997 UGR that is based on 1994
data. A number of data sets in RLIS have
been refreshed as new information is
available. The regional park coverage has
been refined to include recent development
G of parks and additional lands classified as
o parks, school playgrounds used as parks and
y bond measure purchases. Some local
jurisdictions have made tax lot mapping
improvements that include re-mapping areas
along rivers and water features and tying
platted subdivisions to global position points
to improve accuracy.
Mob,
Urban Growth Report Update - September 1999 65
e ee e a
OEM=
1
aim
Free Minds and Free Markets" January 1995
affat w% im L NL TO L Em A 1-1 N
PREREQUISITES FOR
PROGRESS AND
FREEDOM
From the new book.:.
by Virginia Postrel
0 ' a4-:!J~•.-t{a ..ty.:.y; :.ra>_::AvH,:faMit.' ® 11((Y..}}:.. '
I.H1
,y t' r ~ r,1'J~}7.rc i
THE NEW URBAN''
PLANNING NIGHTMARE
By Randal O'Toole
' JOHN MCCAIN'S
"PRINCIPLES"
By Michael W. Lynch
HOW LIMITED SHOULD
GOVERNMENT BE.
By Richard A. Epstein
ENLIGHTENMENT Vo~
BASHING, LEFT
AND RIGHT
By Walter Olson
$2.95/$3.SO CAN
01i
I
high-density residential or commercial uses. Finally, Metro
"New. Urbanism," the latest fad in plans to spend billions of dollars to build 100 miles of rail
transit lines to free residents from their cars.
urban planning, promises less traffic, Reduced congestion, better air quality, lower tanes.No
. •@t$er wonder Portland has gotten great national press and praise.
a1r, al'1_ tower taXe5... Here's..-.-. :
what i$ reall delivers. There's only one little problem: Metro's own data say the
plan is doomed to failure.
By Randal O'Toole
Details, Details
- Consider, for instance, Metro's bold, confident prediction
• that its plan will double public transit usage. Since transit
n 1992, residents of Portland, Oregon, were tern- currently carries less than 2.5 percent of Portland-area trips,
fled that their growing city was fast becoming the doubling that doesn't get you very far toward a car-free
Pacific Northwest's version of Los Angeles--as they utopia. Similarly, Metro expects at best a modest decline
saw it, a congested, polluted city with too many cars in auto usage, from 92 percent of urban trips to 88 percent.
and too little sense of community. The threat was In fact, given the 75 percent population increase that Metro
considered so serious'that a traditional anti-growth re- predicts over 50 years, that translates into jive cars driving
sponse-a tough, comprehensive land-use plan limited to around for every three cars today. Accordingly, planners
the actual city boundaries-wasn't enough. To prevent the estimate that traffic congestion will triple or quadruple and
paving of Portland, area voters signed off on the creation that air pollution will increase.
of Metro, a regional planning authority with dictatorial Then there's the tax question. Metro wants to pay for
Ad& land-use planning powers over 24 cities and three coun- the rail lines it says will lure people out of autos by adding
ties. billions of dollars to local property taxes. And to promote
To hear Metro boosters describe it, Portland-area resi- high-density development in an area already glutted with
dents can now rest easy. The concrete landscape of South- apartments, Portland and other area cities are giving de-
em California won't be copied any time soon in the Bea- velopers millions of dollars in taxbreaks and other subsidies
ver State. Far from it. Though Metro's experts predict that that will ultimately come out of residents' pockets. Mean-
the region's population will grow by 75 percent in the next while, housing prices are skyrocketing because of the ar-
few decades, the agency has a plan that will accommodate tificial land shortage created by the urban growth boundary,
these newcomers while promoting "livable neighbor- giving Portland the least affordable housing in the nation
hoods," "protecting open space," "reducing dependence after only San Francisco.
on the automobile," and maintaining "affordable housing" Oh, and there's one more thing. Remember how Metro
and lower infrastructure costs. All in all, an idyllic pack- was supposed to save Portland from becoming Oregon's
age: better neighborhoods, pedestrian-friendly streets, answer to L.A.? In 1994, Metro planners studied the na-
cheaper housing, and lower taxes. Lion's 50 largest urban areas to see which one was closest
What will it take to reach such goals? Only the com- to the future they envisioned for Portland--one with higher
munity's desire--as codified in Metro's planning and zon- population densities and fewer roads. It turned out that the
i ing laws--to squeeze more people and more businesses into metropolitan area-defined as all of the land in and around
smaller spaces under tighter regulatory control. Metro's a city whose population density exceeds 1,000 people per
regional plan restricts development outside of an urban square mile--with the highest population density also had
1 growth boundary that allows only a 6 percent exTansion the fewest miles of freeway per capita Its name: Los An-
of the urbanized area for at least two decades. The plan also geles. While the city of Los Angeles proper has a lower den-
' ? doubles or triples the population density of many neigh- sity than New York City, the Los Angeles metro area is
borhoods by rezoning them to require apartments, row nearly one-third denser than the New York metro area,
f houses, or other high-density housing whenever new con- which includes-among other places-northeastern New
struction is undertaken. Jersey and Long Island. Far from being the incarnation of
Additionally, Metro sets strict population targets for evil, auto-dependent sprawl, L.A. was the model to emu-
10 cr: each of the 24 cities and three counties under its domin- late.
I ion, forcing them to convert 10,000 acres of prime farm- To their credit, Metro planners did fens up to this un-
lands, golf courses, city parks, and other open spaces to expected and uncomfortable finding, daring to write, "With
i REASON • JANUARY IMP)') ~ a_
such as narrow streets, parking limits, roadway barriers, and Indeed, they arc the predietablc; inevitable, and often i►ttended
zoning codes that require shopping malls to twin their parking consequences of New Urbanist plans.
is Into apartments. There May also be rules requiring employ- Consider &,e New Urbanist claim that increased population
to write up plans to reduce workers' auto commuting. - density will reduce traffic congestion. The idea makes some
■ A focus on hugely expensive-and hugely ineffective-rail intuitive sense: If people are closer to one another, to jobs, and
transit to the exclusion of highway construction or expansion. to shopping, they won't need to drive so much to get to their
New Urbanists firmly believe they can change people's be- destinations. But the reality is that while higher population
havior by redesigning the cities in which they live. That's not an density may slightly reduce per capita driving, it vastly increases
indefensible notion, but it's not as easy as it sounds. Consider congestion and pollution. Say, for instance, that doubling density
the fate of Laguna West, a widely touted Sacramento suburb reduces per capita driving by 10 percent. Two hundred percent
designed by California architect and New Urban guru' Peter as many people each driving 90 percent as much results in 180
Calthorpe. Calthorpe thinks suburbanites suffer from a "sense percent as many cars. Unless the road network is expanded by
of frustration and placelessness." To fix this, he designs what he 80 percent-which New Urbanists would oppose-80 percent
calls "pedestrian pockets" or "transit-oriented developments" more traffic produces a huge increase in congestion.
that plug people into where they live. Real-world experience suggests that 10 percent less per capita
As envisioned by Calthorpe, Laguna West would have con- driving with a doubling of density is about the best that can
listed of a "transit center" surrounded by high-density apart- be expected. In fact, it maybe overly optimistic. What's more,
ments and condominiums. A ring of single-family homes on Census Bureau and Federal Highway Administration data show
small lots would surround the high-density core. Scattered little correlation between density and the number of miles people
throughout would be stores, offices, and other commercial uses. drive. The Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach met-
Most people would be able to walk to shopping, and many would ropolitan areas all cover about the same number of square miles.
be able to walk to work or the transit center. Miami has twice the density of West Palm Beach, and per capita
But Laguna West was a financial failure. No one wanted to driving is indeed about 10 percent less in Miami. But residents
live in the high-density area, and as a result its developer went of Ft. Lauderdale, whose density is halfway between those of
bankrupt. Instead, a new builder put low-density housing in the Miami and West Palm Beach, drive more than residents of both
core. While those houses were actually salable, their presence areas.
also meant that most transit riders had to drive to the transit cen- In Portland, planners have used a sophisticated computer
ter. Since Calthorpe provided no parking at the transit center, model to predict the effects of their plans on driving habits.
drivers parked in front of other people's homes. The home- Under their most optimistic scenarios, by the year 2040, auto
owners objected and successfully lobbied to have the transit use will drop from 92 percent of all area trips to 88 percent. Since
center moved outside of the development. Meanwhile, residents planners assume a 75 percent increase in population, this trans-
do all of their shopping at a conventional strip mall outside the lates to a massive expansion in traffic and congestion-they
development. The only commercial use inside Laguna West- figure three to four times the current number of congested road
a quick oil-change joint-hardly testifies to people's decreased miles.
dependence on the auto. But that's OK, say Metro officials in one of their we've-got-
If it's hard to design a successful suburb from scratch, it's that to-destroy-the-village-in-order-save-it moments, because eon-
much more difficult to shift residents from already established gestion actually "signals positive urban development." Indeed,
patterns of land use and behavior. But urban planners all over though they rarely talk about it in public, a major short-term
the country are trying to impose New Urban ideals on existing New Urbanist goal is to increase, not reduce, congestion. After
suburbs and cities. Metro even hired Calthorpe to show them all, clogged, slow-moving traffic might encourage a few people
how pedestrian pockets and transit-oriented developments could to get out of their cars, while punishing those who do not-
be scattered throughout the Portland area. Minnesota's Twin Cities Metropolitan Council takes a similar
view of increased congestion. In addition to planning the Min-
neapolis-St. Paul region, the council runs the area's public transit
Congestion as "Positive Urban Development" system. Bus ridership has declined by 40 percent in the past 25
The vision of a place where people walk to the grocery store and years, while highway traffic has greatly increased, with further
take the train to work certainly has its charms. But far from increases projected. So what does the Metropolitan Council plan
delivering urban zones from the curse of "auto-dependent" to do? Build no more roads for at least 20 yeats. The council
lifestyles, New Urbanist policies have consistently led to signifi- wants to promote ridership on its buses by increasing highway
cant increases in highway congestion; deteriorating air quality congestion to intolerable levels. "As traffic congestion builds,"
(because autos pollute more in slow-moving, congested traffic); says the council's Transportation Plan, "alternative travel me-des
' dramatic infrastructure shortfalls as sewer, water, schools, and will become more attractive." Of course, as congestion builds,
other systems designed for low-density cities must be rebuilt for alternative places to live will become more attractive too.
higher densities; rapidly increasing housing prices as land be- If New Urbanist attitudes toward traffic congestion are
comes scarce; and disappearing urban open spaces such as parks muddled-they seek to alleviate traffic congestion by incre2s-
and golf courses as developers turn them into residential and ing it--their attitudes toward commuting are no less eontormd.
other developments. Such negative outcomes are not accidental. As with the assumed relationship between density and miles
REASON - JANUARY 099 2 47
Adak
_ •,1 . own a ;
WALK OF LIFE: Supporters point to Portland's Northwest 23rd Avenue (above) as a good example of how the
New Urbanism "succeeds." There, planners say, people are learning to walk more. That's true, largely be-
cause they can't find a place to park that's less than a 10-minute walk from their destination.
for a quart of milk or sir-pack of beer. But most people will do This success is all the more remarkable given the manifest and
most of their shopping where choices are greater and costs are widely recognized failure of grand, utopian planning schemes.
lower-which means that they will shop by car. As Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities
In spite of New Urbanist claims, such residential and retailing (1961) showed, the urban renewal movement in the 1950s and
mobility hasn't led to unchecked sprawl. According to the U.S. '60s destroyed living communities and replaced them with sterile
Department of Agriculture, more than 95 percent of the lower monuments to human arrogance. In Nowhere to Go (1988),
48 states remains undeveloped. In fact, the vast majority of Fuller Torrence credibly blames much of the homeless problem
Americans live in the less than 3 percent of the country that is on planners who demolished the low-income apartments where
urbanized (defined by the Census Bureau as more than 1,000 many of these people lived. Planners also created many of the
people per square mile). The only open spaces that are truly public housing disasters of the past few decades. The historv of
threatened are golf courses, u-pick farms, and large suburban urban planning is a lesson in the law of unintended conse-
baclyards. All are targeted by New Urbanists for "infill" devel- quences.
opment. Portland is even selling park lands at discount prices How do the New Urbanists respond to the failure of their
to entice developers into building high-densin• apartments. forebears? They not only admit that past planners made mistakes,
they themselves blame most urban ills on previous generations
of planners. Their perverse, if savoy, solution is to give planners
The Congestion Coalition more power, so they can correct past mistakes through even
Despite its theoretical and practical failings, the New Urbanism stronger rules and regulations.
is quietly sweeping the nation. Portland's Metro recently passed New Urbanist supporters include planners, environmental-
the most restrictive plan ever adapted for a U.S. cin•. The leg- ists, federal bureaucrats, central city officials. downtown busi-
islatures of Maryland, Minnewota, and Washington have enacted nesses, and construction companies. Their motivations range
"smart'-rowth" or "growth management" laws, both New Ur- from idealists. to economic self-interest, but ail have a stake in
banist euphemisms. Pressure groups in Denver. Phoenix. Allu- maintaining or rebuilding tighth packed urban cores. Together,
yuerque. Tampa, and other cities are demanding and getting they also have the clout to get things .lane.
New Urbanist plans for their communities. V you live in a met- Planners and environmentalists are among the idealists ill
ropoliran area, your city planning hureau is prohahly intasted what can be dubbed the "cnng~~tion.u;llitiun." l4vognirinl; lhal
with New 1'rbanisri. trtl)iccon,LIMionis title ofthem.nol'concernio urbanreil~let115,
ItlAS;IiN • IANI'AR1' 1"""
their tax base by packing more residents into their jurisdictions, member of the congestion coalition: the civil construction in-
nd some even asked for higher ones. But when neighborhoods dustry. With the Interstate Highway System effectively com-
bject to being rezoned, they are told, "We don't have a choice. pleted and strong resistance to new roads in the cities, the con-
Metro Is making us do It." struction industry has been looking for work. What better op-
The turn to MPOs Is a godsend especially to officials in large portunity exists than to rebuild the rail systems that moved ur-
cities seeking to consolidate, if not increase, their power, which banites in the pre-automobile age?
has been on the wane for most of the postwar period. Since 1950, New Urbanists spuriously claim that light rail is more effi-
nearly all urban growth has been outside big cities. That mas- cient than highways. For the construction industry, the attraction
Live population shift toward suburbs and mid-size cities has of rail systems is that they-cost much more to build than high-
; : made it tougher for traditional central cities to generate tax ways. A typical urban freeway costs about $5 million to $10 mil-
revenue and to qualify for pork-barrel spending tied to popu- lion per lane-mile, or $20 million io $40 million per mile of four-
lation.'The MPOs change all that. lane road. By comparison, Portland just opened a new light-rail
Because of its relative size, the strongest player in any MPO line that cost $55 million per mile-and is planning a new line
is invariably the largest city in the region. The MPO gives such that will cost a whopping $100 million per mile. (That neither
cities an instrument to redirect development dollars their way of these lines will carry as many people as a single freeway lane
and to get revenge on the suburbs (tellingly characterized as is the sort of consideration that never seems to make it onto the
°godawful trash" by one Portland City Council member). The planner's ledger sheet.)
aame holds true for downtown business interests: Like their Light rail isn't always as expensive as in Portland, but its costs
public-sector counterparts, they resent the shopping malls, office when finished are almost always far greater than when originally
campuses, and modern factories that have grown up in the sub- proposed. For the construction industry, then, rail is not only
1 urbs. For central city officials and businesses, then, the New Ur- less controversial than highways. Because of typical cost over-
t banism represents the latest ploy to maintain their way of life. runs and "gold-plating," rail adds up to huge profits for a wide
1 Of course, it's Unlikely succee' airy attore :tan the variety o'consulting, engineering, and building firms.
1 billions of federal and local dollars already spent trying to main- Light rail does nothing to reduce congestion; in fact, because
+ tain particular urban areas. The problem with most central cities most transit systems sacrifice more-popular bus routes once they
1 is that they were built in an age when primitive transportation introduce less-popular trains, it typically increases congestion.
} and communications dictated high densities; people had to live But that is not the construction industry's concern. So long as
near one another. The "decline" of cities that officials worry so New Urban interests can channel money toward rail, the con-
much about is due to the fact that cars, telephones, and electricity struction industry will be only too happy to finance the political
make it possible for people to live in lower densities-and most campaigns of New Urbanist city officials and any ballot mea-
l choose to do so. sures that might be required to obtain local rail funding.
1 Fretting over urban "decline" is misguided in another sense
too. Downtown interests, argues Joel Garreau in the brilliant
Edge City (1991), "believe settlement patterns to be a zero-sum The Metro Dilemma
game": Any gain in the suburbs represents a loss for downtown. Given the strength of the congestion coalition, it's no surprise
Yet Garreau notes that even as suburbs have boomed, Ameri- that the New Urbanism has gotten as far as it has. While the
can "downtowns have been going through their most striking movement has visible critics-including Joel Garreau, Peter Gor-
revivals of this century. From coast to coast... downtowns are don of the University of Southern California, and John Charles
flourishing." of the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute -sometimes it
j To be sure, most recent downtown growth has been in the seems as if it is an unstoppable civic juggernaut. Beyond under-
areas of arts and entertainment. This fails to impress downtown scoring its inconsistencies and misrepresentations, one way of
traditionalists, who still think downtowns should be the main challenging the New Urbanism is to recognize its place in the
retail and commercial centers of a city. So New Urbanist pre- urban planning tradition.
scriptions, such as limits on new shopping malls and parking re- Far from being the "scientific" and "rigorous" school of
strictioris in existing malls, are appealing to downtown busi- thought its proponents claim, the New Urbanism is best under-
nesses. If new stores can't open in the suburbs, goes this line of stood as simply the latest attempt by planners to pass narrow,
thought, they'll have to set up shop downtown. essentially moral judgments on American cities. Beginning with
4 Such zero-sum thinking undergirds what is perhaps the de- the "City Beautiful" movement in the late 19th century, plan-
fining characteristic of the New Urbanism: an undying rever- hers believed that good design would lead to a "ne%v urban man"
ence for light-rail networks. Central city officials and downtown who would be a morally upright member of the community.
interests know that, if transportation dollars go into highways, Given the proper architectural circumstances, planners theo-
they will be spent in the suburbs, where most growth is taking rized, urban residents would work hard and not turn to crime:
place. But if those funds are spent on a rail transit system, the social ills such as drunkenness would disappear.
vast majority will be spent in the central city because most, if not Early land-use planners believed that the crowded, dirty cities
all, rail lines will radiate from a downtown. where houses were mingled with factories and commercial uses
Light rail not only restores to downtown some of its former should be replaced by low-density residential arras separated
centrality, it represents a huge pork-barrel project for the filth from ether uses. There, workers would be tree from easily trans-
VALE CORPORATION
2= N.W. RAMIFY DRIVE PORTLAND. OREGON 97229-ffi
"OPH09 TELEPHONE (5" 292-CM FAX (5O3) 192- '9tiM
April 10, 1996
Mr. Don Morissette, Metro Councilor
5000 SW Meadows, Ste. 151
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Re: Expanding ]Horizons - Managing the Future of Growth
Dear Mr. Morissette:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your report. You asked for comments.
Here are my observations of your work.
1. Your imperative is to not only provide for growth but to d.^, so at lowest
cost, recognizing that quality of life is sacrificed. Why? While
permanently adversely effecting the quality of life, based on expressed
consumer preferences recognized in your report which I share, you only
defer the date at which the urban growth boundary is packed and will
be expanded. When that occurs, if it does not occur beforehand, don't
you have a perfect setting for urban flight? Won't flight to "edge" cities
occur before that? Doesn't a system of improving quality of life, and
rehabilitating distressed areas through tax incentives (you don't pay
more taxes when you improve your community by improving your
house)?
2. There is a difference between a home on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot and one on
a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. By making more 5,000 sq. ft. lots available from a .
fixed supply, you are reducing the stock of 10,000 sq. ft. lots, thereby
increasing the market price of those that are available. You do not satisfy
the demand for 10,000 sq. ft, lots by creating more 5,000 sq. ft. lots any
more than you satisfy the demand for a Lexus by providing two Yugos.
a 3. Your concepts of growth are obsolete. You are still thinking in terms of
the outmoded "hub" model of growth where all jobs are in the central
business district (CBD), residences are in the outer perimeter and
everyone travels to work in the CBD. In the real world, the CBD accounts
1111111N loll, 11111111MI11111111
Mr. Don Morissette, Metro Councilor
April 10, 1996 - Page 2
for a smaller and smaller percentage of the jobs each -year. If you take
government out of the CBD, it's a lonely place. We observe this twice
every year on Martin Luther King and President's day when mainly
government workers do not have to show up for work. The valuation of
business in Washington County alone is four times greater than in the
CBD.
4. Transportation Costs - Your theory that transportation is more expensive
when housing stock is constructed further from the CBD is based on your
vision of all trips to the CBD.
More than half of Intel's workforce of 8,000 in Washington County live
in Washington County within fifteen minutes of their job. Intel's work
force is relatively new. As time passes, more employees will relocate to
homes closer to Intel if quality housing stock is available. If you limit
housing stock at the perimeter, you will increase the trip length if people
have to travel from the only available desired housing which is further
away. Intel is typical of other employers in Washington, Clackamas, Clark
and eastern Multnomah County.
You are, probably, too young to remember the last private company of
any size that located even close to the CBD. It was Wacker Siltronics
during Neil GoldsClunidt's term as Mayor in the 70's.
If you want to reduce the need for many long trips with no transit
investment, you could reverse the policy of locating government jobs
(County, State, Federal, Metro, Port of Portland, etc.) in the CBD in favor
of a policy of providing governmental services out of regional service
centers. This would shorten the trips for employees as well as users of
governmental services. Government dispenses services in the manner it
does only because there is no competitive pressure for them to do
otherwise as is the case in the rest of society. McDonalds would be out
of business if it made people come to the CBD to buy burgers.
5. You presume that long distances require transportation conveyors like
light rail. As the trip length goes up and as you add stations, transit
usage goes down, particularly on light rail which depends on feeder
buses and transfers. You are better and less expensively served by
express buses that run directly and quickly to the places that people
want to go,. For example, the person living in the Gresham area who
needs to go to Milwaukie will not use light rail, assuming one going to
Milwaukee is built, unless he has no other alternative. His trip would be
a feeder bus to MAX, 49 minutes to change to a south line at the CBD, 30
minutes to Milwaukie and, possibly, a feeder to his destination.
6. Your assumption that the cost of services is less or even more efficient
Mr. Don Morissette, metro councilor
April 10, 1996 - Page 3
AIM in central cities or in denser areas is factually incorrect, in this region as
well as in others. The cost of services in the City of Portland should be
lower, in theory, than in surrounding communities because people live
closer to one another. But they aren't for many real world reasons.
The cost for fire services in the City is $3.30 per thousand of assessed
valuation, without including the unfunded pension and disability
program. With funding of these programs, the cost would be $ 5.30 per
thousand assuming payment for the presently unfunded portion over 20
years. The cost for fully funded fire services from Tualatin Valley Fire &
Rescue is $1.68 per thousand. Gresham is about $1.30 per thousand.
The same is true of police and sewer treatment and virtually everything
else. When Measure 5 first passed, Multnomah County Chair Gladys
McCoy assembled representatives from all of the surrounding cities,
water districts, sewer districts, etc., to discuss consolidation as a way of
reducing costs. No city or district could merge any function with the City
of Portland because the cost to the entity merging with Portland would
beINcreased.
Denser areas require more services and more expensive services. Denser
areas, particularly those with rented, as opposed to owned properties,
are more transient and have greater needs for police and social services.
In the City of Portland, the people living on the outskirts pay the same
for police services as the people in and close to the CED. They do not
receive the same level of service because they do not need the same level
of service.
The major component in the Multnomah County budget deals with social
services. Very little of this expenditure is required outside of the central
city.
7. People Who Live Near Max Do Not Use Max More Than Others. You
presume that if you build high density next to light rail, people who want
to use light rail will move there. That hasn't happened, not here, not
anywhere. There is no such thing as transit oriented infill. There is only
infill unless you restrict the sale of those units to people with no cars or
build units with no parking. All examples of cities with high transit use
a were built without garages. Would you build units without garages?
Would Anyone buy or rent them?
In the 80's, apartments were built around what is now the 162nd Avenue
MAX station. Eight years after MAX began operations, trip generation
studies were made of these apartments. They showed the same
percentage of transit usage as found in similar units far away from the
MAX line.
Mr. Don Morissette, Metro Councilor
April 10, 1996 - Page
8. Peter Calthorpe - It seems to me that you can do better than ask us to
accept Peter Calthorpe as an authority on successful transit oriented
development or on successful high density incorporation into a
neighborhood. His "showpiece community, south of Sacramento
(Laguna West), went into bankruptcy after the infrastructure was
established and high density homes around the "transit circle" were
built. It would be an understatement to say the high density (none
exceeding two stories and none without garages) didn't sell wel Sad .
When the new developer firm bought the project from ank of America' di
~Ea eal estate owned portfolio, the first thing they did was e
high density zoning designation to "estate homes." These sold well.
d Calthorpe, the purest, did not allow for parking around the transit circle.
~~~V.M1 His theory was that people would walk to the transit circle. They didn't
coo' and the walk was much er than ticipated because of the
replacement of h densi vi "estate hom When the few transit
SSG users parked on e s e s, the resi en s rebelled and the transit was
wj~ a moved out of the retire development. The bus is now located on Laguna
Boulevard. It is an express bus which downtown on I-5
using an entry Mich cost the developer $ 5.6 million. Ridership is very
low.
Laguna West was planned to include office buildings and retail stores.
There are no office buildings. There are no stores. The only commercial
enterprise in the entire development is a Jiffy Lube.
\A&A Laguna West is a beautiful community. It's just not transit oriented. It's
P o~ transit irrelevant.
The impact of high density "transit oriented" on our roads - Assume a
hypothetical area next to a light rail station that could be developed low
density and would produce 1,000 work trips or be developed high
density and produce 10,000 trips. Let us further assume that none of the
1,000 work trips in the low density development uses transit.
The low density scenario would add 1,000 trips to our overcrowded
roads.
The highest usage transit we can find in transit oriented developments,
excluding the buildings with no parking in cities constructed before
WWII, is about 6%. This is at the buildings across the street from the
BART station at Walnut Creek. BART is a heavy rail system that is much
faster than light rail. This means that we would get about 600 of the
10,000 work trips on transit and add 9,400 trips to the roadway system.
MM
Mr. Don Morissette, Metro Councilor
April 10, 1996 - Page 5
NOW What's worse for the road system is that the large number of additional
trips are concentrated. Congestion and delays occur before diffusion
from multi-directional trips can take place.
The problem with your bibliography is that it consists of cultists that believe
in faith, not facts.
By the way, housing costs have risen but, without question, not exponentially.
Despite my criticism, I appreciate and applaud your effort. That's the way
things get started which lead to progress.
Sincerely,
Melvin Y. Zu er
President
MYZ/cg
a
~t the first elements completed,
,tines the fui ietions of a commu-
..y and. recreation center with
.assroOms and an indoor theater/
outdoor amphitheater. The indoor
multipurpose room can accommo-
500 persons; the outdoor am-~
water can hold more than 2,000.''x'
daycare facility-underwavnow- is O'
and It church are planned for adja- {
cent sites.
The lake provides a waterfront am-
bience while achieving several im-
portant environmental and design r c`
purposes, including open-space pres-
ervation, nonchemical water quality
treatment, flood detention, and irri-
gation. The lake is actually a series
of six separate lakes-three that are
completed-divided by roadways.
Lake water was pumped in to create
the lake, which is now fed primarily ` Many neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and hone designs,
5y runoff. Special plants are used to including a mixture of homes with front and reargarages.
manage nutrients and pollution. Once
or twice a year, an aquatic plant har-
vester cuts the plants, thereby re-
moving the metals, oils, and nutri- fronts. The number of homes with strutted with either front porches or
entstypically found indrainagewaters prominent front garages is restricted strongly articulated entrance featurim
from developed areas. within each neighborhood, and in Housing units are allowed a lesser
One of the key principles of hous- general garages must be recessed so frontward setback for front porches
ing design in Laguna West is avoid- they are not the most prominent fea- and entries and a 20-foot setback for
ante of a streetfront pattern domi- ture of the house. The design guide- the garage; the garage must be at
nated by two- and three-car garage lines specify that homes must be con- least five feet behind the building
~..AG~NA wf<sr
PROJECT DATA j
LAND USE INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT COST INFORMATION (TO D'IM'
Site Area: 1,015 acres Site Acquisition Cost Not available
Total Dwelling Units Planned: 3,3'0
Site Improvement CostsZ
Cross Total Dwelling 65 Units units s per acre 300 Excavation/grading $10,000,000
Sewer/water/drainage .
Average a Net Density. Net Density: B.U units nits per acne ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 15'ODD'M
Pavtng/curbs/sidewalks 81000AM
Landscaping /irrigation 8,300,000
LAND USE PLAN Fees/general conditions 2,000,000
Acres Percent of Site Town hall 1700 000
- Total . s45Ubi5
Residential . 533 511% Soft Coat
Laku Parks • • 36 3 Architecture/engineering $500AOo
95 9 Project management 1A00,000
Office 16 2 Marketing 2.500.000
Daycare and school
a Commercial 53 5 Legal/ accounting 500000
1 industrial 237 22 Taxes 'insurance 6X3,000
Total .....................1045 BOX Consrraetion interest and fees ~3W0 ,0o0,OOo
Total sim
a Notes Total Developmer-t Cost (to datrA 559,5001000 I
Excluding hind cost. Cats do not include any homcbuilding costs. Construction Cost per Square Foot (single-family rtesidrutial): $40
Includ" construction-Htatrd &oft costs.
3 3 includes nonronstruction•related soh costs only. I
RESIDENTIAL UNIT INFORMATION
Lot Size unit size Number of Units Range of
Current Unit 7iTz (Squa_ re Feet) (Square FeeU planned/Built Sales Prim
Vust a-fami ly 3,650-6,200 1,100-2.000 1,100/175 $130,000-5180,OOo
e-family 8.700 1,800-2,650 770/125 517000"234=
om ...................8,500-20,300 I,800-3,000 300/15 5250,000-5500,000
Multifamily NA NA 1,200/0 NA
.a.,~,.~~wes~naarAaanat~rm~- -
CW ►L
91-ZM0343 Ott Rath
A,p p;M Of ElliP,,jlroad
704114G the S3.pacific
LAGB"~ Located on ~ stern
is to .5 aru 052,
PrO r y Intersta Ca' 0230-~033, 033
The b,.
px)ad ~ Fr~llrl I- a9 'a p2A , 033 026.119-o230-033
. 39,
028 , X 9 0558 53
tracks,
1190120-005, tl 119-1110- 028;
A - -001 051:
053 ; 116. 1 1 .10 038 0-001
a 1s P t~ 03 063; 0581.19-1210-001
084;
thtu thru 0331
thru
051
19-1180119-1200-001 119 220-0 1 (former
. 091 011, 012
pll: 040;
tt>
thL, 009 r
' 119-1230-001 007, ~
119-0012-005x033)
119-0023-032,
~~ration.
Ito spink a Gays WaY
tur
Cp; . 95833
pp,ICAN~ t gevelo~nts 2590
ver We Sam
Inc Devel'ents Dr. #201
SKK l a lge 7,10 Col to <e 95826
Za9 31 a, IOUs sacr n _ . .
Z-5
E ON
pigelo Tsa'KOPo- s tiY ^ •1, L - Tw
,ama r U5
C/o Tim A. Mite 20 REFERENCE tIBRAEY
910 F Street. 95814 PQ pUBLYC y :
aacxaamenty, sACRAMEN : t' ► . t
a .
I w~.:U wu wn s! I t c.
+ all ! 4 y 1 + M wll / 1 .1 •w
`n ~ ~p '1 1°( `Np ` ~ a ..i ? ' I .t fia --~-''1
NIP ( 111 + d rep li+ ~V
F w' 1
1`~ 1 r wu
OBIRINRI
k
MIN
t
[WAYCM4ENT OF REVIM AND ASSESSMENT
nurrIAL STUDY
(Mrl.5ED)
ND.: 88-DG-0239
: LAGUNA• CREEK RANCH (LAigM WEST) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
tCATI~1:. The project is located between Interstate 5 and the Western
Pacific Railroad tracks, north of Elliott Ranch Road, in the
Franklin-Laguna ccmTunity.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 119-0120-005, 009, 029, 025. 026, 027 and
119-0230-033, 052, 053
OWNER: APPLICANT:
I--5 Laguna, SKK Exchange, Inc. Remy & Thcwas
Attn: Tina Thanas
and 901 F Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Angelo K. Tsakopoulos
7700 College Tim Drive, Ste. 101
Sacramento, CA 95826 REFERENCE USE ONLY
SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY
I. PIV 7B=
s
The proposed project consists of a development agreement by and between
the County of Sacramento and I-5 Laguna, SKK Exchange, Inc., and Angelo
K. Tsakopoulos relative to a development known as Laguna West
enccupassing some 1,0331 acres.
1 ~
1
1
• 1 Y-1 Y-1 ~ .r
1 '~'-Z o I.
1 .
1 ~-7 r c~ r J
1 ~ mr mr
1 • • s
{ m RD-♦ ••.r r•r r•r 1
{ •1
1 • • r•r • I m.
1
1 r•M 0•• ,
11~ ~1 1
Yn 110-6 i ,o . •
I.C U>
tii 1
r„
cwn + o
CY)
SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY J ' ~>e M
°nF>'i'1~C`$/""
r~i•~[ S ~.S„ 5 r-ti ~r> 1~3 7)rP.' ? t. YY~ s ' .+.YV~~ l~,?+}
' `t 'Frni`••-'~ .r:..• -A;4-+•,wr-r~^. .•,r, ~x't L •`Y•~.+. ,~.l..
f r:
I• ~
fi;~ 4 r' sr. ,,x7
:,s lrr + ~ E PL rt7 14 qr:. .
by a,., F ~y~j d JI p^i.7 y.
a s c K z ;
w t ~ a •
• dr~wi~pg 11~T+c~r OQII c y$x y~.~ / . 'S.~81' ~ o
tine ~ jock~j►:sor to c~=~ , •
i~{ '1A1~IAd~Vp1'i~110R3~§L3Syi~ t x
Y"°w^`K1 ~~1< f.4P VYI ~s~t /l~'4 E a3i~ . 16aa•f~. n~ .
dO'
n.~~}3 a li cis rr J si ` I~ J ~ i ' r
441]f ypfd~u t !°~al~L'~ut
~ao~ir`~.`r'}.~.~~~`p~q~~I1yW~Iq~C~V~ij~~ 9~i{i 4 ! 1 I f~ e i i •
f 4L
. yyi ~H•i"~: / S `a'rt 'rti S~ 1W' LJ. s. h
i m
4~ A r T) lI` b M+~Y'2q 'K•/S~~-ti: J-,y '
,
j~1 `t't~ CBtr }l 4 l
41,
41
~ I - • :bed~ib1 ~
r J ~`v fJ £ yty.
`.:.,.~.:v«. i;; ...a ,..<w.u.J'3~_4L':....1, ...:t~_.i37w+•v1r;..<+.v l.v ~..,:r.S.. t~R~..I~.'+.__,.. .t, , t
Page 8 ACCIDENTS ON STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Table II shows the comparative five-year accident experience for freeways and non-freeways
ANIL on the State Highway System, primary and secondary components, and the respective
rural and urban portions. Total lengths for the categories are shown for the new year only.
TABLE II
ACCIDENTS PER MILLION VEHICLE-MILES
1997 1996 1995 1994 1993
Description Miles Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate
TOTAL
State Highway Syystem 7,493.00 1.11 1.23 1.13 1.12 1.19
Freeways 759.15 0.40 0.58 0.31 0.53 0.59
Non-Freeways 6,733.85 1.70 1.76 1.82 1.62 1.69
Primary System 4,959.93 1.04 1.15 1.07 1.06 1.12
Freeways 743.09 0.39 0.55 0.30 0.50 0.56
Non-Freeways 4,216.84 1.72 1.76 1.86 1.64 1.71
Seconday System 2,533.07 1.47 1.66 1.51 1.50 1.59
Freeways 16.06 0.67 1.20 0.56 1.22 1.29
Non-Freeways 2,517.01 1.62 1.75 1.68 1.54 1.64
RURAL
State Highway Stystem 6,783.33 0.61 0.70 0.60 0.63 0.67
Freeways 632.10 0.23 0.32 0.14 0.28 0.31
Non-Freeways 6,151.23 0.91 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.93
Primary System 4;442.40 0.53 0.61 0.52 0.54 0.59
Freeways 630.31 0.23 0.31 0.14 0.27 0.30
Non-Freeways 3,812.09 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.87
Secondary System 2,340.93 1.11 1.26 1.08 1.10 1.14
Freeways 1.79 0.16 1.13 0.28 1.16 0.85
Non-Freeways 2,339.14 1.14 1.26 1.11 1.10 1.15
URBAN
State Highway System 709.67 2.09 2.25 2.19 2.13 2.25
Freeways 127.05 0.70 1.01 0.59 0.96 1.07
Non-Freeways 582.62 3.52 3.53 2.84 3.32 3.43
Primary System 517.53 2.07 2.23 2.16 2.11 2.21
Freeways 112.78 0.69 0.99 0.58 0.93 1.04
Non-Freeways 404.75 3.67 3.63 3.98 3.45 3.55
Secondary System 192.14 2.14 2.39 2.31 2.25 2.42
Freeways 14.27 0.76 1.22 0.61 1.23 1.37
Non-Freeways 177.87 2.93 3.10 3.27 2.79 2.99
RURAL Includes both the Rural and Suburban shown in Table IV.
NNW
C,~j it a~ ~vv
c~
January 25, 2000
Tigard City Council Public Meeting
Re: Washington Square Regional Center Plan
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
To: Tigard CIty COuncil
I thank the Task Force members for the time they've given to
this plan. I regret that it has remained so rooted in the
legacy of a past century's mistakes. It is carbon based,
waste tolerant, habitat destructive and polluting and born of
a time when space, natural resources and the healing capacity
of the planet seemed limitless. I'd hoped to see signs of an
awakened stewardship, a new generosity toward the land which
gives us so much.
Today we live with what happens when commerce leaves the bio-
logical world out of its equation - air and water hazardous to
our health, decades of nuclear garbage with no safe place to
go, oceans depleted of fish, all life exposed to dangerous
solar radiation, climate change intensifying as we ignore our
heating of the atmosphere and species extinction now at 1 loss
every 10 minutes.
The past 5 mass extinctions were caused by extraordinary events.
The present, on-going mass extinction (the first in the 3.8
billion-year history of life forms), is being caused by u§,
largely from natural habitat destruction. By the year 2100 the
loss may extend to 1/3 of all species alive today. We can no
longer afford to dismiss these losses as a necessary cost of
doing business.
Stephen Hawkings wrote in his essay on the future of the
universe, "The danger is that our power to damage and destroy
+ the environment and ourselves is increasing much more rapidly
+ than our wisdom in using this power." The scientific commu-
nity warns that what happens in tht next two decades may well
determine what kind of future our grandchildren will."enjoy,
+ or what kind of chaos they'll be forced to live with. De-
fining ining a vision for a cleaner, safer, more compassionate
j world begins here in our own communities.
I
I
Paul Hawkin, in his book, "The Ecology of Commerce," writes
that we have a point in our economy at which profitabil-
ity will increasingly derive from abatement of environmental de-
gradation, and the furthering of eco-restoration. Genetic di-
versity gives robustness and resilience to the planet's biolo-
gical systems, and adds such beauty to life.
In the spirit of eco-restoration and reconciliation with the
biological world we could restore the seriously degraded flood-
plain/wetland to full and productive capacity - back to the
original 23 or more acres - thereby providing the free services
of flood control to the adjacent business community. -The re-
turn of wildlife to the area would complete this successful
interface between the built environment and the biological
world.
I worked on the Region 2040 campaign, and see the present Task
Force plan as a gross misrepresentation of that vision. The very
clearly stated policy of the Metro Council for protection of the
regions "unbuildable lands" (wetlands, floodplains, stream cor-
ridors, steep slopes) has not seemed relevent to those who see
all undeveloped.land as wasted, ignoring, in this case, the
free services of the floodplain/wetland area.
Restoration and preservation of this natural capital as an in-
tegral part of this development will insure the only real flood
control for this development, and both upstream and downstream
as well. I consider it a conflict of interest that the owner
of this floodplain/wetland has been on the task force, always
with a pro-development determination for this land.
If doubt remains regarding the seriousness of severe future
flooding, ask the insurance industry. Its average annual losses -
rose from $2 billion in the 80's to $12 billion in the 90's,
with major flooding a major cause. Washington Square has its
own history of water problems. My husband designed equipment
for a company which pumped water from beneath roads and buildt.ings all over the west. Periodically it was called in to pump
water from under the Square, situated as it is on a natural low-
land.
cHn Regarding the effects of global warming on climate change, we
~H would do well to listen to our scientists. Even Time Maga-
Ei
a
~W
a
and
zine advised (fall 1998) that global warming is here and not
likely to go away........ Trade your SUV for a fuel-efficient
car, the article concluded.
The forecast for the Pacific Northwest is for ever-increasing
severity of flooding and drought as early melt of the snow pack
leaves us inundated with water in the spring and dry in summer.
I am 70 and remember when our winters dipped into the 20's and
below, bringing snow and school closures for a 'day or more each
winter. The children who last used our 6-passenger Flexible
Flyer sled have children of their own now.
Commerce is essential to human life - no argument there. It is
when we forget that all productivity is dependent upon the
healthy functioning of Earth's natural support systems that we
get into trouble. We have a fine-opportunity here to mitigate
our power-to-destroy with wisdom.
Thank you for this opportunity to air my concerns. Meanwhile
I am going to continue looking for all of these middle income,
single or childless couples clamoring for the restricted housing
offered in the task force plan. Metzger continues to provide
affordable housing, its large lots now home to 4 or more famil-
ies who have invested in good faith in an old established neigh-
hood.
An important reality of the market place refered to on page 26
of the Plan is its dependence upon the good will of the com-
munities that that surround it. Investors attracted to an area
by a laxity of environmental restrictions or disregard for its
residents do not make good citizens. Very likely they will take
the profits out of the area and leave the problems they've
caused behind them.
Sin errly,
Nancy L u Tracy
7310 S.W. Pine St.
Tigard, OR 97223
1111EM 1111101 1111111 =mom]
C
L AXVY EKS
12Aj-
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCIIOKAGE It F.I.I. Ii VUL 9UISI. CII AIt 1.01 IT HONOLULU LOS ANGELLS NEW YORK
PORT I ANlt KICHLANII SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE: WASHINGTON, D.C. SHANGHAI
SUITE 2300 TEL (503) 241-2300
GREGORY S. HATHAWAY
Direct (503) 778-5207 1300 SW FIFTIi AVENUE FAX (503) 778-5299
greghathaway@dwt.com 1'OKTLANI) , OR. 97201-5682 www.dwt.com
January 24, 2000
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mayor Jim Nicoli
Members of the City Council
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Washington Square Regional Center Plan
Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Macerich Company ("Macerich" the owner and operator of
the Washington Square Mall. We are writing you in regards to the proposed Washington Square
Regional Center Plan ("WSRCP") that you are considering for adoption. We want to commend
the hard work and tremendous effort that the Task Force, City Planning Commission and the
City Staff have put into creating a plan for this important area in the City of Tigard.
Although we generally support the proposed WSRCP, as it relates to the
Washington Square Mall, we agree with the City Planning Commission's recommendation that
the City Council should endorse the WSRCP, but not adopt it until some important issues are
further clarified. Macerich shares the City Planning Commission's concern about the
uncertainty of the nature, funding and extent of the transportation and open space
improvements proposed in the WSRCP. In our opinion, this lack of certainty would not
encourage development and redevelopment in this area because a property owner may either be
prohibited from developing until the public improvements are in place or expected to bear an
a unreasonable and disproportionate share of the cost of the public improvements. Although we
recognize that it is not the City's intent to take this position, as the City Staff has assured us,
~g the WSRCP does not currently address how development will be approved during the interim
a period before the nature, funding and extent of these improvements are further refined and
implemented.
F:\5\51058\2\CITY COUNCIL LTR.DOC
Portland
LM I 1~1
Mayor Jim Nicoli
Members of the City Council
January 24, 2000 050
Page 2
The City Staff has informed us that the City will receive a grant in the amount
of $80,000 for the purpose of preparing an implementation report which will define the nature,
funding and extent of the transportation improvements generally referred to in the WSRCP.
Our discussions with Staff indicates that the preparation of this report may take as long as two
years to complete. It is our understanding that the City cannot receive this grant until the City
adopts the WSRCP and Metro determines that it is in compliance with Metro's requirements.
As a result, if the City must first adopt the WSRCP we believe that it is imperative that the
WSRCP address the requirements, conditions and/or mechanisms for permitting development
within the area prior to the completion of the implementation report.
Therefore, we are requesting the City Council to continue its consideration of
the WSRCP to allow sufficient time to define how development will occur prior to defining the
nature, funding and extent of the necessary public improvements. We have met with the City
Staff to share our opinions on this issue and we are very encouraged that we will be able to
work together to define these development concepts. Furthermore, during this interim period
we need to define the nature, funding and extent of the open space requirements generally
referred to in the WSRCP since it is not within the scope of the grant. Also, Macerich needs
to discuss with the City during the continuance of the WSRCP, issues related to parking and
development/design standards that may have an effect on the future development and
redevelopment of Washington Square.
We look forward to speaking with you at the hearing this evening to discuss our
request for a continuance of the adoption of the WSRCP. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
S.
Gregory S. Hathaway
GSH:dtl
n cc: Jack Jensen, Macerich Company, Vice President
Jack Reardon, Washington Square General Manager
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
Laurie Nicholson, Project Manager
F.\5\51058\2\C1'rY COUNCIL LTR.DOC
Portland
Su b e'er - r - Jjtjj 11L S
Pat Whiting
8122 S.W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon 97223
January 25, 2000
Tigard City Council
Public Hearing
Tigard City Hall
13124 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Washington Square Regional
Center Proposed Plan -
Public Hearing
Dear Councilman Moore & Council:
My name is Pat Whiting. My address is 8122 S.W. Spruce
Tigard, Oregon. I reside in the Metzger neighborhood and
am Chairperson of CPO 4-M - Citizen Participation organiza-
tion. As a member of the community, a home owner, a member
of the WSRC Task Force and as a representative of the
CPO, I am submitting my testimony for the record.
Previous testimony submitted in the record and in the
Task Force and issues raised herein are review criteria
addressing:
Land Conservation and Development
Statewide Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13 & 14.
The Statewide Goals are important to this planning
process and the components of the WSRC proposal that
are elements of planning have to do with:
Citizen Participation
Land Use Planning
Open Space, Natural Resources & Riparian Corridors
Air and Water Quality
Natural Disasters and Hazards
Recreational Needs
Economy of State
Housing
Public Funding
Transportation
Energy
Urbanization
The above twelve statewide goals of Oregon's 19 goals
pretain to their respective proposal elements in the WSRC.
Also, all the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies and
the Tigard Community Development Codes that pretain to
the WSRC plan before you for consideration are criteria
referenced.
all 11=11 09A 011Z~~
TCC:WSRC 2 Pat Whiting
Public Hearing January 25, 2000
Sensitive Lands, Wildlife, Flooding, Density
and Up-Zoning
At issue for this community, the neighborhoods of
Tigard and Metzger, is the up-zoning of the Ash Creek Wetland
and Floodplain in Subarea C of the Plan.-Also at issue is
the up-zoning of existing residential neighborhoods, for
example, from 4.5 houses per acre to 50+ units per acre
which allows for up to 100 units per acre.
On page 15of the plan, 129 acres of the proposed regional
center's 207 acres is earmarked for "redevelopment opportunities."
Seventeen acres are identified as available for residenital
infill and 42 acres for vacant commercial development.
In the staff report to the City Council, 12,14,1999,
page 13, paragraph 4, they identify the area south of Oak
between Greenburg and Hall without even mentioning that this
area is the Ash Creek Wetland and Floodplain area and exisiting
single family and apartment residential.
Metro's Urban Growth Report Update, September, 1999,
in '_dentifying 2040 Up-Zoning on page 65 states that:
One of the most significant changes to the updated
1997 UGR is the adjustment fc• the 2040 up-zone factor.
There is now no 2040 up-zone applied to neighborhoods
and parks and open space lands. This change is
consistent with preliminary compliance reports by
local jurisdictions and-Ath 2040 policies of concentrating
growth in town centers and regional centers.
Therefore, the proposed up-zoning in Subarea C should not
be the center of this plan's highest employment and resident
density designation.
A letter from Jim Grimes of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Department previously entered into the record as was a letter
to the Task force from the State Floodplain Manager, Ann Beier
was not referenced in the Staff Report of December 14,'99, pg 11,
regarding Agency communication and comments. Flooding is a
major 10 occurance in this area. The plan neglects to
address this subject. Their letters are attached herein.
Also attached for review is a copy of the Oregonian Paper
article on Earthquakes in this area. This is submitted to
request that the plan should include information about earth-
quake conditions in light of the proposed regional center
developmental elements of density and economic investment.
-11-4111 01 111901111 - - -
TCC:WSRC 3. Pat Whiting
Public Hearing January 25, 2000
.Transportation
Throughout the Task Force planning process, citizen
in-put supported widening Hall Blvd to a three-lane with
bicycle and sidewalk deve.rpment on both sides of Hall.
Promoting a 5-lane development will destroy the residential
and small business community and the quality of life tied to
a school, existing park, a church, affordable housing and
Ash Creek.
This plan does not include extensive dialogue or
directives regarding promotion of commuter rail. Instead of
emphasizing widening roads through existing residential
communities this plan should be incorporating the commuter
rail from Wilsonville to Beaverton data being developed.
In February there will be five meetings in Tigard, Tualatin,
Beaverton and Wilsonville. This plan should be delayed
to incorporate this styd. The data is attached for your
review.
Allowing development prior to transportational infastructure
should not happen. Case in point is the Tigard Triangle.
Attached is the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, ie.,
DKS Associates, page 1, siting recommendations regarding
road improvements for Hwy 99, 72nd, Dartmouth, Hunziker, etc.
Today the development is going in and transportational issues
have not been addressed or resolved.
Drainage Facilitation and
City Policy
i
I am greatly concerned about staff's request that you
a adopt a new City Policy to be applied only to the regional
+ center. Although the City has a city-wide policy in place,
Policy 7.1.2, a new policy proposal that is being proposed
(Policy 11.8.3) could have the effect of allowing development
3 prior to infastructure facilitation of water and drainage.
a Major drainage problems exist in this area. The floodplain
is part of the Fanno Creek Watershed in which we are located.
Any regional development must have in place not just
additional but major facility accommodation prior to
development. A non-mandatory policy should not be adopted.
-ammi
TCC:WSRC 4. Pat Whiting
Public Hearing January 25, 2000
Citizen Involvement
Citizen participation in the development of the proposal
before you has not been extensive enough. There should be
greater outreach ?,-p the public and greater public
involvement. We are requesting that there be additional
hearings. There should be workshops not just open-houses.
Discussion with Agency personnel should be initiated by
your council. This was requested at the task force level.
It did not occur. Greater understanding of the wetland
and floodplain issues and the issue of fish-recovery and
wildlife habitat needs to be part of the proposal.
Density provisions in an existing neighborhood,
transportation, lack of designation of new parks, and the
need to incorporate public recommendations in the decision-
making process to a greater extent need addressing.
For example, enclosed is a previously submitted letter
from the Metzger Park Board. The Chairman asked me to
represent him tonight as he is unable to be here.
It addresses concerns regarding the proposed plan
relying on an existing park that is fully utililzed to
be used as satisfying park needs for a regional center.
Plan directive includes the word "enhance" in reference
to the park which is established and serving an existing
community. More parks are needed. The plan identifies
the local Cresent Grove Cemetary and the Golf Course
as open space but it does not ear-mark parks. Citizens
recommended more parks. They should be an important
part of a regional center.
Regional Center Boundary
Given the many problems we see in this plan and the
proposal to superimpose up-zoning of high density on an
existing residential neighborhood and a wetland/floodplain,
it is recommended that you seriously consider changing the
boundary of the regional center which goes to Hall Blvd
to the east. We recommend that the eastern boundry by
S.W. Greenburg Road. The regional center commercialization
and high-density provisions and the configuration of
transportational accommodation should not be developed at
the expense of a thriving existing community. The Washing-
ton Mall area should be revisited for such accommodation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pat Whiting
(11E%on
Pat Whiting, Vice Chair, CPO 4-M
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223 DEPARTMENT OF
OREGON
FISH AND
(March 8, 1999
WILDLIFE
.
Dear Vice Chairwoman Whiting, Columbia Region
This letter is a follow-up to our meeting of March 5, 1999. The Department
enthusiastically supports your CPO efforts to protect the open space and
wetland adjacent to Ash Creek as identified in the Ash Creek Wetland &
Floodp(ain report.
Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on stream and wetland habitats for
their survival. Some species spend their whole life history in these habitats
while other species use these areas for seasonal habitat or as part of their
migratory requirements. These species include those that are at low or declining
population levels such as the red-legged frog, westem pond turtle, painted turtle,
cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, and western toad.
The Upper Willamette River stock of steelhead trout will likely be listed as
Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act this month. This stock
includes populations in the Tualatin River watershed. The Fanno Creek basin
had a historical population that we believe persists, although at very law levels.
With the listing will come increased scrutiny of proposed impacts to streams,
wetlands, and riparian habitats. Under Governor Kitzhaber's Executive Order
99-01, all state agencies are directed to take positive actions to restore native
fish runs. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife views habitat protection
as the most efficient, cost effective method to protect and restore fish
populations.
In addition to providing habitat for fish and wildlife species, stream, wetland, and
riparian habitats provide important water quality, nutrient cycling, and water
storage functions that are important to maintaining healthy watersheds. As
people also reside in these habitats, it is incumbent to our quality of life to
maintain these functions at a high level. Maintaining healthy watersheds benefit
people and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
i wish you success pursuing this goal. If I can be of further assistance to your
CPO, please call me at 621-3488.
incerel 1
im Grime a.. r,
Urban Habitat Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
17330 SE E%•elvn Street
Clackamas. 01 1'97015-9514
(503) 657-2000
rAX ,'503) 657-2050
F '
® Department of Land Conservation and Development
`--s: _ g 635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 200
re
John A. Kitrhabct MM., Governor Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
Phone (503) 373-0050
Director's Fax (503) 378-5518
June 2, 1999 Main Fax (503) 378-6033
Rural/Coastal Fax (503) 378-5518
Ms. Elaine Cogan TGM/Urban Fax (503) 378-2687
Cogan, Owens, Cogan Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.orus
8313 SW Alder Street
Portland, Oregon 97302
Dear Ms. Cogan:
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) serves as the state's floodplain
management agency under an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
department supports the need for Regional and Town Centers such as the proposed Washington
Square Regional Center. However, there are particulars of this proposed development which
appear to impact lands in the Ash Creek watershed protected by other statewide planning goals
(Goal 5 - riparian areas and Goal 7 - floodplains and other natural hazards). As the State's
floodplain manager, I am most concerned about the potential impacts of this development, if not
properly mitigated, on the Ash Creek floodplain.
Under federal floodplain management regulations (44 CFR section 60.20) communities that
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, including the City of Tigard, shall evaluate
a number of standards in considering proposals for floodplain development. One standard is that
the community shall consider the adverse effects of floodplain development on existing
development (44 CFR 60.22(c)(4)). In addition, the community shall also consider diverting
development to areas safe from flooding in light of the need to reduce flood damages.and in light
of the need to prevent environmentally incompatible floodplain use (44 CFR section
60.22(c)(2)). Therefore, the City of Tigard must thoroughly evaluate the consequences of
developing Ash Creek's floodplain before issuing a permit. The City of Tigard, as a requirement
of participating in the national flood insurance program, needs to fully evaluate the consequences
of this development. Tigard should also consider mitigation activities to preserve the natural and
beneficial values provided by floodplains.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 503-373-0050 (ext. 255).
Sinc rely,
Ann Beier /
State Floodplain Program Manager
cc: Mark Eberlein, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Meg Fernekees, Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development
,1'at Whiting
t y. i, w.4• '~.J•+ '1•i 4 •rt• eE..~ j / ti~ yyt Y~ .24.E t±t i r 7 -i'
' i ~i' rS.H.: T LLY r••rS•:•.. L'E.:::' ''.F'' •.V•~,rl:f'1.. y1.
,s•.a ~S t :.~;+ri7: '~r7s"''}.''i,. ,i~(.....r,~^t; .Y f:k'r~. H•V,`1•N:~' .,f- •-nr;. ;.1jr*
1. rG: _ _ 's t ~r° 3: N:f..~;ti ~•"fc~ s !E 1 t
- r. s c-~"ts:~ , ->i 'a.': ^..b^jya. V:`J .t iY.r.•ay y~X 'frpr-•air~+.,. t ''e t .r. n. V~.J
' ti . Y•. r . i r.,n lU...tvu:S i T,a s. .•.f 7 ~ .•~}••-t JV Jy d
t t 4. M t 1 F r3 rL~`rY tt !I~i 1. i .t/3r ~ "L7a s ~ s t . r'Y~ ' \ ,mot., J.
- s 5^Y ~'tM y N:! 1,yy J ~Jf will
d/ii
"hmgwn
• r. , ~ y -.:r- i.. y..~M1 S C♦;J ^ s H x,r s''a b•¢{* x~ ~~~~':rr ~ti--.'4'-4~ ~r-~,~ Gm}3~#~+SIN.y~?.~t1.~+.,r:~OP
kh l some l l e t0 `i ? : _ a x s s r tS wiK , i > - ~t :)3iGu`°4 i Beaverton Co+tmiuter ° -Last Navemibes, at a series of public gatherings; we asked for yo riou:ghts='
Rdil StWy i>Cr; } Jf~ } a~r. ~r~t, : 1 c it f ~b~" t}it Sb rJ~r~ rfsi::~`P.e `^qr .
f t , on commuter traasrt options between Dilsonville an d Beayn our4ra s - W-9
kJ.kJ... t y~ r,,,2`.c~'i se4w^. i r' ~ ~ -t~ ~ ~•'r'. '~•~:M'~"~ci'Ay,;,4'_~:i.~';r~~t ir`S}``•'~.kw`~Qi ^';~aaJ.v"~•F~'~~^`w ^r ~•ii'
S~?°~ts°redbj'~p 'r K: yut t-lasgelYsuPPottmgthecoincnuterrailb onM; was~- ->ba
¢7 ~i ~{~r cc a a o tw P
J;t h ~y .b' k`11t9~,v,'.'4,.1"~i•.1~i.s~S-Ym-;;p xi~i'`,~vryVtr~r~. jJ:i'T°~~ K/ t ~;K'i ,:,.s'6' LC ~>r~yici Xi' "~t~+tsfs'~ ice.
;Tashi ngton County 4 , mgCommittee made up of 1ora7 elected an~ +yp,n~ti l n
eco may'
.r - n..,. -.es .,,f } -rr . • 1: JY a xkl ro Y'4 '.+,~C fi,Jt =h'~. Si'. is s a ~v ,ak~,6 y'r,' L,. '`J - "Y q ~.i ~ i• y Rim. 1j. , . e~ t>
The ties of ,~...-s
hid f r ; ,iconsidered ti~at uiput end wesed each~ltemativ~e`gams~t ieg°~S Dud' ec~-
iBeaverCOft, x • 7 ti x~ 4 J < .F f p t t 'fv f° " t ny{'` 4i" 7
` d hav *r i d°c.. f t~44 , ck rr i~°e`
r . Ti gardfTual ati n and - rj fives SC an
s r•r f ( e Page enow made-r arysecodation l e 5'
•rtw7lSQnv~'l le :.~.`fj ^d.J.t,. .3'A..`. t i~A ,~i•'~.rii^ . ?-<~t.•cc~r\C 4r r.-,v •;t .d a~•f~xx.'?* e ~xtl fJ"' Xa t°i. ,y4y) r H' M
4 .T 1 •1 ~ f rt r A Mw' ~ ''tom' ,~..'i~}'.~y~ ^S 1•x~ !lys~
s Tri Met .L rfY { * u commuter rail option to be evali3atedttis the preferred alt~ernatcve. at'recorn\
s, tS 7. : p -.o, Ct r. ,fyJ f.. t~,ks e? .yyrt't Jt 3" ++~i: f
S' HetrO •v} tt t s mention rs' pen... UbhCreeiewkv - ~r+ s+ S + iui
P g P )om ~s at one of the pblic Bathe ~7y gs'
'.oregOn Department Of a s- - t_ y. oaf'"'2r t..hr~ r~ qtr ~t•+-:-J`a'"„"i}^ysL7~sit
TransportatlOn hstecl on the back page -to proeide us with your feedback. } ;
d • r „4n S r tt s y"~'e" r>"`t~'`~r`~a:a~1Yi r~MC.. w»~~
1 • f s. f z.'= •s J ri,'~ ~aS J~:k~~i.f1'`r7`.r ? V .
what is rhe' [Wilsonville to Peavlerton Commuter Rm7 Stud,' Sr Y 4 {
t
Washington County, area communities- and regional transportatlora agencies
Need mo,z infmmatian? (see side panel) have been working together to develop a more diverse and bal
anced transportation system; sped&callp by' providing a viable transit option for J
Contact r i JrTr'
Anne (Madden, Program commuters in the Wilsonville to Beaverton comdor If unplemented, the Educator : • : t6t+: C.stk~ ~
Washi ngtort County` :'.tem willbetter lml.regional centers, town centers, and employmen f
t areas and
155 N. 1st Ave Suite will lev ,3-
350-16$e the public investment m thestmgLg}it rail systein:,The rntiert>` u
Hillsboro
'OR 97124 f
to contribute tof u~plementatior oa a " -cal nnuig' >
series of state, region andlo
al
(503) 846-4963
Fax (503) R46-35ss u'poliaes• -The Steering Committee has been looking at three alteinatives? o .
E-mail : anneJnadden
noifiing; add more bus service, and de"velop co
4co.washingt mmutes rail. f --f
on.or.us ~,;y,.:,; ,.,.,s. : Theha~e als®.,rai,:? w.,
y: +a=k~arii=rides could be ;aLtr
been looking at wliere stations and
- -s Zry. ~,y`rr3U~ r • f ~ ~;p +j rl~i•L~!({~ •h; ~j
' r 7s1!_+r7C~. S,•^v r 'i •'r.{=;, e ~fl'
~ ••s wtiFr i f. J .a i ~ s.~•iq.l h~rt1'~y"v s"1~~?•i~j•..
:.H®w Were Al ternatives How ..D They Compare. ,
Eva* I:ua$dd ? Some of the highlights of the evaluation of the three
alternatives .are as follows:
To help determine which of the'three alternatives
='No Build; Transpostition System Management _ Which bas the mostridczs?
M ` cled bus service ;and Commuter Commuter Rail. About 4700.people would ride
man rail each bveekday in the year 2020, :'At least half j
' ;Rail. • .best.rizeets the commuter transit needs, the '
t; - w of these would be new transit rides., About 1500.
"Steering Comrtuttee set'ihe following goals" d
_y.
service each
.people would use the nea• TSiV1 bus ch
ob'ectiv~s ,
weekday,.if that were the chosen alternative.,
Goals` ON c~s
I. 'T'ransportation Goal: Provide an effective, o et~e are the tide is fining to?
o ,
efficient an3 reliable transit system that connects Alth~er alt some er most commuters riders wouldwouldhead south on
commute to
major activity centers and improves access within . stops in the Beaverton and Nimbus/Washington
the Wilsonville to Beaverton Corridor.'',.. . ' Sqare area. Many would connect in Beaverton
• Provide a viable transit option £or to transit taking them to downtown Portland.
commuters. '
e I:everage existing Transit investments: ® ;Wbrt~esane •tbe riders dunning &osna
• : Accommodate future extension/espansaon . 1F ( omrnuter Rail. the numbers of riders '
of transit _systeai: staiting their trips in Beaverton and Wilsonv0le
s. Provide reliable and time sensmve service. :are almost equal and vkea combined makeup
P*agide efficient transit lint 'between ioit half of the total"rid(!rship origin: sas defined in the for the lest of the riders are spread about eve
regional ~d town centers nly
. in Tigard
2040 growth concept. among the'otlier three stations T
TI I'laanng Goal. Support state, regional and rand Nimbus/Washmgton Square)
local plans acid ioliaes::.. _ Foi-•th6 TSM bus altesizatrve,'the distribution is
th a higher t~.
about the. same as with rail, but wi
5` • Supporttate; regional and local ` • ' h
d a over
.percentage starting m`Beaverton k 1
ti4nsportation.and land use plans { i'`Percesi {F
m the N~mbuS/WaShmg~~~°v~ .
-i~Provtde'mcseased opportunities for
;ta+~`'-=`.:pedestrian:friendly and transit onented . , r At f ~'r.[y
tf
sCO131nL3z11ty development. a > ® MCD aftemauve baS tine Pdstest daQffin2Y2t~~%
2
bl@ on 71he m t' 'r `
• nProvide a relia and direct link between Cominut~er Rail is thegirickest .opti
q~ and employment centers in the ;vehicle travel,tame is more by car, and twice=
population
:'as long bybus. (See table. on next page.)' u
'ilsonville to Beaverton Corridor.
• 1. `
II..1Fnvironmeutal Goal Maintain the ® Wbat al w c .5,4V
environmental integrity of the corridor. In year 2000 dollars, capital costs are expected to
Avoid or minimize impacts to all aspects be $67 to $73 million. or Commuter Rail an ii $7 • '
%.,of the natural and built environments. to $10 million for TSM. Annual operating and
maintenance costs are projected to be $3.9.
y, .Maintain or enhance community r
livability million for Commuter Rail and $1.1 million for
TSM.
M `Financial Goal: Identify an affordable transit..
ttahrc osa the ,
altemative for commuters. ® Horn do the altewatrvcs affect
a • Build asystem that can be operated and
itiaintairied affordably. _ commuter Rail would reduce the number of t
Y Y,
Build arose-effective project miles traveled by cars on our roids,mai cla
• Support and encourage continued economic 17,400 miles: i. 2100.
wtti =1 would reduce the'miles by ,
.i ` h , a~~ rep f~
-gro. z.
-vt
"r:: } v~ ; e fir 5?t`t r r S1t
a Implement a project in a timelymarxrier. - `f
v t 2 r rte 1 y~r.s
• ,y :.rot.-~s.'c t.E~~...:rf2;~z`!t'~~,,
' i ''.'1,• 1.~ yt . F
What geld be the travel times in 2020?.
Travel time
From by Auto py Bus by TSM by
Wilsonville with NO Bus C16imuter
To Build tYail . '
Minutes Minutes Mi nutes
Minutes
.Tualatin _ -
18 19 Zg 9
Tigard 30 60 35 • 16
Wash Square 32 57 43 20 ;
Beaverton TC 39 .76 54 26
-r _
WhatlCfa of cat. 2re bfig d4tiL .lVr r F i Y _ . x~ 4• _ a{ =t 3 ~Y r F
~lrlli~sC?.~ 0 `4_PlY s 1.....~ D .J D ~9 :e t
wa
The Lam and nde'ynr'Wilsonvdle would be ;the
Self propeIIed cars that are similar to trail
4~~48 ~Srnalt
trains, but diesel powered. These are called Die- ~vith'_" ut 00 spaces ei- park and
sel Multi 0 to00 spaces would be
p e Units •(DMUs) '_They would;eitlie= be ; , cedes; _ from 12 ,
new or refubisled""v i th `Y ' ` flocated'in'-Tualatm;ard, arid Nimbus/ '
ell cIes at meet the latiest Ord . 5 {
' federal Railroad Admmsstrati94,(F12 A~ saf -WEV w 'Washington girare.- ere would not be a park r
'l^'•./~.{r'... 1 7c"r!- d..T~, :rt. r' •s 3.?.-i.a.a. .y r~
standards r ` s x •s~fi d xde',atY upp-:Beavertion Trannsit (.;enter lo.
S f S 1.'l+~a .~+i 5 =1 "~4~71.75~I~x:.. y~1 , is •~i~ '4.?try f" .r.~.
1,. .,j°`' r Fr l t e
r t
3 SHowmurhnoise can-ive expertfinffi ' ~ r~~ C$n Coaim~t+er Z be eapandedra the
.».D_~, ' 1?: ~t . r ?z,sY +8 t A!iy 'y tY-$%`4'"~r
-i I.CJlnnlutel.L[L. ngv+if3`.x-yy.,~ ice. _ .}c:.~,i}fir"- ~'i
Corniriutii • rm` „nh stmg'zad Tines service-could m the
rt tiains'would be quieter: and cause less tty
T.r,~"s+alvZ •~c 1d., : _
vibration' tliaa t trams because tlipp are = h 'be ded south to Salem,°connectwrth
lighter; shorter, and are by modified~b~ ~ mes eadwest"to Itilcinnville and east m ,
ower.ed
! fiF Z-ii,f a++
`engines. ';The FRA has just adopted new crmg 4TH D , or ever west to _Hsllsboror
safety policies that allow fo neighbozlxogd "quiet ` = " : '
zones." They permit reducedwhistleblowingby What'',5
all trains at crossings where improvements are -n s •
made to maintain safety standards. During the our input evill go to 3lie Steering Committee:
Environmental Assessment a detailed noise -2 . The Steering Committee will forward an altema-
analysis will be completed. five for envuonme_ntal assessment.
6 Where wX the Con=uter RgU stations be 3. ' Environmental asses sment should be complete
lor~teda by spring, and publicmeetngs will be held.
There-will be stations in Wilsonville, Tualatin, Ti- '4. . The projectv~ould.then seek -Federal Transit Ad-
Bard, the Nimbus/Washington Square area and =ministii~ fi6ii authority to move forward with pre
Beaverton. Information about preliminary sta= .:lirninary engineering, and a Cmance plait.
lion locations will be presented at each commu- ' `
ni 's public gathering. See the back for the 5 ~r Final .design could be'complete in 2002 - .
time find location of the publi c gathering in.your 6 Constriction could• be complete, with commuter .
community. ' service rgelady to b~egiin, ym September' ZOOM.
. - %!'fj ...?23tir•~~Ni•.a ~3,. ~~F-Ks{.~'+.e~~4~"`Gt~'Py~,Ls~T'ry'~'~r^'j5~'f•~; r. rk
- w ~ a tr yY .ta. ..i. ~ .i(i ~,+~f ~ '°'L` >.~i~,~ T « ~i i.-- .•t r
t ,
.r , r•r/•WY..IrF RN~G.a W r J.. M ]VI- k f,Y+rJ ftY tr N 'M 1 - ♦•~I'J \ y t.
• e r ~ ~ 1. tw nr.S. c i!r 7 ! \
' . .n -X1:,'_..1..:': .r ~'1...,r .:•,f:A' - Y r. `1:.Ji :.:f:, . -i.... . ,
. ~ .$'~b>'•~: t _ fit.. . '
w r• r' , - C - , +r y~7a1i- Trl,r yr Jt x . , •r• y \ .
yt}s't~~.~~T~r.'4+i1 ri~.taa•1 a~•G .n.Ne>t :~+ry,!.~a• '1". ,a
j Fy ZZl6 NO "'WEs1:
• T
.~,NuZ6.m' 5$86, t ,
° a 8d
a n r ~ x
rs
• - ~ .r 1 ~ It,, ~ we A~t +r 3'~}j`~ ~ r _ -r ~ s _
t ~ t3 A./f ~ 1 a{: `M1~i~~F'7lI tt, f
CIO oiogsj~
,f'•-~5S£OZ6 wg; ~J38® H ZLO£-17Z
.r J. JF- '83134V~ > s
' ~1 h~ , i > S£ alms `at►uan~;I '~I SSi
t f L oo IZta`n' o ' } ~1 , i a ash ptTIjo Ado(j
- - ~''~%1~:~c.Y_.;', ire r-ifr~%,"' Yr~ c 06
up ut . iM err
,L. a'`\~3`!Vl$Od~Sn' ^ c. E Od • , ~ ~ti'r~, y t ' z• ~;••A•,'Jti E ~ r_nh,." ~~tt . J r'sr z C-.-`~ 5 rF _
~~r vt~ 0851 ~4 t~,r~ J 2?L u'^$r 1
p-i ~ S E ~ l 3 ~ r , 1~ ~ r K r r ~}rY },J~~ *Y~ y 7~ - +3 . ` 1 S by t
r~'J„3„ 1 F !
J FJ J y s t~. W a ,K..°L~ .r-+~: t 'y-y 'ri,h ,i"""J -t ~'y7,a~Y.tT• S w7,.~->a4 nA~ f411'^ N'r L yti •y -
S. .1~r -sL^1 !r .1F ~.f4 ! .r'#rri '7~"r}'C +i~7[:r xJr t! 't F
`f ,:t. 5s ! lJp! ! s t-„'L. iM'3.+rls•'t•s w--..:~r`.:r.2.-:. F''":arr 1 , t re !Y ..'..'+rJ Sc.+,••n(it~.7~fir,::~.:i!r 1 'F .:.i~~;; ~:'y'•,'•.~~'tt' ..::3- xv`s ,_w:..~
""JO",';r.•,r~r,_~i P. .~~.:~.•'~4M.. J '.rP p.'.~-',h•'\A, na1'.;. ` aY .:a'• }f'e+t~'Grf^'Yt F.-i 'lam' ~I ;_y.
.1",3rr rk.r z a: r.~i• t _.±r-..'~'Sr r,s 1°- 'X !1-a K r}`SZ•~ 't\`.< ri~L"- t. J-"`'° E F~, r y
'Mi
t -i{- d a S y i(( 7tatia- a`~T Yfe'q~~•s.. ya'r < "j~~y3•lT . ,
ta3n Y 57: rc"3~iirwY~e..e2t,R' f,L.S,'4 ,Ji fi vC r ' r' •r,
F ~Yr: ~ S 'mil'] 1 y'nv ''"'S7L`5r~k 5r "`y'l!. ~ 1t ~ • .t'
z u J tl '!'.,;E ag'~xr•1F,+a,.". ® a ® ® 0 ® .Sii~.} :~eka' 4 {t" sY~
rr',9 t k' t t
M1 y,
} -t'~r ~',j ~r•a.rC'kR\ ~ ® ® ® ® : 1 yrI'J~ `°~S-•.-. w c
~i ft `7 4 S~ =t. ® m ® m s ® m r Ir ar a
'.r'.J ~ •r-4'r: xi.:-'.5i ~ :...,,.>.;.,:..p sse.::~'~i - L . 'J~' 1 ' , f
•r, : ~ ' - a7a'"' ~•i r«c,-tti~.i.S'~^•4\t. ,r'i. r-
'.r f. f:`i L• yrs.. ~"C:• ti .
ur5dav --Feb.--3 6 30-8:30 m:.T- d Water I strict Aiiditomim
0~ 07!/ BLL7JJ11d1~St.
Z..
. -Monday,-Feb. ,.7 6:30-8:30 p.m. Tualatin Senior Center
in
` 8513 SW T`uaIatm Rd. ; .
~lJ Tuesday, -Feb S n6on-1:30 Spieker'Property Conference Ctr.
Nizmbiis Mas'hin oiL' a Area
gt
:to-`talk about the" Y -0403B SW Nimbus Ave., Bldg. 11 '
evaluation o€ :the
Tuesdag~, Feb 8 6:30-8:g0 p.in. Beaverton Citygiall
optioiis and the :4755 SW Griffith Dr A
SteeZlLlg' ; r. l • r L..r .'F c 3 t ' y
r
Comrmaittee's ~'buisday; Felit 10 6:30-8:30 pW~sanvi7le's Wood Middle' School
recomiaiendati.on: A 11055 SW.W~>7.sonv Rd.
J 1> .ti:.: is?~:'Y .:rc ISM y'n r?; ` .1, t rao E j • . \ r J .f t j Yt ' Er
t t !
Or'call 846-8060 aiid leage~ recorded comments
~ r • ~ . r ^ ,~sr 1 ~ r ~ r ~ t wt~ Lr, ~.,ti' •t E j '
'.i i J' tt c.S~ is f:~~,. It .c ~I~ .r;~•r•r`.+._ v ~ y.
+
YY
O
~dpf O o a p
0 o
Q C=
.it
G *A apO °o d JJ~~
60' O.
p o v P L!
p E. ~ a
q
V.Z
O
O OWT T,--box
°OO a 0 Oa a COO=
O
00 oa c U
O '
O ~~~Qpoa ^ 4
OO 0 0 0 0 0
OOO as o p d0 r9SA®e a~ju
' d O O ~.-o Q oe
00 oaC
O o s
°o Q o ao Q
10 I®a Ida
a I .C3
D
Legend
0
Major Arterial l L , a
r o
Minor Arterial
Local Collector
Local Street ,
Frontage Road o a o
ODOT Tool Box *=am
Potential Rotary Locations Q
i igard Triangle Street Plan
Tigard Triangle Design &andar& 18.620-13 1112"8
0~ 11 11111111111101-IM
DKS Associates
Chapter 1
Existing Conditions
This chapter summarizes existing traffic and transportation conditions in the City of Tigard. The
primary focus is on vehicle traffic, although transit, pedestrian, bicycle and truck facilities have been
considered as well. To understand existing travel patterns and conditions, a variety of aspects Qf the
city's transportation system were considered. In the fall of 1994, an inventory of traffic conditions
in Tigard was undertaken to establish a base year for all subsequent analysis.
The following sections briefly describe existing roadway functions, circulation, traffic speeds and
volumes and levels of service in the Tigard transportation system. Since other work is currently being
undertaken to address pedestrian, bicycle and transit issues, this study focuses primarily on streets and
highways. It relies heavily on previous work in these other transportation areas.
PREVIOUS WORK.
There have been a number of previous. studies in recent years which have dealt with transportation
issues in Tigard. These' studies provide extensive background into transportation needs and
opportunities in the area, and have been important resources. for conduct of the current study.. Some
of the key studies are summarized below:
Tigard Transportation Safety Study, by Straam Engineers, Inc., October, 1979. This study
provides an inventory of Tigard's transportation system, an analysis and identification of Tigard's
transportation safety problems and a recommended five-year program for improving the transportation
safety problems in the Tigard area.
Tigard Triangle Traffic Study, City of Tigard, by ATEP, October 1986. This study focused on the
2005 development in the Triangle area studying traffic impacts from a link volume perspective. The
study observed that streets in the Triangle were operating below designed capacity. Future conditions
indicated level of service E and F conditions with buildout of the Triangle. Recommendations
included widening ORE 99W to six lanes by 1995, 72nd and Dartmouth both being four lanes, an
overcrossing of ORE 217 between Dartmouth and Hunziker, and TDM measures.
Tigard Triangle Traffic Circulation Analysis, Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1,
a 1988. This study assessed existing and future year 2015 conditions and defined a roadway plan for
Tigard Transportation Spiena Study March 28, 1995
Draft Existing Conditions 1 P94126•0
11, IM1111111M 11111 -
E "P
®KS Associates
the Triangle. At that time traffic conditions were noted to have excess capacity available. Generalized
forecasts of employment, housing and traffic volumes were made using the Metro regional model.
The plan called for four lanes on 72nd Avenue south of Dartmouth Street, four lanes on Dartmouth
from 68th to ORE 99W, four lanes on 68th from Haines to ORE 99W, plus a new north south
connector roadway between Dartmouth and Hunziker.
Bull Mountain/Walnut Area Urban Services Study, by City of Tigard, City Administrator's Office,
February, 1988. This study addressed the feasibility of providing urban services to the Bull
Mountain/Walnut area. The area consists of approximately 2,045 acres of unincorporated Washington
County located due west of the current City of Tigard limits. The. area is bounded on the north by.
Old Scholls Ferry Road and on the south by Beef Bend Road to SW 150th Avenue. The Urban
Growth Boundary marks the western limit of the study area. The recommendations made by the City
Administrator's off ice included supporting annexation proposals from the Walnut and Bull Mountain
II/North Central areas, annexation proposals from Bull Mountain I/Southeast and Bull Mountain
II/South Central areas be supported and encouraged by the .City, discouraging annexation requests
from Bull Mountain III/Northwest areas until annexation of the Walnut a nd Bull Mountain I-II areas
are substantially completed and. adequately served. It further stated that temporarily irregular
boundaries and piecemeal annexations should be allowed, viewing the entire study area as the eventual
logical boundary. Specific roadways in need of improvement (widening and cuive realignment)
include Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road, which carry much of the traffic to and from the
bull Mountain area. Other roadways needing resurfacing and/or regrading include Walnut Avenue,
121st Avenue and 132nd Avenue. This study is important since much of the growth ocurring in
Tigard is taking place in this area.
Washington Green Retail Development: Transportation Impact Analysis, Kittelson & Associates,
October, 1988. The study suggests that the proposed project would have a very small impact on the
surrounding street system, however, some improvements were recommended based on projected 2005
volumes. These improvements included 1).a'five-lane cross section for the project frontage on Hall
Boulevard, 2) a multi-phase traffic signal at Main Project Access/US Bank Access/Hall Boulevard,
3) an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane at Scholls Ferry Road/Hall Boulevard and 4) a second
exclusive eastbound left-turn lane, a second westbound through lane and an exclusive southbound
right-turn lane at Greenberg Road/Oleson Road/Hall Boulevard.
Transportation Analysis for Pacific Realty Associates and The Koll Company, Mackenzie
Engineering Incorporated, December, 1988 and update March, 1989. This study was performed
to determine if the area transportation system could accommodate the proposed development. It was
determined that the system could accommodate the proposed project with certain improvements in
place. These improvements included some internal site improvements as well as widening Upper
Boones Ferry Road to five lanes between the I-5 overpass and the "project road" intersection,
providing an additional right-turn-in-only access to the project to reduce traffic entering the "project
road" intersection with Boones Ferry Road and widening Upper Boones Ferry Road at the I-5 overpass
to provide a right turn lane for southbound I-5 traffic. Some additional restriping was also
recommended. It should be noted that the additional right-turn-in-only access was not constructed.
Tigard Transportation Systems Study Meech 28, 1995
Draft Existing Conditions 2 P94126m
0--CASTER ENGINEERING
son
Conclusions
The intersection of Highway 99W with Dartmouth Street is expected to operate
at or near capacity for Year 2003 background plus site-generated traffic conditions. As
other development occurs in the immediate area of Tri-County Center, this intersection
will probably fail during the evening peak hour. If either the Dartmouth Fly-over or
widening of Highway 99W occurs, there should not be a capacity problem at either the
intersection of Highway 99w with Dartm~V I J the foresee-
-
able future. Wi out either of these improvements, levels of service will most likely
ffeg de to , or further development will be restricted.
Proposed Mitigations
As was previously discussed, 72nd Avenue will be widened to its ultimate width
as a five-lane facility with the development of the Tri-County Center. Additionally,
traffic signals should be installed at the intersections of Dartmouth Street with 72nd
Avenue and with 680' Parkway. Although signal warrants will be met at the two drive-
way intersections on Dartmouth Avenue, there is expected to be level of service E at
these driveways. Because of the proximity off' the driveways to the 72nd Avenue inter-
section, some queuing may occur west of 72nd Avenue which would partially block the
eastern driveway for part of each signal cycle. With this in mind, it is recommended
that traffic conditions be :monitored for a period of time after completion of the center
to determine -the necessity for traffic signals at one or both driveway intersections. With
construction of the Dartmouth Fly-over, increased traffic volumes on Dartmouth will
necessitate traffic signals at the driveways.
-28-
STEII EHGIMBING
i LEVEL OF SERVICE -
1
Level of service is used to describe (lie quality of traffic flow. Levels of service
A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service
C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service
I D. Level of service E• is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For
unsignalized intersections, level of service C is generally considered acceptable. Mere is
a more complete description of levels of service:
Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles
clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low
volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles.
Level of service R: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic;
short traffic delays at intersections. Iligher average intersection delay than for level of
service A resulting from more vehicles stopping.
Level of service C. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by
other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service I3 due to a signifi-
cant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This
is the recommended design standard for rural highways.
Level of servire-D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in-
tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable.' At traffic signals many vehicles
stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle
failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are
noticeable. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections.
Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals,
and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter
vQ how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F.
y.., Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections,
H level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable.
a
Level of service F: Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may inter-
fere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and
speeds may drop to zero. There may he frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service
F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is
considered unacceptable by most drivers.
Y Y
Y Metzger Park ]Mall
H 8400 S.W.1Hemlock Street
Portland, OR 97223
p (503) 246-0998
March 13, 1999
Washington Square Regional Center Task Force
clo Laurie Nicholson, Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Park Hall & Tigard, OR 97223
Kitchen Rentals
Task Force Members:
Parking The Metzger Park LID Advisory Board (the "Board') has been informed by the CPO #4
representative on the Task Force, that a preliminary proposal to.include Metzger Park
within the Regional Center boundary has been dropped. The members of the Board
support the position of Metzger Park NOT being part of the Regional Center. The Board
Picnic Grounds supports the eastern boundary at Greenberg Road as originally proposed by Metro, not
at Hall Boulevard as proposed by the City of Tigard's addition to the study area. The
Board believes the boundary as proposed by the City of Tigard would adversely effect
the character of Metzger Park and the surrounding neighborhood, as would the inclusion
Children's of the Park within the Regional Center boundary.
Play Area
We would like this letter included in the record of the Task Force.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, any aspects of this issue,
Tennis Courts please contact me through the Park office or at 735.8603.
Basketball Sincerely,
Hoops
Mike Donovan, Chairman
Metzger Park LID Advisory Board
Horseshoe
Pits
Cc: Tom Brian, Chairman
Open Spaces d Washington County Board of Commissioners
IPooded Areas Roy Rogers, District 3 Commissioner
Washington County Board of Commissioners
Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan Consultants
Larry Eisenberg, Manager
Washington County Facilities Management
WMA
X0,4-
L The impend+n9 U 5.
86.
00 site news °tR~ofWomenthe choice of
debut of the drug efr, has done t
medical abortion. as apposed to surg
down the American abo ~toF~,9e CT , G TOR/1'
little to turn !N commEN't~~ '
~ GIN EDI
Olt p1t®((`+o MANA
tential
n beneath the area that are po
i 1$iL1.s Ep11Lt
® JANUARY 25.2000.::; _ AU 0~I yE'tE PORT~"D
would that n
map shows e three la lts
that producers 0j 6 8 *
~T tt15~ A~ arthqua on the Portland #o this Imap
othetical b a e West Hills acCord~s at the su>tace•The
ma9nrt°de
A hyP t ettect on the oVef l vQ mcl s based on the s6
have themo$
shows predicted 4round shaldn4
wnbiaRiver
U
rod .
It
SF
ra r
Ui
S
S
a
r
1
l
u
rt t G
ro ~ u
U
c ,
thW It ~ r
e
7
to
*MIA
stratdnq' ~eb,spt'
Viob nt aA derabiedama9 rgned . 1
~structures:welk `
z - , rx c, M r, cons,
r ws'ma 5evcre shahin9 Wally. vG s dei4 ucturesth a I olt in su psenY+at from
lave : T • ceatdama9 studies
` a4e ,~sldetabte. f
heres Q t~ s 11
tctn9 SUS curls F° s.. plum artist c
Ne4li4 buildings of "d 4$ bstantiei buiidin .5 bwtdin95. with P
Very string sha m
lbie dama e9 ~ i dinah yreatin
I ial collap,•
t good design an d construction: slight"~~ with P ctures.. ~iai'
oorly" Poorlybu!Itsttu
n welt bull. ordinaN a • r of eeoao9Y and ""`eras ~-^U sr u r
I to moderate i
structures:c oet)a"'n
on d ti ctures.
au Oregon
built oc desi9
~eine,yoodward CiYde Federa. yervices.
5aurces: URS
17
Shy Quakeep 3 Pod
Of St' i
llbeheldlaW. .
jan~
ltd was raised In
'City. He served
,ke was a police- N' Coics~ntued frvm Page Cl from the fault thai have thicker;
:r City Police De= :more consolidated soils still would .
,blo County. Cal- stmchue is: going to respond in air aexperience;;stmng shaking and
Iadeputy sheriff ' earthquake..~but.:.provide people
anty for about 19 with a general assessment of the rnage,
. =
titement in 1989. damage they can expect in certain . ,Scientists used ".peak horizontal.
he founded the types of ea:,F.• rthgtraloes . a
o y:cceleratio " .expressed in
y Amateur Radi a force
a ni ice. In 1978, he State geologist John D. Beuheu; pe6nt of the force. of gravity,'to
axton: ; said he hopes the public, engi-, measure the -ode-tic=side move- .
:lude his wife; nets, emergency managers and- went bf the ground. The higher the
r C. Miceli, Lois 1. land-use planners will use the ''acceleration, the more intense the
:n R. Story; step- maps to reduce earthquake haz- shaking. According to the map; the
ii Ann Dinges; ands Rhone; broth- peak acceleration in the West Hills
-M
1larty; sister, Dar- Scientists have identified three could be'100 PeTO t , the , l force ; of
randchiidren; and faults beneath Portland in recent ;gtavity;'which.would mean severe
which loose--objects
children His son, 'years: the East ` Bank Fault, the ceshamladrrbe fi "W"
rranvn into the sir jThe.
H94. Portland - tiilis Fault and the Oat-'
is by cremation.' field Fault The faults, which •run maps.translate the peak accelera-
Sgests remem patnllel to one another, are about' tion:,into the Modified _-MercaUi
nerican Diabetes lr/a mIIes apart - • ` - Sale, which indicates the intensity
gements were by of the
Bowker & Waud. sThe East Bank Fault on Port-
tag
land's east side underlies Central The' Portland area has been hit
Wr Catholic and Benson high schools, with six earthquakes of magnitude
ve will be at 10 11oyd Center, the Oregon Conven- .'S or greater in its 150-year history.'
n. 2fx 2000,' In lion Center,' the Rose Garden are; The most regent quabes'to cause
"uneral Home na, Mocks Bottom and the Unhw- age in Portland weie'a iagni=
h., for Lewis sityofPordand imttide 55 quake in 1962:'and the
died Jan 21 at The 'Portland Hills Fault runs magnitude 5.6 Scotts 'Mills quake .
bom . Oct. 5, from dw northern edge of Forest ' in 1993.
Ohio. During Park, goes along the foot-of P
ved in the.U.S. • land's West Hills and beneath Port- ; e `geology agency wiIl release:
was an-office ` 'land State University, crosses the ~on,g:Wednesday 28 eacthqualae ,
,n do Dayton, Willamette'River and heads south- hazard maps tliat'Cover:.48 'corn=
retirement in east to Milwaukee. munities. Previous maps; - which
W to Vancou- show the potential haiards from
rried Gertrude The third fault tuns west of Sky- quake-caused landslides; jic u - .
I in 1987. line Road from Sylvan HUI to Ger-;r: lion ..and .'grg.tIM-shaking, have
his daughters, mantown Road ' through Bonny been Teased for the Portland area i
stepdaughter, ~ol~• and nine coastal communities. The
{ William; five The map* 1 s . the quake- nw. ~cover ; &nuhunitied
,19 great- scenario on the Portland Hills Fault from to Roseburg
five great-1 '
Indicates ..,that violent • shaking
in Evergreen would occur throughout the West y
,metery. The Hills, with buildings sustaining Yore can reach Richard L HiU at
nbrances to Considerable damage. Downtown 503-221-8238 or by a-mail at'rfch-
ofaregon. Portland and other areas away ardhlU@neu s.oregonlamci om:
f