City Council Packet - 05/06/2008
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SWHall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
May 6, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
I:\Ofs\Don na's\Ccpktl
I.
Phone: 503.639.4171 9 Fax: 503.684.7297 , . www.tigard-or.gov 9 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
City of Tigard
Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: May 6, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
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. Citizen Communication
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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410
(voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by
calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
CABLE VIEWERS: This City Council meeting will be taped by TVCTV; however, this special meeting will not be
shown live. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 3:00 p.m.
Friday 10:00 P.M. Monday 6:00 a.m.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 3
City of Tigard
~1.
WgaTigard Special Meeting - Agenda
~ p
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: May 6, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
6:301'M
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 1'M
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSION - GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
a. Staff Report - Community Development Department
b. Council Discussion
Note: Public comment ign up sheets will be available for members of the public who would like to offer input to the City
Council.
7:35 PM
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSION - URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF
GOAL 2)
a. Staff Report - Community Development Department
b. Council Discussion
Note: Public comment sign up sheets will be available for members of the public who would like to offer input to the City
Council.
8:35 PM
4. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION TOPICS:
• Ethics Law Changes
• Urbanization Forum
• Barrows Road at Summer Creek
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 3
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session
is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All
discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose
any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
9:15 I'M
6. ADJOURNMENT
1:\ADM\Cathy\CCA\2008\080506 spccial.doc
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 6, 2008
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 3
TIGARD (;l 1 )7 COUN('11,
NSPECIAI \IE'J-- INCr
6:30 P..ti1.
MAY 6 2u0
TIGARD CITY HALL
1~3125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD OR,.97223.:
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008
Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Please forward to:
❑ Newsroom, The Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419.
Deputy City ecorder
Date: V A 29
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
TIGARD
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
In the Matter of the Notification of the May 6, 2008 Special Meeting of the City Council
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Ti )
I, , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or
affirmation), depose and say:
That I posted in
➢ Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
➢ Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
➢ Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
A copy of said Notification of the Special Meeting of the Tigard City Council on May 6, 2008 and
a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of
2008. '-D~ YA
Signature of Person w o Performed Notifica on
Subscribed and sworn (op Frf-fivtned) before me this a$ day of 41o n , 2008. / W'0"
OFFICIAL SEAL 6h~
JILL M BYARS Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSi('N NO. 381793
MY COMMISSIU 11EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008
TIGARD>CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING,
6:30 P Iv-
MAY 6.2008"
1
TIGARD CITY HALL
iM25,SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD ORy97223 k
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008
Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Please forward to:
❑ Newsroom, The Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419.
Deputy City ecorder ,q
Date: /I V A29
v
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
City Council
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Notification
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008,
Special Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, a- ra i A Kv'~ae~- , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or
affirmation), depose and say:
That I notified the following people/organizations by fax :
Newsroom, The Oregonian
Newsroom, Tigard Times
and the following people/organizations by e-mail:
Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
A copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the a
day of dj?,d,4 , 20y,9.
e:: ~ 2 d4 e4
Signature of Person who Performed N fication
Subscribed and sworn before me this a7 day of r-1 20-121.
OFFICIAL SERI.
JILL M BYARS Signature of Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 381793
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14,2W8
CITY COUNCIL
T1 G
`SPECIAL- MEETING ■
■
6:30 P.M.„
:MAY'6, 2008,
'TIGARD CITY HAI L - 1
13125 SW HALL BLVD. .
TIGARD OR 97223
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008
Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Please forward to:
❑ Newsroom, The Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Carol Krager by calling 503-639-4171, ext. 2419. 01
Deputy City corder
Date: o
Post: Tigard City Hall
Tigard Permit Center
Tigard Public Library
Carol Kra er
From: Carol Krager
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:26 AM
To: 'Editor@theregalcourier.com'
Subject: Notice of Special Tigard City Council
Attachments: Carol Krager.vcf; May 6 2008 Special Meeting.pdf
Attached is a notice on the City Council Special Meeting for May 6, 2008.
City of Tigard
V Carol Krager
Deputy City Recorder !
I i 1.3125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR. 97223
(503) 718-2419
carolk@tigard-or. gov
1
04/28/2008 09:26 FAX 503 639 1471 CITY OF TIGARD Q001
xc TX REPORT
~cxc
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 0176
CONNECTION TEL 503 546 0724
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID TT NEWSROOM
ST. TIME 04/28 09:24
USAGE T 01'33
PGS. SENT 1
RESULT OK
ry 1
•i
1 ■
i
a
v -
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008
Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Please forward to:
❑ Newsroom, The Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
Fnr fiirhhPr i~Fnrmatinn r+~PacP r nntart I lPtllltcT C itrr RPrnrf~Pr C'arnl KYaUPY by r.allino- ~in3-(,x(_4171 P.irt. 741(.
04/28/2008 09:27 FAX 503 639 1471 CITY OF TIGARD IN01
TX REPORT
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 0177
CONNECTION TEL 503 968 6061
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID OREGONIAN
ST. TIME 04/28 09:26
USAGE T 00'41
PGS. SENT 1
RESULT OK
z:
~ s
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Tigard City Council will have before it on the May 6, 2008
Meeting Agenda the following item for consideration:
COMPREHENSNE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS -
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING &
URBAN FOREST (SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Please forward to:
❑ Newsroom, The Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
❑ Newsroom, The Oregonian (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
❑ Editor, The Regal Courier (editor@theregalcourier.com)
Agenda Item No. -3. e-
Meeting of QLjj 9 200~g
4 t
{
<a= City of Tigard
3
Tigard Business Meeting - Minutes
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB)
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA)
MEETING DATE /TIME: May 6, 2008/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR. 97223
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:31:58 PM
1.2 Roll Call:
Name Present Absent
Mayor Dirksen ✓
Councilor Buehner ✓
Councilor Sherwood ✓
Councilor Wilson ✓
Councilor Woodruff ✓
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
6:32:51 PM
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSION - GOAL 2: LAND. USE
PLANNING
Associate Planner Wyss presented the staff report. Highlights include:
• A City Council public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan section will be conducted
on June 3, 2008.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 24
IA ADM\ Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
• The process to develop the draft language was reviewed. Members of the community
were invited and encouraged to participate.
• The Planning Commission hosted the meetings during the discussions on how to draft
the language since the Commission has an important role in developing and
implementing the Cit}~s land use program.
• The Planning Commission public hearing was held on April 7, 2008. The proposed
language in Attachment 1 to the staff report is recommended to the City Council.
• Elements of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment were reviewed.
• Staff believes the language recommended by the Planning Commission provides a
sound legislative foundation upon which to implement, update or expand the Cit-/s land
use program
• The City's land use program plays an integral role in the community's quality of life and
the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch emphasized that the intent of this
chapter is to provide a sound legislative foundation for the Cit-ys land use program This
Comprehensive Plan section is intended to establish the basis by which the City changes and
amends important parts of its land use program such as the Comprehensive Plan maps, the
text, and the Comprehensive Plan itself. This chapter is important; we don't have a tool like
this in the current Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Dirksen reviewed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for members of the
audience and advised that the Plan is like a blueprint for the City and how we intend the City
to look. The Plan establishes the basic policies and goals within each chapter. The section
under review tonight is land use planning. The City determined that the Comprehensive
Plan needed to be reviewed in a general way rather than being modified as needed. For the
last two years the chapters of the Plan have been reviewed and now the language is being
drafted for the different chapters. As the City Council looks at this draft of the document,
this process provides an opportunity to ask questions of staff, make possible suggestions for
changes in wording, and also give citizens an opportunity to make comments on the draft
plan.
Council Questions:
Councilor Buehner noted that on Page 2-3, there is a reference to the anticipated growth of
a million people in the area. She said she recalled this was anticipated to occur within a 25-
year period (by 2030) and not 40 years as designated in the proposed language. She asked
staff to check on this information.
Councilor Wilson remembered that it was very difficult to make a zone change under the old
code. He asked if under Policy 15, AG (Page 2-6) if these are replacing the old criteria?
Associate Planner Wyss confirmed that the intent was to replace the old locational criteria
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
contained at the back of the old Comprehensive Plan language. Councilor Wilson said that
this was good as it is more flexible.
Councilor Woodruff noted it was encouraging that no one spoke against the proposed
wording at the Planning Commission hearing and that the Planning Commission approved it
unanimously.
Mayor Dirksen commended the staff and citizen Policy Interest Teams who looked at this
section with a new perspective. He said he was pleased with the collaboration and
coordination that went into putting this draft together.
Mayor Dirksen, and Councilors Sherwood and Buehner noted they appreciated the huge
effort it took to complete the draft as presented.
There was no public comment.
Mayor Dirksen noted there will be a hearing on June 3, 2008, providing another opportunity
for public comment.
6:43:53 PM
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP DISCUSSION - URBAN FOREST
(SUBSECTION OF GOAL 2)
Associate Planner Floyd presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in City
Recorder's office. Also available during the presentation of this item was Assistant
Community Development Director Bunch and Associate Planner/Arborist Prager.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a sound legislative basis in the Comprehensive
Plan for future tree regulations and programs and is a subsection of the land use chapter.
This chapter fulfills Task 1 of Council Resolution No. 07-30 that directs the Tree Board and
Planning Commission with the development of a Comprehensive Plan pertaining to tree
stewardship and the contribution of trees to Tigard's quality of life.
Associate Planner Floyd reported he received a communication from Councilor Woodruff
asking for clarification of a few points. His response was distributed to the City Council in a
May 6, 2008, memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the City Recorder's office.
Staff has been made aware that several Councilors feel that they are faced with two
competing recommendations: one from the Tree Board and one from the Planning
Commission. Associate Planner Floyd clarified that there are no competing
recommendations. There are members of the public who feel that the final product of what
emerged from the Planning Commission is not the will or the desire of the Tree Board-,
however, Associate Planner Floyd emphasized that the Tree Board and the Planning
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\C0v1\2008\080506 final.doc
Commission have worked closely over the past year and one-half. Associate Planner Floyd
presented history of the work that went into this chapter:
• The Tree Board held more than 25 meetings in the last year and a half on this matter,
beginning in early 2007. Meetings were consensus based.
• Members of the public attended including citizens and the Homebuilders. They were
invited to sit at the table. Concepts and language were talked about and deliberated
upon. The Tree Board made the extra effort to accommodate a broad diversity of
viewpoints. For those members of the public who did not attend, the Tree Board tried
to include the results of the 2006 and 2007 public attitude surveys. These surveys
indicated that the people of Tigard feel strongly about the protection of trees.
• Once the language was becoming more finalized, the Tree Board held two workshops
with the Planning Commission. The first one was in October 2007. The Tree Board
and Planning Commission had a conversation; the Planning Commission gave feedback
to the Tree Board. The Tree Board worked on the draft for a few months and tried to
respond to the Planning Commission's views. In March 2008, the Tree Board and
Planning Commission met again. Following that workshop, there were two public
hearings on the matter. The latest hearing was April 21, 2008, which was quite lengthy
and considerable public comment was taken. Associate Planner Floyd advised there
were members from the Tree Board present who could speak as to what occurred at the
hearing as well as Planning Commissioner Walsh who will be present.
The changes made to the document after the above process, are contained in Attachment 2
in the City Council packet for tonight. The changes are not lengthy and revolve around
three primary issues:
1. Regulation of trees both during development activity and outside development activity.
2. Mitigation.
3. Understory vegetation.
In terms of regulating tree removal during development vs. non-development activity, the
Tree Board recommended language that specified both: regulating tree removal during
construction and also regulating tree removal during normal occupancy as people use their
land as they see fit. There was a lot of concern as to how far the City really wanted to go at
this point in time without a much lengthier process of public inquiry and conversation. The
language was changed to be.non-specific. It doesn't specify one or the other; it just speaks
to minimizing tree removal. This leaves Council with a much broader range of actions in the
future. It doesn't prohibit or require the Council to go beyond development-related tree
removal. In terms of mitigation, a couple of changes are in the document: The
Homebuilders are very concerned about the existing mitigation structure. The Planning
Commission tried to accommodate their viewpoints by including language to consider the
financial impacts of mitigation.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard ~ 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCvI\2008\080506 final.doc
Associate Planner Floyd advised that in terms of understory vegetation, the Planning
Commission chose to remove that entirely from the document. This does not prohibit the
City from protecting plants adjacent to the trees that are important for their health, but it
doesn't specify them because the document should not try to micro-manage. The above
changes are documented in Attachment 2.
Associate Planner Floyd advised the final language presented to the Council in Attachment
1, establishes Tigard as a strong steward of trees and urban forest, but also leaves
considerable room to the Council as to how it might implement in terms of how far and
how intense. This flexibility is reflected in the following:
1. Minimization of impacts and tree removal; not an outright prohibition.
2. Flexible, incentive-based standards; the City has to "give a little bit" to ask property
owners to save trees on their property and to allow them to do so.
3. Define the mitigation broadly. The definition speaks to things beyond fee-based
mitigation, including conservation easements, land banks, replanting of new trees to
replace old ones. Allows the City to remove beyond a caliper-inch fee, which is the
current structure.
4. Ensuring the speedy removal of hazard trees. This was included because of the desire to
assure that if there is a tree out there that threatens persons or property that it is
removed quickly and promptly.
Councilor Buehner advised she was very interested in the hazardous tree issue. She raised
the issue when she was on the Planning Commission but not in the context of new
development, but in the context of existing development. The City now has no way to
address hazardous trees. Councilor Buehner said she does not see language that would
support allowing Code to be developed to address specifically requiring removal of
hazardous trees on private property in existing subdivisions. She referred to her own
neighborhood where there are six trees that she thinks are hazardous; three other trees have
fallen on her house.
6:5259 I'M
Associate Planner Floyd referred to Policy 2.3.4, which states:
The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to prevent and
resolve verified tree-related hazards in a timely manner.
Associate Planner Floyd advised he thinks the language is broad enough to allow us to
establish the programs to do that.
Mayor Dirksen commented that this, as a policy document, Policy 2.3.4 indicates there
would be encouragement to include Code language that would allow for hazardous
situations to be addressed. Councilor Buehner said she wanted to make sure that existing
development is also addressed. Most of the Comprehensive Plan language is focused on
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page S of 24 ~
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
new development. She said she understands this is a big concern, but there needs to be
methods to deal with problems in existing areas. There was discussion on whether this
could be addressed in the Code language. Councilor Buehner noted when she looked into
the Code language she was told that this should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Dirksen added that when the Council first started discussing revisions to this Chapter
in the Comprehensive Plan, the point was made that some of our tree protection code is in
the Development Code and other parts are in the Municipal Code and there was a need to
place these in one place to make sure there are no contradictions. He thinks the proposed
language represents the effort to do this and the Code modifications would address
Councilor Buehner's concern.
Councilor Wilson said he thinks the proposed language expresses the City's values without
being too extreme one way or another, it is balanced and well written.
Mayor Dirksen referred to Goal 2.2, Policy 10, which reads:
The City shall require, as appropriate, the use of trees and other vegetation as
buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
Mayor Dirksen asked if there was a particular reason why "as appropriate" was inserted into
the sentence. He said he thought it would read better if this section read as follows:
The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation as buffering
and screening between incompatible uses.
Associate Planner Floyd advised this change could be made as Mayor Dirksen suggested.
Mayor Dirksen noted that under Goal 2.3, Policy 2, it reads:
In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give
priority to the protection of existing trees and shall consider the financial impact of
mitigation.
Mayor Dirksen suggested the language was awkward and recommended the following
wording:
In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give
priority to the protection of existing trees taking into consideration the relative
financial impacts of mitigation alternatives.
Mayor Dirksen advised that after reading the Planning Commission minutes, he believes the
goal of this section is to give a developer an option to mitigate using financial impacts as a
justification or an acceptable criteria if mitigation alternatives are relatively equal.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 24
L\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Associate Planner Floyd agreed that the language proposed by Mayor Dirksen would be
consistent with the intent.
Mayor Dirksen then referred to Action Measure i. under 2.3, which reads:
Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to encourage
developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjustments necessary to preserve
trees and natural open space in a manner that exceeds the requirements of the
Development Code.
Mayor Dirksen questioned whether there could be a requirement to exceed the
Development Code requirements.
Associate Planner Floyd responded that the above language was intended to be linked to
incentives; however, he said staff would review to propose wording for clarification. Mayor
Dirksen suggested replacing the word "exceeds" with the word "optimizes." As now
written, the developer might think the City was asking him/her to exceed the law. Associate
Planner Floyd said the intent of the language is to enable to exceed the requirements if they
want rather than abide by a strict application of development requirements. The intent is to
push the Code to be more flexible while still protecting the health, safety, and welfare.
Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said that referring to the Development
Code in this section is confusing. He suggested the last line read:
optimizes tree preservation or protection.
Mayor Dirksen agreed this would be a better way to phrase.
7:02:'6 PM
Councilor Wilson questioned the following wording:
Develop and maintain as part of the City's GIS and permit system a publicly
accessible inventory of tree plantings, permitted removals, and the state of the City's
urban forest.
Councilor Wilson asked if the above language was suggesting that as each development
comes forward, we put the landscape plan on the GIS system. Associate Planner Floyd said
yes, and this would also be beneficial because people might have trees that were planted at
the time of development, which are obligated to remain as mitigation trees. This would
enable people to better understand the landscape requirements. Councilor Wilson said he
thought this was an interesting idea, but wondered if some people might have an issue with
this, particularly in residential areas.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SWIM Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 7 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Councilor Buchner noted this addresses a concern she raised a couple of years ago with the
Tree Board regarding invasive species. We are getting more directives from the State
regarding invasive species. She said it appears the focus of the language is on new
development and not providing vehicles for the City to address the issue in the context of
existing development where there are problems with invasive species proliferating. She
strongly supports the language, but she would like to make sure there is flexibility to add
Code language to require property owners to address what the State has asked to be
addressed; i.e., invasive species. Councilor Buehner referred to the staff report, Attachment
2, and the discussion of invasive species (Page 5) and said this was very nice language, but
she wanted to make sure this was tied in appropriately so there is flexibility between the
Development Code and the Municipal Code.
Associate Planner Floyd advised he could bring back a better discussion of the above
concerns at next week's hearing. He referred to the following polices:
Goal 2.2, Policies 8 & 9
Goal 2.3, Policy 7
The above three policies directly or indirectly speaks to the concerns of invasive species. In
addition, there are four action measures. Councilor Buehner said she wanted to make sure
there was no confusion created between the two types of Codes. Mayor Dirksen referenced
a list of approved trees. Councilor Wilson raised a concern that he would not want this to
be to "heavy handed." He said he thinks it would be fine to encourage things, but not to
mandate them. Councilor Wilson said he was also concerned about the definition of
invasive species. He said he downloaded a definition from the National Invasive Species
Council; there is grey area. It is not just the fact that a particular plant self-seeds but it also
produces harm to the environment, people or economics. Councilor Wilson said that
people are sometimes too quick to blacklist certain plants simply because they self-seed. He
submitted the definition to staff for their use and to make sure as the City considers this
section, that "we don't get too heavy handed." Councilor Buehner said she wanted provide
the discretion to address certain weeds that will take over and as we clean up our new open
spaces, they are often covered with these and it takes years to get them out. Mayor Dirksen
agreed there is a difference between plants that are invasive to the point where they are truly
harmful to the environment and others that are considered invasive only because they are
not native. Councilor Buehner added there are two different standards according to the
State. Mayor Dirksen said that he would support a language to say "discourage" rather than
"prohibit" since it gives the City flexibility to challenge any usage but allows that there may
be justification.
Councilor Wilson referred to Action Measure vii On Page 2-16 and noted he agreed with the
justification that infers we don't want to waste water, but said why would the City care if an
owner wants a high-maintenance plant? Why should that be a public value? We ought to
give people the freedom of choice. Councilor Buchner countered that the City does not
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 24
1:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.da:
currently really have a Code vehicle to address the issue when a neighbor allows invasive
plants to encroach on another's property. Councilor Wilson said he works with
Development Codes from a variety of communities and gave the example of a Code that
mandates native only species and at the same requires an evergreen hedge in a parking lot for
screening. There is no "native evergreen hedge." Councilor Buehner clarified that this was
not what she's was advocating. Councilor Wilson reiterated he was saying that this should
not be too heavy handed; let's allow the professionals to do their job.
Mayor Dirksen asked if Action Measure vii on Page 2-16 would apply to development as
well as vegetation planted by the City on City-owned properties. Associate Planner Floyd
said this was correct. Mayor Dirksen said then for that reason, it would be appropriate to
include the wording "low maintenance." He went on to say the language also provides to
"encourage and promote" low maintenance, then this would mean that if a developer
proposes a high-maintenance plant staff could point this out and thereby encourage a low
maintenance choice.
Mayor Dirksen called for public comment.
Z:I2:27 PM
Planning Commissioner (Vice President)/Tree Board Liaison Walsh advised he has been an
active participant in the development of the goals, policies and action measures under the
review of the City Council tonight. His comments included the following:
• In 2005, the Tree Board brought recommendations to the Planning Commission to
make changes to the existing Development Code in the landscaping and tree removal
sections. At that time the Planning Commission told the Tree Board the timing wasn't
right and asked for the Tree Board to hold these recommendations because of the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan update process. This was a difficult time period and
some members on the Tree Board resigned because of the Planning Commission's
decision to hold off on the Board's recommendation. With the help of staff, the Tree
Board took on the task to proceed with development of goals, policies, and action
measures. The City Council in May 2007 adopted a resolution which gave the Tree
Board anew charge. The Board has "run with it." They met monthly and then more
frequently to take on the task of developing the material before the City Council.
• A lot of work has been put into the proposed language as they have held meetings as a
Board, with Policy Interest Teams, the public, and representatives from the
Homebuilders Association (development community). The Board has also received
written input, which has been built into the draft language.
• The Tree Board came back to the Planning Commission several times to review the
product as it was under development. The Planning Commission gave additional
feedback and took further input.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 24
I:\ADM\Cath}\CCM\2008\080306 final.doc
• A public hearing was conducted on April 7, which was continued to April 21 for a
lengthy hearing. This issue has had the most passion, input and discussion of all the
Comprehensive Plan sections.
• This section has not been treated lightly. The Tree Board and Planning Comnssion
have tried to give the City Council a platform by keeping the package at a high level and
leave discretion for further Code development with discretion and direction from the
City Council.
• The overall goals were:
o To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest and maximize the
economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees.
o To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed
urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living
legacy for future generations.
• Major points considered by the Planning Commission/Tree Board as they reviewed the
goals included:
o Discussion of what was meant by a diverse urban forest, which led into the
urban forestry management plan, which is one of the policies.
o Attention was paid to citizen surveys, which made it clear that having trees
around is important to the citizens of Tigard while achieving a balance. Tigard is
mostly built-out. Given density regulations and the difficulty of fitting a home
into an infill lot with trees, is a difficult task. The Homebuilders have attested to
this difficulty and the balance/compromise by the Tree Board and Planning
Commission was to address this difficulty. He noted the word "flexibility" is
throughout in some of the few tools that the Planning Commission has.
o It was important to the Planning Commission members to create a living legacy
of trees for the future. Yes, we would like to preserve what is here, but also as
we plant and plant sensibly, that we want to have ones that we will be proud of
in the future.
7.1.9:49 1'M
• Other areas of concern during discussion by the Planning Commission included:
o Development of the urban forest master plan - Initially that was "buried into an
action measure and rightly so, it was raised up to a policy." The City Council in
its May 2007 resolution was asking for a tree stewardship and urban forest
enhancement program. This has now become the urban forest master plan.
o Mitigation was a significant issue. The representative from the development
community spoke largely of mitigation. The development community was
concerned that the packet they received did not address mitigation costs and
protocol. Some of their legitimate concerns were really not subjects for the Tree
Board; they were subjects for the Planning Commission. When they came to the
Planning Commission, some of it was too detailed for this level of discussion for
Comprehensive Plan changes. But, what the Planning Commission did build in
language in Policy 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 and added Policy 2.3.2 to address the fairness
of mitigation. The comments the Planning Commission heard was that Tigard's
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 24 ^
L\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
mitigation fee structure is too expensive and unfair. The Planning Commission
could not address this issue at this level, but it is certainly a subject for another
day and the Planning Commission feels it should be reviewed. The Planning
Commission listened to the Homebuilders and built in several places through the
language that we will bind ourselves to address it in the future.
o Understory and associated vegetation - referring to the language in the
resolution adopted by the City Council last May, the Planning Commission
found this was difficult to define. Their focus was on trees.
o Regulation of tree removal after development - The Tree Board recommended
policy language that all tree removal during development and subsequent
occupancy minimizes impacts on tree cover. That language was in the draft that
came to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission majority was not
in favor of this; the majority was not in favor of extending tree removal
regulation to non-development, private land. Therefore, the language was
changed as presented tonight: "The City shall develop and implement standards
and procedures designed to minimize reduction of existing tree cover." It was
clear that the Planning Commission did not want to see this in the Development
Code, but acknowledged the City Council could address this in the Tigard
Municipal Code as the language is very flexible.
o Protection of existing trees during development - Several policies were
recommended to require action to strengthen the protection of existing trees
during development. There was a lot of discussion by the Tree Board to extend
this to the tree root system; language to address this was attempted to be worked
in.
o Flexibility in site design - The policy included encouragement in site design
through all aspects of development review to preserve existing trees and assure
new trees will thrive. The Planned Development Code is the only tool now
available and it is not strong enough to allow flexibility and this would be worthy
of future discussion.
• In summary, the packet before the City Council is the product of a year and a half of
work by the Tree Board. They should be commended for their work This is a high-
level goal and policy document; it specifically does not get into too many details. There
were many nights where they got far into the detail and then they tried to raise it back
up. It provides a platform for the City Council to act in the future. The details will be
worked out in the Code Development process and that will be a public process and
involve a lot of public input. The packet received by the City Council tonight has
received a lot of public input. It has been revised many times to incorporate that input.
It has had extensive Planning Commission input and modification. The Planning
Commission passed the packet unanimously; it meets the charge that the City Council
gave to the Tree Board in May 2007. The revisions by the Planning Commission are
supported bythe Tree Board. Commissioner Walsh recommends that you pass this
packet with any modifications the City Council might make although he would prefer the
City Council would accept it as presented.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
Qtyof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 11 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
7:2.6:16 PN:I
• Councilor Buehner congratulated the Tree Board, Planning Commission, and staff for
their work. She noted she had been involved in the early stages of this project and she
believes the proposal represents a compromise that will work to be of benefit to the
entire system.
PNI
• Councilor Sherwood commented that one of the things about trees in our community is
that people are very passionate about the topic. She noted that several vocal people have
come to the City Council at Fifth Tuesday meetings. Her comment was that to get
through all of this, we need to compromise. She said she was glad to see the proposal
and that it represents a compromise between the Tree Board and the Planning
Commission.
7:27:46 PM
• Councilor Woodruff commented that there has been some public perception that the
Planning Commission and Tree Board recommendations are at odds. Commissioner
Walsh advised that this perception was brought to his attention just today. He said he
has not sensed this, but was hoping that the Tree Board Chair Janet Gillis would speak
to this. He said he thought they had worked out a healthy compromise. There were two
workshops and two lengthy hearings with a lot of "back and forth" between the two
groups. It is his belief that there is some common ground.
7:28:52 PM
• Councilor Woodruff referred to the historical photographs on display in Town Hall
which illustrates there are many more trees now in Tigard than we used to have. Most
people have the perception that we have less trees and this is not the case.
7:29:30 P:M
• Councilor Wilson referred to the quote, "the devil is in the details and the details are yet to
come" and noted that he looked forward to the next phase when we actually write the
Development Code and hopes that a good compromise can be worked out then as well.
7:30:051'1x1
• Tree Board Chair Gillis addressed the City Council. She advised that this was definitely a
compromise document from the start and spoke of the numerous opinions offered
throughout, working with the Planning Commission and direction from the City Council.
A lot of energy has gone into the document. It is intended to be a "broad document" as it
outlines goals, policies and action measures. She agreed with Councilor Wilson's
observation that the "devil will be in the details." She noted it was good to have had input
from the community, Planning Commission, and the members of City Council to know
what is important to each representative organization so it is known which details there will
be issues for support and development. She noted her appreciation of staff's assistance
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard or.gov Page 12 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCNI\2008\080506 final.doc
throughout the process. She said the Tree Board is aware that mitigation is a "huge issue"
and said she feels it should not be addressed as a goal or policy. This will need to be
addressed in the Code.
7:32:{0 PM
Chair Gillis noted that preservation of trees was a direction given to the Tree Board by the
City Council and it was also listed as important by citizens from survey results. She said she
thinks this is a sound document incorporating the comments of many and it is a good
document from which to work to get to the details.
7:33:12 PM
Chair Gillis reported on the process as it was worked through by the Tree Board and
Planning Commission. At the April 7 joint meeting there were changes suggested, the Tree
Board reviewed those changes and determined the changes they agreed with and those that
they didn't. They returned to the Planning Commission with their recommendations and
reached a good compromise on the entire document. The Planning Commission focused
on the issues that came up and were able to resolve.
7:35:26 PM
Mayor Dirksen commented that when you have two groups such as the Planning
Commission and the Tree Board that if both groups had agreed on everything, then you'd
have to ask whether we needed both of them He said he thinks some of that dichotomy
was done on purpose so that we would get different points of view to be discussed and for
a compromise to be reached.
7:35:59 PM
Councilor Woodruff said he was relieved to hear that the compromise that was reached was
acceptable to both the Tree Board and Planning Commission. Chair Gillis confirmed that
this was the case.
7:36:42 PM
Councilor Wilson added that the fact that there were conflicts is a testament to the fact that
there are real world conflicts outside of these two groups that need to be resolved. We
have development that has to happen and trees that should be preserved - that is a real
conflict and by working it out in the groups, then it is hoped that the result will be
something that is effective.
7:37:14 PM
Mayor Dirksen noted that no one had signed up to speak on the sign-in sheet for this
agenda item He asked if there was anyone present who did not sign up, but would like to
make comment on the proposed language for the Comprehensive Plan regarding the urban
forest.
7:37:35 PSI
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 13 of 24
l:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
• Alan DeHarpport, 5740 SW Arrow Wood Lane, Portland, OR 97225 advised he was
representing the Homebuilders this evening. He said there have been issues they raised
during the Tree Board meetings, working with Associate Planner Floyd, and with the
Planning Commission during the work sessions/public hearings. Mr. DeHarpport
distributed a letter dated May 6, 2008 to the City Council; a copy of this letter is on file in
the City Recorder's office.
He said there were several key issues with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. These issues can be summed up in four areas:
1. Property values
2. Tree mitigation costs
3. Builder/developer engagement during the public process
4. Application of the Comprehensive Plan amendment on the upcoming tree code
revisions.
7:38:33 PM
Property values are currently decreased significantly under the application of the tree code.
The high cost of mitigation creates a loss to the property owners that the Homebuilders
purchase the property from because they have to offset the cost of the tree mitigation to
decrease the value of their property. Mr. DeHarpport said they feel the builder/developer
stakeholders have not been properly engaged in the process since the Tree Board was
placed in charge of the policy development. He said he and others have had a chance to
offer comments to the Planning Commission and Tree Board, but it would have been far
better to form an advisory group that included diversity and placed builders and developers
on equal footing with the members of the Tree Board as opposed to just being ancillary.
7:39:17 PM
HBA believes that passing the current language included in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment increases the potential for the punitive aspects of tree mitigation in the existing
Tree Code for City. He said they recognize that this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and that the details and the mitigation fees will be specifically addressed at a later date.
However, they also find that it is imperative that the Comprehensive Plan amendment
addresses these concerns in writing. They do not feel that the current document adequately
addresses these issues.
Z-.-39:53 PM
Mr. Mr. DeHarpport read portions of his letter that was distributed to the City Council.
Mr. DeHarpport distributed two examples labeled Parcels A and B to illustrate his points
regarding the extra costs to develop parcels with and without trees. To mitigate the
property that has trees would cost $700,000 and this amount would come off the top of the
property value.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
Gtv of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 14 of 24
L\AllM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.do
After reading the text of his letter, Mr. DeHarpport said there is a concern by the
Homebuilders that there is a vocal minority of people who attend Planning Commission
and City Council hearings, who do not represent the overall population of the City, and he
said he hoped the City Council would strongly consider the HBA recommendations.
Councilor Sherwood asked if Mr. DeHarpport had made these requests of the Planning
Commission. Mr. DeHarpport said they started with Associate Planner Floyd last year
making these recommendations which were transmitted to the Tree Board and these were
also brought up to the Planning Commission at the work session and the hearing. In
response to a question from Councilor Sherwood, Mr. DeHarpport advised that none of
these recommendations were adopted by the Planning Commission.
Councilor Buehner said she was interested to hear Mr. DeHarpport's comments regarding
involvement of his industry. She said she was a real estate attorney who represents
developers. She said she personally contacted at least 10 members of the development
community in this area attempting to get them involved in this process early on. She said
she was unable to get anyone but one developer to even consider sitting on a committee
and being involved in this process. She said it concerns her now upon hearing Mr.
DeHarpport say there should have been a special committee when the developers are not
willing to be part of the process from the beginning. While she said she did not speak to
Mr. DeHarpport personally, she said she thinks he needs to understand that there was
outreach to the community. She said she does not like the mitigation system set up the way
it is now and would like to see it changed. We need to have the maximum amount of
flexibility in the Code. She reiterated she was concerned about "coming in at the 11th hour
and disparaging the process because the development community chose not to be
involved." She added that she thought Mr. DeHarpport needed to know that there was
outreach. She said she was "sorry they didn't get involved early on and we might have had
less upset now."
7:57:15 P31
Mr. DeHarpport responded to Councilor Buehner that there has been some level of
involvement; however, since he was not a Tigard citizen, he could not serve on the Tree
Board. He agreed there is some culpability on behalf of the developer community for not
finding an individual(s) to sit on the Tree Board and agreed with Councilor Buehner on
that. He said it was also frustrating from their perspective to go through process, send e-
mails, provide the language and then be largely ignored. He said that "we are the ones who
actually implement the Tree Code. We go to the property owners and explain to them, `I'm
sorry Mr. and Mrs. Jones your property is worth... (for example) $700,00 less because the
City of Tigard is going mandate that we pay mitigation fees. That's also very frustrating."
7:58:12 PM
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 wwww.tigard-or.gov Page 1 S of N
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Councilor Buehner said she understands Mr. DeHarpport's frustration but the mitigation is
a Code issue, it is not in the Comprehensive Plan. What we have included in the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation is that we need to look at mitigation. We all know
there's a problem that needs to be addressed, but you do not address mitigation in the
Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan looks at the big picture. She said
she is concerned about the overall ability to develop. She said she worked on the PD
committee and a tremendous amount of attention was placed on trying to make it available
on development. She said, "I really need to push back just a little bit and give you some
perspective that you haven't been ignored; there's been a lot of attention paid to that
perspective over the last few years."
7:~9:38 P-M
Mr. DeHarpport said that he would appreciate it if the City Council would take a chance to
at least consider what they have to offer for the final language since that is what will be
voted on in the future.
7:59:55 PM
Councilor Wilson said he was actually relieved that there is a lot "in it" that you don't like
because last Tuesday night we heard from a well-known tree activist that our committees
completely caved in to your demands. It appears that neither party is satisfied.
8:0:,:12 PM
Mr. DeHarpport acknowledged that they understand this is the whole point of
compromise. However, they feel the language certainly doesn't address that properties
should be allowed to develop. There is no comment on it whatsoever.
8:00:31 Pn1
Mayor Dirksen noted that at one point this process (early on), we had a lot of turnover
on the Tree Board and we put out the call for new members. He said he was hoping
people would apply so that there could be broad base of representation on the Tree
Board. This didn't happen. Toward the end, when making the decisions about who to
place on the Tree Board, it was known the Tree Board representatives wouldn't
necessarily present a "balanced" view. With regard to maintaining a balanced view,
Mayor Dirksen said, "That's our job and to some extent, the Planning Commission's job.
In fact in this case, I think the Planning Comrnission really did the heavy lifting in taking
that perspective - and that was a perspective that we wanted to hear on this. It didn't
necessarily mean it was going to be the last word, but it was the word we wanted to hear.
But, then it would be the job of the City as whole to take that perspective and balance it
against other things to come up with what we need to come up with. I think at the level
specificity that we are talking about in the document, particularly, your concerns about
mitigation, I see that in this document come up again and again - this issue of mitigation.
It's enough so I know it's brought it up to a higher level of interest on my own part.
Councilor Wilson has said that he believes that for the most part our existing tree codes.
And, the proof is that if you look at developments that have been done recently, they
look pretty balanced... But I am concerned our tree mitigation process and I don't think
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 16 of 24
1:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
that it works as well as it should. The proof of that to me is that it is very expensive to
developers and we still don't get the outcome that we want, so it doesn't work on either
end. As we look at Code coming out of this document, that's something that we need to
address and find a new way to do that. I think the Council members, in general, agree
that needs to be addressed and see if we can come up with a better way to deal with the
idea of tree mitigation, so that it isn't overly onerous to developers or property owners.
But, at the same time achieves the goal that we all want."
8:03:12 PM
Mr. DeHarpport referred to the PD Type 3 process. They don't allow those development
standards to be implemented in a Type 2 process - this would make a huge difference. He
concluded by saying their concerns have been in large part, not necessarily ignored, but
dismissed.
8:03:50 PM
Councilor Buehner said that Mr. DeHarpport should encourage_ business owners and
developers to get involved. "We want them on the Planning Commission; we want them
on the Tree Board. And, it is really, really hard to get business owners to take the time."
Mr. DeHarpport said, "I couldn't agree more. You're right, it's a frustrating... on our end,
too... "
8:04:21 PM
Mr. Bill McMonagle testified. He said he is a property owner and a Tigard businessman.
His business address is 8740 SW Scoffins Street, Tigard, OR He spoke to the question of
propriety of the existing tree code and what modifications might come about from it. It
seemed to him that what is happening is that "we" are creating a class of people who own
property with trees and penalizing them. He said he thinks this is illegal, if not
unconstitutional. He reviewed how one property owner with treeless property would get
full value for his property while the person who has treed property would be penalized
because of excessive costs of mitigation. From the way the goals and policies are written, it
appears that that trees "would trump density." He added that with regard to the impacts to
the property owner with trees, the word "onerous" doesn't quite cover it. He said it seems
to him that the City ought to inventory all of the balance of the developable property,
which isn't all that much within the urban growth boundary right now, and send out
notifications and ask the question, "Would you mind if we penalize your property so that
can save some of your trees... during the development process." He said emotions run very
high when people start getting concerned about what government is going to do to their
land, whether it be a private lot and cutting down a tree in the back yard or whether it be a
piece of land that might still have development potential.
Mr. McMonagle said he read the study and referred to some of the statements, i.e., " A
great percentage of the Tigard residents strongly agree with the preservation of trees."
When you read the statistics (Pages 2, 16, 17, 18, and 23) and look at the charts, you will see
what is in the statement and what are on those pages, is vastly different. He said it seems to
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 17 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
him the study covered many subjects but that a study specific to trees ought to be
questioned.
8:09:151':4.1
Mr. McMonagle said that it seems to him that with the topography, the density
requirements, and the infrastructure requirements that the best way to get trees back on the
property is to require, for certain zones, that certain numbers of trees be planted by each
builder who builds a home. The street trees are planted by the developer or the builder.
That way, "you'd get your tree canopy back, if there was a tree canopy there in the fast
place. The City could then come with a list of species of trees that they would encourage
people to plant rather than go through this heavy-handed mandated `big brother thing.
8:10:45 Piet
Councilor Wilson said he is a landscape architect and he also works in the development
community. He at times prepares tree preservation and landscape plans. As an example, he
said they built a baseball field at Sherwood High School where there had been an orchard.
Fortunately, Sherwood's Code exempts fruit and nut-bearing trees from their mitigation
requirements, but had they not done that, it would have been prohibitive. He noted there
were other trees on the site. If development is going to happen, it needs to be rational and
reasonable and we need to balance these competing objectives of development, which we
do intend to go forward and to the degree possible, retain valuable trees. These are difficult
things to reconcile and this will be done in the next round. He said he hoped that Mr.
McMonagle would continue to be involved.
8:12:30 PM
Mr. McMonagle said he thinks "it's relatively simple. You cut them down, you plant
something. You've got to cut them down to do the things that we have to do today." He
again referred to the property owner who has the trees as opposed the one who does not
have any and how regulations affect the property values.
8:14:06 PM
Mayor Dirksen said he thought of the concerns would be addressed at the "code writing
level."
Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the business meeting
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Buchner Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page I8 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Mayor Dirksen announced the Council would meet in Study Session and the public was
welcome to attend.
115:05 IN
4. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION TOPICS:
Track 1 and 2
• Barrows Road at Summer Creek
City Engineer Duenas presented information on Washington County's plans to close
Barrows Road at Summer Creek, just south of Scholls Ferry Road this year because of
the deteriorating condition of the bridge. A May 1, 2008, memorandum from City
Engineer Duenas to the City Council land City Manager Prosser was reviewed; a copy of
this memorandum is on file in the City Recorder's office.
l
Discussion by City Council included the following:
■ The closure will affect access to some properties.
■ The closure announcement was sudden.
■ Need to review options.
■ New development is occumng or is scheduled to occur in the area, which will
greatly increase traffic volumes.
■ Developers are trying to sell units in this area.
■ Impact in change in traffic patterns and the need for financial help from the
County and Beaverton to address these impacts at the intersection.
■ The new roundabout at the end of Barrows is making it difficult for traffic to
exit; it isn't working.
A meeting with Beaverton staff on this issue will occur on Thursday.
• Ethics Law Changes
Gty Manager Prosser reviewed some of the activity around the state as local elected
officials react and have issues to the recently enacted ethics law changes.
The new Ethics regulations were discussed by the Gty Council and the consensus of
the Council was to consider a resolution and prepare a letter to the Ethics
Commission outlining concerns and offering suggestions for reconsideration or
amending the reporting rules. Issuesi identified during the discussion included the
impacts on volunteerism in communities; impacts to family members; this is not just
a small town issue, it's an issue for cities of every size; and the requirement to report
quarterly.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard ( 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov
Page 19 of 24
L\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Council agreed that if others who are required to file the Statement of Economic
Interest would like to sign the letter then they would be welcomed to do so.
Track 4
• Urbanization Forum
City Manager Prosser reviewed the set up of the Washington County urbanization
forum, the representation and how the first meeting was conducted. Of the Each table
was given time for discussion to define the issues.
Urbanization issues were discussed including the following points:
■ Is there a different solution for existing unincorporated areas than for future
expansion of the urban growth boundary. Idillsboro's Mayor Hughes had
urged that no additional urban areas be allowed outside of cities.
■ Giving people a sense of place; this is more of an issue in some areas than in
others.
■ A complete community concept.
■ Deal with issues of vehicle rt~iles traveled to get to services; inability in some
areas for people to walk - no walking paths or parks and no way to fund.
■ Areas such as Aloha, Metzg r, Bull Mountain the West Slope - what happens
to these areas when the County's income starts to decline as these areas
continue to urbanize and the needs outpace the income to even provide basic
services.
■ Timing - There are short-term and long-term issues. There is a reluctance of
the people in the County to accept annexation or become a part of a city, this
would have to be overcome over time.
■ Mayor Dirksen noted repre sentatives are advocating Bull Mountain's updated .
comprehensive planning in their area, but the question seems to be who should
pay for it. Metro declined to pay for it and then the County was asked if it
would do this planning as part of the comprehensive planning for Areas 63 and
64.
• City Manager Prosser said he observed that the forum appears to be set up and
functioning as a city vs. unincorporated area discussion. One of the frustrations
is that the city residents are county residents and the County Commissioners
should also represent these interests. City residents pay County taxes. When
the County pays for the unincorporated areas for services, then money is being
taken out of cities and expended in the unincorporated area.
■ City Manager Prosser referred to a tax study done by the County about three
years ago, which the City thought was going to review subsidy issues. The
County narrowed this to where they only looked at direct County services.
They did not look at services) cities provide that unincorporated areas rely on.
This needs to be revisited with regard to a review of the whole scope.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503 639-4171 www.tigard or.gov Page 20 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
■ Assistant Community Development Director Bunch reported that Metro
Councilor Kathryn Harrington commented that a neutral party needs to look at
the issues of cross-subsidization to attempt to get to a common basis of
understanding about the numbers.
■ There is a political reality where there are 187,000 people in the unincorporated
area with 300,000 county residents in cities.
■ Mayor Dirksen submitted a letter to the forum facilitator about his opinions of
the issues; this did not get discussed. Mayor Dirksen said he had been under
the impression that everyone had seen the letter, apparently, many had not yet
seen it when the forum took place.
■ Councilor Buehner referred to an urban reserve meeting that took place on
May 5. Washington County Commissioner Strader commented that her
constituency preferred to live on larger lots, using the Garden Home area as the
example.
■ City Manager Prosser commented that Sherwood Mayor Mays and Tualatin
Councilor Barhyte noted their concerns about density. Commissioner Strader's
response was that the Garden Home area did not want the density. The
impression was that Commissioner Straeder's position is that density is a city
issue.
■ This is about all County residents; it's about the future of the entire County; it's
not about urban vs. unincorporated urban, vs. rural. It's about equity, the
future of the area in terms of strategies, and implementing 2040 vision.
■ Councilor Wilson said he wondered if we were asking the County to do
something that they cannot do. The people inside of cities have governments
to represent them. He said we could spend a lot of energy on this. Perhaps we
need to go to the State legislature for help. We need to decide what we want to
do and whether we have a reasonable chance of accomplishing it or get on with
our business. We have other things to do and this is a potential major
distraction.
■ Assistant Community Development Director Bunch advised that this is a
problem that the County cannot address by themselves. The best thing that
could come out of this is to admit there is a problem and then to seek help. It
has taken 50 years to arrive at this problem and it will take a strategic 50-year
plan to get out of it. We have to start.
■ Mayor Dirksen said he appreciated Councilor Wilson's comments. He does not
want the City or the City Council to get mired down in this and be distracted by
it. As issues arise, we need to address them to keep things from getting worse.
Mayor Dirksen said he was willing to take on more of this role. "We've got
other things to do - that need to be done within our City."
■ In Multnomah County, there are only 17,000 people in unincorporated areas
compared to 190,000 in Was hington County. Multnomah County decided to
quit providing urban services.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
Gtyof Tigard « 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 21 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
■ Councilor Sherwood noted Metro President Bragdon asked when are the
citizens of Tigard going "to get up in arms" to say they have had enough of
this.
■ Planning Commissioner Vermilyea said he has been talking to citizens in Tigard
recently and he has been struck by people's willingness to listen when presented
with issues. He said it seems that there is something that could be done at the
grass roots level to start educating and asking people to act upon that education.
This unincorporated urbanization issue is one comprised of money, resources,
and the problems that came up during the Bull Mountain annexation proposal.
Citizens have the power to change this and they need to know how they can
implement the change. He would expect there would be people who would be
interested to get involved.
■ Councilor Sherwood commented about the way this issue is presented in the
press portraying Tigard unfavorably.
■ Councilor Buehner referred to library service where City residents are paying
more for the same service than those in the unincorporated area.
■ Councilor Woodruff said that he didn't think there is anything that the City
could say that would convince people. He said that "it's got to be the County
either saying they aren't going to provide the services or it's going to be cost-
neutral to be in the County or, city."
■ Community Development Director Coffee commented that attitudes could
change if city people serve on the County Commission. Although during
discussion it was pointed out there are former mayors and council people
serving on the County Board of Commissioners. There is not a whole lot that
the County has been doing to help cities. The City will need to look elsewhere
for assistance. It behooves the City to pay attention to try to avoid creating
more urbanized areas that are not in cities.
■ Councilor Wilson noted the potential of damaging relationships with County
Commissioners and Metro Council. We have had assistance from them. He
asked why take a chance on damaging those relationships, when we really ought
to be going to other means such as the legislature or our own citizens to get
them informed on the issues. It's counterproductive if we aren't specific with
these officials and let them know what we want them to do.
■ Planning Commissioner Vermilyea asked if there was a legislative role in this.
City Manager Prosser responded that the legislative response has been 90
percent anti-city residents. 'Over the last two sessions, the legislature has
severely limited annexation tools. Salem is not a help right now. He suggested
the need to build a coalition: Washington County, Metro, and Multnomah
County.
■ Community Development Director Coffee commented on the evolution of
what the urbanization summit started out to be. At first, the summit was going
to be a one- or two-day session talking about how to deal with expected growth
in Washington County. Now it's a forum that will last up to 18 months with a
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 22 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
full-salaried facilitator at $200,000 a year. City Manager Prosser noted the cities
are paying 1/3 of this cost. ~Community Development Director Coffee said the
kick-off meeting is to find out what the purpose of the process is and what the
objectives are.
■ Councilor Wilson suggested that Tigard needs to talk to other cities about
participation. Mayor Dirksen noted other participants seemed to be hopeful
about the forum
■ City Manager Prosser reported that cities are paying 1/3 of the cost of the
forum, special districts 1/3, and the County is paying 1/3. The City's pro rata
share is estimated to be $15,000 - $20,000. Community Development Director
Coffee pointed out that citizens of cities are members of special districts and
also the County; therefore, city residents are paying a share of the costs being
contributed. from all three areas.
■ Assistant Community Development Director Bunch said the County should
realize that it needs the help of cities to resolve their service problems.
■ City Manager Prosser observed that there are County services that are crucial to
every resident of the County regardless of where you live: jails, health services,
social services, and juvenile justice. We all need to pay for this. But, if the
County creates these urban unincorporated areas, funding will be taken away
from the crucial services identified above.
■ Councilor Wilson noted there are only a limited number of alternatives. The
legislature can make it easier for cities to annex territory, the County can stop
offering urban services, the County could start charging for the services, or we
could withdraw from the County. But, what is the likelihood of any of those
happening?
■ Mayor Dirksen commented the urbanization forum might be a delaying tactic
to maintain the status quo. If this is the case and if something substantive
doesn't come out of the forum and cities don't walk away from the forum with
some kind of satisfaction, then cities might begin to take steps to resolve the
subsidization issues on their own. Areas to address might include the use of
libraries and parks.
■ Councilor Wilson commented that the issues between Tigard and
unincorporated areas are not over because services are still being provided to
them There were comments about water services; what the plans might be for
Areas 63 and 64; another incorporation effort on Bull Mountain; and potential
annexation proposals.
■ There was discussion on whether or not the City should do what it can to help
the Bull Mountain area to incorporate.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:47 p.m.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
j......,y_.r._..~.....~d...,......«.«.,. .r .Y":- r-. ;4.'+x;.. ttflW..!u_F N. a.:: _n`;~`.. !'x, ...c".=z.TM .1... _b.F.Y 5 .i. ...ti
Qtyof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 23 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCM\2008\080506 final.doc
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
Ma", ty of Tigard
Date:
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/LCRB MINUTES - MAY 6, 2008
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Page 24 of 24
I:\ADM\Cathy\CCv4\2008\080506 final.doc
MEMORANDUM
r
TO: City Council
Craig Prosser, City Manager 4110-p~
FROM: Agustin P. Duenas P.E., City Engineer
RE: Barrows Road Closure
DATE: May 1, 2008
Washington County is planning to close Barrows Road at Summer Creek (just south of Scholls Ferry
Road) this year. This closure is being prompted by the deteriorating condition of the bridge over
Suirulier Creek. A previous Memorandum dated 4/21/08 (attached) describes the details of the
closure. The purpose of this memo is to describe the anticipated impacts to the City of Tigard and
provide some options to consider regarding the closure described below:
BEAVERTON SIGNAL
REMOVAL
SCHOLLS
•
• FERRY
ROAD
BARROWS BARROWS
ROAD BRIDGE ROAD CLOSURE
CLOSURE TO VEHICLES
MURRAY BLVD
EXTENSION TIGARD N
BARROWS ROAD CLOSURE LOCATION
I
Traffic Volumes
Last year, traffic volumes on Barrows Road were approximately 8,000 vehicles per day. With the
opening of the Murray Boulevard extension, volumes on Barrows are now estimated at 5,000
vehicles per day. In a recent cowit, Washington County observed 524 vehicles during the afternoon
peak hour crossing the Summer. Creek Bridge on Barrows Road; 307 westbound and 217 eastbound.
Volumes are estimated at 250 eastbound and 150 westbound during the morning peak hour.
BEAVIiRTON
150 AM PEAK HOUR; a SCROLLS
® FERRY
OAD
307 PM PEAK HOUR
® BARROWS R
ROAD CLOSURE
TO VEHICLES
250 AM PEAK HOUR;
217 PM PEAK HOUR
HURRAY BLVD
N
I
I TIGARD
BARROWS ROAD CURRENT PEAK. HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Diverted Traffic
If Barrows Road is closed at this location, we estimate that 60% of the Barrows Road traffic would
use Murray Boulevard to Scholls Ferry Road, and 40% would use Walnut Street to 135`" Avenue to
Scholls Ferry Road. The Murray Blvd route is considerably shorter and often quicker. As driver
behavior and route choices are often unpredictable, there is always considerable uncertainty in
making estimates of this nature.
Based on this 60/40 split, die proposed closure of Barrows Road would be anticipated to result in
additional traffic on Walnut Street and 135`" Avenue. During die morning peak hour, this would be
100 vehicles eastbound/northbound and 60 vehicles southbound/westbound. In the afternoon
peak hour, this would be 87 vehicles eastbound/northbound and 123 vehicles
southbound/westbound, as shown on the diagram on the next page. This would increase traffic
volumes on Walnut Street approximately 20% increase traffic volumes on 135" Avenue
approximately 40% over current volumes.
i
1
i
BEAVERTON
90 AM SCHOLLS
184 PM FERRY
ROAD ,
BARROWS
- ROAD CLOSURE
TO VEHICLES
\ 150 AM 1
130 PM 135TH AVE
0
i
MURRAY BLVD 60 AM
N
123 PM ,
t
m
100 AM
WALNUT ST 87 PM TIGARD
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC VOLUME ADDED TO ALTERNATE ROUTES IF BARROWS
ROAD IS CLOSED
Intersection Analysis
The increased traffic would affect intersection operations on the alternate routes. In the city of
Tigard, the particular intersection of concern is Walnut Street at 135`'' Avenue. Westbound drivers
experience considerable delays at this intersection during the afternoon peak hour now. These
delays would increase with additional traffic through this intersection.
At the intersection of Walnut Street with 135"' Avenue, the Barrows Road closure would
consume approximately 10% of intersection capacity. This increase is significant, as
signalization is already warranted for current conditions, but would become entirely necessary with
the additional traffic. Available capacity exists for most of the day to handle the additional traffic, so
the additional delay would be relatively minor - about two seconds per vehicle. However, from
approximately 4:15 to 6:15pm, the difference would be significant, at 12 additional seconds per
vehicle overall, with the line of westbound traffic increasing from about 17 vehicles long currently to
24 vehicles long with the additional traffic from the proposed Barrows Road closure. The
appropriate mitigation measure would be to add a traffic signal and a westbound right turn lane on
Walnut, at an estimated cost in the $400,000 range.
The Barrows Road closure would increase the traffic volume on Walnut Street by 20% and
on 135`x' Avenue by 40%. This would have detrimental effects on the people living, walling, and
cycling along these streets., The additional traffic would also make it more difficult.for drivers
pulling out onto these streets, but would not be anticipated to cause any capacity problems other
than at the Walnut/135' intersection.
The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with 135`' Avenue would be slightly affected, as some
through traffic would turn onto 135' Avenue if Barrows is closed. This would absorb 1 % of
intersection capacity, which appears to be available. Some signal timing adjustments would be
necessary to accommodate the additional traffic to and from 135`h Avenue. There would be some
signal progression benefit from the removal of the Scholls Ferry/Barrows signal.
At the Murray Boulevard / Scholls Ferry Road intersection, the Barrows Road closure would
consume approximately 5% of intersection capacity. Potential iitigation measures include
widening Scholls Ferry Road to add dual left turn lanes at the intersection, a costly proposition.
Neighborhood Traffic Infiltration
There are some local streets through residential neighborhoods that some drivers may choose as a
cut-through route around this closure. However, as these routes are longer, slower, and more
circuitous, it is highly doubtful that drivers would choose them as regular routes. However, drivers
that get to the closure point by mistake may start cutting through the neighborhood instead of
returning to the Walnut/Murray intersection. These routes should be monitored for cut-through
traffic and appropriate mitigation measures may be considered if they become necessary. However,
such measures do not appear to be necessary at this time.
Options
The City of Tigard has several options at this point regarding this issue. Some are:
A) Object to the Barrows Road closure altogether. While this option could be pursued, it is not
likely to be fruitful, as the closure is being driven by bridge condition.
B) Consent to the closure, with the expectation that Washington County would fund the traffic
signal (or a portion of it) and right turn lane at the intersection of Walnut Street and 135`h
Avenue. This could be justified by the fact that while the signal would be a good idea
now, the additional traffic would make it a necessity.
C) Consent to the closure and absorb its traffic impacts.
Questions about the overall closure plan, bridge condition, and traffic issues can be directed to Greg
Miller at Washington County, who can be reached at 503-846-7294 or
greg-miller@co.washington.or.us. Questions about the City of Tigard's role and perspective on this
issue can be directed to Mike McCarthy at 503-718-2462 or mikem@tigard-or.gov.
Attachment: Memorandum dated April 21, 2008 regarding Barrows Road Closure
_ I r, aQ
_ MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
Craig Prosser, City Manager
I
FROM: Agustin P. Duenas P.E., City Engineer I
RE: Barrows Road Closure
DATE: April 21, 2008
Washington County is planning to close Barrows Road at Summer Creek (just south of Scholls ferry
Road) this year. This closure is being prompted by the deteriorating condition of the bridge over
Summer Creek, as the bridge has exceeded its design life and the pile caps have deteriorated to the
point where they will soon be unable to perform their structural function. The cost to repair or
replace the bridge would be prohibitive, particularly for a bridge that is not part of the long-range
plan for this area.
The closure of Barrows Road will extend from Scholls Ferry Road to the first private accesses south
of the creek. A turnaround will be provided at the new end of Barrows Road for vehicles that get
there by mistake. Directional signs will be provided to guide motorists to alternate routes. The
closure will allow the county to remove the traffic signal at the intersection of Barrows and Scholls
Ferry roads, which will improve signal progression and traffic flow on Scholls Ferry Road. The
Barrows Road corridor is anticipated to remain open for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The
following photograph (on the next page) shows the closure area:
- SIGNAL
gjr
a ~5 I~. er
BEAVERTON
REMOVAL SCROLLS
FERRY il~i
1 ';+>l 1 e f of a~ ROAD
l Yip` f! i R►V ' g, BRIDGE Ar-
BARROWS
T
'~*t < h r :r CLOSURE ROAD a+
A' CLOSURE
i t #~r•~~ ~ `tom t r; ~5. S~ t.,. fi ~ ~ j
TRAIL
~.N`~ REMAINS
6
i ~y",~ 1, ry(' ,,ta-.~~_._• h--_!~-R ^1~ ~`n~~..~f t10,
~L~ r T ~ f"'JY4 w!+.7 ~.-r ,rL"'~ f, ~ k .+;o y i
~a`
"T f~i+f` ~t aRe4y ,,r,a,,~i~~ m ~~t,~ v~uy rr*~
MURRAY • t~ n~ M:;~ r-'
BLVD
EXTENSION (~;rr}t,. ' ~♦a ~'~!f¢
f ~ al
rq t~~. ~ ~ '3-i. t ~~+~rv_'~irl~ •~f :~YI~Y ~eK~fSr~~ Y rY.~"~ ~ nt
TIGARD y F
--V-~ 1 ~ t t -tl
Washington County and the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton are working together to find ways to
accommodate the traffic that had been using Barrows Road and will now be using other roads in the
area. Much of this traffic will use the new Murray Boulevard extension to connect with Scholls
Ferry Road. The jurisdictions are cooperating on analysis of the Murray Boulevard to Scholls Ferry
Road route as well as other routes through Tigard streets. Some muior improvements at key
intersections may be necessary to accommodate the additional traffic.
The County's long range plan has been to close this eastevi portion of Barrows Road as it
approaches Scholls Ferry Road and redirect traffic north to Scholls Ferry Road via extensions of
Murray Boulevard and Davies Road. The extension of Murray Boulevard opened earlier this year,
and is anticipated to carry much of the traffic that had been using the eastern portion of Barrows
Road.
Questions about the overall closure plan, bridge condition, and traffic issues can be directed to Greg
Miller at Washington County, who can be reached at 503-846-7294 or
grog-miller@co.washington.or.us. Questions about the City of Tigard's role and perspective on this
issue can be directed to Mike McCarthy at 503-718-2462 or mikem@tigard-or.gov.
Item No.
2
For Council Newsletter dated
/ i
Sf
qq City of Tigard
r
~
, Memorandum )
To: Honorable Mayor and Council
From: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
Re: May 6 Study Session Discussion Regarding New Ethics Regulations
Date: April 30, 2008
A Council Study Session has been added to the end of the May 6 agenda.. One of the Study Session
topics is: Ethics Law Cbanges.
Attached is information we recently received at City Hall, which you might find useful to review
before next Tuesday's Council discussion
• League of Oregon Cities Resolution adopted by the LOC Board April 25, 2008
• Table showing the unofficial tabulation of "Loss of Public Officials Due to Reporting
Requirements - SB 10/HB 2595 (prepared by the Oregon City/County Management
Association)
0 74 cities/counties affected
0 176 resignations
0 15 cities/counties have lost a quorum for City Council and/or the Planning
Commission
• An example of a resolution recently adopted by the City of The Dalles City Council
Attachments
lAADM\Packet'08\080506\Memo to Council regarding Ethics Discussion doc
i
RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
Whereas, the League of Oregon Cities has historically and continues to support open government
and recognizes the legitimate interest of the public in having transparent, ethical, and effective
public service; and
Whereas, many local officials have filed statements of economic interest for a number of years
without the loss of volunteer city council and planning commission members because of those
reporting requirements; and
Whereas, many volunteer city officials have resigned because of privacy concerns due to the new
reporting requirements in ORS chapter 244; and
Whereas, many more city officials are concerned about potential privacy issues should the
information required to be reported under ORS 244 be made available on the internet; and
Whereas, the executive and legislative branches have recognized the problem and are actively
engaged in a process to review ORS chapter 244 changes form the 2007 legislative session; and
Whereas the League of Oregon Cities finds that it is extremely urgent that immediate attention
be directed toward the very real concerns associated with the expansion of reporting
requirements and provisions to relatives who have no connection with or impact on the public
official's discharge of his or her duties as a public official; and
Whereas, the legislation wisely provided in ORS Section 244.350(5) the Oregon Government
Ethics Commission may issue letters of admonishment and education as a sanctioning option,
which would be especially appropriate during the 1s` year of implementing the wide ranging
provisions of the changes made in 2007; and
Whereas, the breadth and scope of changes impacted the adoption of rules by the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission and delayed the promulgation of the new forms and
instructions; and
Whereas, many good people have made a genuine effort to comply with the spirit of the law as
well as the letter within a short time frame; and
Be it resolved by the League of Oregon Cities that it urges the Oregon Government Ethics
Commission to use its discretion to focus its efforts in this year of implementation on only
issuing letters of education or admonishment in recognition of the difficulties and short time
frame, especially in light of the executive and legislative branches' efforts to address the
unintended and severe consequences of some of the new provisions of ORS Chapter 244.
Be it further resolved by the League of Oregon Cities that we actively work, as the highest
priority, to address the issues that have adversely impacted so many local officials who have
been placed in the position of having to balance the legitimate privacy needs of their families and
unique circumstances, and that we commend to the Governor and the Legislature that they
expedite their efforts to review the legislation, work with organizations such as the League of
Oregon Cities representing the impacted local officials, and make the changes needed to remove
the unintended consequences of the legislation.
Unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors of the League of Oregon Cities: April 25, 2008.
4 ./30/2008
11:50 AM
UNOFFICIAL - Loss of Public Officials Due to Reporting Req. SB 10/1-11 312595
Population
City/Town (OCCMA City Council Planning staff County Other
Directory)** Commission Comm. Boards
Adair Village 930 - 1
Banks* 11435 3 1
Canyon City 670 1 1 -
Canyonville 11640 - 2
Condon 775 - 2 _
Elgin* 1,685 7 5 - -
n Enterprise* 1,940 - 5
O1 Glendale 955 1
Harrisburg 3,400 - 2
M-i Heppner* 1,415 - 5 _
Irrigon* 1,850 2 3
Co
John Day 1,850 1 2
Joseph 1,100 1 -
c Keizer 35,435 - 1
d - -
E La Pine 1,590 1 -
Lexington* 280 4 _
Cr
Lostine 250 1 - - _ -
ao Maupin* 490 1 4 -
E - -
Monmouth 9,335 - 2 - _ _
CO Nehalem* 240 2 4 - _ _
cc North Powder* 500 6 - 1 -
s Nyssa 3,220 - 1 -
M
£ Pilot Rock 1,560 1 3
w Prairie City 1,100 1 4
d Richland 150 1 -
EL Rogue River 2,085 2 1
W Scio 760 - 1
E - -
LU Scotts Mills 300 2 -
Stanfield* 2,155 3 1
iA -
o Sublimity* 2,255 - 4
Summerville* 120 4 -
a Turner 1,690 1 1
d
Ukiah* 260 3 - _
Umatilla 6,440 1 2 -
Wallowa* 885 3 - -
Weston 745 1 -
Wheeler 445 1
Yamhill 820 - 1 - -
Total Resignations 116 55 59 2
Total # of Cities 38
Brookings 6,455 1 1 - -
Carlton 1,755 - 1 - - i
Coquille 4,215 - 2
Cornelius 10,895 - 1 - -
Dallas 15,065 - 2
Fairview 9,695 - 1 - -
4 30/2008 11:50 AM
Garibaldi 895 - 2 - - -
Gearhart 1,185 1 - - -
c Happy Valley 10,380 - - - - 1
Hermiston 15,780 - 1 - -
1 - -
Junction City 5,135 -
co
a La Grande 12,850 - 1 - -
-a McMinnville 31,665 1 - -
a►
CL Millersburg 1,030 - 1 - -
E Mollala 7,195 - 1 - - -
X
Monroe 625 - 2 - -
Myrtle Point 2,540 1 - - -
Phoenix 4,845 1 - -
i - -
n, Prineville 10,190 - 2
o Reedsport 4,305 1 2 - -
Roseburg 21,255 - 1 - -
Sandy 7,595 - 1 - - -
u
Sheridan 5,865 2 1 - -
Silverton 9,205 - 2 - - -
Tangent 970 - 1 - - -
The Dalles 13,045 1 1 - - -
Winston 5,780 - 1 - -
Total Resignations 39 6 32 - 1
Total # of Cities 27
Gilliam 1,885 - 1 - -
3 14 Grant 7,630 2 - -
0
Morrow' 12,125 - 5 - - -
L
a M Sherman 1,865 - 3 - - -
Wheeler 1,565 1 - - -
X
c Total Resignations 12 - 12 - - -
Total #of Counties 5
Curry 21,365 - 1 - - -
d Marion 306,665 - 1 - -
a Polk' 66,670 - 6 - - -
45 w x Umatilla 72,190 - 1 - - -
Total Resignations 9 - 9 - - -
Total # of Counties 4
0 Denotes loss of quorum on City Council and/or Planning Commision - Total: 15
Z "County Populations from Oregon Bluebook (2006 Populations)
# of Affected Cities 65 Total Resignations 155
# of Affected Counties 9 Total Resignations 21
74 176
O # of Cities < 1,000 21 Total Resignations 52
H
# of Cities 1,000-2.500 18 Total Resignations 63
# of Cities 2,500-5,000 6 Total Resignations 10
# of Cities 5,000-10,000 10 Total Resignations 17
# of Cities over 10,000 10 Total Resignations 13
T ~ J7Aca.;=5
RESOLUTION NO. 08-011
A RESOLUTION URGING LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF RECENTLY ADOPTED ETHICS LAWS
WHEREAS, the Oregon Legislature recently adopted legislation included in Senate Bill
10 and House Bill 2595, which incorporated several new provisions in the ethics law governing
the conduct of public officials in the State of Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the recently adopted legislation included new requirements for public
officials who are required to file an annual Statement of Economic Interest, and established new
requirements for disclosing information related to certain expenses incurred and income
received, on a quarterly basis; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the new requirements imposed by Senate Bill 10 and House
Bill 2595, the City has received the resignation of one member of the City Planning Commission
and one member of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, concerns and objections to certain provisions of the new ethics legislation
raised by the public officials who submitted their resignation to the City, have included the
following areas:
1. The potential for imposition of civil fines if required forms are not timely filed.
2. The number of significant business interests which demand the time and attention
of a public official, and the potential that a mistake could be made in submission
of some information, or a delay in filing the required forms could occur, even
when the reasons for submitting the mistaken information or the delay in filing
were inadvertent.
3. The potential that an allegation of a violation of the new ethics provisions could
jeopardize the status of other professional licenses held by a public official.
4. Concerns over invasion of privacy related to questions seeking information as to
the names or relatives not living in the household of the public official, and
sources of income from members residing in the household of the public official.
5. Concerns as to the fairness of exemptions from the disclosure requirements being
granted to volunteers who serve on similar governmental boards or agencies such
as school district boards and special districts; and
Page 1 of 2 - Resolution No. 08-011 (041608 08-011 xm)
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned the increased obligations related to the filing
and disclosure requirements of the new ethics law may result in additional resignations being
submitted by other current public officials in the City, and may also result in a "chilling effect"
discouraging potential volunteers who would otherwise consider serving as a public official for
the City,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE DALLES
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council strongly encourages the League of Oregon Cities, and other
appropriate officials of the State of Oregon, to undertake a review of the provisions of Senate Bill
10 and House Bill 2595, and to prepare proposed legislation to be presented to the 2009 session
of the Oregon Legislature, to revise the provisions of the ethics law to provide relief for local
public officials from the onerous and burdensome requirements of the recently adopted
legislation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008.
Voting Yes, Councilor: Wood, Kovacich, Dick, Wilcox
Voting No, Councilor: None
Absent, Councilor: Position #2 Vacant
Abstaining, Councilor: None
AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS 28'1 DAY OF APRIL, 2008.
Robb Van Cleave, Mayor
Attest:
7 'e Krueger, MMC, City Clerk
Page 2 of 2 -Resolution No. 08-0 11 (041608 08-01 Lm)
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date May 6, 2008
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Workshop for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2008-00001 Land Use Planning
Prepared By: Darren Wyss Dept Head Approval: TC. City Mgr Approval:
Lk-C u)
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review and discuss with staff, proposed Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures
recommended by the Planning Commission at their April 7, 2008 public hearing (CPA2008-00001).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council is requested to become familiar with the Commission's recommendation to adopt Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to land use planning and identify any additional material or
information to assist in making its decision at a public hearing scheduled for June 3, 2008.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed Land Use Planning chapter included in the amendment is 'a result of Council's direction to complete a
full update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The updated chapter is based on the extensive inventory and facts
included in the Tigard 2007 resource document that detailed current community conditions and trends. Additionally,
staff considered relevant findings from past citizen surveys and the Tigard visioning project. This ensured that the
expressed values and attitudes of the hundreds of citizens who participated in these efforts were incorporated into the
update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council's direction to update the Comprehensive Plan also stressed the importance of garnering citizen input. Staff has
done this through Policy Interest Teams (PIT) that met several times. For this particular chapter, the Planning
Commission acted as the host for the Policy Interest Team meetings. Staff felt this was important to the process as the
Commission is directly involved in implementing the City's land use program. By hosting the PIT meetings, the
Commission was given the opportunity to fully understand the concepts and information (see Attachment 4) before
reviewing the information in the workshop and public hearing process. Consensus was reached on draft goals, policies
and recommended action measures through consideration of the technical information, previously expressed values,
attitudes and concepts presented at the PIT meetings. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a public workshop
on March 17, 2008, and a public hearing on April 7, 2008. The Commission recommended the Council adopt the
updated chapter (Attachment 1) included in CPA2008-00001. At the public workshop, the Commission requested a few
minor changes be made before bringing it back for the public hearing (Attachment 2). No further changes were
requested at the public hearing.
Like all updated Plan chapters that will come before Council, it is important that the Land Use Planning chapter be
technically sound. Therefore, during the development of the chapter, Department Review Teams were involved to
I:AADM\13ackct'08\080506\5-06-08 AIS CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc 1
determine its technical accuracy and conformance with applicable laws and rules. Also, the updated chapter was sent to
state, federal, and regional agencies for review.
The intent of the updated chapter is to provide Tigard a much better foundation on which to prepare ordinances,
associated plans, development standards, programs, and intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the
tools needed to address the appropriate development and implementation of an effective land use program. The
successful management of the land use program is essential to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. By adopting the new Comprehensive Plan chapter, the City signals that it is committed to a
principle of planning for, and using land efficiently and wisely, whether required by federal, state, and regional
regulations, or simply the aspirations and wishes of the community.
The proposed chapter provides a necessary update to the current language in the Comprehensive Plan, which is out of
date and limited in scope. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) requires
jurisdictions to periodically update their plans to reflect current conditions, regulations, and information relating to the
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. This amendment will act as a major stride in ensuring compliance with the Statewide
Planning Goals through goals and policies that act as the basis to manage, maintain, and expand the land use
planning program of the community.
The meeting minutes from the Planning Commission public hearing can be found in Attachment 3.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Complete the update and begin the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Proposed Language for CPA2008-00001
Attachment 2: Memo to Council dated April 18, 2008
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 7, 2008
Attachment 4: Concepts and Information presented to Policy Interest Team
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable
l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-0G-08 AIS CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc 2
s--01 ^ o ~
Cathy Wheatley
From: Mike McCauley [MMcCauley@orcities.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:03 PM
Cc: Althea Gregory; Lyne Martin; Ross Schultz; Gino Grimaldi; John Anderson; John McArdle 2;
Scott Winkels; John Brenne
Subject: Request for Comments on Ethics Law Issues
Attachments: Ethics Ltr.pdf
Attached and set forth below is a request for comments from the Ethics Reform Review Team that is doing
fact finding in advance of legislative committee work in June. The deadline for comments is May 20th. Scott
Winkels and I met with the Review Team last week and shared the concerns regarding information on relatives
and substantive issues with the new law and its consequences. We would appreciate receiving a copy of
comments sent to the review team to add to our list of examples and issues. Thank you.
Mike McCauley
May 6, 2008
Dear Public Official or interested member of the public:
Committees of the Oregon Legislative Assembly will hold public hearings on the new Oregon
government ethics reforms. The hearings will begin in June.
In preparation for those hearings, legislative leadership has appointed a fact-finding team to research,
review and report to the legislature on concerns public officials have with the requirements and
implementation of the new ethics laws.
As members of the fact-finding team, we write to you to invite your comment on these issues. The team
will compile a record and summarize the information received in a final report to the legislative
committees prior to their June hearings. You may submit written comments by May 20, 2008.
Written comments should be submitted by May 20, 2008, to:
Dexter Johnson
Legislative Counsel
S-101 State Capitol
900 Court St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: ethics.reviewga state.or.us
Thank you for your assistance.
Dexter Johnson Philip Schradle
Legislative Counsel
Office of the Attorney General
Marjorie Taylor Kelly Skye
Department of Administrative Services Office of the Governor
i
Dexter Johnson, Legislative Counsel Kelly Skye, Office of the Governor
Philip Schradle, Office of the Attorney General Marjorie Taylor, Department of Administrative Services
Ethics Reform Review Team
900 Court St. NE, S-101 Salem, OR 97301
P: (503) 986-1243 F: (503) 373-1043
May 6, 2008
Dear Public Official or interested member of the public:
Committees of the Oregon Legislative Assembly will hold public hearings on the new Oregon
government ethics reforms. The hearings will begin in June.
In preparation for those hearings, legislative leadership has appointed a fact-finding team to research,
review and report to the legislature on concerns public officials have with the requirements and
implementation of the new ethics laws.
As members of the fact-finding team, we write to you to invite your comment on these issues. The team
will compile a record and summarize the information received in a final report to the legislative
committees prior to their June hearings. You may submit written comments by May 20, 2008.
Written comments should be submitted by May 20, 2008, to:
Dexter Johnson
Legislative Counsel
S-101 State Capitol
900 Court St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: ethics. review(astate.or.us
Thank you for your assistance.
Dexter Johnson Philip Schradle
Legislative Counsel Office of the Attorney General
Marjorie Taylor Kelly Skye
Department of Administrative Services Office of the Governor
Dexter Johnson, Legislative Counsel Kelly Skye, Office of the Governor
Philip Schradle, Office of the Attorney General Marjorie Taylor, Department of Administrative Services
Ethics Reform Review Team
900 Court St. NE, S-101 Salem, OR 97301
P: (503) 986-1243 F: (503) 373-1043
May 6, 2008
Dear Public Official or interested member of the public:
Committees of the Oregon Legislative Assembly will hold public hearings on the new Oregon
government ethics reforms. The hearings will begin in June.
In preparation for those hearings, legislative leadership has appointed a fact-finding team to research,
review and report to the legislature on concerns public officials have with the requirements and
implementation of the new ethics laws.
As members of the fact-finding team, we write to you to invite your comment on these issues. The team
will compile a record and summarize the information received in a final report to the legislative
committees prior to their June hearings. You may submit written comments by May 20, 2008.
Written comments should be submitted by May 20, 2008, to:
Dexter Johnson
Legislative Counsel
S-101 State Capitol
900 Court St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: ethics.review()state.or.us
Thank you for your assistance.
Dexter Johnson Philip Schradle
Legislative Counsel Office of the Attorney General
Marjorie Taylor Kelly Skye
Department of Administrative Services Office of the Governor
Cathy Wheatley
From: Mike McCauley [MMcCauley@orcities.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:03 PM
Cc: Althea Gregory; Lyne Martin; Ross Schultz; Gino Grimaldi; John Anderson; John McArdle 2;
Scott Winkels; John Brenne
Subject: Request for Comments on Ethics Law Issues
Attachments: Ethics Ltr.pdf
Attached and set forth below is a request for comments from the Ethics Reform Review Team that is doing
fact finding in advance of legislative committee work in June. The deadline for comments is May 20th. Scott
Winkels and I met with the Review Team last week and shared the concerns regarding information on relatives
and substantive issues with the new law and its consequences. We would appreciate receiving a copy of
comments sent to the review team to add to our list of examples and issues. Thank you.
Mike McCauley
May 6, 2008
Dear Public Official or interested member of the public:
Committees of the Oregon Legislative Assembly will hold public hearings on the new Oregon
government ethics reforms. The hearings will begin in June.
In preparation for those hearings, legislative leadership has appointed a fact-finding team to research,
review and report to the legislature on concerns public officials have with the requirements and
implementation of the new ethics laws.
As members of the fact-finding team, we write to you to invite your. comment on these issues. The team
will compile a record and summarize the information received in a final report to the legislative
committees prior to their June hearings. You may submit written comments by May 20, 2008.
Written comments should be submitted by May 20, 2008, to:
Dexter Johnson
Legislative Counsel
5-101 State Capitol
900 Court St. NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: ethics.reviewgstate.or.us
Thank you for your assistance.
Dexter Johnson Philip Schradle
Legislative Counsel
Office of the Attorney General
Marjorie Taylor Kelly Skye
Department of Administrative Services Office of the Governor
1
ATTACHMENT 1
'r Ale . ,
Land Use Planm*ng
"To establish a land use planning process and
polig f -amenjor k as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual base for such
decisions and actions. "
Afth,
D
t
s
A
n
a
® LAND USE PLANNING
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
DATE CPA# CHANGES
00-00-08 000 -0( 0oo XXX\-N
SECTION COVER PHOTO: CITY STAFF
Plans.
i City cif Tigard ~ Comprehensive Plan
n
.t
LAND USE PLANNING
L and uSL' planning influences the tape and character of development in
Tigard, as well as the Citv's ability to provide and sustain essential urban
services. The type, quafiry, and amount
c
of new development and its required urban
"'Land use
services can affect attainment of community q{
objectives such as quality of life, sense of place planning
and uniqueness, and a strong local economy.
The Comprehensive Plan and its implementing i influences
regulations are important policy and regulatory
the type and
tools needed to achieve the above, and other,
camtnuniry objec(ives. They are also essential
character Of
to guide cool) erarion, coordination, and i,
partnerships with other governments and development.
agencies that have a stake in the overall well- s
being of the Portland TvIctro Region.
The goals and policies cr,nrained in this chapter, as well as all chapters in the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan, establish the legislative policy basis for Tigard's
land use planning program. The program includes the Comt.nutaity Development
Code, regulatory maps, special area plans, etc. In addition, these politics estab-
lish important: criteria to be used when initiating regulatory changes or reviewing
and developing code, map, and policy amendments. 'The policies also provide
guidance on when and how to update the Comprehensive Plan and stare the
City's commitment to coordinating the development and maintenance of its
land use program with other affected agencies and jurisdictions.
"To establish a land nse planning process and polio, fi•antework as a basis for all decision
and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions
and actions."
Statewide Planning Goal 2 requires that:
■ City, county, state, and federal agency and special district plans and actions
related to land use be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities,
counties, and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 263 (Metro);
■ Land use plans identify issues, problems, inventories, and other factual info.r-
oration for each applicable statewide planning g ah
Comprehensive Plan ( City of '1'It;ard 24
~A
A
LAND USE PLANNING
■ Specific implementation measures be developed consistent: with and
adequate to carry out local jurisdictions' comprehensive plan;
■ Adoption and subsequent amendment of comprehensive plans and their
implementation measures be coordinated with the. plans of other. affected
governmental units; and
■ Ali adopted land use plans and implementing measures be pelioclically
reviewed and revised to address changed conditions and circumstances.
Section 1: Legislative Foundation
incorporated in 1961, .the City of Tigard has experienced rapid growth over the
years. This growth can be attributed to many factors, primarily the close proN-
imiry to Portland, a healthy inventory of developable land, and easy access to
major transportation facilities such as Hwy 99W I-hvy 217, and 1-5.
Tigard recognized the need to plan for growth and adopted its first Community
Plan in 1971. This plan set the stage for the City's future land use planning
efforts. Shortly thereafter, in 1974, the state adopted the Statev'ade Planning
Goals. This required that all Oregon jurisdictions prepare and adopt. compre-
hensive land use plans and implementing ordinances that comply wirh the
goals. Subsequently, the City of Tigard updated its Cotmmunity Plan into a
Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1983.
The City ccnnpleted its first and only Periodic Review of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1989 and since that time the context: and scope of land use planning
has changed considerably. For example, "Tigard has undertaken several other
planning efforts that are required to be coordinated, from a policy perspective,
with the current Comprehensive Plan. These include the Tigard Triangle. Plan,
the W'ashington Square Regional Center Plan, the Tigard Transportn6on System
Plan, the "Tigard Urban Renewal Plan, and the Tigard Downtown Improvement:
Plan. Furthermore, many new state land use laws and administrative rules have
been passed, while Metro has taken the lead in several other areas of urban
growth management:. Metro's responsibilities now include the management of
the regional urban growth boundary, transportation planning, natural resource
management, and household and employment allocations to regional jurisdic-
tions. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan must be in compliance with state goals and
laws, while also being consistent with Metro's growth management rules.
One of the biggest growth management challenges that Tigard will face, as
2-2 Cins of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
.t t
LAND USE PLANNING
well as the rest of the Portland region, is the
need to accommodate up to a million new resi- / . 7 "Part dents and commensurate employment growth
within the regirm in the nest fc,rty years. Cities region the in the Portland region have already committed
future 1~,
to minimize urban sprawl and accommodate a - rowth
significant part c)f this growth within compact will have to
urban centers within existing municipal bound-
arics. However, part of the region s future grov"th occur will have to occur at- the "edges" of the urban
"edges"f the
growth boundary. Ir is unlikely that any of this /
"edge" growth will be within the Cite of Tigard
urban growth
because urban level development in unincorpo-
rated \Vashrngton CottIlt~, separates future urban boundary.
growth area,., from Tigard's city limits. The only Y
factors that- would alter this would be annexa-
tion of these lands and/or changes in policy and '
intergovernmental cooperation that would allow extension of City boundaries to
noncontiguous future growth areas. The manner in which Tigard and the rest of
the region chooses to address these challenges will be significant in determining
the area's future quality of life, character, and prosperity.
i\nothcr growth management challenge that Tigard faces is the lack of large
vacant parcels available for urban development. This type of development is a
thing of the past and most household and employment growth in Tigard will
be the result of redevelopment and infill. Witlun residential areas, the City's
land use program assures that infill occurs in a way that is sensitive and comple-
mentary to existing residential neighborhoods. In the City's downtown center;
commercial corridors, regional center, and industrial areas, the Comprehensive
Plan and implementing regulations will dude the development of vibrant and
compact urban housing and employment/shopping areas. In both instances, it
is important that the City's land use planning efforts protect natural resources,
assure the provision of needed public facilities and services, and promote the
dcrclopment of well designed, high quality urban areas.
The City's land use program also impacts its strong economic ties with other
jurisdictions NX11thin the Portland region. A significant portion of Tigard
residents commute to other communiticS, particularly Portland, for work.
Conversely, most of those who work in Tigard ecu»mute from elsewhere. This
situation will require Tigard to work cooperatively with these other jurisdic-
Comprehensive Plan City cif Tigard 2-3
LAND USE PLANNING
tions and Metro to develop land use patterns and employment opporrunuics to
minimize impacts from crnnnulung.
KEY FINDINGS
■ Portland area jurisclictions' compr.ellcnsive. plans are required to be consis-
tent with statewide planning goals and Metro rules.
• ]`lost of Tigard's dcvelopable land has been urbanized.
■ Future development in single-family residential neighborhoods will likely
consist of small lot partitioning, infill, and redevelopment.
■ Future connnlereial, employment, and multi-family growth will likely occur
through redevelopment.
■ 'I'igard's expansion into new urban -growth boundary areas is unlikely under
the current policy framework.
■ A well conceived and responsibly implemented land use planning; program is
essential to the City's quality of life and economic prosperity?.
■ I"hc Comprehensive Plan prO-,rides the basis for the City's land use program.
■ A properly balanced mix of land use's is necessary to CIISLIM that it delves
the tax revenues required to fund needed community sere=ices.
■ Local governments agar assign, to the extent possible, the public facility
costs associated with development to the actual development itsell.
■ Compatibility of new and existing development is an important issue in
developed convnunjties.
■ Planned Development standards/regulations are important tools to allow/
encourage high quality /innovative desi-grl and quality development.
■ A sitnificant part of the City's currently identified Urban Planning Area has
been urbanized in unincorporated W'ashing;tun County.
GOAL:
?.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing reg;ula-
tions and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use
planning; program.
POLICIES:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction,
eon-iply with state and regional requirement,, and serve its citizens' own
interests.
2-4 Ciry of "Tigard Comprehensive Plan
.t
LAND USE PLANNING i
2. The City's land use rCgUlations, related plans, and implementing actions
shall be consistent M111th and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City- shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation
of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdiction- and
agencies.
1. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land ~
through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs.
5. T'he City shall promo~tc intense urban level development in Metro-desig-
nated Centers and Corridors, and employment cued industrial areas.
6. 'The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range o:,t
land use lypes which are of sufficient economic value u, fund needed ~
services and advance: the conununity's social and hscal stabs sty.
7. the City s regulatory land use maps and development code shall itnplc-
ment the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses
1nChldingr
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office emplo\m1ent including business parks;
C. Nbxcd use;
D. Industrial:
E. Overlny districts where natural resource protections or special
planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and
I? Public services.
S. The Cite shall require appropriate public facilities are made avAable, or
committed, prier to development approval and are constructed prior to,
or C011eurrent1\7 with, development Occupancy.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into
development agreements to phase the. provision of required public facili-
ties and services and/or payment of impact fees and/or other arrange-
ments that assure the integrity of the infrastructure s)~stem and public
sa fete.
10. The Cite shall institute fees and charges to ensure development: pays
for development relayed services and assmnes the appropriate costs for.
impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tit;an:l 2-5
s
LAND USE.
PLANNING
H. The Citv shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public sal,ctl
and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities.
'12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned develop-
ment, design standards, and conservation easements, that encourage
results such aS:
A. High quality and innovatlVe design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility. necessary for projects to adapt to site
conditions.
13. The City shall plan for future public facility expansion for those areas
within its Urban Planning Area that can realistically be expected to be
within the Cite Limits during the planning period.
14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use
applications are consistenr-,vith applicable criteria and redtlirement:s of
the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary-,
those of the state and other agencies.
I i. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan foals and policies decmed
applicable, anlcndnlents to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone TYlap
shall be subject to the fallowing specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be avail-
able, or comnlitted to be made available, and of sufiicicnt capacity tr
Serve the ]and uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned t.ran51)artatiOll or other public
facilities ,Ind Services;
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven camnlunin7
need Such aS provision of deeded commercial goods and servriees,
employnlenr, housing, public and community services, etc. in the
particular location, versus other appropriately designated and devel-
opable properties;
D. Demonstration that there is an Inadequate alllC7llnt of develc'lll-
able, appropriately designated, land for the ]and uses that would be
Mimed by the new desi>;tlatian;
E. Demonstration that land uses allrnved in the proposed designation
2-6 Ciry of 'figard I Comprchensive l an
(~1
i t
LAND USE PLANNING
could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and
the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled;
I . land uses permitted by the proposed dcsigmarion would be compat-
ible, or capable of being made
compatible.. with environmental ~
Conditions and surrounding land
'
"The City shall
uses; and
4
G. Demonstration that the amend- ' all
ment does not detract from the
viability of the City's natural development
systems.
to Conform to
16. The City nlay condition the approval
site designI
of a Plan/Zoning map anlendnlent to
assure the development of a definite development
land use(s) and per specific desi(,m
t
/development recltu.rcnlenrs.
17 The lulu, nlRy allo\v C011CUrrent
applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for
development plan approval of a specific land use.
15. ,I'he Council tnav at any time, upon fincling it is in the overall public
interest, initiate legislative atnendnlents to change the Comprehensive
Plan test, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or the Community Development
Code.
19. The Planning Commission may at any rime recommend to the
City Council that it consider initiating legislative amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan, Plan/Z()ning Maps, and/or Community
Development Code.
20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its
Comprehensive Plan and regulatory neaps and implementing measures
to ensure they arc current and responsive to community needs, provide
reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative
rules, and regional regturenlents.
21. The City shall require all development: to conform to site design/devel-
opment regulations.
Comprehensive. Plan City of Tigard 2-7
0414 LAND USE PLANNING
22. The City shall identilil, designate, and protect natural resources as part of
its land use program.
23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure,
to minimize. conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility bem-een it
and adjacent existing and fi.iture land uses.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban
development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and
attractiveness.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. W,"ork with the Oregon Department of 'transportation (ODO
Metro.. Washington Counrty and ~°,tilcrs to develop means to equi-
tably assign costs to new development for its impacts on the inter-
state and intra-regional freeway and arterial system.
ii. Develop and maintain land use regulations, standards, and proce-
dures necessary to enhance the design of nwlti-family cornmercia),
and industrial developtllent, and to mitigate impacts oil adjacent land
uses.
iii. lnlplement measures to preserve and enhance the quality and char-
acter of Tigard's residential districts. Examples include managing the
desigtl of infill development, mitigating impacts of adjacent dlssitll-
ilar land uses, improving quality of streetscapes and the pedestrian
environment, and providing greater access to open space.
iv. Develop and periodically update Citywide Public Facilities and
Transportation System Plans (PFP,'1'SP) to guide the location,
financing, and timing of future public facilities. Coorclinate the
preparation and adoption of these Plans Nvirh other affected jurisdic-
tions and agencies.
Revise the Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and related findings as
needed to maintain reliability and timeliness; to ensure consistency
2-8 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
n
t t
LAND USE PLANNING
among goals, policies, and recommended action measures; to assure
accuracy of findings; and to comply with state, regional, and federal
laws and rules. "Chis includes review by the Planning Commission
every tlvo years, formal evaluation every five }ears, and an overall
update at least every ten years.
vi. Monitor and evaluate whether Cite actions and community condi-
tions and circunhstances are consistent with the goal and policy direc-
tion of the Comprehensive Plan. \tlun appropriate, amend [lie Plan
or adjust: City actions, regulations, or standards.
vii. Monitor actions, programs, and policies of federal, state, and
regional governments. \\°hen appropriate, amend the Comprehensive
Plan and its implementing regulations and plans to be consistent.
with these of other agencies.
viii.Develop and adopt special district plans to enhance opportunities
for econcnnic development, housing, social vitality, access to transit,
etc.
ix. Actively participate and engage with other Portland Metropolitan
Area jurisdictions and agencies to represent'!"igard's interest
involving region-wide land use, transportation, natural resource, and
public facility issues.
x. Implement incentive and redevelopment programs to utilize urban
land and coasting public facilities more efficiently.
si. Review transportation and other public facility plans and projects to
address potential negative aesthetic or operatiomd impacts on neigh-
borhoods and take mitigating action when necessary.
xii. Wbrk with the appropriate agencies to review the methods used
in derermining development impacts upon water quality, natural
resources, and other land uses.
Vtt. Rev]e\v and analyze the use of the Planned Development process
as a way to gauge its ftmctionalih and whether it is working as
intended.
Comprehensive Plan ~ Ciry of Tigard 2-9
A
LAND USC PLANNING
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different
clement, of the City's land use program,SUCh as mapS, coCICS, and
area plans, and make clianges when necessary to further community
objectives.
xv Develop criteria to identify and protect unique communiq features
and resources.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect rile
community from transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and
natural hazards associated with ]and use activities.
2-10 city of Tigard I C:omhrehensive Plan
nEnIERAI POI IGIEC
PIRM And.
i. Chapter 1 97 ef the GreqeR Revised Statuter. aRd the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
4. The FeqU*FeFneRt that PIaR6 be updated. The plaR wili be updated to enr.UFe that the plan, ar. the
Fii;d1Rgs
1#1e GA-MMHR+tji
energy; and
all ef TogaFd.
budget-
P01 vTCv
1 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT-
TWIG C-QMPREHEAICIVE RI AN' AND AI 1 EI ITI IRE I E(_ICI ATIVE CHAAIGEC
THE I AND CONSF=RVATION AND DFWR ORMRNI~T nnnnlCClnnl THE
RF=Q'QNAI RI AN' AIIn PT-M RV TI"IE hAETRnRnI 'TAN' CERWr-F= DICTRIGT•
h. ANY NF _HRnRUnnn RI AAIn, GORr_AAIIZATION RI Arvtrrv-f'~ND
WADI EMENTATInN AAEACI IREC ADOPTED RV TI"IF CITY OF TIGARD AFTER
CPA2008-00001 1 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
THC EFFECTIVE DATE OF TWIC /`OMPRCHCAICI\/C DI AN ADC nCCIrnICn
T~~ T TTt~TRl~
TO QE CONSISTENT WITH THIS DIAAI• AN
6 TWFE TIGARD GGMPRCHCA1Sl\/C DI 41 AND GOA,4t\AI IAIITV DE\/CI /IRA,ACAIT
`~IIC=AREE KEPT QIIR €NT \A/ITI-I TI-IC AICEDCOFTWC COMMUNITY IN
ORDER TO DO THIS;-
1 THIS P641 SHALL RC REVIEWED AND UPDATED AT I CART C\/CRV
FIVE YEARS.
1.1.2 TWEE-Q_ Q M °RFEWFE h 155 1 \/C DI AAI enln €.A.C;W-Q-m5€6€A FE IT~A. 1- 1- R F= Q ;?€pt€B
FRAMENDMENTS TWAT CONSIDER COMPI ONCE WITW THE DI AAIC OF
RACIC AND MAY QC 80 AMCAIIICD OR REVISED IC DEEMED AIC!`CCCA RV QV THC
THE A.-ROVE RCGIONAI G(1A1 C Q_Q ICCT-I'VCC A'ND PLANS SHALL RE G,O-NSIST-ENT
\NITH ANY C/`HClll 11 C FOR RE (IRCAIIAI(_ OF I !l!'el DI AAIC ARRRO-VEEl RV THC
THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO OF= CONSTRUED ASS WAIVING ANY I F=GAI RIGWT-2
%NHICH THE rlTV MAY HAVE T-9G__H.^'66€hIGE= Tkl€-6€GAWITX OF A. REGIONAL
GOAL, OWE`TI\/C OR PI-41 PRO NVIS 10 N.
IAARI CIIACAITATION STRATEGIES
all 6iRgIe family Fe6ideRfial (R 1, R 2, R 3.6 and R 4.6*
arm family (R 7 aRd R 12).
dwtwo-^t R 20
e R-29, ;and R-40.
(G-N~.
CPA2008-00001 2 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Wa6hingteR SquaFe Mail and 'And *FnFnediately werst ef Highway 217 be designated
&4e-
_,se desirat+er.
(149Y. QFd. 02 4-24
44-SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN
I I I DOWNTOWN TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
Citizens have expressed a desire to create a "heart" for their community: a place to live,
work, and play, and to serve as a community gathering place.
Main Street and the surrounding area have served as Tigard's historic center, dating back to
around 1907.Planning for Downtown Tigard's revitalization has been a long-term process,
stretching back at least 25 years. The most recent effort dates back to 2002, with the
announcement of plans for a Washington County Commuter rail line with a planned station
in downtown Tigard. This inspired a small group of citizens and business owners to work on
ideas for Downtown to capitalize on Commuter Rail. A state Transportation and Growth
Management (TGM) grant facilitated the hiring of consultants and a more extensive
planning process. A Task Force of 24 citizens was formed to guide the plan's development.
The planning process incorporated high levels of citizen involvement, including community
dialogues, workshops, open house, and a public survey.
CPA2008-00001 3 .-Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
The TGM grant and planning process resulted in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
(TDIP). The TDIP set forth a vision to create "a vibrant and active urban village at the
heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of
transportation, recognizes and uses natural resources as an asset, and features a combination
of uses that enable people to live, work, play and shop in an environment that is uniquely
Tigard."
An Urban Renewal Plan was developed to implement the TDIP. The tools provided by
urban renewal, including Tax Increment Financing, are intended to attract private investment
and facilitate the area's redevelopment. Tigard voters approved the use of Tax Increment
Financing for Urban Renewal in the May 2006 election.
Key Findings
Existing Conditions
■ The Urban Renewal Area contains approximately 193.71 acres (including 49.57 acres
of right-of-way) and comprises 2.6% of the City's 7496 acres of total land area. It
contains 193 individual properties.The current land uses are dominated by
development with little pedestrian-friendly orientation. Outside of Main Street, the
existing buildings do not create a sense of place and cohesive function, but rather
appear to be spread out and auto-dependent. Block sizes are large for a downtown.
■ In general, downtown properties have low improvement to land (I:L) ratios. Healthy
I:L ratios for downtown properties range between 7.0 -10.0 or more. In Tigard's
Urban Renewal Area 2004-05 LL averages were 1.43 for commercial properties and
2.79 for multi-family residential. (Report Accompanying the City Center Urban
Renewal Plan.)
■ Under existing conditions, Downtown is underdeveloped and lacks the mix of high
quality commercial, office, residential and public uses suitable for an urban village.
Transportation System
• The Area is served by two major transportation corridors (99W and Hall Blvd.) with
heavy traffic levels. Many of the other Downtown streets lack complete sidewalks. In
general, there are poor linkages to and within the Downtown.
■ Railway tracks also bisect the Downtown. A planned system upgrade will make both
commuter and freight train operation more efficient and less disruptive to
automobile traffic.
Natural Features
■ Fanno Creek flows through downtown and is the most notable natural feature. The
creek, part of its floodplain and associated wetlands are part of a 22-acre city park
with a multi-use path.
CPA2008-00001 4 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Current Zoning Districts and Comprehensive Plan Designations
■ The majority of the Downtown is zoned Central Business District (CBD). While the
current CBD zone allows the mix of uses necessary for a successful downtown, the
regulations lack the language to guide new development to be consistent with the
preferred urban form. As a result, the area has developed without many of the
pedestrian-oriented qualities specified in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
and Metro's 2040 Growth Concept.
■ The Tigard Urban Renewal Area encompasses the original Plan area and several
additional tax lots, which are zoned R-4.5, R-12 (PD), R-25, C-G (General
Commercial) and C-P (Professional/ Administrative Commercial.) Several of these
tax lots are located to the northwest of Highway 99W. These additional zones do not
permit mixed use development, which is crucial for successful downtowns.
Community Values
■ According to the Comprehensive Plan Issues and Values Summary, Downtown is
important to Tigard residents; many use it on a weekly basis. Many would like it to
see improvements so it will become a gathering place for the community.
■ Tigard Beyond Tomorrow's Community Character & Quality of Life section,
includes a goal to achieve a future where "the Main Street area is seen as a `focal
point' for the community," and "a clear direction has been established for a
pedestrian-friendly downtown and is being implemented."
• The passage of the Urban Renewal measure in May 2006 by 66% of voters also
shows strong community support for Downtown's revitalization.
Metro Requirements for Town Center Planning
■ Title 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requires local
jurisdictions to adopt land use and transportation plans that are consistent with
Metro guidelines for Town Centers.
Goal
15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart
of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of
transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination
of uses that enable people to live, work, play and shop in an environment that is
uniquely Tigard.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Provide public, including members of the development community, with regular
informational updates on Urban Renewal progress and an accounting of funds
spent by the City Center Development Agency.
CPA2008-00001 5 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Goal
15.2 Facilitate the Development of an Urban Village
Policies
1. New zoning, design standards and design guidelines shall be developed and used to
ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown as the
"heart" of Tigard, while being flexible enough to encourage development.
2. The Downtown's land use plan shall provide for a mix of complimentary land uses
such as:
A. Retail, restaurants, entertainment and personal services;
B. Medium and high-density residential uses including rental and ownership
housing;
C. Civic functions (government offices, community services, public plazas, public
transit centers, etc);
D. Professional employment and related office uses;
E. Natural Resource protection, open spaces and public parks.
3. The City shall not permit new land uses such as warehousing; auto-dependant uses;
industrial manufacturing; and industrial service uses that would detract from the goal
of a vibrant urban village.
4. Existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of
allowed expansion.
5. Downtown design, development and provision of service shall emphasize public
safety, accessibility, and attractiveness as primary objectives.
6. New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including
ownership, workforce and affordable housing in a high quality living environment.
7. New zoning and design guidelines on Main Street will emphasize a "traditional Main
Street" character.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Develop design guidelines and standards that encourage attractive and inviting
downtown commercial and residential architecture with quality design and
permanent materials, particularly in the building fronts and streetscape. Also
develop appropriate density, height, mass, scale, architectural and site design
guidelines.
ii. Utilize form based code principles in ways that are consistent with state planning
laws and administrative rules.
CPA2008-00001 6 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
iii. Adopt non-conforming use standards appropriate to a downtown in transition.
iv. Develop code measures to mitigate any compatibility issues when new
downtown development occurs in close proximity to the Downtown's commuter
rail line.
V. Provide areas in the Downtown where community events, farmer's markets,
festivals and cultural activities can be held.
Vi. Designate the Downtown area as the preferred location for Tigard's civic land
uses.
vii. Promote an awareness of the Downtown's history through measures such as
public information, urban design features and preservation of historic places.
viii. Monitor performance of design guidelines, standards and related land use
regulations and amend them as necessary.
Goal
15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into
Downtown
Policies
1. Natural resource functions and values shall be integrated into Downtown urban
design.
2. The Fanno Creek Public Use Area, adjacent to Fanno Creek Park shall be a primary
focus and catalyst for revitalization.
3. Development of the Downtown shall be consistent with the need to protect and
restore the functions and values of the wetland and riparian area within Fanno Creek
Park.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Acquire property and easements to protect natural resources and provide public
open space areas, such as park blocks, plazas and mini-parks.
ii. Develop "green connections" linking parks and greenways with adjacent land
uses, public spaces and transit.
iii. Incorporate public art into the design of public spaces.
CPA2008-00001 7 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
iv. Enhance the landscape and habitat characteristics of Fanno Creek as a key
downtown natural resource.
V. Develop and implement strategies to address concerns with homeless persons
and vagrancy in the Downtown and Fanno Creek Park.
Goal
15.4 Develop Comprehensive Street and Circulation Improvements for Pedestrians,
Automobiles, Bicycles and Transit
Policies
1. The Downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi-modal transportation
services including auto, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.
2. The Downtown shall be Tigard's primary transit center for rail and bus transit
service and supporting land uses.
3. The City, in conjunction with TriMet, shall plan for and manage transit user parking
to ensure the Downtown is not dominated by "park and ride" activity.
4. Recognizing the critical transportation relationships between the Downtown and
surrounding transportation system, especially bus and Commuter Rail, Highway
99W, Highway 217 and Interstate 5, the City shall address the Downtown's
transportation needs in its Transportation System Plan and identify relevant capital
projects and transportation.management efforts.
5. Streetscape and Public Area Design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly
environment without the visual dominance by automobile-oriented uses.
6. The City shall require a sufficient but not excessive amount of parking to provide for
Downtown land uses. Joint parking arrangements shall be encouraged.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Develop Comprehensive Street and Circulation Improvements for Pedestrians,
Automobiles, Bicycles and Transit
ii. Develop a circulation plan that emphasizes connectivity to, from, and within the
Downtown in the design and improvement of the area's transportation system,
including developing alternative access improvements to Downtown, such as
connections across Highway 99W.
iii. Address public safety and land use compatibility issues in the design and
management of the Downtown's transportation system.
CPA2008-00001 8 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
iv. Investigate assigning different roadway designations within the general area of
the Downtown as means to support transportation access to Town Center
development such as ODOT's Special Transportation Area (STA) and Urban
Business Area (UBA).
V. Implement an integrated Downtown pedestrian streetscape and landscape plan.
Vi. Acquire property and easements to implement streetscape and landscape plans,
and develop needed streets, pathways, entrances to the Commuter Rail park and
ride lot, and bikeways.
vii. Express the themes of an urban village and green heart by utilizing the "unifying
elements" palette from the Streetscape Design Plan to design streetscape
improvements.
viii. Emphasize sustainable practices in street design through innovative landscaping
and stormwater management and provision of muldmodal infrastructure.
ix. Encourage sustainability features in the design of Downtown buildings.
X. Encourage the formation of a Downtown Parking and Transportation
Management Association.
Xi. Incorporate the Downtown's public investment / facility needs into the City's
Public Facility Plan and implementing Community Investment Plan.
11.2 ASH AVCAII G
Findk;qrs
CPA2008-00001 9 .-attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
mod`
AvAn, -A
DnIr-vzIGGS
I ASH MICAII IC SHAI I RC EXTENDED ArDnCC CANNO GDECK! ENAQI INN errECS
_L.IWAA Vr IICCIl~A1 CO r A i rTI v rccv IDCC SHA1 1 RE I v ISM TO CI n\A/ TDA COI AAlil AAAKF=
vr_~tvirrc~rrrcccvc-vcv~vvrv rr~c
THE= vTrccci . ^v S_4.4-= AS A
TVwiv~€. It--H AVEN WE SHAI=6 BE DESIGNATED AS A
MIh'(-)R-ono66€GTnR IN' CONIFORMANGF WITH THE MASTER STREET PI AN
DESIGN-FEATI-I°T€g AND- -MITIATi~vrT~ IOW Ai: €ASI IRF=S~S.urAI I k1Q6B TRAFFIG
\/nl 1 IA ES Tn THC MIDDI C 1 IAAITC OF A MINOR CO' 1 CrTnR
14.C 7.2 IAADRQVF=AAEAITC TO C \A/ AC A\/CAII IC FROM S.IN H" I T9 FANN9 BR€€K
T~TITTCPrrTTrT ASH T O C I\ C C r
SHAI I RC CONSTRUCTED AS A CONDITION nC DEVEI nRAWNT OF All IAGF=hIT
PROPERTIES 1THC7 STREET IA PROVEMENT-C AI ONG WITH THR DE\/EI nRAAEAIT
OF A Ann 1 )R rnnnnAFERrK1S-ITFM %A.111-1- ING>°€J!S€ T-RnEEtr ON ASH A
gARRIGADF SHAH RF= PI Arr€B AT rH" I eTroEF=T APPRnvIA4eT€6Yf °-~;=E~1B
nC THE CVISTIAI!_ RAVEAAENT TO PROTECT ITHE7 AIEIGHj3QRHQoD DCCIDF=h'TC
11 2 2 AWTHODS OF MITIGATING THC TRAFFIC MPACT Ohl TH€ AICIr_HRnDHnn/l
SHALL INGLUDE IN TH1;=F01 IQ A/ING QRB€R BF IAAP--R!oQVF=M€Nr,
a. IMPROVING -S.W. nnnlnI D STD'EF=T TO INTF-RIM -MAINT€NAN6€
h IAADROVEAAEAITS TO THE RES'QF=NT'Al PORTION OF ASH FROM H11 I TO
r=oIIIE I IMITRE) DARKiNf_
FR€WIAlf_ THESE IMPROVEMENTS GOv11 n 1AIrI 1
ism Cv~-rT~n--revv~-trrerr-rv-wev-mvv~errrtrrev~--r-r-cT-cnv
BE6IN€ATInA:-GF TRAFFIC I el.lF=S nNIQF=`~n/~A6vC ON' E ~ Q u
SIDF=S OF THE STREETj
6. €XTF=~'SIn1.I nE S.W. H1LI= Tn e \A/ n'AAADA nAln/nR IAADROVEMPNIT OF
C \A/ ASH FR0-M FR FM%NI AIG- Tn (_A RRETT•
•
CYTEAICIQh' nC S.W. OWARA TO C \A/ Hit I DADA' I E' TO S.W. eCH,
e DCAAnVAI OF THC QADDICe DF IN] DI ACR GN ASH AVENI IC AT C \A/ HII I
f IMPRO4RAWNIT- 9 C S.V.n'AAADA CTDCRT TO IAITCDIAA AAAIAITCAIANGE
CTAAIIIA DIIC Tn CAIrnI1De(_E AN' AI TCRAIATC RO ITE•
INIS-T.A.1-1-AXION OF TRAFFIC; IAIHIQITORC TO THC RCCIIICAITIAI PORTION
OF ACH IF AAlll \A/HEAI TDACCIr \/nl I IAnES EYr CCfI THC A4If1-lI C RANGE
D A AAIAInD rn'-6€C-TnR TRAFFIC IAIHIRITORS IAlrl 1 [)F= QI IT ARC NoT
I-IM TIT€,B TO of nn'TIAIr_ ISLANDS, CREED BUMPS, BUTTONS, TI IRNINQ
RCSTDIrTInA'C I nAll I IAAITC AND CAICnRrEAAEAIT
CPA2008-00001 10 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
€indinp
The pFereRt Fight of way along Fnueh of S.W. 121st Avenue aRd S.W. GaaFde 6tFeet *6 40 to 46
&tFeets.
awe:
iGted by
DnR I
rv ICIPS
i4.3A TWEM GITY SWA1- 1- GbN1S1-DER T~W~E+ F0166 ~A.fINIo- T I H E N I PREPARINIIG--- o TTr°E€T
IMPROVEMENT DI AAIQ TWAT AFFECT S W 121S/EN' IF OR GAARIIC QTRCET
8 TWE IMPACT QNI TWF= EXISTINIQ NITIAI CTRI CTI IDES AND TWF=
41-TERAI TI` EMS %NWIGu WAVE THE MINIMUM eD-VERS-EM EFFEGT I
~ N' TF=Rh4s
9F-
1 RE-DUGING THE -DISSTANIG-E THE n.n/EII INN AND THE
CTCCT
v~Rrcccr• AND
~-r-cr~v
2. NOISP IMPACTS
THE CCCC!'T THE IMPROVEMENT Wit 1 HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC R GIN AND
THE POSSIQI C NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON' OTHER STREET INTERSECTION'S
6. MINIMIZING THE 17dcO7 THESE STREETS AS DART nC THE ARTERI-R, I
SYSTEM FOR THRO' IGH TRAFFIC
1122 THE CITY OF TIGARD RHAI I WORK WITH OTHER GM FERNMACAITAI RODICC FOR
THE EVED-O,PMENT OF AN ART-ER•IAI- FROM 0,41-IRR.A.Y-
RQI I1EIARn OR SCHO' I S FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC Lll(_HWAV TWIS AARrTERIAII
IITII 17C ROAMS INL.1'QW RACE T-IRnI If`_H EXISTING RESIDENT1A1 ARCAC WITHIN'
TIGARD
IAARI EMENTATION STRATEGIES
needed at Genge6ted OntemeAfiant;
aRd higheF deRrsitie6 Giese te and- iR aGGGFdaRGe with the polieies f9F "Established" aRd
CPA2008-00001 11 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
othpF than A AiRqle 9F hV9 faMily MFUGWFe. The 60te de6igA review F;h;;" inn'-de review ef street
Fight of way and pavemeRt lenatien
11.4 NEIGH130RHOOID PLANNING ORG.4NIVATION' #4
Dnl GIEC
i--vcrvrcv
11 A 1 IN THE TIf'-A.rRw r rvn ~ivvD TDIANG' C /1.C. THAT I_OIIND€D RY PACIFIG HIGHOAY,
TT~1'If-1 THE r rvrcc~rc r~rv AREA
ul„Q__HI.,IA) 247, AN;; -THE INIT€RS-T~EaTr°€ -IN THE MIXED 1-12-€
EMPLOYMENT _70-NE, HIGH ~n€NSITY R€sID€PIT~TI.A.1- BPV€6 RME€ IT /~2b
I I 0\A/ED Ill ITDI!'_L.IT
UNITS DCD AGRE\ CHAT 1 RE A 114-
11.6 NEIGHBORHOOD PI ANINING QRQA NIZATION #5
Highway 217 @Rd- thA OAFA FA*'Fead liner. tFaVeMiAg the aFea have led to a ren6ideFable amount
ef effir-,p- ;-IRd- indU6#ial development along 72nd Avenue, rawth of Highway-24-7,
appFoximately 6-0-0- feet of land planned f9F heavy iRdur.#W w6e.
PQI Y
11.fi l THE GI-TY SH°L-I_ REn1'IRFRIFF€R1NG-AN^D SGRE€pIInI~QRF:nAfF=€Pt
TO DC\/CI (1Dh4CAIT ADDDl1\/AI AC FmQI I GINS-
a. ,41-6 III DINGS ON INDI ICTDIAI I AND CI-IAI I BE~CF=TM RACK A DISTANCE
OF 50 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LnNIE WHICH ARI ITC A R€RIMRPI~TIAI I y
DI AAIAICD ADCA'•
h THE SITE DLAN CHAI=I=D(1\/IRE FOR TUC€ACTENCI\/C DDlIDl1CF=D
USES ON THE SITE IN' THE AREAS O.IHICH A.-BUT AN A.D-JOINING
RECIDENITIA1 DI ANWED AREA; ARID
BUFFERING ARID SGR€€NIAIG SHAI BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE fir) FOOT
6. SETBACK AREA AS PROVIDED BY THE STANDARDS GONITAMIM IN'
PO-1-IG-V 6_61.1. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS SPIRSECTION To REQUIRE
THE ENTIRE 60 TO BE 1 4jDernDF=[) PROVIDED THE STANDARDS IN
6.6.1 ARE FACT IN' 1A/H1(`H !`ACC n PORTION OF THE RI ICCCD AREA MAY RE
1 -'RF=D FOR PARKING; F=XGEPT
1. CTRI IGT-I IRE PAVEMENT OR DEV€-eo M€NT ~Ar ,--MAY--RRE rATF=D
WITHIN THE 50 E/l/lT CETRACK ADCA SURROUNDING THE R01 1 IAIG
H11 1 C CI IQDI\/ICI(1AI CY/`CDT I /lTC # 39rA0 Al AO ARID 43i AND
A.1-1- CYICTING VEGETATION CHAI I RE RETAINED ARID MAINTAINED
I.A.4THIN THE 60 FOOT SgT-13ACK AREA SURROUNDING THE RG66ING
Hn 1 c SUBDIVISION EXCEPT BEHIND LOTS # 39, 49, 1, 42, AND 42
H" rrccv vovvr I~ ~p
WH€R€ S€GTION 48.1v-rw 130, TAI€-ovT€r= R MATRIY APPLIES AND
18 100.08!1 ARRI ICC
/Re.. Ord 7%
MADI EMENTATION' STRATEGIES
CPA2008-00001 12 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
..+r
11.6 AGTION.A.RFE.AS
eAGOUFaged iF; G9NWRGt*OR i.qmth CnpAmArgial, Woht industrial and AApd 6 uFA, Medium High and High
Demity Residential Use.
GOALS
#faasi#-~#atle~rr
sentrels
DnI,-az ICIFS
11 R 1 DESIGNATE AS ACTION' AREAS CONICCNITRATIONIC OF C_CNICDAI ClIC\AMCDCIAI
T. ~1(_LJT IN D 1CTRIAI MEDIUM, M€vn IIIJM HIGH, ~ iv cv~~ AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENITIA,
rv~ mTr c
\AIH F-=RC TLIC F Q I I /VA/I AIr GRITCDIA ADC h.A ET
a. THE ARF=A ISo€N'F=RAI I Y \"THIN-ON€ QUARTER MI 6€ OF AAAA R
TDA NISIT CCNITCR /'1D TDI IAIK RO OUT
v, AD CrnvAC \A/ITH CYICTIAI/_ WSES WHICH AP€ FREQUENT-ED EY
I. szrt
- m~-'rr-cra~v-~r-n-av--
\AKll11 n RC DATRQ--NlI7Cn QV PEDESTRIAN'S ANIn/r1D TRANISIT RInCDC
s AREAS WHICH ARE Gd°D€NITr-I Y AI IT " F ORIENTED MAY RE
INICI IN' ANITICIDATI(1 NI OF A CHANIGE 'ICE OR REDESIGN' OF
PEDESTRIAN' %NAYC TO Q€a €R IINIITEGRATC THE I ICE INITQ THE ACTION
AREA
11. 6- 7 DETERMINIFP~f\AITT€D USES THROUGH Z NIING CI IDTHER DC/'`_I 11 ATIGN1 OF
~ Tarrr~ ~...-rr -rrvr rrv-rv~-e-rrTC-ram-ce-e~Tr~-vr
USES IN ACTION AREAS SHAT=6 RC AGGOMPI ISHED WITH AN' OVERI AV ZQ NIC
WHICH I FAITS SPECIFIC Al ITGA406I1 C ORIENTED I ICCC AC PCDh4'TTCn 1 ISCC
AND CAIC011D A!`_CC A LJIGL1CD I C\/CI OF I ICCC WHICH ADC PEDESTRIAN ANIn
PI-IRIIC TRANSIT ORIENTED-.
11.6.3 REQUIRE THAT A' I= 9EV€69PPMENIT PERMITTED IN ACTION' -r.RE.AiS BE
nCSIC-NICD T6- CAM' ITATC PCnCSTRI.41 MOVE MCNIT \A/ITHIN - - CCNITCD ANIn
TO TRANSIT
44.6.4 RC\/IC\A/ AND UPDATE CITY DA RKINIQ GRnINIANICCC TO RCClI(`AIl7C PARKING
NEEDS IN' ACTION ADCAC
1165 DEVEI OP A nESIGNI DI AN' FOR EACH ACTION AREA TO PROVIDE (_11'nANICC
~1~~-vcv tour-rrvcvrvrrrvzrr--rvrctr crn o w TO v wv c
USES. PLANS FOR AIITllMflQlANI, PE-D€ST°1flN-ANB 8IQYQ6€
CI11 ATIONI OPEN'--SSPPAb; , 9: IQR A DRAINIAGE SE-aA.(€FiAr'C AND 1IGHTINIC-
\TA/Ir11- -REM INIGIW DE 1-T THE C CITY \All~~ ~\/E THE PRIMARY RECPONICIQII ITV FOR
y -n-r 'vrr--r-rv-r vr-m e~~crrarr-ere-rreeoi--ramarrn~--r-mz
DEV€I-OPIN G- THE DESIGN PL 41 BUT ~Li= COORDINATE VVIT-14 GREG
DEPARTMEMNIT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TDI FACT
11.6-6gCV EI=QPPh4F= ^IITIN' THE ACTION AREAS MAY BE d R IF=CT O SPECIA'
TO COMPI CTIONI OF THE nCCI(_NI DI ANIC
11C 7~ENICI IDACC FORMATION' OF I_eINAPD GVEE ACNIT DISTRICTS OR QTHF=R
rvIIvvrcrrv~r-c~m~rrv~rvr-
CI "TAR' C PROGRAMS FOR EACH ACTION' AREA TO EINIANICC MADI CAWNITATIONI
CPA2008-00001 13 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
(Rev. QFd. 87 55)
PTA'"`'
knnw
tFaffiA;fQ,,,MAF; Mr, We
.A .R elemenien. 6Gh99l n the WPM- ..hinh at the edge of Ac vepy nT
CPA2008-00001 14 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Isle
~~e~,&yste~'
gE~e-~..e1eFR
4 -L
~z~se►~
Ole
attachment 1
Goal Z: Land use planning
15
CP:~2008-00001
Git9 o f Tlga d
Tran6pwtadGn
with develepmep&
The Regional Ce-n-ter Plan She-uld
Be undwStandable to lay peeple
The Washington 6961aFe Regional GeRteF study aFea ffinn', dAs; land within the Gity of T-ugaFd, the
the study aFea or. varaRt.
r
Rua study aFea.
r
Employment 0,804 j9b6
CP 12008-00001 16 .-Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Offine;
9,436 j9b6
6edg6 1s
Housing; 1,600 units
I-nr,- rt will dAvelep at Felatively high deRsither A rear, north Af 1 AA' 10 RRH e6t 9f Highway-2-1-7
bar High Density; ModAFQte Dew=
@FAR125 @reDna
Offonp
- -----1 @ CAD ^ 6 @ CAD 9.3
hedging W FAR 1.9 @ CAD 4.9
•
AAWFARMPRW
PeFiqds. Highway 217, GFeeRbUF9 Read, Hall Beulevwd aRd 909116 F=eFFy Rgad aFe 6UbjeGt te
The FnajgFity ef the wteFiall R--Rd- A-9-11P-G-49-F rott-rp-petm; *--R- t--h.P- study aFea have FSid-evii-AFS. Snhells FmeFFy
RAnd and Hall Rn--'A;f;;rd hwop hakA lanes within the 6tudy aFea. Highway 217- pFe6eRt6
the highway in the study aFea aFe eveFGFOSGORgr, 9R Hall 139uleyaFd, Sehe"r, F%eFFy Read and
GFeeF;buFg Read. Of these thFee GFerr.*Rg6, rsidewalk6 aFe f9WRd qRly an Hall Re,,IP4 - ;;;rd aRd
GFeeRbuFq Read, with biGyGle Iane6 qRly eR SGhellr. FmeFFy Read. The enly b*ke WRAF; AR thA
PRO s;*dA of the Washington SquaFe Mail we en Hall Re, de oard
BeavwteR, Tigard aRd- Lake Qsweqq, a6 well a6 PFGVidinq FSP-poinp- W thp- Tualatin aFea. . .
•
CPA2008-00001 17 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
4hee~e i.~ e~ d---Fing the Phare II Imnlemen+o+i..n n
I.,mpplementus +ivn irv:L Pffnrt --spd en "mhef e+ +h.,+ ::eFC~ +ir~c+
t The rPh;-;6e ,
v~r-'~oove6~roc
SubGwnmattee6. These GhaF-
fleedpW R afee
.A.s-..e +he As+e.m,.,a+er efneni needs f9F the oegioenRl Gecrn+°i Plan and s r ~m-~rcc~rrcrrvn~'
Develop a Ienn term funding strategy fe +wm ,..n+e. management,
9 and maintaining paFks and
ne.,elen a 19Rg +eFFR {,unarm 6.+F.,+en„ f9F ne'I'°ienen
The FeSURS. of the ;d eRYOFeRFAeRtal aRalysis shew that all of the
that required c e the o Rder r„rren+ ZGRORO.
A lens +er... tFaR cner+a+igR nlemen+a+ien n desGFibed late. in thin eFt
;and wptIRR& withiR the ReqwQRRI Center weFe mapped. It OF; rpnernmAnded that the
CPA2008-00001 18 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Oju6t*Rg building 6etbaGkF; and
e~ef~
PFOpe6a'6 mad-e- wn the 0.12RC Plan All elements of the GonGept Plan weFe f9und te b8
. #easibl~ .
private rest9F
POI ICIRS
1191 THE CONCEPTS; AND RRIAICIRI€,S; CONTAINED IN' F= WASWIhIQT-QN SQUARE
RF=QIQNAI f CAITCR RI AN' SWAI I RROVIDF= TWF= ONIRRAI I GI "DIAIQ CRAMFDAIORK
i~rvrcr-D ETAcIt€D IMPI RAW ITING ACTIONS FOR TWF= ARF=A. 1-R F=
FOR AA~n
P.
h. A nUbl!G facilities nl.en f9F the area nGI Jinn ' finanniRg nlw
CPA2008-00001 19 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
pFiRGipler. ef the plan.
11 n~:THRCC DISTINCT TYRP` OF hAInE~ II 1ST DISTRICTS S'" AI I RF€STT, RI IS; 4F=
FOR T'-'C 1A/ASHIAIf_TnN Cnl 1^RF= RF=QIQ t'A' CF= 'T-F=R T-HF=SC DISTRICTS ADC.
a MIXEDhti=COMMCRCIAI DISTRICTS (MUG). THE REGIO lAl rCA1TCD
PI AN' RF=QQA4h4F=h'QS; THAT-
MAI I ARID I ARID IWACn1ATCl V 1A/CST OF HIGHWAY :217 RC DF=RIQNATCn A
MIXED USE ~A~A r1Al DISTRICT Fp IAICIDAI DFWRI eWWNIT IN' THF=SC
-w'w*m~r vrrcczrrv~rv~ mtvn--rz rnr ~ ~
ZONING gE~InI In, 9F AA1~o-1AAI_I_ ALSQ A.' I CM.A.1 M1n€B I MR
LJ~Q~BF=HIAID OR A' ONGSOF THR STRI ICTI IRFS;
MInF=B I IF=h.4 D vnA~IT DISTRICT (M l~_MIX~ Div }n €p~
-DIR-TRIC-TS- °€FE-'RTC-AREAS WITH CONCENTRATION'S OF nFFIrF
€~ESEARGH AND DESEMI=OP ENT, AND 6IGu N' IGACTI IRlnlr
111 ti- SFS COW n Cl ~ In €T^r„1-SJ:1°Dno€=-A,°;=
Al=LOW€g RIIT ARC NAlIT€9. TuF _70-LIIn1n In111-1- €RMIT RCCInCA1TIA1
~L1~€~e DTAr~I~_ A hADATIR~ ~TTH THF= CTDIC 'S F=MD~~rF~/T~
CHARACTFR 1 Itt CO W CF=h''TF=R I IS -AN' F=XAAhAPI E br rAN~^crRRA
_DE~`Ir.TF_=D M WE T-HF= uloRNICIT Y~XF=D 1 ICS FWDI nVhACAIT
nICTRICVr TL Al1~ARl IC ARCA IC DESIGNATED CAI IC 7n REQUIRING TIRING MORC
o~a~-rrcTT- m cri~vvTrm~-L-v-mvz-
MnnCDATC nCAICITICC
6. "InE~ 1I~T~` ~ITIAI DISTRICTS /CAIIR\ T-WF AM ID~~--.---A 1oN I6
APPROPRIATE FOR DRCDn WAIANTI V RCC11'1CAITIAI ADCAC IAILICRC AAIYCn
I ICCC ARE PERMITTED WHEN rnMDATIRI C WITH THE RCCInCAIT1A1 I ICS
.AAiR€AS041-1- RE DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY /CAI ID 1\ OR MODERATE
DF=A TTY (M ID 9)1192 NECESSARY DI IRI IC RAG-11 ITICC IAICI I IDING CCIA/CR WATER ARID DRAINAGE
T
CAC11 ITICC SHG 11 D RC IN DI ACC nR PLANNED TO R'C GO NSTR1 ICTCD IN' TIMC
Tn CI IDDnRT WRA/ DC\/CI OWACAITC
N--bE--3GvizrARY TDAAICRn DTATIGN FACII ITICC~ AC DETERMINED BY A TRAFFIC
11(]A
~r-•Err~m rn-r-v DETERMINED
'A.4°A.G_;TASSESSM€NT, SHOULD BE IN T-9 BE
CnAISTRI ICTED IN' TIMC TO CI IPRnRT AICU/ DCVCI QPAACAITC
(ReV QW 92 17)
11.40 11' IDLJAM QUARRY A41YCn I ICS DCVCI nDh.ACAIT AREA
DnIr-v ICI FS
11 101 THF= CITY OF TIGARD WIL=L GONTINWE T-Q WORK WITH WASHINGTON CO' INTY
AND T'''C CITY nC THAI ATI ~H F-ml=1? AC-CI ID«THAT ~eD~R~IT \A.11THIN
THE DURHAM QWARR44 MIXED I ICF DF=VR QPh4F=NT ARRA DRnVInCC A WIQ
QUALITY 11RRR^I €Y 1\/IyT R.4 €NIT THAT EMPHASIZES PEDESTRIAN
rnLlLlErTnnrv
I I 1n~2THE DI IRUAhA n11ARRY MIXED USE E DFWRI e,DTMRNITTARFA RHA~~ F=GT. T.()
AN INTRRGQV~RW,AWNTAc AoDF=RAF=NT WITH THF= CITY OF T' 'A' ATIN WHICH
lA/nl II D AI T-HGR17C THF= CITY nC TI IAI ATIN TO h4AIIC I ARID I ICS ARID RI 111 DING
DCRAAIT DCCICIQNIS FOR THF= PORTION OF THE QUARRY CITE WITHIN TIGARD
11.104 A UNIQUE MIYCD TICS DICTDICT VAC RCCAI CCTARI ISHF=1 FOR THF= DI iRHAhA
T
CPA2008-00001 20 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
QUARRYMIXED USE DEVEI OP,--.".^ENIT.. AREA KNIGInin1 AS "AI IC 4
11 10" TWE MICA DISTRICT IS INT€NB€9 T9-RR.9MGTE 8 VEI OPMENIT WHICH
/466G`nic A MIX OF USES, INGW IDIn~„-.'G RETAIL, S€RVIG€S,3FR'~-IGE AND
!?€SIB€NTI!!6. THE MIY€D-6JSF= G9",.",:;€Rr''~^,L-B€S;6~1eT1~,r 401 1 D
FEN~I G C OIvR.A. R.:+c oc~c
G_F DEVE I-GPM €NTS THAT Al66GLWS R€9$6€ TO IORU SHOP nnlD
cv
I IVF 1"1 A CO"ARAGT- PFDFCTRIAAI ORIENTED f`/1"A"A1 INITV
11.19.~a N€G€SS.lR~Y PIIRI IQ FAm61TIES ING-1-1-ID'"a.NG 89dV€R, WATER AND DRAINAGE
F1lGI6ITI€S, SHOWI=BvE-IA' R.. rv vi-9R Rte- A FE-D TO RC GQNSTRI QNSTRUGTED, IN' TIME
TO SUPPORT NEW DEVFI 0P"AFAIT
11 106 NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FAG-11 ITIES, AS DQET€€i",."INIEB BY A TRAFFIC
IMPAGT ASSESSMENT, S-HOOT-11-D_R;-IN RIAGE, OR ANI1.1€B T_() BE
CONSTRI ICTFD IN TIME TO SUPPORT AIEW DMVR OPMENT
(Rev. OFd. 01 074
122. 1 0-GATI C)AIAI GR ITFRIA
I NITRO T' ON
u..
' QAGe6;
The PgWier. and- r_,~twia apply te beth legi6lative aRd quasi judiGial land use aetions
#ANAVIF
12 1 RFCIDFAIT1AI
The RIIAMOAd
POI ICY
1:.1.1 TH€ GITY SHA66 RROVIDDR FOR HO' ISINIC- D€NSIITIRR IN' ACCORDn"ICF WITW:
8 Wool ICARI F PI-AN PQ'_'C_'F_=9S_,
h APPI ICARI F I OCATIGNAI CRITERIA; ARID
(Rev. A APPI'CARI F GOMM INITV DCVEI C)P"AFAIT CODE PROVISIONS
O
1. I n , Dencila Re6iden44n1
CPA2008-00001 21 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
(2 Are limited to ^ollerters aRd Innal streets;
as;
(a) Parilities=
W 69WeF
IM yyaw
BFariage
r..~ c..heelp
(h) ceMGes•
r7 P wise
F Fe
rii~ ~al~th
in law deRMY Fe6ideRtiai-
(1) ..hint, have been hi alley develeped wi+--mthr~l'vrrye W6 and .,high are
zoned Gensustent with the existing developmeAt patteFA~
((2) The GapaGity 9f farAities and
/4\ AF ..:then wIlLine dis+annoe of transit s+.n, dd he zoned far osme,,,~lleF ~ le+s• d
,~n,
hAedi--.r. Denr.k.. Des:dent:al The fa-119wing faGt9F6 will be the deter.minapts
of the wear. designatpd for mpda- -m density
A.
"ghee plan mapi
(1) Areas ..ohinh a not nnmmi+4ed to low demi+.. deyelenment•
M\ ArpRs ..d.int. +"'••e d:rent a s frAM rellerter OF AdWial streets;
~c
/4\ Areas .uh:sh aFe n+ Ubjeet to deyeleprAp-pt lip.itations 66IGh tanearanhv
(6) AFeas withiR one half mile Of pUb';G tFaRspEwtatieRj and
the medium density planned ;irpq-
(1) The den°ity of development an areas his+arieally zRed~f^,'-rne~IcmrdeR6iry
develepmeRt;
(3) The Ga a:h of the 6eFyeGe6;
/A\ The d:stanre to the pWb'ir transit,
sseRtefs; aRd
- -
the pIaA FAai}
(2) AFeaG uhirh be hufrered frem lemo density sideRtial nrder to
'
/A\ Area6 wh„°o^rh W "t sUbjert tq deyelopmeRt kniitatiens;
CPA2008-00001 22 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
(8) Area° adjaGen4 to either n late n W b'in n 'enf n
rnA-d-.O---FA high aRd high den6ity plaRned area6 6hould the Gity adept FA9Fe thaR qRe high
deA60ty Z_
(2) Th9 nity Of the FViees;
/Q\ The rGofanne from public #a%i+• and
/A\ The relati9%hin of the 60te to :Minn n inhberheed and n Cal r• ial
IMPI C1IACAITATION CTDATEG4E-
G. RequiFe rned-iurn density, Fnedium high density and high deR6*ty FPMA-P-Rtia.' ---r-p-r tn hp-
planned development 49-r ~-evelepmeRt appFOyals;
0
:n nf M\ Ann ally deskable deyelenment• and
(2) e-reaappeaFaase -and epenness intended by the lady
12.2 COMMERCIAL
that,
I Gernrnemaal wear. be planned at a rsn-a-le- ;vhanh relater, 46 IgGation, 6ite and type a F;tAFAF; tA thA
5 pr 9f F* r.; R
one
desigRated-2fQa-
Y
122 1 TuC CITY RHAI 1
a. ^F[€-F=QR CRn~n~R^T€Fir'1~°,'~^DE~!€I-Q--PR4F-=NT-Rr,QE-9 ^^THE TYF OF
USE ITS C17C AND REQUIRFED TDA-IC ADCA
b ADDI V AI 1 ADDI I(`ARI C DI AAI POI ICICQ
6 e~D~/ TWF-= ADDRQPRI.ATC !`ATIQN.A.1 !`DIT~ID AR' F TO THE
~Q..i/'.A.' C OF THF= PRO ICf T
CPA2008-00001 23 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
afea:
Pole
(1) TFade AFea. Up to 6990 peeple-
(2)-~}to-~+ae. Twa asre raaa;~+ara
(4) G-Fams 6eacan hl. reaV~ .arf1oe°
B. 1 al rri+e 1
(1) Spas;;g-a,d6wation-
(a) The s radius f..r a ghhe.rhood n al renter shall he at
le-me-A e-Re half [9f al mile.
/h\ remmerrial deyeL.nment shall be li.r.ited +n adrant of street ene stFAet.
~~~-Assess
(a) The n ed e.en+er o e,f a istinq Genter shall not nreete
speed limit, number 9f tUFR* g er.+s aRd the +reffi. Fating
r\ en wteriel• n
e~ollee.tnr, ctr .hie.h .eill not dir +
A~~ree~ est~Fa#'+s thredgh lesal
(4) Site rhara^+e,ri6+i^°
(a) The cite ch.+ll he of a ..hie.h s e date t+hel n eat aRd future
/A\ 'FRPast Asseccsment
(a) The r•nale of then ee.t shall hen nRtihle ...ith the n ending 616
FRa{etalaed-.
/s\ it shall be possible +e i rate the a featWes into the site design
AR FAR WAR
veh;r.le sales, d-Foup un r4RAtR,,FaRt6 t9 laundFy establishments It ir, intended that thAF;A wer, he
i1\ TFade-I AFea. Varies
(2 ds on de1eelonmen+
(Q) Gress 6eaa;ahlo e Area Varies
m-r
g 1 +ig al criteria
(1) SpavmgaF;d l=QARtiQR
(a) The r of a not s .nded by residential diMriets AR FR9Fe
thorn hug F;OdAs
(2) Anre66
CPA2008-00001 24 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
/n\ Publig 4ranonerfa4ign shall he available ig the site a ral a
(3) Sate GhaFaGteF*6fiG&
uses.
!h1 The site shall have high . sihilita
(b) The site G9RfiqWFatiGR and GhwasteFOMOG6 6hall be 66IGh that the PF*YaGy 9f
!s1 14 Shall be n sil'le +e i rate the URique s14e features into the site
wdeen 441
Arcennle
(1) Trade -afeaV4.: i
(2) Site 64e Vaties
'4` Gress leasab:eaFeea. ` a ies
g. I a4•e al r.•4er•a
(1) Qnaging aRd I egMnn
pF9fe66*9RAI WAR
(c) -Aovcw
/"1 The n se.t of a fisting a shall net n ea+e +raffin
im ci+e rhara..+eris4ins
Reeds.
The cite shall have high . sihilit..
/A\ !FAnan+ A6%66ment
(b) it shall be p966ible to iAGOFpGFate the uRique rate features Wn the site
/g\ Ascgni.,ted lights, n'+ ar-tiyi4ies shall net nie Ffe Fe w4h ad,' PFOY
CPA2008-00001 25 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Trade Ilensityi The r ending aFea nntential r ridential denrity viithin
shall a at least eight w nits (as determined by the Z9RiAg nfreed sales up t" 40 ,000 s e feet n Pt;lm khmer.t
General retail gln b. 10,000 feet peF e6tahlirhment 6quaFe pwmilted u6e6;
Other norArAprnial sales and seWiGes farMilities; Rhall be allowed up te 6,9Q9
B. I nrat'enal r6teria
(1) Spa Ginn andd Lon ation
(a) GOFAFR 8rrial rleyelepme nt shall he Wi .need! to "drant "f street
iF~eFSestier}
(2) AAness
(a) The n ed r nits r al dir+rirt shall net be antirinated t"
the -apaG
frnffir.
uses allowed iR the ZORe-.
!h\ The rite shall heIen_.;ated a as FteFFal 9 ell a Fsfteeet w
designated an the GAMPFehensive Plan T-FaRrSpwtatweR Map. Suter. shnuld
stFeels.
Charar+erirtirr
a6.rA-ro. &4e-
(4) Impart sOeOrn'ent
SUGh GgRsWeFatiens May *RGIude, but Are not Imm' eted to, any of the 64e
CP 12008-00001 26 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
G :el oRe bw d-A-Welened
/1,\ It relyy nre4ero L,le that a nemrsuni
R~alf~talFled:
'e)---IJaigae-featI_IFes -f thA_ site-skac~ald--le*nsWperated inte theme
develepment plan.
rfl Cnv4eooir:vi.r I:9ehtiRg, ra a6tlVltle6 Wlth the cf •ty
c,~ uw i9 ~ ~ov°, aiv a66e61ate~
site-
IMPI CMCAITATION STRATEGIES
b. Deep a that:
(1) The "-real be F-;UbjeGt W 6;4
ests ;Tewew;
(2 0 IaRdsGaping be d; and
. ste ex
CP -12008-00001 27 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
aisaai pellutions
pol Y
123 1 THE CITY CHAI I REQUIRE THAT:
a CITCC FOR HCA\N IAIIII ICTDIAI DF=VC1 OWAC"IT CHAI 1 QG
f1\ SEPARATED gX TOPOGRAPHY €S;TAR- ISHED RI IFFERS,
RCCIDF=h'TIAI 1 V IICVCI ODCn ADCAC
(2) 1=0GATED REMAC uA.VING Dnll SERVIGEARTERIn1 OR MAJOR
C^I I ECTOD ACCCCC
b CITCC FOR I IQWT 1"IOI ICTDIAI IIEVCI nDMC"IT CHAI 1 QG
/1\ 8WFmFmF=RE~ CD~DRF=R F=h'T-Al REAS TO R ICIIIIRE THAT PRIVACY
4't^DTWE RESSIDE ITI1QW.AD.ACTFER OF TIFiAkl &A. fA.R.€
DDEe,-, ERN"4ED^-
(2) LOGAT€D n"I~A"I A RTRRIAIOLLEGTn D~CTDR~F=T AND
INDIISTRIA1 TRACClrn-rev--RHAII NITRE CWAAN'h'€' F=D TWDG
RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
6 THC CI~TC SHAT I BE OF ASSIZE AND SHAPE WHICH W" I PROVIDE FOR
TTUHEHE SHORT AND 1 ~ON(_ RANGE NEEDS OF THE I ICuE~~ ~p
,,1
tl. I Acv ND 01TrENDE-C FOR OEtl F=LQPME='T~rc=rr~I=I= AVE AN AVERAGE SITE
Dnr_DnDUV 9F 6€S-56 6THAN 69 r_Rn^E OR TbA~T Q A ' N' FE
DEMONSTRATED TklATHROUGH ~€'".'=€R1"1~,.G
TECHNIQUES All
RE MITIGATED,
e IT CAED€ n"I iTED THAT ASSOCIATED I IGHTc, NOIS€ ryND
OTHER CYTCR"IAI CCCCCTC \Alll I NOT 1"ITCDCEDE WITW THE ACTIVITICC
IMRI CME"ITATIn"1 STRATEGIES
'vt
b. The deswqR of the faeulity and its site will net plaGe vowal 9F phyGieal bUFdens 9A the
6wFeuRding wear,
,
(1) HGUof n FafiGF .
(2) Delivery hafaGteFIGtiF,6i
(3) Nei6e;
(4) Lighfing; and
(6) COW U6e GhaFaGteFi6tiG6.
CPA2008-00001 28 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
pFev+de #eF
(1) A ba6iG 6tFeet aRd utility pattem Wh;Gh Will pwmit flexibility *R the size of industFial
sites;
(2) A 6wFGUIatiGA system that PFOVides diFeGt aGGe66 to aFteF*a!6 9F rselleetBR. that will
/6\ €videece-ef entinr ring manaqeMeRt ility to ert0stiens
A m of 75% of lan&Gapin
/7\ r
12.4 COMMUNITY I -IT" ITICC AND CAC11 ITICC
benefit of the publiG. These 6AGIude, f9F example, r.Gheels, libFaFffieG, hespitals, paFks, 991f G9UFses,
aFea.
The puFpg6es 9f this plan seGt*QR RFA t9'
aGhieved;
+cdur&ialUses;
and
defeas+ble space.
o^X
124 1 TWF= CITY SWAI I PROVIDF= FOR TWF= I OCATIOAl OF COAAAAI INITV CACII ITICC IN A
•
a TWF= ADDI IrAQI C PO GICQ IAI THIS P641
h Tug I OCATIONA1 CRITRRIA Aool'CAR€T9 TH€ SCAT Fm AND STANDARDS
v. mcrvvm-rvrrrw•rvrarrcra~rrr~rrzros~
OF TI•"Irc I I SE
Facilities
M*R9 Imn.+nt I ItilitiAM A.dr ,in,. SeNine Use (Ge••r4
Sewiges)
T 1~6et J% ":e►Qrt heed Parks f Ammr rnity PaFk .
Utili+•,,ar 91e6 LiFRev-Tir ydFaRt6 Bus Shelters r_AIf rArrFrA6
Qr;ide Schnn's f 14.r I Cwhihecc
rn varoar'ar oRr,
rrv v
CPA2008-00001 29 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
1Alaler Stwage I ihr'n, cen,i^es
Tele ,e 6^ SWi+^hiRg e+a+i„n I-gdgeg ter.,+nrnAI r_ GiVi^
AsseaRbly
c hnt 4ien h4;ddl Q^h I
Re:re~ ~.~~oa~o oo~ ~ae~s
ui,.h cshnnls
Trade CnheelS
oeligieu6 menehly
Transit Ctati^^ (within Ggg
rnm..e, Mi`" rrnie Ge^ilit1es
G-A-Meten, oe^•,^Iin., renter
PPOW S yin Community oenrer fins
FiFe et^fi^^ u^s^ifalr
hA la r-A- ^ Ma}er Imn.ent cen,ines
l:ll+l+lies
'de GB61` I and mill
A. 1 96atianel Griferia
/v\ eeeO^
a^^ess to es+ wfirti• ^r fe^ir+., May he from a 1AGAI stFaet
pFevidedi
Site aEC, ,ill of c-ause daRgemus "tn ^fn tFaffin
46,
/Z OR edie^e^t I =ands
The 6hall be alle...ed n vide& use /i\ A^^^^ited lights .end Reit6e ..ill net in4erfere .ui+1e the atAivi+ieS and
aE )areal-uses;
PNya^" of adiasent r Sidential develen...entS GAR hem nt.eir.ed•
/i..\ Gemmuni+.. identity GaR be stained th FOugh deSinn n"1 site
aFea; and
Bu#erine n n be i ed to S n then ent from adianen+
/e\ The 'n F-;hA I he alle..ed nr vided•
The wRique atuFalfeatweS if a A h^ i Fated Wn the
'
The IaRd iRtended f^r development has a site t^nnnFanh..
25,04
to development and the
le -parks:)
The site i of n rize ..hinh n ^'dete Ethel n ent en''I
A 1 enafie al Gri+eri.;
(1) AGG866
/n\ There in U dili^ tFaMit Withie a e'{er ..tile of the Site
CPA2008-00001 30 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
ra\ It I° °'tible with ° nding Wsf.'s GORsideFiRg .male gh'r'gter ARd
u6e.
/h\ Well Fe►a,o,~ forseOFQ ~ d rely dey
,r-°°T pm2Rt.
rd\ I=aFge 6nale nstruntien Rd aFk*Rg Mr. Gan be buffered from the
adjaseal uses
rfl The site layeut ran nd to iMing GOFAFAURity ideR474a Rd s4r°et
patteFas-
(^)13u#eFHay^Gan 6SFeeathe pFg Rnt from adianea#uses.
rh\ efe Iis adequate aFea landssan n to filter th asv+ fFOFn the sn ito n
--g„ rnvrm„--uFea.
Elan 100% gFade, OF it R 41° deR,nnctra+ed that three ugh e
the faoilitie6 OF aKangement of land u6e6-
A. v6ale
(1) Assess
ro\ TheFe 06 ub"G tra sit to the site
(2 the Dronese d rl"°g° OR Adjare Rt 1 ands
use.
(b) it will Fe*Af9FGe gFdeF'y and timely developmeRt.
rd\ 6aFge~6a:~sensEraslien and -Parking lots Gan bebef'°r°d from the
ad}aseRt uses.
(e)PFiaasy of adjacent Fesidea#+aldevelopMents Gan be mainta;aed.
!fl G9FAFRURity WeR4i4.. GaR be maintained thF9 Sgt. design and Site laye ut
/g\ BU#BriRg g n t+'° R g4 ire adiagent .
/h\ There is adequate laRdsra g 4e filter the dust fr°m the site Wea.
/Z\ Cite /`haran4eristins
(a) The land intend-e-d- fe-F develepment ha t9p9qFaphy of less
than a 0
be med-
rh\ The U afi oral fee+~ ~r if aRy, n he i rated into the design of
rg\ The site is of a ri;ep whinh g m9d'te the R ent and Alt-ire US%
A. cp4wqa
(1) Annem
CPA2008-00001 31 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
(a) T-heFe . d :rest ;wrese the s;•nte te an arterial freeway. ,,,TFafG Will Ret
~
/h\ Site a will net e e dar.vereuc. nterneetienn nr tFaff:G a e6t:en
/a` TheFe ' uhlis tre sit to the 6,ic
(2) !FApaGt 9f the ed rhanae O ed:aveR#' ARooS
use.
(b) It Will FeoRf9FGe gFdeF!y aRd timely development.
(e) A669G*ated linhte. and d ; well net With thc e ati..,itie d
Tyrnv-~^: o ~.n' ^n,a6~rRv-cioe69R
adjaEeRt u6e6.
/fl -Caa FAFA'v'a''rty m ideFtity GaR he :Rta:ned t+.re„Rh de6wgR ne'I cite Ia.,ew+
/hl ndnean a #e' fi l# #h i°# frnrn the
~ere~6-adequate efe~6ReareB.
developrneRtr
(4) Site rharae+e^°+ie°
than 490% grade it n an he demnnntrnted thAt threunh
he mitigated
/hl The natural featWen if aRy, n be rated :Rte the de swgR of unique (e) Theme te-f6 of amxe-1A hiRh a Fn9d°+e the pmsenl and fut.-Fe user
Ih.4P C AC AITATI0AI CTRATC f_I CC
42.9 MIXE-D USE -DIR-TRIGT-9
pal ICY
1251 THE CI~TAI I PROVIDE FOR MIXED II lr E DEVEDOD,-:rAENTC IN' A!`!`ORDAAICP
a ADDI'CAR' C PLAN Dill IGICC•
APPLI GAQBLE PURPOSE STATEMENTS; A4D
6 ADDI 'CAR' C fYl11 M INITV IlCVC1 OPMENT !`(IIIC PROVISIONS
A. The pwFp9se of the Mixed W6e GOFAFReFGmal (MUG) land w6e desipatien is;
I . Tv Qleate A dense rn*xAd u6Q SemmApr,*W dvi6tF+st that fern's the R meal
CPA2008-00001 32 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
0-74
4. To implement the nnetre- 2-040 r_.9Wth re^^ept and 1 Irhe" r_r, wth
Management FunestweRal Plan f9F Wear. designated RegiORal GeRteF wit
.
2. Mixed WGe EpApleymepA
n-fthe- n-e-mmunity and the
6. T-E) implement the -h4po-:2040 r_rni.A h r, %ept aRd 1 Irhe., r_rewth
3. MixedLJ6e Residential
pFeduGe that hau6ing an way6 that FesideRt6 have a high degFee ef
T-9 WP "F;P
4. Te implement the Mptfe 2-040 Grni.A. ' reeeee` eerl 1 lrhee nFeWth
!he Qty of T-agaFd.
PQ[ ~rvicc
1:2 E :2 THE rlTv CHeI I ADDI Y nnlXF=D I lc m rlnl LAND USE DERIQNIATION
E91R AREAS 914gWN' AS R =G'QhIAI CENTER IN] TuE nnETDn 2040 C;RQ'A ru
C(' N(;EDT OR TQ OTWF=R ADCAC IDENTIFIED QY TWF= CITY AS ADDDl1DDIATC
F=QR AAIYCII I ICC rll~A~ACDr1Al DEVELOPMENT.
(Rev nrrl 91_97)
12 g2 TWE rlAII_ APrPI V A MIXED SE€MoI=QYYMEOIT I AND ''CF nPSIrhIATION
Cf1D ADCA CC-WQ- A.IhIAC DC!_I(I AIAI CCAITCD AND ChADI GYMENT IN THE MET-R I
12.54 TH€ CITY SHAI=1_ APPIY A hA'XrF=D IISE RF=RlvF=hITIAI 1AND IICE DESIGNATION
FOR nDEAC SHOWN AR R€GIBNAI CENTER 1A~Fh4F=TRv -2 49 ~-GRG : H
avi~aa~~~~r tatc.rw v
bb.t`ftrC~-F:
IMP CMENTATION STRATEGIES
(Rev. QFd 91 9-7)
CPA2008-00001 33 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Re~u:re that=
Qe f9F-
di. denr.*pV
and PAR FeqUiFerAents,
aGqw6tMents
Fes es-maY GO t;-"-
R6`
CP A2008-00001 34 Attachment 1
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD,
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Council Workshop - CPA2008-00001
DATE: April 18, 2008
At the May 6 City Council meeting, staff will present the proposed goals, policies, and
recommended action measures (see the end of this memo for definitions and obligations) for
the Land Use Planning (Statewide Planning Goal 2) chapter for the updated Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed language was approved and recommended by the Planning Commission
at an April 7 public hearing. Staff will discuss the proposed language; answer questions, and
provide any requested information that will help assist Council in making its decision at the
June public hearing.
Throughout the process of working with citizens, city departments, and the Planning
Commission, staff has stressed that proposed Comprehensive Plan language must be capable of
being implemented, and in the interests of the whole community. Staff has also worked to
explain the implications of certain policy recommendations, and most of the time the process
has achieved a consensus outcome. In staffs role as facilitators, we presented the best
professional advice possible to all involved and did not unilaterally change language, but
continually expressed whether or not to amend citizen recommendations is the role of the
Planning Commission to recommend and the City Council to decide upon.
The Planning Commission, at a worksession, requested a few minor changes be made before
bringing the amendment back for public hearing. These requested changes are found below.
No fizrther changes were made to the Land Use Planning chapter at the public hearing and the
language was approved as presented.
City of Tigard 1 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
1: \LRPLN \Council Materials\2008\5-0G-08 Attachment 2 CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc
Policies:
The Planning Commission felt preserving natural resources is a value that has been repeatedly
expressed by the community and wanted to ensure that they are an integral part of planning
process and asked for the additional language to be added.
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
While discussing Policy 8, the Planning Commission brought up situations where a
developer will pay for future improvements, but not construct the improvements at the time
of development occupancy. The Commission asked for language to be added that would
clarify this situation and give the City the option to enter into agreements with developers.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
The Planning Commission wanted to ensure the list was not exhaustive and asked for a
clarifying statement to be included.
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, to pr-efftete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
The Commission asked that this policy be deleted as they felt that this statement was
difficult to define and that Policy 1 actually served the purpose intended by this policy.
23. The Gity shft]4 f-equir-e that new ur-baft develeptnent does fiet diff~sh the quality of life in the-
ea
City of Tigard 2 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-06-08 Attachment 2 CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc
Recommended Action Measures:
The Commission asked that the word protocol be removed.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the preteen methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
The Commission asked that the language simply be cleaned up a bit.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and paheies area plans, and make changes when necessaryto
further community objectives.
The Planning Commission asked about implementing Policy 10 and then asked for a
recommended action measure to be added that directly addressed the policy.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Definitions and Obligations of Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures have different
definitions and impart different obligations to decision makers. They also relate differently to
one another. The following describes goals, policies, and recommended action measures in
greater detail.
Goals, policies, and recommended action measures identify the intent of the City to accomplish
certain results. The goals and policies relate to one another and are obligations the City wishes to
assume. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired end, but do not
signify an obligation themselves.
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
achieve that end.
Obligation - The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
City of Tigard 3 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
l:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-0G-08 Attachment 2 CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. To amend the Comprehensive
Plan, the City must show consistency with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment must
take place following prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise violate a
Plan policy.
Recommended Action Measures
Definition - A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard which, if executed, would
implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects,
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific issues.
These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions and
agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs, and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are
suggestions to future City decision-makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them. Neither
do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request amendments or
changes to the Comprehensive Plan., The list of recommended action measures is not exclusive. It
may be added to, or amended, as conditions warrant.
City of Tigard 4 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
IALKPLN\Council Materials\2008\5-06-08 Attachment 2 CC Workshop CPA 2008-00001.doc
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to approve
the March 17, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Doherty
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land
Use Planning
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 1 of 9
h1RPLN0oreenVCVC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 dre0 minutes.doc
values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open
Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14.
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that
the Comp Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight would update the goals, policies, and
recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Staff has found that the language included in the amendment (see Exhibit A) complies with the
applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as
federal, state, and regional plans and regulations.
The proposed amendment went tiro a review process that included two Policy Interest Team
meetings hosted back in February by the Planning Commission, where policy principles were
reviewed and crafted into draft language.
He noted that the Commission then held a workshop on March 17, 2008, to discuss the draft
language. A very thorough analysis resulted in the request for a few changes to be made before
bringing the CPA back for this public hearing. These changes (found at the beginning of the staff
report) included:
Policies:
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
Policy 9 was added based on discussion about Policy 8 and situations where development may be
required to pay for public facilities that will be constructed at some point in the future,'but will not
construct them prior to, or concurrent with, the development. Staff felt adding this policy was a
better solution than trying to augment Policy 8 with additional language.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Aprd 7, 2008 - Page 2 of 9
0LRPLN\DoreentPCtPC Minutes 2008Upc 04-07-08 drefl minutes.doc
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, te-promete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
23. The Gity 9614 require that new tit-ban development does nat dit~sh the quality of life in the-
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the preteeel methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and paheies area plans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities.
Staff's recommendation is to approve the language found in Exhibit A and forward it to the City
Council for review and adoption.
The updated goals, policies, and recommended action measures will provide Tigard a much better
foundation on which to prepare ordinances, associated plans, development standards, programs, and
intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to ensure the City's land
use planning program contributes to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
At this point President Inman asked whether anyone had questions of staff. The following
question was offered:
o Why the addition of 9 instead of rewording 8? Assistant Community Development
Director, Ron Bunch, answered. Retaining policy 8 is important but as discussed at the last
meeting, it was felt that it was important to have the option to enter into development agreements and
instead of trying to wed the topics, we felt it was more clear and would provide greater flexibility to have a
separate policy. Staff felt it was much easier to maintain clarity of concepts by adding 9 rather than
rewording 8.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the matter of policy 8 and 9. He
stated his concern about the Washington Square Regional Trail (the circumferential trail around
Washington Square) - he noted that it hasn't happened and it relies on the City of Tigard to find
staff time and money to acquire land for this. Frewing is concerned that policy #9 does not go far
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 3 of 9
I:LLRPLN0oreeWPCtPC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes.0oc
enough in terms of enforceability. He said that maybe if they put in the words "legally
enforceable" arrangements - or development agreements - maybe that would solve the problem.
He would like the words to be strengthened somehow on policy 8 or 9.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - OPPOSED:
No one spoke in opposition.
President Inman asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak either for or against but hadn't
signed up. No one came forward so she closed the public testimony portion of this hearing.
DELIBERATION:
The commissioners and staff discussed enforcement of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Caffall made the following motion that was seconded by Commissioner Fishel:
"I move that we accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 as
presented and amended by staff to us this evening."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Tides 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that this was the
second meeting on the Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment. The last meeting was the March 17
workshop. He said that, due to scheduling, tree board comments weren't included in the main packet but
came in later in a separate memo (Attachment 1). He noted that the recommended changes identified by
the Tree Board are as follows:
■ Replacement of the term "associated vegetation" with "understory vegetation" throughout the
document to provide more clarity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 4 of 9
I:%LRPLNtD0reentPCIPC Minutes 2008YPC 04-07-08 draft minutes.doc
■ Modification of Policy 2.2.9 (formerly Policy 16) to read "discourage" instead of "prohibit". This
was preferred to staff's proposed edits contained in the packet distributed on March 31" for
tonight's meeting.
Floyd noted that, due to the reformatting of the document, the goals have been renumbered but
that the text remains the same unless identified by either a swiedifaugk or the new language
being bolded and underlined. He went over all the changes and recommendations in the memo
(see attachment 1).
At this point, President Inman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commission that they'd like to address. Some of the questions/ comments were noted (answers
or replies are in italics):
1. Expressed concern about the word "minimizes" on Goal 2.3. Would like to see the goal read
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that ~ considers the loss of existing trees etc."
Commissioner Walsh (Tree Board Liaison) spoke on behalf of the tree board on this: There
was a lot of time spent on that word - a lot of input was received on this particulargoal and modifications were
made. I think there was a lot of discussion about having it re ad `~o minimi.Ze"the loss of trees.
2. Feels the words "to consider" the loss of trees doesn't have the same impact as "minimize"
the loss of trees.
President Inman commented that, to her, it means you have to take it into account for the
application process, not that you actually have to reduce the number of existing trees that are
affected. Another Commissioner noted that the word "consider" leaves too much open as
opposed to the word "minimize."
3. Policy 1 under goal 2.3 - We should at least acknowledge the City's responsibility to make
sure that we are supporting the developers wish to be able to save trees.
4. Policy 2 - Expressed concern that "understory vegetation" is not defined appropriately
enough. Is afraid too many trees will be taken out because of understory. It seems to focus
on vegetation when. that's not entirely the intent. The emphasis here is on protecting trees through the
planting of vegetation within certain criteria. If it's not clear, perhaps this should be rephrased..
5. Regarding the definition of "understory vegetation"... we're really talking about "non shade
tolerant flowers /vegetation that happens to be under the tree" - vegetation that supports the
well being of the tree. We need to get a definition that's closer to that - I think it might help
your understanding of it if we could get a very detailed definition.
6. Expressed concern about the word "require." When the word "require" is used, we have to be
able to quantify it, and therefore we have to be able to enforce. If we (in policy 2) "require"
that you preserve the understory, plant, or replace - are we going to get into situations where
you have to mitigate understory because you kept a tree next to a sidewalk? I don't see itgoing in
that direction but we can certainly take a look at it if that's a major concern of yours.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 5 of 9
1ALRPLN0oreen\PC\PC Minutes 2000VOC 04-07-08 draft minutes.doc
7. Expressed concern about 2.3.2 "require preservation" - concerned that the language may be
too strong.
8. Policy #4 (2.3.4) - Commissioner likes the rewording, but having a hard time as to how it
applies to residential. Is there a way to address that? The commissioner feels it would be
harder to say we have met this policy on a residential project. There are really 4 categories of land
use that this would apply to - one certainly is commercial, then there's industrial, residential/multi family, and
then, the other kind of employment/office park and public facility type of use. For
employmentlcommerciallpublic facility use, certainly, these kinds of site design landscape techniques can apply.
And also for multi family residential and for attached single-family residential. In residential - good site
design, good planning would meet the criteria. This is a broad statement that could be applied across the board.
At this point, President Inman said she realized they were getting too much into deliberations and
she moved on to the public testimony portion of the hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, Tree Board chair, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said the tree board was
in support of amending the update for the Tigard Urban Forest. She noted that it's especially
appropriate as this very week is "Arbor Week" and that Tigard is being honored for the 7`''
consecutive year as a "Tree City USA". She referred to her memo of 4/7/08 (Attachment 2). She
also addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up regarding goal 2.2, Policy 9 - they
were looking at "discourage" instead of "prohibit" because the concern was how would the City
actually go in to a residential property and prohibit a particular plant. Yes - we should discourage
- but how could we prohibit it without a whole lot of work from the City. Another question was
goal 2.3 on policy #2 - she was not liking "as appropriate" because following that is the word
"require" as another part - then it would have to be quantified- so who's going to decide what's
"appropriate" - is it the individual homeowner? Is it the Planning Commission? She thinks policy
#2 should be rephrased so that it's more appropriate. She also thinks the City should come up
with another policy of addressing home mitigation in a separate policy instead of trying to blend it
into 2.3, policy #1. It should be a policy that directly deals with mitigation.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated concern with respect to the "7 day
rule" about the material that came out on April 4 and later.
Frewing expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 of Floyd's memo (page 1). He spoke about the City
of Portland's "Citywide Tree Project Issue Paper" (Attachment 3). He noted how succinct and
informative it is and that the city of Portland has many of the same concerns as the City of Tigard.
He submitted it for the record, and would like the Planning Commission to review it before the
next meeting. Frewing stated that he feels policy 3 is worthless as there is no direction provided
outside what is already required. He agreed that "understory vegetation" needs to be defined
more clearly.
Tony Tycer 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on policy 2 of goal 2.3. He said the
real "teeth" of this policy is required preservation of understory - it's not just the understory
(foliage) underneath the tree - it has a lot to do with how the tree is going to be preserved. He
said it was important to not compromise the roots, structurally, and for the good of the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -April 7, 2008 - Page 6 of 9
I:LLRPLN0omemPC\PC Minutes 2008\tpc 04-07-08 draft minutes.ooc
Commissioner Walsh asked Mr. Tycer's opinion on the word "minimize" - whether he believed
the word was too strong or not. Tycer answered that he did not feel it was too strong, but that it
was appropriate. Tycer also spoke about using appropriate incentives rather than punitive
measures.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan DeHarpport, 5740 SW Arrowhead Lane, Portland, OR 97225 spoke on behalf of the
Homebuilders Association (HBS). He said he agrees with Mr. Frewing on notice. He said he
knew of several people who wanted to testify who weren't properly "noticed" and he hoped this
hearing would continue in two weeks. DeHarpport spoke on mitigation fees being very high. He
commented about street trees. He would like to see street trees being counted towards mitigation
incorporated into the policies. He said he fears if mitigation fees increase it will, in effect, shut
down development because if type II procedures are all that's going to be allowed - as he believes
that's how this could be interpreted at the code level - it would effectively shut down
development, particularly in type II procedures which restricts subdivisions. He said that if the
priority is to preserve trees, you'd have to preserve the trees in a tract. If that's the case, the lot
sizes will be reduced on the remaining portion of the property to the point where you'll have to
do a planned development, which will result in dense development in one corner of the property
with preservation of the tract in the rest of the property.
Regarding specific concerns: On Goal 2.2 Policy 5, (scratched out 11), they'd like to add a
sentence to the bottom of that communicating, "Street trees shall count towards tree mitigation
when possible."
Regarding Action Measure i - he believes an individual has the right to landscape their yard the
way they see fit, whether it's underneath a tree or not. Regarding Action Measure iii under the
same goal - he said street trees are actually the responsibility of the city after the developer is done
with their "winter maintenance period".
On Goal 2.3 - he said he'd support "consideration" versus "minimizes." On the first policy, he
asked whether the intent is to restrict removal for individual property owners and if so then every
resident in the city who has a tree on their property should be noticed.
DeHarpport agreed that many of the policies were written at the tree board level. He said there's
a lot of weight given the tree board; however, his concern is that there is no builder/developer on
the tree board so he believes their [builders/ developers] comments and concerns aren't weighed
as heavily as they would like them to be. He said in the future there should be a
builder/ developer member on the tree board and he's sure that one of them would be glad to take
on that task so their positions are weighed in as heavily as they'd like them to be.
On Policy 2 - he noted that one way to enforce that would be deed restrictions on properties. He
can see that being interpreted as requiring anyone who had understory on his or her property, or
large trees on their property, to put deed restrictions on properties. He's concerned that that's the
way that could be interpreted down the road.
On Policy 4 - He said this is "the meat" of everything from the homeowners standpoint. He
believes an appropriate way to word this particular policy is to acknowledge that properties zoned
for development are allowed to remove trees and that rights of ways (ROW) and building paths
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 7 of 9
IA LRPLNtDoreentPC\PC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes.doc
should be exempted from the mitigation standards because you have to put in a ROW - you have
to put in a road. The state engineering requires that. At this point DeHarpport used the white
board to illustrate his point. He believes the trees in the ROW should be exempt from mitigation
because there is no choice for the developer. He said they believe it's important to acknowledge
property zoned for development. He noted that would be a good addition for goal 2.3. He gave
some examples from the City of Beaverton (where he served as a former Planning
Commissioner). He wanted to make sure the policies and action measures are flexible enough so
that when it's time to get down to the code writing itself, that other ideas can at least be
considered. He believes goal 2.3 policy 4 has that possibility.
One of the commissioners asked the question - how are the mitigation funds structured and
used? Todd Prager, the City Arborist, explained their use.
Another commissioner commented that the general perception is developers don't care about
aesthetics and she would like DeHarpport to bring that back to his clients.
President Inman asked DeHarpport "Why do you feel that specifics need to be elevated into the
policy?" He answered - Those roads have to be built and to require mitigation for impervious services that are
required is a punitive measure. It's not a fair and balanced measure and that's why I believe it should be included
in the policy.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114, Tigard, OR 97223, commented. Her comments are in the form of a
letter dated April 7 (Attachment 4).
At this point, President Inman asked if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished
to speak. No one came forward.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATION:
The question was brought up; do we need to write a policy to allow the City to choose to buy land
using the tree mitigation fund? Ron Bunch said the City could administratively, through adoption
of a resolution or an ordinance, do that so it's not necessary to write a policy for that. He said an
action measure might be more appropriate if you wish to go that way.
President Inman said she feels it is very important that they get this correct so she proposed that
they have some other deliberations to give the staff a little more direction on some of the
comments that they've heard. She said she would like to continue the public hearing to the next
Planning Commission and potentially open up public testimony again then. Commissioner Walsh
stated that he would like it moved along to closure as quickly as possible but is okay with it
continuing.
At this point, President Inman and the other commissioners went over a list of things one at a
time that they would like staff to address at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: The Public Hearing on CPA2008-00002 Tigard Comp Plan
Update pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest will be continued to April 21.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -April 7,2008-Page 8 of 9
I:LLRPLN\DoreentPCtPC Minutes 2008Vpc 04-07-08 draft minutes.doc
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
\ G
Doreen Laughlin, Administrativ cialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Aprd 7, 2008 - Page 9 of 9
I:tLRPLMDoreeMPCtPC Minutes 2008Vpc 0407-08 Graf minutes doe
ATTACHMENT 4
Concepts and Information Presented to Policy Interest Team
Goal I Land Use Draft Goals Policies and Recommended Action Measures
February 26, 2008
Goal:
2.1. Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as
the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program.
Policies:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and
regional requirements, and shall also serve its citizens' own interests.
Policy 1, Commentary: State acknowledged Comprehensive Plans consistent with state law and
administrative rules are required by the state of Oregon. Coordination of local planning efforts with
other agencies and jurisdictions are required to ensure local policies and implementing actions are
not at cross purposes or contradictory with state law, policies, and rules of agencies and other
jurisdictions. In addition, jurisdictions in the Portland Metro area must also coordinate their
Planning efforts with Metro to comply with the Portland Metropolitan Area Functional Plan and
other state/federal mandated Metro responsibilities such as natural resource and transportation
planning.
However, the City of Tigard must also represent the aspirations and desires of its own citizens and
work with the state, Metro and other jurisdictions to ensure its own interests are pursued. In
addition to signaling that the City will comply with state and Metro requirements, this policy states
that the City's own interests are important.
2. The City's land use regulations, related plans and implementing actions shall be consistent
with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2 Commentary: The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are the primary
approval criteria for legislative land use regulations, related plans, and Comprehensive Plan / Zoning
map amendments. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the legislative foundation for City actions
related to the use of the land. It is important that the Comprehensive Plan specifically establish that
it is at the top of this hierarchy.
3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use
program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies.
Policy 3 Commentary: This Policy is a standard coordination policy that signals the City's intent to
coordinate its land use related actions consistent with state law and administrative rules.
4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of
incentives and redevelopment programs.
5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and
Corridors, and employment and industrial areas.
CPA2008-00001 1 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Policy 4, 5 Commentary: The City and its regional partners have agreed upon the utilization of
urban lands in a way that prevents urban sprawl, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure,
reduces the need for automobile travel, conserves energy, and provides for easy access to needed
goods and services. These objectives can be accomplished by implementing a variety of
development principles, including incentives and redevelopment programs that result in less land
being utilized to accommodate specific uses, thus resulting in compact urban development.
In the mid-1990s, Metro adopted the Regional Urban Growtb Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), which is
part of the Regional Framework Plan (1997) and includes Metro's 2040 Growth Concept (1995). RUGGO
was developed to implement regional compliance with state goals for land use in a coordinated way
and to ensure that housing and employment growth could be accommodated equitably across the
region. The Urban Growth Managenrent.Functional Plan (1998), or UGMFP, implements RUGGO and
contains several requirements for local implementation. Metros 2040 Growtb Concept requires cities
and counties to draw boundaries for each of the design types as defined in Title 1 of the UGMFP.
The design types correspond to the general boundaries shown in Metro's 2040 Growth Concept map.
Design types applicable to Tigard are Regional Centers, Town Centers, Industrial Areas,
Employment Areas, Corridors, Inner Neighborhoods and Outer Neighborhoods.
Regional Centers serve large market areas outside the central city and have connections via high-
capacity transit and highways. Metro has designated Washington Square as one of nine Regional
Centers. Town Centers (Tigard Downtown)are intended to be a principal center of urban life, while
corridors are intended to feature a high-quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to transit,
and somewhat higher than current densities. Industrial and Employment Areas are set aside to
support a strong economic climate by protecting the supply of employment "clusters" and limiting
the type and scale of non-industrial uses on industrial lands.
6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which
are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social
and fiscal stability.
Policy 6 Commentary: A City requires a properly balanced mix of land uses to ensure that it
derives the tax revenues necessary to fund needed community services. For example, under
Oregon's current tax structure, cities that consist primarily of low-mid value residential land uses
find it difficult to fund services. A balanced mix of commercial, office, industrial and residential
land uses is needed for fiscal stability. For example it is in a community's interest to foster a land
use pattern that emphasizes high value, high employment commercial / industrial land uses rather
than the opposite.
Community services are addressed in the policy because these land uses are quite common in urban
areas and present unique siting and design issues. In this context Community services include those
land uses that provide for needed social public facility and governance services, institutional uses and
some forms of specialized housing.
CPA2008-00001 2 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the
Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where special planning and regulatory tools are warranted;
and
F. Public services.
Policy 7 Commentary: The Comprehensive Plan, its factual base, goals, and policies are the basis
by which the City establishes and sometimes amends specific land use districts (Plan and Zoning
Map). The City has a state mandated requirement to provide for the full range of needed land uses
which should be acknowledged by the Plan.
Staffs position is that the Plan should list, in a general way, the needed land uses that are provided
by the City's land use program rather than enumerating a long catalog of locational land use district
criteria. The Development Code is the proper place for this level of detail. The Plan needs to be a
flexible policy tool. Furthermore, Tigard is mostly built out and its land use districts have been in
place for decades.
8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to
development approval and are constructed prior to or concurrently with development
occupancy.
9. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related
services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other
public facility systems.
Policies 8 and 9 Commentary: It is in the City's interest to assign to the extent possible, the
public facility costs associated with development, to the actual development itself. There are two
ways this is typically done in Oregon. First development must address the site specific costs
associated with the development itself. This includes assignable/proportionate transportation and
other public facility improvements. The second category is reimbursing a jurisdiction for system
wide impacts normally addressed through System Development Charges (SDCs). Currently in the
case of Washington County, transportation impacts are addressed through a County-wide
Transportation Impact Fees program.
Also the City provides essential development related services, such as planning, building and
engineering assistance. It is in the overall public interest that those that benefit from this service pay
for it.
10. The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from
hazardous conditions related to land use activities.
Policy 10 Commentary: A significant responsibility of local government is to assume the role of
protecting broad community safety and welfare. An important aspect of this responsibility is to
regulate land use activities to prevent the creation or exacerbation of hazardous situations. This
includes situations where there are natural hazards; inadequate transportation or public facilities,
such as sewer or drainage services. Even though other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan
CPA2008-00001 3 .-Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
specifically address these situation a policy is needed in the Land Use Planning Chapter to state that
the City will adopt regulations and standards to protect the general public and overall community
welfare from hazardous/ deleterious conditions.
11. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, including planned development, design
standards, and conservation easements, to promote:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
Policy 11: Commentary: A wide variety of tools, including Planned Development standards /
regulations, are available to allow/encourage high quality/innovative design and quality
development. This is especially important in communities that are "built out" and without many easy
to develop sites and are experiencing more infill development on small and /or more difficult to
develop sites. It is important that any Planned Development type ordinances be easy to administer
and attractive to use by developers. Some communities are requiring that Planned Development
type ordinances be used in specific situations where sites are constrained by hazards, natural
resources are present, and/or neighborhood compatibility is important. In the past, Planned
Development standards were often voluntary. Their mandatory use is more prevalent today as
projects have the potential for significantly affecting existing development. Furthermore, in
developed communities these regulations may "kick in" at smaller projects sizes than in
communities with lots of buildable land.
12. The City shall plan for future public facility expansion for those areas within its Urban
Planning Area that can realistically be expected be within the City limits during the planning
period.
Policy 12 Commentary: A significant part of the City's currently identified Urban Planning Area
(this includes Metzger and Bull Mt.) has been urbanized in unincorporated Washington County.
Key services, mainly sewer services have been provided by County Service Districts. Public safety
has been accommodated to a degree by enhanced Washington County Sheriffs services. The
consequence of this is that Tigard's municipal boundaries will never include these areas, especially if
Washington County continues its current practices. Furthermore, lands recently added to the Metro
Urban Growth Boundary (Urban Growth Areas 63 and 64) adjacent to Tigard's Urban Planning
Area cannot be annexed. This is because they are not contiguous due to intervening unincorporated
urban development. Therefore, absent a change in Washington County's policy and state
annexation law, the City should not continue to plan to provide services for these areas.
13. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are
consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the
Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies.
Policy 13 Commentary: From a process and administrative perspective, it is important to
unequivocally establish that the burden of proof for land use approval to amend any part of the
City's land use program lies with the applicant. Also, this policy broadly establishes what constitutes
the burden of proof. It is important to stress that the "burden of proof test" is also applicable to the
City of Tigard and other government entities when they are in the role of applicant.
CPA2008-00001 4 .-Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
14. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments
to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria:
A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available; or
committed to be made available and of sufficient capacity to serve the land
uses allowed by the proposed map designation;
B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not
negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities
and services;
C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as
provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing,
public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other
appropriately designated and developable properties;
D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable,
appropriately designated land for the land uses that would be allowed by the
new designation;
E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be
developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of
any overlay district would be fulfilled;
F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible or
capable of being made compatible with environmental conditions and
surrounding land uses; and
G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the
City's natural systems.
15. The City may condition approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the
development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements.
Policies 14 and 15 Commentary: Amending a City's Plan and Zoning Maps is a significant action
and it is essential that the governing body (City Council) have criteria to base a decision that will be
in the best interests of the Community. The specific criteria listed in proposed Policies 14 and 15
provide other essential criteria that are not elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. A secondary
intent of these criteria is to discourage applications for speculative Plan and map amendments and
assure that the applicant will develop their alleged land uses.
Communities have often had the experience of approving Plan and Zoning map amendments
thinking that specific land uses, as claimed by the developer would be developed. However, once
land use designations were changed, entirely different uses were developed. When there are no
conditions to prevent otherwise, a developer can construct a wide variety of uses allowed within a
zone. Policy 15 allows the City to condition Plan Map amendment to allow only a specific land use
or restricted set of land uses. This provides needed certainty.
Many otherwise positive Plan amendment / zone changes are highly contentious or fail because of
compatibility, natural resource protection or design concerns. It is possible for jurisdictions to
condition Plan/Zone Map amendments to develop pursuant to a specific set of design and
development standards.
16. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use.
CPA2008-00001 5 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Policy 16 Commentary: This policy provides the opportunity for property owners/ developers to
save time and resolve uncertainty by doing concurrent amendments for approval of a Plan/Zone
Map Amendment and development Plan. Also the policy provides certainty for the City that a map
amendment will result in a specific use and that important design, public facility and compatibility
issues are addressed.
Implementing this policy would allow the City to approve and condition a specific project in
comparatively short period following a Plan/Zone Map amendment. This process has been used to
assure a specific land use is ensconced consistent with design and development conditions when the
Plan/Zone Map is amended.
17. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate
legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or
the Community Development Code.
18. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the City Council that it consider
initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan/Zoning Maps and/or
Community Development Code.
19. The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and
regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to
community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law,
administrative rules, and regional requirements.
Policies 17, 18, 19: Commentary: The following three policies provide the tools by which the
City may amend Comprehensive Plan text, Plan Maps and Community Development Code. The
intent is to provide the City Council with the flexibility to make changes to the City's land use
program based upon finding that it is in the overall public interest. The proposed policies also assign
the Planning Commission an advisory role of making recommendations to Council to initiate
legislative actions.
Some communities allow for a collection of citizen initiated legislative amendments to be considered
at certain times on an annual or bi-annual basis. Instead of this, these policies provide the
opportunity for citizens/ development interests to make their case before the Planning Commission
and/or Council to initiate legislative changes. If Council decides to do so, staff and Planning
Commission can be directed to integrate these efforts into their work programs.
20. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/ development regulations.
Policy 20: Commentary: This policy is provides the basic foundation for the City to adopt site
design and development standards including basic dimensional standards such as building height,
setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, etc. In addition it provides the basis for the City to
adopt standards that require more specific design and development standards such as preservation
of natural resources, water quality, landscaping, tree protection, etc.
21. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program.
Policy 21 Commentary: This policy provides the basis for the City to develop and adopt a natural
resource protection program. It provides the City flexibility to adopt and apply natural resource
CPA2008-00001 6 attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
protections ranging from that which is minimally required by Metro to more those more far
reaching.
22. The City shall require that new urban development does not diminish the quality of life in
the community.
23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize
conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future
land uses.
Policy 22, 23 Commentary: The need for land-use compatibility is an important issue in
developed communities that experience significant infill; especially when existing structures are
being torn down to develop large residential lots more intensely. These policies provide the City
Council explicit discretion to adopt a wider range of development related compatibility standards.
Tigard like many jurisdictions already-has compatibility standards on the "books" in the form of
buffering and screening standards. However as more intense development occurs, this and future
City Councils may wish to broaden the compatibility requirements address site and architectural
design elements.
24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to
enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness.
Policy 24 Commentary: This policy provides the legislative foundation for the City to establish
design standards as a means to promote quality development and to allow development to adapt to
constrained site conditions. As above, Council has the flexibility to implement this policy to varying
degrees. For example, the City has very limited design regulations in the Tigard Triangle and the
Development Code has site design standards. These regulations implement the policy to a degree.
However, as an example, if Council wished to go further and adopt a higher level of site design and
architectural design standards for multi-family development, it would have the sound legislative basis
to do so.
Recommended Action Measures:
i. Work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Metro, Washington
County and others to develop means to equitably assign costs to new development for
its impacts on the interstate and intra-regional freeway and arterial system.
ii. Develop and maintain land use regulations, standards, and procedures necessary to
enhance the design of multi-family, commercial, and industrial development, and to
mitigate impacts on adjacent land uses.
iii. Implement measures to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Tigard's
residential districts. Examples include managing the design of infill development,
mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses, improving quality of streetscapes and
the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open space.
CPA2008-00001 7 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
iv. Develop and periodically update citywide Public Facilities and Transportation System
Plans (PFP, TSP) to guide the location, financing, and timing of future public facilities.
Coordinate the preparation and adoption of these Plans with other affected jurisdictions
and agencies.
V. Revise the Comprehensive Plan text, maps, and related findings as needed to maintain
reliability and timeliness; to ensure consistency among goals, policies and recommended
action measures; to assure accuracy of findings; and to comply with state, regional and
federal laws and rules. This includes review by the Planning Commission every two
years, formal evaluation every five years, and an overall update at least every ten years.
vi. Monitor and evaluate whether City actions and community conditions and circumstances
are consistent with the goal and policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. When
appropriate, amend the Plan or adjust City actions, regulations, or standards.
vii. Monitor actions, programs, and policies of federal, state, and regional governments.
When appropriate, amend the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations and
plans to be consistent with those of other agencies.
viii. Develop and adopt special district plans to enhance opportunities for economic
development, housing, social vitality, access to transit, etc.
ix. Actively participate and engage with other Portland Metropolitan Area jurisdictions and
agencies to represent Tigard's interest involving region-wide land use, transportation,
natural resource, and public facility issues.
X. Implement incentive and redevelopment programs to utilize urban land and existing
public facilities more efficiently.
Xi. Review transportation and other public facility plans and projects to address potential
negative aesthetic or operational impacts on neighborhoods and take mitigating action
when necessary.
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the protocol used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiii. Review and analyze the use of the Planned Development process as a way to gauge its
functionality and whether it is working as intended.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's
land use program (maps, codes, and policies) and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xv. Develop criteria to identify and protect unique community features and resources.
CPA2008-00001 8 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Draft Land Use Definitions
Below are definitions requested by the Land Use Policy Interest Team:
Compatibility - the ability of adjacent and/or dissimilar land uses to co-exist without aesthetic,
environmental, and/or operational conflicts that would prevent persons to enjoy, occupy, or use
their properties without interference. A variety of remedies to compatibility conflicts are normally
provided in a jurisdiction's land use program; including limited land use designation, buffering,
screening, site and building design standards, transportation facility design, etc.
Efficient Use of Land - utilization of urban lands in a way that prevents urban sprawl, maximizes
the use of existing infrastructure, reduces the need for automobile travel, conserves energy, and
provides for easy access to needed goods and services. The efficient use of land also means the
application of development principles that result in less land being utilized to accommodate specific
uses, thus resulting in compact urban development.
Fair Cost - (is not used in the policy language so it is not being defined).
Natural Systems - interactive, interrelated, and interdependent elements forming a complex whole
that exists in or is formed by nature. Hydrologic and ecological systems are two examples.
Promote - support, advocate, or take affirmative action to achieve a particular community
objective.
Proven Community Need - evidence required to amend land use map(s), which ensures that the
new land use being proposed is needed in the community in that particular location, versus other
appropriately designated and developable sites.
Public Facilities and Services - publicly funded infrastructure and services, such as public safety,
sanitary sewers, domestic water, water quality, parks, transportation, governance, etc. that are
required for the community's safety, health, welfare, prosperity, and quality of life.
Public Interest - shared interests often expressed as commonly held values that are perceived to be
of general benefit to the whole community and the welfare of the general public versus that of
specific entities, and which warrant recognition, promotion, and protection by the City.
Up-to-date - being in accord with relevant facts, knowledge, techniques, styles, etc.
CPA2008-00001 9 Attachment 4
City of Tigard Goal 2: Land Use Planning
AGENDA ITEM No. 2 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment May 6, 2008
Workshop Discussion - Goal 2: LAND USE PLANNING
This is a City of Tigard public meetin& subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. Ill written
and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names
and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting
minutes, which is a public record.
PLEASE PRINT
Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date May 6, 2008
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Workshop for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2008-00002 Urban Forest
Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Review and discuss with staff, proposed Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures
recommended by the Planning Commission at their April 21, 2008 public hearing (CPA2008-00002).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council is requested to become familiar with the Commission's recommendation to adopt Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies, and recommended action measures pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest and identify any additional material or
information to assist in making its decision at a public hearing scheduled for June 3, 2008.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a result of Council's direction to staff and the Tree
Board to complete a full update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies, and action measures
pertaining to tree stewardship and the contribution of trees to Tigard's quality of life. As part of the background
research, staff and the Tree Board considered relevant findings from past citizen surveys and the Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow visioning project. This ensured that the expressed values and attitudes of the hundreds of citizens who
participated in these efforts were incorporated into the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council's direction to update the Comprehensive Plan stressed the importance of garnering citizen input. Staff has done
this through Policy Interest Teams (PIT) that met several times for each chapter. For this particular subchapter, the
Tree Board acted as the host for the Policy Interest Team meetings under an interim charge statement adopted by
Council under Resolution 07-30 (Attachment 5). The Tree Board held several open meetings, including two joint
sessions with the Planning Commission, to find consensus on draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures
through consideration of technical information, previously expressed values and attitudes, and concepts presented at the
meetings. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on March 17, 2008, and two public hearings
on April 7 and April 21. The Commission recommended Council adopt the updated chapter (Attachment 1) included in
CPA2008-00002. As a result of the work sessions and public hearings, the Commission has made several revisions to
the Tree Board's original proposal. Revisions were requested at all three meetings in response to public testimony and
deliberation by the Commission (Attachment 2).
Like all updated Plan chapters that will come before Council, it is important that the Land Use Planning chapter be
technically sound. Therefore, during development of the chapter, Department Review Teams were involved to
determine its technical accuracy and conformance with applicable laws and rules. In addition, the updated chapter was
sent to state, federal, and regional agencies for review.
C:\Documents and Settings\eathy\l.ocal Settings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\Content.Outlook\34U]ZM13LM\5-06-08 AIS_CC_Workshop_CPA_2008-00002.doc
1
The intent of the updated chapter is to provide Tigard a much better foundation on which to prepare tree related
ordinances, associated plans, development standards, and programs. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to
address the appropriate development and implementation of an effective urban forest protection and enhancement
program. The successful management of Tigard's urban forest is essential to a high quality of life, prosperity, and
the overall health, safety, and welfare of the community.
The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) requires jurisdictions to periodically update
their plans to reflect current conditions, regulations, and information relating to the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
This amendment will act as a major stride in ensuring compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals through goals and
policies that act as the basis to manage, maintain, and expand tree stewardship actions within the community.
The minutes of the April 7 and April 21 Planning Commission public hearings can be found in Attachments 3 and 4.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Complete the update and begin the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Proposed Language for CPA2008-00002
Attachment 2: Memo to Council dated April 22, 2008
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 7, 2008
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 21, 2008
Attachment 5: Council Resolution 07-30 (Interim Tree Board Charge Statement)
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
C:\Documents and Settings\cathy\Local Settinp\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\34UItMPLM\5-06-08 AIS_CC_Workshop_CPA_2008-00002.doc 2
04% LAND USE PLANNING ATTACHMENT 1
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland, Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings, roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection, management, and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place, but for the social, ecolog-
ical, and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic, economic, and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color,
texture, line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind, providing habitat for birds and wildlife, enhancing
community attractiveness and investment, improving water quality and soil
stability, and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century, and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English 1-1ry, reed canary grass, and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive. However, remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities, and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries, and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
2-10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
In addition to remnants of the native forest, Tigard possesses a large number of
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's, many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources. Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat, a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found "the protection of trees and natural resource areas" as rating
the highest of all "livability" characteristics posed to the respondents, scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2), maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8), pedestrian and bike paths (7.7), and compatibility between
existing and new development (7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84% of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees, with only 6% strongly disagreeing and 9% somewhat
disagreeing. In addition, 90% of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain, or have begun significant updates to, their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City, USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services, the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality, reduce
erosion, and provide shade, structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects, cooperative efforts with
non-profits, contract services, and the labor of Public Works crews, thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects, the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands, distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 241
04% LAND USE PLANNING
Street Tree Program, and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along trails, riparian
areas, and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees, particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older, the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canopy, and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat, erosion control,
slope stability, water quality, air-quality, and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations, failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983, further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally, the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents, developers, and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property, particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes, wetlands, and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed, and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands, riparian corridors, and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program. These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas, and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending, or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city, which may be removed by the property owner without City
2-12 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
consultation or permit. Additionally, because the City does not have a compre-
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system, protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest, a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
■ This urban forest provides social, economic, and ecological services that
create public and private value to residents, businesses, and visitors.
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting, tree main-
tenance, and outreach activities. Additionally, new development is required
to install street trees, landscape trees, and trees for mitigation purposes.
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code; applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner; and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel-
opment permit review Furthermore, landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their property.
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources, and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
GOAL:
2.2 To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations
Comprehensive Plan Cityof Tigard 2-13
04% LAND USE PLANNING
and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating
to landscaping, site development, mitigation, and tree management
shall be consistent with, and supportive of, one another; administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees, within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees, unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects. Trees should be planted within planter strips, or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees,
parking lot trees, and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require, as appropriate, the use of trees and other vegeta-
tion as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
2-14 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
n
LAND USE PLANNING 04
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations, standards, programs, and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion required by development approval, with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees, street trees, and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree, parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive, and determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified, and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings, permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
City policies, regulations, and good arboricultural practices for the
general public, developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance, and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-15
0414 LAND USE PLANNING
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant, site appropriate, and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries, landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii. Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous varieties, and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects, such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City, promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, and shall consider
the financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
2-16 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
7. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses,
other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian
areas, tree groves, specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that exceeds the requirements of the Development Code.
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-17
04% LAND USE PLANNING
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands, and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys, workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
2-18 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Attachment "2"
INJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
FROM: John Floyd, Associate Planner
RE: Council Workshop - CPA2008-00002
DATE: April 22, 2008
At the May 6 City Council meeting, staff will present the proposed goals, policies, and
recommended action measures (see the end of this memo for definitions and obligations) for
the Urban Forest section of the updated Comprehensive Plan, to be included as a
subchapter of Land Use Planning (Statewide Planning Goal 2). The proposed language was
approved and recommended by the Planning Commission at an April 21 public hearing.
Staff will discuss the proposed language, answer questions, and provide any requested
information that will help assist Council in making its decision at the June public hearing.
Throughout the process of working with citizens, city departments, and the Planning
Commission, staff has stressed that proposed Comprehensive Plan language must be capable of
being implemented and in the interests of the whole community. Staff has also worked to
explain the implications of certain policy recommendations and, most of the time, the process
has achieved a consensus outcome. In staff s role as facilitators, we. presented the best
professional advice possible to all involved and did not unilaterally change language, but
continually expressed whether or not to amend citizen recommendations is the role of the
Planning Commission to recommend and the City Council to decide upon.
The Planning Commission requested a few minor changes at the work session and the public
hearing on April 7. Additional changes were made at the April 21 public hearing, and included
in the Commission's recommendation to Council. These changes and a full list of definitions
are found below.
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
I:\IAPLN\C ..61 M-iM,\71X18\-""8 A-h-1 CC B'odehop CPA 2WMX102d- 1 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
GOAL 2.2: To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic,
ecological, and social benefits of trees .
Staff Note: IVhile reco,gni.Zed as an important component of tree health and worthy of consideration at
implementation, the Planning Commission decided to remove all references to understory vegetation for being overly
specific and d nult to appropriately define within the context of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
POLICIES
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to
inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic, and economic
benefits.
2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards, and programs relating to
landscaping, site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be consistent
with, and supportive of, one another; administration and enforcement shall be
regulated and coordinated by the variously impacted departments.
Staff Note: Reference to mitigation was inserted into Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 to ensure that mitigation
standards are appropriately maintained, revised, and coordinated.
9. The City shall prehibit discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
Staff Note: The word `prohibit" was replaced with "discourage" in response to Planning Commission's
concerns regarding implementation.
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management
Master Plan.
Staff Note. This policy was added as the Commission felt that a master plan too important to leave as a
recommended action measure.
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
1:\LRP1N\C-i1 Materiels\2(M8\5-0608 A-h n-t2 CC ROdcehop CPA 2W84ggp dx 2 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and enhancement of
all tree and asseeiated under-st 3,n related regulations, standards, programs,
and plans,
Niftster Plan that wifl establish meastwable goals, standards and Ode Gity aetions
regarding the Uf-ban For-es
Staff Note: References to understoy vegetation were removed from the document for reasons discussed above.
Language regarding a masterplan was deleted from this action measure and formed into a newpolicy.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree, parking lot, and landscape area plantings that have
failed to thrive, and determine if s"eet site conditions or management practices
can be modified, and/or if trees can be planted elsewhere in the right of ,
in order to satisfy conditions of development approval or
provide the benefits expected of the original planting..
V. Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems, a publicly
accessible inventory of tree plantings, permitted removals, and the state of the City's
urban forest.
Staff Note: The word permitted' was included to limit this action measure only to actions requiring a permit
and therefore already subject to public record.
GOAL 2.3: To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed
urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees
eget and to creates a living legacy for future generations.
Staff Note: Wlhile recogni.Zed as an important component of tree health and worthy of consideration at
implementation, the Planning Commission decided to remove all references to understory vegetation for being overly
spec fic and difficult to appropriately define within the context of Comprehensive Plan goals and polities.
POLICIES
1. The City shall require aH development and non developffient related "ee r-effieval to
develop and implement standards and
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
1ALRPLN\C 61 Memridx\ZfMB\.5/6-09A..h-.2 CC W.,k,hop CPA 2(1084XXMd« 3 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with
priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread before, ef existing tfees ever
Staff Note: The Commission made these changes at the April 21 hearing in response to concerns surrounding the
meaning of "non-development related tree removal" and its implications. The revised language foczrses the goal on
saving trees, leaving Council with greater discretion at the time of implementation as to when and how trees are to
be protected. References to mitigation were removed as the Commission felt it was better addressed as a separate
policy (below).
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give
priority to the preservation of existing trees, and shall consider the financial impact
of mitigation.
Staff Note: This language results from the splitting of policy 2.3.1 above, with the language rewritten to
accommodate public comment requesting consideration by given to the financial impacts of mitigation.
3. planting,
and/or- replaeefnen
shall oeetir in sueh a fnanner- that the f6ilowing fitnetions shall be preserved: pf-i
b. Habitat far- fish an _i4l fe;
77 ,
e. Water quality etthafteetnettt~ and
d. Sail and Erosion Gantral.
The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect trees,
including root systems, selected for preservation during land development.
Staff Note: The Commission made these changes to streamline the policy and clarify its intent.
5. The City shall r-equke and entfor-ee the n-Atigation of the aesthetie and Itftl
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
is\[-Rrw\councilN1-rids\2(XM\s+)a+18A-hm-2CC wo&,nopCPA za84XW2.d« 4 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
The City shall develop and enforce site design and
landscape requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of
impervious surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
Staff Note: The Commission made these changes to clarify its intent.
6. The City shall allow and eneaufage eansider-ation of appropriate flexibAity in
design to allow "ee pr-esei=vatian and planting in areas where sufvival will fnare hkely
use ef trees that wiH gT-aw large, itteluding lang lived evefg-reens and broad spt-eading
deei'uous --reties. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and
ensure new trees will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design
through all aspects of development review.
Staff Note: The Commission made these changes to streamline the policy and clarify its intent.
Draft Comprehensive Plan Definitions
Hazardous Tree - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound,
suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the
degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property and where
pruning or other treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard.
Staff Note: The Commission withheld a formal recommendation on this definition, and directed staff to return
with a revised definition that more closely aligns with the of vial definition used by the International Soazeo of
Arborinulture.
Invasive Species - Plants, animals, and microbes not native to a region, which when
introduced either accidentally or intentionally, out-compete native species for available
resources, reproduce prolifically, and dominate regions and ecosystems. Because they often
arrive in new areas unaccompanied by their native predators, they can be difficult to control.
Left unchecked, many have the potential to transform entire ecosystems, as native species
and those that depend on them for food, shelter, and habitat disappear.
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
I:\LRPIN\Coundl MPwAWs\2008\54)6.)8 Att hmcm2 CC Workshop CPA 2(X)8{YtX)2.doc 5 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
Mitigation - A process, standard, compensatory action, or any other mechanism by which
adverse impacts can be avoided, minimized, restored, or compensated as appropriate a-a
level pr-apar-tional to the impaet.
Staff Note. The Commission amended the definition of `mitigation' to allow greater flexibility at implementation.
Urban Forest - Broadly defined as all the trees within the City collectively.
Urban Forest, Diverse - An urban forest that contains a variety and abundance of differing
composition, structure, and function. Diversity.in composition means variation in species,
genetics, abundance and age. Diversity in structure means variation and abundance of
vertical and horizontal arrangement, heterogeneity, forest density, micro-climates, and visual
quality. Diversity in function means variation and abundance of ecological services, stages of
succession, and value as green infrastructure.
Definitions and Obligations of Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and recommended action measures have different
definitions and impart different obligations to decision makers. They also relate differently to
one another. The following describes goals, policies, and recommended action measures in
greater detail.
Goals, policies, and recommended action measures identify the intent of the City to
accomplish certain results. The goals and policies relate to one another and are obligations
the City wishes to assume. Recommended action measures support the obligations to
achieve a desired end, but do not signify an obligation themselves.
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow
to achieve that end.
Obligation - The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
[ALRPIN\r -J Maeeriab\I108\""8 A-h-rn' CC X.rkshop CPA W84")W-d- 6 Tigard's Urban Forest
Attachment "2"
particular case) over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action.
Policies are more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to
implementing goals; however, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish
goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the
Comprehensive Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. To
amend the Comprehensive Plan, the City must show consistency with the Statewide Land
Use Goals. Such an amendment must take place following prescribed procedures prior to
taking an action that would otherwise violate a Plan policy.
Recommended Action Measures
Definition - A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard which, if
executed, would implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to
specific projects, standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in
regard to specific issues. These statements also define the relationship the City desires to
have with other jurisdictions and agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain
relationships or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number
of factors such as citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on
current circumstances, community needs, and the City's goal and policy obligations. These
statements are suggestions to future City decision-makers as ways to implement the goals
and policies. The listing of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the
City to accomplish them. Neither do recommended action measures impose obligations on
applicants who request amendments or changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of
recommended action measures is not exclusive. It may be added to, or amended, as
conditions warrant.
CPA2008-00002 Attachment 2
1A RPIN\Co-61 h19wria1s\2W8\5416.08 Amchmm2 CC Workshop CPA 2(0&OIXY2.doc 7 Tigard's Urban Forest
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Muldoon and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Hasman, to approve
the March 17, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Doherty
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00001
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land
Use Planning
REQUEST: Amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan Topic 1: General Policies;
Topic: Special Areas of Concern; and Topic: Locational Criteria by updating the goals,
policies and recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 1 of 9
I:% RPLNtDoreenVCPC Minutes 20004po OaD7•De Qrart minetes.eoe
values. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's
website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments. LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen
Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Economy, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, General Policies, Transportation, Urbanization, and Natural Features and Open
Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 6, 12, and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2,
5, 6, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, and 14.
Darren Wyss, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that
the Comp Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight would update the goals, policies, and
recommended action measures pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning.
Staff has found that the language included in the amendment (see Exhibit A) complies with the
applicable state land use goals, the City's municipal code and comprehensive plan policies, as well as
federal, state, and regional plans and regulations.
The proposed amendment went thru a review process that included two Policy Interest Team
meetings hosted back in February by the Planning Commission, where policy principles were
reviewed and crafted into draft language.
He noted that the Commission then held a workshop on March 17, 2008, to discuss the draft
language. A very thorough analysis resulted in the request for a few changes to be made before
bringing the CPA back for this public hearing. These changes (found at the beginning of the staff
report) included:
Policies
7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive
Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:
A. Residential;
B. Commercial and office employment including business parks;
C. Mixed use;
D. Industrial;
E. Overlay districts where natural resource, protections or special planning and regulatory
tools are warranted; and
F. Public services.
Policy 9 was added based on discussion about Policy 8 and situations where development may be
required to pay for public facilities that will be constructed at some point in the future, but will not
construct them prior to, or concurrent with, the development. Staff felt adding this policy was a
better solution than trying to augment Policy 8 with additional language.
9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development
agreements to phase the provision gf tcquired public facilities and services and/or
payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the
infrastructure system and public safety.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 2 of 9
t"PLMD=W'CW Mnutes2NWpe04-07-0Ldre0 minutes.dtm
12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards,
and conservation easements, te-premete that encourage results such as:
A. High quality and innovative design and construction;
B. Land use compatibility;
C. Protection of natural resources;
D. Preservation of open space; and
E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions.
23. The Gity shftH reqtire 4W new urban development does not dininish the quaEty of life in the-
Recommended Action Measures:
xii. Work with the appropriate agencies to review the piateeel methods used in determining
development impacts upon water quality, natural resources, and other land uses.
xiv. Proactively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of different elements of the City's land use
program, such as maps, codes, and peheies area glans, and make changes when necessary to
further community objectives.
xvi. Review and update regulations that are intended to protect the community from
transportation hazards, environmental hazards, and natural hazards associated with land
use activities,
Staffs recommendation is to approve the language found in Exhibit A and forward it to the City
Council for review and adoption.
The updated goals, policies, and recommended action measures will provide Tigard a much better
foundation on which to prepare ordinances, associated plans, development standards, programs, and
intergovernmental agreements. This is necessary to provide the tools needed to ensure the City's land
use planning program contributes to a high quality of life and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
At this point President Inman asked whether anyone had questions of staff. The following
question was offered:
o Why the addition of 9 instead of rewording 8? Assistant Community Development
Director, Ron Bunch, answered. Retaining policy 8 is important but as discussed at the last
meetin& it was felt that it was important to have the option to enter into development agreements and
instead of trying to wed the topics, we felt it was more clear and would provide grrater flexibility to have a
separate policy. Staff felt it was much easier to maintain clarity of concepts by adding 9 rather than
rewording 8.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the matter of policy 8 and 9. He
stated his concern about the Washington Square Regional Trail (the circumferential trail around
Washington Square) - he noted that it hasn't happened and it relies on the City of Tigard to find
staff time and money to acquire land for this. Frewing is concerned that policy #9 does not go far
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apol 7, 2008 - Page 3 of 9
MRPLMDweanfPCWG WnNes 200&W 04-07-08 OmA minutes.Qoo
enough in terms of enforceability. He said that maybe if they put in the words "legally
enforceable" arrangements - or development agreements - maybe that would solve the problem.
He would like the words to be strengthened somehow on policy 8 or 9.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - OPPOSED:
No one spoke in opposition.
President Inman asked if anyone was present who wanted to speak either for or against but hadn't
signed up. No one came forward so she closed the public testimony portion of this hearing.
DELIBERATION:
The commissioners and staff discussed enforcement of conditions of approval.
Commissioner Caffall made the following motion that was seconded by Commissioner Fishel:
"I move that we accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00001 as
presented and amended by staff to us this evening."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Muldoon, Vermilyea
5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He noted that this was the
second meeting on the Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment. The last meeting was the March 17
workshop. He said that, due to scheduling, tree board comments weren't included in the main packet but
came in later in a separate memo (Attachment 1). He noted that the recommended changes identified by
the Tree Board are as follows:
■ Replacement of the term "associated vegetation" with "understory vegetation" throughout the
document to provide more clarity; and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apzil 7, 2008 - Page 4 of 9
NML"oreen%PC%PC Winos 200811po 04-07.08 em8 Mnulee.Coo
■ Modification of Policy 2.2.9 (formerly Policy 16) to read "discourage" instead of "prohibit". This
was preferred to staff's proposed edits contained in the packet distributed on March 31" for
tonight's meeting.
Floyd noted that, due to the reformatting of the document, the goals have been renumbered but
that the text remains the same unless identified by either a str6keditough or the new language
being bolded and underlined. He went over all the changes and recommendations in the memo
(see attachment 1).
At this point, President Inman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commission that they'd like to address. Some of the questions/comments were noted (answers
or replies are in italics):
1. Expressed concern about the word "minimizes" on Goal 2.3. Would like to see the goal read
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed urban
development that ati~zes considers the loss of existing trees etc."
Commissioner Walsh (Tree Board Liaison) spoke on behalf of the tree board on this: There
was a lot of time spent on that word - a lot of input was received on this partiadargoal and modations weir
made. I think there was a lot of discussion about having it read `to minimite"the loss of trees.
2. Feels the words "to consider" the loss of trees doesn't have the same impact as "minimize"
the loss of trees.
President Inman commented that, to her, it means you have to take it into account for the
application process, not that you actually have to reduce the number of existing trees that are
affected. Another Commissioner noted that the word "consider" leaves too much open as
opposed to the word "minimize."
3. Policy 1 under goal 2.3 - We should at least acknowledge the City's responsibility to make
sure that we are supporting the developers wish to be able to save trees.
4. Policy 2 - Expressed concern that "understory vegetation" is not defined appropriately
enough. Is afraid too many trees will be taken out because of understory. It seems to focus
on vegetation when. that's not entirely the intent. The emphasis here is on protecting trees through the
planting of vegetation within certain criteria. If it's not clear, perhaps this should be rephrased..
5. Regarding the definition of "understory vegetation"... we're really talking about "non shade
tolerant flowers/vegetation that happens to be under the tree" - vegetation that supports the
well being of the tree. We need to get a definition that's closer to that - I think it might help
your understanding of it if we could get a very detailed definition.
6. Expressed concern about the word "require." When the word "require" is used, we have to be
able to quantify it, and therefore we have to be able to enforce. If we (in policy 2) "require"
that you preserve the understory, plant, or replace - are we going to get into situations where
you have to mitigate understory because you kept a tree next to a sidewalk? I don't see itgoing in
that direction but we can certainly take a look at it if that's a major concern ofyours.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 5 of 9
I:LLRPLNV=enVK,W Minutes 2OMpo W-07-08 drefl mirwtesAOo
7. Expressed concern about 2.3.2 "require preservation" - concerned that the language may be
too strong.
8. Policy #4 (2.3.4) - Commissioner likes the rewording, but having a hard time as to how it
applies to residential. Is there a way to address that? The commissioner feels it would be
harder to say we have met this policy on a residential project. Thee are really 4 categories of land
use that this would apply to - one certainly is commercial, then there's industrial, residential/multi family, and
then, the other kind of employment/ ofce park and public facility type of use. For
employmentl eommeniallpublic facility use, certainly, these kinds of site design landscape techniques can apply.
And also for multi family residential and for attached single family residential. In residential -good site
design, good planning would meet the criteria. This is a broad statement that could be applied across the board.
At this point, President Inman said she realized they were getting too much into deliberations and
she moved on to the public testimony portion of the hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, Tree Board chair, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223, said the tree board was
in support of amending the update for the Tigard Urban Forest. She noted that it's especially
appropriate as this very week is "Arbor Week' and that Tigard is being honored for the 7`h
consecutive year as a "Tree City USA". She referred to her memo of 4/7/08 (Attachment 2). She
also addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up regarding goal 2.2, Policy 9 - they
were looking at "discourage" instead of "prohibit" because the concern was how would the City
actually go in to a residential property and prohibit a particular plant. Yes - we should discourage
- but how could we prohibit it without a whole lot of work from the City. Another question was
goal 2.3 on policy #2 - she was not liking "as appropriate" because following that is the word
"require" as another part - then it would have to be quantified- so who's going to decide what's
"appropriate" - is it the individual homeowner? Is it the Planning Commission? She thinks policy
#2 should be rephrased so that it's more appropriate. She also thinks the City should come up
with another policy of addressing home mitigation in a separate policy instead of trying to blend it
into 2.3, policy #1. It should be a policy that directly deals with mitigation.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, stated concern with respect to the "7 day
rule" about the material that carne out on April 4 and later.
Frewing expressed concern about policy 2.2.2 of Floyd's memo (page 1). He spoke about the City
of Portland's "Citywide Tree Project Issue Paper" (Attachment 3). He noted how succinct and
informative it is and that the city of Portland has many of the same concerns as the City of Tigard.
He submitted it for the record, and would like the Planning Commission to review it before the
next meeting. Frewing stated that he feels policy 3 is worthless as there is no direction provided
outside what is already required. He agreed that "understory vegetation" needs to be defined
more clearly.
Tony Teer 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on policy 2 of goal 2.3. He said the
real "teeth" of this policy is required preservation of understory - it's not just the understory
(foliage) underneath the tree - it has a lot to do with how the tree is going to be preserved. He
said it was important to not compromise the roots, structurally, and for the good of the tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 6 of 9
L%LRPLNVDoreenMVPC Won 2008Vpe 0e-07.08 EnR mfnotee.doc
Commissioner Walsh asked Mr. Tycer's opinion on the word "minimize" - whether he believed
the word was too strong or not. Tycer answered that he did not feel it was too strong, but that it
was appropriate. Tycer also spoke about using appropriate incentives rather than punitive
measures.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan DeHaIl2port, 5740 SW Arrowhead Lane, Portland, OR 97225 spoke on behalf of the
Homebuilders Association (HBS). He said he agrees with Mr. Frewing on notice. He said he
knew of several people who wanted to testify who weren't properly "noticed" and he hoped this
hearing would continue in two weeks. DeHarpport spoke on mitigation fees being very high. He
commented about street trees. He would like to see street trees being counted towards mitigation
incorporated into the policies. He said he fears if mitigation fees increase it will, in effect, shut
down development because-if type II procedures are all that's going to be allowed - as he believes
that's how this could be interpreted at the code level - it would effectively shut down
development, particularly in type II procedures which restricts subdivisions. He said that if the
priority is to preserve trees, you'd have to preserve the trees in a tract. If that's the case, the lot
sizes will be reduced on the remaining portion of the property to the point where you'll have to
do a planned development, which will result in dense development in one corner of the property
with preservation of the tract in the rest of the property.
Regarding specific concerns: On Goal 2.2 Policy 5, (scratched out 11), they'd like to add a
sentence to the bottom of that communicating, "Street trees shall count towards tree mitigation
when possible."
Regarding Action Measure i - he believes an individual has the right to landscape their yard the
way they see fit, whether it's underneath a tree or not. Regarding Action Measure iii under the
same goal - he said street trees are actually the responsibility of the city after the developer is done
with their "winter maintenance period".
On Goal 2.3 - he said he'd support "consideration" versus "minimizes." On the first policy, he
asked whether the intent is to restrict removal for individual property owners and if so then every
resident in the city who has a tree on their property should be noticed.
DeHarpport agreed that many of the policies were written at the tree board level. He said there's
a lot of weight given the tree board; however, his concern is that there is no builder/developer on
the tree board so he believes their [builders/developers] comments and concerns aren't weighed
as heavily as they would like them to be. He said in the future there should be a
builder/developer member on the tree board and he's sure that one of them would be glad to take
on that task so their positions are weighed in as heavily as they'd like them to be.
On Policy 2 - he noted that one way to enforce that would be deed restrictions on properties. He
can see that being interpreted as requiring anyone who had understory on his or her property, or
large trees on their property, to put deed restrictions on properties. He's concerned that that's the
way that could be interpreted down the road.
On Policy 4 - He said this is "the meat" of everything from the homeowners standpoint. He
believes an appropriate way to word this particular policy is to acknowledge that properties zoned
for development are allowed to remove trees and that rights of ways (ROW) and building paths
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 7 of 9
I:YRPLPPD0men1PC%PC WnUt65200eVP004-0>-08 theft minules.doc
should be exempted from the mitigation standards because you have to put in a ROW - you have
to put in a road. The state engineering requires that. At this point DeHarpport used the white
board to illustrate his point. He believes the trees in the ROW should be exempt from mitigation
because there is no choice for the developer. He said they believe it's important to acknowledge
property zoned for development. He noted that would be a good addition for goal 2.3. He gave
some examples from the City' of Beaverton (where he served as a former Planning
Commissioner). He wanted to make sure the policies and action measures are flexible enough so
that when it's time to get down to the code writing itself, that other ideas can at least be
considered. He believes goal 2.3 policy 4 has that possibility.
One of the commissioners asked the question - how are, the mitigation funds structured and
used? Todd Prager, the City Arborist, explained their use.
Another commissioner commented that the general perception is developers don't care about
aesthetics and she would like DeHarpport to bring that back to his clients.
President Inman asked DeHarpport "Why do you feel that specifics need to be elevated into the
policy?" He answered -Those road have to be built and to require mitigation for impervious services that air
required is a punitive measure. It's not a fair and balanced measure and that's why I believe it should be included
in the policy.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114, Tigard, OR 97223, commented. Her comments are in the form of a
letter dated April 7 (Attachment 4).
At this point, President Inman asked if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished
to speak. No one came forward.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
DELIBERATION:
The question was brought up; do we need to write a policy to allow the City to choose to buy land
using the tree mitigation fund? Ron Bunch said the City could administratively, through adoption
of a resolution or an ordinance, do that so it's not necessary to write a policy for that. He said an
action measure might be more appropriate if you wish to go that way.
President Inman said she feels it is very important that they get this correct so she proposed that
they have some other deliberations to give the staff a little more direction on some of the
comments that they've heard. She said she would like to continue the public hearing to the next
Planning Commission and potentially open up public testimony again then. Commissioner Walsh
stated that he would like it moved along to closure as quickly as possible but is okay with it
continuing.
At this point, President Inman and the other commissioners went over a list of things one at a
time that they would like staff to address at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS: The Public Hearing on CPA2008-00002 Tigard Comp Plan
Update pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest will be continued to April 21.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Apzil 7, 2008 -Page 8 of 9
I:1RKNZWeWV WC Minutes 20DSVpo 04.07.08 draft mtnutmdw
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Administrativ cialist II
E)
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 7, 2008 - Page 9 of 9
I:ILRPLN1C0veedlP04PC MIwt832008Vg006.07.08dn0 Wnulee.doc
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman,
Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Anderson
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director; Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI [Committee for Citizen
Involvement] meeting earlier in the month and that the City now has four neighborhoods up
and running with their "neighborhood website." He said the City webpage has details on these
neighborhood websites and that more are to come. He encouraged people to check out the
website to see if their neighborhood has a webpage.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve
the April 7, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Muldoon, Vern Iyea
EXCUSED: Anderson
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 1
EM-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can
be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code- amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11.
President Inman opened the public hearing, explained that this meeting was a continuation
from the last hearing, and went on to explain the process. She noted that public testimony
would be reopened and that there is a 3 minute limit for individuals and a 20 minute limit for
people speaking on behalf of a group.
John Floyd, Assistant Planner, gave his report on behalf of the City. He went over changes that
had been made by staff since the April 7 meeting. He noted that there were basically four
changes and that his PowerPoint presentation would cover these changes.
Following are those changes (in brief):
1. Eight (8) policies and recommended action measures were amended, rewritten, or
recreated as a result of direction from the Planning Commission at the last meeting;
2. Two definitions were changed - one is new, one is substantially rewritten;
3. Staff wanted greater clarification as to Planning Commission's preference in policy 2.2.9
(which he would explain in more detail later in his presentation); and
4. Two pieces of public comment had been received by staff since the last hearing
[Attachments 1 & 2] for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Floyd explained these changes in detail in his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3).
After Floyd's report, President Inman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of
staff regarding this. There were none.
At this point, President Inman opened up the meeting for public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223 (Chair of the Tree Board) said the
Tree Board had met again since the last Planning Commission meeting and went over the
issues that they considered particularly important [Listed in attachment 2].
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in support of the policies
and action items also - specifically, recommended action measure 2.2.v (page 5 of Floyd's
memo of 4/14) where the word "removals" is replaced by the words "permitted removals."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 2
E:k-21.08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc
He also spoke about the definition of "understory" - that it should say "immediately under
or immediately adjacent to trees or canopies."
Kandace Horlings, 14525 SW Chesterfield Ln., Tigard, OR 97224, identified herself as a
Tree Board member. She said that committees can never make everyone happy. She said she
works as a landscaper and she spoke about rules. She said as a landscaper she has to get
permits at times. She doesn't believe the Tree Board is working against developers. She said
what's in place is not going to work 30 or 40 years from now. She noted that this is a broad
document. She wants the HBA members and public citizens to sit down with the Tree
Board. She reiterated that this is a starting point. They are willing to listen.
Tony Tycer, 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke about understory vegetation.
He said his concern is more aimed towards the soil as he believes that's more relevant. He
said these policies are very broad - deliberately.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION:
Alan Deharpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, Beaverton, OR 97225, was concerned
about the wording. He wants to add to the following language as a recommendation on
2.3.4: "...while minimizing the financial impact to the property owner." He said there are
hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree mitigation fees that the underlying property owner
typically pays. He said that's a straightforward addition to the language that would allow the
writers of the code to come up with a mitigation standard that would not be onerous to the
underlying property owner. Also, he was concerned that the definition of mitigation came
within a week's notice of the vote - he thought that was too fast for everyone affected by this
to make a judgment. He requested another continuance to take into account the people who
would be affected by these policies. He expressed concern about mitigation fees. He noted
his concern that citizens were not notified. He also noted that the wording "proportional to
the loss" is nebulous. He wondered what proportional means... does it mean tree for tree?
Inch for inch?" He expressed concern about the wording of the document. He said the
code writers should have leeway.
Bill McMonagle, 8740 SW Scoffins St., Tigard, OR 97223, gave a scenario where a
property was devalued simply because it had trees on it. He believes that's wrong. He said
trees are going to be the dictator of the functional use of land. He was concerned about the
understory issue. He believes the City should not be "in their backyard."
Kevin Luby, 16497 SW 103~d, Tigard, OR 97223, said there is a dichotomy between
developers and subsequent occupancy. He discussed the developer's side. He agreed with
previous testimony that the mitigation fee schedule is unfair. It doesn't take into account the
realistic life expectancy of trees. As far as "subsequent occupancy" - he said his ability to
decide when the useful life of his own trees is done and when he wants to replace those trees
should be his own decision. He was further concerned about requiring permits to take down
trees, he said the City would have the right to deny that permit and he has a problem with
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 3
EM-21-08 Planning Commission Mlnutes.Coc
that. Among other things, he expressed concern over the vagueness of the definition
"understory vegetation" and also was concerned about the idea of mitigation fees on private
property. The question was asked if he had any suggestions on how to improve on the idea
of "understory." He said "Delete it."
Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, OR 97007, identified himself as an arborist
& forester of 47 years. He spoke specifically to the question of "understory". He
encouraged the City to drop all references to it because it has no "handles" that can be
scientifically supported.
Ken Gerts,19200 SW 46th Tualatin OR, introduced himself as a long-time Oregonian. The
written form of his comments is Attachment 4.
James McCauley, 15555 Barley Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, of the HBA
(Homebuilders Association) stated that he believes a major error regarding the Tree Board is
that there does not appear to be a broad range of interests represented. He said he believes'
policy 2.3.1 is a horrible piece of language from a private landowner's point of view. He
spoke to the issue of "understory" - he agreed that there is no scientific evidence regarding
this. On policy
2.3.4 - he believes "balance" is a better word than "minimize."
Craig Brown, 16074 SW 103rd, Tigard, OR 97224 expressed concern over policy 2.2.4 - he
said the intent wasn't clear. In recommended action measure 1.1.iv - he wonders whether
the City will be doing our landscaping now. He doesn't understand what the provision
implies. 2.3.1- believes it's overreaching. 2.3.1a - he wonders whose standard this is going to
be. What is proportional impact? It's very subjective and he's concerned how that will be
applied. 2.3.2 with regard to "subsequent occupancy".. he's concerned about the city going
into people's yards changing things. He questioned the definition of mitigation. He
questioned the term "understory vegetation". He said if property is zoned residential... it's
residential. If you add penalties and punitive policies, that keeps it from being developed that
way, and you are not providing for reasonable development.
Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, identified himself as a land-
use planner and said he was speaking in support of the changes of the builders. He
encouraged the City to be very careful in adopting policies and to pay attention to the fact
that these policies have a great effect on the citizens. When you adopt policies be very careful
- it may start to infringe on private property owners rights.
Roger Anderson, 10120 SW Kahle, Tigard, OR 97223, said he'd only heard a week or so
ago that the City was working on this tree thing and that it would affect every citizen in
Tigard who own houses and trees. He was especially concerned about "non-development
trees" and "subsequent policies". He suggested the City take these two phrases completely
out of the policy wording. He said he believes this is overkill. He wondered why the City
cares about private homeowners trees. He believes the ordinance is ridiculous. He thinks it
would actually cause people to hate trees since they'll have no control over them. And then
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 4
EA4.21.08 Planning Commission Minutes.Coc
they'd have to pay for a permit to take trees down on their own property. He believes if the
city wants to control his property then they should buy it.
Steve Roper, 196 SW Hall Blvd. #232, Beaverton, OR 97008, said the others who had
spoken in opposition had pretty much said what he believes as well. He spoke about
affordable housing. He said adding tree mitigation adds to the price. He spoke about the
lack of developer input into the Tree Board. He felt the Tree Board wasn't really interested in
his take.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
There was a 5 minute break.
DELIBERATION: 9:53PM
President Inman explained that the deliberation time is a time for the Planning
Commissioners to deliberate and that they would not be taking any questions or comments
from the audience. The public testimony time had officially closed.
After much deliberation, the Planning Commission came up with the following revisions (not
in order of the text) to be taken into consideration of the motion that follows:
1. Strike all reference to the term "understory vegetation" throughout the
document and remove the definition.
2. 2.3.1- strike reference to "all development and non-development related tree
removal" and substitute the language "The City shall develop and implement
standards and procedures designed to minimize impacts on existing tree
cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long
lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread."
3. 2.3.1a - "In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to preservation of existing trees and shall consider the
financial impacts of mitigation."
4. Changed definition of mitigation. Everything is the same except after the
word compensated - strike everything - and put "as appropriate".
5. 2.3.2 changed to "The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to
protect trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development."
6. 2.3.4 - remove the word "require" and substitute "develop."
7. 2.2.9 - use the word "discourage."
8. 2.2.v - The word "removals" was struck but will be reinstated as "permitted
removals."
9. Definition of a "hazard tree" will be reviewed in the ISA definition and will be
held open until the next meeting for potential amendment at that time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 5
EM-21.08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc
Commissioner Walsh made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council on application case number CPA2008-00002 for the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan update pertaining to Tigard Urban Forest and adoption of the
revisions that the group just reviewed [above] and approval of the staff report and
public testimony presented and received. I further move that the definition of
"hazardous tree" be revised based upon ISA definition and that that issue be left
open for future review and approval by the Planning Commission."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Anderson
6. OTHER BUSINESS -
President Inman reminded the commissioners that this issue would go to City Council for a
May 6 workshop and a June 3 hearing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:48p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - April 21, 2008 - Page 6
EM-21-0e Planning Commission Minutes.ttoc
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTACHMENT 5
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO.07-,-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN INTERIM TREE
BOARD CHARGE STATEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A
COMPREHENSIVE TREE PROTECTION AND URBAN FOREST ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the current charge of the Tree Board (Council resolution 01-02) requires it to, "develop and
administer a comprehensive tree management program for the maintenance, removal, replacement and
protection of trees on public property"; and
WHEREAS, the Board's current charge does not provide the latitude for it to undertake other important
community tasks related to stewardship of Tigard's tree resources; and
WHEREAS, the City is engaged in update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Board's services
are needed to address the important matters of tree stewardship and enhancement of the City's urban forest,
because.
a. Urban development has resulted in loss of trees;
b. Trees and other natural resources contribute to Tigard's quality of life and overall environmental
quality;
c. Urban density, unless well designed, results in loss of trees and private open space;
d. An attractive, treed environment is a component of an economically prosperous community;
e. A balance is needed between tree stewardship and the need for efficient use of valuable urban lands;
f. A sound technical basis is needed for useable and up-to-date tree codes and standards;
g. Tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement provides civic engagement opportunities; and
h. A healthy urban forest and its associated benefits require active management.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: For the purposes of developing a comprehensive City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest
Enhancement Program, the Tree Board shall have the following responsibilities in addition to
those spelled out in its existing mission statement
a. The Tree Board shall work with the Planning Commission to update the City's
Comprehensive Plan by developing Comprehensive Plan background information
(findings) and goals, policies, and action measures pertaining to tree stewardship and
the contribution of trees and other vegetation to Tigard's quality of life.
b. The Tree Board shall recommend updated goals, policies, action measures, and
background information to the Planning Commission. The Board shall participate in
the Commission's joint work sessions to review/discuss the same. These
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to Planning Commission public
hearings and recommendation to the City Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 07 -
Page 1
C. The Tree Board shall propose a tree stewardship program for Planning Commission
consideration which shall consist of municipal code and land use regulations to
implement the above "Trees and Vegetation" Comprehensive Plan goals, policies,
and action measures. Proposed Municipal and Development Code amendments shall
be subject to review by the City Attorney. Proposed land-use code changes shall be
subject to public hearings and recommendation to Council by the Planning
Commission. The Tree Board shall participate with the Commission in work sessions
to review/discuss the same.
d. The Tree Board may also make other general recommendations to enhance urban
forest resources for City consideration such as public education, incentives, tree
planting programs, and arboriculture practices, etc.
e. The Tree Board shall review recommendations from staff to develop specific interim
tree code standards intended to prevent tree removal during the period it takes to
develop the City's tree stewardship program. The Tree Board shall participate in
work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to the Commission holding
public hearings to recommend the interim standards to Council.
f. The Tree Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission and Committee for
Citizen Involvement, shall develop and implement a public information and
involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree
stewardship and urban forestry enhancement in Tigard. In addition, the Tree Board
shall prepare a citizen involvement report as part of the record of its proceedings.
g. Every three months the Tree Board shall forward a report of its progress to the City
Council and Planning Commission. Initially, the Tree Board shall prepare a schedule
and scope of work as the first step to implement this mission.
SECTION 2: Upon adoption of the Tree Protection Program, the Tree Board's charge statement shall be
reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural
resources as seen fit by the City Council
SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This as n day of 2007.
Mayor - ity of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 07
-,3
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM No. 3 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment May 6, 2008
Workshop Discussion - URBAN FOREST (Subsection of Goal 2)
PLEASE PRINT
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and
records laws. All written and oral testimony become part ofthe public record and is openly
available to affmembers ofthe public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or
participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes,
which is a public record.
Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard City Council
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Staff Reponse to Council Inquiries regarding CPA2008-00002
Date: May 6, 2008
Staff has received an inquiry from a Council member regarding the policies and practices of four
adjacent jurisdictions (Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Portland and Beaverton) and how they compare to
matters discussed at the April 21 meeting of the Planning Commission. At that meeting the
.Planning Commission deliberated on 3 broad concepts:
1. Regulation of tree removal in both development related and non-development related
situations;
2. Mitigation for the loss of trees; and
3. Regulation of understory vegetation.
Unfortunately staff was unable to perform a thorough analysis of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive
Plan and regulatory mechanism in time for tonight's meeting. That said, staff would like to present
initial findings for your consideration.
Regulation of Tree Removal
Staff found that broadly speaking, all four jurisdictions regulate trees in both development and non-
development related situations and require permits authorizing their removal.
Mitigation
Staff found that three of the four jurisdictions require mitigation when regulated trees were
removed, with Tualatin being the exception.
Understory Vegetation
Staff found that all four surveyed jurisdictions have regulations that protect understory vegetation
to one degree or another.
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
May 6, 2008
To: Tigard City Council
Fr: Alan DeHarpport on behalf of Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBA)
Re: Worksession regarding Tigard's Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Councilors,
There are several key issues with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) that I would like to raise. The key issues can be summed up in four
areas: property values, tree mitigation cost, builder/developer engagement, and
application of the CPA on the tree code. Property values are decreased under the current
tree code. The high cost of tree mitigation in Tigard is exorbitant. The builder/developer
stakeholders have not been properly engaged in the process since the tree board was
placed in charge of this policy development. While myself and other builders have had a
chance to offer comments to the planning commission, and the tree board it would have
been better to form an advisory group that included diversity that placed builders and
developers on an equal footing as the members of the tree board. HBA believes that
passing the current language included in the CPA before a tree code is in place increases
the potential for punitive aspects of tree mitigation in the existing tree code for the city of
Tigard.
Property Values
There are many variables working together that require attention. We heard from one
Planning Commissioner that perhaps mitigation fees are too low since it doesn't seem to
be stopping tree removal on properties when developments are built. What's important to
consider here is that we are talking about developable land and this conversation is not
about the protection of tree resources associated with water quality, wetland protection or
other sensitive sites. When development occurs on property that is treed and zoned for
development the trees must be removed for a variety of reasons including: requirements
for density overlays from Metro and the City's own engineering manual.
It is simply not possible to maintain property values, save the trees, and put in the streets
and houses-particularly when the zoning is for small lots which requires a higher
percentage of the land to be disturbed in all cases. If mitigation fees are raised, it will
only decrease property values further. We also were asked why can't less lots be
developed and trees saved? Fewer lots could be developed, but again builders have
minimum density requirements that have to met so we are limited on this option. More
importantly, further restrictions also have an impact on the landowner's value and can
significantly de-value the property owner's land value.
1
If we go the other direction and reduce the size of the lots, we are limited by home design
available for smaller lot size and therefore a reduction in land value is also the end result.
Also of importance under this pathway is the compatibility of the existing neighborhoods
where you could have and existing neighborhood with a R4.5 zone averaging 7,500 ft2
lots adjacent to a new development with 3,000-5,000 ft2 lots. Under the Planned
Development (PD) process we know for certain the immediate neighbors would object to
the higher density.
The highest and best use of the land slated for urbanization is not tree preservation. From
HBA's perspective the highest and best use of this developable land is urban
development and the fairest method to achieve tree protection is to offer the landowner
developer some reimbursement for the lost value of the property due to the mitigation
standards. Anything less, approaches a potential conflict with "takings" and could well
move the city closer to legal challenges from citizens, which should not be a desired
outcome.
As an alternative language should be added to the CPA that recognizes the financial
impact of tree mitigation by requiring that devaluation of property zoned for future
development be minimized.
Secondly, tree mitigation costs are extreme, and there are no public lands where trees can
be planted for developers to mitigate upon. The code currently allows developers to
either pay the mitigation fee, or mitigate. However, since there is no land to mitigate on,
the developer is left with the option to find an owner who will allow mitigation trees to
be planted on their property, buy land to mitigate on, or pay the fee. The fee is the most
costly option, but it also usually the only option. Thus, the current mitigation regulations
create a system where a landowner with property zoned for development taxed in order to
meet a combination of on-site planning requirements.
The current tree fund has nearly $2 million collected in the past 8 years, yet the City
spends only $50,000 per year on tree planting. At current rates, it will take 40 years to go
through the $2M currently on hand; however, the fund will continue to grow even larger
unless things are changed. Language should be added to the CPA that acknowledges
current mitigation fees do not reflect the current need, are too high and require the tree
code to reduce the mitigation fees to be more in step with the identified need. Under a
system of SDCs the tree mitigation for Tigard is no different from a municipality
charging SDC well in excess of the project list for transportation or to build a sewer
system with pipes that are gold plated.
Public Process
As we commented in the summary, the development community has not been fully
engaged in this "public" process. The only reason the builder/developer community was
engaged at all is due to a phone call between Tigard City staff and Jay Harris at Harris-
McMonagle Engineering approximately one year ago.
2
Tigard staff mentioned to Mr. Harris that the Tree Board had been working on the comp
plan amendment for over a year at that time. Apparently there was one builder who was
an alternate on the tree board, but that individual stopped attending the meeting. No one
from the City or the Tree Board attempted to contact the HBA or any other member of
the development community about the City's plan to amend the comprehensive plan. As
a result, the proposed language is coming from the very stakeholder group responsible for
implementing the tree code. It should not come as a surprise to the City Council that
there is a general feeling amongst the developer/builder community that we are not
supporting elements of this proposed language.
This perception is supported by the comp plan amendment itself on a wide variety of
levels. For example, nowhere in the proposed Comp Plan Amendment is it stated that
there is a general perception from the developer/builder community that the current
ordinance creates financial hardship for those properties that have trees upon them and
are zoned for development. Nowhere in the document does it state that the ever-growing
$2M mitigation fund may possibly be over funded based on annual outlay of $50,000 per
year, and as such, perhaps a re-evaluation of the tree mitigation fees should be
considered. Nowhere in the document does it recognize that the right to develop private
property should even be considered.
Most importantly, the document does not recognize the City's own engineering and
building codes conflict with many aspects of tree retention, such as the most basic
requirements that streets be built, utilities installed, and building pads be cleared for
structures. The document does not recognize that over time, residential development has
added to the tree canopy as landscapes naturally mature. From a planning perspective the
document does not acknowledge Metro has determined that infill development on smaller
lots is more desirable than expanding the urban growth boundary, and that these smaller
lots require a larger percentage of any site to be cleared for construction.
From a public policy process I have seen better processes. There is a level of culpability
from builders and developers not participating throughout this entire process, but quite
honestly by running this process through the tree board we collectively never felt our
comments were much more than window dressing. To effectively construct this work a
group representing a wider range should have been established and this clearly should
have including representatives from the builder/developer community. We can't change
the clock back at this time, but we can offer some final thoughts on the language in front
of you this evening.
Proposed language
You might be surprised that builders are generally fine with the majority of the work
contained in this document. There in fact are only seven remaining issues to comment on.
We appreciate the planning commission's willingness to move on some of these items
and offering the following comments for the remaining work.
3
Public Attitudes
We encourage you to take time to review the details of the community attitudes survey.
Of particular note, the survey page 29 of the question: "I would support regulations
protecting existing trees" 6% strongly disagree, 9% somewhat disagree, 30% somewhat
agree, and 54% strongly agree. 2% were undecided.
Page 2-11 - The proposed CPA, the long-range planning staff indicated "that 84% of
Tigard Residents supported regulations to protect existing trees." First, this survey only
asked 400 random persons not all "Tigard Residents." Secondly, "regulations protecting
trees" was not defined. A more accurate question would be "I would support regulations
that devalue private property while protecting trees. " This question is not addressed at
all in the study and is of paramount importance to the builder/developer community's
concerns. We recommend that this question be posed to the same 400 persons who took
the first survey before any decision is made about this proposed CPA. Regulation is
supported, but at what cost to the underlying property owner? We feel that a comparable
survey putting the financial impacts to property owners would yield significantly
different responses.
Page 2-12 - The proposed CPA staff states that "there is general feeling among residents,
developers, and other stakeholders that the existing regulatory structure is not adequate
and hinders both the strategic protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the
City." Based on internal conversations with developers, builders, arborists, planners and
engineers, there is no one who feels that that "existing regulatory structure is not
adequate." In fact, every builder/developer that has raised concerns consider the current
tree code onerous and more than "adequate" in every way. We recommend that a
statement indicating that language include:
"A significant number of builders/developers have voiced strong opposition to the
current tree code stating that it is punitive, devalues private property, and has
created a mitigation fund that is disproportionate to the actual value of the loss of
trees. "
Page 2-12 and the top of 2-13 - The proposed CPA, it states "As a result, the existing
regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of trees across the city,
which may be removed by the property owner without City consultation or permit." This
implies that the upcoming code revisions should provide regulation for tree cutting on
residential landscaping. We recommend that an additional sentence be added stating:
"The City will continue to recognize that individuals have the right to cut trees on
their property without a permit when there is no intent on behalf of the property
owner to develop their property. "
4
Page 2-13 - The key findings do not address any of the concerns raised by the
builder/developer community during the "public" process. An additional bullet should be
added stating:
"The builder/developer community has expressed concern regarding the cost
of mitigation and the devaluation of property values due to the high cost of
mitigation. "
Goal 2.2 - Does not acknowledge that development is affected by tree regulation. We
recommend the goal be changed to:
"To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological and social benefits of both trees and infrastructure
development within the City. "
Goal 2.3 - Does not acknowledge that land development is affected by tree regulation.
We recommend that the Goal be changed to:
"To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-designed
urban development that balances the loss of existing trees with infrastructure
development to create a living legacy for future generations. "
Goal 2.3.5 - the language "The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape
requirements to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces
through the use of trees and other vegetation." One of the builder/developer
community's main concerns was that City-required improvements such as street right of
way and building pads are currently required to be mitigated. There is no way to develop
a site without these required improvements. Thus, HBA recommends that this policy be
changed to:
"The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to
reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of development through the use of
trees and other vegetation. City requirements for development of right of ways
and building pads shall be exempt from mitigation "
It is HBA's concern that the proposed CPA will result in a revised tree code that does not
acknowledge development rights, ignores the financial repercussions of tree mitigation,
and will increase the severity of tree mitigation to Tigard property owners of
development, treed land.
I have spoken with a wide range of people who depend on residential development as
part of their livelihood including bankers, lawyers, insurance agents, title insurance and
escrow companies, realtors, contractors small and large including home builders, utility
contractors, paving contractors, building materials suppliers, lumber brokers, excavators,
cement workers, framers, mechanical contractors, electricians, plumbers, siding installers,
roofers, drywall installers, painters, finish carpenters, cabinet makers, tile setters, window
manufacturers, fence builders, nursery owners, arborists, and landscapers.
It is RBA's sincere belief that people, jobs, and economic growth can be balanced with
tree retention, planting, and an appropriate level of mitigation. We are hoping that you
5
will consider our thoughts and ultimately modify the proposed language to reflect a more
balanced approach to the proposed CPA.
Regards,
Alan DeHarpport
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
Member, Government Affairs and Legal Action Committee
6
.t.r a
x
'Act
nr
"+x
TRY
V
w.
u
j e
? n.
+
<~A rr~ N nk
r,
pa"w 3
^u J
e
a ° R M1 L
a
m.
w.
b rr~~~, ~g
I
tr ~ k
xiY r. ° »xRg ^M'~ 'S.'y $*A µ'YN Y, ~A~ '~`ffi<,
P N
M oma
yy0p jg
~a d ce 4
'~~.,~f 9. m~t ~ 8 'K,M S.aw a yk? ~ nt~ t t M1
i t S r 3°' w
~a -
way
Y v M A.. ~Pb"
an, ,
y Ys ~ ~
,~1 y
, '1f4 Mi qk ' M S b .
}k t,
. d
rr ~V l~ tiP y<,, ry N
4 eP c m a t, Y '
.
m.
ay
„
r~
r
1 t z-.
Since 1977
19200 S.W. 46th- Ave.
Tualatin, Oregon 97062-8770
Phone: ( 503 ) 692-3390
Fax: ( 503 ) 692-5433
May 6, 2008
Tigard City Counsel
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Tigard's Urban Forest Background Statement and Goals,
Policies, and Action Measures
I am sorry, I cannot support the Plan amendment for Tigard's Urban Forest. It is 95% there, but in it's
current for is still unacceptable.
The Land Owners, Development Community and HBA has made it clear that the property owner's rights
need to be protected as well as the trees. We have consistently asked that one of the primary goals be, to
preserve the right of the private property owner to develop their property to the current Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning. Thus far, our expectations have fallen on deaf ears and I feel the current plan is a thinly
veiled attempt to stop development. A clear and explicit goal needs to be added to preserve these rights. I
would direct you to reject this plan until this goal is incorporated.
1: Restricting a private landowners development because of trees, creates a separate class of people
that are penalized for the mere fact they have trees on their property. I believe this is unconstitutional and
at the very least reprehensible.
2: A great deal of expertise, time and money has been spent to develop the current zoning and limit
urban sprawl. The current thought seems bent on throwing this work out and adding to Urban Sprawl.
Every building, parking spot, home or apartment unit that is not developed to plan, is another unit that
needs to be built on farm land at the edge of the UGB, and results in a greater distance people have to
commute. The demand for growth does not stop. This plan in its current form is contrary to the logical
plan of the UGB and of both energy and natural resource consumption. The more we spread out, the more
farming land, forest, watershed and wildlife are impacted.
3: Reducing development also reduces Tigard's Tax Base and increases the cost per capita cost for all
city services.
I suggest including as one of the primary goals under Goal 2.2.12
The City shall require mandatory developing of urban property to its reasonable maximum
potential.
4
Additionally, the following are the exact instances that will make land development impractical.
GOAL 2.3: Policies
8. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that prioritize the
retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves instead of isolated specimens.
"In cohesive and viable stands and groves" has the potential to stop any development with
more than one tree standing on it.
I would like to give you an example:
Your 75-year-old mother has 2/3 of an acre and an old house that can be developed
into 3 lots, she could sell it for $300,000 to $400,000, which she could use to pay for her
living at a nice retirement apartment. However, a grove of trees would ender it
undevelopable, and she would have just one lot and an old house with little value. Don't you
think she deserves compensation for her property? I do.
If your going to take people's property for the benefit of the public, then the public should
reimburse the owner just as in a case of Condemnation for Public Improvement.
Policy 8 has the ability to render ANY property with any trees undevelopable or at the very
least developed at a sub standard which would:
A: Cause monetary injury to the Land Owner by instantly reducing the lands value.
B: In the case of "Density Shifting" create an undesirably high-density development in
what would have been a compatible density area, which could be reforested in a safe and
prudent manor. We are already experiencing this with the normal density. Neighbors will
really go berserk if we put 4,500 Sq Ft lots in 6,000 to 7,500 Sq Ft areas.
Hazardous Tree Definition as proposed by Staff:
Hazardous Tree - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound,
suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree
that it is clear the tree is likely to and injure persons or property and where pruning or other
treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard
This definition was written for use around existing structures.
I believe the words "imminent damage or injury to either existing or planned improvements"
are key requirements in order to avoid a future debate.
Specifically, a tree falling on a vacant lot would not necessarily meet that definition of a
hazard, while the same tree after development would surly be a hazard, therefore, it should be
deemed a Hazard Tree. Your proposed Hazard Tree definition could potentially mandate
that all trees are not hazardous, as they do not pose any immediate risk of damage of injury. I
suggest a revision is in order.
As a Builder, we do not want to save a tree that has the potential to fall and injure people or
property
Hazardous Tree (Revised) - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally
unsound, suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or
impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is imminently likely to fail and injure persons
or property either existing or Manned improvements and where pruning or other
commonly accepted arboricultural practices treatments will not significantly alleviate
the hazard.
Commonly accepted arboricultural practices was under the suggestion of a local Arborist.
Thank you.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Construction Co. Inc.