The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/12/2009 TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING May 12 2009 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I: \Ofs \Donna's \Ccpkt 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov 7 11 1a City of Tigar Revised 5/8/09 Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARDn TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 12, 2009 — 6:30 p.m. Study Session, 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 int 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 (11)D - 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: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of5 City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda (1 g g TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: May 12, 2009 — 6:30 pm Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. 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. • STUDY SESSION ➢ Discuss Naming the City -Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard o Public Works Department ➢ Status of Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach o Community Development Department 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATIONS A. PROCLAIM MAY 17 -23, 2009 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK B. ADOPT THE HEADQUARTERS AND THE HEADQUARTERS COMPANY 41 BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM • Mayor Dirksen TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of5 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy • Acknowledge and Commend Alexa Kanbergs for Her Efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard — Resolution No. 09- • Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication • Citizen Sign Up Sheet 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes for March 24, April 14 and April 25, 2009 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Withdraw the City's Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (1'BWSP) and Terminate the City's Membership in the Joint Water Commission (JWC) 4.4 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Beaverton, Tigard, and Washington County Regarding Barrows Road and Barrows Road Bridge 4.5 Reappoint Tony Tycer to the Tree Board — Resolution No. 09- 4.6 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for Right -of -Way Services on the Greenburg Road /Highway 99W Main Street Intersection Project • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council /Local Contract Review Board has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GALIZIO -- LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING • Administration Department 6. INFORMATION PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE CITY OF TIGARD'S 20 -YEAR FACILITIES PLAN a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Depatunent c. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 09- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of5 7. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (DCA2009- 00001) — COUNCIL GOAL #1B — UPDATE THE TREE CODE TO MEET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST: To amend the current Tigard Development Code to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. The complete text of the proposed Code 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, 18.390, and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 2.1.2, 2.1.14, 2.1.24, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.6, 6.1.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 6. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponent - Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 09- 8. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (DCA2008- 00005) TO REMOVE CRITERION THAT PROHIBITS PATHWAYS LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE FLOODPLAIN TO BE BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THE ANNUAL AVERAGE FLOOD (18.775.070.B.5) REQUEST: To remove Section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads: "5. The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; ". Removal of this section would allow pathways to be installed in areas which would benefit the public's access to and educational appreciation of ecological areas. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council replace the subject section with "Pedestrian /bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat." LOCATION: Citywide. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; and Goal 8 Recreational Needs]; any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable METRO regulations; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management]; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; [Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space]; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances [TUC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775]. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA - MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 4 of5 a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponent - Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 09- 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. 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. 12. STUDY SESSION • Proposed Park Bond Voter Attitude Survey o Staff Report: Administration Depaniiient 13. ADJOURNMENT I: \ADM \CATHY \CCA \2009 \090512.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA - MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 5 of .5 City of Tigard X 111111 q Si „ Study Session — Agenda , _ .. ; _. 1 .1 . ; r..A, 1.M ,.�., . ._. � .'�;'d' . ,x'}. L .. ,. ..� , .- C.*' .. ,..,ti'�. ,..,E .RR's 4 L''.'_ z.. .� r f ;..; P 3L, "" TIGARD QTY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: May 12, 2009/6:30 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 6:30 PM ➢ EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. 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. ➢ STUDY SESSION ➢ Discuss Naming the City Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard o. Public Works Department ➢ Status of Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach > Administrative Items • NLC Prescription Card Program (see attached memo) • Team Building and Council Groundrules Review - City Council interested in session with Joe Hertzberg? • Tonight is Alexa Kanbergs' last meeting. She'll introduce next year's Tigard High Associated Student Body President and Student Envoy Taylor Friesen • Senator Burdick unable to attend during Business Meeting • Attached are the following items for tonight's meeting: • Testimony from Mr. John Frewing - Agenda Item No. 7 - Proposed Tree Code Amendment • Testimony from Mr. John Frewing - Agenda Item No. 8 - Proposed Sensitive Lands Amendment • Dinner with Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio - Recognition of Efforts for Tight Rail • Fifth Tuesday Alternatives: • Next Fifth Tuesday. June 30, 2009 • Discussion on Alternatives - June 9, 2009 Study Session. What additional information needed for the June 9 discussion? Councilor calendar on back.. . TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 - 4171 I www.tigard-or.gov Council Calendar: May 19 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26 Tuesday Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego - 6:30 pm (dinner at Town Hall; a tour before the meeting; details are being finalized) Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is dosed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt bylaw from public inspection." These records are specificallyidentified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192 -660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment- related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. I: \ ADM \Cath \cCA SS • Pink Sheet\ 2009 /090310.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - MAY 12, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov hYk Yj d t f G� Jn 4 Item # w 5 ,,� , ; -4 w� y � t a LJ d _ } Cou {_� = sletterda x =t MOM. 51i ZYI, P} Z e .`. e�.r. / Ly 1. � !r N® ti E: M E M O l 1'1 1® b U 4168RD? ----- - - --- Y1' IgiRgigiaN TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilors 9y.7 FROM: Joanne Bengtson, Exec. Asst • RE: NLC Prescription Card Program DATE: May 1, 2009 At the request of Councilors returning from a recent NLC Conference, I researched the new NLC Prescription Discount Card Program for possible implementation in Tigard. Program Overview The program offers a free prescription discount card to every resident within the city at no cost to the city. NLC is offering the program in conjunction with CVS Caremark Corp. in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The program takes eight weeks to set up and launch. We provide our logo and CVS designs participant cards with our name and logo. Prescription cards are developed in English and Spanish formats and a supply is sent to the city. Replacement cards can be obtained online. Program Details There are no CVS Caremark pharmacies in Oregon. They do however, contract with most major retail pharmacy chains like Walgreens, Wal and Rite -Aid. The card doesn't guarantee that citizens will get 20% discount on all prescriptions. It states, "Savings May Vary." The buyer pays the lower of a discounted price or the pharmacy's regular retail price. The card cannot be used in conjunction with other insurance. Cardholder may use the card to purchase prescriptions that are not covered by his /her plan. Residents may use the discount card anytime their prescription is not covered by insurance. The discount is not valid on over -the- counter and non - prescription medications with the exception of some diabetic supplies. Tigard must provide a page on our website, which links citizens to the co- branded web site www.caremark_com /nlc. This site contains the program information and useful tools for city residents, including online enrollment with the ability to print an ID card and use it immediately. CVS Caremark offers a toll -free Customer Service phone number but encourages cardholders to use the company website to answer their questions. The closest customer service office is in San Antonio, TX. True Costs The programs requires a city staff to serve as the principal program contact with NLC and CVS Caremark. The city is responsible for all promotion and launch of the program. We must agree to promote the program to the local media with mutually approved communications including pre-launch press release, launch press release /press conference and PSAs. Only approved marketing materials may be used and all communication must be reviewed and approved by the NLC and CVS Caremark. The city must provide ID card distribution points for the template ID card printed with the city's logo and information. Stands will be provided to display the cards. City Feedback I spoke to York, Pennsylvania's Mayoral Assistant, Debra Busch. York has a population of 41,000 with many similarities to Tigard. Debra said they've been running the program only a short time and although there has been some interest on the part of citizens, they haven't received any official numbers regarding the success of the program. She said the city held a press conference for the launch and receives a few calls a day asking about program details and how to sign up for a card. NLC members include more than 1,600 cities and towns of all sizes. Of that number, 94 cities have enrolled in the program. The majority of cities are located in south and along the east coast. No Oregon cities have signed up as of today. NLC Feedback I spoke with project leader Marc Shapiro at the National League who provided answers not found in the advance materials. @ Who would respond to customer questions, complaints and discount issues with CVS Caremark or insurance? Marc noted that CVS wants all requests forwarded to them, and in fact, they do not want any city staff to answer questions about medical coverage or billing. ® Time & Resource Requirements of staff? Marc said they need a contact within the city to coordinate with CVS and NLC to approve artwork, issue cards, receive usage reports, and the other minutiae required for program roll out. He noted that NLC would provide an initial shipment of 5,000 cards, or approximately 10 percent of the population. He believes the impact to staff is minimal once the program launches. CVS Caremark offers a toll -free Customer Service phone number but encourages cardholders to use the company website to answer their questions. The closest customer service office is in San Antonio, TX. True Costs The programs requires a city staff to serve as the principal program contact with NLC and CVS Caremark. The city is responsible for all promotion and launch of the program. We must agree to promote the program to the local media with mutually approved communications including pre-launch press release, launch press release /press conference and PSAs. Only approved marketing materials may be used and all communication must be reviewed and approved by the NLC and CVS Caremark. The city must provide ID card distribution points for the template ID card printed with the city's logo and information. Stands will be provided to display the cards. City Feedback I spoke to York, Pennsylvania's Mayoral Assistant, Debra Busch. York has a population of 41,000 with many similarities to Tigard. Debra said they've been running the program only a short time and although there has been some interest on the part of citizens, they haven't received any official numbers regarding the success of the program. She said the city held a press conference for the launch and receives a few calls a day asking about program details and how to sign up for a card. NLC members include more than 1,600 cities and towns of all sizes. Of that number, 94 cities have enrolled in the program. The majority of cities are located in south and along the east coast. No Oregon cities have signed up as of today. NLC Feedback I spoke with project leader Marc Shapiro at the National League who provided answers not found in the advance materials. ® Who would respond to customer questions, complaints and discount issues with CVS Caremark or insurance? Marc noted that CVS wants all requests forwarded to them, and in fact, they do not want any city staff to answer questions about medical coverage or billing. e Time & Resource Requirements of staff? Marc said they need a contact within the city to coordinate with CVS and NLC to approve artwork, issue cards, receive usage reports, and the other minutiae required for program roll out. He noted that NLC would provide an initial shipment of 5,000 cards, or approximately 10 percent of the population. He believes the impact to staff is minimal once the program launches. o What degree of publici0 is the city required to provide? While the materials call for Press Conferences and radio & TV Public Service Announcements (PSAs), Marc said that the program allows cities some flexibility in this area. If a city doesn't use those communication formats, they wouldn't be required to adopt them for the Prescription Card program. The minimal requirements are Press Release issuance and Web Page visibility. Issues 1. Traditionally, under Oregon law health and human service programs are provided through the county. 2. Need to identify staff to manage this project. 3. The city's liability connected to a post with incorrect or incomplete information. 4. Material review and approval by both agencies in a timely manner that's responsive to customer needs. 5. Will cardholders request assistance from city staff for follow -up and support in dealing with CVS Caremark? 6. Could the city be included in a claim made against a pharmacy or CVS Caremark as the entity that provided the card? Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach CD. � Group Meeting Schedule 5.13.05' Group Date Time Location Contact Person PacTrust (John Wittala) May 7, 2009 1:00 p.m. City Hall Complex John Wittala Permit Center CR #4 Washington Square May 13, 2009 10:00 a.m. Management Offices, Jonae Armstrong Washington Square TCBDA (Tigard Central May 14, 2009 9:30 a.m. Hudson Plaza Mike Marr Business District 12950 SW Pacific Mike Stevenson Association Highway (Chair) Summerfield Civic May 19, 2009 2:00 p.m. Summerfield clubhouse Dar Young (liaison) Association Northwest Grocery May 20, 2009 9:30 a.m. City Hall Complex Joe Gilliam Association Permit Center CR #1 Amanda Dalton Medical Teams Pending International response Rotary Club Pending Marissa Daniels Response Farmer's Market June 14, 2009 9:00 a.m. to Young's Funeral Home Marissa Daniels July 12, 2009 2:00 p.m. Tigard Chamber of June 25, 2009 7:30 a.m. to Town Hall or Library Marissa Daniels Commerce (Good 8:30 a.m. Community Meeting Morning Tigard) Room Downtown business To be Chamber of Commerce Marissa Daniels owners (Group 1) determined Building Downtown business To be Chamber of Commerce Marissa Daniels owners (group 2) determined Building Highway 99W business To be To be determined Gus Duenas owners — North covering determined Tigard Triangle, Fred Meyer, etc. Highway 99W business To be To be determined Gus Duenas owners — Central determined covering Tigard Marketplace and vicinity Highway 99W business To be To be determined Gus Duenas owners — South covering determined Safeway and Albertson's Churches To be Tigard Community Gus Duenas determined Methodist Church, or St. Anthony's ✓�— C�l�l,i Yom.. ,— / ^I Cathy Wheatley c t From: Craig Prosser / V P Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:55 PM To: Ron Bunch; Dick Bewersdorff; Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony FYI From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:15 PM To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony From: jfrewingJSMTP :JFREWING(a�TELEPORT.COMT Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:13:28 PM To: Craig Dirksen Subject: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and Councilors, Below is my prepared testimony for tonight's consideration of changes to TDC 18.775 regarding sensitive land permits. Thanks, John Frewing SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS MAY 12, 2009 TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING The proposed changes to TDC Chapter 18.775 eliminate the requirement that pathways in Tigard's sensitive lands (100 -year floodplains) be above the elevation of the annual average flood. The replacement wording has two problems which should cause it to be deferred and revised. A This change in regulation has not been 'coordinated' as called for in ORS 92. This statute calls for review by other relevant jurisdictions and incorporation of their comments wherever possible. I don't believe this change has been reviewed by METRO and their staff. B Title 13, Nature in the Neighborhoods, a regulation issued by METRO calls for protection of sensitive lands, including those in the 100 year flood plain. Among the requirements of this regulation is one that calls for clear and objective standards for protection of these sensitive lands, including significant habitat areas. The proposed wording, which calls for a wildlife assessment is not clear and objective as defined in the METRO regulation. Please ask city staff to coordinate this proposed rule change with METRO and include clear and objective standards, such as exist presently. Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing @teleport.com 1 Cathy Wheatley ll From: John Floyd Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:56 PM To: Craig Prosser; Ron Bunch; Cathy Wheatley Cc: Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss; Dick Bewersdorff; Todd Prager Subject: RE: Testimony: Tree Removal Thanks, From: Craig Prosser Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:54 PM To: John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: Testimony: Tree Removal FYI From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:46 PM To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Testimony: Tree Removal From: jfrewing [SMTP:JFREWING(c�TELEPORT.COM1 Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:43:58 PM To: Craig Dirksen Subject: Testimony: Tree Removal Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and Councilors, Below is my testimony for tonight's public hearing on amending the TDC Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. John Frewing TREE CODE UPDATE TO INCORPORATE INTERPRETATION OF 'PREFERENCE' • TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING, MAY 12, 2009 While not giving up on the various comments which I have previously submitted, two things still concern me about the proposed change, where simple changes can resolve them and lead to a more meaningful tree removal ordinance for Tigard: A Definition of 'hazardous tree.' The Director's interpretation which sought to define how preference will be given to tree preservation includes clarification of 'tree', because such definition defines the scope of the tree plan and scope of city regulation. I believe that a tree can be a hazard to people or property as it stands today, but with corrective action, such as pruning, can be safe and an important asset to a residence and to the city as a whole. Because 'tree' was within the scope of the director's interpretation, 'hazardous tree' should also be within the scope of this change. I believe that the definition of 'hazardous tree' should read: "Hazardous tree means a tree, means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a 1 known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property and which cannot be rendered non- hazardous by use of standard arboricultural techniques, eg spraying, pruning, fertilizing, etc. B Responsibility for determining 'practicable'. The essence of the entire Tigard code is that it sets rules for development, rules which use English language understandable to applicants and the public and which are used by city officials to determine compliance or not. The city should not give up its authority to apply the code words in determining compliance. The present code change calls for the use of certain design and construction techniques 'to the extent practicable'. In deliberation of the Planning Commission (see bottom, page 7/9 of their March 16, 2009 minutes), it is written that the applicant would determine the meaning of 'practicable'. I am concerned that this notation in the legislative history makes the entire requirement for plan submittal meaningless. The city officials must retain the right and obligation to make their call on what is 'practicable'. Of course such determination by the city can be challenged, but to leave the determination entirely to the applicant means that whatever the applicant submits is acceptable; this should not be the case. This situation can be simply fixed in the present proposed ordinance by adding to the definition of 'practicable' the words "as explained by applicant and approved by city officials." Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing @teleport.com 2 III City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder Re: Fifth Tuesday Date: May 11, 2009 Background During the Council Goal Setting Meeting for the Council's 2009 Goals, Council members also created a list of tasks. One of the tasks was to consider alternatives for Fifth Tuesday meetings. There is time set aside during the June 9, 2009, study session for the City Council to discuss this matter. The first Fifth Tuesday was held November 30, 2004. The objective by the City Council for inviting citizens to attend these informal meetings was to: • Hear and discuss citizen input for an interchange of ideas pertinent to the City and the issues that affect the City. Current Citizen Outreach Efforts Here is a list of some of the outreach efforts currently in place. A few these efforts were put into place after the 2004 decision to hold the Fifth Tuesday meetings. • Neighborhood Network Program • Cityscape restored to 8 pages and 12 issues per year o Cityscape publications posted on the City's website (September 2001 to present) o Mayor's corner o Council meeting schedule is advertised in each issue • Listservs for citizens who want notification when Council packets and agendas are published on the website. Staff also maintains and mails copies of agendas to persons who request this service. • Full Council packets are available at the Library. • Committee for Citizen Involvement Bylaws established with adoption of Resolution No. 07- 69. The CCI is advisory to the City Council and charged with advising Council on matters pertaining to citizen involvement and communications. • Citizen communication time preserved for City Council business meetings. Follow -up on citizen communications reported by the City Manager during the televised City Council meetings. • Council email addresses posted on the website. • Television broadcasts expanded to include workshop meetings. Special (extra) meetings are televised when possible. The TVCTV replay schedule is published on the Council agenda. DVDs of meetings are available at the Library. • Citywide surveys • Press releases • Events: Family Fest; Booth at Balloon Festival • Boards, Committees and Task Forces • Webpage updated regularly Preliminary List of an Alternative to the Fifth Tuesday Meetings When setting up the outline for this topic, I met with Mayor Dirksen regarding this Council Task. Some of the ideas he suggested included the following whereby the City Council would select standing events or create times where City Council members are available to the public. (Public meeting requirements are a consideration when a quorum of City Council attends.) • Hold "coffees" consisting of one or two different Council members being available at changing locations on Fifth Tuesdays throughout the year. • On the 5th Tuesday, meet with all of the Neighborhood Network leaders. • Hold a "Meet and Greet" at a certain time during the Balloon Festival at the City Booth. • Develop a forum for Town Halls. (See Attachment 1: Press Release from Representative Riley as an example). Questions for Council at May 12, Study Session: • Host a final Fifth Tuesday meeting (in the old format) on June 30, 2009? • What additional information would be helpful for the City Council's June 9 discussion on this topic? I:\ ADM \CATHY\ PROJECTS \Fifth Tuesday Alternatives \memo to council.doc Attachment 1 State Representative Chuck Riley 900 Court St, NE, H -274 House District 29 Salem, OR 97301 Hillsboro, Cornelius, Forest Grove 503 - 986 -1429 www.leg.state.or.us /riley Press Release For Immediate Release: April 23, 2009 Contact: Kevin Jeffries, 503.986.1303 Representative Chuck Riley of Hillsboro Will Host Senator Jeff Merkley in a Washington County Town Hall. Salem- Representative Chuck Riley invites the public to attend a town hall meeting which will be held at the Hillsboro Civic Center on Sunday, May 3, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. Rep. Riley will be joined by United State Senator Jeff Merkley. Both legislators will be taking questions from those in attendance as well as discussing legislative issues that they are working on. "I am honored to host this town hall with Senator Merkley," Said Rep. Riley, " it was a privilege to work with him in Salem and I look forward to working with my friend again as we both address the concerns of the people of Oregon." Senator Merkley is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee as well as the Senate Banking and Budget Committees. Representative Chuck Riley is a member of the House Veterans and Emergency Services, Revenue, and Consumer Protection Committees as well as the Committee on Performance Excellence and the Joint Ways and Means Sub - Committee on Capital Construction. • The Hillsboro Civic Center is located at 150 E. Main St. in Hillsboro. 1 Agenda Item # ,5 4 y , �ess'do Meeting Date May 12, 2009 LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Discuss Naming the City-Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: . 0,P" ." City Mgr Approval: I ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD No action is required, but the Council is asked to provide staff with direction on the naming of the City-owned residence and property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION None KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • In accordance with Resolution No. 99 -37 (Attachment 1), the Council has the authority to name City facilities. • In- December 2007, the Tigard City Council authorized the purchase of a residence and property located at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard. • The house and property are adjacent to Fanno Creek and Fanno Creek Park. • Since the City purchased the property, the 1938 residence has been referred to informally as the "Fanno Creek House," the 'White House," and the "Schaltz House." • Staff distributed at memo (Attachment 2) to the Council soliciting input regarding an official name for the house and property; several Councilors indicated their naming preference was the Fanno Creek House. • At the December 9, 2008 Council meeting, a resolution to officially name the residence and property was on the Council's consent agenda. At the request of the Council, the item was removed from consideration and was to be discussed at a future meeting. • Staff scheduled the discussion for the Council's February 17 meeting, but due to time constraints the discussion was put off to a future meeting. • Staff is now requesting the Council revisit this item and provide direction regarding the naming of the residence and property. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution 99 -37, A Resolution Establishing a Policy of the City Council on Placing Memorials in City Parks 2. Memo from Park and Facilities Manager Steve Martin, regarding "Naming of the Residence at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard" FISCAL NOTES There are no direct costs associated with this agenda item. Once the residence and property are named, staff plans to install signage at a cost of approximately $1,000. Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON . PLACING MEMORIALS IN CITY PARKS, WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires to have a policy for designating memorials within City park facilities, City-owned properties and with the naming of building and park properties; and • WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that over the past several years, various park lands have been *acquired by the City of Tigard and various facilities have been built at City parks and properties which could appropriately be named in memory of individuals who have provided service to the community; and WHEREAS, in the past the City has named properties or facilities hi memory of individuals without the benefit of an established City policy; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to have a formal policy to apply for official naming of City parks, facilities and features within parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Memorial Policy described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. IPASSED: This e -b) day of Atl M 1 _. 1999. "or. City of Tigard ATTEST: 2 0,2434a4232....kitet2htedvai..... ! City Recorder - City of Tigard l:ladmlcad ylcatm amsoluda► memorial policy.dot • • RESOLUTION NO. 99,37 Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" TIGARD MEMORIAL POLICY FOR NAMING CITY PARK FACILITIES, DISTINCT ELEMENTS WITHIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, AND CITY BUILDINGS PURPOSE: To outline the policy, criteria and process for designating memorials within City park facilities, distinct elements within City -owned properties and naming of buildings and park properties. BACKGROUND: As the City adds parks, open spaces and public facilities by acquisition and donation, the City has found that there is a need for a process to honor individuals or groups by naming City parks, distinct elements within City -owned properties or City buildings and to place memorials to advise the public of the recognition. In addition, the City has been the recipient of bequests which have required that the City recognize the financial contributions by memorializing the gift in some way. Finally, in the past, the City has accepted as a term of purchase of park land a requirement that the City acquired property be developed into a park with a specified park name. In order that the City Council and staff have guidelines to follow when considering requests that memorials be placed within City park facilities or that City parks or buildings be named after individuals, a policy should be in place. POLICY: Land, facilities and features within property owned by the City of Tigard will be named through an administrative process in accordance with established criteria that emphasize community identity and service to the community. Criteria for naming City park facilities, distinct elements within City -owned properties, and City buildings: 1. Memorials within City park facilities — Memorials included within this category are memorials which would be placed on or near basic park amenities, such as benches, picnic tables, trees, shrubs and plaques. If the memorial meets park standards for construction and materials, the Parks Division will assume maintenance responsibility for the useful life of the memorial. Replacement of the memorial shall be at the discretion of the Parks Division staff. Interested parties must submit a written request to the Parks Division regarding the type of memorial, proposal occasion and significance of the memorial. Parties interested in placing memorials shall be financially responsible for the purchase of the memorial. An extensive review process is not necessary for these types of memorials. These requests shall be handled administratively by the Parks Division to ensure that City standards are met. The Parks Division has the right to adjust the location of the proposed memorial. The Parks Division shall notify the City Council of any actions taken to accept and place new memorials within City parks. The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to park memorials are: a) Benches — benches must be made of wood, contoured or flat- styled pedestal, outdoor benches unless an alternative material is approved by the Parks Division upon a finding that there are circumstances that exist that make it appropriate to use the alternative material. Any bench to be contributed as a memorial and to be placed within City park facilities shall be purchased through a Parks Division approved manufacturer. A brass plaque may be attached to the bench but shall be no larger than 2 % x 6 inches in size. Prior to purchasing any bench for display in City parks, an interested party must contact City staff and review the example of approved benches maintained by the City staff. b) Trees -- trees planted at City facilities as memorials must be at least 2 inches caliper, native to the area and fit into the existing landscape scheme of the park area or fit into the adopted plan for tree planting in that area. c) Plaques — plaques may be placed in conjunction with a shrub or tree which are donated to the City as a memorial. Plaques shall not be placed as stand alone features. Plaques must be made of bronze and be no larger than 8 1/2 x 11 inches in size. Plaques must be set in concrete, aggregate rock, or a boulder. City staff shall review the design of plaque and setting. Examples of the type of plaques approved by the City shall be made available by Parks staff. 2. Distinct elements within City -owned parks — Memorials can be placed at distinct elements of City -owned properties, such as shelters, sports fields, gardens, wetlands, tennis courts, rooms, fountains, ponds, paths, art, etc. Individuals interested in having a distinct element named in honor of an individual are required to submit a written request to the Tigard City Council regarding the particular type of amenity in which they are interested in sponsoring. Applications shall be made through the Parks Division. Requests for such amenities may be made to honor an individual who has passed away or as an honorarium for someone who is living and has made a contribution to the City, either financially or through civic duty. Review of such requests shall be made by the City Council. Council approval is needed. Guidelines regarding signage shall be adopted by Council based on recommendations made by the Parks Division. The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to signage will be kept on record at the Public Works office. Examples of suitable signage will be available for public viewing. 3. Naming of buildings and park properties — City buildings and park properties may be named to honor individuals or groups. Interested parties shall submit a written request to the Tigard City Council regarding the property or building which they are interested in having Council name in honor of an individual or group. In addition, the City Council on its own motion, may consider naming a building or park. This type of memorial requires extensive review and Council approval in the form of a resolution. City staff will deal with guidelines for Council consideration. The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to signage will be kept on record at the Public Works office. Examples of suitable signage will be available for public viewing. 1:ladmlmemorial policy.doc • Attachment 2 City of Tigard TI GARD Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors From: Acting Parks and Facilities Manager Steve Martin Re: Naming of the Residence at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard Date: October 23, 2008 We are seeking the Council's direction in determining the official name for the residence at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard. Since the Council approved the property purchase in December 2007, the 1938 residence has been referred to informally as the "Fanno Creek House," the "White House," and the "Schaltz House." The proposed suggestions are: ❑ The Fanno Creek House ❑ The House at Fanno Creek ❑ The Creekside House ❑ Graham Property House ❑ The Pinebrook House ❑ Hold a Contest for Citizens to Name the House ❑ In honor /memory of Please let me know your preference by phone at 503.718.2583 or email at steve or.gov by Friday, October 31. Once the Council identifies a name, staff will prepare a resolution for Council consideration. Historical Perspective With the assistance of Washington County Assessment and Taxation, the Tigard Area Historical & Preservation Association, library volunteers, and long -time area residents, we were able to assemble a rather sketchy history of the property: 1849 - Donation Land Claim by William Graham No date — W.J. Cotrell (original deed) 1962 — Property sold to Noell and Donna Nelson 1981 — Property sold to Rich and Ann Francis Sturgis 1992 — Property partitioned and site owned by Sturgis Living Trusts 1992 — Property sold to Ronald and Joan Hunts 1996 — Property sold to Randy and Margaret Schaltz People by the name of Knutsen and Grimstead supposedly resided on the property sometime between the 1930's and the 1950's. Neither they, nor any of the property owners, appear to have played a key role in Tigard history. Although the Graham Donation Land Claim offers our earliest record of the property, the residence was constructed nearly 90 years after the land claim. It is unlikely William Graham had any involvement in the construction of the residence. Geographical Perspective The Mayor has often referred to the residence as the Fanno Creek House. Given the home's proximity to Fanno Creek, this name makes complete sense from a geographical perspective. Other possible geographical names include the House at Fanno Creek, the Creekside House, or the Pinebrook House. The later name is derived from a creek that ran through the original Graham Donation Land Claim, although not specifically on the property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard. Other Options The residence could also be named in honor /in memory of someone the Council wishes to recognize for their place in Tigard history, contribution to the City, etc. Alternately, the City could sponsor a contest, with the Council serving as judges, and solicit names from the public. Agenda Item # Sfu C/1 Ses s soh Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Status Update of the Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach Effort ' Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: — City Mgr Approval: 11 1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a status update of the public outreach effort associated with proposed changes to the City's Street Maintenance Fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information from staff. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has developed a public outreach program to receive input from residential, business, and other stakeholders regarding proposed changes to the Street Maintenance Fee. The objective is to get stakeholder input to assist Council in making a decision on this matter. Council may, if it wishes, provide input and direction on the outreach effort. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Memorandum from staff, dated April 27, 2009 — Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach, including: Attachment 1: Public Outreach Master Schedule Attachment 2: Public Involvement Plan Attachment 3: Public Outreach Booklet Attachment 4: List of Stakeholder Groups Selected for Meetings FISCAL NOTES N/A L \l ?NG \GUS \Council Agenda Summaries \21X19 \5- 12- (19Street M tintenane( I4 Public ()utrcach.duc City of Tigard • TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager From: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Re: Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach — Status Update Date: April 27, 2009 Staff has developed a public outreach program to receive input from residential, business, and other stakeholders regarding proposed changes to the Street Maintenance Fee. The objective is to gather stakeholder input to assist Council in making a decision on this matter. The outreach effort includes meeting with a variety of stakeholder groups for discussion and receiving their input. The outreach program is being implemented by the City's Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force, the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), and staff from Community Development, Public Works, and Financial and Information Services. Most stakeholder meetings will occur during May and possibly continuing into June 2009. An update on the outreach effort will be presented to Council at its May 12, 2009 study session. Public information materials that have been prepared to date will be provided. These materials will also be made available to the public on the City's website and at the Library, City Hall, and the Permit Center. In addition, staff will request Council to provide input and direction, if desired, on the public outreach program, its milestones and the number and types of stakeholder groups proposed to be involved. Following the May 12, 2009 study session, an interim public outreach report is planned for Council's June 16, 2009 workshop and a final report is scheduled for the July 21, 2009 workshop. Attached, for Council information, are the following public outreach products: • Public Outreach Master Schedule • Public Involvement Plan approved by the Committee for Citizen Involvement • Public Outreach Booklet • List of Stakeholder Groups Selected for Meetings A Tigard Street Maintenance Fee Video is under development, but may not be ready for the May 12t study session. The video will be available on the City website and at various City locations once it is complete. Attachments: 1. Public Outreach Master Schedule 2. Public Involvement Plan 3. Public Outreach Booklet 4. List of Stakeholder Groups Selected for Meetings Copy: Ron Punch, Community Development Director Dennis Kocllermeier, Public Works Director Toby LaFrance, Financial and Information Services Director Mike McCarthy, Project Engineer Marissa Daniels, Assistant Planner John Floyd, Associate Planner Markus Mead, Planning Intern Attachment 1 Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach Master Schedule Phase 1: Project Launch (February 2009 through April 2009) Tasks: a. Approve Communication Plan b. Set the Message c. Develop the Script d. Get the word out Phase 2: Education and Outreach: Residential and Non - Residential: (April through June 2009) Tasks: a. Target and Meet With Key Groups (March through June 2009) b. General Outreach c. Council Progress Updates 1. Initial Briefing and Direction — May 12, 2009 Study Session 2. Progress update — June 16, 2009 Phase 3: Citizen Involvement Report (May through July 2009) Tasks: a. Document issues and input (May through June 2009) b. Prepare Final Report (late June and early July 2009) c. City Council Workshop 1. Final Report to Council — July 21, 2009 2. Council direction — July 21, 2009 Phase 4: Council Consideration To be determined based on Council direction following the final report on July 21, 2009. Earliest date for Council consideration and action is the August 11, 2009 Council meeting. Attachment 2 Public Involvement Plan Street Maintenance Fee I. Introduction Background The Tigard City Council is considering increasing the street maintenance fee and is asking Tigard residents and businesses to comment on the idea. Tigard's street system includes 148 miles of paved streets that keep Tigard motorists in motion. These streets represent one of our community's biggest investments. The street maintenance fee provides a stable source of revenue to maintain City streets by funding: • Re- paving damaged streets • Slurry seals • Overlays The Current Fee The existing street maintenance fee was initiated in 2004 following a recommendation by a citizen task force and adoption by the City Council. Tigard residents and businesses pay the following fees on their bi- monthly utility bills: • Residential properties - $2.18 a month (or $4.36 a billing cycle) • Non - residential - $.78 per parking space per month The Proposed Fee The proposed fee increases would be phased in from 2009 to 2011. By 2011 Tigard residents and businesses pay the following fees on their bi- monthly utility bills: • Residential properties - $6.06 a month (or $12.12 a billing cycle) • Non - residential properties - $2.44 per parking space per month The revenue generated by the fee would be at the level needed to adequately maintain the streets and right -of -way areas. Beyond 2011 an inflation factor based on a recognized cost index will be used to adjust the fee. Why Is the Increase Needed The annual revenue generated by the existing fees is no longer sufficient to adequately maintain City streets. There are four factors driving the need to raise the Street Maintenance Fee: • Providing routine maintenance will prevent streets from deteriorating to the point that re- construction would be required - at 4 to 10 times the cost of providing routine maintenance. • In the past two years, the cost of asphalt doubled. This drastically reduced the number of streets that could be repaired and increased the backlog of maintenance projects. • The City would like to begin a program to maintain the areas between sidewalks and property lines, medians and planters on arterial and collector streets. Project Purpose The purpose of a Street Maintenance fee increase is to extend pavement life and ensure safer roads. Timely street maintenance is important, as deferring maintenance on streets increases costs 4 to 9 times more in the long run. The original target annual revenue in 2003 was $800,000. An updated review of the City's street network reveals that the annual revenue generated by the existing fees is 1 no longer sufficient to adequately maintain City streets. The current street Overall Condition Index (OCI) in Tigard is 68. An OCI of 75, which can be reached with gradual annual... will cost the City $2,500,000 annually, is optimal because it ensures the City can stay within a perpetual maintenance cycle over the long term. Communication Plan Components The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement section is divided between two goals: Goal 1.1: Provide Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all Citizens have access to: A. Opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. Information on issues in an understandable form. Thus, the Communication Plan breaks down each phase of the process and speaks to the ways in which citizens and stakeholders can participate, communicate, and receive information about the Street Maintenance Fee Increase. Key Players Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force (TNSTF) The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force will be the citizen body leading this public outreach effort. They will participate in meetings (to the extent the members can commit) and take the findings and recommendations to Council for discussion and consideration. Committee for Cititien Involvement The role for the Committee for Citizen Involvement is to review the form and process of City communications with its residents. This Committee will have an opportunity to review the Communication Plan at the outset of the project, and will monitor citizen involvement throughout the process. The Committee will also receive comments and provide input. Stakeholders For this project, stakeholders are divided into two categories, residential and non - residential, because the fee increase will affect each differently. There are some specific groups such as the downtown business owners, Highway 99W business owners, small business owners, and Tigard Neighborhood Network participants on which targeted outreach efforts will be centered. As the fee increase will affect both categories citywide, a broad outreach effort will also be conducted. Staff The role of staff will be to facilitate the TSFTF and CCI meetings, conduct stakeholder meetings, and gather and present the community's attitudes regarding the fee increase to City Council. Schedule The duration of the public engagement effort is expected to last from 3 -6 months. 2 II. Project Phases Phase 1: Project Launch Tasks: a. Approve Communication Plan b. Set the Message c. Develop the Script d. Get the word out Phase 2: Education and Outreach: Residential and Non Residential Tasks: a. Target Key Groups b. General Outreach Phase 3: Citizen Involvement Report Tasks: a. Document issues and input b. City Council Workshop Phase 4: Adoption Process Tasks: a. City Council Meeting III. Project Schedule • Phase2: Phase 3: b M i Educati citizen ! ul Ph 4: Phase 1: Project ./ R t Adoption M VIT Jon" a nd Involvement A gt y ix Launch Outreach ; Rep Process IV. Public Involvement Tools matrix ae Y ro „autic h? Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy TFSTF Meeting Participation CCI Meeting Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Press Release- NN Websites Information ListSery Message Communication Pbase2:; ciucagon ,nclt,aut Nan, Residential�x„ A �w Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy. TFSTF Meeting Participation 3 CCI Meeting Participation Farmers Market Participation Speakers Bureau Participation Video Production and Dissemination Information Cityscape Articles Information Update Website Information Bookmark 0 Information Displays (Library, City Hall, PW) Information Water Bill Inserts Information Neighborhood Network Websites Information Listsery Messages Communication Comment Period Communication Involvement Tools .—:Comprehensive'Plan Poltcy ` TFSTF Meeting Participation CCI Meeting Participation City Council Workshop Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Press Release- NN Websites Information Listsery Messa•e Communication ter' 14.1 0"W"rriv'Wg if tri a 7ff.ofwpi.77:: Involvement T „ x ; Comp °ensive Plan Policy TFSTF Meeting Participation City Council Meeting Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Press Release- NN Websites Information Listsery Message Communication V. Materials • Brochures • Factsheets • Flyer • Cityscape Articles • Website • Posters • Press Releases • Progress Bulletins • PowerPoint Presentation • Utility Bill Stuffers • Bookmarks • Video • Comment Period — Survey Monkey 4 VI. Key Messages 1. Street condition is important for the City because it affects community livability and economic vitality. 2. Maintaining streets now, as opposed to repairing them later will save money. 3. The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly user fee designed specifically for use in the maintenance of existing City streets. 4. Tigard City Council is seeking additional citizen input on the proposed fee increases. 5. The proposed fee increases in 2008 dollars are from $2.18 to $6.06 per household monthly for residential units and from $0.78 to $2.44 per parking space required by the Tigard Community Development Code monthly for non - residential uses. 5 Attachment 3 it# ,., , , i li ,;,,,„ . 44, c is .ii lks, r ' 1 l .. . • \ ) 1 i/ i 1 \ - i i I r r J [III Roads represent one of , -v„.....', R 0 G R A M 1 the largest investments P t . 9 t owned by the City, an investment that's in need J: ilk of repair. t INSIDE: , Street Maintenance Fee Update > 1 , The Tigard City Council Contact Information > 1 is seeking citizen input Street Maintenance 101 > 2 about the condition of Importance of Maintenance > 3 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? > 6 y its streets and how to r Pavement Conditions > 8 $ protect this investment. P avement Major Maintenance Program > 11 a -� Future Street Maintenance Funding > 12 If* 4r ;? ; Frequently Asked Questions > 14 ` r. Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force > 17 Appendix > a1 / „ It-:',..‘ .. ,, x , i City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 i www.tigard- or.govrnput y { . y 1 i. .iY . � + n's .'. -:" b 4 y . . it C Jr I ' - ' F ii, ,,, , 1 J r \ ) [ \ r 1 i r'1 r , _ , . . I \/ [ A ii\f Jl AI r ,., Roads represent one of' p R 0 G R A the largest investments ' owned by the City, an investment that's in need:. of repair. INSIDE: The Tigard City Council S treet Maintenance Fee Update > 1 Contact Information > 1 _ ^ , -. -,, is seeking citizen input 'AN Street Maintenance 101 > 2 about the condition of d Importance of Maintenance > 3" What is the Street Maintenance Fee? > 6 its streets and how to ..:, Pavement Conditions > 8 protect this investment. Pavement Major Maintenance Program > 11 Future Street Maintenance Funding ) 12 �. ` ,: Frequently Asked Questions > 14 - Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force > 17 Appendix -' a1 . . City of Tigard ` 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard- or.gov/input Tigard Street Maintenance Review r , ,41 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> y r s , ,,.. ' ; r " ` Questions or Comments? ,` -r � `" ti ter ' �� " ' ` , y. . -- ' _ X 71 4 t • t """ You can submit your comments on line! Follow • ti r • the link at www.tigard- or.gov /input to ., ,� ;. , leave any questions, comments, or concerns • 44 .; , ' ,, 4. Y , , '- k ''.h for City Council and staff. Frequently asked questions and items of interest will be posted online with answers for you to review. In the coming months, City Council will be revisiting our current Street Maintenance Fee Program to ensure it remains an effective tool for If you'd prefer, you can submit your comments this community's biggest investment: 148 miles o paved or questions in n writing to: safeguarding y gg f p Marissa D aniels streets that keep the people of Tigard in motion. Street Maintenance Fee Comments 13125 SW Hall Blvd Stay tuned to the Cityscape newsletter and our website for information such as status Tigard, OR 97223 updates, ways you can get involved, and street maintenance facts. marissa @tigard - or.gov www.tigard-or.gov/input Or, drop them off in the Tigard City Hall Permit Center. Tigard City staff will be available throughout the summer to answer your questions in TABLE OF CONTENTS: person. Check the web for an updated outreach calendar. Street Maintenance 101 2 Future Street Maintenance Funding 12 Importance of Maintenance 3 Frequently Asked Questions 14 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? 6 Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force 17 Pavement Conditions 8 Appendix al Pavement Major Maintenance Program 11 City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 1 Street Maintenance 101 . . treets in good to excellent condition regular maintenance on busy streets, are characterized as having good riding or to repair fair /poor residential streets , draina a and appearance. The 3. Major Overlay— Of ten used on busy , Y,. R quality, g Pp l Y Y - .„�� total annual maintenance investment streets that have deteriorated into poor • is four to five times less following condition _ _ i�OA,` preventative maintenance strategy than 4. Street Reconstruction— Typically c _., _EC if streets were allowed to deteriorate done only when a street's condition is to poor and failed conditions requiring very poor q l„ I major rehabilitation. For more information about each type of funded by the Tigard Public Works Pavement Minor Maintenance Treatments maintenance treatment, please visit our Department operating budget. The Tigard Public Works Street web site: Maintenance Division is responsible Street Lights for the maintenance of 148 miles of www tgard- or.gov /in Tigard's electricity bill for traffic signals paved streets, 1 mile of gravel streets, and street lights is about $500,000 per maintenance of street and traffic signs, Right - - Way Maintenance year. It costs approximately an additional installation and maintenance of guardrails The City of Tigard currently hires a $100,000 per year to maintain the system and barricades, crack sealing, and patching contractor annually to mow roadside (replace burned -out lights, make repairs, street surfaces, maintenance of off -street grass and brush to maintain clear vision fix damage, etc.). These are paid for with bicycle paths and installation and marking. areas and minimize fire and complaint gas tax funds. activity. The City also provides debris Pavement Major Maintenance Treatments cleanup on an as needed basis in these Sidewalks There are four main pavement maintenance areas. The City trims trees annually It is up to property owners to maintain treatments commonly used on city streets: to ensure street lights are functioning the sidewalks adjacent to their property. 1. Slurry Seal — Typically used on property. Also included in right -of -way The City maintains sidewalks adjacent good residential streets to keep them in maintenance is the maintenance of guard to City properties using funds from the good condition rails, delineators barricades, and street Public Works Street Maintenance Division 2. Asphalt Overlay— Often used as trees. This maintenance is currently operating budget. 2 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Importance of Street Maintenance Community Livability and the individual driver. As with many Economic Vitality ii ...the average American car investments, timely investments in Collectively, Tigard's 148 miles of paved owner incurs an additional $413 per routine maintenance in roads can extend roads represents one of the biggest year in operating costs because of pavement life and provide for a safer investments owned by the community. driving experience. Not only will roads rough road conditions. i) Our road system is what keeps the people g last longer, but repairing a failed road of Tigard in motion as they travel to can be four to nine times more expensive work, to school, to the supermarket, to truck drives on roads in poor condition, than a routine maintenance program. the mall, and to parks and open spaces. the vehicle suffers accelerated wear and With a limited amount of funds available, Unfortunately pavement deteriorates tear, increasing time and money spent at the community is better served by over time as weather wears down the top the mechanic, as well as increased fuel spending the same amount of money surface, repeated pressures of vehicle consumption and tire replacement. This maintaining a greater amount of road loading (especially from trucks and buses) problem is not unique to Tigard. A recent miles, than completely rebuilding smaller wears down the underlying pavement study by TRIP, a national transportation sections as the entire network begins to structure, and as the ground beneath the research group, found that the average fail. In other words, if we can keep good pavement settles. Smooth, long - lasting American car owner incurs an additional streets good, we can maximize the use of roads create an image of prosperity and $413 per year in operating costs because limited dollars. ensure that goods and people can move of rough road conditions. This same efficiently throughout Tigard and the report found that those living in the As demonstrated in the following world beyond. In contrast, uneven roads Portland Metropolitan Area incurred graphs, the worse a pavement condition, in poor condition not only make travel approximately $235 per year. As such, the more expensive it is to repair. For unpleasant, they incur extra costs in terms drivers in Tigard are suffering less than instance, routine maintenance and surface of time and money every time a person or the national average, but remain at a very treatments can be implemented for as little business needs to travel within the City. real risk of paying more if roads are not as $1.50 to $3.00 a square yard of roadway. maintained or repaired. This can increase dramatically to $15.00 Personal Costs a square yard to overlay the road with Individual drivers in Tigard are already Consequences of Delayed Maintenance new asphalt, and up to $90.00 a square paying extra money as a result of deferred The costs of deferred maintenance yard if the street is allowed to completely road maintenance. Every time a car or are borne by both the community and crumble, therefore needing to be rebuilt. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 3 30 -Year Pavement Maintenance Alternatives: Neighborhood Route Traffic: 1,500 Vehicles per Day Dimensions: 1,000 feet long, 34 feet wide Avera g e Pave- Total Details Maintenance Alternative'' otal ment Condition O 81 $81,600 Regular 4 3 Slurry Slurry o >~ - Seals, 1 Surface Roughness; Seals t p Overlay Only Minor Cracks; ($454,000 Every 7 Pavement Intact per mile) d Years c.4 a 1 Time (Years) 30 2 76 $102,000 0 Pavement 1 ° ° � Surface Roughness; o 2 O verlays Overlays v V Some Cracking; ($591,000 Every 12 " O Pavement Mosdy Years Intact per mile) 4 1 Time (Years) 30 3 11111 58 o $227,000 t , 1 Recon- Widespread Wait until Pavement o struction Cracking; Potholes ($1.20 gets very Y p at 25 Common; bad, then v Years Some Pavement a mile repave 1 30 Structural Weakness p ) Time (Years) Developing 4 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation 30 -Year Pavement Maintenance Alternatives: Arterial Traffic: 12,000 Vehicles per Day Dimensions: 1,000 feet long, 34 feet wide \srri!..:c I'.nc Iul.d Option \loiinirrnan,..c - Altrrn,uiv( 1)rt =ii1, nicni Condition Cii,t q 1 3 Two 80 $168,000 Pavement V _ __________________________________________________________________________ Inch Surface Roughness; Overlays O verlays Only Minor Cracks; ($887'000 Every Years 10 - I 30 P avement Intact per mile) Time (Years) 2 a 11111 1 1/1 1 : 74 $214,200 Pavement U v 2 Major Surface Roughness; Major ($ 1.13 Overlays 1 33 O -- . - Overlays Some Cracking; million Eve 15 V Pavement Mostly per mile) Years 30 I Intact p Time (Years) 3 N 65 g $340,000 ° Widespread Wait until a °a'°- .,.__ ° _° -y- __ �_ 1 Recon- Cr acking; Potholes 1.8 Pavement �u. V U ($ p= . ... -- ..., z_ struction Common; Fails, then million Some Pavement mile Recon- Structural Weakness p struct a. 1 Time (Years) 30 Developing City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 5 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? ' r ,.. to close the gap between local needs and Approximately 60 of those spaces are west sir <- �► increasingly stretched state dollars. By of the railroad tracks. These spaces do not a� " A . .. . having a locally based fee, communities are include those large parking lots that do exist " " C :, ,� - -, -, __ * : _ ' provided with a stable source of revenue and are presumably used by patrons of - r' �°' r to pay for preventative maintenance and nearby businesses. The consensus in 2003 "` repairs in a timely and efficient manner. was that the patrons of the Main Street businesses are parking somewhere to get to How are the rates determined? the businesses and, as such, the downtown The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly Existing rates were set in 2004 under businesses should not be exempted from user fee designed specifically for the Council Resolution 04-12 which was the charges. maintenance of existing roads in Tigard. based on a five -year maintenance and The fee was recommended to City Council reconstruction plan. Both residential and by a Citizen task force, and established non - residential users pay the fee. Residential ii ...a property must be occupied through Ordinance No. 03 -10 on users pay $2.18 per month per dwelling to be assessed the fee. 5 J November 18, 2003. Monthly fee charges unit. Non - residential users pay $0.78 per for both residential and non - residential parking space or fueling pump station. customers are billed and collected through These fees generate $800,000 a year for Exceptions the City's bi- monthly utility billing system. street maintenance. All religious institutions will be charged half of the normal fee assessed to non -resi- I thought the state Gas Tax Downtown dential businesses, resulting in a 100 -space paid for street maintenance Although many of the downtown maximum for those that reach the 200 Historically, Tigard roads have been businesses do not have sufficient parking space limit. This decision was made because maintained by the state Gas Tax, a spaces off -street to meet the minimum parking requirements for these institutions source of funding that hasn't risen in 20 code requirements, the City is providing are relatively high to accommodate large years, while road usage, operations and over a hundred on -street parking spaces services, while the parking lots are not fully maintenance costs have increased at an throughout most of Main Street to utilized during the week. overwhelming rate. As a result, Tigard accommodate the businesses. Some of is one of eighteen Oregon cities that these spaces have time limits to encourage In addition, a property must be occupied have adopted Street Maintenance Fees periodic turnover during a typical day. to be assessed the fee. If a property is 6 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation What is the Street Maintenance Fee? unoccupied for 30 days or more, the owner the trip generation rates are based on Sydney Sherwood to come up with an may apply for a fee waiver for that period. square footage of building. alternative methodology, suggested the use of the minimum parking requirements Methodology The City needed to develop a methodology of the Tigard Municipal Code. City staff The methodologies used by most of the that distributes the costs of maintenance agreed that methodology proposed was cities in Oregon that have established a among all the non - residential and much better at distributing costs to the street utility fee are based on trip generation residential uses in as fair a manner as actual users of the City's street network and rates for the types of uses to distribute the possible. No methodology is going to be worked with OGA to flesh out the details. costs. These rates are found in a nationwide perfect. The Oregon Grocery Association, The methodology adopted is one that publication from the Institute of Transpor- in response to a challenge from Councilor focuses on the users of the City streets. tation Engineers and are compiled through numerous studies. However, the trip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ) generation methodology does not work well for Tigard. This methodology, if The current methodology is based on the following: used as originally proposed, would have • Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5 -year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the charged the non - residential uses 75% of City of Tigard the costs with Washington Square, Fred ■ Uses actual road maintenance and repair projects on City streets, not state or county routes. Meyer, and other large businesses bearing ■Tailors the fee to the local data the brunt of the cost. Most of the traffic • Sets a target revenue goal of $800,000 annually (established in 2003) • Allocates the costs of the arterial projects to the non - residential uses generated by these big businesses use • Splits the costs for the collectors on a 50 -50 basis with residential and non - residential uses sharing the costs equally. state highways, such as Highway 217, The rationale for splitting the costs in this fashion is that many of the collectors do traverse residential areas and collect 99W and Hall Boulevard. Yet, the fee to traffic from those areas to feed the other collectors and arterials in the system. be collected is for maintenance of City • Allocates the costs for neighborhood routes and local streets to residential uses streets. That methodology was not fair to ■ Allocates the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. the big businesses that draw their traffic • Uses the minimum parking space requirements based on the Tigard Development Code for non - residential uses with a from regional sources using state routes 5 -space minimum and 200 -space maximum. Like the trip generation rates, the parking space requirements are based on size of building and type of use. However, this approach takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area to get there. Under that methodology, all than just Tigard. The argument is that above 200 spaces, the traffic is more likely regional traffic, which comes via the the businesses, including those downtown, state routes. The 5 -space minimum is to establish a minimum amount for the billing to compensate for the costs of would end up paying much more because preparing and mailing out the bills. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 7 Pavement Condition T igard's 148 -mile paved street network Current Paved Network represents an investment of over $140 45 million, with an additional $120 million 40 invested in curbing, sidewalks, drainage, and right -of -way. The City's street 35 City of Tigard ' 1 infrastructure represents the largest Pavement Condition investment owned by Tigard citizens, and 30 Data the overall pavement condition represents a` 25 • . the health of this network. > ■Arterial Y 8 20 ■Collector ; Pavement Rating System t Pavement health is measured by a o 15 ■Residential I H Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The 10 PCI indicates the extent and severity •c of pavement distress such as cracking, 5 '' rutting, raveling, etc. It is expressed as a I 0 a number from 0 (very bad, essentially Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Fair Good Very Good gravel) to 100 (essentially perfect). New Pavement Condition streets start with pavement conditions in the high nineties. For ease of understanding, pavement condition is Current Conditions in Tigard condition rating of 68 and the backlog of often classified as follows: The City completed a Pavement Manage- preventative maintenance is at 10 %. However, ment Analysis report re -rating all City there is cause for concern with 45% of the • Very Good (85 to 100) streets, and providing a PCI rating for streets in the acceptable and fair categories. • Good (70 to 85) each street. This means many streets will become • Fair (55 to 70) reconstruction candidates in the next five • Poor (40 to 55) Today, Tigard's streets are in fairly good con- to ten years. A preventative maintenance • Very Poor (Less Than 40) dition. The network average is an overall approach is needed to stop this trend. 8 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Pavement Condition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> lifi ... i Pavement Condition 93 (Very Good) Pavement Condition 64 (Fair) Pavement Condition 34 (Very Poor) Condition Examples 79th Ave; PCI of 72 2. Volume of trucks and other heavy To give you an idea of what a street in • 72nd Avenue between Redwood Ln vehicles — the pavement deterioration very good condition versus fair condition and Cardinal Ln; PCI of 64 caused by a vehicle increases actually looks like, City staff prepared • Commercial Street west of Main St and exponentially with the amount of a presentation showing examples of Hwy 99W Overpass; PCI of 52 weight on each axle; and, pavement condition throughout the City. • Commercial Street east of Main Street; 3. Vehicles accelerating, braking, and PCI of 42 turning which exerts more force on The presentation includes: • 98th Avenue south of Greenberg Rd; the pavement, and accelerates pavement PCI of 34 deterioration. This is why pavement • 79th Avenue north of Durham Rd; • Beveland St east of 72nd Avenue; PCI deteriorates faster near intersections and Paved in 2008; PCI of 95 of 20 in sharp curves. • 108th Avenue south of Durham Rd; Paved in 2007; PCI of 93 Factors Affecting Pavement Condition Otherfactors include: • Commercial Street between 96th The primary factors causing pavement Avenue and 97th Avenue; PCI of 78 deterioration are the vehicles that travel 1. Weather (which is the primary cause of • Tigard Street near Fanno Creek; PCI over the pavement. These factors include: decay on streets with very little traffic of 72 1. Traffic volume (see chart in the volume) — especially rain and freeze/ • Bonita Road between Hall Blvd and appendix, page a2); thaw action; City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 9 Pavement Condition 2. Settling of the ground beneath the • Pumping — when liquids (such as first 15 years of its life. Then over the next pavement — especially soils with high water or liquid asphalt) are drawn to 5 years, the street will greatly deteriorate, clay content; and, the surface (so it looks like the road is requiring major reconstruction. 3. Construction and or utility work that pumping out the liquid) necessitates cutting into the pavement Preventive maintenance using cost - to access a utility line. Street Lifecycle effective ($1.60 to $13 /sq. yd.) slurry Streets are designed to last about 20 years, seals or 2 to 3 -inch overlays during the Examples of pavement deterioration but the pavement begins to deteriorate first 10 to 15 years can extend a pavement include: much earlier. Studies have shown that life to 30 years and more. Without these • Rutting — When pavement surface be- pavement health worsens at an increasing surface treatments, costly reconstruction is comes depressed along the wheel paths rate as the pavement gets older. required ($35 to $55 /sq. yd.). • Longitudinal Cracking — cracking along the roadway, parallel to the Without periodic, preventive maintenance, For a map showing pavement conditions direction of travel a street's condition deteriorates 40% in the throughout the City, see appendix, a2. • Transverse Cracking — cracking across the roadway, perpendicular to Slurry Seal Example the direction of travel Slurry seals are • Alligator Cracking — a combination typically used on of longitudinal and transverse cracking roads with a PCVOCI that has become so dense it resembles in the 70 to 85 range. It applies a alligator scales finer 'slurry' mixture • Loss of Fines — when the cohesive of cohesive asphalt material near the top of the pavement binder with finer wears away, often due to weather or sand - sized particles traffic loading on top of the existing • Raveling (perhaps better called pavemen bringing ppavement — When pieces of the existing t pavement unraveling) P back to near its .., aggregate come out of the pavement as original condition, as it continues to lose its fines shown at right. 10 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) Map (see appendix, a4) shows locations • At Budget Committee and City The PMMP is a yearly program of of past PMMP projects. Council review meetings and corrective and preventative maintenance hearings held in May /June. on City of Tigard streets funded by the Future Projects Street Maintenance Fee (SMF). The Streets scheduled to be included in next program helps to extend the life of the year's program are at various locations i i ...we have focused our pavement structure by various means such throughout the City. The Tigard Pavement limited resources on preventive as, complete removal and replacement of Management 2009 -2013 Map (see appendix, maintenance...), asphalt, slurry sealing and /or overlaying. a5) shows maintenance projects included in this year's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Through this program, the City is able Plan. The number of streets proposed Projects not included to perform timely maintenance on City for rehabilitation is subject to change State Highways, such as I -5, Hwy. 217, Hwy. streets to avoid the much more costly depending upon actual construction costs. 99W, and Hall Blvd, are not included in reconstruction costs that result when streets Streets that need rehabilitation but cannot Tigard's Street Maintenance Fee. Washington are allowed to significantly deteriorate. be performed in the current fiscal year will County Roads, such as Scholls Ferry Road, be moved to the next fiscal year. Beef Bend Road, Bull Mountain Road, and Past Projects parts of Greenburg Road, are not included Each year, the City of Tigard develops a The annual CIP is updated and coordi- in Tigard's Street Maintenance Fee. 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) nated by the City CIP Management Team that determines the City's facility and that engages all City departments, advisory In this year's Pavement Major Maintenance capital needs for the current year and commissions, and Tigard citizens to Program (PMMP), we have focused our projected for four additional years. identify needed public projects. To suggest limited resources on preventive mainte- The Streets section of the Capital a specific street be included in the PMMP nance such as slurry seals in residential Improvement Plan contains the Pavement get involved in the annual CIP update areas, and pavement overlays on major Major Maintenance Program. Since process by providing comments: streets. We are only planning pavement the program began in 2004, $3,704,827 overlays on through streets. While there has been used for the maintenance • At Planning Commission review are several loops and cul -de -sacs that need of existing City streets. The Street meetings and public hearings held in pavement overlays, they are not planned to Maintenance Fee Projects 2004 -2008 February and March. be done this year due to limited funding. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 11 Future Street Maintenance Funding Federal Stimulus Dollars purchased in 2003 dollars with $800,000 to maintain the streets in a perpetual Recognizing the current funding gap, the now requires approximately $1,800,000 for maintenance cycle that would keep good City of Tigard applied for federal stimulus the same amount, due to a steep increase streets good and gradually improve the funding (via the American Recovery and in raw material costs. In addition, the City condition of the overall street network for Reinvestment Act) for pavement overlay has experienced an increase in traffic levels the long term. projects, along with other projects. It throughout the system, accelerating the appears that Tigard will be receiving rate at which the City's roads deteriorate. The proposed fee increase would include some federal stimulus funds to construct Vehicle use is up 21% statewide, and City additional funding for right -of -way main - pavement overlays on: streets are seeing more and heavier trucks tenance on the City's major street network • Durham Road from Upper Boones and buses. In other words, the existing fees as a part of overall street maintenance. Ferry Rd to Hall Blvd are not enough to maintain a healthy road This additional funding would address fire • 72nd Avenuefrom Upper Boones system in good repair. hazards and unsightly overgrowth resulting Ferry Rd to Fir St (just south of Hwy from unmown grass, weeds, and other 217) The current Street Overall Condition Index plants in the planters, medians, and areas • Bonita Roadfrom the I -5 bridge to (OCI) is 68 and declining every year due to between sidewalks and property lines on Fanno Creek an increasing backlog of maintenance. An the City's arterial and collector streets. The OCI of 73 to 75 would be optimal for the funding required for this maintenance work These projects will help fill this year's gap City because it ensures that the City can annually is $300,000. The combined total in funding for Arterials and Collectors, but enter into, and stay within, that perpetual for both street maintenance and right -of- the future funding gap remains. maintenance cycle over the long term. The way maintenance would be $2,500,000 City can achieve that OCI target goal over annually in 2008 dollars. Proposed Fee Increase a 20 -year period with a fee increase and When the existing Street Maintenance inflation adjustments each year to account Proposed Increase Phases Fee was established, the target revenue for the rise and fall of material and labor The proposed fee increases are from $2.18 was set at $800,000 a year. Because an costs. The amount required to maintain a to $6.06 monthly for residential units, and inflation adjustment was not built into the comprehensive preventative maintenance from $0.78 to $2.44 monthly for non -resi- program, fees have remained constant while program over the long term is $2,200,000 in dential users. The new fee, if implemented, City needs and the costs of repairs have 2008 dollars. This continually revised target would produce the annual revenue target of increased dramatically. For instance, asphalt would ensure that the City could continue $2,500.000. However, because the increase 12 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Future Street Maintenance Funding in fee is relatively large, immediate adoption because the City's experience during the Council must vote on the following items of the new rates will not be sought. To past 5 years has been that the larger main at a public hearing where public testimony lessen the immediate impact, the increases arteries of the City (collectors and arterial will be taken prior to the vote. will be phased in over two years so that by roads) require more frequent and extensive • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 to 2011, the fees charged will be at the level maintenance than do neighborhood roads. add right -of -way maintenance as an needed to adequately maintain the streets More than half the costs are still borne by integral part of street maintenance and rights -of -way. An inflation factor of residential users. under the street maintenance definition 6.5% annually is incorporated in the phase- • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 to in plan to ensure that the fees collected in Among non - residential users, the largest include local commercial and indus- 2011 will be at the level needed at that time. payers are still the big businesses, but the trial streets under the non - residential After 2011, any future increases to account maximum charges are capped at 200 spaces. category for fee calculation purposes for inflation will be based on one or more Those with more than 200 spaces are many • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 recognized construction cost indices. of the Washington Square businesses, the to incorporate an annual inflation Lincoln Center, Fred Meyer along Highway factor to ensure that the fee rates keep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 99W, and the Tigard Plaza along 99W pace with cost increases or decreases Current Fall Fall Fall and Hall Blvd., etc. Although Washington • Resolution to set the City's long Rate 2009 2010 2011 Square appears to be one entity, in reality term OCI goal of 75 Residential $2.18 $3.73 $5.22 $6.86 it is a number of businesses, each charged • Adoption of the new fee rates with Non Residential $0.78 $1.43 $2.07 $2.74 individually, with a 200 -space cap. Macy's, phase -in plan incorporated Nordstrom, and J.C. Penney are among Note: Rates for 2009 to 2011 include a 6.5% th businesses that own their properties. Additional Options annual inflation factor Lincoln Center is similar in that at least 5 The City has constrained options when different businesses are charged the 200- searching for ways to maintain roads. One Residential versus Non - residential Rates space maximum. Charges are associated alternative to a fee increase is to allow the The original 5 -year plan developed in 2003 with each water meter and assessed based roads to continue to deteriorate, and pass resulted in the residential users paying for on the square footage for each business. the costs to future taxpayers. Another is to 58% of the costs and the non - residential find an alternative funding source, a diffi- users 42 %. The new 5 -year plan developed Procedural Steps cult proposition in today's economic climate in 2008 changes the ratio to 55% to 45% In order for the City to raise fees, the and constrained federal and state budgets. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 13 Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the Street Maintenance maintenance than do neighborhood Fee? ,. o roads. More than half the costs are still .- A I borne by residential users. A: The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly fee designed specifically for the q � Among non - residential users, the largest maintenance of existing roads in Tigard .r payers are still the big businesses, but Monthly fees are collected from both . the maximum charges are capped at residential and non - residential customers 200 spaces (non - residential users are and are billed and collected through the - . charged on the number of parking spaces City's utility billing system. • - ler 9 required in the Tigard Development Code). Although Washington Square Q: How is the Street Maintenance Fee QUESTIONS SWERS and other shopping centers appear to be charged? - , #„ . one entity, in reality they are a collection A: The Street Maintenance Fee is assessed -:_ =_ of separate businesses, each charged on your bimonthly utility bill. individually, with a 200 -space cap. Charges are associated with each water Q. Why is a fee increase being Q. How are residential and commercial meter and assessed based on the square proposed? fees determined? footage for each business. A: When the existing Street Maintenance A: The original 5 -year plan developed Fee was established in 2004, the target in 2003 resulted in the residential users Q' If the proposed increase is o approved, how much will my rates revenue was set at $800,000 a year. paying for 58% of the costs and the non- increase and when? Because an inflation adjustment was not residential users 42 %. The new built into the program, fees have remained 5 -year plan developed in 2008 changes A: The proposed fee increases are from constant while City needs and the costs the ratio to 55% to 45% because the $2.18 to $6.06 monthly for residential of repairs have increased dramatically. City's experience during the past 5 years units, and from $0.78 to $2.44 per required In other words, the existing fees are not has been that the larger main arteries of parking space for non - residential uses. enough to maintain a healthy road system the City (collectors and arterial roads) Increases will be phased in over two years in good condition. require more frequent and extensive so that by 2011, the fees charged will be 14 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Frequently Asked Questions at the level needed to adequately maintain for these institutions are relatively high shown that pavement health worsens at an the streets and rights -of -way. An inflation to accommodate large services, while the increasing rate as the pavement gets older. factor of 6.5% annually is incorporated parking lots are not fully utilized during The total annual maintenance investment in the phase -in plan to ensure that the the week. is four to five time less following a fees collected in 2011 will be at the level preventative maintenance strategy than if needed at that time. After 2011, any In addition, a property must be occupied streets are allowed to deteriorate to poor future increases to account for inflation to be assessed the fee. If a property is and failed conditions requiring major will be based on one or more recognized unoccupied for 30 days or more, the rehabilitation. construction cost indices. owner may apply for a fee waiver for that period. Q: Why can't the City wait until the Q: Your website states that the current economy improves? rate for residential users is $2.18 per Q: What is the pavement condition on month, but when I check my utility my street? A: The costs of deferred maintenance bill the amount charged for the Street are borne by both the community and the Maintenance Fee is twice that amount A: You can visit Tigard Maps and look individual driver. As with many investments, ($4.36), why? up the pavement rating data for your timely investments in routine maintenance street. Once you enter your address and in roads can extend pavement life and A: Because the City of Tigard sends out are routed to the page displaying your provide for a safer driving experience. Not utility bills on a bimonthly schedule (every property, just click on the Transportation only will roads last longer, but repairing a two months), the amount shown on your tab at the top of the page, then choose failed road can be four to nine times more bill is actually for two months. pavement condition. It's that simple! expensive than a routine maintenance program. With a limited amount of funds Q: Are exceptions allowed? Q: Why consider raising rates during a available, the community is better served A: All religious institutions will be down economy? by spending the same amount of money maintaining a greater amount of road miles, charged half of the normal fee assessed A: The City is looking to be fiscally than completely rebuilding smaller sections to non - residential businesses, resulting responsible with your Street Maintenance as the entire network begins to fail. In other in a 100 -space maximum for those that Fee dollars. Streets are designed to last words, if we can keep good streets good, reach the 200 space limit. This decision about 20 years, but the pavement begins we can maximize the use of limited dollars. was made because parking requirements to deteriorate much earlier. Studies have City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 15 Frequently Asked Questions Q: What about Tigard's share of state Q: What legislative steps are required Gas Tax revenue? to raise the fees? , A: Historically, Tigard roads have been A: In order for the City to raise fees, the maintained by the state Gas Tax, a Council must vote on the following items. 1111P source of funding that hasn't risen in 20 Each will occur at a public hearing where years, while road usage, operations and public testimony will be taken prior to a maintenance costs have increased at an Council vote. overwhelming rate. As a result, Tigard • Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to add is one of eighteen Oregon cities that right-of-way maintenance as an have adopted Street Maintenance Fees integral part of street maintenance to close the gap between local needs and under the definition of street increasingly stretched state dollars. By maintenance; having a locally based fee, communities are • Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to provided with a stable source of revenue include local commercial and to pay for preventative maintenance and Q: The City of Tigard instituted a repairs in a timely and efficient manner. industrial streets under the non- 3 -cent per gallon gas tax. Why can't residential category for fee calculation the City use that money? purposes; Q: Will Tigard residents have an • Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to A: The Tigard gas tax was developed by opportunity to vote on the proposed incorporate an annual inflation a citizen task force who recommended Street Maintenance Fee increase? factor to ensure that the fee rates keep it as a way to fund improvements to the A: According to state law, utility rate pace with cost increases or decreases; Greenburg Rd. /99W /Main St. intersection increases need only approval by City • Adopt a Resolution to set the City's ONLY. Collections from the Tigard tax Council. This is why your Council is long term Street Overall Condition are dedicated to this one project, and the making such an effort to hear from you! Index goal at 75; and tax automatically ceases once the project You can provide comments online, to staff, • Adopt new fee rates with a phase -in is completed and sufficient funds are or at hearings held by Tigard City Council. plan incorporated. collected to fully finance and pay for the improvements. 16 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation b'ansportation Financing Strategies Task Force Task Force Histo ry 'i . / �/ " The original Transportation Financing / z Strategies Task Force established through ` � - ,. , Resolution No 01 -06 recommended �� A - , the Street Maintenance Fee to City ' Y Council. The Task Force members 1 were actively involved in the public . :` € " '; outreach to obtain citizen and business input for submission as part of the ,,,,,,, i _. Task Force recommendation. The fee was implemented in April 2004 and has provided a stable source of revenue for maintaining the existing street infrastructure. That effort took about existing funding sources. The Task Force The reconstituted Task Force three years and required persistence and was reconstituted to explore funding recommended a local fuel tax to dedication to see it through. City Council, alternatives for those major transportation City Council dedicated solely to the through Council Resolution No. 04 -51, improvements. Council Resolution No. improvement of the Greenburg Road/ acknowledged the accomplishments of 04 -52 reconstituted the Task Force, Highway 99W /Main Street intersection. the Task Force, concluded that phase of established the mission for the Task Force, This project, in conjunction with the the Task Force's work, and commended and appointed the members to serve on County's project to improve the Hall the Task Force members for a job the reconstituted Task Force. Blvd /Highway 99W intersection, alleviates well done. traffic congestion by removing the two On October 26, 2004, the City Council largest traffic bottlenecks along Highway Although maintenance needs were adopted Resolution No. 04 -85 adding 99W in the City. The Task Force members addressed through the establishment two new members to the Task Force led the public process to obtain citizen of the fee, many major transportation and expanded the mission by adding and business input to help Council in improvements necessary to meet the construction of sidewalks and right -of- its decision - making process. Council current and future transportation demands way maintenance on collector and arterial established the local fuel tax in late 2006 still could not be implemented through streets to the scope. and collections began in April 2007. The City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 17 Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force project is now in the design stages for • Jennifer Standfield Previous Task Force Members construction to begin in early 2010. • Christopher Warren • Gretchen Buehner(Council Liaison) • Marty Anderson On December 18, 2007 City Council • Steve Clark Resolution No. 07 -74 acknowledged the The Task Force is now involved in the • Gretchen Buehner accomplishments of the reconstituted public outreach process to obtain citizen (Planning Commission Representative) Task Force, concluded that phase of the and business input into the proposed • Cam Gilmour Task Force's work, and commended the increases to the Street Maintenance Fee • Ralph Hughes Task Force members for a job well done. rates sufficient to meet the increases in • Paul Owen cost since 2003 and to ensure a gradual • Basil Christopher On January 29, 2009 City Council adopted of the City's overall . • Beverly Froude Resolution No. 09 -01 to again reconstitute • Joe Schweitz pavement condition over time. In the Task Force to continue with the addition, they will continue the evaluation • Nick Wilson (Council President) evaluation of feasible funding sources of a variety of funding sources for the • Oregon Grocery Association: for the City's transportation and street operation, maintenance and improvement Joe Gilliam (Primary) infrastructure operation, maintenance and of the City's transportation system. Dan Floyd (Alternate) improvement needs. Recommendations will be submitted to The members of the newly- appointed City Council for consideration. Task Force are: • John Bailey • Rex Caffall (Planning Commission Representative) • Beverly Froude • Cam Gilmour • Dennis Mitchell • Rick Parker A list of previous Task Force meeting • Anthony Rivano minutes (2001 -2006) are available on the • Joe Schweitz City of Tigard website. 18 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Appendix City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > al 4 it, , CITY OF TIGARD ( Pavement Conditions 2008 i j i r ,-, 1 ----___.-': --- alb ' 0 (' . ,' _. ../ . . — - .... - ----,: j r --1 '-; Liiiii I . 1 w .ii-.4.• Nk.„ • .-, . , - -1---....„ , , _.-- , - '-., FL , ,_ - LEGENL■ a 1 -'.--- '--- - - - -'—..'...-_-: \ 7. ..- . L fra- `11.• r # -..1 411 ' -,,, I PaveCond_2.008 . . Very Poor LI --. ), <-='::*5<`: - ." MI '=121 1111 "AP ..• , N. • t ai . 9 oils: •Tet" N, . ■ - - Fair 1 \ . r • Good \ I 1 Very Good F _.1 = t I ' )'''. MI : `< • ' . - j .. . II County Line I, j Al ,,. ,-- u' .. / Xi ' I 1 Metro Urban Growth Boundary lint , k d or • ;4‘ 1 4 1., ...i I Tigard City Limns ) :"• ,1-9-1=--r MI ..` .1 •••‘-' n r .47", -- Street Network - --1 • .- I : ■ Om - .., . 1 . .._.; - -i i g_ - LI/ it ■11 ,j ; 1 ! e, ''' I. . ; .' . Ft i 0111111mo _HI . .,_, L.1:1 411 I a , J hil =C–r.' ; -.." • n 1 . 1 . dia ,,,, i i i o = __ , i. i • .... . , I I it agrAW. 1W- .44 • A. • ' ..- -_- , 1 • , 1 ' , l' ''''-; 18 .. ... - . . 524;`?:1. ....".";:.. - ..1'", , rr,.....::.=, ' I ii 4 -' ' ' , .... ... ,..... .,. ... . . . ....,.... .,.....,.....,..,.. .., ..... ,-----,--- . cri .. , — - 1 • .- - --t: , . , ....... _. - – . ... ,. ....,.,.., - — „,. /j I .L ! .."', /,, '”. , . . ... ...... — .... ..„...,..., , . .. ' 1 - 7 - r r ) .. ! I '' I . - r . ' \ ; - I-- N PILE 1.0,41.1 a2 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation At to C I T Y C F T I C A R D I Average i Daily Traffic (ADT) 2008 Volume ! I u Estimates* I I I-- --see � -- - � .� �✓ < � Tigard Street Network •�• -- - - - -- Number of Vehicles per day 1Fe \ 55.000 + . , \ 32.000 - 54.999 1' V ' 15.000 - 29.999 A . " T 6.000 - 14.999 eel i .. 2000. 5.999 l et e . s \ e 2000 . s ' �I v -' '' . County Line ry s,�, 1 \ " r),'71""-f- .4 • .,. I ") . _,y r ' $ 1 Metro Urban Growth Boundary F }^"° i-+^ 1- ` T - y - I ' - e 1 I - = Tigard City Limits a t « u g.... 3 - .,t-L. �'' 'NOTE These are estimates based on ' --{e 1, 1 - ^' + T ,I Y,X $ ) e] � y - + j: e � I —1 2 '' available traffic counts and our r l t a; understanding of traffic patterns. - -`^' r There will always be some inaccuracy P in estimates and traffic patterns can l - significantly vary from day to day. I I a... -.. -. - c,.... • 1 m �. ., ,...•. .,,, >.., w' City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a3 Street I Maintenance Be a v e t o n Fee Projects � F o� is Portland 2004 2008 >.: "'@ Street Maintenance 6 2004 s, __ 2005 1 2006 I \ ! . 2007 2008 a , � _ riles � I t � as King MTASOURCES c� ry ar:Bard City Lake OKOLAIME@ Plis map wa: nerved from sever daobaaea. The C tY cxnrot a<ceps Oswego m,poee�d Tne�orc Durham dert trtrowarranas 1or this p Wvmve, ary aaf a mal errors e appnaamd T u a -I , a t i n o. eo a4 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation g Tigard , , i Pav emen t I A ,• B e e r t n t k Management t Portland 2009 - 2013 ! P 9 _� . '''-u a ;= Pavement Management • s'`a, s . �l Treatment Year (Treatment Type a �� 2009, Slurry C 2009. Overlay "` 2010, Slurry � � T'" 4 , —2010, Overlay d 8 201 1, Slurry ?�.� �' ,»., -.. — 2011.Overlay t ; 7 Y 2012 Slurry - 201 2012.Overlay 2013, Slurry L T ` : ® • . . i _ _____..... i 2013, Overlay I i . n @ _ 0 0s I King DATA SOURCES+ .an , a Ci ■ M� - Lake ; Oswegd . r,ee ', D u r ' h a nl more Ire 'If w.,..o�, tor ro. proeu< a.yprcrfaud T u a '1 a ti n _ -. - SO, .dal. 1.171 \ City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a5 Pavement Condition Examples The Pavement Condition Index is a measure of the surface condition and integrity of the pavement. It is expressed as a number from 0 (very bad, essentially gravel) to 100 (essentially perfect). We have compiled these photos to give you a better idea of what the numbers mean and what different levels of pavement condition look like. New streets start with pavement conditions in the high nineties. Pavement deteriorates over time as weather wears down the top surface, the repeated pressures of vehicle loading (especially from trucks and buses) eventually wears down the pavement structure, and as the ground beneath the pavement surface settles. For ease of understanding, pavement condition is often classified as follows: Very Good 85 to 100 Good 70 to 85 Fair 55 to 70 Poor 40 to 55 Very Poor Less Than 40 Examples of pavement deterioration include: Rutting — When pavement surface becomes depressed along the wheel paths Longitudinal Cracking — cracking along the roadway, parallel to the direction of travel Transverse Cracking — cracking across the roadway, perpendicular to the direction of travel Alligator Cracking — a combination of longitudinal and transverse cracking that has become so dense it resembles alligator scales Loss of Fines — when the cohesive material near the top of the pavement wears away, often due to weather or traffic loading Raveling — (perhaps better called unraveling) — When pieces of aggregate come out of the pavement as it continues to lose its fines Pumping — when liquids (such as water or liquid asphalt) are drawn to the surface (so it looks like the road is pumping out the liquid) Some examples of Pavement Condition are on the following pages: a6 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation : - , I :'lei , t 't r 1 ., t i � � . . � �►�� . 0 'i tia , y L • am: -' , r »:a rt ' -- /I. r , + / lair :,. Pavement Condition 93 (Very Good): 108``' Avenue south of Durham Road; Paved in 2007. Smooth surface; No cracks; Smooth ride City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a7 , r 4 _ • , ' ' 1 • t. r � f r J.!' 3 4 1 ' ' f p ' a 1" - " r J r „.' T 4 �� ,. i” �XN �' t• �/t r r 7 'ice. • • , I i o•• r t i . �' LY ,Z _ .i! rTj - t , t • • . . r .v '' �•f ! z �- r . r ` N r $ ' , � Y ; ., f-. -- r` ` , .:_ 1 ` t r , . a, r, „. R , rYi' ` ` , i - ' _ -) / r #f r.'- � 1, , T r Y f `- S , '�J „ r-' .„- .' f / a l i . .3 t 1 - --";k• ,1 ,-`, 1 6 ... ;...4 i -. et } r l� t I, • , � � r• �, _ �,Y -, . - '' 1. , e � . �, ! 1'" ��f.,..„ ••r , i � ` r ,&- Y � } 7 s �• a�-+ 0 1 t o I , l 't• ▪ _...7 r - ,� -� 3 - rr • fir r ' 1 4 -••'' ' 2 i r f - • \ . } , 1 t `.,X• ✓ .-r.. r ! , L ! !�.w y' i t j%� 1 ,7 } r . / r .? � ., / ' :: - S � r i ) r l- . ▪ i ,} V.-'4,-)-, . � fb • ': • I l 3 L .r r • it r . f ,rr , ' - r - _ } ... ! 7yi r " f� - ....Al �� r r' j - l.a, '• �'' tee. !' .l c� t - �' •, /..':+ f - • I ..,.. 1 . - .; i J . " / ! / • . r , ! l y ., w.l!' ^ ? i..t y j . -, ),, { 4 - S � ( If r� r C �+ wc. r r . ��Yf . 5 r f � r r 1 ' ( f { 6 {t � t .�,: t q ' - � r ' I" r r sy � .- 1"t" yK 7 r `,� `{ A �'� ,-. ,?z c_ • r r s ..-'' ' : r it : ." , r - t r F r '. i ,s- l •r �,' t f ) , � -�,' r r r r`*'i 1 i t r ,. r 4 .. ,-t. T ' ' +' ' s . `-- "ti S J r . , / L ' ' r� , ` . T _ r ,, - )"r fa 4 s .> x r ' • ` ;r , 4 } f •Y � ; .r ! ','7--, t , �., , j 6 ,, ;.- t t C : r: , t' r . - T ay,,•n . • � .i �Y 1 r -.e•✓ ' - , _; �l C t t ft. _ : ' _t 'tti ..... . ..7 t T r_'t '' l • ' ,r ty + r ! i 'r ' } , t j, ; f 24g, TT r_ X _ t o r ei - f ;.r ,, . � .J 2 ' � � .1,r,,...,: .. �✓ , , ,f, � fi e '''''-- �rC� - , r Iii • r , � 1 -f " )- 3 j � , E - 3 � ' r ,': 4 a Pavement Condition 95 (Very Good): 79` Avenue North of Durham Road; Paved in '1)08 No Cracks; Most of the cohesive material is intact at the top. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation a8 < Street Maintenance Fee Program - a ` • il a , s S 4 1 • - 1 . d r . • .� 1 } , ! . , Jr S. • t' , 6 ' " �* / } 4 „ \,. . ,r� �r b ti 1 ..0. y �y a e -.: d . .s %',, a Ifit . a• m a 1 .t 1 • Pavement Condition 78 (Good): Commercial Street between 96 Ave and 97 Ave Pavement is losing some of its `fines' — the smaller cohesive material at the top that helps hold it together; No cracks yet. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a9 �t�.ea y 4 4 1 It ',�+'.. ,yam y . } _ � • r R ..„„I , r • 3` 1 t` ` •a R tic , „,,,,,,.., . r., . ( • 1,1 \ , . at \ - 4 : - , 1-4 '. • • ..• • . • • . uk.k. et. ,-. .... . . . ii ,, „ ... -`.. . , . ,.. 4,- 4,, ' 0 :amenemoiliu. • I ' ' • ' ' ., 1, 01 a `. at e. : & -,• y w ..n"r` .. - -11„,.. t1 ,..1 'r„ . _7 _:.1,, y • - s � 4 Pavement Condition 72 (Good): Tigard Street near Fanno Creek Surface roughness shows pavement has lost much of its fines; Some cracks appearing (Note sealant) al° < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation + .' - . N . ,, 1 IM - _ , ter 't t= r• ° . � . ' Y it t- r r. - - ' s t' f'i0" - ' r � .,=••.:P• � Y �t° g v r' it °a r:- 7.-* } / ''. �,:R ,7..rt 4 t ° • ,1%: I re t , s. ,- 1 P ! Y ' Y S i�fT�C i •'a f ' t,---'7."-_-•:;- f £`'" - -1,3,-W.;,.1,-,-; !S . /' K � {rY "'y Y •SG3tV ., t ! t� -c ��S,5 1".'" Mallro 70th sue,:,.. y.. ._,. • - - T }' Y r ; t, a }" _ *t+" i s irYi , "v i�t,� - �=t '' r r r..' ! `-, P„,, s -i=,i r s, • b -y_ 3'+_ ..: - t r + .1 _ j_ •, 4s eve.£ - ...-',11."' �+r - -,1. -f �w x Pavement Condition 72 (Good): Bonita Road between Hall Blvd and 79` Ave Roughness shows pavement is losing some of its fines. Some cracks are appearing. City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > all or — .w;41 11! . ISM. 1 !' 72nd Cardinal to Redwood A ' AMI001101111~111 t.',1 G ,-.."41 hl^:', F r b - Pavement Condition 64 (Fair): 72n Avenue between Redwood Ln and Cardinal Ln Cracks have become wider, more continuous, and tend to follow the wheel path; Note surface roughness; Some potholes occur al 2 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation 01101 AM\ '°W v4 f r Pavement Condition 52 (Poor): Commercial Street west of Main and 99W Overpass Cracking has become much more extensive (note crack sealant, and cracks near road center); Soft spots appear as areas of dense cracking City of Tigard I Community Development Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > al 3 ! a �.k w a . t • ._ - I . , '..P.... Y ..t * w it _ y . .. -, , Wy .. S ., r t 4 x t fie .. A. } 4 S ' _ 2 (:. - , -.- - : tiF ♦,� .ems :_ j �, !. - '•• 'C ' .� . .. - // . t,.w `LC_. tom+ - . T? �- �'- .,,trph .-, .. i ` tt gy p, . t 4. s :a� ` t mo d ` , tc ss ._. i. 4 ,, ,ia ' ;; 4yo-.. -a ) a Pavement Condition 42 (Poor): Commercial Street east of Main Street Cracking has become extensive; This is called `alligator cracking' because it resembles the back of an alligator. a14 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Y • i 1 � • • ! b y �} ' � . . 1 '4 , ��I _ ' . i' 'mss r " aq• 0 • y' n * `�8�t rot - ,? ! + M'ca•, i _. I . . 1 111 _ _ _ ,.., ...„•,. . ,,.. ._,,,,,, .. -tom, , ..., 1, , . .., , . ,. • Y> .• . . _----- ...... _ '' , ... ., .... „, • • s. . _ .,..„. ,..... _,....,,_41.,.4„:. k ,. ,...... .. , . •,.- _ - __ ,k, ,_ .. ,_,..;....-..,,,...-....„..-..,:.. - , . =•• •,.„...,.,.•:..... _.,.._ • te n „ � .1. •„,., el oruneurs 3 : s TM a `'. C .. ,, _ , ..y - . , y \ e..._:,: --"<*** .-...-1----7 rte, s .,�!'++ Ri. s‘..,...-2 'r� • •!M. ,•Aiy" .d °--.! M1- g 1..- •.•q. -w �.. r} � �..... r3� + _ma y._- >w +�•".y f1 t. Iir�09 � g _ 1 T£ a �. 7' a 'k^ , -S ._. ... 3 _ r 6't r - _ ° ,. x. > f +.= 7 , - - N F L: r Pavement Condition 34 (Very Poor): 98 Avenue south of Greenburg Rd Extensive alligator cracking; Subsurface structural weakness leads to uneven surface City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a15 +� x ..� - . . , • l 6 +ter` n • ' F ^• , � • • Y B SI . +� » h ' f. SW rs n " dM �*+" R i r , e _. t ..oft -" -- o V • v im F • • • 11R * 'it n 4 . y,. �+ .,p • ' y i ll F'� V ;_ z. s a _ r te . f I "�•�" .. - - ? c. 7 lit V 4 9 • f , t rr s' .a t / - .:. �y �y.. - '.;.:4::1-....:Pi" ,hty . N f - �y;. d . • , _ I � Y 4 f F r � �$Y' I l� � ` J f u . • Pavemen Condition 20 (Very Poor): Beveland Street 5 00' east of 7r Avenue The patch on t right rates higher b ut extensive cracking and subsurf weakness < leave the rest of the road in very poor condition Street Maintenance Fee P rogram City of Tig C ommunity Developme I Capital Construction and Transportation Slurry Seal Example Slurry seals are typically used on roads with a PCI /OCI in the 70 to 85 range. It applies a ner `slurry' mixture of cohesive asphalt binder with finer sand — sized particles on top of the existing pavement, bringing the existing fi ng pavement back to near its original condition, as shown below: ' 1 s , +� ,� ` •- + ` el i f t' ' 4j - • ` . t V ri . .4' ,' , N' t h ,s ;,' a t tMr } . ` s i • t ti t , ', r !` 1 • i t . : 'i r • + . f + , �.... y ,�t i 1 t 1 M r .' ", '° 5. 7 ti 1 t; j l` r } + f i ), r � F L ( ` t u i , • r t t '' I r �.. , + i I i'� ` r ' + - ¢, i • -! f r ♦. °r �. tr . � 1 H 1 t. •+ ' r ��. s 1 r t� .1•� , •t ' l j • • a } i . �• ... , . �' 1l�t r 1�� ,i S'• r : r 1 .. 4 , .'.• yt .. + . C . r �.' '+ , ' , F ' . " ' '' ‘ H,4 a f r i, i t t tr r } s r e G r �, l i k � `�� T `. g , F p Y :* r A , + s r + t , � , � �t ( �' (� 3. :' , . •, ‘‘ ( ,: ! -4",- • � i .'`,f,','' - .",1'.''' st a S �' � s C" r :, - .7S : r } f , ;, fit Yt i 1 •f t ♦ t . r ' ; } r + 1 / r t i t, ;'' 1 . + r t + r , , ; rt i ,, , i " .' it • 1 �,� 1 I t i : ti , t '• -:r� ' • r - � 1'1 vvv s � ' t r t t ?I . -* 4 t r', .1-'' � s ,ter ,',J, '' ' r , • } [ .•:14) s 4 1.4).'411''''1,:' t < � , k i W . t 4 t ' i +•, i i i ! • ' � + I i l f �, Si of i , t lir � + '' i 5 / r r + ', :li � • $14,4v4. :4 . s .;Sr'►•'a•� �� J ' , �, v t J S • t ` !r ' , i ,. i r i• MAT • f :s i y }14 , !1. s r` .0 i• t+ r t y 4 f t 1 / + r f r ' , ' ' s- P. 1 ' ... .,: - r i ' ,i j 1 r a t t t • >, t l , 4 4 i . s • ti 3 •' a s • ` s • � 4 i gi >, ,fAXIIV ifs. r t • ,!_+ `, ' 1 t .� ° r ' ' i .,y "f0"r . .Vfy1 A �{ ¢ y,,t• .Y t 9 : •;. t ' f s • 4 ' • ' I ! 1` F 1 � ~ ` • r ,z, r �y. " ' : a , . 4 AN, y +� °' ,,.. \ ,t . ,k` � f f; ` • r s i ', i • ^ • ' i �t 4 —' ,j t! (� + .s, ' � r r ; a ,{ � r. r f 1 �'• efa ) . r 1 1 %' ♦ 9 4,', t ".0 i E `," . � , , j'1 t � ', , , s i , t i , * , i i , at�a: AA h } J . 7. - f' a r f r t �'` } y ''° 1' t i t ;1 t . (� 4.t.t? Ai . 'i 1• h s k 1. ) . �. $7 i r J t , Y' . ' t � '} ' t s:.C t fi }` e• : �iF' �� Y � � � � � � �. } , �t3 'H + 1 = y ' 6 ). � � { ., F l t d � t. !' � `. �i 1• .i• •fir t r I i 'rr: ' r at v , okr: -f° Y f,- Fl- \4� ! � �t' 1 e. * s 2ti ti f -L r r•• . 4 r. i ji y•lt ' l s . ?t ' t 7 : l h f 4 } �} ' Y!� t y s1j 1 b 4 �,} a.�� > 'h '- f: • ' ? ;F�F s• + �� + �: fi tY i t ' 7 1 y , t 1 !` t + F.�` i +r ' t � �, i o , , T !I i,,, . . iy i. , . Y.1 r `,t j , .. . i {� . fi . '� y � ` ,J r1� c i+ j ` . 1�� / � • f 0 ' f r i i ' 7 ,. 4 ° . rY . , !• r'( : j . it A�H� '` ° '' 1, 1 , - ' s ;t t ? t j y f . ` L a � j ,, t J J•` Al t }� ` � A r ( p t `[ ' e ;x(i i y ;` St i , � t �t . Y . � _ _4� t ' , �Jr . • ) '{�� 1 � , J , . . , J r ,i ; IL !; t r, F J} , f s,1 y . � :; : t > 4 ' ' t st ... -'''':^4:: - t �t * $ 1 . i, .n ... t� ••'4%' t'. ' i ,{� 4 /' I y. `l' i A • d a l + t:,: _ s t ,/ -. : { t . i.. .. `S ,� }� � Y , }'` }:. t 5' � � r ` iY' M A �• � . '4. . * d } p � r ' z ! � � 1 ., e t . C 44, { i `. s7S { 1 .1 W i. r ' ) 4 A ` 1 ( +• � o e . � �i i i J� I I 0' . r � ii.W � � ` F ib . , 1 � F�. t r r � � ti• i s • / - . "' ' } Y , t 1'r e! c., +too , � r ' r S t }� &- I" ,� ,,� � i ,, ' r • �, t 'k " i N , i `.� v ti A'1 g { ' �c ! s r + d s• ` , " s t?w, ,1r'f; r. J ,f , :_t` .t , a .. i • t T ! , i.it t p. ,' •i 1 "C•' �' ti '. �`{`' /! i.+ . tF, ' 1= t e r -.r a � •' ,. t City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a17 Pavement Treatment Examples This compilation of photos describes the steps involved in each of the four main pavement maintenance treatments commonly used on city streets: 1) Slurry Seal (Typically used on good residential streets to keep them in good condition) 2) Asphalt Overlay (Often used as regular maintenance on busy streets, or to repair fair /poor residential streets) 3) Major Overlay (Often used on busy streets that have deteriorated into poor condition) 4) Street Reconstruction (Typically done only when a street's condition is very poor) Each treatment is described on its own page with the major steps listed and photos describing the key work activities: Slurry Seal ($0.20 to $0.35 per square foot) ti t . !-- `e ?` ,„_,....• 0 - , _-__ Slurry seals are typically used on { I - AA = ' " "' residential streets i id - _ e nri treet in good 1 =_ =j condition — to keep them in good :mow - - _ condition 4 t 1 `f" _ _ s'4bii . 1) Clean street of dirt and debris; Cover manholes, valve covers, and catch basins 2) Place Slurry Seal (sand in back of truck is mixed with asphalt emulsion from tanks and laid down in a thin layer by this truck) 3) Allow seal to dry (Street must be closed for several hours) a18 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Asphalt Overlay ($1.25 to $2 per square foot) # k .> i < , _te 4 r S' .1 . \ .' , c t I Normal asphalt overlays are A a typically used for regular „ 0. f • lit" ► ' - "■1 ' 1 ' .. • ,r , maintenance on busy streets, or to — — * i ' . / 1"' ° ' , ' repair fair /poor residential streets --- _ — , / . I iY ' - N ., . -°L ,r - • x : g r° +- -a•� 1) Grind to match curb lines and end joints 2) Clean Street of dirt and debris; Cover facilities as necessary 3) Place Tack Coat (sticky adhesive material on left) , 4) Adjust manholes and valve covers to new elevation. 5) Place Asphalt 6) Allow asphalt to cool and set City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a19 Major Overlay (Leveling Course plus Tension Fabric plus Pavement Overlay) ($2.50 to $4 per square foot) � .a � ' , I i - 77 :,. + lir _ — -- Arts 1) Clean Street of dirt and debris, etc. . 2) Pave leveling course or grind pavement to level 3) Grind to match curb lines or catch basins 5) Place Tension Strength Fabric (to keep old ,. 4) Apply Tack Coat pavement cracks from spreading into new pavement) -,44,,,,, ` _ l a , _ �� Major overlays are typically used to repair busy streets in fair or poor condition do 6 Ai i;` 6) Adjust manholes, valve covers, or driveways to new elevation ■ 7) Place Asphalt Overlay over Fabric (Fabric not used on this street) ifi . . -- a20 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Pavement Reconstruction ($7 to $15 per square foot) — very expensive; used only on streets in very poor condition K - 14A 0 4 , s , ., lit • i i i y 4,. 1) Remove existing bad pavement and base 2) Remove or compact areas of soft soil under pavement 5) Backfill with rock aggregate for a solid base 3) Work around manholes, catch basins, and valve covers 6) Compact aggregate in layers 4) Place geotextile fabric 7) Place smaller aggregate on top for leveling i a. rt.,u a. F4 9) Place top lift (layer) of New Asphalt; 8) Place first lift (layer) of New Asphalt 10) Adjust manholes, driveways, etc to new level City of Tigard I Community Development I Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a21 Attachment 4 Public Outreach Group Meetings a. TCBDA (May 14th — Request sent to Mike Mart) b. Downtown business owners — in manageable groups c. Select businesses along Highway 99W d. Northwest Grocery Association (to be set - May 20, 21, or 22) e. Chamber of Commerce f. Tigard residents through the CCI g. Washington Square — Jonae Armstrong, and possibly the big stores such as Macy's and Nordstrom (May 5th — 10 a.m. to noon) h. PacTrust (May 7th, time to be set) i. Rotary Club — Breakfast meeting (Marissa_ j. Summerfield Civic Association (May 19th, 2 p.m.) k. Lincoln Center 1. Farmer's Market m. Northwest Medical Teams (call made, awaiting date for meeting) n. Churches / Non - profit groups 1 CITY MANAGER Citizen Communication Follow Up for the May 12, 2009, Meeting At the last City Council business meeting held on April 28, 2008, the following individuals testified during Citizen Communications to the City Council: • Citizen Communication Ralph E. Robbins, 8356 SW Pfaff le Street, Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Robbins testified he moved into the Carriage House Apartments in December 2008. When he moved in the apartment was not in the condition he believes it should have been. He cited areas of the apartment that had not been cleaned after the last tenant. (See email follow up from Ron Bunch/Duane Roberts - attached.) Gordon Hovies, 6832 SW 67 Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223. Mr. Hovies introduced himself as a candidate for Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Board Position No. 3. > Jim Long, 10730 SW 72' Avenue, Tigard, OR noted continuing problems with motorists disobeying a stop sign (intersection of SW Spruce and 72 °d Avenue). He referred to his testimony to the City Council in 2006 about this same issue. In the days following their • testimony, the Tigard police issued more than 50 citations and warnings; however, the problem persists. Mr. Long submitted a letter to the Council signed by several neighbors. They were surprised that the City opened bids on April 21 for a pedestrian walkway project. His letter outlines his concerns (letter is attached). He said they were not notified of this project and if they had been allowed input they would have done so. He listed their suggestions in the attached letter. I:\ADM\ cartmaM \citizen communication follow up\09O512 CITIZEN FOLLOW UP.doc Citizen Communications Follow Up December 9, 2008 Page 1 Cathy Wheatley From: Craig Prosser Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:40 AM To: Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Ralph Robbins Categories: Internal Emails - Ephemeral FYI From: Ron Bunch Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 12:30 PM To: Craig Prosser; Liz Newton Cc: Joanne Bengtson Subject: FW: Ralph Robbins Duane contacted Mr. Robbins who appeared before Council last week re: the landlord tenant issue. The results are below. Duane was very thorough and tenacious as usual. Ron From: Ron Bunch Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 12:28 PM To: Duane Roberts Subject: RE: Ralph Robbins Thanks very much for the work onithisl Ron N J From: Duane Roberts � ��n Q.5 �5 � n �O Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:40 AM To: Ron Bunch --7/( C�.b ` v S Cc: Darren Wyss Subject: Ralph Robbins Ron, Quick email regarding Ralph Robbins. This is the gentleman with the apartment problem. Connected with him last week. His phone does not include a message feature. Repeated calls were necessary. When I did reach him, we discussed the problem he brought to Council's attention last week. He just moved in to the Carriage House Apartments and found some mold and other cleaning needs. The landlord is refusing to accept responsibility for the needed clean- up. In our conversation he explained that he did walk through the apartment prior to signing the rental agreement, but didn't fully notice its condition. I explained that the City's maintenance code primarily applies to structural deficiencies. It does not apply to cleanliness, unless excessive clean -up is required. He agreed that the excessive maintenance criterion would not apply in this case. i I gave him some options. This is primarily a landlord- tenant occupancy issue. He might consider completing the needed clean -up himself and billing the landlord for his time in the form of a rent adjustment. If he is dissatisfied with the landlord's response, he can get a lawyer. Gave him the phone number for legal aid if he cannot afford to hire a private attorney. If he decides to move out, he can contact the affordable housing providers operating in Tigard. Contact information is listed in a handout available on -line or upon request. The distinguishing feature of the County and private non - profit housing is that it is not only low -rent, but also safe and sanitary. Another option and the one he favors is the services of the Dispute Resolution Center. Gave him the number to call. He intends to contact the center regarding the mediation of the problem. 2 -K respons gswiugiRmswiffairei a• V -( rS 1 �I cYm d � Lo n g 1 1 I -J ; 1 .1 MEMORANDUM 4. T I GARD TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager (1 ) Mike McCarthy, Project Engineer RE: 72 Avenue Pedestrian Way Project Status DATE: May 7, 2009 Introduction On April 28, 2009, Ms. Noreen Gibbons and neighbors appeared before Council and raised issues about the above project. It was said that they not been informed of a paved path that was planned to be installed on 72nd Ave between Spruce Street and Oak Street. Ms. Gibbon's and neighbors' concerns focused on design issues and transportation safety problems in the general area. Staff has met with neighborhood residents and with their help has resolved these issues. The following provides background information and a summary of these discussions. Background / Discussion • 72 ' Avenue is being proposed for minor widening between Spruce Street and Oak Street to provide a 6 -foot paved path on the east side of the street. The path will be delineated with a white stripe and pavements markers to provide clear visibility and proper separation between motorists and pedestrians. This project was initiated to address citizens' concern about pedestrian safety. Currently, 72 Ave does not have a sidewalk or shoulder, which forces pedestrians to walk along the edges of the travel lanes. In order to address Ms. Gibbons' questions about the project and other traffic issues in the area, City staff (Vannie Nguyen, Mike McCarthy, and Zen Dutson from Community Development, and Officer Friesendahl) met with Ms. Gibbons and four other residents at the project site on May 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Gibbons told staff that she understood the scope of the improvements and that she was pleased with staffs explanation. Ms. Gibbons indicated she did not oppose the project but suggest addition of some traffic elements. Staff answered the neighbors' questions about the project and explained various elements of the project as the group walked the project area. Suggestions and staff response are listed below: • Suggestion: A crosswalk on Spruce Street connecting the proposed paved path to the sidewalk behind Fred Meyer. • Staff Response: Staff had conducted a traffic study for the location prior to the meeting and concluded that it would be appropriate to install the requested crosswalk. A crosswalk will be added to the project and a sidewalk ramp will be installed in conjunction with the crosswalk to meet ADA requirements. • Suggestion: A centerline stripe on 72 " Avenue. StafResponse: Staff does not recommend a centerline stripe for the street as it may result in increasing traffic speeds (drivers tend to associate a centerline with a thoroughfare rather than a residential street, and thus tend to drive faster). However, a short distance of pavement markers will be installed on 72 " Ave at its approach to Spruce Street to remind drivers of their need to stay in their lane (and not cut corners) at the intersection. Ms. Gibbons and the residents agreed with the solution. • Staff Suggestion: In response to residents' concerns about the 72 " /Spruce intersection, staff devised a conceptual design of a curb extension in conjunction with the walkway. This would provide more physical separation between vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection. Staff is looking closely at the details of this concept and, if feasible to do safely, will include it • in the project. Neighbors had a favorable opinion of the concept and would support its • inclusion, but would not object if it is not included. The next page shows this concept. A contract of $40,585 has been awarded to D & A General Contractors. The project was put on hold while neighborhood issues are addressed. With the concurrence from the neighbors at the . . meeting on May 6, 2009, staff plans to issue a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to the contractor on May 13, 2009 unless Council directs staff to continue the hold on the project. The APWA specifications . also require the City to issue an NTP to the contractor within ten work days after receipt of insurance certificates and bonds from the contractor. The required documents were received by staff . on April 29, 2009'in complete forms. The construction would start in late May or early June, and be complete by the end of June. Residents will be notified 48 hours in advance of the work. This project will be funded through the FY 2008 -09 CIP Storm Dram Fund, under the Pedestrian /Bicycle Paths, in the amount of $50,000. Attachment c: Ron Bunch, Director of Community Development Bill Dickinson, Police Chief Gerald Bartolornucci, Traffic Sergeant Gus Duenas, City Engineer Zen Dutson, Engineering Construction Inspector i:ton9\2008.2009 fy GM \ 72nd ave sWewaa, behind fred meyorstcornmunioationshnemo to council may 8, 09.docx • I 1 t T k 1 ..; ::' i � I L d Raised pavement markers New 6 -1 \ � paved path 1 Iiw 1, . � 1 �. , �N t Its n a fl - J 11 114 I - d ( 1 1 4 N m I pl I�t �1 Got 7 ; f ji � 0 a� 4 1 ry -_ i i 1 P s u fi,_ 4 -..0 1 r tf I � P li a �+' I1 to n r i1 ! 117 1°t ,,.r.0,P1 p5,�„ _ -:1 _.c.• ..,1�; ;:i ,iel • 1 1 I Curb extension to connect T White stripe and path to crosswalk I pavement markers New wheel chair ramp New crosswalk s=-- z v NO SCALE 0 IS C e W 1 a f --r " \�_ 1 1 z r 72N ,SAVE ` N _ it 1 W .; ra: If l4 � _ r I � s a , I 4 f 1 . I n a �1 i / n .n .r N IS V �� 1 7 1 r l o New 6' White stripe and i ,,_ ' ., 'OR paved path 1 pavement markers l I .,.� 1 . Y E� _ �a . • p, }} 2 i `' E rid 1 J " CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND 72ND AVE, FIGURE s 1 j,,, 7 r ' TRANSPORTATION DIVISION • 73125 S.W. BLVD. . PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY • E BOARD, OREGON 97223 _ B 1 ' 503-639-4171 , 34 , ' ' '1 N e . FAX. 503- 624 -0752 752 FILE NO • . TI • . www.ncARO- OR.GOV C!P 0661 ----- d Tag-/oq �cL April 28, 2009 C - f_s Colon ci( To: Tigard Mayor, City Council, Chief of Police, Planning and Public Works Departments Over two years ago we testified in front of City Council that nearby STOP SIGNS DO NOT WORK. In the four days following our testimony in 2006, City of Tigard police officers quickly gave citations (with a base fine $250) and warnings to over fifty motorists for violations at the intersection of SW Spruce and 72nd Avenue. Since then, we have seen thousands of motor vehicles drive thru that intersection without stopping or barely even slowing. Oftentimes we see drivers in the middle or on the wrong side of the street. Pedestrians use both sides of the street. Due to these safety issues, we have to pay much more attention to the local traffic as we back out of our driveways. To our surprise, we learned on April 21st that the city opened bids for a pedestrian walkway project. After a conversation with Project Manager Vannie Nguyen, she sent Mr. Zen Dutson to visit with us April 22 to explain the City of Tigard's plans for a pedestrian walkway up 72 Avenue, from in front of our property (approximately 20 feet from the intersection), north to SW Oak Street. Contrary to both Ms. Nguyen and Mr. Dutson's claims, prior notification did not occur. We did not receive via postal delivery the prior notification the City says it mailed, neither did our closest neighbors. The day after his visit, we received city's imprecise notification and map of the walkway project. While we do not oppose the eastside walkway (unless there are legal implications we haven't yet learned); the issue is the principle of our not being properly notified and the apparent lack of concern the city has for pedestrian and vehicle safety in the most dangerous place, the actual intersection of SW 72 Ave and SW Spruce Street. If we had been properly notified earlier, we could have provided input. Specifically, we suggest: 1) an official, designated cross walk (with appropriate signage) angled north from wheelchair ramp across Spruce Street and connecting to the pedestrian walkway, which should extend the entire length of the block on 72 not just 20 feet up from the intersection; and 2) a line up the middle of street would keep drivers a little more focused on staying in their proper lane of the street and not in the walkway. We feel this is an overdue but poorly designed, low -cost band -aid on the problem of drivers not obeying stop signs at the 72nd + SW Spruce intersection at Fred Meyer. We do not suggest at this time, a traffic light, speed bumps, more streetlights, or reflectors for the walkway. Sincerely, 6002/140' ,I Noreen Gib s Norma Harris rim g ancy Nais 10730 SW nd Ave 10700 SW 72nd Ave 10'130S nd Ave 10705 SW 72nd Enclosures: 2006 letter to city from us 2006 letter to us from Chief of Police City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 December 19, 2006 11 -t C) e - Mr. Jim Long C nSb n TIGARD 10730 SW 72 St. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Long, The letter that you and your neighbors presented to the Tigard City Council on Dec. 12, 2006 concerning stop sign violations at SW 72 " and SW Spruce St. was received in the Police Department on the morning of Dec. 14, 2006. I heard about the letter the morning of Dec. 13, 2006 and directed our Traffic Supervisor, Sgt. Karl Kaufman, to initiate enforcement action at this location. Sgt. Kaufman has assured ine that the location was assigned to our two motor officers to work as their call load allows. He has also assured me that patrol officers from Day shift and Swing shift have also been working this location as their call load allows. I have been advised that we have written approximately 25 citations and given at least as many verbal citations for stop sign violations since your letter was received. Officers do have the discretion whether to issue the citation based on their observations. Some vehicles show total disregard for the stop sign and are obviously more blatant than others. Warnings are typically verbal in nature but still result in the officers being visible to other drivers as doing something. As you know, this intersection is an odd one because of its configuration. It is possible that an Engineering survey may assist in reconfiguring it but that can not be done until after the Holidays. Sgt. Kaufman will be directed to contact Gus Duenas, our City Engineer to inquire as to any possible changes. What that might involve is unknown at this time but we will make the effort to inquire. Please be assured our Officers have been made aware of the issue and we will continue our enforcement efforts as diligently and as frequently as possible as our city wide work load allows. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, /1-1:74/.; William Dickinson, Chief Tigard Police Department (503)718-2572 • �r Tigard High School , �'_ v '` r ,..,. , 5 9 y ,..,,,,,,, Student Envoy: Taylor Friesen May 7 2009 Academics • IB testing has begun for Tigard High Students and will continue on through May 22 . • At the State Speech & Debate Championships Tigard High School placed an overall second in the 6A category, and a number of students placed in individual events including first -place in prose and public forum debate. Athletics • The 2K1 annual Tigard High Doge ball Championships will be Thursday, May 21 • This Thursday and Friday the boy's and girl's track districts are taking place at Linfield. • Tennis Districs will also be Thursday and Friday Arts • The senior art show is taking place in the THS library this week. Activities • Tigard High School will hold its prom May 16 at the Abernathy Center in Oregon City. This year's theme is "Dancing in the Moonlight ". * Leadership Awards Night will take place May 21 in the Auditorium. • The Graduation Assembly for seniors will be held Monday, June 1St AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: MAY 12, 2009 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. 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 becomes part of the public record. 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 NAME, ADDRESS& PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address • City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. i:\adm\cathylccs sign up \citizen communicallon.doc CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Agenda Item # 3 • • Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Acknowledge and Commend Alexa Kanbergs for Her Efforts as the 'Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard /l Prepared By C Wheatley Dept Head Approval: � �/ V ' City Mgr Approval: l,�V� (4\1( ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council acknowledge and commend Alexa Kanbergs for her efforts as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed resolution. • KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • • OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Alexa Kanbergs is the Tigard Hlgh Associated Student Body President and served this school year as the Tigard High School Student Envoy to the City of Tigard. Ms. Kanbergs gave the City Council and community timely and informative updates about student activities including students' efforts to provide service and assist community members in need. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Proposed resolution. FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \Citywide \Council Packets \Packet '09 \090512 \Kanbergs AIS.doc Agenda Item No. `fir 0 _ G( For Agenda of Mary 12, 2009 11 . • • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder ic RE: Three -Month Council Meeting Calendar DATE: May 7, 2009 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk ( *). May 4 Monday Budget Committee Meeting — 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 11 Monday Budget Committee Meeting — 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 18 Monday (if needed) Budget Committee Meeting — 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting —Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego City Council — 6:30 pm, Town Hall June 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 30 Tuesday Fifth Tuesday Meeting, 7 -9 pm, Tigard Public Works Building July 14* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 28* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall l: \ADM \City Council \Council Calendar \ 3-month calendar for 0900512 cc mtg.doc Agenda Item No. L ( , 4 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 -- Meeting of -ma / z, c ppp;) Meeting Date: May 12, 2009 Meeting Date: May 18, 2009 Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 Meeting Type /Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type /Time: Budget/6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 Location: City Hall Location: TVF &R Community Roc Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: 12617 SW Walnut StreE Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: April 28, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 4, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 5, 2009 Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. - 0 Avail. Budget Committee (if Needed) Workshop Agenda Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Library Board Annual Meeting SI - Margaret - 30 min. Renaming Schaltz property - Dennis - 15 min. Municipal Court Annual Report - Nadine 30 min. - SI Street Maintenance Fee Public Outreach Status - Gus - 15 min. Discuss Ordinance Modifying TMC 7.70 - Secondhand Dealers and Transient Merchants to Update and Clarify Procedures and Definitions - Chief D.& Lt. de Sully - 10 min. Consent Agenda Briefing #1 on Tigard Transportation System Plan Consider Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Letters Update - Darren -15 min. CG #1 Terminating the City's Membership in the Joint Briefing on DLCD Approved Periodic Review Work Water Commission and Participation in the Program - Darren - 20 min. CG #1 Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project - Dennis Briefing on Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan IGA w/Washington Co. & Beaverton for Barrows Bridge - Gus - Darren - 45 min. CG #1 Appoint Tree Board Member - Todd - RES Future Land Use Briefing (Hwy 99W, Downtown, Tigard Approve IGA with Washington Co. for ROW Svcs. On Greenburg Triangle & Employment Lands) Ron B. - 35 min. CG #1 99W and Main St. Intersection Project - Gus Business Meeting THS Student Envoy - 3 min. Proclamation: Emergency Medical Svs. Week - 2 min. Update from Senator Burdick & Rep. Galizio - 30 min. CG#4 Info PH - Adopt Tigard's 20 -Yr. Facilities Plan - Dennis - 15 min. PH -Amend Development Code - Tree Removal CG#1 Criteria (DCA 2009 - 00001, CDC 18.790) - John F. - 40 min. Legis. PH - Code Amendment re Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements (Sec. 18.775.070.8.5) - Gary P. - 15 min. Study Session - Voter Attitude Survey on Park Bond - Liz -10 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 115 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 185 min. Time Left: - 5 min. Time Left: -5 mins. Page 1 of 6 Color Key: Admin -Green Finance /IT - CD - Red HR - Finance /IT - Library - Aqua PW - Police - Blue Risk - +:rriF PW - CG = Council Goal 5/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: May 26, 2009 Meeting Date: June 9, 2009 Meeting Date: June 16, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Joint Meeting with L016:30 Meeting Type /Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type /Time: Workshop /6:30 Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due © 5: May 12, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 26, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: June 2, 2009 Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. - 0 Avail. Workshop Agenda Lake Oswego City Council will be touring areas in Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 10 min. Review City of Tigard's Park System Master Plan - Lake Oswego prior to arriving @ COT Review Alternatives to Fifth Tuesday Meetings - Cathy -10 min Dennis - 30 min. CG #3 6:30 - Dinner and Mingle at Tigard Town Hall Follow -up to City Attorney Review - Tim Ramis - 15 min. Neighborhood Trail Study Results Presentation - Tour Library Duane - 30 min. Tour Tigard Triangle /Downtown/W ES Consent Agenda Meeting with ODOT Region 1 Manager, Jason Tell - Water System Status (where are we, where are we LCRB - Award City Tree Service and Certified Arborist - Dennis Gus - 20 min. going ?) LCRB - Award Contract to One of City's Water Engineers of CCAC & CCDA Roles & Responsibilities - Sean /Ron -45 min Transit/Transportation /Growth Aspirations /UGB Record to Develop a Water System Master Plan - Dennis Discussion on CPO4T - Liz - 20 min. Issues Receive & File - Police Dept. Annual Report - Chief D. Executive Session - Labor Nego. (TPOA) - Sandy - 15 min. izo==n Authorize Nature in Neighborhoods Grant Submittal - Dennis RES Authorize Watershed Enhancement Bd. Grant Submittal - Dennis Business Meeting THS Student Envoy - 5 min. Update from Senator Burdick & Rep. Galizio - 30 min. CG#4 edify City provides Services Qualifvina for NO ADDITIONAL ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED Consider Ordinance Modifying TMC 7.70 - Secondhand Dealers and Transient Merchants to Update and Clarify Procedures and Definitions - Chief D.- 10 min.ORD Consideration of Fields Zone Change & Comp Plan Map Amendments - Cheryl C. - 15 min. ORD Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 160min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 120 min. - Time Left -1C Time Left: 20 mins. Page 2 of 6 5/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: June 23, 2009 Meeting Date: June 30, 2009 Meeting Date: July 14, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: 5th Tuesday /7 -9 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: Water Building Aud. Location: City Hall Greeter: Facilitator: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: June 9, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: June 30, 2009 Study Session - Time Sched. 25 min. - 20 Avail. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Study Session - Time Sched. 15 min. - 30 Avail. Status Report on the Arsenic Contamination at the Library - Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Dennis - 10 min. Executive Session - Labor Nego. (TPOA) - Sandy - 15 min. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Consider Agreement with DEQ re Arsenic Contamination at Tigard Public Library - Dennis Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min. Business Meeting If I were Mayor, I would..." Contest Winners Presentation Adopt City of Tigard's Park System Master Plan - Joanne - 15 min. Dennis - 20 min. - RES Youth Advisory Council - PD - SI - 15 min Urban /Rural Reserves Committee Discussion - Ron - 20 min Legis. PH - CPA 2008 -00011 - Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan - Darren - 45 min. - CG #1 Development Code Amendment to modify Collector Street Standards to Allow on- street Parking within the downtown - (DCA 2009- 00002) -Cheryl - 20 min. - CG #2 Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 115 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 20 min. Time Left: -5 min. Time Left: 90 min. Page 3 of 6 5/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: July 21, 2009 Meeting Date: July 28, 2009 Meeting Date: August 11, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: July 7, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: July 14, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: July 28, 2009 Workshop Meeting Study Session - Time Sched. 0 min. - 45 Avail. Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. Avail. Review Council groundrules - Admin. SI - 20 min. City Manager Review - Admin or HR - SI - 30 min. Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep.- 10 min. Council Goal Update - Admin. - 15 min. Urban /Rural Reserves Planning & Growth Mgmt. Aspirations Discussion - Ron - 20 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 20 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 45 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 0 min. Time Left: 160 min. Time Left: 65 min. Time Left: 10 min. Page 4 of 6 5/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: August 18, 2009 Meeting Date: August 25, 2009 Meeting Date: September 8, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: August 4, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: August 11, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: August 25, 2009 Workshop Agenda Study Session - Time Sched. 0 min. - 45 Avail. Study Session - Time Sched. 20 min. - 25 Avail. Council Briefing #2 - Tigard Transportation System Exec Sess - Bumham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Plan Update - Darren - 30 min. CG#1 Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min. Business Meeting THS Student Envoy - 10 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 30 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 10 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 10 min. Time Left: 150 min. Time Left: 100 min. Time Left: 100 min. Page 5 of 6 5/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: September 15, 2009 Meeting Date: September 22, 2009 Meeting Date: September 29, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type /Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: 5th Tuesday /7 -9 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: Public Works Building Greeter: Greeter: Facilitator: Materials Due @ 5: September 1, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: September 8, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: Workshop Agenda Study Session - Time Sched. 0 min. Time Avail 45 min. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Park & Rec Advisory Board Joint Meeting - SI - PW -30 min. Consent Agenda Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min. Proc. - Family Day - A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children - Joanne B. - 5 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 30 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 15 min. Time Left: 150 min. Time Left: 95 min. Page 6 of 6 • 5/7/2009 Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consider Withdrawing the City's Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (TBWSP) and Terminating the City's Membership in the Joint Water Commission (IWC) Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval / / ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council authorize the Mayor to sign letters withdrawing the City's participation in the TBWSP and terminating the City's membership in the JWC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the letters. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Prior to 2008 the City of Tigard was exploring several long -term water source options including the TBWSP and the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership. • In order to pursue the TBWSP, the City became a partner in the project and a member of the JWC. • In early 2008 the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership was emerging as the best option to meet Tigard's long -term water needs. • The City's TBWSP partners graciously granted Tigard a one -year grace period to evaluate the Lake Oswego option in greater detail. At the same time, Tigard suspended its participation in the TBWSP, but reserved the right to return to the project by paying its share (approximately $3.03 million) of the FY '08 -'09 expenses by June 30, 2009. • Tigard and Lake Oswego entered into a formal water partnership in August 2008. This action established the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership as Tigard's long -term water source option. In choosing this option, the City can now focus its energy and financial resources on one, rather than several, long -term water source options. • Tigard's membership in the JWC is conditioned upon its financial involvement in the development of the TBWSP. The City's action to withdraw from the TBWSP triggers a provision in the JWC agreement that starts a two -year termination process. Staff has suggested in the attached draft letters that this process be shortened to 18 months. • The Intergovernmental Water Board considered this matter at its March 11 meeting and unanimously recommended the City of Tigard submit letters withdrawing from the Joint Water Commission and withdrawing participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project . • The Council discussed this issue in study session on April 14, 2009 . • The Council is now being asked to take formal action withdrawing the City's participation in the TBWSP and terminating the City's membership in the JWC. • If the Council authorizes the Mayor to execute the letters of withdrawal and termination, the letters will effectively: - Sever our relationship with our partners in the TBWSP. - Avoid payment of $3.03 million dollars by June 30, 2009. - Change the City's relationship with the JWC from member to wholesale customer. - Allow the City to be reimbursed for real estate investments held by the JWC. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose to reinstate its participation in the TBWSP and membership in the JWC. This would necessitate payment of $3.03 million dollars by June 30, 2009. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Letter to Mr. Hanway Regarding Tigard's Withdrawal from the Joint Water Commission 2. Letter to Mr. VanderPlaat Regarding Tigard's Withdrawal from Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project FISCAL NOTES If the Council authorizes the Mayor to sign the letters of withdrawal and termination, the City will avoid making a $3.03 million payment and can recover its investment in JWC real estate holdings. Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Beaverton, Tigard, and Washington County Regarding Barrows ad and Barrows Road Bridge �� Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council is requested to approve Tigard entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Beaverton and Washington County to pay an equal share of the Barrows Road Bridge repair cost and commit to assuming joint jurisdiction of Barrows Road with Beaverton. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the attached resolution approving the IGA with Washington County and the City of Beaverton and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement documents. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Washington County proposes to repair the Barrows Road Bridge with the County, the City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard sharing equally in the cost of the project. The total project cost is estimated at $205,000. Tigard's share is approximately $69,000. • The IGA outlines the obligations of each jurisdiction under the agreement. The key points are: • The cost will be shared equally among the three jurisdictions • All three jurisdictions acknowledge that the realignment of Barrows Road to connect to Davies Road is the long -term plan for Barrows Road east of its intersection with Murray Boulevard and Walnut Street. • The cities of Beaverton and Tigard agree to assume joint jurisdiction of Barrows Road from its intersection with Murray Boulevard and Walnut Street to its intersection with Scholls Ferry Road after the project is completed. The transfers will be accomplished via Council resolution requesting transfer and County Board of Commissioners approval of the transfer. • Washington County will either upgrade the portion of road to be transferred to an agreed upon condition, or provide funding to the two cities for that upgrade. • The bridge, upon completion of the work, is expected to have a life span of 15 years or more. The realignment of Barrows Road to connect to Davies Road can be pursued during this period. • • At this meeting, Council will be requested to approve the IGA so that the County can order the materials and proceed with the work with the intention of beginning it in mid July 2009 and completing it by mid - August 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal No. 1, Implement the Comprehensive Plan Repairing the bridge and bringing Barrows Road's pavement condition up to higher standard as an interim measure until the Barrows Road /Davies connection is made implements the Comprehensive Plan through the following policies: Goal 12.1 Policy 1A: Plan, design, and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by (A) the proper location and the design of transportation facilities. Goal 12.1 Policy 7: Implement the transportation system plan (TSP) in a coordinated manner by coordinating and cooperating with adjacent agencies (including Washington County, Beaverton, Tualatin, Lake Oswego, City of Portland, TriMet, Metro, and ODOT) when necessary to develop transportation projects which benefit the region as a whole in addition to the City of Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed resolution approving the IGA and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement documents Attachment 2: IGA with Washington County and the City of Beaverton for the Barrows Road Bridge Repair Project (Attached as Exhibit A to the resolution) FISCAL NOTES The total project cost is estimated at $205,000. The project cost will be shared equally by the three jurisdictions. The amount of $69,000 from the Gas Tax Fund is budgeted in the proposed Capital Improvement Program for FY 2009 -10. This amount should cover Tigard's share of the project cost. \ FING \GUS \Council : \genda Summaries \20119 \5 -12 -09 IGA with Washington County and Beaverton for the Barrows Road Bridge Repair Project AIS - revised.doc • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09 --) J t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BEAVERTON FOR THE BARROWS ROAD BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT WHEREAS, Barrows Road, between Murray Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road is a road under Washington County jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the road includes a structurally deficient bridge over Summer Creek, which is load limited to five tons per axle, and is showing signs of failure prompting the County to propose a closure of the bridge; and WHEREAS, the long -term plan for Barrows Road is for the realignment of that roadway to connect to Scholls Ferry Road at its signalized intersection with Davies Road; and WHEREAS, the cities of Tigard and Beaverton desire that the road remain open for as long as possible to allow for the long -term plan to be implemented; and WHEREAS, the three jurisdictions desire to enter into an agreement to provide improvements to the bridge such that the lifespan is extended by 15 years or more; and WHEREAS, the three jurisdictions have agreed to share equally in the cost of the repair work and to transfer jurisdiction of the road to the cities of Beaverton and Tigard following completion of the project; and WHEREAS, the agreement includes upgrading of the road to each city's satisfaction as part of the transfer of jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The agreement attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized to sign the agreement documents. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of , 2009. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 09- Page 1 Exhibit A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON COUNTY, CITY OF TIGARD and CITY OF BEAVERTON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BRIDGE ON BARROWS ROAD AT SUMMER CREEK THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY "; the City of Beaverton, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "BEAVERTON "; and the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "TIGARD ". RECITALS 1. Barrows Road is a COUNTY road between Murray Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road. It includes a bridge over Summer Creek. This bridge is failing structurally and loading has been limited to less than five tons per axle. The failure continues to progress and many heavier loads continue to pass over it. 2. The Transportation System Plans for the COUNTY and the two Cities call for this bridge to be closed once Davies Road is extended from Scholls Ferry Road to Barrows Road, the 125 Street extension is constructed, and the Murray Boulevard extension from Scholls to Barrows is completed. Only the latter is done. 3. COUNTY desires to close the bridge based on its adopted Transportation Plan and the condition of the structure. BEAVERTON and TIGARD desire that the road remain open. 4. City limits of TIGARD and BEAVERTON follow the centerline of Barrows Road. 5. COUNTY may desire to reconfigure the intersection of Barrows Road and Scholls Ferry Road to improve traffic movements on Scholls Ferry Road. This may include removal of the existing signal and implementation of a right -in and right - out configuration. The decision to make this modification shall rest solely with the COUNTY and be at its expense. 6. It is the desire of COUNTY, BEAVERTON, and TIGARD to enter into an agreement to allocate responsibilities for design and construction of a temporary repair of the bridge to keep the road open to traffic, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT ", and to transfer jurisdiction of the road to BEAVERTON and TIGARD following completion of PROJECT. 7. All parties acknowledge that the PROJECT will provide temporary repairs to the structure with an anticipated life of 15- years. Page 1 of 7 8. ORS 190.010 authorizes agencies to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement has the authority to perform. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 1.1 Upon execution of this agreement, COUNTY shall assign a project manager to be responsible for oversight of the PROJECT. 1.2 COUNTY shall be responsible for the following elements of the PROJECT: • Project management • Planning and public involvement • Preliminary design • Final design • Administration and management of any consultant contracts • Construction of the temporary improvements • Tracking cost and involving BEAVERTON and TIGARD upon completion of the PROJECT. • Preparing legal descriptions necessary for transfer of jurisdiction. 1.3 COUNTY shall provide BEAVERTON and TIGARD with at least fifteen (15) work days to review the 90% plans. Any design issues that cannot be resolved by County and City staffs will be referred to the County or City Engineers for final resolution, according to jurisdiction. 1.4 COUNTY shall establish a unique project number and compile accurate cost accounting records and shall provide BEAVERTON and TIGARD with a copy of the complete PROJECT cost accounting within 30 days of PROJECT completion. 1.5 COUNTY shall invoice BEAVERTON and TIGARD for their share of the costs within 60 days of completion. 1.6 COUNTY will transfer jurisdiction of the remaining section of Barrows Road within 60 days of receipt of requests from BEAVERTON and TIGARD. 1.7 COUNTY shall design the temporary structure to carry HS -20 loading, to match current road width, and current vertical and horizontal alignment conditions. Page 2 of 7 1.8 COUNTY agrees that the Davies Road extension is necessary and its completion should be a priority. 1.9 COUNTY shall be responsible for the cost of reconfiguring the Scholls Ferry and Barrows Road intersection as described in Recital 5 at its sole expense. 1.10 COUNTY agrees to be responsible for a maintenance overlay (1.5 inch overlay with pre -level and curb grind) on the section of Barrows Road to be transferred. The cost for this work shall not be included in the PROJECT. The COUNTY may have the work done at its expense or pay BEAVERTON and TIGARD an amount agreed upon ($98,256) in lieu of the work. This amount may be deducted in equal portions from BEAVERTON and TIGARD's portion of the PROJECT cost. 1.11 The estimated cost of the PROJECT is $205,000 and the final cost will be divided equally between COUNTY, BEAVERTON, and TIGARD. Should the cost increase all parties will agree on the amount and how the cost will be distributed before the work is authorized. COUNTY acknowledges that once the project is underway it will proceed to completion and will work cooperatively to ensure timely progression of work. Written approval from the designated COUNTY project manager shall be adequate to authorize work. 2. BEAVERTON and TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 2.1 Upon execution of this Agreement, BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall each assign a project manager to be responsible for coordination of the PROJECT with COUNTY. 2.2 BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall review and comment on submittals within the time frames established in paragraph 1.3 of this Agreement. Failure to do so constitutes approval. 2.3 BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall review and approve the engineer's estimated cost of the PROJECT prior to commencement of work and ordering materials. 2.4 BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall share equally in the cost of the PROJECT with the COUNTY. The PROJECT does not include the maintenance overlay on Barrows Road described in Section 1.10. 2.5 BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall provide funds in the invoiced amounts to COUNTY within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. 2.6 BEAVERTON and TIGARD shall formally request transfer of jurisdiction within 60 days of completion of the improvements. Page 3 of 7 2.7 The estimated cost of the PROJECT is $205,000 and the final cost will be divided equally between COUNTY, BEAVERTON, and TIGARD. Should the cost increase all parties will agree on the amount and how the cost will be distributed before the work is authorized. BEAVERTON and TIGARD acknowledge that once the project is underway it will proceed to completion and will work cooperatively to ensure timely progression of work. Written approval from the designated city project manager shall be adequate to authorize work. BEAVERTON OBLIGATIONS 3.1 Within the PROJECT limits BEAVERTON shall provide paving, striping, signing, and traffic control at PROJECT expense. 3.2 BEAVERTON shall establish a unique project number for its work related to PROJECT and shall provide COUNTY and TIGARD with a copy of the complete cost accounting for the work described in Section 3.1 within 30 days of PROJECT completion. 3.3 BEAVERTON considers the Davies Road extension to be necessary and its construction is anticipated in the City's Transportation System Plan. 4. TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 4.1 TIGARD agrees to be responsible for the construction, or cost of, the improvements required as a condition of approval for the Village at Summer Creek development on Barrows Road. 4.2 TIGARD agrees that the Davies Road extension is necessary and its construction should be a priority. 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 LAWS OF OREGON The parties shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the handling and expenditure of public funds. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. All relevant provisions required by ORS Chapter 279A and 279C to be included in public contracts are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 5.2 DEFAULT Time is of the essence in the performance of the Agreement. Any of the parties shall be deemed to be in default if it fails to comply with any Page 4 of 7 provisions of this Agreement. The non - defaulting party shall provide the other party with written notice of default and allow thirty (30) days within to cure the defect. 5.3 INDEMNIFICATION This Agreement is for the benefit of the parties only. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other parties, and their officers, employees, and agents, from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits of any kind or nature for personal injury, death or damage to property on account of or arising out of services performed, the omissions of services or in any way resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the indemnifying party and its officers, employees and agents. To the extent applicable, the above indemnification is subject to and shall not exceed the limits of liability of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 through 30.300). In addition, each party shall be solely responsible for any contract claims, delay damages or similar items arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the party under this agreement. 5.4 MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by all parties. 5.5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties shall attempt to informally resolve any dispute concerning any party's performance or decisions under this Agreement, or regarding the terms, conditions or meaning of this Agreement. A neutral third party may be used if the parties agree to facilitate these negotiations. In the event of an impasse in the resolution of any dispute, the issue shall be submitted to the governing bodies of both parties for a recommendation of resolution. 5.6 REMEDIES Any party to this Agreement may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement. All legal actions shall be initiated in Washington County Circuit Court. The parties, by signature of their authorized representatives below, consent to the personal jurisdiction of that court. 5.7 EXCUSED PERFORMANCE In addition to the specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any party shall not be in default where delays or default is due to war, Page 5 of 7 insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, drought, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than the parties, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulation, litigation or similar basis for excused performance that are not within the reasonable control to the party to be excused. 5.8 SEVERABILITY If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of the Agreement will not be affected or impaired in any way. 5.9 INTEGRATION This Agreement is the entire agreement of the parties on its subject and supersedes any prior discussions or agreements regarding the same subject. 6. TERM OF AGREEMENT 6.1 The term of the Agreement shall be from the date of execution until the completion of the PROJECT, but not to exceed ten (10) years. 6.2 This Agreement may be amended or extended for periods of up to one (1) year by mutual consent of the parties. It may be canceled or terminated for any reason by either party. Termination or cancellation shall be effective thirty (30) days after written notice to the other party, or at such time as the parties may otherwise agree. The parties shall, in good faith, agree to such reasonable provisions for winding up the PROJECT and paying for any additional costs as necessary. DATED this day of , 2009. CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ATTEST: ATTEST: Page 6 of 7 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Attorney WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CHAIR or DESIGNEE Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel Page 7 of 7 Agenda Item # ' S Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Re- appointment of Tree Board Member / / 'Er Prepared By: Todd Prager Dept Head Approval:Vb.... ♦._. City Mgr Approval: ! 1 ,, C. v ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Reappointment of Tony Tycer to the Tree Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution re- appointing Tony Tycer to the Tree Board. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 23, 2001, Council by resolution created the five to seven member Tree Board. On February 25, 2009, the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee recommended that Tony Tycer be re- appointed to the Tree Board as an at -large member. Mr. Tycer would be appointed to a four year term beginning on May 31, 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Tigard City Council Long Range Objectives: Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: A Resolution re- appointing Tony Tycer to the Tree Board FISCAL NOTES N/A C: \llocuments and Settings \todd \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Out look \930VBD24\ Council_Agenda_Item_Summary_Tree Board 09 Appointment.docx Agenda Item # L/ Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Washington County for Right - of -Way Services on the Greenburg Road /Highway 99W /M • tr Intersection Project Prepared By: A. P. Dueki Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay t & fur C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will be requested to approve an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) with Washington County to provide ROW (Right -of -Way) services on the City's project to improve the Greenburg Road /Highway 99W /Main Street intersection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the attached resolution approving the IGA with Washington County and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement documents. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The Washington County ROW staff is in the process of acquiring right -of -way needed for the County's Hall Boulevard /Highway 99W intersection improvement project. They are extremely familiar with the properties in that area and have offered to include the City's project at the adjacent intersection in their right -of -way acquisition efforts. • The intent at this point is to have both projects combined under one construction contract for bid advertisement in February or March 2010 with construction to begin in spring of 2010. Because of the close coordination needed between the two projects, and the County staff's familiarity with the area, it is in the City's best interest to have the County staff acquire the properties needed for the City project as well. • At this meeting, Council will be requested to approve an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) with Washington County to provide those right -of -way acquisition services and to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement documents. • The IGA sets the amount of $105,000 as the ceiling for those services based on a current estimate of the level of effort required to acquire all the properties needed for project construction. Any increase in that amount must be authorized via an amendment to the IGA. If the City does not agree to the increase, all work products will be submitted and no further services would be rendered. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None 1 COUNCIL GOALS The improvements to the Greenburg Road /Highway 99W /Main Street intersection supports the previous Council goal of "Improve 99W" and the current long -term Council goals to "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in • Tigard" and "Seek to improve Hwy 99W corridor." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed resolution approving the IGA and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement documents 2. IGA with Washington County for ROW services (Attached as Exhibit A to the resolution) FISCAL NOTES The estimated amount of $105,000.00 is set as the not -to- exceed amount for the ROW services to be provided by Washington County staff. This includes appraisals needed for the project acquisition and relocation assistance if needed, but does not include purchase of the properties to be acquired and actual relocation costs. is \eng \gus \council agenda summaries \2009 \5 -12 -09 iga with washington county for row services on the greenburg road -99w -main street project ais.doc • Agenda Item # S Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title 2009 Legislative Briefing by Senator Ginny Burdick and Representative Larry Galizio Prepared B : Joanne Bengtson Dept Head Approval: City M Approval: �� V Pre " V P Y J i� P PP ry ;� ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council and legislative representative will discuss issues affecting the City of Tigard. State Senator Ginny Burdick and • Representative Larry Galizio will provide an update on progress in the 2009 Legislative session. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Identify issues of interest or concern to Senator Burdick or Representative Galizio. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio will meet with the City Council to provide an update on the 2009 Legislative Session. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal #4: Continue supporting the Legislature in addressing the financial needs of Oregon state and local governments. • ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \ ADM \City Council \Council Agenda Item Summaries \AIS for Burdick- Galizio090512.doc Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution to Approve Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan Prepared By. Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ` v V V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt a resolution approving Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the plan. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The City hired LRS Architects in the summer of 2007 to develop Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan. • The purpose of the 20 -Year City Facility Plan is two-fold: It identifies future building space needs, life cycles of existing and new facilities, and facility: maintenance requirements and costs. - It provides a road map for the City to meet its facilities needs over the next 20 years. • The City currently owns, occupies and maintains seven major buildings providing 118,358 square feet of useable space. This space houses city operations and various programs and accommodates public uses. • The buildings range in age from 4 to 56 years, and only two of the seven buildings have life expectancies that exceed the 20 -year planning window. • Additional factors affecting future planning for City facilities: - Existing Police Department facilities are undersized. - State law requires the Police Department be housed in a seismically hardened building by 2022. - The Public Works Department currently operates out of two separate locations: the Ash Street public works yard and the Public Works Building. The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan calls for a major housing complex to be sited at the public works yard. The Public Works Building is not large enough to allow for the consolidation of the two public works sites, nor would such a consolidation fit with urban renewal plans. • LRS Architects estimates an additional 50,000 square feet of office space will be needed for City operations by the year 2028. • The Council reviewed an initial draft facilityplan on December 16, 2008 and a final draft plan on April 14, 2009. The final draft incorporated the discussion points from the previous meeting and addressed issues raised regarding Police Department space needs. • No changes were proposed to the final draft during the April 14 review. With the exception of the cover page, the plan before the Council is identical to the one reviewed on this date. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose to: • Revise the plan. • Not approve the plan, giving staff direction on how to proceed. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Five -Year Council Goal of "Begin City Facility Needs Plan implementation." ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Exhibit A - Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan PowerPoint Presentation FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Components of the plan will be approved and implemented through the annual budget process. b Agenda Item No. 6 Date: May 12, 2009 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF TIGARD'S 20 -YEAR FACILITIES PLAN Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony Agenda Item No. 6 Date: May 12, 2009 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (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. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Summary Report City of Tigard Twenty Year City Facility Plan Presented By Paul Boundy LRS Architects Inc. Twenty Year City Facility Plan • What is this Document? — Compilation of existing facility information — Compilation of maintenance costs — Basis for planning for future capital expenditures — Basis for understanding current and future utilization of existing buildings 1 Twenty Year City Facility Plan ■ How did we get here? — Verify / Document Existing Conditions — Facility and Space Use — Establish Need Departmental Interviews — Establish Criteria - Assumptions — Project Future Staff and Space Needs — Prepare Facility Plan Options — Establish Costs Twenty Year City Facility Plan • What were our goals? — Re -use existing facilities and properties for their full life cycle — Fully utilize existing City of Tigard property — Provide a realistic road map for development — Comply with concepts in the Downtown Improvement Plan and related studies 2 Twenty r City Faality Plan • What were our findings? — Public Works should consolidate to a remote location that is appropriate land use — Further study of Police is required to establish goals for short and long term growth — Senior Center and City Hall / Permit Center / Police Station facilities have experienced water intrusion damage and have seismic concerns _ ¥ 'f. BWId 1 .'* 4P&ic.StM. fl ra .- 4: . , Yi, h it D..pbpm..t ., a ..SMIer Cwnt. °fi 0.5dulh �a ' ''.. - :.,..,,,..' 1 ',! i . ' 11 ' ' ''''''' 4 001 (1) cm sspe✓wbx W/wre ,: m 3 Twenty Year City Facility Plan • Existing Facilities — Public Works Building 17,968 SF — Police Facility 15,628 SF — City Hall 10,950 SF — Permit Center 12,437 SF — Library 48,167 SF — Senior Center 8,743 SF — Public Works Yard / Annex 5,820 SF — Niche Building 3,240 SF Total 122,953 SF Twenty Year City Facility Plan Needs Assessment Assumptions — Population growth at 35% (58% for last 20 years) — 46,715 in 2008 — 55,088 in 2018 — 63,042 in 2028 — Staffing ratios will be a,variable — High option assumes 0.65 FTE per 1,000 residents (has increased from 0.51 to 0.65 in last 20 years) — Low option assumes staff ratio drops to 0.57 4 Twenty Year City Facility Plan • 2008 Actual / Projected Need — City Admin 16,369 SF 17,874 SF — Police Station 15,628 SF 28,130 5F — Comm. Dev. 11,064 SF 13,300 SF — Library 48,167 SF 47,782 SF — Public Works 17,697 SF 18,173 SF • — Senior Center 8,743 SF 8,743 sf Total 117,668 134,002 5F Twenty Year City Facility Plan ■ 2028 Projected Needs (By Department) — City Admin - 43% 23,375 SF — Police Station - 210% 50,120 5F — Community Dev. - 49% 16,589 SF — Library - 37% 66,162 SF — Public Works - 12% 19,935 SF — Senior / Community Center - 81% 15,864 SF Total 192,045 SF 5 Twenty Year City Facility Plan • 2008 — 2028 Comparison — High Need - 417 FTE 192,045 SF — Low Need - 362 FTE 185,316 SF Twenty Year City Facility Plan Master Plan Option — Short Term 1. New Public Works Facility (1 -5 years) 2. Relocate Police Station to Public Works Building (1 -5 years) Expand / Upgrade 3. Expand City Hall into Police Station (1 -5 years) — Seismic Upgrade 4. Expand Community Development in Permit Center (1 -5 years) 6 O -5 Yezrz 1, ' - 4;141 t Ne:. oer<e st.uen.dm - Y 9. SG Addition 1N.w 5.ccre D.rk:ng y .�. . . E.Idi,g G.r4'ng .-',1_ it''',. SE .ding EireStst on 6E din S4.te Dwt x k -: ' E dLg"''''' eN `t Yna B Anne. ,�., .■ &New 0.de.tn. co uen..na e v. E..u�ng C!mc Buildng ® . (Police V.cale) - 4 W.M n Twen Year City Facility Plan New Public Fac Works ili ty 1. Decommission Old Yard and Buildings per Downtown Improvement Plan for development 2. Consolidates Operations at approp new site 3. 10 — 12 acre site yet to be selected 7 Twenty Year City Facility Plan 1 Relocate Police to Public Works Building 1. Addresses immediate needs 2. Expansion of 18K SF required to increase training, office space and locker facilities 3. Major renovation to convert storage bays to . police function (storage, holding, training) 4. Fuel station and secure parking exist 5. Central location and proximity to Courts 6. EOC on -site Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand City Hall into Police Station 1. Addresses 15 -20 year space needs 2. Allows leasing or demolition of Niche 3. Moves Risk /HR from Permit Center 4. Allows expansion of Courts and increased capacity of lobby 5. Improves lack of conference space 8 Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand Permit Center 1. Utilize Risk /HR area of Community Development staff 2. Addresses 5 year need by use of entire Permit Center 3. Addresses 15 -20 year need with expansion to east or infill of west courtyard Twenty Year City Facility Plan Master Plan Option — Long Term 6. Expand Permit Center (10 -15 years) 7. Expand Police Station (15 -20 years) 8. Expand or Branch Library (20 years) 9. Build New City Hall / Permit Center (20+ years) 10. Build New Community Center (20 years) 9 10-20 Years , I t, l� t • Now Gty Nall Administration and Community Dsrdopm«rt por.« fsp>nsion. Coin N>w Community Cantor - r ds. New Community Cantor - Alternate Location 0 111: 00 45hudund DN'n� _ _ ,<. I YI.O SfMr. L+^drc+Vd.01Yli. 4�! 1 n y 1 j f:.mg9'0"0" . /,. s artaN. r 7. Futuna %Mt cvv � •- e ,y a, cmrol.. pd.st.ws n Fatung Dwalopnmrt ieFee S Twenty Year City Facility Plan Expand Police Station 1. Long term solution 2. No property acquisition 3. Major expansion to include Courts and long term needs. 4. Fuel station and secure parking available 5. EOC and training room on -site 10 • . 4 .: • o ii 1 �.. 70-30 Veen S V e µ t Nw ci t]tiiM1A4,, t,.. �� Comm uni t]rh � r r i ;, .. PoG. E.Pendem, C ... �. a < > a :, i FulweDerolopmemt fi e '. ; 4 Structured Perking • • Now Landscaped Diu. .. &Ed�ry Skate Perk `t .° ].Fn Station & �µ. �`'C. 1 y • Cix Complex Pedeet �''�.*. `Tl'Nr' r! . r j ,� A.n ��er�..► ''..Jed J*i ,‘ ,0 I t li al, d) i lit ukpw. Twenty Year City Facility Plan New City Hall on Existing Site 1. Acquire additional property /demolish Niche Building 2. Consolidate City Hall and Community Development Services 3. Demolish City Hall / Permit Center 4. Create additional greenway / park 5. Create "gateway" to Burnham 11 4 ti_S Y + T 10-20 Veen ti ) New City Administration .ty ' r d CommuNtq Development q i cam.. D..ekromenl ( 3 4 F 1'1 s Ne.. Community Center Y. New Community Center AXemHe Conlon — ... a Structured Park,* .% S Hew Landsc.psd Dl.ea � • 6'� '� a e Existing gate Dark + � 7 -axae wnt ; ye oa oo oo & Civic Comdex Pedestrian Y 4.4 P. Fenno Creek Dark IMO Eb Twenty Year City Facility Plan New Community Center 1. Replace Senior Center with multi - generational Community Center 2. Optional locations — Existing City Hall property or existing Senior Center property 3. Social services and educational / community functions 4. More property required if a "Recreation" center 12 Twenty Year City Facility Plan Significant Cost Items 1 -5 Years 1. New Public Works Facility - $15,600,000 2. Renovate PW Bldg for Police Facility - $13,042,686 3. Optional New Police Facility $28,150,357 4. Expand / Consolidate City Hall $3,339,500 Twenty Year City Facility Plan Significant Cost Items 10 — 20 year 1. Renovate then Expand Permit Center — $2,690,200 (2020) 2. Expand Police Facility - $21,666,081 (2030) - 3.. New City Hall / Permit Ctr.. $38,600,000 (2030 +) 4. New Community Center— $14,350,000 (2030) 5. Expand Library - $5,200,000 (2030) 13 Agenda Item # 7 Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Public Hearing for Proposed Development Code Amendment Regarding Tree Removal DCA2009- 00001, Council Goal #1b "Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan." , n Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: 1 Al ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Development Code Amendment (DCA2009- 00001) to update the Tree Protection Chapter? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the proposed Development Code Amendment to update the Tree Removal Chapter (18.790) KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to Council direction, staff has prepared a series of text amendments to the Tree Removal chapter of the Tigard Development Code (18.790). The objective of the proposed text changes is to ensure affected development projects make efforts to preserve existing trees wherever it is reasonable and possible to do so, given all other development constraints and project goals. The primary mechanism to achieve this would be the submittal of a narrative by the project arborist that responds to eight standard questions. The intent of this narrative is to ensure that the arborist has been consulted by other design professionals (i.e. civil engineers, architects, landscape architects) during the design process to inform design decisions rather than being brought in to salvage what is left. It is not intended to allow the arborist to overrule licensed professionals in their areas of expertise or other aspects of the building or development code, just to ensure that trees are saved where it is reasonable and safe to do so. Because applicants for land use approval must be provided with "clear and objective" development regulations, the amendments have been structured to provide this through defined questions and reliance on the project arborist rather than staff. In matters of dispute, a third party arborist would be used to resolve the matter. Other text changes would codify existing administrative practices and International Society of Arborists (ISA) standards to ensure uniformity and ease of use in the future. This code amendment would also resolve an existing problem regarding the interpretation and application of the Tree Removal chapter. As presently administered, applicants submitting for land use approval are required to identify all trees on site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees can be removed so long as they were appropriately mitigated (excepting those located in sensitive lands which have additional regulations). This practice does not prioritize protection over removal wherever possible, as required in Section 18.790.030 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This practice is also in conflict with the purpose statement of the Tree Removal Ordinance which recognizes the value of trees and calls \ 1 I:A1.. \Council Materials \2009 \5 -12 -09 AIS CC Public Hearing ICA2009 -00001.docx 1 for their preservation. That said, the code is not clear as to how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference. This lack of clarity generated a Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development Director, which was intended to guide the administration of Chapter 18.790 during development application review. Shortly after issuance, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) appealed this interpretation to the City Council. The appeal was successful and the Council overturned the interpretation on the grounds that it was more appropriately addressed through a code update. Coinciding with their ruling, Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code. . A draft of the amendments was presented to the Tigard Tree Board for review and comment on December 4, 2008. Recommended changes and public comments received at that meeting were incorporated by staff and presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on February 23, 2009. Following the February workshop, additional refinements to the proposed text amendments were made in response to correspondence submitted by the public, advice from the City attorney, and by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. On April 21, 2009 Council held a workshop on this matter and there was substantial comment and discussion. These issues will be addressed verbally at the May 12 public hearing as part of the staff report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Modify the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt DCA2009- 00001. 2. Remand to the Planning Commission to hold additional hearings and deliberations for future consideration at City Council. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan b. Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance Approving Development Code Amendment DCA2009 -00001 Exhibit A: Tigard Development Code Amendment Attachment 2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 16, 2009 Attachment 3: Staff Report Presented to the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009 FISCAL NOTES N/A 2 I: \I.RPI.N \Council i\tatcrial: \2019 \5 -12 -119 AIS (:C Public I Icaring ICA2 1119- 111111111 revised May 7 . docx EXHIBIT A Recommended Amendments to Tigard Development Code 18.790 (Tree Removal) As Recommended by the Tigard Planning Commission to Tigard City Council on March 16, 2009 Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the available Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 1 DCA2009 -00001 means or resources; 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means ; - . .., .: ; . ; - , : ; .:: . - - , - . • . . .. .• - - - - : : - caliper size when measured four fcct from ground level any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 '/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, or combination thereof of lots or parecl3 for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the Citv's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees, 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 2 DCA2009 -00001 estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in relation to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non - hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements Located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Sub3cquent Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third -party certified arborist under Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 3 DCA2009 -00001 contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third -party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmatively attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on the project site; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by a certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands complies with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request. An applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development bv: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in subsection B below. B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined by the whole of the original project; or 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more; C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification as follows: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 4 DCA2009 -00001 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification. C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off -Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 5 DCA2009 -00001 but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 permit-Applieability Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax- deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 6 DCA2009 -00001 A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 7 DCA2009 -00001 E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Tigard Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council of March 16, 2009 8 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 16, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 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, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, and Walsh Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Todd Prager, City Arborist; John Floyd, Associate Planner; Garr Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 2 -23 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman to approve the 2 -23 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Fishel (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00013 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 - 00007/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16. 2009 — Page 1 of 9 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008 -00016 /MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008 -00026 - JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inrnan read from the Quasi Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex -parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner i\Muldoon reported a site visit. Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review at the City one week prior to public hearings. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a question about condition number 2 which states the applicant shall apply for a variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening, subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Pagenstecher referred the question to the applicant. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michelle Symant, a planner for WRG Design, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She addressed the question about condition number two. She said they had spoken with the project arborist regarding the question and he'd recommended two particular types of trees that will work within the space constraints given. She said they would submit the revised landscape plan to the City Arborist for his review. She anticipates it will work out fine and they probably won't require seeking the variance but they'd like to leave that in should the City Arborist decide those trees won't work. It would leave the option to apply for a variance in the future. She noted the area is essentially a 3000 sq ft strip that requires this Comprehensive Plan zone change /lot land adjustment/Minor Modification — a whole series of things for the replacement of 10 parking spaces. She noted some of the conditions applied to requirements to save the Sequoia trees with placement of the parking spaces. She said that will happen. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT — None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 2 of 9 President Inman noted that no one had signed up either as a proponent or an opponent to the application. She asked if anyone present in the audience would like to speak either in favor or in opposition. There was no one present who wished to do either. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS /MOTION After a short period of deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vcrmilyea, seconded by Commissioner Fishel, as follows: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008 -00007 as set forth in the staff report, as well as Lot Line Adjustment 2008- 00016, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report; and Minor Modification 2008 - 00026; also subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: • AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner 1Termilyea ( NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009 -00001 - Tree Removal Code Update - On behalf of the City, John Floyd, Associate Planner, distributed a revised copy of the Draft Amendments (Exhibit A). He said staff is proposing additional changes (indicated in green) because of the public comment they'd received. Six parties had submitted comments prior to the workshop: Jeff Caines, Karen Estrada, John Frewing, Phil Grillo /HBA, Sue Beilke, and Greg Berry of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. (Exhibit B) Copies were distributed to the commissioners for their review. As a reminder, Floyd said the scope of this amendment had been defined narrowly by Council, and, as such, staff recommends that the Commission limit its review to the submittal requirements and not other issues such as mitigation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16. 2009 — Page 3 of 9 From the comments received, Floyd addressed the major concerns: HBA • Request for Continuance. On .Friday the HBA submitted a request for a 30 day continuance. The basis for this request was to allow their attorney additional time to review the material and suggest additional revisions which may result in the HBA abandoning intent to appeal a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to LUBA. Staff recommends that the continuance be denied for the following reasons: o The HBA has been aware of these amendments for some tune; this issue was not sprung on them. • They were present at the Tree Board meeting in December. • They submitted comments at the February 23 workshop. • They were invited by email and at the workshop to meet with staff prior to the hearing. • The language released last week was substantially the same as that considered at the workshop. o The PC is not the final hearing body. The commission can recommend these changes to Council who can consider their comments and, if they so choose, remand it hack to the Planning Commission. o The LUBA appeal of our Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment should be treated as a separate item as a Code Amendment. Staff has made tentative plans to meet with the HBA and their attorney in approximately 2 weeks, whereupon we will be discussing the Comp Plan appeal, and the Code Amendment under consideration tonight. Jeff Caines: • Concerned with the word practicable. As stated earlier, Staff proposes to change the phrasing from "wherever possible" to "wherever practicable ", with the meaning of practicable defined. This term introduces a degree of reasonableness to the code rather than an absolute (i.e. anything is possible with enough engineering), as was done in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development. What is being asked of an applicant is a reasonable attempt at preservation, which will be defined by the applicant themselves as they work with their arborist. • Concern with inventorying trees off -site. The intent of this requirement is to protect trees off -site, and not to increase mitigation obligations. To address this concern, staff recommends the following changes: o Remove references to off -site trees in section 18.790.030.A and B(1), and reinstate the 25' rule in 18.790.030.B(4). The revised language would therefore require 'A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used bj' the applicant to protect trees during and after construction, including those within 25 of the affected lot (as estimated by the project arbor if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owners)'; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16. 2009 — Page 4 of 9 • Preliminary grading and upfront mitigation plans. Staff has introduced a revisions procedure for Major and Minor modifications, you will find it under Section 790.030.F and marked in green. • Approval Criteria. Staff has prepared the approval criteria in concert with the City Attorney. That said, we do recommend a slight change in language in criteria #4 to change "shall also comply" to "complies ". • Final Thoughts. Mr. Caines wants to ensure that any code changes are workable and that those charged with implementing the code are included in the crafting of it. For the record, this code was developed in concert with current planning staff and the City Attorney, in addition to the normal circulation around other city departments and external agencies. Karen Estrada • Wants the code to increase the mitigation requirement from one year to two years prior to application — and require the removal of downed trees. o The short answer is that these issues are beyond the scope of tonight's changes. o Staff is sympathetic to her concerns as we know that developers and property owners frequently clear -cut or substantially defoliate their properties to avoid mitigation fees, and continue to do so to this day, but mitigation is within the Council's scope for this amendment. John Frewing • Many of John's comments are out of scope or were addressed in responses to Jeff Caines. • Editorial Changes. Staff appreciates Mr. Frewing's attention to detail and recommends the implementation of the following grammatical errors: o [Comment 2] Reinstate the words "on...lands" in 18.790.010.B(2) o [Comment 11] Removed the words "that are" in 790.030.B.5.(d) o [Comment 12] Insert the word "be" before "compensated" in 790.030.B.6 • [Comment 9] Content of plans. Mr. Frewing is concerned that one sheet would show trees while another shows the proposed improvements. In response, staff recommends the following changes to 790.030.B.(5): "The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition relation to the location of proposed grading..." • [Comment 10] Construction Plans. This was also noticed by Mr. Caines. Recommend the replacement of the word "construction" with "staging area" or removal of this word altogether. • [Comment 11] Goal 5 impacts. This amendment is not intended, nor will it affect, the City's Goal 5 resource protection program. It merely clarifies submittal requirements to achieve the stated purposes set forth in 790.010.B1 -7 (i.e. water quality, erosion, aesthetic beauty, etc...). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16. 2009 — Page 5 of 9 • Sue Beilke / Fans of Fanno Creek • The letter makes a lot of good points about the value of trees to Goal 5 resources, but, as stated before, Goal 5 resource protection is not the subject of this amendment. • We recommend that Ms. Beilke and Fans of Fanno Creek stay interested in our code amendments, particularly the upland tree grove inventories that are planned for our 2009/10 fiscal year. Greg Berry / City of Tigard Engineering • The City of Tigard Engineering Department requests that language regarding "adjacent right of way" be removed to ensure that the City retains authority of tree removal in the public right of way to ensure public improvement standards are adhered to. • Planning Department staff finds that the engineering department would not be hindered by the proposed language. The language only obligates an applicant to save trees where practicable in the design process — not to override engineering standards or other requirements of City Code. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt DCA2009 -00001 as proposed in attachment 1, as amended through the public hearing process, and subject to the findings contained in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS The definition of practicable — is that definition consistent with the Comp Plan? Yes - word for word. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 signed up to speak both in favor and against. He distributed a 3r set of comments (included in Exhibit B). He was advised by President Intnan to choose a side and that if he wanted to speak on both sides, his time would be divided into two, rather than giving him twice as much rime. Frewing said he was speaking both in favor and against different parts of the subject. Frewing touched on some of his comments addressed in his written testimony. He spoke about fish and wildlife. He believes it's a legitimate content requirement to ask an applicant to tell how they have managed (or addressed) fish and wildlife matters in their tree removal. He said the word "hazardous tree" makes no provision for saying "if I cut off the rotten limb, the tree is just fine." Hazardous tree should be defined as one which cannot be pruned or otherwise treated to become non - hazardous. That would result in saving another tree. He believes some arborists may be trying to get another job from the same developer and so will call a lot of trees hazardous which could be trimmed or somehow managed so that they don't become hazardous. So he doesn't like the definition of hazardous. He also noted that the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless, and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. He suggested that, instead, it read "The required plan for all the trees on the site clearly shows PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16.2009 — Page 6 of 9 evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable." QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about the age of trees and comments about hazardous trees. Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97219 went over his comment letter (Exhibit B). In addition, he asked what is the role and liability of the project arborist on both sides. He believes the Cite= arborist should also have to sign off on the plans. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about set - backs. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION — None. QUESTIONS OF STAFF As to the set -hack question, the City _arborist, Todd Prager, answered — "25 feet is a good place to start." There was a bit of a discussion regarding set - backs. Can you speak to the third party review and how that would work? Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, answered— "Basically =, if our arborist and their arborist can't agree, then a third arborist is hired and that arborist makes the decision and we go with that. The applicant would pay for the arborist." Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing the definition of practicable to \Vebster's definition which is "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with available means or resources. Vermilyea had a second comment with respect to page 4. E. Approval Criteria #2. He said he likes John Frewing's language change. He said it's a lot more functional than what's written. Who determines the definition of practicable? "The applicant would determine it." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16. 2009 — Page 7 of 9 DELIBERATIONS President Inman summed up the revisions thus far: 1. Section 18.790.030.E.3 striking "original certified arborist" and changing it to "a certified arborist." 2. Section 18.790.020.A.4 Commissioner \'ermilyea's definition of practicable to be "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with "available means or resources" - and striking the rest. 3. Section 18.790.010.E.4 "lands" should not be stricken but "sensitive" should. 4. Section 18.790.030.E.2 "the tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmable attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on project site." "Where practicable" will not be included. 5. So far as the Home Builders Association suggesting a continuation - No one thought it was a good idea to continue the meeting to another date. 6. "Hazardous Tree" definition. Consensus was to incorporate this into their mitigation discussion. • MOTION Commissioner \Termilvea made a motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application DCA2009 -00001 as set forth in Attachment 1 as amended tonight at this hearing, which supersedes prior versions." Comrnissioner Hasman seconded the motion. The motion passed on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner \Termilvea (6) NAYS: Commissioner Muldoon (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Muldoon stated his opposition due to the fact that he didn't like the age of the tree definition and he didn't like the last amendment. [Phis will go to the City Council on May 12, 2009.] PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6. OTHER BUSINESS The next public hearing will take place on April 6th and will include the Hwy 99W Plan, the Sensitive Lands Permit (continued), & an Urban Forestry Master Plan update. Commissioner Vermilyea informed the commission that he will be teaching a class at PCC Rock Creek starting in a few weeks and those classes are on Mondays. He will miss about 4 meetings from the 31g of March thru the first part of June. He will let Doreen Laughlin know the exact dates. President Inman said she would have to miss the May 4th meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. • Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary r- AIT ST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A Draft Amendments to TDC Section 18.790 (Tree Removal) Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitii, e 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After tears of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees in the Cite to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive - from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which be reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized Draft Amendments 1 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7 "Tree" means : :.. .:. :.. - , : : • .. • ., .. . ..... • -. - - • _ _.... _ .:.. :..: anv standing w 'dv plant having a trunk; _which is six inches e,r more in caliper =ize n hcn irt°;t ured 5'4 incites_ :- 2 Wet) above- mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a !rc.c .p ht al t ,r i rind. hilt below 54 inches, the tntnk i. j mea, :nre.d at u nno t_tuarrow pint hcm_:th anti i considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple tj..nks below around. each trunk shall he considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, or combination u:creof < - . r „s c,r pared, for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever pct practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the Citvs preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, t :he tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees, including trees- _. • - . S.l1ii•.ariia}Ir:.:...:a:..-..• a ;• •. J• .es • 2. Identification of a program to *sue retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed And the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including; those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as Draft Amendments 2 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 estimated by the project arbotist if permission to tuner is not granted b. Adjacent property owner); .. � narrative and site plan demc,nstratina how. the fr lowino design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable,_ form t_nf the narrative most_ address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to_ how the plans have included said technique, c'r wh) said techrigok: _ -itc nut_ racticable,_- Dhe accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existin - tree -:n dittNn relation to the the location of proposed grading. lot lines. and improvements: a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition. ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts. proximity to ptoposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved,the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities. sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints that - are located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are arkin • lot im rove • .1 located ou •. ide of the dri .lines of xistin • trees% If no. can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project u Blot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3) h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project athorist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. cr Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. 1), Peer Review. Tn questions of adequacy. the Planning Director or approving authority may, at Draft Amendments 3 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 their .discretion subject_ a tree plan to peer re;;e<< h' , third- parr, certi ud_< rbr,rist under contract to tbe_Cit}._The findings and recommendations of the third -par_n s__zrti ird arh:,rist .hall be_ incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval, E. Apprry al Criteria. The approval .tuthorrn c�n�3i tit,ii,. or (it n� .a try plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content re lirements_ et- forth in ,ccti! D ,.-9i_t.i130(At through IC), including the signature of a certifedarb;rist r11) all dociim nt ;attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; and 3. In cases where the Tree Ban has been peer reviewed, the recommendations 44f the third -pare arborist have been incotpor tted into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, o.r condition(s) .of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lance shat aleeseemply complies with requirements set forth in F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. ;Major Modificationtsl to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request. An applicant mas request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development bc: I. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. .4 narrati%e which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in subsection 13 below. R. Es aluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(st will result if one or more of the follow int changes are proposed. There w ill be: 1. The total number of trees beint remixed increases by 10% or more. as defined by the whole of the original project: or 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more; C. V1 hen the determination is made. t Don detcrmininff that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification. the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor Modification(sl to Appro. ed Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.I shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant max request approval ofa minor modification as follows: Draft Amendments 4 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 1. !Providing the Direetor with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; 2. A narrsitive which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification. C. Am ro'i sI criteria. A minor modification shall be amsrar<ed, approved with conditions or denied following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title: and 2. The modification is not a minor inodiftcation. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a I% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off - Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist The deed restriction may be removed or will be Draft Amendments 5 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accomrnodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with p .safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Rif.,r:�` Aj::'l2e.z: -;41k- t ZC.2 0:. :a A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The perrnit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative iunpact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 73 0 /0. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal perrnit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.793 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax - deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. Draft Amendments 6 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 • E. Prohibition of commercial forestry-. Conunercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A 2.• excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City perrnit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any Cite permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.030., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to S500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to die following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the Local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged be the caliper size of the largest reasonably Draft Amendments 7 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a parry may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Draft Amendments 8 DCA2009 -00001 March 16, 2009 Exhibit B City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission From: John Floyd, Associate Planner Re: Public Comment for DCA2009 -00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment) Date: March 13, 2009 Attached are written comments from the public regarding DCA2009 -00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment), scheduled for a public hearing before Planning Commission on Monday, March 16. As of Friday morning, the correspondence received includes the following: 1. Email and attached Memorandum from Jeff Gaines (iblarch 10, 2009) 2. Letter from Karen Estrada (March 11, 2009) 3. Email from John Frewing (March 11, 2009) 4. Email from John Frewing (March 12, 2009) The themes of the comments vary, and staff will address them at the heating on Monday night. As a reminder, the proposed amendments are the result of very specific council direction to implement an overturned director's interpretation through a code amendment. The proposed language does not address other aspects of the tree code such as mitigation or incentives, which will be the subject of future code amendments. Staff urges the Planning Commission to review these comments thoroughly before the hearing to • ensure efficient and productive deliberation. As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 503 -718 -2429 or johnfl @tigard- or.gov. John Floyd From: Jeff Caines [jeffcaines @hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:16 PM To: John Floyd Subject: Tree Code Comments Attachments: Tigard_Tree_Comments[1).doc John: Here are my comments for the Tigard tree code. If you want, we can discuss my comments prior to the hearing and I could revise my comments based on our conversation. Thank you for your time. Jeff Caines, AICP 503- 686 -1660 - Cell MEMORANDUM To: City of Tigard Planning Commission From: Jeff Caines, AICP CC: Date: March 12, 2009 Re: Proposed Tree Code Amendments Below are my comments on the proposed tree code amendments that are being considered. To summarize, in order for the code to work for the benefit of all parties, it is important to take the proposed language through a "stress" test; meaning that Staff should review the proposed code language against a project that is currently being reviewed. From this "stress" test, the question of "how can this new code language be applied by the City or the Applicant?" How could the applicant / property owner complete the new requirements? What is the benefit to the City and the citizens it serves? Specific Comments: 18.790.020 — Definitions: The term "Practicable" seems too broad. Who will determine what is reasonably capable of being done or accomplished? Is it staff, the developer, the property owner or the neighbors or an interest group? Just about any type of development can occur or can be accomplished "with the means at hand and circumstances as they are." At what point does a project or a condition of • approval become practicable verse impracticable? This definition is left up to the changing winds of interpretation. 18.790.030 — A. Tree Plan Required: "Signed": What is the intent of having a "signed" tree plan by the arborist? Is it the assumption that the City puts a liability on the arborist as they would for an engineer or landscape architect? "Adjacent ROW ": The right of way belongs to the public and not to a private individual. The trees might be surveyed in to the project, but the trees in the public right of way should not be counted against the development because of the standards put on the applicant by the City. Trees in the area for dedication should be included in this group as well. 13. Plan Requirements: 1: "Condition of all trees within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel" This is a requirement that Staff needs to ask itself, how can this be carried out? How can an arborist look at a tree within 25 -fee and make a determination as to the condition of the tree? Without an up -close inspection of each tree, an arborist may not be able to make a proper evaluation. There may be complications to tree plans if the arborist will not sign the plan because they are singing the conditions of trees that have not been property evaluated. This plan requirement should be addressed and explained by the City's arborist as to how this requirement should be carried out using proper arborist evaluation methods? 2: "as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch". I find that measuring to the nearest 1/10" may be extreme. Tree evaluation may be considered more of an art than a science what some factors are considered; meaning that different people may measure the tree not in the exact same spot on the tree based on ground elevation. I find that keeping to the standard the City has used for many years suffices. Has the arborist community adopted new standards (e.g., American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards or the International Society of Arborists (ISA) standards)? 5: Attempting to write a narrative at the preliminary stage of the project is a challenge. The • • subtopics address items that can only be determined during the construction document stage of the development or only once the project is build out completely. For example, grading and construction plans are produced after the preliminary plan has been approved. It is impossible to state if the construction plans avoid grading and soil compaction of the trees until the Engineering Department has reviewed the plan set with the required details. Also attempting to utilize other factors such as lot averaging or width/depth reduction does not appear to carry any incentives. 6: Mitigation Plan: A mitigation plan is already a condition of approval for many applications. It is near impossible to produce an accurate mitigation plan until the majority of the development has occurred. The City required that all trees that may be removed during construction be identified in the preliminary stages of the project. This policy is based in a I- Iearings Officer decision. Therefore, the trees that are identified on a tree removal plan may or may not be removed once the project is complete. Therefore, the number of trees or inches required for mitigation (including the fee in lieu) will ultimately change. In addition, if a mitigation plan is submitted to the City for review, the City should sign off on the mitigation plan by stamping approved with the City arborist's signature. The City should be required to review and approve a mitigation plan. All other departments i.e., Planning. Engineering. Building including all inspectors are required to sign off on plans and inspections. The City arborist should be no exception. D. Peer Review: • Who will make the final decision as to whether a tree plan is adequate or not? If the "Director or deciding authority" has the ability to send the plan to a third party for a peer review, will the applicant have the same right? Will the City pay this person or will the applicant have to pay for the third party peer review? What if the number of plans being reviewed by the third party becomes common practice? What becomes of the authority of the City Arborist? E. Approval Criteria: 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; It is not purpose of the applicant to make findings that the tree plan, as submitted, preferred protection over tree removal. It is the role of the reviewing authority to make findings that the proposed tree plan meets the standards set forth in the development code. if the City wanted to protect trees, the reviewing body would allow great latitude in building design, infrastructure adjustments and lot configuration. 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through.revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and • This is not an approval criterion. This is a statement to ensure that the recommendations of the • third party peer review have been incorporated in the staff report. The staff report comes after the City has reviewed the project against the Development Code. How can one state that an action is based on a future event has taken place? Final Thought: The tree code under review is an important document that should not be taken lightly. Trees are an important part of every city. The need between trees and the build environment must be in balance for any city to thrive and be fruitful. Before the city of Tigard adopts any new development code standards, is would be wise to ask if the current planning staff has had the full • • opportunity to review the code and bring up different scenarios that normally arise with development applications. It is the current planners and front counter staff that have to apply the new code language. It would benefit all parties to get feedback from the staff that will implement the new code to ensure that there is a pragmatic solution to any new adopted code language. Please add me as a party of record for this Development Code Amendment. Thank you for your time. 1 look forward testifying in front of the Planning Commission on March 16. 2009. March 11, 2009 To: Tigard Planning Commission As f am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing. I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property, whether for immediate construction or not. I am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes. • 1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that "trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above." This provision has been used to avoid complying with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. f would recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner. 2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property. They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10 or 20 trees have been cut down. Both of these "gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to the collection of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment. I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood - -- -the surrounding residents -- -see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease. Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who. I feel a sense of responsibility to all of us who have put in the effort and money to own and improve our homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected. My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments. Respectfully submitted, Karen Estrada 9269 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 John Floyd From: jfrewing [jfrewing @teleport.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:12 PM To: John Floyd Cc: David Walsh; Tony Tycer Subject: Frewing Comments on Proposed Tree Protection Regulations John, Pasted below are the comments 1 have currently prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on March 16 regarding TDC 18.790 revisions. 1 am emailing them to you on Wednesday afternoon, in the hope that you will email them to Planning Commission members immediately, so they will have adequate time to review and consider them. I have been told by Planning Commission members that it is hard for them to consider continents provided first at the public hearing itself; while that may be true, the Planning Commission does have the alternative of deferring action until all members can review all comments. 1 have not yet reviewed Section V of the staff report, Applicable Criteria and Findings, and this may generate more comments for the hearing on March 16, but 1 will try to forward any additional comments 1 have on Friday afternoon, hoping to minimize the comments which may be generated over the weekend and on Monday. John Frewing John Freeing Comments on Tigard Code Amendtnent: Tree Plans 3/11/09 1 In the same way that some section headings have been modified to more correctly summarize the section contents, the title of Chapter 18.790 should be "Tree Protection and Removal ". 2 In 18.790.010B.4, the word 'sensitive' should be deleted and the word `land' should be reinstated (note the singular use of word 'land'). This is editorial comment. 3 The definition of'tree', 18.790.020A.7, refers to caliper measurement 54 inches above mean ground level. Back in 18.790.060D.3, there is again reference to trees of a certain caliper size; however this applies to replacement trees. Two practical problems arise: is the size of replacement trees to be measured 54 inches above mean ground level, and are replacement trees really 'trees' (ie over six inches in caliper at 54 inches above mean ground level)? There should be added a definition of caliper measurement or the wording of the replacement tree requirement should be clarified. 3 The word ' dripline' should be defined. It appears as a term describing some content of the tree plan, eg 18.790.030B.5.b. Does this word refer to the dripline today or at full tree maturity. What documentation of the dripline must be part of the tree protection plan? 4 The word 'crown' should be defined. It appears in the definition of'removal:and has several possible meanings — is it the measured biomass, or the areal extent of branches (coincident with the canopy cover), or height above first branches, or sum of branch diameters leaving a main stem or ? ?? 5 The definition of 'practicable' is not clear to someone seeking to comply with the rules — what is 'reasonably capable'? - -what are the 'means at hand'? -- what is meant by 'circumstances as they are'? Has this word and the proposed definition been used in other regulatory documents in Oregon? What has been the experience of such use? 1 would hope that staff could give some clarity to these questions at the 3/16/09 hearing. In my mind, a better definition would either 1) revolve around a finding that some act is deemed 'practicable' when it is shown that a similar tree protection action has been recommended by some other government agency and actually performed in land use development elsewhere in the metropolitan Portland area or 2) would conclude that a tree protection action is `practicable' if it does not increase project construction costs in excess of 20 %, which is a percentage of development cost variability caused by other natural features of a site (eg slope, stream, soil conditions, etc) and is accommodated by development professionals quite regularly. Of course this latter approach would require some showing by the development proponent regarding cost impact of tree protection actions compared to cost without tree protection actions. 6 In 790.030A, I would ask that the word `adjacent' be stricken from the listing of circumstances requiring a tree plan. If a city construction project, say for only a street, involves tree protection and removal, a tree plan should be required, and the word 'adjacent' is not applicable. The use of the word 'adjacent' seems to limit tree protections to at least a combination of a lot AND street development. 7 Section 790.030B1 calls for identification of tree size. There are many ways to measure tree SIZE; I believe staff means to ask for caliper at 4.5 feet, but others may think this refers to height, or spread of branches or other aspect of size. I suggest saying `caliper at 4.5 feet' if that is meant. 8 Section 790.030B5 calls for the accompanying site plan' to include the location of trees in addition to the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. Because the general rule is to consider singulars as plurals, this could be read to mean the accompanying site 'plans' (plural). I think this requirement (which is good) should require the tree location to be shown on the SAME site plan drawing which includes location of proposed grading, lot lines and improvements. The current situation is such that these information items are provided, but on DIFFERENT drawings such that the interference of site development with existing trees is not readily apparent. 9 Tree plan explanatory elements a) through h) in 790.030B.5 are worded in ways that a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer is difficult. In most cases the answer will be `somewhat' or 'partially' or 'in some cases'. This problem can be resolved if each of these considerations would be preceded by the word `all', as in `does the project protect and retain all existing non- hazardous trees ...' or as in 'do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within all driplines of ...' or as in 'are all infrastructure improvements ....', etc. The result might be more 'no' answers, but the rule allows that with appropriate explanation. An alternative might be to ask if 'at least one' non - hazardous tree is protected, or `at least one' dripline is protected from compaction or 'at least one' infrastructure improvement, etc., but such provision would not serve the purpose of showing a general preference for tree protection over removal. 10 Reference to `construction plans' in 790.030B.5.b is not clear. The plans submitted at the development • permit stage detail infrastructure construction, but building plans normally are not available at this stage. 11 In 790.030B.5.d, the words `that are' immediately before the word `located' should be stricken. This is an editorial comment. 12 In 790.030B.6, the word 'be' should be inserted immediately before the word `compensated'. This is an editorial comment. 13 The concept of adding 'Approval Criteria' is excellent. However the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. Moreover, its vagueness is such that it will result in terribly inconsistent application — something to be avoided in writing regulations. And finally, this criterion creates a circular line of rationale such that practically every plan will comply with it: Under existing practice, approval of an application requires a finding of compliance with approval criteria, and this approval criterion is simply that something in the plan support a finding of approval. If there is only one element of the plan complies with the content requirement, eg all the trees are identified on a plan, then it seems that one could find that the plan contains something that `supports' a finding of approval. This cannot possibly • be the meaning of Tigard's `preference for protection over removal' regulation. The words 'supports a finding' should be replaced by a more objective phrase. I would suggest that the standard might read 'The required plan 2 for all the trees on the site clearly shows evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable.' 3 John Flo d From: jfrewing [jfrewing @teleport.com) Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:29 AM To: John Floyd Subject: Code Amendment for Tree Plans, Testimony for 3/16/09 John, Pasted below are some supplemental comments on the proposed code amendment for tree plans. Please include them in whatever you send to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. • These comments come fi•om looking over the words again, and reflecting on the several applications and decisions I have participated in over the past five years, as well as LUBA decisions which in effect, give meaning to the Tigard regulations. I have still not gotten to Section V of the staff report, and will provide my comments on that area as well as any other which arise in its review as soon as I have a bit more time to go over them. Thanks. John Frewing SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON TREE PLAN REGULATIONS 3/12/09 A. Hazardous trees are defined in terms of an 'immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. This definition is circular because it uses the same word (hazard) to define the regulatory term (hazard). In effect the definition is saying that a hazardous tree means a tree which is a hazard — not too much help in clarifying the term. Is this what is called a tautology? I suggest that the definition be modified to define a hazardous tree as one which cannot be pruned, topped or otherwise managed to avoid immediate damage to persons or public or private property. This begs a definition of immediate damage; I would clarify this phrase to state that it means damage nearly certain within the next month, if the tree is not pruned, topped or otherwise managed. Such changed definition is consistent with the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal and can result in the retention of important trees (and their canopy cover) within the city. However, note that a certified arborist is not an expert on damage to persons or to public or private property; a casualty insurance - type professional should be used to make such judgment based on what part of or where an arborist might indicate a tree will likely fall. This addition should be part of the definition of a hazardous tree. B The content of a tree plan related to trees to be removed (18.790.030B.3) should require that the techniques considered to retain the tree along with their estimated costs, should be stated. C This proposal and the Tigard code itself leave out altogether any protection for trees (or whatever term should be used to describe woody stem plants less than 6 inches in caliper) of small size. It is precisely these trees which will grow most soon to perform the functions of trees in a forest. Such omission is contrary to the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal. Some requirement to preserve these smaller woody stems should be employed in the code. D Practicable means possible, according to my dictionary. Staff should provide some history of how this term has been applied in real life land use proceedings applicable to Tigard (eg LUBA opinions). • E How will city apply the 'means at hand' and 'circumstances as they are' terms? As written, the definition of these terms might be read to be whatever the applicant thinks they might mean. Shouldn't there be words reserving this interpretation to the city? F 18.790.0308.5.a does not allow for pruning of trees at the start of development to make them viable 'save' trees; it should. Eliminate the word 'non- hazardous' in first line, eliminate 'existing' in second line. G 18.790.0308.5.e calls for potential reduction of parking spaces, but ignores a practicable alternative in most situations — permeable pavement or permeable pavement breaks. Such alternative should be pointed out. H In 18.790.030B.5.g, the reference to code should be 18.790.040A.2 and .3. Editorial. I In 18.790.0308.6., the mitigation plan should include the size of replacement trees as well as the caliper inches to be provided. The mitigation plan, signed by the project arborist, should include a commitment and plans to monitor and maintain mitigation trees for three years to ensure establishment and probable success of the mitigation. The applicant should sign such mitigation plan as well as project arborist, since Tigard is not likely to enforce mitigation against the project arborist. The mitigation commitment should be documented as a Condition of Approval for the development; LUBA decisions have come back to the effect that a simple commitment in an application is not enforceable unless it is cited in a Condition of Approval. J 18.790.030C should be modified to specify a two year prior period for evaluation of tree removal outside development regulations. This will provide an additional incentive for persons contemplating site development to 'preserve rather then remove' trees in Tigard. K This proposal does not implement the City Council direction to preserve trees wherever 'possible', which were the words in the existing code and which were the words in the director's interpretation. Please consider reinstating this word as a standard for the preference for tree retention over removal. L Require that the certified arborist working on the tree plan must have valid Tigard Business License. Include as penalty for tree removal contrary to plan the cancellation of Tigard license for the certified arborist. M Make the penalty for illegal tree removal a minimum of $500, not 'up to' $500. TDC 18.790.060C. This is a proper implementation of the Tigard policy to encourage 'tree preservation over removal.' N At 18.790.030D, the term 'adequacy' is used. It is not clear what this term means. I suggest that examples be provided (ie professional judgment on tree condition, removal, etc.) at least in staff testimony, so as to provide a legislative basis for later interpretations. O In 18.790.030 at D and E.3, there exists a MANDATORY incorporation of the third party arborist findings into the tree plan or project conditions of approval. The city may not agree with what such third party arborist reports. I suggest that these two provisions include the parenthetical phrase regarding the third party report (as may be approved by the city). P At 18.790.030E, the first sentence should not refer to 'denying a tree plan', but should refer to denying 'an application with proposed tree plan'. Q At 18.790.030E.1., the tree plan should include more than the arborist's signature, since much of the implementation and responsibility for compliance rests with the applicant and other contractors on site (eg 2 grading, excavation, surveying, equipment drivers, unloading, etc). The applicant should be required to sign the tree plan. R 18.790.030E.4. doesn't appear to be an approval criterion. Perhaps what is meant is that the application for development must include a commitment by applicant to meet 18.790.050 regarding tree removal on sensitive lands. Such commitment should be documented as a Condition of approval. 5 Followup on comment 13 of 3/11/09. The issue of 'evidence supporting' was addressed in an earlier LUBA decision regarding the Tigard tree ordinance (Miller v City of Tigard, 46 LUBA 536, LUBA 2003 -133 (2/27/04). In the Miller decision, to meet the 'evidence supporting' phrase, the approval authority need only find that the record include something that a reasonable person would rely upon to adopt the and use decision. My comment is that the 'evidence supporting' phrase should apply to every tree and every tree plan requirement for a proposed development. T The Miller decision also noted shortcomings of the Tigard tree ordinance, "how the tree plan is implemented or enforced by the city', as it implements the 'preference for retention over removal' standard. LUBA found one shortcoming is that the Tigard rule 'does not provide any formal mechanism for amending a tree plan once a subdivision is approved' (Assignment of Error 1). 'The Tigard rule is silent on whether changes can be made to tree plans and how the city might go about approving such changes.' These shortcomings are an integral part of implementing the director's interpretation and should be addressed in this rule revision. U The tree plan requirements of 19.790.030 should, under the requirement to identify trees, ensure that trees on the site which are to be removed should be clearly identified in the field, by colored tape or other means acceptable to the city. Such marking will allow meaningful participation by citizens to view the prospective impacts of a tree plan. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing @teleport.com 3 TIGARD TREE REGULATIONS — THIRD SET OF COMMENTS 3/16/09 Aa There has long been a requirement for submittal of a 'mitigation plan', but this revision adds content requirements for that plan (030B.6.) My comment is that in individual development applications and reviews, much more than the several items mentioned in this code change are regularly requested — one important item NOT mentioned in this code change is when the required mitigation is to be done. If not specified and agreed upon in the development application /review, the mitigation may NEVER be done. Please add 'timing of mitigation work' to the content requirements of a mitigation plan. Other important elements of any mitigation plan include specification of existing conditions at the mitigation site, forest functions to be restored, maintenance plans (eg watering if necessary), remedial action for unsuccessful plantings, percent ground cover to be planted, etc.). Bb In the content requirements for the tree plan, there is great reliance on the `dripline' as the outer boundary of concern for a tree protection zone. Six of the eight content requirements reference use of the dripline. The dripline is one standard which has been used, but other standards are also appropriate for some trees in some circumstances. This code provision should provide the city arborist the ability to specify something other than the dripline for a tree protection zone(TPZ), one which comes to mind is the TPZ defined by a 1 -foot radius for each one inch of tree caliper diameter at 54 inches above mean ground level. Cc The `director's interpretation included the caution 'failure to demonstrate that a preference has been given to tree preservation over tree removal may result in findings for denial of the development application.' This code change should include such caution. Dd The applicable review criteria and staff report both omit any reference to review against the needs for fish and wildlife (Goal 5 resources) — either the provisions of the comp plan or the provisions of 18.775. I believe that the preservation of trees is an integral part of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources — birds are not limited by a `sensitive lands' map and rely almost exclusively on trees for nesting, roosting and feeding. It would be a reasonable requirement that the tree plan indicate how fish and wildlife resources are being addressed if trees are to be removed (eg don't cut down trees during nesting season). Please add such a content requirement for a tree plan as part of this code change. John Frewing HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland • March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President And Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: • Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009 -0001) Dear President Inman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Home Builders Assn. of Metro Portland to echo the request for continuance of this item as requested in the letter dated March 13, 2009 from Phillip Grillo. I too would hope that, if given a bit more time, we might be able to offer slight modification to the code language now being proposed that would make the referred to LUBA appeal moot and enable us to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, I respectfully request that the commission continue this item for 30 days. Sincerely, Ernie Platt Director of Local Government Affairs cc: John Floyd, Associate Planner Phillip Grillo, Miller Nash 1 5555 SW Bangy Road • Suite 301 • Lake Oswego. Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.684.1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www.homebuildersportland.org • Striving for Affor da:0ity. Balance and Chace 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower II1 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland. Oregon 97204 -3699 orricE 503.224.5858 Pax 503.224.0155 Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo@millernash.com (503) 205 -2311 direct line March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009 - 00001) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland ( "HBA "). As you know, the HBA has been involved in the City's ongoing efforts regarding tree protection. The HBA has been diligently working with the City in an effort to balance the City's interest in tree protection with its responsibilities to also provide needed housing opportunities throughout the City. In that regard, HBA participated in the City's recently adopted comprehensive plan amendment process that led to the City's adoption of CPA 2008 -00002 (Tigard's Urban Forest). As you know, the City's decision in CPA 2008 -00002 has been appealed to LUBA (LUBA No. 2008 -094). That appeal is currently on hold, while HBA and the City discuss possible revisions to the Tigard Tree Code that could make our appeal moot. As you know-, the latest amendments to the Tigard Tree Code proposed by staff were recently released. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review these revisions, or to meet with staff to discuss possible revisions. I am therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue DCA 2009-00001 (Tree Code Amendments) for a period of at least 30 days, to allow HBA to complete our review and meet with City staff to discuss possible revisions. Hopefully, we will be able to reach an agreement with the City on reasonable amendments to the Tree Code that would allow us to dismiss our LUBA appeal. For all of these reasons, we ask that this PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038340 -0004 Jodie Inman, Commission President March 13, 2009 Page 2 matter be continued for a period of 30 days. Thank you for your continued consideration. Respectfully submitted, Phillip E. Grillo cc: Tim Ramis, City- Attorney John Floyd, Associate Planner Ernie Platt, Director of Local Government Affairs, HBA of Metro Portland PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038390 -0002 March 16, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard RE: Development Code Amendment 2009 -00001 / Tree Removal Code Amendment Dear Planning Commission members: We are writing to comment on the proposed changes to the Tigard Tree Removal Code, Section 18.790. Fans of Fanno Creek is a local non - profit organization that works with many citizens to improve the health of our watershed for citizens, and the fish, wildlife and habitats that are located in Tigard. We are especially concerned with the Large numbers of native trees that have been removed in Tigard in the past 10 years. especially on such sites as Dorothy Gates property on SW 81" street, this was a 3 acre fully mature. wooded forest of all native trees that was clearcut! It included a pair of nesting hawks that had nested here for years. Another clearcut was on the Senn property on SW 74 street, this was a mature western red cedar forest that was also clearcut and the developer further damaged any "trees to be retained on the tree plan" to such an extent with his bulldozer that even these had to be cut down. Tigard can no longer afford to lose native trees and every effort possible must be made to save all of our remaining native trees whether they be single trees or part of a grove or forest stand. Our comments are as follows: • Applicable Review Critieria (ARC) — Goal 5 is not listed as one of the ARC but should be as it relates to protection and conservation of natural resources which includes "trees". It is a major error to not list Goal 5 and how the proposed changes may affect trees, including trees not located in Sensitive Lands. • 18.790.010. A — Value of Trees — This section needs to have added that "trees also are crucial in providing important wildlife habitat for a diverse assemblage of species in the city of Tigard." This will help to I) meet Goal 5 requirements and 2) this is directly related to the Director's Interpretation to save trees rather than remove them as trees provide habitat for many species of wildlife. • 18.790.020 Definitions — We recommend that trees should not be labeled "hazardous" if there is only a part of the tree that poses a threat, such as a dead limb. For example, several native trees in our neighborhood had dead tree limbs which were about to fall on property, and taking off the dead limb was sufficient in removing the "hazard" the tree posed. Age should not necessarily be a reason for a tree to be removed. Some native oaks in Tigard are over 150 years old but healthy, should someone be able to remove them just because they are old? We recommend that the "hazardous tree" definition be "a tree by which reason of disease, infestation. or other condition. whereby pruning of certain dead limbs for As it presently stands, the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Section of the Development Code fail to adequately address the need to protect and conserve native trees and forests as stated in the recently revised Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resources and Parks and Open Spaces Sections. We therefore request that the Planning Commission DENY the City of Tigard's recommended changes and work with citizens such as myself to rework this section of the Development Code to benefit native trees, forests and wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Code. Sincerely. Sue Beilke. Wildlife biologist, Board member of Fans of Fanno Creek 7 o , ° City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: John Floyd, Associate Planner From: Greg Berry, Project Engineer Re: DCA 2009 -00001 Tree Removal Il.c Date: 3/237 2009 Findings: Currently, the City Engineer decides whether trees within the right -of -way are to be removed. This authority is required to ensure compliance with the City's public improvement standards. The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A would instead require tree plans for trees within the right -of -way. As part of the land use permit process, results of the tree plan would be used to determine if a tree within the right -of -way should be retained or removed. Consequently, the City Engineer would no longer have authority over trees within the right -of -way. Recommendations: The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A should not include adding "adjacent right-of- way". , YereV unlan0 use comments■Aca'Aca 2009 -00001 tree removal soc REVISED 4/23/09 Mars 18.610.A :_VIIri: ► , ► � A∎ ■ r r i l� j �I2 � i 42 ♦ ,• I I ■ 2. i�350sa w A a ° t �� 1' ■.rlt' . k � « 4 r % il v e % 4 . ■,h, I pi .W. O. ' 4.1: 4A dB r all 4414414 r, - - - I4■ IN - i 44, ■ „N,. .,4,/ v ..11 .i. 1 '‘...o. AVeN# irvir• o bN ko sly./„! 1 4 _,,,.,* o; ,-- .4 .%,./. . 4, v\ , ... • +/iv.' 0 . e ii i Im., . • :•;• ... .. Mixed Use Central Business 1 District Main Street - Central ' Fanno- Burnham == t . 1 Sc ffin - ommercial , � � . �� o s C � � ` >, 99W -Hall Corridor 111 ,iz - - : MI:: , I I 1111 = Urban Renewal District a Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza Staff Commentary: Map 18.610.A shows the location of the sub - areas. Each sub -area has distinct height limits and setbacks. The development standards are listed in Table 18.610.1 below. The sub -areas are centered on existing streets, but also account for the potential development of future streets 24 I ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: 5.2 Hearing Date: March 16, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE U PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF TREE PLANS FILE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2009 -00001 PROPOSAL: To amend Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) of the Tigard Development Code to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 ZONE: All City Zoning Districts COMP PLAN: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 2.1.2, 2.1.14, 2.1.24, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.6, 6.1.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 6. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor to amend the Tree Removal regulations as proposed by the applicant, with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 1 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC 1- 1EARING STAFF RI POR "1 "1'O PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION History Historically, applicants submitting for land use approval have been required to identify all trees on site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed so long as they were appropriately mitigated. This practice does not prioritize protection over removal wherever possible, as required in Section 18.790.030 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This practice is also in conflict with the purpose statement of the Tree Removal Ordinance which recognizes the value of trees and calls for their preservation. That said, the code is not clear as to how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference. This lack of clarity generated a Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development Director, which was intended to guide the administration of Chapter 18.790 during development application review. Shortly after issuance, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) appealed this interpretation to the City Council. The appeal was successful and the Council overturned the interpretation on the grounds that it was more appropriately addressed through a code update. Coinciding with their ruling, Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code. In response to Council direction, staff has prepared a series of text amendments that clarify and expand the submittal requirements to better enable an applicant to clearly and objectively comply with this community preference. A draft of the amendments was presented to the Tigard Tree Board for review and comment on December 4, 2008. Recommended changes and public comments received at that meeting were incorporated by staff and presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on February 23, 2009. Following the February workshop, additional refinements to the proposed text amendments were made in response to correspondence submitted by the public and on advice from the City attorney. Proposed Changes The proposed changes to Chapter 18.790 are as follows (also found in Exhibit A), with deleted text as strikeouts and added text bolded and underlined): 18.790 - Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention • 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; DCA2009 -00001 MAGI; 2 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC I- IEARING STAFF REPORT '1'0 PLANNING COMMISSION 4. Protect sensitive l from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means - - : .: :: - , - . -, - • . - • . - ' - - - - -- a - - caliper size when mcasurcd four fcct from ground level any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1 /2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the tide. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, adjacent road right -of -way, or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever poaaible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees, including trees DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 3 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPOR'1" CO PLANNING COMMISSION dcsignatcd as significant by the city within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction; 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non - hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and-driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints that are located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 4 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC REARING STAFF RGPORI' TO PLANNING COMMISSION reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Subsequent Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third -party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third -party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third -party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands shall also comply with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 5 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBI..IC I- TEARING STAFF REPORT' TO PLANNING COMMISSION land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off - Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial /industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 6 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF RI3PORT' 1'O PLANNING COMMISSION C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax - deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and /or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this tide; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this tide, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 7 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC 1- TEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu -of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Proposal Discussion The City acknowledges that tree removal is sometimes necessary to accommodate the needs and aspirations of the Community. This acknowledgement is embedded in both the zoning of properties for particular types and intensities of development, as well as in the preamble to the Tree Removal Chapter (18.790.010) itself. At the same time the community has expressed a desire to save viable trees when it is reasonably possible to do so, and has embedded that value in the Tree Removal Chapter and the goals and policies of the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The proposed changes strike a balance between these two competing demands and are expected to provide the following changes to improve tree preservation and the clarify of the development review process. 1. The purpose statement would be amended to remove any explicit references to sensitive lands. This chapter addresses, through various sections, tree removal on both sensitive and non - sensitive lands and staff wishes to make clear that it is not the intent of this section to protect Goal 5 resources. 2. The definitions section would be amended to better define split trunk trees, a source of much debate during development review. 3. The phrase "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" would be amended to read "wherever practicable." The intent is to bring the terminology of this chapter closer in line to that of the Comprehensive Plan, which demonstrates a preference for "practicable" over "possible" as it implies situational appropriateness and reasonableness in the face of competing priorities, as opposed to an absolute concept regardless of the other circumstances. 4. The content requirements of the tree plan would require an expansive view and more detail on individual trees, the preservation strategies considered, and the reason for a tree's removal. It would also require that tree plans be signed by an arborist who would self - certify the plan. These requirements have been introduced for two reasons. First, if the plan is going to be self - certifying there must a sufficient level of detail for the strength of the determination to be readily apparent. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 8 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Second, to answer the questions the certifying arborist will have to be in closer consultation with the remainder of the design team. 5. Approval criteria have been added to clarify how and when a tree plan may be approved. 6. Subchapter names have been changed to better communicate the structure and requirements of this chapter. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions • Tigard Community Development Code (Title 18) o Chapter 18.380 o Chapter 18.390 o Chapter 18.790 • Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies o Chapters 1, 2, and 6 • Applicable Metro Standards o Title 1, 2, and 3 • Statewide Planning Goals o Goals 1, 2, and 6. City Department and outside agency comments SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.309.060G Findings: The proposed text amendments to the Tigard Development Code would be applied to development throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being processed as a Type IV procedure, Legislative Amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390: Decision - Making Procedures Chapter 18.390.020. Description of Decision - Making Procedures B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large -scale implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. Findings: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009 with City Council making the final decision. Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision - making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable Metro regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. DCA2009 -00001 PAGI_, 9 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Findings: As indicated pursuant to the findings and conclusions that address applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and other chapters of the Tigard Development Code, the amendment is consistent with this criterion. Chapter 18.790: Tree Removal Chapter 18.790.010 Purpose B. Purposes. The Purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; Findings: The proposed text amendments to 18.790.030 are consistent with the overall stated purposes of Chapter 18.790, including the encouragement of tree preservation and the provision of a tree plan. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed text amendments satisfy the applicable review criteria within the Tigard Community Development Code and recommends the Planning Commission forward these proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed amendments: Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 1.2.1: The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 1.2.6: The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. Finding: Consistent with Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Development Code (Decision- Making Procedures), two public hearings will be held where public comment will be received by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public notice of these hearings will occur through a combination of direct mailings to affected agencies and interested parties, and publication on the City's website and in a newspaper of general circulation. In addition, the proposed amendments are available for viewing on the City's website or at City Hall. Policy 1.1.3: The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to provide input to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff. • Finding: The proposed amendments were presented at a regular meeting of the Tigard Tree Board on December 4, 2008 whereupon board members and attending citizens considered the changes and provided comments. The Tree Board unanimously agreed that the proposed amendment should proceed through the legislative process. Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. Finding: As demonstrated in findings above and below, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.14: 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. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE, 10 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Finding: The existing text of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code establishes a stated preference for tree preservation over removal, but does not set forth a procedure or criteria through which an applicant can demonstrate proof that such a preference has been considered and incorporated into the project design. The proposed amendment would resolve this ambiguity by establishing clear and objective submittal requirements and approval criteria that would enable an applicant to demonstrate proof of compliance with the City's stated preference. Policy 2.1.24: The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. Finding: The proposed amendments to reinforce the City's preference for tree protection over removal, and replacement where removal is necessary, are consistent with this policy. The stated objectives of this chapter are to protect the contribution of existing trees in Tigard, including their contributions to the aesthetic beauty of the community, cleaning of the air, erosion control, maintenance of water quality and the provision of noise barriers. All such services contribute to the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. Policy 2.2.1: 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. Finding: The proposed amendment is an update of Chapter 18.790 whose purpose is to preserve community trees. The update does not change the purpose of the chapter, but addresses known deficiencies in submittal requirements and approval criteria that do not enable an applicant to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate a preference for tree protection in land use applications. The amendments would also specify content requirements for tree mitigation plans that govern the planting of new trees to replace those removed. Policy 2.2.6: 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. Finding: The proposed amendments would require the inclusion of trees within 25 feet of the affected parcel, and not just those within the parcel boundaries. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the preservation of off -site trees, where practicable. Such offsite trees could include, where applicable, those located in public right of ways, open spaces, and other public lands. Policy 2.3.1: The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority going to native trees and non - native varietals that are long lived and /or provide a broad canopy spread. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. Policy 2.3.6: 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. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy in that it will require the applicant to consider and address the practicability of flexible design approaches including the use of lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width or depth when tree removal is a possibility. Policy 6.1.6: The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain positive contributions to air quality. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 11 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Policy 6.2.3: The City shall encourage the use of low- impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Finding: The text amendments would require an applicant to demonstrate in both narrative and plan form that low impact development practices had been considered and incorporated into the tree plan, where practicable. These techniques are set forth in section 18.790.030.B.5(a) through (f) of the proposed text amendments. Policy 6.2.4: The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contributions to water quality. Policy 6.2.5: The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run -off from development sites during and after construction. Finding: The proposed amendments will allow the City and applicant to more clearly and efficiently protect and restore the natural functions of trees, to the extent practicable. Trees perform a variety of natural functions, including the reduction of erosion and the absorption of storm water, and the proposed amendments will more effectively preserve and /or replace their natural functions to the extent practicable. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS: Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 1— Requirements for Housing and Employment Finding: This section of the Functional Plan facilitates efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Each city and county has determined its capacity for providing housing and employment that serves as their baseline and if a city or county chooses to reduce capacity in one location, it must transfer that capacity to another location. Cities and counties must report changes in capacity annually to Metro. The amendments will not reduce the number of dwelling units or reduce employment capacity, they will only ensure that the minimum number of trees are removed during construction. Therefore, this text amendment does not reduce the City's housing and employment capacity. Title 2 — Regional Parking Policy Finding: The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development to encourage the efficient use of land, promote a higher proportion of non - automobile trips, and protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plan adopted by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving its transportation objectives. This title establishes regionwide parking policies that set the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces that can be required by local governments for certain types of new development. By not creating an over supply of parking, urban land can be used most efficiently. The proposed amendments will ensure that land is used for the preservation of existing trees rather than extra parking spaces, where practicable and consistent with minimum parking requirements. Title 3 — Water Quality Finding: The purpose of Title 3 is to protect the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 specifically implements the Oregon Statewide Land Use Goals 6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 12 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT "TO PLANNING COMMISSION • floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating the impact on these areas from development. The proposed amendments are consistent with Tide 3 in that it will ensure that only the minimum number of trees are removed during development, wherever they occur within City limits, and with that will occur a reduction in erosion and other water quality and stormwater management benefits whether inside the boundaries or upland of water resources. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable Metro regulations. THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197 Forty -five day advance notice was provided to DLCD on January 30, 2009, 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. Finding: This goal has been met by complying with notice and hearing requirements set forth in the Tigard Development Code. A minimum of two public hearings will be held, first the Planning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. Public notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 2, 2009 issue of The Oregonian (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). Notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. The notices invite public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed. Statewide Planning Goal2 — Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Findings: The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision - making process. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met. Statewide Planning Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes are intended to protect water quality and other natural functions of existing or replacement trees. By clarifying submittal requirements, including the use of low impact development techniques, the City will minimize impacts from future development. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. DCA2009 -00001 PAGG 13 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Building Division, Engineering Division, Current Planning Division, and Public Works Department has had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond. CONCLUSION: Based on no response from City staff, staff finds the proposed amendment does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: City of Durham City of Beaverton City of King City City of Lake Oswego City of Portland City of Tualatin Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Metro Land Use and Planning Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife The following agencies /jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and had the following comments: Clean Water Services: Recommended the inclusion of any and all relevant provisions of the current intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services, and the relevant provisions of the current Design and Construction Standards. Findings: The proposed amendments do not conflict with the current intergovernmental agreement or the current Design and Construction standards. CONCLUSION: Staff finds the proposed amendment meets all requirements of these agencies and does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Tree Removal Chapter Amendment to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public hearing process. DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 14 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING S'T'AFF REPORT" TO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENTS: 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.790 THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE. 2. LETTER FROM CLEAN WATER SERVICES March 9, 2009 PREPARED BY: John Floyd DATE Associate Planner March 9, 2009 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director DCA2009 -00001 PAGE 15 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC t- IEARING S'T'AFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2009 -00001 TO UPDATE CHAPTER 18.790 OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO TREE REMOVAL WHEREAS, the City has proposed an amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code pertaining to tree removal; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with City standards, on March 16, 2009, and recommended approval of the proposed DCA2009- 00001 by motion on a vote of 6 to 1 (2 absent); and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with City standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on DCA2009- 00001; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the Tigard City Council adopted DCA2009 -00001 by motion, as amended, pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations; and WHEREAS, Council's decision to adopt DCA2009 -00001 is based on the findings and conclusions found in the City of Tigard staff report dated March 9, 2009, and the associated record, which are incorporated herein by reference and are contained in land -use file DCA2009- 00001. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard Community Development Code is amended to include new text and to rescind existing text as shown in "EXHIBIT A "; and SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2009. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2008. ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 1 of 2 Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 2 of 2 r AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: May 12, 2009 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing - Proposed Development Code Amendment Regarding Tree Removal (DCA2009- 00001) — Council Goal #1B — Update the Tree Code to Meet Comprehensive Plan 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 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 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I /Adm /Cathy /CCSignup /Leg. PH Comp Plan Amendment 1\)v+es d ') bhLhQcu r 3 oL - +h 7. y .09 LZ ) 1 \ 1 o_e S4 irn recd AGENDA ITEM No. 7 May 12, 2009 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 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. Proponent – (Speaking In Favor) Opponent – (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1 ( JI0 111 -s4 s ° '`dot? 02 3 71 3 Aas — a31/ Name, Address & Phone No. Name Address & Ph No. Name, Address & Phone No. iVi t� r1-.4 ' 3 T - C s tt 3fl, 4 v L0 ?7 0 7 r 503 403 4s ! Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /1 diorrPP°it 7 yb sc.) lataidoba por27rA -�! 1 77ZZS' 503-769 -ZZ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. , Y / 1'7_0 O s w 4 - /C4 , Tu a L e( 4J O,t ? >Cc Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. PORTLAND, 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower OREGON 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Portland, Oregon 97204 -3699 M ILLER VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON jj OFFICE 503.224.5858 AT LAW CENTRAL OREGON r6 � I„ Ve FAX 503.224.0155 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM (J l - p ei �J COunCiL CMG Phillip E. Grillo S . /� Oq phil.grillo @millernash.com s. ,) Q_S YET (503) 205 -2311 direct line J was cinn r 7. i• nq May 12, 2009 CabO BY HAND DELIVERY Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Development Code Amendment Regarding Tree Removal (DCA 2009- 00001) Dear Mayor Dirksen and Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland ( "HBA "). As you know, the HBA has been diligently working with the city in an effort to balance the city's interest in tree protection with its responsibilities to provide needed housing opportunities throughout the city, and to otherwise comply with state and regional legal requirements and policies. On April 3, 2009, we met with the city's planning staff and the city attorney to discuss our main concerns with the amendments recommended by the planning commission to City Council, dated March 16, 2009. We understand from Mr. Floyd that as a result of Council's recent work session, that a new set of amendments may be in process. We have requested a copy of any new amendments, but so far have not seen anything responding to our concerns. On April 3, we outlined several of our main legal concerns. Those concerns are as follows: 1. Clear and Objective Standards. The proposed tree code amendments contain a significant number of new discretionary standards that violate the clear and objective standards requirement of the "needed housing" rule in ORS 197.307 and ORS 197.830, as well as the requirements in Metro Title 13 that also require clear and objective standards for habitat protection regulations. At our meeting on April 3, we explained our concerns to staff and shared with them a copy of a recent PDXDOCS:1847319.1 038340 -0004 PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER NASHLLP VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members Page 2 LUBA case, where this issue was extensively discussed in relation to the City of Eugene's code amendments that enacted new tree protection regulations. See HBA v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370 (2002). Many of the amendments proposed in the March 16, 2009, draft create tree removal standards and procedures that are not clear and objective and therefore violate ORS 197.307 and Metro Title 13. As noted below, they also do not address and likely violate Statewide Planning Goals 5, 9, and 10. For example: A. Section 18.790.030 establishes a new discretionary standard that "Protection is preferred over removal whenever practicable." The term "practicable" is newly defined in Section 18.790.o2o(A)(4) as follows: "Practicable means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the available means or resources." B. Section 18.790.030(B) has been extensively amended, adding a series of standards to determine whether the city's preference for tree protection "whenever practicable" has been incorporated into the project design. These standards require the applicant to provide a Tree Plan "narrative and site plan" demonstrating how eight new design and construction techniques will be utilized "to the extent practicable" during development. These new design and construction techniques contain standards and procedures that are not clear and objective. See especially subsections 5(a), (b), and (h). Other standards such as those in subsections 5(c), (d), and (e) are more clear and objective, but do not consider or address the consequences of redesigning, moving, reducing, or eliminating proposed improvements in an effort to preserve trees. In other words, these standards do not consider or address the impacts caused by these new tree removal standards on needed housing under Statewide Planning Goal 10, or on employment and industrial land or on other economic resources protected under Statewide Planning Goal 9. Under this new standard, if it is "practicable" to preserve a portion of a site for trees, that portion of the site is no longer available to serve needed housing or employment needs. These impacts must be considered and weighed now, in order to comply with Goals 5, 9, and 10. C. Section 18.790.030(D) creates a discretionary "peer review" process that the city "may" at its discretion use to judge the "adequacy" of the applicant's tree plan. If such "peer review" is used, it "shall" be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. This discretionary "peer review" process not only violates the needed housing rule, because it does not provide clear and objective standards to judge the adequacy of peer review. It is simply another layer of discretionary review. PDXDOCS:1847319.1 038340 -0004 (MN'' PORTLAND, OREGON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER NASH--P VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members Page 3 D. Section 18.790.030(E) contains the new approval criteria for tree plans. This section contains standards that are not clean and objective —see especially subsections (E) 1, 2, and 4. 2. Goal 5. The proposed amendments to the Tree Removal chapter of the Tigard Development Code are likely to reduce the development potential for residential, commercial, and industrial lands, because much of the city's Buildable Lands Inventory contain trees on sensitive lands. (Compare the city's Buildable Lands Inventory with its Sensitive Lands Map.) Protecting trees "whenever practicable," as proposed in these amendments, will reduce the development potential on otherwise buildable residential, employment, and industrial lands, and will also reduce the redevelopment potential of lands already developed that contain trees on sensitive lands. One of the important functions of Goal is its requirement to explain and justify why Goal 5 resources such as trees on sensitive lands are being protected relative to other identified economic, social, environmental, and energy ( "ESEE ") impacts. Because these proposed tree removal amendments increase the level of protection afforded inventoried Goals resources (i.e., sensitive land containing trees), the requirements of Goal 5 must be complied with, including but not limited to the requisite ESEE analysis. Tigard's sensitive lands code (Chapter 18.775) is explicitly intended to address Goal 5 and implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. One of the express purposes of the tree code is to regulate removal of trees on sensitive lands and prevent erosion on sensitive lands. Under Metro's regulations, proposed tree code amendments on sensitive lands are also subject to Metro Title 13, and its requirements for clear and objective criteria and protection of residential, commercial, and industrial development potential. Conclusion Our main concerns with the tree removal amendments proposed by staff and recommended by the planning commission are that these standards are not clear and objective, and fail to consider the development impact on residential, commercial, and industrial lands, thereby violating ORS 197.307, ORS 197.830, Statewide Goals 5, 9, and 10, and Metro Title 13. We encourage City Council not to adopt these regulations. Instead, we ask that staff be directed to work with the HBA and other interested parties in an effort to create a more clear and objective tree removal process that is easier to understand and PDXDOCS:1847319.1 038340 -0004 PORTLAND, OREGON N SEATTLE, WASHINGTON MILLER 1 VANCOUVER WASHINGTON \ASH CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Mayor Craig E. Dirksen and City Council Members Page 4 administer, and does not significantly constrain the development of needed housing in employment and industrial lands in the City of Tigard. Respectfully submitte. / Phillip E. G llo on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland cc: Mr. Dave Nielsen Mr. Ernie Platt Mr. Alan DeHarpport Mr. Ken Gertz PDXDOCS:1847319.1 038340 -0004 - - 5:e :� - - dl:':IIUC.' :•�Jr: - /�- nWlii: 3i" I" - 1911111111■ ?110- _ -- ii. :RE ` � aF +. •le � e ' i •. . .dl „ a .,5 ;`% I i i I 1 T III Y /. i li , ., - I :E :. ...;I:, -., ,,.,-' - ii___1: ii , ; ; : ' _ ei1 1. . 36 9, - If 4 1 nr r ' $A�{{ ', �'...,,.o " sue �L .o• 0,�.0�6 i �. � _ _ .1 ,,.rl 1 s =- Buildable Lands Lab Ia■ . ►� .. ; / � �� 'V - ■ .� i % � • ' 3 ' � �.� � Il Ill� 11 I T1 _m Inventory L;I : : - ! ��r I . 21a':xbSw■ , ,a ,x :404411.1". ; ;r; , :, r . / ' i ••� 1 �- 1 II!! t .pa.. 1 M 1 . * W MI RIM a m .4124- f - r n.., ME a. 19 . 3 0 s,.,ow« z o 0 0 , a ' ru.. fs 1� ` ( ` ■ n nn n. ■ �■ rnel m[�. -: : ,41411/1&4193 ta uar. �a City of Tigard MgE_, tx nm •' i Memnon ,o ones 0 0 0 o x a .. Is ".....• 1 - � ��•� n w 1 1 u url IISI ■r i rll ,.�� , ` t. _= 1 � • X11 � = e6 11 c " I « Oregon Muwt 9 a.n ;�� 4 + 1 t a fi �II --; ��? o r C_ ,:� t 1 ul i� m ' �Lr { • wR-z x o.n z 4:444..... . I� . , .. ..: :_1_1:44 . . .e + 3 Y~ - an' i 1. I IW '� . ,.d_ 4444 ■ o /L'r -� P 4Iry 1 ■3 x ap9 , a.1.•• 9 . _ -and 1.1_ ♦977 ::♦ i.S� :'..� ••I: •.,.•`� '.1 i : Ilal: a,I _ _ 1 r C __ •c no � r JI:'.':.:: L9�� r. •� r ' . • t � ' � �� I nr . •• • nl n, ,, ■1: , 1 � , • + B„Id.li. land -Je 7. 20DB �! , I - ':en . • \ � � k ...--) ■ : Irl e a n r - : e■n� _ �' '.. •� I_:I ■ ■ti ■as a, zza9 ■, . •'I•. °� :: . � [[ nu :: lm :..r�.,19 llp.na Lod W./sr,d lmerMry V re , ::; bf 1nA0 . 41-4:4 ;. :-1 ::.` :.� .�: p � ` 1 i - y l LVI, 1 ' � L.. ' R1 ,a rs \ �� ' _ L.�.• 7l�I, r•'' vr.:9mi'9 - - : u q � :r. � .� / /�, '.. %, : . ■.,1, _ .r � •� aq " _ �� '' .� � ■ :. .i I i� : - :1. ::u:.. 4%1414 = cws vewcesd coMaol /�i R.,x Uo :1 `Vr. Y $ f �; 0 s R a'6 -_� gym • AI,.r a = m:.; ^a: m:: au .. • .i + l �� K � R-zs es 'If Ll•. 1 � © :� r 31a � y I . �G - - .�'_S/ y :::IC: �II:: :: : a :rw5 ■ 1 f_st1 FEMnt F � • ^ , - * W . z - 4f � � �■ il li�) 32 �.. r # I' r. i ,nui• �l F.,74i :a_v_ .4 s Ge. K ao bo�Pbb _ �.1 sn sxa Ft' 14414,‘ a � �,�' �, � �� I � ( � j� :�� t`. �y 11� � �: UI 1 ■ms: :�.:� �, �-.qs� �■ s ywrr t i re i r 1- 1 L __ © � 3 1•.1 .. . � �, +I *J i la� _ i .I: I _ l.. I_ �,- t, �, w- s..m I, 1� ►•:;,:.• Y /r •� ill s :. .1_: J ':T t"...,,,",--' I -Z M 1 1.311 ►! 11166,- . ' L • � . I 1° =1- • Elie i , . T3W CK:U" r4s.M 1 . 11 15 n r J 11 : ` . nn, ,. - . 11 n (i IU I r .. ■6. - _' � - 1 : 41 .f, � .. & i ,_i_11111 Ii .._ . .�. \� � inumw),#;11110Irri. / , � ..,� �i:: _ I „� . i I�EE.1�.�11 � �,.� '�T �_ ' . 1�� 11..�..�. 1,,- '� .. 1 =.' ,- T \.f. : - !�`. -' I '� -N i■l _ ■ : i jar ■ ,j IA _�'\ I I li g i • - u1 Rj % r , �`�r�•' ' �I roeoe seane.ry - L- l! � i n I �'• Y r� �.. I A a"� ! I � - I ��U. 1 , :: p .r i i p �� i ■ . r .1:��: - � .. 1 1111 : n �► r I 1� ll 1 Zonina Classifications , ,, nn � g 1 11 1, h _ n MN:: . ' r :/ 1.F ^ � •� � _ 1f - q 3 ,4. 1 J r_n) lid. •h - - �s . {z ° , \I 1 ; cz Neigh a Neighborhood C m in e r (�� r'; 1:: e ': lir _ /ri �� r _ 11 :1 f u..■.. ■ ... .r .. • `., � LL ' ,. cener■i "°' C �. i V Orgill 7' %� i � � r: - isS-�a� Is:b. ••>5 t r i.. E � ► r '.• /1.. n■m !,�'■ T y �•!� ��•'7� �� \ ti °�� . � t r-----.-_____!!! '7 �.: ,. • 77771 i L L 1. =1 1=a ., , . / uid I 31 a r ..' 1 � \ � : ■ � I I GPI Neighborhood Co �I pia A : •� @'_ c s,,� _r ' � 'I .ia i n p . ; 4..7, .!.�� ♦ 1: _.. � = , G ° . ��f - r s ° 9 I �a y! +7 r nir_:1111 ,: uip• r •. i . y r . - l ��t E .. - ca P O n .16a 1 - I . i i /�/ « � �a :�yt r. , i 11■ I . I ■ •� • �.��e a� � /(��. 11_ ! � a �e u inr � CBD cena.i saaneffi Da,dt �1 3 _ F e.,,,. _ ■ • .!s AITIllll. v r•' - r r + • �� ' =n - �� F . � /: • '� � ! � G ��I t . _ na ` � i ��. um \ : µ M.a meamei � P; , 77.1 .■... � - i t . . j .. . .■ i i .tlll�� ii - i ,' r11J�:�� •e,E ' � x?I .� � ` � 4 _ ' - ale I I■ I 1 - m ugh "" , _a r s�� sr+„ . i 44IP 111 , • 1. s &I ` 1 11 ■I:Iti:,: el g t. � � s # "I . \ '` l_�i!�i I mm 4dua i.lvuk Ir. ; � ,. a{ 1 1 r . �1.1r r �t ej f 1, 11 11 w q � �' '1 � , , I I Muc Maedueecor.neRai ' .S g >/.ItIr ■ M1 J ✓•• + 1 Ll �• s ) ,i 1., yi4.9.�; U�:. % 1 �� L� � 7 !' -+� . � ■ ��L�= : X 1 1 r ry d , : , ► ■F.i■.. •' ' � P i i l � u,■ �" � V MUE Mi:.d u.. Errolom»ne -i ,f •Q1 1 I al IN 1 I'-// 4 / Il..S ,,' ■ 1 � - :•� , _.I r � ` g lo I r.nt ^I MUE -1 s. US.E m.11 S V ■■ 111 ' t �`� �/ .r - } } /L . �`� ;1'•:. IIIIIIP !♦♦ �v.� 1 MUE-2 Mixed U. Employment 2 ` �... ,=l' - t •�f rl 'i I - . � r /,S`,(' m ��.� A ..".. 1 •� t %♦ �� .J. r � 7 , M UR- IM.edlM RseMkw,6■I1 ti �, a Y S ikilita i; n,�"•,- 1 •�•�•��./ w .:: lki len fi .I J� �• :, •�� , : q„ L Wi 1 r r 1� / UR- Mizad Uw R srd.,aN S2 de ! ' : V 1r 1 �9' r !V► U ■ 1 .� 3 �1 : �..� � W' ', �41 1 Itl"ik 41 M 2 _ r � t T .: 1 / 1 i . I : 1 4 1 1 .T.. • :: - t ♦ i 1 11• �11r - •' ii � • R -1 10030 sa Ft Min Lot s.e � !r ,;I _ � / � ' ' I 1 . 1 f � __ • •..��:1�� 1111 ■�I • •O r � - :�i�l� ©� .' R R-2 20. sa • IL■ , , . . .1 =' •r a it • ,• , �d rlllllll�7.,•.�i' o 0o FtwnLOtsz I 1 .�s_ ■r■ , 1 .- : .. / 1 I -� •t p Pj� �. r ■ I t I jr jr ,,,:in %� a s i l l 1 11 1 IV ■'f ' ■„.1 =,'•! ,, /I1 R-4. , iiiiri;:: 5 7,500 saFt in Lot Sim Size ej'-�Ir X11 . �■ ■1' 1 6 ■ * -•' i �v ■ E : •Rf l&n 1 • / I � 1!. em ilk �) R 7,2 7.500 Sq n Min Lot ®� I:►, •• Y9.•' . 1.: n . .- .1.1",'"7_1-.' ;MO 1 '1. *. -y11. n�... 1 171:' ' 1- ;; � i9.r i ■ • h h'• ■ I_ f�� • i h 1. .� R -7 5, 000 S Ft Mb L. size I"1'h �\ Y p� II %�►�!' /■. 1 . r.�.,. ■..P�: �. . ti r. I .L• � r • �.r1 E L: I: °� 1 rl �:g a �, 1 ©� •��1�� • _yliai�e, g _` "■ •- _n.,1� �� •. ! . I S'w ra 5:,0 : � / ��tf� - I ■ 1.I � , .. -} 4 fir �� =• R -)z 1.o5o�F1M.,LOts,a. ,��! ■■■■a .. rl r �� ■. ■: �J i /11�1,1 r •7 � . � . .1 _�Ir ,M4 Inu ■ `. 5. 1 _� R -25 1..10 Ft Mn lot i �_L ■.� 1r �. •.■. r ._ �■ . • ► \� i' F 1 % .I■ I an n1 • ��' i R<0 bUnit Per,bs un. 111111 . 1 l-V-.■ ■ E-41•,:::',.' .� ∎►� ' gi 'q/ t 7 - - li c .: -: r ■ ,11 [ r y � \ ' ■ , ..1T:inl ..0 ;^ . 1 �1 . : Y4 . �, I_ r . , �. • IN \ _ III I r PD � � I . ( ) Pbnned DsvebpneM Overlay L I I II � . �• �1 ■ !< <� I r � - 1 r• r 1 I�I■ , ;�s� ��. ��l�n 1 - � �� -_ �1 MD) Ni.m,:�Di•a<trnenay t '' .• r i :p \ - _ ■il• t . r■ I 1 5:Q - • a J r ri " • . `t �• O a 1 a to , X', I i\ 2 191] � %I• �•, l r�':il'�it ■_ _I� I♦ Mal r ■� .1� -r ��'� 1 r � r � . e/ ..� a j -y . .r . r te . � n. 1400 r•a i. l.eed oe, 11 I - ` .. r. ■ n .. _ ; � (• ( , 1_ ! ' 1 I :., ,, 1 ,`� �� r ! S ��' I� l I f" v1 ' �� F.ro.or..�ta..1,o..a, w:.•kiyb..,.a p.xk 1111111 ' '�i� 11111'�I if �� F� 1r�. ! r • , �I ii" / ��'� ', +!"�"'lmh �'rb.x„�m. mow,. aa. mR 3 lir I • A � „ �� . 1 r I L !�•� � 1� 'I l arv r ';;�i�� /11u,�♦fi „�\ I II :, j = I J �_ 1_. © I €1If. �i1j••IL. �'11 I1 :� ' - ', � � , ES ...Ai ,.. II 1 l � �� w ",,. ��I y..1 I - 1 = ,�� ■7 • �11111 ( 1 r • ■ o ax a. rLlallnrJ�� -�/ r ow Ili w t. _ 9 t 'h f• L UU it ! -- .. , '` 111" ��. . • +... _ °°" ::,., Aim., 1 4irmi C � ( . . , � A `� � �� ►11 444_4. - •�� 1/ . ` ��- �,� ��m: - -+:: -'tci: i•:.;; s:c ?L 1 ,, 11 ■.�11.. �6 I ruin :: : ? ...••••••••. . 1 n ® 1, -1r .:.,�__ -gG %: �' /I - -�i o imog � � si ... 1. =1 11 1�1ir -' IA ��i: - -°•. all -t. .i1: Will', S r':"h1 %�i� %b' , 1 Miff .;�y,: 1� t d �'<`' \ r -, le ' - /seen , idti .,,J . •... L"11� �.. 1 + 7 = 2 ' r •.:: 1 ■n .i r• - . 1 �� r• '' OP 111 °: 1 1 11111 . 'r I • a � ! .+ b , � �� n11 .,.. : 1 111 11_ ln:i■r � i ;Alit [ 00 : • Win: ,ma 1•I ' f i r 1 , -R nl L._ F 71 _l :. � I :I r -r:: to � .- � ,, . n`. ♦ D ■I` �1 � ,ul • •r • ■ i t � �nr4 r1 _ 1# � t .e' r gl: frtE ^'? .L... . fica ., ► ,` ■� a. ':6 ._Inns■■_ ; � � . 1:;: _�rl ■ .:11::.x1 1: 7e ■ .`G. =: •� � � �r � �•_ y'e• ' • .a: _._ - :•N� --- i. ■s �nl::■e,:e „ ,.,.,• ♦ � 1� ��u � .L. ::- :In in . •: Ht Ars , . � , ,, ,• � i - i , : .. r n C' • � _ 111 ■. 0.11.1 ■ / _ -' .•• on —C + Ci Of Ti and � • MI m ■1 i m *01 7 F - rj0 y c3 '. 0 w - - , ■... ;t ... _ . _ - r Oregon j �•� #� . ` � 11 ... �i'ia::i • %� � �r111 [ :'e :1 . ■ l -441;;;;;' 1■ •}}- � I( 1 ��• . :1 4- ` _„..,t1 C 111 7 - i% r . r� E 1` ; - .` '* jm,�� : • � imi .imi salri ■1 L � 1 •I_ _ io. ht- • ' =T■ : Ilil „ —_: - +� { 41 © m. `I ■ :nn:: ■P I I R I RI:nnl r■ .111 _ . + : : _ l e t t, i : s .1 - o . ''■ /, aaa�� w: =•_l� � ■ L nu 1 1�1�1::: ail.. , : 1: r , - �.� � •• ..._ '� � � ur.e ..1 � 1 '�I 111111 :1: + r� � ` ' µ ! -ID• • • ' • :�1. . - 1 _.-' nnr.. , (e I1, :: ;m g 1.11r....1...I "`: .. 1i u `1 l ` �- .` �� ■._ = , i r� 1�S �s au J' � � GIII � n A ■111: I:. slL: 111. �'IL'I1 °I +�1 t ,r ■ 1 o■.. �i ii f ' `0 1 �, Iism - r ii:::u: : :rm lira'fil drT: 1 .. 1 . alt► ,� yL � ' Z �' „ ,,,,<, ' ' \� ��. ? e■nl !; n12I 1 1 1 1. 11■ r •. � _ 100 . , kb K Highest Value Habitat � �‘N.,11106 ,, /�. r +© i_� "� 1 T 4:1,, _ * . ■ a,l, ila� . _ e 1.1 ,r. l ::;., i 7 - (�� . , � � 1 : , ; . I \ C , ; I . "�' .. f � : 1,!'� 1 5- ' Lr � � T I •'1.�'` 11 • - ' K Moderate Value Habitat • to / /.` � � •� °� � `= -. 1 - ,. • 1, 1 1■ :I • _ .'r .� ��„ _ ° I - Y 1 Y. �a C -� � riot - ` �. Lover Value Habitat Iii C• J _ 1 .�.��a!�o.. `� -rTn 1 ., II u �- i ♦I� . n� 1 ." I , ' t . 1'f i • •. ' � / � � �1:111:Ol'a Y B I r d : 1 :W_i� "�.. 1 `,,,,,,. ■ .,. „ Ee :I ,,.• . 0 . , i . l / .�. ,Naar �IT-f un . \ _ . . , : r : � • ... - -•, ` .. . ,: ■s •,, „ ?,,. ■: R.. „,. 111'1 1 ✓ '`. ._ 1:. - I`:I:� 111 r y` ..r1 r . . � ',i e1 Eft. a 'r'_ , '..;.: f '"_ QCs. `. i s -...! i Vi -11 rj ::r i r- 4 ` © � 412), a� l t er n :Da: ; _rdi, , . •t ��' � ^ � ✓ r- 1 � \ I 3 r • \ ✓ .1 .■ '241041. Q City arms 1 • " I \ i i - J' r . ` 5. i f ' , n, r , - ' � ". • i Mie � ' - 1 ` +� ►1 \ , ■_1e I _'! J ■ e ' r .I • 1 [ � I + r _` r.�I�, . Cc i. j� � ... \ f „, . i — �./ ,e�p , I ' ',i l iI� " ' � 1 � Cl /ificatlona i ♦ : I L. L.� � : ■ i G Tr ■ 1d, w...rp, c r mn � :II I " / J.� L i• - cs .l xra co m■rd.l • ■ ..� • ••1 r =2V • . C �� (' " / C T S (r'�.1 - J� �x obeomoed comma a.l 3''= _ �r� 'll�^v, I. 7/ I r* 1. g i�.M I 1 J Rdc■ - a . � 1 , s . I 1- 1 � I 1 �.. ,� :.11.1 ■MII_I!� , ,„ ,! ': . II 4 1..a C.'"1 llydrrl.. 7 J ' . ■I i - � II 1 r - J 1 1■ 1 111` J ■ � . ` r— 1 / - ' . . I � • 4 • F 92....•": 17 r , � ! .. M I +� • ' ; � in 1 -- � --. MUC•1 IIL.A I1.. c........., t 0.104 � / . `1 , 1 1 1 � .•. :• 1 I _ 1 .111. I � / •r �I�1• • . '■ •w7 •d Ml1E Mad Use 1011 1 ' / � , ' t I Imo, P V.:• : 1= }e 1 \ ( _ - a r '' ' F 491 ��' MUE -1 1"""EnCesrratt 15-1 ee - ._� 1 Q .Y ? - r-r. 1 ► �a �// :T - : ii1 — %,'r /1 „ �I - r: z- _1 1 MUE-2 wlyd 11. Emdginw. T'L 1 ..►.. . 1 .::`- 'Ii ...,1,,,, 1/ ,1•. 0 4 .• Il .;`.. 11 °' O ,, 11 . , �� > . 7. 111110' Ian -. ' t r , .. �' _ �► Q,►�/ �– I ' � © �I,��; Man -, le.lwu..rcwa.ew, y 1. �! 1 • f 1.■ "•i . 4 4 7 * , ♦ i i . ��11111 y 11P L , , .,.� r � . f. ,.. ■ 51' � �� _ �,,.? �= •.� + " 1 r ._, . ., • ' �•p + . fir n .. p• . , 11 . ..... � 11■ u �� Ras 0.gooeaRwn�ots.e : iP. . (• ■ .. ■■�:: • + _�, , r at r ! = :.;1 • ■ ,LIMIT " • .■� ■ Li: R cs rsoosa 1P ■� 3 ■ .. ■>• � t � 1f ::IVI II I „; L1 ► Ft Len Let Sta. :L= '■, �.n - � =� ■::�ii � J ■ 1 � 'fi�■�: ri n ..q+.■i : 7 ' = •� 5 :�� i � n �lyra.n. Ii ■1111 I � R4 sgaaSVRMlnl.ttlm. t1:1 1 ■ ■nri T ■\ 1 J► % •r i 11 L. i �■ �� f .... '.° �� E R -tz 0,0508■RI#n Let Si:. - .1.741 1 1 + 0 1 .,■ ■ ■■ •v' t 11 �' 1 ��•. • ►y _ 1 mu .- �w. V' . R-zs t.�eosa ewnlds:. 7f1w: �.r - !L� � .0 ■■!'1:�:' �� ' � � i i11�f- rr►16 111■ ! .L.. ��1711■ . •r•'iti� `_• ' �� °■■��I -: � e• ♦ _. ■ �.' t 1 . � ,�:: � % ,1� ■ ■ �P 11! l�.�':::i � I 1 ��1 a .- � .■ ..; ' `' m c'Ir �111d': ©.11L■1 ■ .•• 9 rr:'T I. '•a . ■ R10 4°,.. - A■e a.�� a � ��= i � � /, 1 � � J■�■r, ' ::e °:':• °. _ 5 '± I �il�� I� I 1 1� inP lvg) Pwnw oev.lotnwnovemr ��lol "' .: � 0 '311-1.41.:., .� , I ?".37 ■.1 . . floral ") ""'"' 01■rld grad IL ',�. � �_ ' 'e n -,.'e l �a I ' • k , i r ��'�i 1 i ■: - ii7 r e 1± ', 7 it r '� : it 1 M ir 1 U • r ®I I j t. Iu ■ :. I ■I - i .–a ■ , 1 _' ■, . + T■■..■■■.dM■.a.a l.wl..e... ' r � a� ■° � - girt' i•• r • V �, � . T ■ I .n■ - �1 � �, � . ■ ■ ' \ . ' • 0■1■■IW `""a"' .I Mnllar.eda.s Y.«.... " — / - .•, � � • rti�. ^ ,: r , / <-: ..1. ... rA r--- i •'. - l.r. ■� a ∎ � � _ ,r..r ien'n.■ra .I.onr.. a.rrbn OF 4111 A i" 1 k 1 , 1 � 1 / ` I t - L y . I t : 1_ 1 ■ � r'" ` ��i A :71 1 � i• \ \ aidi l e-. j - 4 a ,(g J .Ll-.I �t ' ` r I J �I r 1 . I 7M ■. P ,*kwMi i Nom ....*ms 11 1 : \ 4 1 t I -^ 1• 1 L - ) i � r ■I I ■TI■4■r ■■.trN..br■W.I PI..wdlMe a g � \ � y I 5 ��© = * i 1 I . - � � > r l ., � / l \ � � ,rf0 a■w.. M.■■.rw. ■rw.+wlu. II ' '�� II�II g a V1 fa l, ., 41111_!:-!..11 a I ° al ■I ° -' ,. �i/ t , I �1- 1 1 e'I, ih..ea. 45.i .:17.4 e.v.rd ��. � 1'� % - 1 1 • ° . !� �1\ 1 ._. , r �r A �� 1Y' a..� r. Is�� ...sY me<ba■rYasl.IdY■q 1 �. 1 411 11 1 1' ti eri� 41 , ' pp � 1 . li , _, _ a / 1 MI 11 � � '� Ribs& , 4; 110 a i ' ).0 1" . 1 1 011.1 ® 1 ∎ ■ ��1� D/ i �1' ' � �� 1. 1 L . ...III , .......111,11 ., il ,- 'To. 1.44 — 1=-- ----'.------ . r i Aik ..........- .....r,.a te.. Cathy Wheatley From: John Floyd l U{� Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:56 PM ` l4' i!C To: Craig Prosser; Ron Bunch; Cathy Wheatley 9 s V Cc: Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss; Dick Bewersdorff; Todd Prager , / - (, / Subject: RE: Testimony: Tree Removal �p �Q ` Coles -e- Thanks. From: Craig Prosser Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:54 PM To: John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: Testimony: Tree Removal FYI From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd ©tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:46 PM To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Testimony: Tree Removal From: jfrewing [SMTP:JFREWING(c�TELEPORT.COMj Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:43:58 PM To: Craig Dirksen Subject: Testimony: Tree Removal Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and Councilors, Below is my testimony for tonight's public hearing on amending the TDC Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. John Frewing TREE CODE UPDATE TO INCORPORATE INTERPRETATION OF 'PREFERENCE' TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING, MAY 12, 2009 While not giving up on the various comments which I have previously submitted, two things still concern me about the proposed change, where simple changes can resolve them and lead to a more meaningful tree removal ordinance for Tigard: A Definition of 'hazardous tree.' The Director's interpretation which sought to define how preference will be given to tree preservation includes clarification of 'tree', because such definition defines the scope of the tree plan and scope of city regulation. I believe that a tree can be a hazard to people or property as it stands today, but with corrective action, such as pruning, can be safe and an important asset to a residence and to the city as a whole. Because 'tree' was within the scope of the director's interpretation, 'hazardous tree' should also be within the scope of this change. I believe that the definition of 'hazardous tree' should read: "Hazardous tree means a tree, means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a i known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property and which cannot be rendered non- hazardous by use of standard arboricultural techniques, eg spraying, pruning, fertilizing, etc. B Responsibility for determining 'practicable'. The essence of the entire Tigard code is that it sets rules for development, rules which use English language understandable to applicants and the public and which are used by city officials to determine compliance or not. The city should not give up its authority to apply the code words in determining compliance. The present code change calls for the use of certain design and construction techniques 'to the extent practicable'. In deliberation of the Planning Commission (see bottom, page 7/9 of their March 16, 2009 minutes), it is written that the applicant would determine the meaning of 'practicable'. I am concerned that this notation in the legislative history makes the entire requirement for plan submittal meaningless. The city officials must retain the right and obligation to make their call on what is 'practicable'. Of course such determination by the city can be challenged, but to leave the determination entirely to the applicant means that whatever the applicant submits is acceptable; this should not be the case. This situation can be simply fixed in the present proposed ordinance by adding to the definition of 'practicable' the words "as explained by applicant and approved by city officials." Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing @teleport.com 2 known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property and which cannot be rendered non- hazardous by use of standard arboricultural techniques, eg spraying, pruning, fertilizing, etc. B Responsibility for determining 'practicable'. The essence of the entire Tigard code is that it sets rules for development, rules which use English language understandable to applicants and the public and which are used by city officials to determine compliance or not. The city should not give up its authority to apply the code words in determining compliance. The present code change calls for the use of certain design and construction techniques 'to the extent practicable'. In deliberation of the Planning Commission (see bottom, page 7/9 of their March 16, 2009 minutes), it is written that the applicant would determine the meaning of 'practicable'. I am concerned that this notation in the legislative history makes the entire requirement for plan submittal meaningless. The city officials must retain the right and obligation to make their call on what is `practicable'. Of course such determination by the city can be challenged, but to leave the determination entirely to the applicant means that whatever the applicant submits is acceptable; this should not be the case. This situation can be simply fixed in the present proposed ordinance by adding to the definition of 'practicable' the words "as explained by applicant and approved by city officials." Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing @teleport.com 2 Gt 4-0 6Y a oZ City of Tigard ( TIGARD Memorandum To: Mayor Dirksen and the Tigard City Council From: John Floyd, Associate Planner Re: Recommended Changes to Tree Code Amendment DCA2009 -00001 Date: May 12, 2009 The intent of this memorandum is to present recommended changes to the Tree Code Amendment forwarded by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. These recommendations are included as Attachment "1 ", and are a result of the following: ➢ Feedback received from City Council at the February 21, 2009 workshop. These changes are marked in GREEN. ➢ Advice from the City Attorney's office. This has also been marked in Green. )=. Electronic Correspondence from Councilor Nick Wilson dated May 4, 2009 (Attachment 2). These changes are marked in PURPLE. The use of color coded sections is to help distinguish recent suggestions from the text of the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Feedback In response to Council feedback received at the April 21, 2009 workshop, it is recommended that clarifying edits be made to the purpose statement and the narrative question found in section 18.790.030.B.5. These changes have been incorporated into Attachment "1" of this memo and are marked in green. Consultations with City Attorney Following the Planning Commission's decision on March 16, and a conversation with the legal counsel of the Homebuilder's Association of Metropolitan Portland, the City Attorney's office has recommended some structural changes to ensure the proposed amendment complies with Statewide Planning Goal 10, and more specifically the requirement for a "clear and objective" approval track. Recommended changes include the following: ➢ Removal of peer review from Planning Director's authority. Any decision to refer a project to peer review would be discretionary in nature. A project would therefore have to submit a narrative that answered "yes" to all questions listed in 18.790.030(B)5 or face denial. ➢ Either removal of the peer review section, or conversion of this section to an alternative approval process that would provide an optional and discretionary path to project approval. 1 ➢ Amending the approval criteria: o Modifying Approval Criteria 1 to state that the narrative must answer "yes" to all 8 narrative questions in order to be approved. o Restricting use of Approval Criteria 2 to only those projects choosing an Alternative (i.e. discretionary) Approval Path o Removal of Approval Criteria 3 and 4 Unfortunately the City Attorney's review of the documents and relevant LUBA cases was not able to be completed before distribution and publication of the May 12 Council packet. In response, planning department staff has incorporated those changes into Attachment 1 of this memorandum, also marked in green. It is recommended that Council consider the advice and direct staff to prepare alternative language if so desired. Councilor Wilson On May 4 staff and the Council received correspondence from Councilor Nick Wilson regarding the proposed amendments to the Tigard Tree Removal Code (Attachment 2). Unfortunately this too was received too late to be contained in the May 12 Council packet. In that correspondence Councilor Wilson suggested alternative language to that recommended by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. This language has been incorporated into Attachment "1" and is demarcated in purple to distinguish it. The rationale for the alternative language is as follows: • Primary concern is with respect to the approval criteria. Feels that the new code allows the City to reject any development that it considers insufficiently protective of trees, and objects to it for the same reason that he objected to the proposal to give the City broad discretion to revoke business licenses. It gives the City almost dictatorial power to completely reject an application based on a subjective judgment. • Believes that development code should be clear, concise, simple, fair, contain objective criteria, and be effective and efficient in accomplishing the public purpose for which they are written. The proposed revisions start to move away from these principles. • If the intent is to inject some discretion into the development code and encourage developers to negotiate with staff in an effort to reduce the impact to trees, he believes there are better ways to do that, such as through the application of incentives or penalties. • Considers the developer /owner to be in the best position to make decisions regarding the fate of existing trees because he /she is the one making the big investment. • Recommends that landscape architects be allowed to review and sign plans in addition to certified arborists. • Doesn't think it is standard practice to measure trees by tenths of inches and it seems extraordinarily nit- picky. • Rather than estimating distances from the property line, recommends that the plan inventory and address trees whose canopies overhang the project site. • I would suggest that the narrative questions in 18.790.030.B.5 be put to a different use and thinks that in most cases it will be obvious whether these concerns were or were not addressed and will not have much effect. Suggests eliminating paragraph 5 as a submission requirement and instead moving the questions a. through h. as review criteria that the Planning Director will consider when deciding whether to pursue a Peer Review process. 2 • Strongly suggests simplifying the peer review and modification processes. He finds both to be too difficult and time- consuming, and believes that developers will take out every tree if there is the slightest doubt about whether it can be saved. All decisions must have some flexibility and be made quickly after the start of construction. 3 ATTACHMENT 1 DCA2009 -00001 Recommended Amendments to Tigard Development Code 18.790 (Tree Removal) Changes in Red: Tigard Planning Commission recommendation of March 16 Changes in Green: Suggested changes in response to April 21 Council Workshop and City Attorney Comments and Changes in Purple: Suggested by Councilor Wilson — May 4, 2009 Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees en sensitive lames in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. 1 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the available means or resources; 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50 %) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7 . " Tree " means . - . .... • .. • ; _ . • .. • - , . • .. . - - - . - •• . • . .. • . _ .. • any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; Councilor Wilson's Alternative would split this into two definitions: "Tree" means any living standing woody plant 6" Diameter Breast Height (DBH) or greater." "Diameter Breast Height (DBH)" means the measurement of the diameter of a tree trunk at 54 inches (4 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. For trees that split into multiple trunks above the ground but below 54 inches, the measurement shall be measured at the most narrow point beneath the split. For trees that split below the ground each trunk shall be considered one tree. 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal, and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist and /or landscape architect shall be provided for any lot, parcel, or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever pessle practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition, and species of all existing trees. , . • , • - - - • In addition to trunk locations, the plan shall include the approximate edge of canopy for each tree or group of trees including offsite trees which 2 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 overhang the project site; 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Councilor Wilson's recommended alternative: Identification of the location, size (DBH) rounded to the nearest inch, condition and species... a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); Councilor Wilson's recommended alternative: "including offsite trees whose canopies overhang the project site." 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or "no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in relation to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non - hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? 3 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 d. Are lot layouts and building locations configured so that roads and driveways . • • - - • - - and buildin • foo 'tints are located outside of the • driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? Councilor Wilson's recommendation: remove Section 5 and questions a- h altogether, and establish them as review criteria in Section 18.790030(D). 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist or landscape architect that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and /or the amount of caliper inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Subsequent Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning_Director or approving authority may, at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third -party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third -party certified arborist shall b e incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. • ... ! - C •• :.n - "„s0i or': v.; .:.:•.f..a•r�.:.:ar�r. ��. .:..i n t.Sa G..e. - • rijs:.•. • • • .....w. . ..: aq. t. .3•3=FI a.p .�.•...).: a: /a\w•.: .* H..:1lSa f. . . The Planning Director will review the Tree Plan and will consider at a minimum the following: a. Does the • ro'ect • ro • ,n• r ° ,in xi tin • n • n -h . z . rd• trees that are not likel to become a hazar • • . ri • • • z s ° 0 " .,m n • i - r • - it existing condition abili to withstand un , • . • • - • ! t+ + , • • • . = • _ e_ 'mi to • ro • osed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? 4 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines. or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts and building locations configured so that roads and driveways - : - ,n• • A. in. • • pp rin : , re located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and /or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation. use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? If after reviewing the tree plan, the Planning Director concludes that alterations to the project design could result in reduced impacts to trees, he may at his sole discretion, subject the plan to a third party review process by appropriate consultants under contract with the City. If the third party consultants find that additional trees can be retained through an alternate design, the planning director shall present their findings to the applicant. The applicant may at his option, accept their recommendations and retain the trees, or reject the recommendations and mitigate for trees that could have been preserved at a rate of 2 times each caliper inch according to 18.790.060D. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve. approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C). including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments and an answer of "yes" on all questions required in section 18.790.030(b)5; and . - . .. . • • � .. . . • ..4w� aw�awr.:a: �,:as•ai ia: r•■••:. G.:a s..ia:� :i. �. • .. • • . • • • . . . . . . • • .. • - .. - • - • 1 1 • 5 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request. An applicant may request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development by: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in subsection B below. B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined by the whole of the original project; or 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more; C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification as follows: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification. C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more 6 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25 %, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial /industrial /civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off -Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial /civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Permit-Applieability Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of 7 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 1 surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment -laden flows; or evidence of on -site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75 %. B. Effective date of permit. A tree remov permit shall be effective for one and one -half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax - deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegieval Violations and Replacement Standards A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she 8 DCA2009 -00001 ATTACHMENT 2 John Floyd From: Nick Wilson [Nick @atlas- la.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:33 PM To: John Floyd Cc: Todd Prager; Craig Prosser; Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance John, Oops! I just realized that there is not much of a penalty if a developer has to go through the peer review process and then only mitigates at the rate that he would have had to mitigate anyway. See suggested changes below in green. My primary concern with the Recommended Amendments to the Tigard Development Code 18.790 (Tree Removal) is with respect to the approval criteria. The new code allows City to reject any development that it considers insufficiently protective of trees. I object to it for the same reason that I objected to the proposal to give the City broad discretion to revoke business licenses. It gives the City almost dictatorial power to completely reject an application based on a subjective judgment. I believe that development code should be clear, concise, simple, fair, contain objective criteria, and be effective and efficient in accomplishing the public purpose for which they are written. The proposed revisions start to move away from these principles. If the intent is to inject some discretion into the development code and encourage developers to negotiate with staff in an effort to reduce the impact to trees, I believe that there are better ways to do that. I think that a simpler "peer review" process would be acceptable and potentially effective but the outcome should not be mandated. Rather, if the developer rejects the peer review design solution, then the developer might be required to pay a higher mitigation fee if those trees that would otherwise be retained are removed. I think that the City should be able to apply incentives or penalties for removal of trees but not to completely reject a project or to dictate specific design solutions. Sometimes it is entirely feasible to preserve trees with retaining walls, or steeper streets, or odd shaped lots, or constrained parking layouts, alternate building floor plans, or some combination of design changes. However many tree protection design solutions may be detrimental to the overall project in some way. And some trees are simply not worth protecting. A majestic 60" Oregon oak is worth investing far more effort to save than a 12" alder with a broken top. Ultimately someone must make a value decision about the tradeoffs. The developer /owner is in the best position to make those decisions because he /she is the one making the big investment. Sometimes a little creativity can result in a design that saves trees and improves the overall project. I think that should be the goal of a third party review process. I have made some line by line suggestions below, including a simpler peer review process below (code language shown in plum color, commentary in blue). Line by line comments and suggestions: 790.020 A 7. I would suggest splitting this definition in two. One definition for a `tree" and one for "diameter breast height (DBH)" so that you can refer to "DBH" later (see my comment for 790.030 B. 1.) as follows: 7. Tree means any living standing woody plant 6" Diameter Breast Height (DBH) or greater. 8 (or whatever if alphabetical). Diameter Breast Height (DBH) refers to the measurement of the diameter of a tree trunk at 54 inches (4 % feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. For trees that split into multiple trunks above the ground but below 54 inches, the measurement shall be measured at the most narrow point beneath the split. For trees that split below the ground each trunk shall be considered one tree. 790.030 B. 1. I would suggest adding the following sentence: 1 In addition to trunk locations, the plan shall include the approximate edge of canopy for each tree or group of trees including offsite trees which overhang the project site. 790.030 A. I would suggest either "reviewed and signed by a certified arborist "or `prepared and signed by a certified arborist and/or landscape architect". Usually the tree protection plans are prepared by the landscape architect but with input by the arborist. The reason is that landscape architects have training in both tree care and training to produce CAD drawings and specifications for construction contracts. Arborists are more specialized in trees alone and therefore may have a deeper knowledge of trees but they generally lack the ability to produce drawings and are less familiar with administering construction contracts. Ideally it would be a collaboration between the two but on small projects it could be an arborist alone. 790.030 B. 2. I don't think it is standard practice to measure trees by tenths of inches and it seems extraordinarily nit-picky. I think it would be okay to round to the nearest inch but I would put that in paragraph 1. Identification of the location, size (DBH) rounded to the nearest inch, condition and species... 790.030 B. 4 I would change this to "including offsite trees whose canopies overhang the project site." Since we have added language to have the surveyor pick up the edge of the canopies in 790.030 B. 1. , we can simply address impacts under the canopies and don't need to get anyone's permission to do anything offsite. 790.030 B. 5 I would suggest that these questions be put to a different use. I think that in most cases it will be obvious whether these concerns were or were not addressed. If you make the applicant go through the motions of writing a narrative for each question, it could be largely make-work for consultants driving the project cost up but not necessarily having much effect. I would suggest eliminating paragraph 5 as a submission requirement and instead moving the questions a. through h. as review criteria that the Planning Director will consider when deciding whether to pursue a Peer Review process. See comment on Peer Review below. 790.030 B. 5 Add "or landscape architect" Again, landscape architects are the specialists who produce planting plans, not arborists. 790.030 D. Peer Review The Planning Director will review the Tree Plan and will consider at a minimum the following: a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous... If after reviewing the tree plan, the Planning Director concludes that alterations to the project design could result in reduced impacts to trees, he may at his sole discretion, subject the plan to a third party review process by appropriate consultants under contract with the City. If the third party consultants find that additional trees can be retained through an alternate design, the planning director shall present their findings to the applicant. The applicant may at his option, acce t their recommendations and retain the trees, or reject the recommendations and mitigate the. trees that could have been preserved according to 18.790.060D I would assume that the review process would include a fee. Applicants would want to avoid going through this process because of the fee, mitigation costs, the additional time it would take as well as the potential picking apart of the design. So I would anticipate that in most cases there would be some negotiations to avoid the process. The City might need to engage a variety of consultants depending on the expertise needed. They might be an architect, a civil engineer, an arborist, landscape architect, electrical engineer, traffic engineer, or whatever depending on the situation. 790.030 F. Modification 2 I would strongly suggest simplifying the process. If the modification requirements are too difficult and time - consuming, developers will take out every tree if there is the slightest doubt about whether it can be saved. In my experience, I have lost trees that we thought that we could save and made every effort to save. I have also seen trees survive severe impacts unscathed. You don't always know how things are going to turn out. I think it is better to try to save them even if you know you might be impacting them, rather than take them out. You never know when you might get lucky. But if the developer is penalized for trying, the tree will be condemned during the planning process and ultimately more trees will be lost. All construction contracts have a date for completion of the project that the contractor must adhere to. Delays are very costly. In addition, when workers are idle or taken off the job it is very expensive. All decisions after the start of construction must be made very quickly. Sometimes changes must be made due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the presence of rock or unsuitable soils that require alteration of trench locations. Sometimes roots are not where they are expected to be. The changes to the plan must be as simple as calling the city arborist to come out and give the okay within 24 hours or so. If you don't allow for this, developers will take everything out anywhere near where they are working because of the potential for delays involved in the modification process. Thanks for considering these comments. I will also have some comments on the Urban Forest Plan later. Nick Wilson Atlas Landscape Architecture 320 SW 6th Avenue, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224-5238 http://www.atlas-la.com/ From: John Floyd [mailto:Johnfl @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 5:07 PM To: Nick Wilson; Councilmail Councilmail Cc: Todd Prager; Craig Prosser; Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Councilor Wilson, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and expertise on this matter. I and other staff am very eager to hear your alternative language and technical comments, just let us know how we may be of assistance. Also, nothing was taken personally and we greatly appreciate the insights you bring to this subject. Have a great weekend. Regards, John From: Nick Wilson [mailto:Nick @atlas- la.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 10:15 AM To: Councilmail Councilmail; Craig Prosser Cc: John Floyd; Todd Prager Subject: Tree Ordinance 3 To my esteemed Council Colleagues, Regarding the tree ordinance discussion on Tuesday night, I was disappointed with myself that I was unable to convince at least two of you that the proposed ordinance is heading in the wrong direction. I attribute that to my inability to clearly articulate my objections. I generally read the Council Packets over the weekend prior to the meeting. A couple of days was not enough time for me to develop a clear and compelling argument. But I am going to keep trying. You can expect a formal dissenting opinion from me when I have time to get to it. In the mean time I have been mulling over a potential alternative that might accomplish the same objective. For John and Todd, I appreciate your work and please don't take my objections personally. I will also forward you some technical concerns that I have with the ordinance that I briefly touched on during the meeting. Thanks! Nick Wilson Atlas Landscape Architecture 320 SW 6th Avenue, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224 -5238 hp: / /www.atlas- la.com/ • 4 Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 12, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements (DCA2008- 00005) to remove criterion 18.775.070.B.5, which prohibits pathways located within or adjacent to the floodplain to be below the elevation of the average annual flood. 0 Prepared By Gary Pagenstecher Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ,.,I , Y ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve a Development Code Amendment to Section 18.775.070.B.5, removing a criterion for pathways located within or adjacent to the floodplain to be below the elevation of the average annual flood and, instead, require that pedestrian /bicycle pathways within the floodplain include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed Development Code Amendment as amended and recommended by the Planning Commission. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 23, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Community Development Department request (DCA2008- 00005) to amend the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Tigard Development Code to remove a criterion (18.775.070.B.5) prohibiting pathways located within or adjacent to the floodplain to be below the elevation of the average annual flood. It became apparent through the City's design development process for Lower Fanno Creek Park that removal of this section would allow pathways to be installed in areas which would benefit the public (access to and educational appreciation of ecological areas). The Commission received substantial public comment on the proposal principally concerned with wildlife protection and water quality. The Commission decided to continue the hearing and directed staff to prepare an options analysis. The Community Development Department received further public comment and met with the parties in opposition to discuss their concerns. An options analysis was prepared, which the Planning Commission discussed at its April 6, 2009 meeting. At the hearing, there was continued public testimony clearly favoring siting and designing pathways that avoid impacts to wildlife habitat and water quality and opposing the removal of the elevation standard. The Planning Commission approved (5 -1) a motion to approve the Community Development Department's recommendation, Option 3.c (Memo dated April 6, 2009), which replaces the elevation standard with the requirement for a wildlife assessment. Potential conflicting goals in the Comprehensive Plan and criterion in the Development Code for floodplain management hinge around the notion of striking a balance between natural resource protection and recreational use. The proposed code amendment is legislative and would apply to all floodplains within the City. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The April 6, 2009 Memo included six options that range from retaining criterion 5, to removing it altogether, including three options with amended language to allow paths within the floodplain where practicable to achieve project objectives, requiring a natural resource assessment, and changing the elevation to "ordinary high water ". CITY COUNCIL GOALS The proposed amendment does not directly relate to City Council's 2009 or Five Year Goals. However, the addition of a criterion for the protection of wildlife for paths proposed in the floodplain would update the code to be consistent with new Comprehensive Plan policies that support habitat protection (Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1, policy 17 and Goal 8.2, policy 2). ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance Exhibit A: Proposed Code Text Changes Attachment 2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2009 and February 23, 2009 Attachment 3: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 2009 Attachment 4: Memo to the Planning Commission dated April 6, 2009 Attachment 5: Comment letters received for the Planning Commission's April 6, 2009 meeting FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact anticipated for this action. However, at the time the City initiates pathway development in the floodplain, the additional cost of a wildlife assessment would be expected. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A DCA2008 -00005 SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS This text amendment employs the following formatting: [Bold italics] — Text to be added [Strikethr-otigh] — Text to be removed 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in Sections 18.775.020.F and 18.775.020.G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in Sections 18.775.070.B — 18.775.070.E below. B. Within the 100 -year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100 -year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero -foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100 -year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; 3. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 -year flood; 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; 5 . .., -: :. - , 4 : • : .. - . ..., : • ._ . , - . Pedestrian /bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habita4 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 6, 2009 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, Hasman, Muldoon, and Vice President Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Fishel, Vermilyea, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gus Duenas, City Engineer; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner; Todd Prager, City Arborist; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Doherty reported that she'd attended the Metro 101 session in Hillsboro. She gave a short report and distributed CD's with the information to the Commissioners, along with an Urban and Rural Reserves Phase 3 Public Meeting Schedule. Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI (Committee for Citizen Involvement) meeting, and that he found that most of the neighborhoods are up and live with their websites. He said that's going well. He reported that Gus Duenas (City Engineer) is keeping the committee busy with Hwy 99W and street improvements. Vice President Walsh reported that he'd attended the Tree Board meeting the week before and they would be getting an update at the end of the meeting tonight. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 3 -2 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon to approve the 3 -2 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Pagc 1 of 9 The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (4) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Anderson, Caffall, and Walsh (3) ABSENT: Commissioner Fishel, Vermilyea (2) 3 -16 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon to approve the 3 -16 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) • ABSTAINERS: Commissioners Caffall and Walsh (2) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 -00011 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Tigard Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Incorporate Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan Recommendations PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for public review at the City one week prior to public hearings.] Wyss said the Planning Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council on CPA2008- 00011, which will amend the Tigard TSP and Comp Plan. He noted the Commission previously held a workshop on the proposed amendment on March 2, 2009. He said the proposed amendments will incorporate recommendations found in the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan and those made by the project's Citizen Advisory Committee [CAC]. PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 2 of 9 Wyss highlighted a few components of the process: • Intended to develop concept -level recommendations for transportation improvements and additional interventions to meet future needs in the corridor. • The primary focus was to identify potential projects aimed at alleviating congestion and improving circulation. • The planning process ended up evaluating three alternatives • A — partial widening of 99W thru Tigard • B — access management strategy in Tigard • C — Widening of 99W to 7 lanes thru Tigard Wyss noted that in the end, Alternative B was chosen as the preferred alternative as it best met the project objectives and criteria while carrying the fewest negative impacts. He said it was important to keep in mind that choosing Alternative B was not done in a vacuum. Both public involvement and interagency coordination factored into choosing the preferred alternative. The proposed amendments found in CPA2008 -00011 were developed as a result of Alternative B being chosen. In addition to the recommendation found in the Plan, the CAC developed a list of its own recommendations to Council which are included as proposed Recommended Action Measures to be added to the Comp Plan transportation chapter. He said the proposed amendments are divided into the following four components: 1. Update the Tigard Transportation System Plan to include recommended changes found in the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan; 2. Incorporate the Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan by reference into the Tigard Transportation System Plan to serve as findings; 3. Update the recommended action measures for Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 12: Transportation to include language recommended by the Tigard 99W Plan Citizen Advisory Committee; and 4. Amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.A (under Goal 12.2) to reflect recommended through lanes for Highway 99W. (Staff recommended for consistency with TSP amendments.) Wyss noted a few minor changes had been made to the proposed amendments since the PC workshop on March 2, 2009. These changes were based on two things: • PC feedback at the workshop • Comments sent in by ODOT and Beaverton At this point Wyss went over a PowerPoint presentation. (Exhibit A) QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS Is "function" defined? We can do that. PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR — No one signed up to speak in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION MI117,TING MINIMS — April 6, 2009 — Page 3 of 9 PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — No one signed up to speak in opposition. President Inman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this. Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, had a couple of questions regarding changes Wyss had made to table 11 -4 and 11 -5 — which he answered to her satisfaction. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS /MOTION After a short deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Caffall: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2008 -00011 and recommend the City Council adopt the amendments to the Tigard Transportation System Plan and Tigard Comprehensive Plan as found in Exhibit A [of staff report] ." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) After the vote, Wyss was reminded that they would like him to add the definition of "function." He said he would. President Inman noted this will go to Council's 6/23/09 Business Meeting. 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from 2- 23 -09) DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2008 -00005 - SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - On behalf of the City, Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, handed out a revised memo (Exhibit B) with the changes in red. He said they offer a refinement in staff recommendation — Option 3.c [3.c states: "Pedestrian /bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat. "] He said there were some comments [from Brian Wegener & John Frewing] at the back of that memo as well as a memo from Public PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING T'ING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 4 of 9 Works, Steve Martin [Parks & Facilities Manager]. Pagenstecher went over the memo which, he said, reflects the input he'd received. Pagenstecher said there were basically two issues: 1) the elevation criteria; and 2) the wildlife habitat issue. The revised recommendation gets rid of the elevation criteria altogether and instead requires a wildlife assessment for pathways within the floodplain. Briefly, the elevation criteria were originally designed for structure, protection, and maintenance. He said the Public Works memo spoke to that advising him that it simply wasn't an issue. Adding a criterion for wildlife is recommended for trails in the flood plain. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about the difference between bike and pedestrian impacts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR — No one was signed up to speak in favor. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION — John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR spoke in opposition. He went over his written submitted comments at the back of the packet (back of Exhibit B). With regard to 3.c — he said there were several things that caused him concern. He'd like to see 3.c changed to say "pedestrian or bicycle pathways which are either replaced, new, or modified from this date forward, shall include this wildlife assessment." Secondly, he asked "what is a wildlife assessment ?" He said he can do a wildlife assessment in about 1 second. Someone else may take more time because it involves fish, or birds, or frogs, or whatever — are there standards that we can reference in that regard? He said he doesn't know. "Thirdly, you've used the word "significant wildlife habitat" that in our [Tigard] code — there's a map of significant wildlife habitat adopted for Goal 5 and I presume that's what you mean, but it doesn't say that here." He went on to say that "CWS right now has a waiver for existing roads and trails in these low lying areas and so anything that exists that you're going to modify, repave, or replace escapes through that provision of CWS. And I don't want it to escape. I want it to have the wildlife assessment." Pagenstecher answered that any trail would go through a design development process and where trails are, for instance, modified for width, you would expect to have an assessment because they would be "new" trails and would be subject to the criterion for pathways in a floodplain. Frewing said that was comforting to him. He then asked about the standard for wildlife assessment. Pagenstecher said there is no criterion for wildlife assessment at this time. It's not in the code and not proposed here. There are standards for it. There are wildlife assessments — they are ordered for a purpose. Secondly, Frewing asked whether wildlife assessment would be done at one point in time, or done over several important seasons. Pagenstecher said wildlife assessments indicate time of year done and try to accommodate for that. Frewing said seasonal differences should be picked up in a wildlife assessment. Did you say that would be picked up? Pagenstecher said yes, I think that would PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIND' S - April 6, 2009 — Page 5 of 9 be picked up. Frewing: Lastly, does "significant wildlife habitat" correspond to the city's map? Pagenstecher: What we're talking about here is a criterion that applies specifically to floodplains in the City of Tigard. Floodplains correlate with the highest height and limit value on the habitat map. Frewing: Okay — so it refers to the map. Pagenstecher: Yes. Erik Lindstrom, 6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive, Portland 97225 spoke in opposition — He thanked Gary for meeting with them on Friday and answering many of his concerns. He said he'd studied the watershed very intently for two years as part of writing a book about Fanno Creek. He spoke about management of ecosystem services and wildlife habitat within the City limits. He said he was concerned about the process itself. He doesn't like the idea of modifying code to meet the plan. He's not convinced the details are there that the certain damage that will occur to the watershed as a result of this is mitigated and offset by other activities. There were no questions from staff. Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard spoke in opposition. She handed out her comments in written form and went over them (Exhibit C). There were no questions from staff. Brian Wegener, 12360 SW Main Street, Suite 100, Tigard, OR of the Tualatin Riverkeepers hadn't signed up, but spoke in opposition. He said he's concerned about bicycle road kills in these sensitive areas. He'd seen some of them. He's also concerned about trail washouts. Impacts should be minimized. He thinks the wildlife assessment should be defined. He's hoping this will be a "win -win" situation. He likes trails and access to nature but wants to make sure we are not taking away that nature by putting those trails in. QUESTIONS FROM STAFF: What do you believe is the solution? The solution could be perhaps putting trails going through wet areas up on pilings. In a slope situation — there are a lot of different choices. Reduce impervious areas that are causing stormwater run -off - that's very important to areas close to the streams. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Did ODF&W further comment? No. Pagenstecher said he called to follow up on their first comment. He said the comment was global in that when there's a limited resource — generally speaking, the policy is — protect it whenever you can. He said that's consistent with their mission. PLANNING COMMISSION M Ii TING MINUI'EsS —April 6, 2009 — Page 6 of 9 Is there the possibility of the City looking at what sort of su — what the trail's going to be made out of— before a trail is put in a floodplain? Is there any possibility in this code to go through and have that as part of the criteria? There are opportunities to introduce and apply green [environmentally friendly] trail criterion in the design development of any trail segment that the City may undertake. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Inman said a floodplain is not necessarily a natural resource area so, potentially, we could be requiring wildlife assessments for a parking lot. She believes this is above and beyond other standards that are currently out there, and potentially onerous. She said she leans towards faith in CWS and other regulations as far as protecting resources and buffers — there's a dedicated public who will follow the development of the plan and will give input with regard to paths. That being said, she's not opposed to adding a wildlife assessment. The commissioners deliberated at length. MOTION After deliberations, there was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman: "I move we adopt DCA2008 -00005 Sensitive Lands Permit Requirement, selecting Option 3.c as amended April 6, 2009." The motion passed on a recorded vote - the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: Commissioner Walsh (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners Fishel and Vermilyea (2) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Inman noted this will go to the 5/12/09 Council Business Meeting. 6. URBAN FORESTRY MASTERPLAN City Arborist, Todd Prager, said the slide presentation he was about to present highlights the packet that was distributed to the commissioners earlier. He encouraged them to review the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 7 of 9 packet over the coming months to become familiar with the data that's been collected thus far for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. At this point he went over his slide presentation as an update of the Master Plan (Exhibit D). QUESTIONS FOR STAFF Why has the tree canopy decreased? Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, answered, "There'd been more development in those years than we've ever had in Tigard." Prager added, "The fragmentation where the larger groves were being replaced with smaller individual plantings may indicate that the mitigation is helping to restore canopy in these residential zones." There were a few other questions and then the commissioners thanked Prager for a presentation they said was well done. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — Joint Meeting on April 21St — Tuesday — ideas for topics: The commissioners talked about some of the topics they may wish to discuss at that meeting. The consensus was that their main topic would be that of communication between the Council and the Commission; specifically, if Council chooses to over -ride one of their recommendations. They wondered what the plan is to communicate Council's reasoning as to why they disagree. Minutes: Planning Commission Bylaws - Article IV Section 12.E There was a decision to change the way the Commission considers /approves minutes. It was decided that, in light of the heretofore overlooked portion of the bylaws (below), in the future they would approve them differently than in the past. Article IV Section 12.E of the Planning Commission bylaws states: "Commissioners are expected to vote for approval of the minutes based on the accuracy of representation of events at the meeting. If there are no corrections, the President may declare the minutes approved as presented, without the need for a motion and vote. A vote in favor of adopting minutes does not signify agreement or disagreement with the Commission's actions memorialized in the minutes." So, if after asking if there are any corrections and, there being none, the President may declare the minutes "approved as presented" without the need for a motion and vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — April 6, 2009 — Page 8 of 9 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary A'fl'EST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU'I [S — April 6, 2009 — Page 9 of 9 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 23, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 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, Hasman, Muldoon, Walsh, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Vermilyea Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; John Floyd, Duane Roberts, Project Planner; Greg Berry, Utility Engineer; Associate Planner; Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES 1 -26 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Doherty to approve the 1 -26 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Walsh (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Hasman (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Vermilyea, Fishel (2) 2 -2 -09 Meeting Minutes There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Walsh to approve the 02 -02 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Walsh (6) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Muldoon (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Vermilyea, Commissioner Fishel (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 1 of 9 5. PUBLIC HEARING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2008 -00005 - SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STAFF REPORT Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager, presented the staff report on behalf of the applicant, the City of Tigard. [Staff reports are available at the City one week before each meeting.] Nachbar distributed several items; one was a portion of the Sensitive Lands code update (Exhibit AA). He used two large boards as visuals for his presentation (Exhibits AA2 and AA3). Nachbar also distributed two emails that he'd received on February 18th (Exhibits AA4 and AA5), as well as several emails that he'd received that day (Exhibits A -F). Nachbar made the following points: 1. The City proposes to remove section 18.775.070.13.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood;" (perhaps a berm or a boardwalk). 2. Reason for requirement: doc 1983. It is likely that the intent of the requirement was to keep "people dry" and allow year -round accessibility of trails, and to keep paths from being inundated due to maintenance concerns. 3. Reasons for removal: • Requirement poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be needed - By removing this requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5., it will be less difficult to site needed trails that will assist in the City meeting its new Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 for Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space. Specifically, the proposed amendment will support Goal 8.2: Policy 1 "to create an interconnected regional and local system of on- and off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban activity centers..." • Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.B. include 1) improved access to natural areas otherwise inaccessible by the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the potential for the construction of elevated trails to pose a potential impact to the environment. • Although trails can be elevated by placement of a berm or boardwalk, it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet the "no- rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the balance "cut and fill" requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - February 23, 2009 - Page 2 of 9 Nachbar gave an example (Exhibit AA2, AA3) of how removal of the requirement will allow the City to implement the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan adopted by Council in February 2008. He gave several examples of nearby cities which have no requirements to not build in a floodway. Nachbar finished his presentation with the following: • Staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to remove Section 18.775.070.8.5 of the Sensitive Lands Chapter is consistent with all applicable review criteria. • The removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance. • The City is in compliance with the requirements of Metro's Title 3 by adoption of the Clean Water Services' (CWS) Design and Construction Standards in the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775. • The Tualatin Basin Plan satisfies the Metro Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods requirements, which in turn satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 5 requirements. • The removal of this requirement would not directly impact the sensitive habitats or environments. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS (Replies in italics) • One of the commissioners commented that a lot of information was distributed that night and he requested that in the future they would get this sooner. If I had gotten this information before today I would have forwarded it to you. • Is there a possibility that trails would not be put in due to either cost or geologic reasons if they had to be raised above the flood plain? The answer to that would be yes — for two reasons. The cost could be excessive if the City had to build for example boardwalks instead of trails. And because it difficult to meet this "no rise" condition required under our sensitive lands code to meet our FEMA requirements. • Has there been any consideration of just modifying the language? I don't know whether it would make sense to express a preference for it being placed above the average annual flood elevation except when not practical? We have not considered that — doesn't mean we can't consider it. You have to ask the question — what is the reason for having it? The only two reasons we could identin was to keep people's feet dry and so that the pavement doesn't get flooded and break down over time — which is unlikely actually, when you only flood a few times a year. • You'd mentioned that there's no particular attractiveness in using boardwalks. They actually allow people to cross an area they wouldn't otherwise have access to — they also extend wheel chair access area where those people wouldn't otherwise have access. I was referring to the only two ways you could build above the average annual flood elevation — which is a boardwalk or a berm as not being great ideas. I hope that clarifies. I think boardwalks are great in areas where thy are really needed. My question was — is a boardwalk really needed in an area that floods very rarely. • So what happens to a trail when it does flood? Do you close it down to the public? Normally people just don't use it. We don't have flash floods here — no need to close down trails. • Is this driven by cost? No, that's not the issue. It would affect the city's ability to build a progressive trail system and to implement parks. The cost would impact our decision about where to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - February 23, 2009 - Page 3 of 9 put trails if we knew we had to elevate all trails but more than likely we wouldn't make those improvements at all. We'd probably have to leave it the way it is and not provide that additional access that is desired. • What input did you seek — any expert advice? Yes — consultants and architects — Walker May HDR Engineering that does hydrologic analysis. CWS was also a part of the conversation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION Eric Lindstrom, 6801 SW Canyon Crest Drive, Portland, OR, said he was present as a "Friend of the Fanno Creek Watershed and the City of Tigard." He gave his testimony in opposition to the amendment -- he passed out his written testimony and went over it at length (see Exhibit A). Questions from Commissioners (answers in italics): • Are you suggesting that there not be access — pedestrian or bicycle? Absolutely not. We need to find an equitable solution for the City, its citizens, and the watershed. What we have here is a move that would make the rampant usage of these pathways permissible. I'm not against access - I'd like to see more pathways — I just want to see them used with conscientiousness. I think this portion of the code actually provides you with that little bit. Tim McGilvrey, 11608 SW Spring, Tigard, OR, spoke in opposition. He said he opposes this code based on common sense. He stated that you should build on higher ground where you can look over a natural area rather than be right down on a natural area which isn't good for the riparian zone. Just common sense — build on a little bit higher ground. Questions from Commissioners: There were no questions of Mr. McGilvrey. Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard — representing Fans of Fanno Creek gave opposition testimony. She also submitted it in written form and passed it out (see Exhibit B). Questions from Commissioners: • You're saying no new trails? No — never said that. Just this one area? No. I use trails all the time — some flood often — so I don't use those. Some of these flooding trail areas need boardwalks. Thy are good. We need to do a better job of protecting resources and species. At this point President Inman interjected to the commissioners that there's a very fine line between when we're talking about sensitive lands - in that the "sensitive land" that we're talking about with this particular application is a flood plain. You can build a parking lot in a flood plain. This whole conversation is getting focused towards Fanno Creek but in a broader code context we're talking about something bigger than just that. When it comes to making decisions, the applicable criteria for me has to do with the sensitive land that we're PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 4 of 9 impacting. So think about that when you're structuring your comments. Secondly, if we leave this in here, then if we want to rebuild those trails we may have to build them 5 feet in the air, or put them on stilts and a boardwalk, if we want them to still be there. They can go in — they just have to go in higher. So this, by no means, precludes the development of any of those trails — it just makes them more expensive and could potentially make them more of an intrusion. So there is a balance there. We're not saying they can't be built. This doesn't say they can't be built — they just have to be high. There's balance with everything. Nachbar interjected comments about Fanno Creek Park. He said he and Sue Beilke have similar interests. He noted that there are no net new trails going into this park. There are existing trails and they're realigning some trails but there will be no net new lineal footage of trails. He said they're not decimating this park with trails. • Sue, if we took the code off, can you think of any alternatives, — how you could structure it so that it could address issues that you're raising, short of saying no. I'm not sure. There were a few more questions and Ms. Beilke spoke more about the importance of sensitive lands and wildlife. More questions followed: • So you would rather see an asphalt trail taken up into a two or three foot high boardwalk along almost the entire extent of the trails that are there right now — in the air? I don't know — some of them I'd move into the uplands. You have to remember the City plans on buying all of that land. • What we're talking about is purely a floodplain --- not a resource area — we're not impacting that — it's just the floodplain. Would you rather, where it's just a matter of it being too low that it's going to get inundated, you'd rather see it in the air? But this is in a sensitive lands code. I don't see how you can ignore that. Sorry. If it's sensitive lands, it's sensitive lands, and it raises a whole bunch of issues. It relates to a lot of things. I don't see it that way. I see it as a much bigger picture. Sorry. Brian Wegener, 12360 SW Main St. #100, Tigard, OR representing Tualatin Riverkeepers, as the Watershed Watch Coordinator, went over his submitted, written, testimony (Exhibit C). Questions from Commissioners: There were no questions. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard spoke about the knowledge of Eric Lindstrom. He said Eric had written a book about Fanno Creek. He then gave testimony (Exhibit D) He spent a large amount of his time talking about his sketch entitled "CWS /Oregon" — (page 4 of Exhibit D). Questions from Commissioners: So you're saying no trails? I think we can have and keep the situation we have now but shouldn't be building additional access below the ordinary high water mark. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 5 of 9 Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, summed it up saying "The basic question is: Do you want to be able to change the location of a trail within the 100 year floodplain or do you want to leave it where it is ?" QUESTIONS OF STAFF Can you speak to why or why not a variance process would be appropriate? The requirement shouldn't be there in the first place in that if it were to stay, it'd have to go through a variance process, and there's a potential we couldn't meet that criteria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS One of the commissioners noted that they'd received 40 pages of material at the last minute that night and it seems to happen a lot. He said he doesn't see how they can be expected to make good decisions when they haven't seen alI the material [ahead of time]. Regarding the ODF &W [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife] letter dated 2 -23 -09 (Exhibit E) that states they do not believe fish and wildlife will be adequately protected if we make this decision. He said he doesn't have time to read the rest of it but puts a lot of strength in what ODF &W has to say. Unless I have more time I can't give a vote. Inman reminded the commission that this allows all kinds of development. She said we are singling out the trail portion but this section has to do with a lot more than that. This is in a floodplain. She asked that everyone keep it in this context. One of the commissioners said he was disappointed in the City's presentation. He thought it could have been presented in a way that provided for some alternatives. He said that still, he concurs with President Inman. He said this needs to be treated carefully — that this was not just going to affect Fanno Creek, but is citywide. He also said he couldn't support it as presented. Another commissioner said he likes the idea of connectivity of path areas. That would be a top priority. One of the commissioners asked staff if it would be of benefit to have staff rethink this and come back later. Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, said that whenever possible, when writing a staff report, alternative approaches should be provided. He said this hasn't been done in this case. He said there's no problem if the commission is uncomfortable passing it, having staff go back and develop some kind of criteria under which that would happen. It would take some time. The commissioners took a straw poll and decided they'd like to push forward with it. There was much deliberation that followed regarding the average annual flood elevation and two year flood elevation. At this point President Inman said she would not be comfortable making any changes below the two year at this point without further input because then they would be significantly changing things. Muldoon — likes the idea of connectivity of path areas. That would be top priority. Inman gave options of the commission: Deny, Modify the language, or send back for development of specific criteria. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Doherty interjected saying that looking at the time and the fact that they'd put off the tree board twice, she would like to have Bewersdorff and Nachbar come back with some other language so they could go through and maybe feel a little more comfortable with the decision. President Inman said she felt as though she'd done a 180 since now they were talking about flood elevations and she's lost her ability to see the end goal. She said if they could get some direction from an engineer as to whether it's practicable to do, what it should be if they should change it, or if it should just come out — but what does that piece of it mean? Bewersdorff said an option would be to continue this hearing to a date certain. Nachbar said it doesn't make sense to rush into anything but he said it wouldn't take a lot to come up with a better basis for some modification to this requirement. A straw poll was taken and it was decided to continue to a time certain — April 6th. The commission then took a 5 minute break. 6. WORK SESSION 9 :35 p.m. TREE CODE UPDATES DCA2009 -00001 STAFF PRESENTATION John Floyd, Associate Planner, stated that staff is bringing forward amendments to Section 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code, otherwise known as the Tree Removal chapter. He stated that this workshop is being held to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to ask questions on the concepts or content of the code amendment, which will be duly considered and deliberated upon at a public hearing on March 16 of this year. The primary goal of this proposal is to clarify how an applicant may comply with the stated intent and preferences of the development code, namely the preservation of trees instead of their removal wherever possible. In 2008 the previous Planning Director issued a Director's Interpretation which attempted to provide this clarity. This interpretation was successfully appealed by the Homebuilders on the grounds that it overreached the scope of an administrative interpretation. As a result Council directed staff to bring forward code amendments, which brings us to tonight. A secondary goal of these amendments is to update content requirements to reflect current administrative practices and ISA standards. These goals would be made possible through the following changes: > Definitions o The definition of a tree has been expanded to reflect ISA standards and to clarify how an applicant is to measure a split trunk specimen > Stated Preference of the City o The current code states that "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." o Staff proposes to change the phrasing from "wherever possible" to wherever practicable ", with the meaning of practicable defined. This term introduces a degree of reasonableness to the code rather than an absolute, as was done in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -- February 23, 2009 — Page 7 of 9 the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development. > Tree Plan Requirements o Submittal requirements would be expanded, though much of this is already standard practice and the code would merely formalize these items. o Trees within 25 feet of the property line would have to be inventoried and assessed in the Tree Plan o The condition of a tree, the reason for its removal, and its diameter to a tenth of an inch would have to be recorded in the tree plan o A narrative and site plan would be required. These documents would provide the applicant, through his or her staff arborist; the ability to demonstrate how commonly accepted tree preservation strategies are being implemented to the extent practicable. This demonstration occurs through 8 questions that all plans would have to address. o A mitigation plan with would be required upfront, rather than a condition of approval. > Adequacy o There's been a lot of debate and discussion as to how a tree plan would be reviewed for adequacy (i.e. approval criteria). Staff has received a lot of comment from the Tree Board, the HBA and private citizens. In addition, we are still working with the City Attorney's office on final language. As a result there may be further amendments to Section 18.790.030D when it is presented at the public hearing on March 16. o The intent of 18.790.030.D is to provide clear and objective approval criteria for an applicant, while still allowing the flexibility necessary to address each site on an individual basis. The solution put forth tonight would require a certified arborist to prepare and sign a self - certifying plan. The City would be required to accept that plan, so long as it meant minimum content requirements or was found lacking by an independent, third -party arborist under contract to the City. Two parties submitted comments prior to tonight's workshop: John Frewing and Alan DeHarpport on behalf of the HBA. Copies have been distributed for your review. Because this is a workshop, and not a public hearing, these comments will not be entered into the official record. That said, staff has invited the commenting parties to discuss their comments and concerns prior to the public hearing on March 16. At this point, Floyd concluded his presentation, and President Inman opened the meeting up to questions and /or comments. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS President Inman asked if this was in response to the loss on the appeal. Yes. She said the other "elephant in the room" is mitigation — she asked if they were doing this because they need to address those criteria and that they would be coming back. Yes, absolutely. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 8 of 9 One of the commissioners asked Floyd' What are you looking for us to do? What is the purpose of this workshop ?" The purpose of the workshop tonight is to put this language beforeyou to help familiarizeyou with what we'll be talking about at the public hearing. At this time it's just to help you understand what we'll be talking about at the next meeting and whether there are any majorgaps thatyou see where changes may need to be made. Why is the measuring to the nearest 10th of an inch? To be more precise - in some cases it may mean something. President Inman and some of the other commissioners noted that they were impressed with how clear and concise the draft amendment is - number, 5 particularly. There were no other questions or comments. 7. OTHER BUSINESS - None 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. • Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary c) ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — February 23, 2009 — Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: J Hearing Date: February 23, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 4 SECTION L APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: SENSITIVE LAND PERMI"T REQUIREMENTS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2008 -00005 PROPOSAL: To remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Chapter which reads " The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; ". Removal of this section would allow pathways to be installed in areas which would benefit the public (access to and educational appreciation of ecological areas). Removal of this requirement would not adversely affect the protection of sensitive habitat areas or implementation of floodplain requirements. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: NA 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment Manager AGENT: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ZONE: All City Zoning Districts LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; Goal 8 Recreational Needs; ] Any federal [FENUA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Any applicable METRO regulations; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management]; Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; [Goal: 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space]; Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances [TDC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390, and 18.775]. SENSITI \'E LANDS PERMIT IU QUIREMEN'1'S DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC I TEARING, STAFF REPORT '10 "1'I Ili PLANNING COMMISSION Pr \CE 1 01' 10 • SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff teconunends that ahe Planning. Commission find in :flvoi of the ;proposed text atnendtnent removing sectton 18 775 0,70 B 5 `of the. Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which leads ' - 'S The plans`, for the pedestrnan /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway. will be below the elev non of,:an average annual flood," :and, with any alterations as de tcrtnu ed through the public hcaru process acid make`a final. ieconurnendati to th Tigard City Council SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City proposes to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; ". Section 18.775.070.B.5 to be removed is part of its Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Tigard Development Code (attached in full for reference). The purpose of the Chapter is to A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program, C) implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the Tualatin Basin, D) implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), F) Protect Public health, safety, and welfare. The City can only speculate on the reason for the inclusion of Section 18.775.070.B.5, in the Sensitive Land Chapter. The section requires that "the plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood ". It is likely that it had something to do with maintaining year -round pedestrian accessibility (out of the annual flood elevation), and / or maintenance concerns. The current requirement as written requires that trails be located and constructed above the average annual flood elevation. This can limit where trails can be located depending on how high the `average flood' is. In some cases, the average annual flood elevation is close to the 2 -year flood elevation, which effectively eliminates access to many areas which are lower and could be appreciated by the public. A case in point is Fanno Creek Park between Hall Blvd. and Main St. in Downtown Tigard. While there is a Council adopted master plan for Fanno Creek Park, the City is unable to implement the plan and improve or realign trails to provide better public access to new areas of the park due to the requirement in section 18.775.070.B.5 that "no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood ". The existing requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5 which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below the average annual flood elevation' poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be needed because it would require that they be built above the average annual flood elevation. Trails can be elevated by placement of a berm or boardwalk, however, it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet the "no- rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the balance "cut and fill" requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards also incorporated into the Chapter. In some situations, under the current requirement to build above the annual average flood elevation, a raised • trail could impact the environment due to debris obstructing the flow during high flood periods. In addition, elevated trails built to meet this requirement could impact sensitive wetland environments by obstructing the natural flow of water. Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.8. include 1) unproved access to natural areas otherwise inaccessible by the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the potential for the construction of elevated trails posing a potential impact to the environment. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • SENSITIVE:, LANDS PERM I"1' REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT' TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 10 Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. The proposed text amendment would apply to all City zoning districts throughout the City. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision - making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations • found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Findings and conclusions are provided below for the five listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. 1 FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. A notice was mailed to all identified interested parties and the notice was additionally published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. After the Planning Commission public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. Statewide Planning Goal 2 — Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed within this report, the Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces This goal seeks to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas, and opens spaces. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 10 Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 - Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space and policies is discussed later in this report. Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards This goal seeks to protect people and property from natural hazards. • FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 - Hazards and policies is discussed later in this report. Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the State and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 - Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Statewide and policies is discussed later in this report. • • CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; The purpose of FEMA and related statutes is to ensure that a floodplain management program is in place so that Flood Insurance Requirements are met. FINDING: One of the purposes of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program ", which effectively implements FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements. The removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance requirements provided that the "zero rise" in the flood plain condition is met, which continues as a requirement in the City code. The "zero rise" requirement, which remains in the ordinance, ensures that any construction or improvement within the floodplain will not result in any increase in water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. Another cited purpose of Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks ". The Department of State Lands regulates Waters of the State, and the Corps of Engineers • regulates wetlands. These organizations require separate permits, and these permit requirements are not affected by removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment is consistent with any federal (FEMA) or state statutes or regulations found applicable. • SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO TFIE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 10 • ANY APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management] The purpose of Metro Title 3 is to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact • on these areas from development activities and protecting life and property from dangers associated with flooding. FINDING: The City is in compliance with the requirements of Metro's Tide 3 by adoption of the Clean Water Services' (CWS) Design and Construction Standards in the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775. The standards of • • Metro Title 3 are incorporated into the CWS standards which, in turn, are required under the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter. • The purposes of the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.010 as written are to "A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program, C) implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the Tualatin Basin, D) implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), F) Protect Public health, safety, and welfare." Item D) clearly implements Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments to comply with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which outlines water quality and flood management requirements for the region. The adopted standards were based on a unified program developed by local governments in the Tualatin Basin and implemented through the Clean Water Services District's (CWS) Design & Construction Standards, which provides for vegetated stream corridor buffers up to 200 feet wide and • mandating restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition. In addition, Clean Water Services, local cities, Washington County, Metro, and Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, partnered on a parallel effort to develop the CWS Healthy Streams Plan (HSP), an updated watershed plan designed to enhance the functions of the Tualatin Basin surface water system and address the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Perrnit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' does not affect compliance with Metro Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management, nor the intent of Title 3. Section 18.775.070.B.5, which would be removed by the proposed text amendment, is not part of the CWS Design and Construction Standards, which • are intended to implement Metro Title 3. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment is consistent with Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANY APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 • 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF RiPOR't' TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 10 • • FINDING: • • The City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to interested citizens and agencies. The City published notice of the Planning Commission hearing February 23, 2009. After the Planning Commission public hearing, additional notice will be published prior to the City Council hearing. Two public hearings are held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity • for public input is provided. With these public involvement provisions, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning 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. FINDING: • Applicable polices under this goal relate to amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map and not to amendments to the Development Code text. The applicant does not propose an amendment to Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map. Therefore, this Goal does not specifically apply to the proposed text change. Comprehensive Plan Goal 7: Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards FINDING: • Applicable policies under this goal include landslides, and flooding. The City uses steep slopes to define sensitive lands in the Community Development Code and has special requirements for development in these areas. The City coordinates with several agencies to mitigate the risk of flooding, The FEMA designated floodplain is uscd to administer the national flood insurance program (NFIP). The Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Tigard Community Development Code ensures compliance with FEMA and the national flood insurance program. The proposed text amendment does not impact floodwaters flows and storage areas, and therefore does not conflict with FEMA or Comprehensive Plan policies regarding flooding. The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below the average annual flood elevation' is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 Hazards because it does not impact any of the policies areas including earthquakes, wildfire, landslides, and flooding. Comprehensive Plan Goal 8: Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and opens spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped area for nature - oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system FINDING: Applicable policies under Goal 8.1 include policies 4, 6 and 17. Policy 4 states "The City shall endeavor to develop neighborhood parks (or neighborhood park facilities within • other parks, such as a linear park) located within a half mile of every resident to provide access to active and passive recreation opportunities for residents of all ages." The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO "1'1 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 10 Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average . annual flood elevation' supports Policy 4. By allowing trails to be built at or below the average annual flood elevation, and not requiring that trails be elevated above the average annual flood, there will be more opportunities to construct more trails in areas needed to provide access to active and passive recreational opportunities. Policy 6 states "The City shall acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources and other open spaces to additionally provide nature- oriented outdoor recreation and trail- related • activities ". The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' supports Policy 6 by providing additional opportunities for access to nature- oriented outdoor recreation and trail - related activities. The removal of section 18.775.070.8.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood elevation', in effect, will provide for the design and construction of trails in areas that otherwise would not be accessible. While under the current section 18.775.070.B.5, trails can be constructed as along as they are above the average annual flood elevation, doing so is costlier, and difficult due to having to meet the City "no- rise" conditions. Raising a trail by building a berm or boardwalk to elevate it above the annual average flood results in a rise in the 100 -year flood elevation, which is not permitted unless mitigated to provide a "no- rise" result. As a result, the existing section 18.775.B.5 provides a barrier to the construction of new trails in areas where access may be needed to meet policies 4 and 6. Policy 17 states "The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities." The removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 does not, by itself, result in trails being built in n areas to the detriment of natural resources including rare, or state and federally listed species. Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards incorporated into the Tigard Development Code provides additional protection to sensitive habitats by maintaining a required buffer from the top of bank. Trails cannot be built within this buffer, which often includes riparian areas. The width of the buffer varies depending on the slope of the creek or waterway, and is designed to maintain the functioning of riparian • habitats, which are known to contain a variety of bird species. Trails do not generate pollution and by • themselves, are not a source of impact to sensitive habitats or species. The siting of trails in natural resource areas containing listed species is subject to the review and recommendations of Oregon Division of Fish and Wildlife. The construction of trails at or below the average annual flood would not, in and of itself, impact rare, or state and federally listed species. Trails can, if designed correctly, serve to protect sensitive flora and fauna by serving as a way to channel pedestrians away from them. All proposed improvements within the 100 -year floodplain and habitat sensitive areas including wetlands are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and Clean Water Services (CWS) permits and approvals, which are incorporated by reference in this Chapter of the Code (see Section 18.775.070.B.6.). Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and - off -road pedestrian and bicycle trails FINDING: • Applicable policies under Goal 8.2 include policies 1 and 2 below: 1. The City shall create an interconnected regional and local system of on- and off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban activity centers, and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. i 2. The City shall design and build grecnway trails and paths to minimize the impact on the environment, including on wildlife corridors and on rare, and state or federally listed species. The removal of section 18.775.070.8.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements which requires that `no SENSITIVE LANDS PI_ RMIT REQUIREMENTS S DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO 'HIE PI..ANNING CC)MMISSiON PAGI. 7 OF 10 pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below an average annual flood' will, in effect, facilitate the construction of trails in areas that otherwise would not be accessible by removing the need to elevate pathways in these areas. Depending on where trails are needed to comply with Goal 8.2 to create a citywide network of trails, the removal of section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements provides for flexibility in meeting this goal. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Park, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space. ANY APPLICABLE PROVISION OF THE CITY'S IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TDC 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi - judicial amendments to this title and zoning district map. FINDING: Section 18.380.030 requires that zoning map and text amendments be undertaken by mean of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. The proposed text amendment is a Type IV procedure as defined in this Section and has been processed in accordance with Type TV procedures per 18.390.060G. • TDC 18.390 Decision Making Procedures • • • The purpose of this chapter is to establish a series of standard decision - making procedures that will enable the City, applicant and all interested parties to reasonably review applications and participate • in the local decision - making process in a timely manner. • FINDING: The proposed text amendment was completed in compliance with all procedural requirements of Section 18.390. Two public hearings were noticed and scheduled, one before the Planning Commission and one before • Council. Notice has been provided 10 days prior to hearing dates to the required parties. The proposed text amendment addresses the required decision - making considerations of Section 18.3909.060 which includes 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any • federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. TDC 18.775 Sensitive Lands The purposes of the City's Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775.010 as written arc to "A) Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks, B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management • program, C) implement Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards for the Tualatin Basin, D) implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, E) implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources), F) Protect Public health, safety, and welfare." Item D) clearly implements Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. FINDING: Goal F: Protect Public Health, safety and welfare is not affected by the proposed amendment. The City is unsure of the original reason(s) for inclusion of the requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5. in the Sensitive • Lands Chapter. The section requires that "the plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no SENSITIVE (..ANDS PERMIT' REQUIREMENT'S DCA2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC I- TEARING, STAFF REPORT" TO TFIE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 10 • • pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood ". It is likely that the reason(s) for its inclusion in the code had something to do with maintaining year -round pedestrian accessibility (out of the annual flood elevation), and / or maintenance concerns. If a trail were built within the average annual flood elevation, and were inundated, it would not pose a danger: to the safety of the public. People would not have access during the • time of inundation. There is no flash flooding in the area so that persons using a trail would not be stranded or • overcome by a flood event. Based on this, the proposed amendment allowing the siting of trails in areas within the average annual flood does not pose a danger to public's health, safety or welfare. • • • One of the key purposes of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (18.775) is to "B) implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program ", which effectively implements FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements. The removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 does not affect FEMA Flood Insurance requirements provided that the " zero rise" in the flood plain condition is met, which continues as a requirement in the City code. The "zero rise" requirement, which remains in the ordinance, ensures that any construction or improvement within the floodplain will not result in any increase in water surface elevation of the 100 -year flood. • The proposed amendment is to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirements • which reads "The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation , of an average annual flood; ". The proposed amendment is consistent with and has no adverse impact on the goals and requirements of Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775. • CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that approval of the proposed text amendment • is consistent with any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. STAFF ANALYSIS • In reviewing the required applicable review criteria, staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to remove Section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Chapter is consistent with all applicable review criteria which include 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO • regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's • implementing ordinances. The existing requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5 which requires that `no pedestrian / bicycle pathway be below the average annual flood elevation' poses an obstacle to constructing trails where they may be needed • because it would require that they be built above the average annual flood elevation. Although trails can be elevated by placement of a berm or boardwalk, it is costly, and the additional volume makes it difficult to meet • • the "no- rise" condition critical to meeting FEMA requirements within the Sensitive Lands Chapter, and the • balance "cut and fill" requirements of CWS Design and Construction Standards also incorporated into the Chapter. In addition the placement of trails on a berm poses maintenance concerns, and would disrupt the natural flow of water in natural areas. The use of boardwalks is expensive if used for long sections of trails that may be needed, but does provide a feasible option for shorter lengths through high -water areas. By removing this requirement of Section 18.775.070.B.5., it will be less difficult to site needed trails that will assist in the City meeting its new Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 for Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space. Specifically, the proposed amendment will support Goal 8.2: Policy 1 "to create an interconnected regional and local system of on- and off -road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, major urban activity centers..." • As an example, it will allow the City to implement the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan adopted by Council in February 2008. The master plan provides for the restoration of a 24.5 acre natural area on the edge of Downtown and improved trail access by the public. Without removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 as proposed, the City will not be able to improve, realign, and construct new trails in the park for the public. This is due to impracticality and expense of having to elevate trails above the elevation of the average annual flood, and the net "rise" in 100 -year floodplain that would have to be mitigated. The net rise in the 100 -year floodplain would be due the the additional volume caused by a berm or boardwalk to meet the requirements. SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DC1A2008 -00005 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 10 i Constructing trails at or below the average annual flood elevation poses no threat to the public safety or welfare, and would not result in degradation of the trail surface or long -term maintenance concerns. It is likely that the intent of the requirement was to keep "people dry" and allow year -round accessibility of trails, and to keep paths from being inundated due to maintenance concerns. If a trail were built within the average annual flood elevation, and were inundated, it would not pose a danger to the safety of the public. People would not have access during the time of inundation. There is no flash flooding in the area so that persons using a trail would not be stranded or overcome by a flood event. Based on this, the proposed amendment allowing the siting of trails in areas within the average annual flood does not pose a danger to public's health, safety or welfare. In addition, the proposed amendment allowing trails within the average annual flood elevation does not affect the ability of the City to meet FEMA requirements and the National Flood Insurance Program In some situations, under the current requirement to build above the annual average flood elevation, a raised trail could impact the environment due to debris obstructing the flow during high flood periods. In addition, elevated trails built to meet this requirement could impact sensitive wetland environments by obstructing the natural flow of water. Some of the potential benefits of the removal of Section 18.775.070.B. include 1) improved access to natural areas otherwise inaccessible by the public, 2) enhanced access and connectivity and 3) removal of the potential for the construction of elevated trails to pose a potential irnpact to the environment. It the conclusion of staff that the removal of Section 18.775.070.B.5 "The plans for the pedestrian /bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood" is of benefit to the community and the goals of its Comprehensive Plan. SECTION VI. ALTERNATIVES TO APPROVAL No Action — the code would remain unchanged. SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Long Range Division was notified of the proposed code text amendment but did not comment. The City of Tigard Engineering Department reviewed the applicant's proposal and had no objection to the proposal. • The City of Tigard Public Works Department reviewed the applicant's proposal and provided the following comments: "This should enable Regional Trail Access ". • The City of Tigard Arborist reviewed the proposal and had not objections to it. The Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, and METRO, and DLCD were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. February 13, 2009 PREPAR _,D BY: Phil Nachbar DATE Redevelopment Manager J ' ,Q C � , February 13, 2009 APPROVED I3Y: Ron Bunch DATE Comrntnnity Development Director SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DCA2008 -00005 • 2/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORTTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 OF 10 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: Continued Hearing for DCA 2008 -00005 Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements Date: April 6, 2009 • Background On February 23, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Staff's request (DCA2008- 00005) to amend the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Tigard Development Code to remove a criterion (18.775.070.B.5) prohibiting pathways located within or adjacent to the floodplain to be below the elevation of the average annual flood. The Commission received substantial public comment on the issue and decided to continue the hearing to allow time for careful consideration of the information provided and allow staff time to prepare an options analysis. In addition to a summary of public comments and the options analysis, below, staff has included a section to help clarify terms. Terms Average Annual Flood Elevation: The flood elevation used in 18.775.070.B.5; the average of annual peak daily flows over the length of available data; an elevation between "bank full" and the "2 -year flood "; typically used for structural protection and maintenance purposes. 2year_Flood Elevation: A conservative proxy for the annual flood elevation. Base Flood Elevation: The computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood (100 -year flood, 1% flood, one - percent annual chance flood, FEMA floodplain extent). Ordinary High Water (CWA 33CFR 328.3(e)): The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Adopted Pedestrian/ Bicycle Pathavay Plan: The City of Tigard Parks System Master Plan (March 1999), includes general alignments for Tigard's trail system; as funding becomes available, specific trail segment plans are developed to provide siting and design details. 1 Practicable: Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. Summary of Public Comments Jennifer Thompson, US Fish and Wildlife (USFW): cites Metro's environmentally — friendly trails guidebook to address potential adverse impacts of trails in sensitive areas and lists potential impacts from hydrology to habitat. Nancy Munn, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): states that NMFS generally does not support trails • in floodplains (with the exception of dirt trails) because often trail design and vegetation management proximate to water conflicts with conditions that support cold -water fisheries. Eric Lindstrom, EdD: takes issue with conclusions in the staff report by elaborating on findings, potential impacts to resources; concludes that pathways are desirable components of park plans but should not compromise the functional integrity of the floodplain (Owyhee River road example). Sue Bei lke, Fans of Fanno Creek: argues against removal of the elevation criterion in order to protect significant habitat and that other potentially conflicting City goals are met with the existing trail network in Fanno Creek and by other upland trails planned by the City. Brian Wegener, Tualatin River Keepers: cites comments from USFWS /Metro /NMFS (above) regarding potential impacts to natural resources; identifies potential conflict of the proposed trails with sensitive habitat areas map designation of "strictly limit" in the majority of Fanno Creek Park; addresses shortcomings with the findings in the staff report and suggests an alternatives analysis include siting trails above the average annual flood. John Frewing: identifies process issues with the City as applicant; suggests processing a variance rather than a code amendment; calls out ODOT, DSL, CWS, and Metro provisions for safety and resource protection. Mischa Connine, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW): concerned with overall decline of riparian habitat and connectivity and therefore the potential adverse impacts of paths located in riparian and associated floodplain habitats. Bob Salinger /Jim Labbe, Audubon: concerned with the incremental loss and degradation of floodplain habitats and water quality in the Tualatin Basin; supports low- impact path design including alternative alignments outside of floodplains; worried natural areas along Fanno Creek will be loved to death. Code Construction and Analysis Section 18.775.070.B (Sensitive Lands Permits Within the 100 -year Floodplain) includes seven approval criteria for development within the 100 -year floodplain subject to Hearings Officer review. The criteria are designed to ensure maintenance of the floodway (1 and 3), restrict uses in certain zones (2), ensure agency permitting (6), and provide for a pedestrian /bicycle pathway (4, 5, and 7). Of the three pathway criteria, criterion 4 ensures development plans include a timely pathway improvement in accordance with the adopted pedestrian /bicycle pathway plan; criterion 5 restricts the elevation of a pathway to be higher than the average annual flood; and criterion 7 assures dedication of open land area of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian /bicycle plan. 2 The potential conflict with Criterion 5 arises for several reasons: a) the adopted pedestrian /bicycle plan is often too generalized to provide guidance in siting pathways, and b) to achieve the elevation requirement within the floodplain for planned pathways could require filling, boardwalks, or re- siting outside the floodplain or in portions of the floodplain that exceed the average annual flood. Pathways crossing a creek are particularly problematic. To make sense of this potential conflict, a reasonable reading of criterion 5 would be to apply it "where practicable." This involves striking a balance between recreation use and program purpose, on the one hand, and resource protection, on the other. The following options range from retaining criterion 5 as is (Option 1), to removing it altogether (Option 4), including two options with amended language to allow paths within the floodplain where practicable and when consistent with adopted plans (Option 2) and then, additionally, subject to a natural resource assessment (Option 3). Options Analysis Option 1— retain criterion: The plans for the pedestrian/ bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; Pros: Retaining the existing language would be the most restrictive and would limit pathway alignment to upland areas. Strict application of the standard would preclude path alignments in the floodplain and related habitat areas preserving the quality of the habitat to its maximum extent. Cons: Potentially inconsistent with other standards in the section (4 and 7) which require any proposed development within or adjacent to the floodplain to provide a pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian /bicycle plan. Option 1 would limit the City's ability to meet its Comprehensive Plan goals for trail connectivity and access to nature- oriented recreation in Fanno Creek Park and other locations. Option 1 does not provide any siting flexibility with respect to the presence, absence, or quality of habitat at any location. Option 2 — revise criterion: The plans for the pedestrian/ bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood, where practicable to achieve project objectives; Pros: Addition of the practicability clause would allow siting flexibility for certain path alignments below the average annual flood when upland routes are not otherwise available considering cost and design feasibility and project objectives. Trail connectivity and access to natural areas for nature- oriented recreation would be possible. Option 2 would be consistent with other standards in the section (4 and 7). Cons: Although some flexibility is obtained for locating trails, the standard may preclude preferred alignments to meet other objectives. Option 2 does not directly address habitat protection which is the primary concern of the public comment. 3 Option 3 — revise criterion: a. Pedestrian/ bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall be sited above the elevation of the average annual flood, where practicable, and shall include a resource assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat; or b. Pedestrian / bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall be sited above Ordinary High Water, where practicable, and shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat; or c. Pedestrian/ bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat; Pros: a. The practicability clause allows the City to balance park development with resource protection. Trails could be located within the floodplain consistent with the adopted pedestrian /bicycle plan. The requirement for a natural resource assessment implements Comprehensive Plan policies which support habitat protection (Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1, policy 17 and Goal 8.2, policy 2). The habitat assessment would also complement CWS standards for trail location within vegetated corridors. b. The elevation standard, if kept, would be more easily implemented if changed to "OHW" from "average annual flood" (In March 2009, DSL changed their elevation reference for determining applicability of the removal /fill law from the 2 -year flood elevation to OHW) c. Removing the elevation standard would not in practice, diminish trail protection or increase maintenance (PW memo) and because existing TDC wetland and CWS vegetated corridor protections are in place to guide trail alignments. Cons: Additional cost to the applicant for a natural resource assessment. Option 4 — remove criterion: Pros: Trails could be located within the floodplain below the average annual flood elevation consistent with an adopted pedestrian /bicycle plan. Cons: Does not address resource protection policies referenced in the Comprehensive Plan or concerns expressed by the public. Discussion Potential conflicting goals in the Comprehensive Plan and criterion in the Development Code for floodplain management hinge around the notion of striking a balance between natural resource protection and recreational use. The public comment received clearly favors siting and designing pathways that avoid impacts to wildlife habitat and water quality. Two of the proposed options presented above include language that would accommodate balancing competing public goods (recreation /natural resources) on a site - specific basis, while still retaining the basic orientation of the criterion to avoid siting below the annual average flood. Option 2 suggests a threshold of practicability which would address path location in relation to cost and design feasibility and program goals. Option 3 requires, in addition, a resource assessment to ensure path location minimizes potential adverse impacts to wildlife habitat. 4 The proposed code amendment is legislative and would apply to all floodplains within the City. Some public comments suggested that a variance process could be used as an alternative to a code amendment, particularly since the proposed amendment arose with respect to the site - specific improvements proposed with the Fanno Creek Park Master Plan. In reviewing this approach, staff finds that two of the variance standards (18.370.010.C.2.d/e) would not likely be met: (d) siting paths below the average annual flood would most likely adversely affect wildlife habitat to some extent and, (e) the hardship would be self - imposed because not building below the average annual flood would remain an option. Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission support Option 3.c to minimize potential adverse impacts to natural resources of planned park pathway improvements within the floodplain. The proposed criterion revision would allow flexibility to balance resource protection goals with community recreation goals as pathways are developed in the future, pursuant to the Park System Master Plan. 5 ATTACHMENT 5 Gary Pagenstecher From: Steve Martin Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:18 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Fanno Creek Trail Gary, The question of the maintenance on the Fanno Creek trail and flooding came to my attention. It should be noted that, with the exception of a bridge that needs to be lengthened to get the footings further outside of the stream banks, flooding has only a small impact on the maintenance of the trails along Fanno Creek. The flood waters inundate the trail a few times each year, usually for less than a day, though occasionally for a couple days. My estimate is that flooding occurs roughly 6 times or less each year. The maintenance after the flooding is usually confined to the occasional sweeping, or shoveling of the trail where it is lower than the surrounding landscape. In those places the sediment will settle, while in most areas, the sediments flow over the asphalt and leave a light dusting that quickly dissipates. After most of the flood events, no special action is taken because there is not much sediment left on the trail. The edge of the trail is mowed for pedestrian safety and this results in a mowed buffer of 2 to 3 feet of low vegetation, usually field grass. The short flood times do not seem to cause much erosion in these areas, especially when the vegetation is thick. As a side note, in some parks we have noticed erosion in planting areas where the grass and vegetation are not allowed to grow, such as around trees or light posts. The maintenance of the asphalt trail in the flood areas does not seem to be much different from the trails that are not in the flood zones. The same problems are seen on the trails regardless of the trail location. Spalding, sinkholes, and cracking of the trail are the most common problems, and occur as commonly on trails out of the flood zone as on trails in the flood zone. The most important factors in the longevity of the trail seem to be if the trail was properly installed and the grade of asphalt. We spend many times more hours on both litter and vegetation maintenance along trails than cleaning up after high water. Hope this helps, Steve Steve Martin Park and Facilities Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503 - 718 -2583 steve @ tgard- or.gov Gary Pagenstecher From: Brian Wegener [bwegener8 @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:37 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: 'Sue BeiIke'; John Frewing; Dave Drescher; Brian Wegener; el.lindstrom @comcast.net; Paul H. Whitney Subject: Re: material for Monday PC hearing /Sensitive Lands Code Removal proposal Let's meet Friday at 10am. Some of the things I am looking for in the code change inspired by Metro's Green Tails book: 1. Avoidance standards. 2. Requirements for pervious materials on all trails. 3. Mitigation requirements. 4. No parallel paths in natural areas to minimize impacts. 5. Minimizing widths 6. Green maintenance practices. 7. Standards to keep pedestrians & bikes on trails. 8. Redirection of bicycle traffic away from natural areas to protect amphibians and reptiles - minimize road kill 9. Bicycle commuter corridors away from natural areas (ie the rail trail) 10. Standards for creek crossings to span flood plain. 11. Viewing stations for wildlife observation from a distance. 12. Trail standards to minimize destructive behavior (duck feeding - poopollution). This code change should improve Tigard's environmental standards for environmental protection, not give blanket approval for past destructive practices like putting paved paths below annual flood elevation. Phil's last staff report failed to investigate the legislative intent of the code prohibition of trails below annual flood elevation. Staff needs to correct this omission before this goes back to the planning commission. The last staff report denied the maintenance issues of trails below annual flood elevation. This also needs to be corrected before this goes back to the PC. Brian Wegener 503- 620 -7507 c: 503- 936 -7612 Gary Pagenstecher wrote: Sue, At your request, please find the attached Memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding DCA2008- 00005. I am available to meet with you and others to discuss any issues you may have tomorrow morning or afternoon and Friday before 1pm. Gary Gary Pagenstecher, AICP Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1 • Gary Pagenstecher From: Doreen Laughlin Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:19 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: FW: Planning Commission - Trails below Annual Flood Level From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing @teleport.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:25 AM To: Doreen Laughlin Subject: Planning Commission - Trails below Annual Flood Level Doreen, Please forward to the PC my current thoughts on the staff proposal to allow trails below annual flood levels. 1 I can't find any other jurisdiction in the Metro area which does this. It doesn't make safety or environmental sense. 2 If there must be ped/bike facilities which traverse these low lands, require that they always be on boardwalks/bridges which are at an elevation above the 100 year flood plain and have rails /fencing on both sides of the boardwalk sufficient to avoid dogs and kids jumping down from the boardwalk to the sensitive land areas. Thanks, John Frewing 1 Exhibit C April 6, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon RE: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2008 - 00005/ Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing to comment for the second time on the City of Tigard's proposal to remove and/or change the wording of Section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Permit requirement which reads in part that "no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood." Fans of Fanno Creek is a local advocacy group for Fanno Creek and its tributaries with many members who donate significant time and effort during the year to plant native vegetation and remove non- native species. While many of our members use trails for various reasons, we do not support any building of new trails that would in any way cause negative impacts to our natural resources. We believe that 18.775.070.B.5 is a necessary part of the code and should NOT be removed not' weakened (as the city's proposed options would) for a variety of reasons as we included in our comments in February. We add here to those 11 comments the following: # 12. The city has come .up with several options in regarding the this section of the code. #3, for example, would change the wording "where practicable ". This totally negates the first part of the sentence, making the code so weak the city will use this wording whenever it desires to and hence build trails in areas that flood annually. We oppose this proposed change to the wording. Also, adding the caveat that there will be a requirement for a resources assessment is a moot point, as this is already required when anyone including the city wants to build a trail in a sensitive area including all areas that "flood annually ". Please remember that we have rewritten our Comprehensive Plan, and under the Trails section we added wording that states that some of our natural areas shall not have trails and shall be protected for the sensitive, rare species that need these quiet undisturbed areas to survive and raise their young, etc. If we put trails in every open space, we will drive wildlife out of our city. Many of the trails we now have are failing because they were built right next to the stream and in the areas that flood annually. It will cost the city a great deal of money to restore the banks, etc. along Fanno Creek, and before we build any new trails we need to first take care of the old trails and make sure they are not causing adverse impacts to wildlife, water, etc. We therefore ask the Planning Commission to DENY the city's request to remove or change the wording of this section of the Sensitive Lands code. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Sue Beilke, Board member, Fans of Fanno Creek CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.775.070.B.5, REMOVING A CRITERION FOR PATHWAYS LOCA FED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE FLOODPLAIN TO BE BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THE AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD AND, INS 1'EAD; REQUIRE THAT PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE PATHWAYS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN INCLUDE A WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT MINIMIZES IMPACTS TO SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (DCA2008- 00005). WHEREAS, the City's Planning Division has requested to amend Chapter 18.775 — Sensitive Lands of the Tigard Development Code to remove a criterion for pathways located within or adjacent to the floodplain to be below the elevation of the average annual flood and, instead; require that pedestrian /bicycle pathways within the floodplain include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the first evidentiary public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held public hearings on February 23, 2009 and April 6, 2009, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment, as amended to require a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was published in the Tigard Times Newspaper at least 10 business days prior to the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the following to be the only applicable review criteria: The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; Goal 8, Recreational Needs;] any federal [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable METRO regulations; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management]; any applicable comprehensive plan policies; [Goal: 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 7, Hazards; Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space]; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances [TDC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775]. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on May 12, 2009, to consider the proposed amendment; and ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 1 WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendment is consistent with the applicable review criteria, and that approving the request would be in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The specific text amendment attached as "EXHIBIT A" to this Ordinance is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 2: The findings in the December 23, 2009 Staff Report and April 6, 2009 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission, and Minutes of the February 23, 2009 and April 6, 2009 Planning Commission hearings are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2009. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2009. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 09- Page 2 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: May 12, 2009 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing - Proposed Development Code Amendment Regarding Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements (DCA2008- 00005) to Remove Criterion that Prohibits Pathways Located within or adjacent to the Floodplain to be Below the Elevation of the Annual Average Flood (18.775.070.B.5) 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 of the public record and is openly available to all members of the 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. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I /Adrn /Cathy /CCSignup /Leg. PH Comp Plan Amendment AGENDA ITEM No. 8 May 12, 2009 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 of the public record and is openly available to all members of the 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. Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. L.- ,> 2 J (as"1 4, f . 5 )l Sw C'1 Csc S i /J#z 'e-- 747,2 7-6,0-4 Cyt . y7ZZ 7' S7i3 -296 - eyyyD 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. I FROM :SIWA FAX NO. :5036213025 May. 12 2009 02:00PM P2 /3 �'' � D epartment o+f Fish lan Wildlife � �� I regon. Northw Region 'r i 18330 NW Sauvie island Road Theodore R, Kulongoski, Governor f ° "' - Portland, OR 97213 --)419 n2ilkdi (503) 621-3488 /"■) COL-Wei( (503) 657 -2050 6` /a O? OREGON - th - . r74 FIM •Wldllla May 12, 2009 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97233 Dear Tigard. City Council, The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (OUFW) would like to provide the 1.ollowing comments regarding the City of Tigard's proposal to remove section 18.775,070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Code with the caveat that a wildlife assessment will he perforrn.ed. ODFW recommends that natural resource assessments should consider the type of habitats present to determine the potential impacts to natural resources. Wildlife assessments often do not identify use by all species present. Even if species are not present at the time of the assessment, this does not mean that the habitats will not be used by species in the future. As stated in a previous letter to the Tigard Planning Commission, the Oregon Conservation Strategy (01)1W 2006) identifies riparian habitats, including associated floodplains and terraces, as a priority habitat. Riparian habitats have declined from historic levels and are now greatly reduced in area and connectivity. Riparian habitats are critical for fish. and wildlife and contain a high level of species diversity. Healthy riparian habitats also provide important ecological services for water quality, such as protection from bank erosion, decreased water temperature, and filtering of runoff. ODFW is concerned with allowing trails and bicycle paths to be placed in riparian and associated floodplain habitats. ODFW does not believe that fish and wildlife will be adequately protected if the City of Tigard removes section 18.775.070.13.5 of the Sensitive Lands Code even if a wildlife assessment is performed. FROM :SIWA FAX NO. :5036213025 May. 12 2009 02:01PM P373 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would like to thank the City ol'Tigard. for the opportunity to provide comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, Sincerely, • Mischa Connine Habitat Biologist • • • • • • • Ron Bunch From: Craig Prosser Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:55 PM 1, To: Ron Bunch; Dick Bewersdorff; Cathy Wheatley Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony FYI From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd ©tigard- or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:15 PM • To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony From: jfrewingjSMTP:JFREWING(a TELEPORT.COM1 Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:13:28 PM To: Craig Dirksen • Subject: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and Councilors, Below is my prepared testimony for tonight's consideration of changes to TDC 18.775 regarding sensitive land permits. Thanks, J. Frewing SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS MAY 12, 2009 TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING The proposed changes to TDC Chapter 18.775 eliminate the requirement that pathways in Tigard's sensitive lands (100 -year fioodplains) be above the elevation of the annual average flood. The replacement wording has two problems which should cause it to be deferred and revised. A This change in regulation has not been 'coordinated' as called for in ORS 92. This statute calls for review by other relevant jurisdictions and incorporation of their comments wherever possible. I don't believe this change has been reviewed by METRO and their staff. B Title 13, Nature in the Neighborhoods, a regulation issued by METRO calls for protection of sensitive lands, including those in the 100 year flood plain. Among the requirements of this regulation is one that calls for clear and objective standards for protection of these sensitive lands, including significant habitat areas. The proposed wording, which calls for a wildlife assessment is not clear and objective as defined in the METRO regulation. Please ask city staff to coordinate this proposed rule change with METRO and include clear and objective • standards, such as exist presently. Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing@teleport.com 1 . h am - ,- -,,tthhe d / . Q 9 May 12, 2009 �2,�,�0 Q t G-APE1 Mayor Dirksen and Council Members a J -Q.,tr1 C1. I/}' -QAM Tigard, Oregon RE: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2008 - 00005/ Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements Dear Mayor Dirksen and Council Members: We are writing to comment on the City of Tigard's proposal to remove and/or change the wording of Section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Lands Code (SLC) Permit requirement which reads in part that "No pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood." Fans of Fanno Creek is a local advocacy group for Fanno Creek and its tributaries with many members who donate significant time and effort during the year to plant native vegetation and remove non - native species. While many of our members use trails for various reasons, we do not support any building of new trails that would in any way cause negative impacts to our natural resources. We believe that 18.775.070.B.5 is a necessary part of the code and should NOT be removed for a number of reasons. • 18.775.070.B.5 - During many discussions with city and staff about this code section, there has been a marked lack of a complete definition for what "average annual flood" actually means. One suggestion was that it meant and would be measured as a "two year flood" event would be. In addition, there is a lack of knowedge as is commented in staff summary„ as to why this is actually in the code. Before any changes /defections to a Sensitive Lands code is made, it behooves the city of Tigard to have a clear definition of the code as well as a clear understanding of what removing from the code would mean for Sensitive Lands /natural resources and their protection and conservation. We asked the city staff (Phil Nachtbar) in April of 2009 to conduct an analysis of what removal of this part of the code would mean. There has been no response, other than a continual verbage, now from staff, that removal would not, "by itself, result in trails being build in areas to the detriment of natural resources including rare, or state and federally listed species." So, how did staff arrive at this conclusion? What analysis was done? Was a hydrology study done? We see no evidence anywhere in the record that any effort was made to qualify or quantify how natural resources and fish and wildlife species might potentially be impacted by removal of this part of the SLC. Until this is done, it is simply not possible to state there will be no detrimental affects from building trails in these SL areas, and hence it cannot be concluded that the city can meet the requirements of Goals 5 8and and Title 3 and 13 if it removes this section of the SLC. Staff has argued that the average annual flood can be measured as a `two -year' flood, but as far as we can tell this has never been done using actual stream flow data, etc. We believe that the city is incorrect on this, for they fail to actually address the actual "average annual flood ", which is based on the `average' flood of the area on an annual basis not a two year basis, and should be calculated based on actual annual flow data for Fanno Creek. • • We reviewed data from USGS from 2001 — early 2009, including the peak stream flows for Fanno Creek measured at the nearest USGS gage off Durham Road (from Fanno Creek at the point where it flows under Hall Blvd.). USGS is the only agency that actually collects stream flow data for this area. Water year Date of annual flood Flow of annual flood, cfs 10/01 -9/02 1/8/02 1030 10/02 -9/03 1/31/03 1180 10/03 -9/04 12/14/03 623 10/04 -9/05 3/27/05 641 10/05 -9/06 12/28/05 1010 10/06 -9/07 12/14/06 964 10/07 -9/08 12/3/07 1670 10/08- 1/2/09 1650 The most recent four years average annual flood flow (AAFF) was 1323 cfs, while for the prior four years it was 868 cfs. For the entire past eight years, the average AAFF was 1095 cfs, slightly more than for the 1996 annual peak flow (also the year of the 100 year flood event). In 1996, the stream flow caused the stream surface to be at least 18" above the surface of Hall Blvd., at 142.37MSL. The data provided above shows that the AAFF is equal to or just above the 1996 annual peak flood level at Hall Blvd, or 142.37 MSL. This also means that the annual average flood elevation at Hall Blvd. approximates that of the 1996 annual peak flow, and this means that it is approximately 18" above curb level at the north end of the Hall Blvd. bridge. We have attached photos (Attachment A) taken in December, 2007 by Brian Wegener of the Tualatin Riverkeepers, of footage taken during a peak flow event that clearly shows Hall Blvd. under water (see table above for the stream flow data). These photos show the high water level on Hall Blvd. as well as at the point of where Fanno Creek Trail meets Hall Blvd. on the west • side of the highway. During some events such as this in the past, I have been on Hall Blvd.. when water depth was well over 12 -18" in height. These annual flood events are happening with more frequency and will continue to increase in frequency and height with continued development. What comes next into question is the cost at which trails are built and maintained? Steve • Martin of the city Parks department submitted comments saying trails posed little maintenance and maintenance costs to the city. The staff report also states that the Public Works department said removal of this section of the SLC "wasn't an issue ". This is contrary to what Brian Rager of Public Works told my neighborhood in September of 2008, stating at a public meeting for folks living along Summer Creek, and when asked if the city would ever build a trail across or along Summer Creek, he said they had no plans to put a trail in this area nor would they ever consider putting a trail through this area due to the fact that it is a sensitive habitat. I hear refer to the Attachment C which clearly shows the bank of Fanno Creek failing next to the trail and the fact that CWS has stated the trail will need to be removed and will not be replaced with the Remeander project for Fanno Creek. This trail should have never been built this close to the bank, and will be very costly to the city to remove. Yearly flooding is eroding the bank, etc. and contributes to unsafe conditions for trail users. I also believe it was built below • the average annual flood in 1994 and was a violation of this part of the code. By removing the SLC, as a citizen I interpret this to mean the city will build trails wherever they want to and may indeed build them again in areas that flood annually and that may cause great expense to hardworking citizens and may also be quite unsafe. • Staff argues that removal of this part of the Sensitive Lands code will not negatively impact Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). Staff is also wrong on this argument, for in fact removal of this section of the code could have severe negative impacts on our natural resources, especially in these areas that "flood annually." With increased development in Tigard and surrounding cities, our creeks and wetlands now flood more frequently and at greater volume and velocities every year (as data above shows). This has negative impacts on both habitat and fish and wildlife, and this annual flooding will only get worse in coming years. Adding trails to these areas that flood annually will only serve to increase these negative impacts, by adding increased impervious surface, degrading water quality, degrading habitats, some already in poor condition, and putting people at greater risk. In addition, costs of trail maintenance of some trails could greatly increase due to the costs of trail maintenance for repairs, upkeep, etc. • Staff argues that the "original intent of the part of the code remains unclear." However, staff then proceeds to list "perceived" reasons as to why the code is included. Their "perceived" reasons are exactly correct, in that yes, this part of the code does indeed help to: • Lessen impacts on floodplains, • Helps to alleviate public safety concerns, • Reduces potential maintenance associated with inundated trails, • . Reduces negative impacts to habitat and the "flora and fauna" associated with those important habitats Negative impacts from removing the code could include • add impervious surface areas to the wetlands, • would fragment habitats, • would create barriers to wildlife moving through these significant habitats and • would degrade water quality • • would create safety issues for the public using these trails in flooded areas. • Staff argues in their memorandum for this proposal that removing this part of the code would allow Tigard to build trails in areas of Fanno Creeek Park "currently inaccessible." Do we really want to do this? Almost all of the Park is currently accessible to the public right now and those areas that don't have trails are this way for a good reason, they are wetlands that flood annually or are wet year - round. Fanno Creek Park, as well as all of our other creeks and adjacent wetlands in Tigard, are classified as "Significant Habitat Areas ", and the Park is rated as an area with the "Highest Habitat Value ". This means that these areas receive the highest level of protection under Goal 5 in order to protect habitat, water quality, and the fish and wildlife that live in these areas. Placing trails in these currently inaccessible significant habitat areas would have negative impacts to these important habitat areas by adding impervious surface (trails), increasing disturbance to fish and wildlife, especially State listed Sensitive - critical species such as the Western Pond Turtle, increasing dogs and other pets to the area and increasing the amount of human debris /garbage to these significant habitat areas. • • We refer here to Attachment B, which shows the bank of Fanno Creek failing just east of Hall Blvd. Before any trail or bridge would be placed in this area. The banks need to be restored in good condition in order to protect the stream, associated habitats and fish and wildlife in this area. This is not being proposed. Mr. Tom Murtagh, the ODFW fish biologist for this region, looked at this very bank and had the following comments; the bank failure problem on Fanno Creek at this site contributes to deteriorating stream function which • negatively affects Federally ESA listed winter steelhead including juveniles that may use this area for over - wintering refugia. Mr. Murtagh also highly recommended that this area should first be restored and the banks repaired BEFORE any bridge or any structure be placed in this area. ODFW's habitat biologist has also submitted a letter to the city stating they oppose removal of this code section. How has the city responded to these concerns? According to Policy 4 of the Natural Resources section of the CP; this Policy states that "The City shall actively coordinate and consult with landowners, local stakeholders, and governmental jurisdictions and agencies regarding the inventory, protection, and restoration of natural resources ". Tigard's Comprehensive Plan (CP) - Staff argues that removal of this section of the code will improve the ability of Tigard to meet the newly revised comprehensive plan goals, including "providing passive recreational opportunities such as trails in parks and open spaces." Keeping this part of the code intact will NOT in any way prevent Tigard from meeting the goals, as there already exist numerous trails throughout our city including both the Fanno Creek regional trail which goes through Fanno Park, and numerous other trails throughout our parks and open spaces. In addition, the on -going Trail Study has identified numerous short trail segments in uplands that will help to meet the comprehensive plan goals for trails and nature - oriented recreation. According to the updated Comprehensive Plan, Tigard already has over 9 miles of completed trails, which include over 1.5 miles of trails within Fanno Creek Park already. In fact, Tigard is in the process of building new trails in significant habitat areas and have received necessary permits to build trails in significant habitat areas, even with this section of the code in place with the current wording. Rather, the removal of this section of the code will actually Violate two policies of the revised Comprehensive Plan (CP), Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space section of the CP, Policy 6, which states that "The City shall acquire and manage some open spaces to solely provide protection of natural resources.... ". And Policy 17 of this section of the CP states that "The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federal listed species,... ". This application has failed to adequately address both of these policies by proposing to remove a section of the SLC without an adequate analysis of what impacts could occur to rare and state and federally listed species in significant habitat if this code was removed. Placing trails in these sensitive wetlands that flood annually will violate both of these policies of the comprehensive plan as well as the Sensitive Lands code. Putting pathways in areas that flood annually including near stream banks creates 1) impervious surface areas or if it is a boardwalk, creates an obstruction in wildlife habitat and fragments existing "significant habitat "; 2) puts people in areas that provide "significant, critical habitat" for imperiled species including Western Pond Turtles, which by state and federal law must be protected and in which are highly sensitive to human disturbance including noise from people walking, talking, biking, etc; 3) introduces • dogs and other pets that should not be allowed in Significant Habitat areas; and 4) increases debris, garbage, etc. that will enter the area. Finally, removing this section of the code in no way protects, preserves or restores habitat or species since it will only serve to have multiple negative impacts on our precious natural resources. The city must meet and fulfill ALL of the CP policies„ they can't lust pick and choose which ones they want to address. • The staff report states that "removal of this SLC does not, by itself, result in trails being build in areas to the detriment of natural resources including rare, or state and federally listed species ". Staff goes on to say that the. CWS DCS_provide additional protection. This is not true for these DCS are designed to address water quality and flood management and in no way do they address the needs of fish and wildlife species, nor their particular habitat needs, which may be protected by keeping this section of the SLC and not removing it. Trail buffers as required by CWS are often glaringly inadequate in protecting wildlife habitat requirements since they are often too small to meet wildlife needs. Staff goes on to say that "trails do not generate pollution and.by themselves are not a.source of impact to sensitive habitats or species." This is totally untrue. How can anyone state this when we are now having to remove trails out of sensitive areas (Fanno Creek Park) and are presently involved in a sensitive lands issue regarding the placement of a trail that will impact a State sensitive listed species (western pond turtles)? Trails can often fragment habitat, fragment wildlife movement corridors, create impervious surfaces, asphalt trails degrade and the material goes into our waterways, people on trails cause disturbance to and disrupt wildlife movement and activities, trails bring in dogs which are highly disturbing to wildife, and many more negative impacts can occur due to trails. Once a trail is put in an area, trail users often create "side trails" that further degrade habitats and disturb wildlife. • Staff fails to mention that in the Fanno Creek Master Plan is also included a project to improve Fanno Creek through remeandering one section of Fanno Creek, improving bank stability, and also by increasing the available habitat for the Western Pond Turtle, an imperiled and State and Federal listed species that is found in the park. Fans of Fanno Creek met on -site with Clean Water Services and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2007 and 2008; these meetings included discussions of the Fanno Creek improvements and possible trail construction and alignments. Both agencies recommended that the current trail on the southwest side of the park be removed in order to reduce the negative impacts it has to the creek, the creek bank and the wetlands, and that NO NEW TRAILS be built in the newly created remeander /wetlands area of the park. This was agreed upon in order to protect the habitat and to give fish and wildlife, including turtles which need quiet, backwater areas away from human disturbance in which to grow and thrive, a place of refuge in the park. The public can still see and appreciate this area from a distance when it is completed as well as enjoy almost the entire rest of the park from the current existing trails. • Fanno Creek is listed,as "Essential Salmonid Habitat" which means that any addition or removal of material associated with path construction creates a need for a DSL permit. Staff in their report fail to address this and how this DSL regulation affects their proposal to delete this section of the code. • Staff failed to consider Metro's "Green Trails Guidelines for Environmentally Friendly Trails "; One section discusses how to site a potential trail route and evaluate impacts to natural resources. It states that routes should "avoid negative impacts to wildlife habitats and water resources and that this is achieved by routing the trail around these resources." It is crucial that staff and the city as a whole get on board with the rest of the region by adopting these Green trail guidelines and standards in order to truly protect and conserve our important natural resources. Dropping the proposed section of the SLC is the wrong "route" to take! • Wildlife Assessment — The proposed new language includes wording that states "shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife. habitat ". Conducting a wildlife assessment doesnot ensure that an alignment would minimize impacts, it only states an assessment would be done. In addition, in some cases we would want to make sure impacts were avoided completely, especially if it involved, federal or state listed species, sensitive or rare species in a particular area. This is supported by the policy #s 6 and 17 in-the CP as noted above. We recommend that the city in any circumstance where Sensitive. Lands are involved conduct a Biological Assessment (BA), that would include an analysis of habitat and species, their habitat needs, condition of habitats in the area of concern, and how these species and habitats might be negatively impacted by a trail, etc. Then, an analysis would need to be conducted both qualitatively and quantitatively of just how the potential impacts would be avoided or in some cases minimized. Any projects that would potentially affect -fish species if ESA listed would need to be consulted with ODFW and NOAA Fisheries. A biological assessment would also give the city much needed baseline data (also required in the revised CP) of our natural resources in Tigard and would further the goals of protecting and restoring our precious natural resources. In conclusion, we request that the Tigard City Council DENY the City of Tigard's request to remove this important section of the Sensitive Lands Permit section of the Development Code, in order to protect our natural resources and to fully meet Tigard's obligations under Goal 5, Title 3, Title 13 and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, e Sue Beilke, • Board member, Fans of Fanno Creek Board member, Friends of Tigard/Bull Mtn. Trails 1 VU1 UV\+ 1 GLUM/ 4,-,1L 1 C1111. 1' 1VVU V / r o , �--V $ rn €-.P1 t . $ . rage 1 oT 2 �. c ri.. S L Gz) R-- - F 1. 1 a is -s 1 5 ‘¶u c °"� Etc Jr .p ',;_ 41 ,.......t cuv_,_ _ i9e5�� ii---..,,A.. c rac 5 tf.. You Tube Worldwide 1 English ; --r L ( `h -� T -, ti� 1 iL- &1a.+11-, Home Videos Shows Channels Community )2 .ii Fanno Creek Park Flood '07 Aa._ . /1 fit - o R 7. (y $ ei �! 0 .11'" we ILIN . w. 5 ... r HIGH \ WATER E F� 0 , Jr 11 t 1:4912:19' IO' * * * * * 1 ratings 677 views Favorite ♦ Share Playlists Flag MySpace Facebook Twitter (more share options) 0 Statistics & Data Video Responses (0) Sign in to post a Video Response ® Text Comments (0) Options Sign in to post a Comment F View all 0 comments Would you Tike to comment? Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member. It http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6C3kPQ1(1-1Gs 5/11/2009 a , • ,, R Y "ti: - �'� '" y F �, . A y. a `. rt .. may ' - A • imm ■•••■■••••• (1) t ' " - --• 'ell . ' , ..: I " :' "...' f • , k_...... ,.. . , y _ -,. . t i-.,i,„iii I, i, ,., Or 1.* , 4 fil .7: .,,,,-,.‘,.:, i ../ - ,„, ,,.....7:_,....: . , �t, ,` A " ° `` 7.,______ t , ....__,.....0 ..., I . 1 1 1 4. -. . . . . ..:- t . ' .:: 4, e : :Val: : . 44 ` .' --.'"....:\ ,••■,./:::-. - - . 7 x!": . e, C r1 i r0.■■1111 1 N , i V ' - !~ tom/•._ F 'l . . - ..--'- te ^ � / • i I A _ 1 ..„,, -- ._ — ( r � • - _.� _ ! r ""` ---,----,.--04,,„_____.4:,-,:..,__:,_,,-- -. , ) --- . tl ... < .. + . . .._ , ... . t4 cl,...._ . . Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:21 PM Subject: Fanno Creek Park Aftermath Photos ' I walked through the parks from Ash Ave to Main St today to take a look at the aftermath. K eSr/%' (Y1 sI r r id 1 y:. ( a � @ # s _aw a ,ti ,,..-/ “'_ It looks like the bridges came through okay (or else Steve was very quick with repairs). .10 fir y,. Vii . The fence at the stormwater wetland by the apartments got "realigned ". Debris was on the fence up to 3 ft. I think code that requires fences around stormwater facilities might be in conflict with code that prohibits fences in floodways. 5/11/2009 L 145V b Vl b Y# 11j" +� �.:a 'x nom '... � (• f * +N . p t " ° . mo f , ;.<10,--, 14,t. t"-'%' c4 r9 1: 2 4 ' to. There was more erosion on the creek bank along the trail. Brian Wegener Watershed Watch Coordinator Tualatin Riverkeepers 503- 620 -7507 Nobody knows the trouble you've seen. Report problems with our online trouble ticket and agency contact list. 5/11/2009 kg Cathy Wheatley ' / 0R. (7 q From: Craig Prosser S,",,er'l,i Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:55 PM To: Ron Bunch; Dick Bewersdorff; Cathy Wheatley &() Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony Ct.L.41Cit FYI From: Craig Dirksen [mailto:craigd @tigard - or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:15 PM To: Liz Newton; Craig Prosser; Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony From: jfrewing [SMTP:JFREWING(c�TELEPORT.COM1 Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:13:28 PM To: Craig Dirksen Subject: Sensitive Land Permits: Frewing Testimony Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Dirksen and Councilors, Below is my prepared testimony for tonight's consideration of changes to TDC 18.775 regarding sensitive land permits. Thanks, John Frewing SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS MAY 12, 2009 TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING The proposed changes to TDC Chapter 18.775 eliminate the requirement that pathways in Tigard's sensitive lands (100 -year floodplains) be above the elevation of the annual average flood. The replacement wording has two problems which should cause it to be deferred and revised. A This change in regulation has not been 'coordinated' as called for in ORS 92. This statute calls for review by other relevant jurisdictions and incorporation of their comments wherever possible. I don't believe this change has been reviewed by METRO and their staff. B Title 13, Nature in the Neighborhoods, a regulation issued by METRO calls for protection of sensitive lands, including those in the 100 year flood plain. Among the requirements of this regulation is one that calls for clear and objective standards for protection of these sensitive lands, including significant habitat areas. The proposed wording, which calls for a wildlife assessment is not clear and objective as defined in the METRO regulation. Please ask city staff to coordinate this proposed rule change with METRO and include clear and objective standards, such as exist presently. Thank you. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR jfrewing @teleport.com 1 1 ' FROM. .. :SIIAA FAX NO. :5035213025 May. 12 2009 02 :0aPM P1 /3 ' .aNt'u OREGON DEPARTMENT OFFISKAND WILDLIFE OR EGON 4l ' A SA UVIE ISLAND WILDLIFE AREA _� N. WILLAMETTE WILDLIFE DISTRICT OFFIC1? ° -- r � N . 1" 1 &330WSAUVIE ISLAND ROAD `. • W"k7 PHONE- 503-621-3488 Fish &Wildlife FAX NO. 503.621 -3025 / aGt. -(24(\n - -Ia - DATE A G1 L 17 PAGES TO FOLLOW.' TO 710164-c): c (� L 1 evuoAc i I FROM•1 S c..-L1,9.. (I° .,l SvBJEC7:- .S ..t.1 -f;tiR. L o -,015 0 u vv\vh ,1,4 5 cOMMENTS:• Forms Newtax FROM :SIWA FAX NO. :5036213025 May. 12 2009 02:00PM P2 /3 Department of Fish and Wildlife " re on Northwest Region Z 1.8330 NW Sa.uvie Island Road Theodore R. Kulongoxki, Governor .t . 7. §: Portland, OR 97213 • (503) 621 -3488 (503) 657 -2050 . OREGON f: FI & WlldIIk May 12, 2009 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97233 Dear Tigard City Council, The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) would like to provide the following continents regarding the City of Tigard's proposal to remove section 18.775.070.B.5 of the Sensitive Land.s Code with the caveat that a wildlife assessment will be performed. ODFW recommends that natural resource assessments should consider the type of habitats present to deternmine the potential impacts to natural resources. Wildlife assessments often do not identify use by all species present. Even. if species are not present at the time of the assessment, this does not mean that the habitats will not be used by species in the future. As stated in a previous letter to the Tigard Planning Commission, the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODI W 2006) identifies riparian habitats, including associated floodplains and terraces, as a priority habitat. Riparian habitats have declined from historic levels and are now greatly reduced in area and connectivity. Riparian habitats are critical for fish and wildlife and contain a high level of species diversity. Wealthy riparian habitats also provide important ecological services_ for water quality, such as protection from bank erosion, decreased water temperature, and filtering of runoff. ODFW is concerned with allowing trails and bicycle paths to be placed in riparian and associated floodplain habitats. ODFW does not believe that fish and wildlife will be adequately protected if the City of Tigard removes section 18.775.070.13.5 of the Sensitive Lands Code even if a wildlife assessment is performed.. • FROM :SIWA FAX NO. :5036213025 May. 12 2009 02:01PM P3i3 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would like to thank the City of Tigard for the opportunity to provide continents. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, • Mischa Connine Habitat Biologist • • • • Legislative Hearing Statement by City Attorney Any person may offer relevant oral and/or written testimony. Oral testimony may be offered only by a person who has been asked to speak by the Mayor. City staff will identify applicable standards in the staff report at the beginning of the hearing. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any potential conflicts. A Council member with a potential conflict may participate after fully describing the potential conflict. An actual conflict exists if the decision would result in financial benefit to the Council member or family member. In cases of actual conflict, the Council member will not participate. After the discussion of conflicts, any person may challenge participation of a Council member based on an actual conflict or failure to disclose a potential conflict. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. After the discussion of conflicts and any challenges, City staff will summarize the written staff report and explain the proposed amendments. Then those in favor of the proposed amendments testify. Then those who oppose the amendments or who have questions or concerns testify. Council members may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, the City staff can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate. During deliberations, the City Council may re -open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. A copy of the rules of procedure for the hearing and copies of agendas for today's hearing are available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available at City Hall. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that and add any additional points of your own. Demonstrations from the audience that prolong or interfere with the hearing are prohibited. Please refrain from them. Comments from the audience other than from a recognized speaker should not be offered and will not be part of the record. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, please spell your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder. These exhibits will be marked as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask them to return your exhibits. I: \ADM \CATHY \CCA \Legislative Information \City Attorney Legislative Script (2).doc 50014 -36799 City Attorney Legislative Script (2).doclMSOffice /5/12/2009 • ,COMMUNITY - • • • SPA1. ERS P HEARING ITEM 6005 SE lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97209 -2109 . The following will be considered by the Phone: 503-81141300 Fax: 503.620-3433 Tigard City Coundil on . Tuesday May E - mail: legals @commnewspapers.com " p, . 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall " Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION - ,P oral or written testimony is invit- State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS T I GARD ed. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, procedure adopted . by the Council and depose and say that I am the Accounting • available at. City Hall or. the rules of Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, procedure setforth•in Section 18 Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, • Further, information may be obtained from .the City of Tigard county and state, as defined Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 in the aforesaid Y SW Hall Blvd.; Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503- 639 - 4171, by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that or by e - mail to garvu@,tigard- or.gov. . • City of Tigard . DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT , Notice of Public Hearing /DCA2008 -0005 . (DCA) 2008 -00005 . TT11287 - SENSITIVE LANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - of which is hereto annexed, was REQUEST: To remove Section 18.775.070.B.5. of the Sensi- A copy tive Lands Permit requirements which reads "5. The plans for published in the entire issue of said the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be newspaper for below the elevation of an average annual flood; ". Removal of 1 this section would allow pathways to lie installed in areas which week in the following issue would benefit the public's access to and educational appreciation April 23, 2009 of ecological areas. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Comniis'sion recommended the CityCouncil replace the . subject section with . "Pedestrian/bicycle pathways within the floodplain shall include a wildlife assessment to ensure that the proposed alignment mini- Ou-tii, mize s impacts to significant wildlife habitat." LOCATION: ac / L o Citywide. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: - V All City Comprehensive Plan Designations. ZONE: All City Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Mena er) Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The Statewide Planning Goals and,Guidelines adopted under Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' Revised Statutes Chapter 197; [Goal 1, Public Involvement ;, April 23, 2009. Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural-Hazards; and Goal 8 Recreational Needs]; any federal (�Q ( [FEMA] or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any ap plicable METRO regulations; [Metro Code Sections 3.07.300; NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OR Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and Title 3, Water My commission expires Quality and Flood Management]; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; [Goal 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Acct #10093001 Planning; Goal 7, Hazard; Goal 8, Parks, Recreation, Trails, and • Open Space];'and any applicable provisions of the City's imple- Attn: Patty Lunsford. . , menting ordinances,[TDC 18.130, 18.380, 18.390 and 18.7751. City of Tigard - 13125 SW Hall Blvd ; Publish 04/23/2009: , TT11287 Tigard, OR 97223 Size: 2x7 Amount Due $116.90* `Please remit to address above.