05/05/2008 - Packet I
:111111 .
City of Tigard
TIGARD Planning Commission — Revised Agenda
MEETING DATE: May 5, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:10 p.m.
5. WORKSHOP 7:15 p.m.
5.0 BRIEFING ON UNINCORPORATED URBANIZATION ISSUES / MAYOR'S LETTER
5.1 CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING "HAZARD TREE" DEFINITION
5.2 GOAL 5 —NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS
6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:30 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MAY 5, 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
• 41
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 5,2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. 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 (arrived later), Doherty,
Hasman,Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Fishel, Caffall
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director;John Floyd,Associate
Planner;Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen Laughlin,Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS - None.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Walsh, to approve
the April 21, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Doherty, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon,Vermilyea,Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS:
EXCUSED: Fishel,Anderson, Caffall
5. WORKSHOPS
5.0 UNINCORPORATED URBANIZATION BRIEFING/MAYOR'S LETTER
Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, spoke briefly about the issue of
unincorporated urbanization. He referred to his May 5, 2008, memo, and attachments, and
asked the commissioners to read this information before the next Planning Commission
discussion on urbanization [scheduled for May 19, 2008].
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING nIINUI'ES—May 5,2008—Page 1
E:itpc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
[This meeting.in its entirety,is availaise on CO.and retained at City of Tigard Putfx Records.]
S
•
Bunch also spoke about the ethics rules and the fact that Council will be meeting on this
topic the next evening.
The "Ethics Rule" which Council will also be meeting on the following evening came up.
Commissioners Vermilyea and Walsh informed the commission that they had contacted the
Mayor about some of the questions they were being asked. They felt the questions were
burdensome, especially for voluntary commissions and committees— as opposed to elected
boards. They particularly disliked being asked about distant relatives and having the threat of
fines. The commissioners hope for a less burdensome set of rules.
5.1 CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING "HAZARD TREE"
DEFINITION
At this point,John Floyd,Associate Planner, followed up on-the Mayor's letter thanking the
Commissioners for their hard work (Exhibit A). He reminded the commission of how much
they'd accomplished so far. He noted that 77% of the Comprehensive Plan has been
completed and that they are 3/4 of the way though and thanked them for their hard work and
time commitment.
Floyd reminded the commissioners that at the 4/21/08 meeting the Planning Commission
had made a formal recommendation to Council regarding the Urban Forest Comprehensive
Plan Amendment CPA2008-00002,with one item withheld for tonight's consideration. That
item being the definition of a "Hazard Tree." At this point, he turned the meeting over to
Todd Prager, City Arborist.
Prager referred to his memo dated 4-25-08 (Exhibit B). He gave the definition of a hazard tree
that staff recommends as: "A tree or tree part that is likely to fail and cause damage or injury,
and the likelihood exceeds an acceptable level of risk." He said he followed up with a phone
call to the ISA [International Society of Arborists] and ran the definition by them to verify this
was an acceptable adaptation of their definition. He reported they did not raise any objections
to it.
After a short question and answer time to Prager regarding the definition, Commissioner
Vermilyea made the following motion: "I move that the Planning Commission adopt the
revised definition of`hazard tree' and incorporate that definition in Urban Forest
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2008-00002 and forward to Council for review and
approval."
Commissioner Walsh seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Doherty, Hasman, Inman,Vemiilyea,Walsh
NAYS: Muldoon
ABSTENTIONS:
EXCUSED: Fishel,Anderson, Caffall
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 2
E:1tpc 05-05-08 MinuteS.doc
[This meeting.in ds entirety.is ava]atle on M.and retained at City of Tigard Pu05c Records.[
•
Commissioner Walsh asked whether the Planning Commission would approve of him
speaking to Council the following evening as a representative of the Planning Commission and
speak to them regarding the Urban Forest. Commissioner Vermilyea said he would be there
as well. President Inman stated that, to clarify,both Commissioner Walsh and Commissioner
Vermilyea would be speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission at the next evening's
Council meeting and asked whether everyone was agreeable to this. All the commissioners
agreed to it.
5.2 GOAL 5 —NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS
John Floyd, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding CPA2008-00003,
Natural Resources and Historic Areas [Goal 5] chapter, on behalf of the City (Exhibit C).
He reminded the commissioners that this was a result of multiple meetings with Policy
Interest Teams. He said the Historic Areas part of it was developed over two meetings, and
the Natural Resources portion developed over the course of three scheduled meetings (two
of which were attended). He told the commissioners that the workshop this evening was
intended to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to ask questions of staff on
the concepts or content of the amendment. He noted that Clean Water Services had
submitted a letter of comment and that a copy had been provided to them for their review
(Exhibit D). He stated that the Public Hearing for this section is scheduled for May 19. At
that time, staff will present a lengthier staff report with consistency findings, and public
comment will be received and entered into the record.
At this point, President Inman told the commissioners they would review the goals, policies,
and action measures one by one [pages 6—9 of Attachment"I" Exhibit C] and the meeting
was now open for questions or comments on them. Some of those questions and
comments follow:
[This meeting,in its entirety, is available on CD and retained as City of Tigard public
record.]
GOAL 5.1— "Protect and restore natural resources, and the environmental and ecological
services they provide, through naturally functioning systems that demonstrate a high level of
biodiversity."
One of the commissioners questioned the word "demonstrate". He said he doesn't think
the word adequately gets to what they're trying to say. Another commissioner questioned
the word "restore" He wondered "how are we using it and how is it being applied?" After
some discussion on this, Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director, said a
modifier could be well used here—such as "when possible"— so it would read "Protect and
`when possible' restore natural resources, etc."
Question by Vermilyea—regarding "the environmental and ecological services they
provide"... what services are provided? How about using the word "functions" instead of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 3
E:Vpc 05-05-08 Minutes doe
(This meeting,in its entirety,is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Put&Records.I
I S
services? Would it be appropriate to split this into two goals... one dealing with protection
and natural resources, the other dealing with the restoration of natural resources. Floyd said
he can work with that thought and bring it back to next meeting.
There was some discussion as to what the "plain language" of this goal is — something the
layman can understand. Bunch came up with the "plain language" version of Goal 5.1 as
follows: "Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they
provide; and, where possible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning
systems and high levels of biodiversity." He agreed that they have to be separated.
President Inman said there needs to be some clarity on what environmental and ecological
functions is intended to refer to. She said they will use Bunch's revised definition as the
working definition and revisit the issue at the next meeting.
POLICIES
Policy 1:
Vermilyea likes Policy 1 as a goal rather than a policy. He said it articulates what the real
goal is better than the goal itself. He had a question regarding 5.1c—values? How does a
natural resource have a value? Is this appropriate? Floyd responded that there are human
benefits from different natural resources in terms of psychological quality of life —health.
Bunch said there are monetary values and other kinds of inherent psychological / cultural
/spiritual values associated with natural resources that affect well being. Vermilyea
suggested striking the word "values." He said it's impossible to quantify and shouldn't be
in this context. It was suggested that this might be a good place to modify Policy 1 to add
"where appropriate" rather than "where possible" — so it would read "and `where
appropriate' restore natural resources...etc."
Policy 2:
One of the commissioners doesn't like the words "continue to," and doesn't like "as
appropriate" at the end. He suggested deleting the first sentence and dropping everything
after that into an action measure. Bunch agreed this would be good.
Policy 3:
The word "values" was questioned and it was suggested that it be deleted.
A new version was suggested for this policy: "The City shall encourage public and private
development to use sustainable building technologies and low impact development
techniques, and include measures to protect and improve natural resource
quality/functions as part of site and building design." One of the commissioners
suggested that staff puts this in as an alternative. Inman liked the original version so
agreed that a couple of versions would be good.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 4
E:Hpc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
(Thus meeting•in its entirety.is avanatie on CD.and retained at City of Tipa'd Put&c Records.(
• •
Policy 4:
After discussion, new wording was suggested: "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."
Policy 5:
Commissioner Walsh would like the word "guide" used instead of"inform." Floyd said
that works. All agreed that was a better word to use in this case.
Policy 6:
Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing "prevent" to "discourage." Floyd agreed that
was more accurate. They also reworded the policy to: "Prior to development application
or annexation" so the policy would read "The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives
as appropriate to discourage property owners from removing or degrading natural
resources prior to application for development or annexation."
Policy 7:
Vermilyea suggested rewording it to: "The City shall protect and,where appropriate,
restore riparian and upland habitats on public and private lands" and putting the rest into
action measures. Inman disagreed— she said doing that would lead to subjectivity as to
what it's referring to - regarding the public and private lands — she thinks it leaves it open.
She doesn't think "c" should be an action measure. She believes "preservation and
creation of linkages" should be a policy. It was suggested that both "b" and "c" be
separate policies. There was discussion on the original wording including "maximum
extent possible." Floyd said the Policy Interest Team (PIT) specifically wanted a very
aggressive statement here— they wanted "maximum extent possible" to be included— he
noted the word "possible" is a qualifier but it is still a very aggressive statement.
Commissioner Walsh said he's concerned about the wording "maximum extent possible".
Inman summarized that what she's hearing is with Vermilyea's proposed new language,
the commission is contemplating removing the "maximum extent possible" language and
then in the public comment later, they can give some feedback on that. Vermilyea said, to
clarify, that he thinks this is just a language issue - the language is superfluous — that the
idea is if we "shall protect and restore where appropriate" then necessarily it is the
maximum extent possible. He just doesn't think the language is necessary.
Policy 8:
It was suggested that the strategies be dropped to action measures - that "preserve" be
changed to "protect", that "maintain" be dropped and that "where appropriate" be added.
So the policy would read: "The City shall protect and, where appropriate, restore the
diverse ecological and non-ecological functions of streams, wetlands, and associated
riparian corridors." It was suggested that "b" in 8 is basically the same as "b" in policy 7
above so they can combine the two and just keep the "b" in policy 7. In "d" it was
suggested that the word "regime" be changed to "system." Floyd agreed that the word
system is better than regime.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 5
E:1tpc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
(This meeting,in its entirely.is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Putr<ic Records.
. .
Policy 9:
It was suggested that this be shortened to "The City shall implement measures to protect
groundwater" and put the rest into action measures.
. Policy 10:
The question was raised "Do we have an adequate baseline inventory today that can be
maintained or do we need to put in some language that says we will improve / develop /
etc." Ron Bunch suggested the language: "The City shall periodically update to improve
its baseline inventory of natural resources through surveys and monitoring."
Policy 11:
It was suggested to remove "planned development" or possibly drop Policy 11 completely. .
1 & 2 changes covered this policy. Possibly add an "e" to policy 1 about assisting
landowners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
A general suggestion agreed upon by the commission was that staff keeps the language in
the action measures congruous with the language in the policies.
ii. The Planning Commission found this action measure to be too vague and the
suggestion was that alternative language be made by staff so this action measure is
more understandable.
iv. They would like "regionally significant" to be measurable and identifiable.
v. It was suggested this one be stricken and revisited should they feel necessary after
public comment.
vi. Suggestion was made to add "identify and make steps to correct" gaps, conflicts,
and opportunities for enhancement."
viii. They believe this is redundant.
xi. The commissioners suggested that this be reworded to be more easily understood.
It was felt to be too broad. Flesh this one out.
GOAL 5.2
"Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant
resources."
The commission liked this goal as written.
POLICIES:
Policy 1: It was suggested and all agreed that this be changed to read "The City shall •
actively promote the protection and preservation of historic resources and consider the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 6
E:Vyc 05-05-08 MinUtes.doc
[This meeting.in its entirety.is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records.'
• •
development and implementation of new culturally significant resources and cooperate
with organizations involved in their protection."
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
No changes were recommended.
At this point the meeting was opened up to public testimony. The following two people
testified:
John Frewing
• The amount of time allotted for public comment on this chapter is a concern. The
material is admittedly rough as the opportunity for citizen involvement has been
limited.
• There should be no limit to the degree of specificity or lack of specificity included in
the policies. The things that should be policies are the things that are important
regardless of whether or not they are more specific, or more general.
• The Planning Commission should request of staff a comparison of the current and
proposed Comprehensive Plan policies. In some degree, the current plan is better
than what is proposed, in others it is worse.
• The introduction to the proposed chapter should be expanded to include real
information beyond that which is currently in the proposal. The policies of the
proposed Plan should refer to maps in the expanded background information, as is
the case in the current Plan.
• The creation of natural resource zones should be talked about and added to the
policies.
• To explain action measure xi: The state permits wells and pumping from streams for
residential and commercial uses. If you don't pump for a period of five years the
permits can be canceled. There are currently thousands of those permits sitting out
there which have not been used in years. Tigard should aggressively pursue getting rid
of the ones that pump water from Fanno Creek, for example. Tigard should make
sure we know what water rights exist, are they current, are they being used, etc.
• The word "values" should remain in the document. Metro's Standards and
Guidelines for Sustainable Sites comments on both the functions and values of
ecosystems, which are different. The definition of"values" should include both the
economic value and the intrinsic value of these resources which is ascribed by
humans.
• Trying to wordsmith the document too closely is fraught with problems. The
language must represent what the people of Tigard want, be understandable by lay
citizens, but does not need to be defensible in a court of law at this stage.
• Insertion of language such as "where appropriate" should be removed in addition to
"the maximum extent possible". Let's not leave some of the specificity in and take
the rest out.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 7
E:ttpc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
(Pis meeting,in its entirety.is available on CO,and retained at City of Tigard Putc Records.
40 •
• In policies related to goal 5.1 it is important and Tigard citizens would support
• language to minimize water use, minimize the use of air polluting mechanisms,
recycle waste, minimize noise, night light, and other things that impact us and our
natural systems. This language is appropriate in the Environmental Quality section, or
here in the natural resources section which is better.
• Policy 3 should be applied to individual site, not just development projects
(structures). There are good ideas in the Metro document Standards and Guidelines -
for Sustainable Sites.
• Strengthen Policy 4 to "The City shall manage its natural resources through
consultation with..." It is his experience that the City does not do this very well
currently.
• In Policy 7, the language "maximum extent possible" should be taken out only if
"where appropriate" is also taken out.
• Policies 7 and 8 should be separated so that one policy addresses upland habitat and
the other addresses riparian areas. Mitigation can come out as a separate concept.
• The proposed chapter should mention Metro's model ordinance, Title 13 which is a
stronger action than riding along with the rest of Washington County's voluntary
habitat friendly development provisions
• On the subject of high scenic quality and view sheds, Portland does this already.
Tigard downtown does this as well. The policy should read for sites other than
downtown. For example, the view across the meadows of Cook Park to the Tualatin
River, and along Fanno Creek somewhere.
•
Sue Bielke
• The Policy Interest Team was not given enough time to go through the policies, or
put together the action measures. She would like to meet a few more times to cover
everything.
• Standard wording is protect, conserve, and restore natural resources. This should be
in the Comprehensive Plan as well. We can define what these things mean.
• The Comprehensive Plan needs a really good glossary so we don't have to dumb
everything down.
• On the subject of services vs. functions,John mentioned the Metro Plan.
"Functions" and "services" are commonly used in natural resource documents and
should be used here as well. We can define these as well.
• The wording "where appropriate" does not belong in the Comprehensive Plan
because it gives the City an out for things the community should be doing.
• In every single policy we want to make sure Uplands are included. We do have
uplands that are important. They are ecologically just as important as a wetland.
• The word values should be left in and defined.
• In Policy 7, leave the wording "fish and wildlife" because that was important to the
PIT. Sometimes you restore habitats just for habitat value, other times for fish and
wildlife habitat.
• The "maximum extent possible" should be left in, but we can define it. Lots of time
this will be limited by funds. Wants to discuss this concept some more.
PLANNING COM1bIISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 5,2008—Page 8
E:Spc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
[This meeting,in its entirety,Is available on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Pubtc Rewfds.)
• •
• Additional Policy language:
• The City shall create a distinct zone for open spaces, greenways, etc. in order
to protect the natural resources that occur in these areas.
• Protect and restore rare habitats and species such as oak prairie habitats.
• Includes Fish and wildlife too
• We can define rare. Very valuable.
• Hydrologic regime should remain, because it is a scientific term. It is not the same as
a function. A wetlands example is the regime of how much water is there in winter vs.
summer. As a land manager you have to look at that hydrologic regime to restore the
functions and the values.
• In Policy 10 she disagrees with Staff; she does not think we have a good inventory.
Alternative policy language:
• The City shall conduct surveys of all natural resources in order to establish a
baseline inventory.
• You can't have a baseline inventory until you do your surveys.
• The City shall periodically maintain and update that natural resource
inventory.
• Alternative Action Measures
• Conduct surveys and monitoring of habitat and species periodically. (Might
depend on funding).
• Engage citizens in surveying, monitoring and evaluation.
• There are people who are more than willing to participate
• Identify opportunities for funding availability. (such as grants)
• Action Measure 9 should be changed to the Oregon Conservation Strategy. This is a
blueprint for how we want to manage our fish,wildlife, and plant species statewide.
The next step is to get funding.
• Agrees with John and recommends Metro's Title 13. The CWS standards set up to
protect water quality, not habitat.
6. OTHER BUSINESS — It was decided they were not ready for this to go to a Public
Hearing and that this workshop would be continued to the next meeting—May 19.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin, Administra 7 Specialist II
A'fl'EST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MliNtTI'ES—May 5,2008—Page 9
E:Vpc 05-05-08 Minutes.doc
[TMs meeting,in its entirety,is avagade on CD,and retained at City of Tigard Public Records.)
• • •
• City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
u1
111111
is . •
May 5, 2008 T I GARD
EXHIBIT A
Members of the Planning Commission and Tigard Tree Board:
I want to convey Council's appreciation for your hard work, good judgment
and perseverance over the past year. I am aware that development of the
Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the product of many
volunteer hours and has not proceeded without controversy.
Thank you all for your commitment and efforts to reach consensus. As you
demonstrated at the April 21, 2008 Planning Commission meeting (when you
worked late into the night), your commitment to our community is
extraordinary.
I look forward to receiving the Commission's recommendation.
Regards,
Craig E. Dirksen, Mayor
City of Tigard
•
Copy. Tigard Qty Council
Tom Coffee,Community Development Director
Dennis Koellermeier,Public Works Director
Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
• •
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD EXHIBIT B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
RE: Definition of"Hazard Tree" for Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA2008-00002)
DATE: April 25, 2008
At the April 21, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding the Urban Forest
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008-00002), staff was given direction by the Planning
Commission to revise the definition of"hazardous tree" based upon the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) definition. The following is a discussion of draft language presented at the
hearing, a suggested alternative received during public comment, and staff's recommendations as
based on the ISA Dictionary.
The following definition of"hazardous tree"was recommended by the Tigard Tree Board, and is in
the existing Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Hazardous Tree -a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound, suffering from
infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall
and injure persons or propery and where pruning or other treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard.
Ken Gertz,member of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland, put forth the
following definition of"hazardous tree", stating that it tracks more closely with the ISA definition
and takes into consideration future improvements constructed around trees:
Hazardous Tree -a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound, suffering from
infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fail
and injure persons or damage properly either existing or potential and where pruning or other commonly accepted
arboricultural practices dents will not significantly alleviate the hazard.
The ISA On-Line Dictionary does not have a specific definition for"hazardous tree", however it
does define "hazard" in the context of arboriculture. The following definition of"hazard"was
pulled verbatim from the ISA On-line Dictionary of Arboricultural Terms:
Hazard-situation, condition, or thing that may be dangerous. (1)in tree management, a tree or tree part that is
likely to fail and cause damage or injury, and the likelihood exceeds an acceptable level of risk. (2)in tree care or
forestry operations, the presence of a condition or situation that may cause harm or injury to workers.
Page 1 of 2
• •
While the ISA On-line Dictionary does not have a specific definition of"hazardous tree", staffs
opinion is that the above definition of"hazard" as it relates to tree management represents an
equivalent substitution. Also, since the term"hazard tree"is more consistent with the content of
the Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment and common arboriculture industry usage, staff
recommends defining the term"hazard tree" as opposed to "hazardous tree" in the document.
Based on the above findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following ISA
based definition of"hazard tree":
Hazard Tree -a tree or tree part that is likely to fail and cause damage or injury, and the likelihood exceeds an
acceptable level of risk.
Page 2 of 2
• •
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD 2027 EXHIBIT C
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Floyd, Associate Planner
RE: Goal 5 —Natural Resources and Historic Areas Workshop
DATE: April 28, 2008
At the May 5th Planning Commission meeting, staff will present draft goals, policies, and
recommended action measures for the Natural Resources and Historic Areas Comprehensive Plan
chapter for Planning Commission review, discussion, and editing. These draft goals, policies, and
recommended action measures are intended to reflect the community's values and aspirations for
natural resource and historic areas planning. They also aim to organize and coordinate the
relationships between people, land, and resources to meet the current and future needs of Tigard.
This language is founded,in part, on the following sources:
• The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Visioning Process
• Community surveys over the past several years
• Tigard 2007: A Comprehensive Plan Resource Report
• Public Comments received at Policy Interest Team Meetings
This meeting gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to ask questions of staff on the
concepts or content of the language that is included in the draft goals, policies, and recommended
action measures. Previous chapters reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council have
revealed that both bodies want to receive and honor citizen recommendations, but that final
language should provide flexibility regarding future implementation. As such, this is the appropriate
time to evaluate the Policy Interest Team recommendations versus the views of the Commission on
what it ultimately recommends to City Council.
The intended outcome of the meeting would be a consensus on the final draft background, goals,
policies, and recommended action measures that will be brought before the Planning Commission
for a public hearing on May 19`h. To meet this timeline, a thorough review of the materials before
the meeting, with questions ready, will help to ensure a focused review and discussion that is
efficient.
Remember, staff is available to answer any questions or concerns that you may have leading up to
the meeting and we encourage you to call or email us to ensure a productive meeting. Please
contact John Floyd at 503-718-2429 or johnfl(,tigard-or.gov with questions, comments or concerns
relating to this agenda item.
1
• •
The attached material for this topic includes:
• Draft background information,goals,policies, and recommended action measures
• Policy Interest Teaming After Meeting Memo of October 3, 2007
• Policy Interest Team After Meeting Memo of November 19, 2007
Included below are some definitions that may be helpful to your review:
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
achieve that end.
Obligation -The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use such as public facility plans, and
zoning and development standards or show cause why the Comprehensive Plan should be amended
consistent with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment must take place following
prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise violate a Plan policy. However,
in the instance where specific plan policies appear to be conflicting, the City shall seek solutions
which maximize each applicable policy objective within the overall context of the Comprehensive
Plan and Statewide Goals. As part of this balancing and weighing process, the City shall consider
whether the policy contains mandatory language (e.g., shall, require) or more discretionary language
(e.g., may, encourage).
Recommended Action Measures
Definition -A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard which, if executed,would
implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects,
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific issues.
These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions and
agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
2
• •
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs, and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are
suggestions to future City decision-makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them. Neither
do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request amendments or
changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of recommended action measures is not exclusive. It
may be added to, or amended, as conditions warrant.
3
• •
Attachment "1"
Natural Resources and Historic Areas
Each community possesses certain natural and historic resources that help to establish its
identity. Tigard is fortunate to contain a variety of these resources that contribute to its high
quality of life. From the riparian corridors along the Tualatin River and its tributaries, to the
City's wetlands, to the upland habitat resources, the community's natural resources are a
visual and ecological asset. The historic and cultural resources of the community represent a
part of the community that provides a living history of the area. Protecting and conserving
these resources are vital components to a successful land use planning program.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
"To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open paces."
As awareness of the importance of natural and historic resources and their relationship to
the quality of life has increased, so has concern for protecting these resources. Protecting the
City's valuable natural and historic resources is thus one of Tigard's primary goals. In
addition, the City must comply with federal, state, and regional laws protecting the resources,
including sensitive, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats. The following
resources are addressed in this chapter:
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat
• Wetlands
• Streams
. • Groundwater
• Historic and Cultural Resources
As Tigard's population continues to grow, so does the potential for conflict between the
desire to preserve resources and the need to provide adequate land for growth. As
development patterns change to accommodate growth, more pressure is placed on the
resources that are present. The tension between the built and natural environments results
from the competition for land resources. The steady trend of growth and development
further necessitates the importance of finding a suitable balance in the future, both locally
and regionally.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Despite growing urbanization, Tigard and the surrounding area remain home to an
impressive diversity of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. Fish and wildlife
species depend on a complex array of habitat conditions for their food, water, mobility,
security, and reproductive needs. Wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard is heavily
concentrated adjacent to water bodies, such as streams and wetlands. However, there are
patches of upland habitat in drier, higher elevations across the City. This upland vegetation
not only contributes in providing protective cover for wildlife, but also contributes to the
aesthetic quality of the community and serves as an essential element in controlling runoff
and soil erosion, moderating temperatures, and reducing air pollution.
CPA2008-00003 1 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
A number of agencies are involved in the effort to address the management and protection
of fish and wildlife habitat. In 2000, Metro began work on a regional inventory of significant
fish and wildlife habitat, focusing on riparian corridor and wildlife habitat resources. Shortly
after completion of the inventory in 2002, the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, an
affiance between Washington County and local cities (including Tigard) working with Metro,
Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District and Clean Water Services, was formed to meet
relevant federal, state, and regional requirements. Metro entered into an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places to develop a basin-
specific approach to protect Goal 5 (riparian and wildlife habitat) resources in compliance
with the Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3 (Water Quality and Flood
Management) and Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods). The result of the IGA was the City
adopting voluntary habitat friendly development provisions in December 2006 that seek to
protect the wildlife habitat identified within the community. The provisions include an
opportunity for low impact development practices that can reduce impacts to the identified
resources.
The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places used the regional habitat inventory as the
basis for conducting a general analysis of the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy
(ESEE) consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting uses that would negatively impact
inventoried resources. The site-specific component of the ESEE analysis provided a more
localized analysis and an opportunity to refine the Basin-wide "limit" decision where
necessary.
The analysis results show that the City of Tigard has 588 acres of habitat designated as
"strictly" limit (i.e. Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean
Water Services Vegetated Corridor). An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian
habitat situated outside the Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor are designated as
"moderately" limit. In addition, 422 acres of non-Class I and II riparian resources within the
City are designated as "lightly" limit, including both upland and lower-value riparian habitat
areas.
Wetlands
Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries, play a crucial role in a
healthy ecosystem by providing essential habitat for waterfowl, fish, amphibians and many
other animal and plant species. The state defines a wetland as an area that is inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-
0100). These areas also serve several natural hydrologic functions, including absorbing flood
waters, sustaining summer stream flows, replenishing groundwater, and filtering out harmful
pollutants from waterways. Wetlands also offer prime sites for people to witness the
wonders of a unique natural setting where fish, wildlife, plants, and water converge. These
beneficial functions of wetlands, however, may be adversely affected by human activities
such as encroachment through development, alterations to natural drainage patterns,
pollution, and the introduction of nuisance plant species.
CPA2008-00003 2 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• • Attachment "1"
As outlined under OAR 141-086 for Wetland Conservation Planning, Tigard's locally
significant wetlands were designated according to the criteria and procedures for
identification of significant wetlands adopted by DSL. Inventoried wetlands were deemed
significant if they received the highest rating on at least two of the four primary wetland
functions, namely wildlife habitat, fish habitat,water quality, and hydrological control. Of the
wetlands (within the City limits) identified in Tigard's Local Wetlands Inventory, roughly
98% are classified as significant wetlands.
In 1997, the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) and Wetlands Assessment were
approved by DSL. Approval by DSL means that the wetlands inventory meets state LWI
standards, and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands Inventory and must be used in
lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory.
Since the approval of the LWI, several new wetland delineations have occurred within the
city limits. These new delineations were performed by wetland professionals and concurred
by DSL. The newly delineated wetlands become part of the LWI, although a function
assessment was not performed. Without the assessment, significance cannot be determined.
However, the majority of the newly delineated wetlands is currently under protection from
the City's sensitive lands review process because of their location in a stream corridor, 100-
year floodplain, or within the CWS vegetated corridor. The remaining wetlands, although not
covered by the City's sensitive lands review process, are subject to the state Removal-Fill
Law and must secure permits as required by the law.
Streams
Roughly 30 miles of stream corridors cross through the City and nearly all the streams in
Tigard drain into Fanno Creek, which then flows into the Tualatin River. These stream
corridors provide a complex ecosystem linking water, land, plants, and animals and perform
several ecological functions, including storing and conveying surface water, modulating
flows,removing pollutants and providing vital habitat for aquatic organisms.
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services (CWS), the surface water management and
sanitary sewer system utility for urban Washington County, to protect local water resources.
Through CWS Design and Construction Standards, local governments in the Tualatin Basin
(including Tigard) developed a unified program to address water quality and flood
management requirements for Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within and adjacent
to sensitive water resource areas,including streams, through standards in the CWS Design and
Construction Standards. The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers, ranging
from 15 to 200 feet wide, and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded
condition. In addition, land-use applicants proposing development near streams and
wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior to
submitting a land use application to the City.
Additionally, the Tigard Community Development Code (18.775) contains a chapter devoted to
the protection of sensitive lands, including natural drainageways, wetlands, and the 100-year
CPA2008-00003 3 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
floodplain, by requiring applicants proposing development within a sensitive area to obtain a
permit for certain activities depending on their nature and intensity.
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing Clean Water Services' Healthy Streams
Plan (June 2005). The goal of this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for
community benefit by recommending a number of policy and program refinements, as well
as outlining a capital projects program. The capital projects focus on stream preservation and
enhancement, flow restoration, community tree planting, stormwater outfall and culvert
replacement.
Groundwater
The importance of groundwater to the community is twofold. First, it serves the function of
naturally replenishing surface waters such as wetlands, streams, and lakes. This helps provide
vital habitat for aquatic organisms and wildlife. Secondly, it is a source of clean water to help
meet human water needs for drinking, household use, commercial/industrial use, and
irrigation.
The western portion of the City of Tigard is located above the Cooper Mountain/Bull
Mountain Critical Groundwater Area. The Critical Groundwater Area was declared in 1973
in response to heavy pumping and the slow rate of recharge. This is significant because the
City owns water rights to withdraw groundwater from the aquifer and it was once an
important source of drinking water. Currently, the City of Tigard Water Division has one
groundwater well in operation that is available to supplement the drinking water supply in
times of high demand. The Water Division has also developed Aquifer Storage Recovery
wells that allow potable water to be injected into the aquifer during the winter to supplement
the summer high demands.
Historic and Cultural Resources
In 1984, the City adopted a Cultural Resource Overlay District to manage significant historic
resources. Section 18.740 of the Community Development Code governs the application
and removal of the district overlay, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate the
protection, enhancement, and conservation of landmarks and historic and cultural sites and
areas. Under state law (ORS 197.772) enacted in 1995, a local government is required to
allow a property owner to remove a historic property designation that was imposed by the
local government;in addition, the property owner may refuse to consent to the designation
at any time in the process, thus removing the property from consideration for all but the
National Register of Historic Places. The implication of the statute and rule for Tigard's
current historic code provisions is that if the property designation does not have owner
consent, the provisions are no longer relevant or enforceable.
Local conservation efforts can be combined with the National Register of Historic Places
(the National Register), a list of cultural resources of national,regional, state, or local
significance that is kept by the Department of the Interior's (DOI) National Park Service
(NPS). Being listed on the Register does not protect a property from demolition, but it does
document and evaluate the property's historic significance based on National Register
CPA2008-00003 4 Goal 5
City of Tigard
•
• • Attachment "1"
criteria and makes the property eligible for federal grants when available,including
rehabilitation tax credits.
Many of the cultural resources associated with the original development of the Tigard area
have not survived the City's growth during the last forty years. Improvements to Hwy 99W
also contributed to the demise of the City's resource base. Those resources that survived
include a mix of residential, educational, and commercial buildings.
Currently, nine resources have the overlay designation. Two sites, the John F. Tigard House
and the Shaver-Bilyeu House, are listed on the National Historic Register.The only property
from which the overlay has been removed was the Tigard Feed and Garden Store when the
owner initiated the removal request. Chapter 18.740 of the Community Development Code
requires that if an overlay property receives approval for demolition, a condition of approval
will require submittal of a graphic and pictorial history and artifacts to the Washington
County Museum.
Key Findings
• Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Standards establish a vegetated corridor
buffer adjacent to the City's streams to protect water quality; the City adopted these
standards in 2002.
• In addition to contributing to the general aesthetic quality of the area, streams and
the adjacent riparian areas perform several ecological functions.
• Roughly 98% of the City's wetlands are classified as "locally significant wetlands,"
per procedures outlined under OAR 141-086.
• The Tigard Community Development Code requires Sensitive Lands Review for any
development which would impact significant wetlands or the vegetated corridor
buffer to wetlands.
• Wetlands may be adversely affected by human activities such as encroachment
through development, alterations to natural drainage patterns,pollution, and the
introduction of nuisance plant species.
• Based on the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis
conducted by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, 588 acres of the
inventoried regionally significant habitat was designated as "strictly limit", 370 acres
was designated as "moderately limit" and 422 acres was designated as "lightly limit."
• In December 2006, the City of Tigard adopted voluntary Habitat Friendly
Development Provisions (Ordinance 06-20) that encourages the protection of
habitat with the use of low impact development practices.
• The Critical Groundwater Area on Cooper Mountain and Bull Mountain was
declared by the State of Oregon in 1973 and restricts the withdrawal of groundwater
on the western half of the City.
• Groundwater wells currently in operation are limited to one traditional well and two
aquifer storage recovery (ASR) wells.
• In 1984, the City adopted a Historic Overlay District to manage significant historic
resources.
• In 1995, ORS 197.772 required local governments to allow a property owner to
remove a historic property designation that was imposed by the local government.
CPA2008-00003 5 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1" •
The implication for Tigard's current historic code provisions is that if the property
designation does not have owner consent, the provisions are no longer relevant or
enforceable.
• Nine resources have the overlay designation. Two sites, the John F. Tigard House
and the Shaver-Bilyeu House, are listed on the National Historic Register; only the
Tigard house has the Historic District overlay.
• The citizens of Tigard value trees and natural resources and feel that protecting these
resources will benefit the community.
• The citizens of Tigard are concerned about the impact of growth on the
community's natural resources.
Goal
5.1 Protect and restore natural resources, and the environmental
and ecological services they provide, through naturally
functioning systems that demonstrate a high level of
biodiversity.
Staff Notes: While definitions are not being formally considered at this time, staff has prepared the
following draft definitions at the request of the PIT and to assist the Planning Commission during
deliberations:
Biodiversiy: The full range and variety and variability within and among organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversiy, species diversiy, and genetic
diversiy.
Natural Resources: Inventoried resources and natural resource ystems including fish and wildlife habitats;
wetlands;streams and associated riparian corridors;groundwater;and rare and endangered fish and wildlife,
plants, and plant communities.
Policies
1. The City shall protect and restore natural resources in a manner that will:
a. Contribute to the City's scenic quality of Tigard and its unique sense
of place;
b. Provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and
buffering between differential land uses;
c. Maximize natural resource functions and values including fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality; and
d. Result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high
level of biodiversity.
2. The City shall continue to protect and restore natural resources through a
variety of methods. Such methods shall include, but not be limited to, the
use of development and land management regulations, acquisition of land
CPA2008-00003 6 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
•
Attachment "1"
and conservation easements, educational outreach, and external
partnerships as appropriate.
3. The City shall encourage public and private development to use
sustainable building technologies, low impact development techniques,
and incorporate existing and potential natural resource functions and
values into the landscape and infrastructure designs of development
projects.
4. The City shall actively coordinate and consult in the inventory, protection,
and restoration of natural resources with landowners, local stakeholders,
and governmental jurisdictions and agencies.
5. The City shall utilize periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the
City's programs and regulatory structures to inform future decisions
regarding natural resource protection, management, and restoration.
6. The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives as appropriate to prevent
property owners from removing or degrading natural resources prior to
annexation.
7. The City shall preserve and restore riparian and upland habitats for fish
and wildlife to the maximum extent possible on public and private lands
through:
a. Land use regulations and standards that protect and restore essential
habitat elements that satisfy the food, water, shelter, mobility, and
reproductive needs of fish and wildlife;
b. Land use regulations and standards that mitigate the loss of habitat
elements and functions as a result of development, with priority given
to protection over mitigation;
c. Preservation and creation of linkages between wildlife habitat areas,
when possible, as a key component of parks, open space, and surface
water management plans;and
d. Implementation of outreach and regulatory programs to identify and
remove invasive species that threaten habitat areas.
8. The City shall preserve, maintain, and restore the diverse ecological and
non-ecological functions and values of streams, wetlands, and associated
riparian corridors. Strategies shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Compliance with Federal, State and Regional regulations as they apply
to streams,wetlands, and associated riparian corridors;
b. Mitigating the loss of wetlands and their associated functions and
values as a result of development, with priority given to protection
over mitigation;
c. Protection of riparian vegetation necessary for erosion control, water
quality, and fish and wildlife habitat; and
CPA2008-00003 7 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
d. Maintenance and restoration of hydrologic regimes that support fish
and wildlife, provide flood control, enable natural recharge of
groundwater, and other ecological and community benefits.
9. The City shall continue to protect groundwater by:
a. Continuing to work with regional and state agencies to identify and
address potential sources of contamination;
b. Minimizing the amount of impervious surface area covering the City
that prevents the natural recharge of groundwater aquifers; and
c. Supplementing groundwater extraction with alternative sources.
10. The City shall maintain and utilize a baseline inventory of natural resources through
surveys and monitoring.
11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse
methods including education,incentives,planned development standards and
regulations, and conservation easements.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Identify and inventory locally significant habitats and plant communities
not included in the Nature in Neighborhoods and Tualatin River Basin
studies.
ii. Establish baseline measures and periodically evaluate natural resource
protection and restoration activities in a manner that will measure success
and enable further refinement towards measurable goals.
iii. Inventory and preserve small perennial streams as natural resource for
their contributions to fish and wildlife habitat.
iv. Inventory and preserve locally significant tree groves not considered
regionally significant habitat.
v. Identify and preserve areas demonstrating high scenic quality, and
implement mechanisms for preserving, maintaining and/or enhancing this
quality.
vi. Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing natural resource
protections with the Development code; identify gaps, conflicts, and
opportunities for enhancement.
vii. Continue membership and active involvement with nonprofit and
government agencies such as the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources
Coordinating Committee.
CPA2008-00003 8 Goal 5
City of Tigard
•
Attachment "1"
viii.Identify opportunities for, and encourage the use of, habitat friendly
development practices and low impact development techniques.
ix. Incorporate bioregional conservation strategies, such as those identified in
the Oregon Biodiversity Project, into regulations and restoration
programs.
x. Utilize indicators of biodiversity as a measure of the quality and health of
natural resource systems, and as a measure of success of City actions and
strategies.
xi. Identify mechanisms for stabilizing or reducing surface and groundwater
extraction for residential and commercial uses.
Goal
5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally
significant resources.
Policies
1. The City shall actively promote the protection and preservation of historic and cultural
resources and cooperate with organizations involved in their protection.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Promote and publicize historic resources in the City.
ii. Support volunteer programs to preserve historic resources.
iii. Encourage rental and use of historic buildings,where appropriate.
iv. Consider holding City functions in historic buildings,where appropriate.
v. Support efforts to obtain historic designation at the city, county, state,and national levels
for public and private historic sites.
vi. Facilitate the development of economic options and alternatives for historic and cultural
resources and organizations involved in their protection,when requested.
CPA2008-00003 9 Goal 5
City of Tigard
•
• Attachment "2"
MEMORANDUM
id
TO: Long Range Planning Staff �,
TIGARD 2 2 1 y.
FROM: John Floyd
RE: Natural Resources Policy Interest Team Meeting of October 3, 2007
DATE: October 5, 2007
On October 3, 2007 the Policy Interest Team (PIT) for Natural Resources convened in the
second floor conference room of the library, between 6:30 and 8:30 pm. In attendance were
four members of the public:John Frewing, Warren Aney, Sue Bielke, and Brian Wegener of
Tualatin Riverkeepers. Building blocks were presented and comment solicited from
attending members regarding the direction and content of the building blocks.
Topics discussed at the meeting included a general description of the General Plan process,
the purpose of the PIT, draft goals, and both the tone and content of the building blocks
that will form the foundation of future policies and action measures. The dot exercise was
not undertaken as the group wanted to finish the comment period prior to the close of the
meeting.
Comments received by staff were both general and specific. A summary of these comments
is below:
➢ The draft goals significantly overlap and do not adequately address upland habitat
➢ Biodiversity should be a cornerstone goal, and the protection of upland habitats
should be explicitly referenced in the goals.
➢ The policies should leverage opportunities provided by development,and not focus
only on restricting it
➢ Members of the PIT felt that implementation of incentives to encourage resource
sensitive development has rarely occurred in this and other jurisdictions
➢ Tigard should not automatically defer all regulatory responsibility to single purpose
agencies as Tigard may have a broader set of objectives than another other agency or
agencies (i.e. DEQ, CWS, etc.)
D. Tigard should not just inventory resources, but perform ongoing monitoring and
evaluation of changes to measure and assess success or failure. There were also calls
by some members to develop inventories of locally significant habitats and streams,
not just regionally significant ones.
➢ There should be a discussion of the ecological services provided by natural resources
and their value to humans (human habitat, pollination, microclimate control,
air/water purifications)
➢ Natural Resource policies should include language regarding when, how and where
to annex new land.
➢ The City should incorporate recommendations of the Oregon Conservation Strategy
prepared by ODFW a broad and proactive framework for the long-term
conservation of Oregon's native fish,wildlife,invertebrates and plants.
➢ The City should take greater interest in monitoring smaller perennial streams, the
illegal diversion of water, and the protection of groundwater not only for drinking
water but the maintenance of adequate flow levels for fish and wildlife.
• • Attachment "3"
MEMORANDUM
"111
TO: Long Range Planning Staff 9
TIGARD�.2y-L
FROM: John Floyd
RE: Natural Resources Policy Interest Team Meeting of November 14, 2007
DATE: November 19, 2007
On November 14, 2007 the Policy Interest Team (PIT) for Natural Resources convened in
the second floor conference room of the library, between 6:30 and 8:30 pm. In attendance
were four members of the public:John Frewing, Sue Beilke,Tony Tycer, and Ben Boudreau.
Draft policies were presented and comment solicited from attending members regarding the
direction and content. Staff also requested that the repeat members,John Frewing and Sue
Beilke, to make sure that their comments submitted at the first meeting were properly
understood by staff and incorporated into the draft Goals and Policies.
Topics discussed at the meeting included a general description of the General Plan process,
the purpose of the PIT, and draft goals and policies written subsequent to the previous
meeting. .
Comments received by staff were both general and specific. A list of recommended changes
is below. In addition, the PIT requested more information regarding the status and
appropriateness of existing policies. This issue will be presented at the next PIT meeting.
DRAFT GOALS
Goal 1: The City shall Protect, restore, and enhance significant
natural resources and the ecological and non-ecological
functions and benefits they provide. Significant natural
resources shall include:
a. Fish and wildlife habitats;
b. Wetlands;
c. Streams, and associated riparian corridors;
d. Groundwater; and
e. Rare and endangered fish and wildlife animals,
plants, and plant communities
Goal 2: Achieve healthy, naturally functioning ecological
systems that demonstrate a high level of biodiversity.
[see definition for biodiversity]
• •
Attachment "3"
DRAFT POLICIES
Policy 1: The City shall protect and restore natural resources in a
manner that will:
a. Retain the scenic quality [Create definition of
scenic quality] of Tigard and its unique sense of
place;
b. Provide educational opportunities, recreational
amenities, and buffering between land uses; and
c. Maximize the ecological and hydrological services
they provide such as fish and wildlife habitat,
surface water management, and drinking water.
Policy 2: The City shall continue to protect and restore natural
resources through a diversity of methods including but
not limited to: development and land management
regulations, transfer of development rights, acquisition of
land and conservation easements, preferential
assessments, educational outreach, and external
partnerships as appropriate.
Policy 3: The City shall require public and private development to
use green building technologiest low impact
development techniques, and incorporate existing natural
resources into the landscape and infrastructure designs of
development projects. Site plans shall recognize existing
natural resources as both amenities and green
infrastructure. Development techniques that restore
degraded natural resources or mimic natural resource
functions shall be encouraged.
Policy 4: The City shall actively coordinate and cooperate in the
inventory, protection, and restoration of natural resources
with landowners) regional, state and federal jurisdictions
and agencies.
Policy 5: The City shall use a systems-wide management approach
to protect, restore and manage natural resources, with
periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the City's
programs and regulatory structures.
• •
Attachment "3"
Policy 6: The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives as
appropriate to prevent property owners from removing or
degrading natural resources prior to annexation.
Policy 7: The City shall protect and restore fish and wildlife
riparian and upland habitats for fish and wildlife to
the maximum extent possible on public and private
lands through:
a. Land development practices that protect and
restore essential habitat elements that satisfy the
food, water, shelter, mobility and reproductive
needs of fish and wildlife;
b. Mitigating the loss of habitat elements and
functions as a result of development, with
priority given to protection over mitigation;
c. Preserving and creating linkages between
wildlife habitat areas as a key component of
parks, open space, and surface water
management plans;
d. Encouraging land maintenance and management
practices that minimize harm to fish and wildlife
and the habits upon which they depend;
e. Prioritizing the protection and/or restoration of
natural resource areas home to rare and
endangered species; and
f. Implementation of outreach and regulatory
programs that identify and remove invasive
species that threaten habitat areas.
Policy 8: The City shall protect, maintain, and restore the diverse
ecological and non-ecological functions and values of
streams, wetlands, and associated riparian corridors.
Strategies shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Compliance with Federal, State and Regional
regulations as they apply to streams, wetlands,
and associated riparian corridors; and
b. Mitigating the loss of wetlands and their
associated functions and values as a result of
development, with priority given to protection
over mitigation;
• •
Attachment "3"
c. Protection of riparian vegetation necessary for
erosion control, water quality, and fish and
wildlife habitat; and
d. Maintenance and restoration of hydrologic
regimes that support fish and wildlife, provide
flood control, enable natural recharge of
groundwater, and other ecological and
community benefits.
Policy 9: The City shall continue to protect groundwater from
contamination and over-extraction by:
a. Working with regional and state agencies to
identify and address potential sources of
contamination;
b. Minimizing the amount of impervious surface
area covering the City using flexible approaches
that prevents the natural recharge of groundwater
aquifers; and
c. Supplementing groundwater supplies through
alternative sources such as aquifer storage
recovery wells and securing a long-term supply
of water from sources external to the City.
Policy 10: The City shall maintain and utilize a baseline
inventory of natural resources through surveys and
monitoring.
Policy 11: The City shall assist landowners in the protection of
natural resources through diverse methods.
DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
Identify and inventory locally significant habitats and plant
communities not included in the Nature in Neighborhoods studies.
ii. Periodically evaluate natural resource protection and restoration
activities in a manner that will measure success and enable further
refinement.
iii. Inventory and identify small perennial streams for potential regulation
and protection.
• •
Attachment "3"
iv. Inventory and identify significant forested areas not considered
regionally significant habitat.
v. Inventory and identify significant scenic views within Tigard and
mechanisms for preserving those views.
• •
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
H Date: S–S-o
Starting Time: -
COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President)
VTom Anderson (�U��->
Rex Caffall
Margaret Doherty
Karen Fishel
/ Smart Hasman
v Matthew Muldoon
Jeremy Vermilyea
David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
Gary Pagenstecher t/ Kon Bunch
Cheryl Gaines V John Floyd
Emily Eng Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly
Gus Duenas Darren Wyss
Phil Nachbar �Marissa Daniels
<1 :Took en-e(
3 .b
INI RI
• ..
• .
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Jodie Inman, Planning Commission President and Members of
the Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director
RE: Washington County Urbanization Forum and Issues Associated
with Unincorporated Urban Development
DATE: May 5, 2008
As the Planning Commission may know, the Washington County Board of
Commissioners has initiated a countywide discussion on urbanization. This effort is
intended to inform city and county leaders on how to address the million (plus) new
residents expected to be in the Portland Metropolitan Region in the next 30 —40
years, of which 500,000 are expected to be Washington County.
The first meeting involving the County Commission, City Mayors, Service Districts,
and Metro was held on April 24, 2008. The primary accomplishment is, in the most
straight-forward terms, that certain members of the County Board see this matter
differently than the cities. The cities' positions are that, for the good of all county
residents, Washington County first must stop urbanizing unincorporated land, and
secondly, a long term, equitable, solution is needed to address the service needs of all
incorporated and unincorporated urban areas.
The Urbanization Forum will continue for many more months, and staff will brief
and provide information to the Commission periodically. Also, a parallel process is
underway to determine future urban reserves within the Portland Metropolitan
region.
The City of Tigard has been following this matter for many months. For background
information, a collection of letters, memos, and issue papers from Mayor Dirksen and
staff is provided. The most prominent, at the beginning of the packet, is the Mayor's
letter provided to the Urbanization Forum participants.
Thank you.
Copy: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director
I:\LRPLN\Ron\memopcurbfonun5-04-O8.doc 1
• •
City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
•
April 21,2008 q
•
• •
Mark Cushing,Facilitator T I CARD.
Washington County Urbanization Forum
Mark,
In response to the decision to have the various members of the forum group submit their initial
remarks in written form,I offer the following comments as regards the scope and substance of
the task before us:
First,I believe it is important at the outset of our deliberations that we as a group and individually,
formally acknowledge that a problem exists which must be resolved. I know there are
Washington County residents,as well as their elected representatives, that would state that the
current system works just fine and the status quo should be maintained. It is the position of the
City of Tigard that the existing urbanization process is untenable and unsustainable and if not
addressed and rectified,soon the entire system will collapse. The County's present inability to
identify adequate funding to provide the necessary infrastructure in the North Bethany UGB
expansion area is strong evidence of this impending failure. I would ask that the forum members
sign a statement of resolution acknowledging that the current urbanization process in Washington
County is inequitable and unsustainable and stating that our goal is to determine a way to correct
the current situation and seek an improved process to deal with future growth. .
Second,I believe there is a significant omission in the Summary of Key Issues, as outlined in.the
overview presented at the planning meeting on April 14th;that is the problem of the current
inequity in taxation for the provision of urban services between those county residents residing in
cities and those residing in the urban unincorporated areas.I contend that an unintended
consequence of the urbanization process as it has unfolded over the last 25-30 years is that it has
created a privileged enclave lying outside cities but within the UGB that enjoys all the benefits of
living in an urbanized environment, i.e., increased property values,municipal-grade water&sewer
systems, access to jobs &commerce, urban-standard police &fire protection, access to quality,
well-funded school systems, and access to physical amenities such as parks &libraries, without
having to make the same financial and civic commitment to support those amenities as their city-
dwelling neighbors. I will take this opportunity to present my case supporting this claim.
Evidence of Tax Inequity
It is evident to all that those residing within cities bear a heavier tax burden for providing urban
services than those residing in the urban unincorporated areas. In fact,this is the basis of the
majority of the resistance of those in the unincorporated areas to being annexed into their
neighboring city. If this is true,then one or more of the following conditions must exist:
Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
S •
1. Residents of the urban unincorporated areas are not receiving all the urban services
they need
2. Residents of the urban unincorporated areas are receiving urban services which they do
not fund
3. Residents of the city are receiving urban services that they do not need
4. Residents of the cities are not receiving full value for the tax dollars they provide
5. The county is more efficient at providing urban services than the cities
Regarding condition five,the county has consistently stated and it is their official policy that cities
are the best provider of urban services. The City of Tigard concurs with that statement.
Regarding conditions 3 and 4, in Tigard we recently formed a citizen committee to consider these
very issues. After a 6-month review,their conclusion: that the City provides the correct range of
urban services, it does so at the correct levels of service, and it does so in an efficient manner. As
an example, as part of this service review,we had an outside auditor review our library and the
services it provides. Her conclusion: for every tax dollar the city spends,citizens receive four
dollars in value. We recently completed a similar audit of our police department,and plan to
continue with other departments over time.
This leaves conditions one and two, both of which I believe exist. I can and will give specific
services and funding levels, but first let me give you a general proof:
In the aftermath of Tigard's unsuccessful ballot measure to annex the Bull Mountain area in
its entirety, several citizens of that area, most of whom were active in defeating the measure,
attempted to incorporate the area to form their own city. I believe this attempt came about
as a result of those individuals coming to the realization, after becoming better educated on
the issues during the annexation attempt,that their neighborhood really did need to be within
a city, with its municipal taxing authority, in order to fund the services that would maintain
and improve their quality of life. The economic feasibility study that was completed as part
of the incorporation process concluded that a municipal tax rate of$2.84 per thousand would
be necessary to provide a level of service adequate to make the area viable. The startling fact
is that this was the tax rate needed just to provide the same level of services that the area
currently receives from the county for approximately$1.37 per thousand,a 207% increase!
And who currently pays the difference? By comparison,the City of Tigard,with its $2.51 per
thousand tax rate,provides all the same services plus 37% greater police coverage, also parks,
public works,fully funded library services, and a healthy annual capital improvements
program.
Lack of Service (Condition 2)
In 1997 Washington County contracted with the City of Tigard to provide selected urban services
to the Bull Mountain area. One of those was road maintenance, a service for which the residents
of that area pay an enhanced tax to provide. After a short time, the City opted out of this portion
of the contract because it became clear that the funding available was inadequate to maintain the
roads in the area to an urban standard. There exists at this time no formal plan and no funding
for adequate maintenance, nor any replacement or improvements to Bull Mountain roads and
streets.
2
S
•
Before, during and after the failed annexation attempt,residents of the Bull Mountain area
approached the city on numerous occasions to ask us to include their area in our review and re-
write of our comprehensive plan. The Bull Mountain Plan,written by the County,was over 20
years old and needs updating. The county has no plan to review or modify the existing plan,
listing lack of funding and little need to address the issue. Subsequently,the group has attempted
to get the area included in the planning for areas 63 and 64, but the County and Metro have
declined to include it.
Over the last ten years there has been an increasing cry from Bull Mountain residents for the
preservation of open space and the provision of parks in their area. There was and still is a
general belief by residents of the area that the City of Tigard is somehow responsible for park
services to the area and resentful of the fact that we are not already providing them. The fact is
that Washington County is not a parks provider and there is no provision now or in the future to
purchase land or develop and maintain any parks.
Subsidization of Urban Services (Condition 1)
There are other urban services that cities provide that those living near but outside the city limits
are able to use without contributing to their support. In the Tigard area,these consist of three
major areas: Parks,Library, and Police.
Parks
As was stated above, Washington County is not a parks provider. Outside of the Tualatin Hills
Park and Recreation District,there exists no mechanism for preservation of open space or the
development and operation of a park system,this despite the fact that the unincorporated areas
inside the urban growth boundary are developing as densely or even more so than those areas
inside cities. The Bull Mountain Community Plan actually calls for the County and the area
residents to coordinate with the City of Tigard for provision of park services,which was never
done. However,Bull Mountain residents outside the city frequently and regularly utilize Tigard
city parks for sports and recreation, at no cost whatsoever. The only exception is that residents
outside the city are required to pay a higher fee if they reserve a covered structure at a city park.
Each year the City budgets and spends more than a million dollars on park maintenance and
operations,and we struggle each year to try to find funding for additional public open space
preservation. Its one of the areas where the city is unable to bring our level of service up to the
desired level,solely due to lack of adequate funding. Having regular park users who don't
contribute greatly exacerbates this situation.
A telling piece of evidence concerning the tendency for urban unincorporated residents to ask for
an urban level of service without paying for it is found in the voting results on the recent Metro
Greenspaces bond measure. One of the major stated concerns of the residents of Bull Mountain
is the lack of parks and the disappearance of open space. In November 2006,voters in the Metro
region were asked to vote on a regional bond measure to raise money to pay for parks and open
spaces. Fortunately, regional voters approved this measure,but it is interesting to note that the
measure was turned down by voters in the precincts serving the Bull Mountain unincorporated
area. It appears that these voters want parks and want to preserve open spaces, but they do not
want to pay to do so. (This measure won majority support in all City of Tigard precincts.)
3
S •
Library
All Washington County residents, whether living inside or outside a city,pay a county tax,partly
as part of the basic rate, and partly as part of a serial levy,to support the Washington County
Cooperative Library System. However,the County itself does not own or operate any libraries.
All the libraries in the county are owned and operated by cities or by communities that rely on the
County tax and neighborhood donations to fund a community library like the Garden Home
Community Library. The WCCLS tax helps operate member libraries,in Tigard's case providing
about 45% of operating funds, but keep in mind that 80% of the WCCLS tax collected in Tigard's
library service area comes from Tigard residents. Tigard residents also contribute 100% of the
other 55% of the money necessary to operate the library,and 100% of the funds used to pay for
the library facility itself. All told, residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain and Metzger
comprise about 20% of our library service population, but only contribute about 9% of the
funding needed to provide the service.
Police
All Washington County residents, again whether living inside or outside a city,pay county taxes to
support the Washington County Sheriff. In addition,residents of the urban unincorporated areas
pay an addition tax to fund the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol. City residents, through their city
property taxes,fund their various city police departments. The basic sheriff patrol level is .5
officers per thousand population, the enhanced sheriff patrol adds another.5 officers for a total
of 1 officer per thousand. In the City of Tigard,we support a uniformed police level of
approximately 1.4 officers per thousand. The Sheriff's stated view is that he provides patrol to the
unincorporated areas of the county, and provides jail service for the cities. This is based on his
stated belief that most jail inmates come from the cities. This implication that most arrestees
come from the cities and few from the unincorporated areas is patently offensive, and even a
cursory look at County records belies the fact.
Apparently the Sheriff's belief is based on a couple of statistics. First, nearly all arrests take place
inside city limits. And why not? It's where the value is. Most crimes occur in a commercial
district,which are almost invariably inside cities. What store on Bull Mountain would be robbed?
From what theater parking lot would a car be stolen,in North Bethany? Second, arrestees give
addresses which include a city. However, this does not mean that the subject lives within the city
limits of a city. Only cities have post offices. Everyone in the county has an address which
includes a city.I believe a review of recent arrest records would show that a significant percentage
of arrestees not only do not live,in a city,many don't even live in Washington County. Also,there
is no record that revenue streams from city residents and unincorporated residents are segregated
in any way so that funding and expenditures are balanced between patrol and jail. In fact,a
general estimate of property taxes from unincorporated areas shows that insufficient revenue
comes from those sources to meet the budget needs of the sheriff patrol,which by their own
admission is limited to only those areas.
Last year, Tigard City Police responded to calls outside our city limits 864 times. When presented
with this fact, the sheriff's office was quick to point out that their deputies responded inside the
city a like number of times, indicating a rough reciprocity. Unfortunately, that comparison is
really apples to oranges,not taking into account the fact that Tigard residents pay county taxes to
4
•
support the sheriff, but unincorporated residents pay no like amount to support our City police.
County residents regularly comment that they are satisfied with the level of police protection they
receive from the sheriff, and they see no need to fund a higher level of service, and in no way do I
disparage the sheriff department or the job they do. They are a fine organization and do a fine
job. But I believe residents of the urban unincorporated areas have an additional moral obligation
to support the protection of more than just their homes and neighborhoods,but also the
businesses where they work and shop,and the schools where their children attend, as those who
live inside the cities do.
There is one other funding issue I would like to briefly address, and that is the subject of franchise
fees. Under state law, counties are prevented from collecting franchise fees from utilities that use
the public right-of-way for transmission of their services. For cities,this is often the second
largest source of revenue for providing urban services after property taxes. Each year, millions of
dollars that could be used to fund important projects and services to the residents of the urban
unincorporated areas are lost because of the county's inability to collect them. This one issue
alone should be reason enough for everyone from homeowners to state legislators to abandon
this current practice of allowing urban development in unincorporated areas. Together with all
the others I have mentioned,it creates an irrefutable basis of fact on which to build a new
equitable and sustainable system under which all the residents of urban areas across the state fund
and receive the services they and their neighborhoods need to retain the quality of life we enjoy
here in Oregon.
Regards,
Craig E. Dirksen,Mayor
City of Tigard
CC:
Washington County Board of Commissioners Chair Tom Brian
Commissioner Roy Rogers
Commissioner Andy Duyck
Commissioner Dick Schouten
Commissioner Desari Strader
Metro Council President David Bragdon
Councilor Rod Park,District 1
Councilor Carlotta Collette,District 2
Councilor Carl Hosticka,District 3
Councilor Kathryn Harrington,District 4
Councilor Rex Burkholder,District 5
Deputy Council President Robert Liberty,District 6
Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon
Chief Jeff Johnson,Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue
Bill Gaffi,General Manager Clean Water Services
Doug Menke,General Manager,Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District
Greg DiLoreto,General Manager,Tualatin Valley Water District
May-or Bill Bash,Cornelius
Councilor Jeff Dalin,Cornelius
David Waffle,Cornelius
5
• •
Mayor Tom Hughes,Hillsboro
Sarah Jo Chaplen,Hillsboro
Mayor Rob Drake,Beaverton
Janice Deardorff,Beaverton
Mayor Teri Branstitre,Banks
Jinn Hough,Banks
Mayor Gery Schirado,Durham
Mayor Richard G.Kidd,Forest Grove
Michael Sykes,Forest Grove
Mayor Ron Shay,King City
David Wells,King City -
Mayor Lou Ogden,Tualatin
Sherilyn Lombos,Tualatin
Councilor Chris Barhyte,Tualatin.
Mayor Cheri Olson,North Plains
Don Osterman,North Plains
Mayor Keith Mays,Sherwood
Ross Schultz,Sherwood
Mayor Rick Lorenz,Gaston
Tigard City Council
Craig Prosser,Tigard
6
• •
'1
i
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director
RE: Discussion Topics - Unincorporated Urban Development
DATE: March 20, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The following lists relevant discussion points that staff and others have raised regarding
unincorporated urban development. They have been arranged in three parts, Issue Context,
Consequences of Unincorporated Development, and Recommended Actions.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Issue Context
• In 1980, the County declared in its "Washington County 2000 Plan" that it is not an
urban service provider. Over the years, the County has restated this position through
updates to the 2000 Plan and other "visioning/planning" efforts.
• However, in the past 25 years, numerous city/county plans, agreements, and initiatives
promoting urban development within cities have failed to stem unincorporated urban
growth. For example, the unincorporated population grew from approximately 149,990
in 1990 to 205,100 in 2007. Forty percent of the county's total population is in its
unincorporated area.
• From another perspective, a population larger than the City of Corvallis, Oregon
(55,000) has been accommodated during the last 18 years in unincorporated Washington
County.
• County governments are not designed to be municipal governance and urban service
providers. They are best at providing regional level services and undertaking roles
assigned to them by the state. The County does not have the capabilities to generate
C:\Documents and Settings\ron\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PIE21PV9\Memo 3-20-08 topics unincorporated development.doc 1
• •
resources to sustain municipal level services to its unincorporated urban areas. This
problem will grow worse over time.
• Ultimately, municipal governance should be provided to these areas. It is not equitable
for cities to subsidize provision of municipal level services outside their boundaries. This
includes any consideration of reallocating revenue sources currently depended on by
existing cities and the use of urban renewal to finance infrastructure to Metro designated
unincorporated urban growth areas.
Consequences of Unincorporated Development
• Unincorporated urban areas result in efficient and fragmented patchworks of public and
governance services.
• Unincorporated development undermines the position of the region' s cities as the best
building blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact urban region.
• Cities often bear inequitable/non-assignable costs imposed by underserved,
unincorporated, urban areas when their residents use city services such as parks, libraries,
transportation, public safety, etc.
• Tigard's experience is that, once established, unincorporated urban lands tend to be self-
perpetuating and can block cities' ability to plan for, and urbanize, new Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) areas that logically should be within municipal boundaries.
• Unincorporated urban lands may not be sustainable as cities adjust to new energy and
transportation realities.
• There are many national and local examples of unincorporated urban areas lagging
behind their city counterparts in important livability metrics, such as availability of
services, access to jobs, lagging property values, public safety, housing quality, etc.
• Continuation of current urbanization practices will undermine the region's ability to
achieve its transportation and growth management objectives.
Recommended Actions
• Action needs to be taken to prevent future unincorporated development and address
how to best manage that which has already occurred. This cannot just be a Washington
County / cities agreement. Unincorporated urban development is a regional issue and
solutions need to occur at the local, regional, and state levels.
C:\Documents and Settings\ron\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PIE21PV9\Memo 3-20-08 topics unincorporated development.doc 2
• •
• Failure of past local intergovernmental efforts to address the problem shows that
constructive, lasting, solutions may be beyond the capability of Washington County and
its cities. Merely talking about the issue and entering into City/County joint
resolutions/agreements is no longer adequate.
• Urban unincorporated development is not unique to the Portland Metropolitan region.
Many areas throughout the nation are confronting the same issues such as King County,
Washington. The region should learn from the experience of others.
• The County Urbanization Forum should be designed to achieve results. This will require
the County Board to work with the cities, Metro, and involve the state, to design a
process to achieve agreement on realistic strategies.
• Resolving the unincorporated urban development issue will require legislative action on
the part of local governments, Metro, and the state. For example, the state's annexation
statutes may need to be revised to recognize that urban development and planning needs
of the Portland Metropolitan Region are different from other parts of the state. In
addition, amendments to the Metro Functional Plan and local ordinances will be
required.
• It is necessary for the County to work with its cities, Metro, and the state to: 1) ensure all
future urban development occurs within cities, including that which is now being
concept planned; and 2) develop a long-term strategy to address the service and livability
needs of existing unincorporated areas.
• Some progress has already occurred. Unincorporated urbanization has attracted Metro's
attention. The Metro Policy Advisory Committee has voted to consider this as one of its
2008 work program issues. MPAC has also voted to recommend to Metro Council that
future regional performance objectives require new urban development to occur within
municipal boundaries.
C:\Documents and Settings\ron\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PIE21PV9\Memo 3-20-08 topics unincorporated development.doc 3
•
City of Tigard, on • 113125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, . 97223
IN
i g and� Ore g
II
January 15, 2008.
T I GARD
Mayor Alice Norris,MPAC Chair
Metro
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-2736
Dear Mayor Norris:
RE: Adding Unincorporated Urban Development to the Metro Policy Advisory
Committee's Work Plan
Congratulations on assuming the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Chair. The
City of Tigard looks forward to working with you and MPAC. Our experience in the last
few years emphasizes the City's need to be more active at the regional level. There are
many urban growth related issues in southeast Washington County that require a
collaborative and coordinated regional approach.
Ron Bunch,the City's Assistant Community Development Director attended the Metro
Policy Advisory Committee's (MPAC) meeting on January 10,2008. He reported on
MPAC's discussion about its preliminary 2008 work program. Tigard supports these
efforts and will participate to the extent possible. However,I believe that MPAC should
consider an addition to its annual work program. My suggestion is that MPAC take the
lead to deal with the question: "How should the region address the fiscal and social
sustainability, fiscal equity,and governance challenges posed by unincorporated urban
development?"
This matter is important to Metro and its regional partners because unincorporated urban
development undermines the position of cities as the best building blocks of an efficient,
stable,and compact urban region.
Unincorporated areas result in a patchwork of fragmented services and governance. Cities
often bear inequitable/non-assignable costs imposed byunderserved unincorporated urban
areas when their residents use city services such as parks,libraries,transportation, and
public safety.
Furthermore, once established,unincorporated urban lands tend to be self-perpetuating
and can block cities' ability to plan for and urbanize new UGB areas that logically should
be within municipal boundaries. This has been Tigard's experience on its western
boundary where Washington County allowed urban development of Tigard's Urban
Planning Area. This caused Tigard to be non-contiguous to Urban Growth Areas 63 and
Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 I
• •
64,thus resulting in Washington County becoming responsible for planning the
urbanization of these areas.Beaverton has similar experiences in its attempts to plan for
the North Bethany Urban Growth Area.
I also believe that unincorporated urban lands may not be sustainable as cities adjust to
new energy and transportation realities. Even without these pressures, there are examples
in the Portland Metropolitan region of unincorporated urban areas lagging behind their
City counterparts in important areas such as availability of services, access to jobs, property
values,housing quality etc.
My viewpoint is that measures must be taken to prevent future unincorporated
development and address how to best manage that which has already occurred.These tasks
will have to take place both at the regional and state level. For example, addressing the
issue will require revision of the state's annexation statutes to consider the different urban
development and planning needs of the Portland Metropolitan Region compared to the
rest of the state_This may be a difficult prospect in view of existing political interests and
the scope of the issue. However,I believe that if the region does not address this issue,
continuation of current practices will undermine our ability to achieve Region 2040
objectives.
I would be pleased to discuss with you the particulars of how this matter affects us in
urban Washington County and we would be happy to address it before MPAC
Sincerely
Craig E. Dirksen,Mayor
Copy Members of the Tigard City Council
MPAC Members
President David Bragdon and the Metro Council
Michael Jordan,Metro Chief Operating Officer
Craig Prosser,City Manager
Tom Coffee,Community Development Director
File: Mayor Alice Norris
2
z
•
City of Tigard, Ore g on • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,
OR 97223
August 21, 2007 UI
Chair Tom Brian
Members of the Washington County Board of Commissioners
Washington County Administrative Office T J 3ARD
155 N Fast Avenue, MS-21, Suite 300
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Dear Chair Brian and Commissioners:
The Tigard City Council is aware that the Commission is funding studies to determine the feasibility
of an urban renewal district in the Bethany urban growth area. Our understanding is that urban
renewal is being studied as a means to fund major infrastructure improvements so that this area may
be urbanized. The principle of using urban renewal financing methods for this purpose raises
significant concerns for Tigard, especially since the County will also be responsible for urbanizing
areas 63 and 64 near Tigard.
We are concerned about stretching the purpose of urban renewal to promote the urbanization of
"green fields" where it is not obvious that conditions of blight as defined by ORS 457 exist. In this
instance urban renewal becomes a means to subsidize development at the cost of existing taxing
districts and to the detriment of the general taxpayer. Our opinion is that new development should
ultimately bear the primary responsibility for its own infrastructure costs and that its value should go
on the tax rolls as soon as possible.
Other infrastructure funding alternatives exist to pay for urbanization. Gresham, for example, has
partnered with developers to sell bonds to fund the partial upfront costs of major public facilities
necessary to urbanize the Pleasant Valley urban growth area. The funding method is based on an
expected revenue stream from system development and other fees and charges. At the outset,
developers also have to participate with significant financial commitments. Gresham has made this
work by backing infrastructure bonds with its own "full faith and credit."
Using urban renewal to create long-term debt to pay for infrastructure in Bethany, and perhaps
elsewhere, has the potential to harm taxing districts and inequitably subsidize development. The
County, as the entity that has chosen to urbanize this area, should cause developers / builders to
ultimately bear the responsibility for major infrastructure costs even if this means that in the short run
it uses its own "full faith and credit" to do so.
Sincerely, n,
f
Craig E. Dirksen, Mayor
c: Tigard City Council
City of Beaverton Mayor Rob Drake
Carl Hostika,Metro Councilor
David Bragdon,Metro Council President
Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772
City of and Oregon 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223
NI . -
yf Ti � g g
June 18, 2007
Metro President David Bragdon and Members of Metro Council TI GARD
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland,OR 97232-2736
Dear Colleagues:
I wish to express the City of Tigard's concern with proposed Ordinance 07-1154; an amendment to the
Metro Regional Functional Plan Chapter 3.0 to amend the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) major
amendment process to accommodate need for housing.
The City's concern is not that UGB amendments for needed housing will occur. We are concerned that
the amendments, as proposed,will result in more unincorporated urban development throughout the
region. This would further a land use pattern counter to the interests of the region's existing cities and
make it more difficult to achieve Metro's goals of building sustainable and complete communities.
Tigard's perspective is high quality and prosperous urban areas can be best achieved and sustained if
development occurs within cities where the full array of services, including responsive and accessible
governance,can be provided.
Therefore, if the proposal goes forward, we recommend that it be amended to ensure land added to
the UGB under the proposed process be planned and developed within existing Cities. Furthermore,
complementary land uses should be allowed to reduce travel needs by providing close-to-home
employment, recreation,and commercial opportunities.
Our recommendations come from the experience of having unincorporated urban areas,bordering the
City. Our view is that the structure and organization of County governments are not set up to provide
the level of local governance and urban services that are standard within established cities. Tigard's
concerns are also based on local and national examples of unincorporated urban areas that have
declined over time as service districts and County governments lost the ability to provide adequate
services. In many cases, the decline of these developed urban lands resulted in negative consequences
for adjacent cities.
In closing, we urge the Metro Council to not adopt the proposal as presented. It should be amended
to ensure urban development of future UGB amendments occur within established cities in ways that
promote realization of the Region's goals.
Sincerely,
/ Zio,/
Craig . Dirksen,Mayor
Copy. Members of the Tigard City Council
Mayor Rob Drake
Chair Tom Brian and Members of the Washington County Commission
File: Mayor's letter UGB Expansion
Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 4
Draft • • Ron Bunch
12-19-07 Ext 2427
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES OF UNINCORPORATED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
12 Steps to Achieve Sustainable and Efficient Urbanization in the Portland
Metropolitan Region
Step 1: Recognize/Admit that Unincorporated Urban Development is a Problem
and is Out of Control: Washington County by itself cannot withstand the pressure to
continue inefficient and unsustainable urbanization of unincorporated lands. The County
must express a sincere desire to work with others to address the problem.
Step 2: Acknowledge the Harm Caused by Unincorporated Urban Development:
This Development type is contrary to local, regional objectives and state objectives,
harmful to existing cities and their citizens and ultimately detrimental to the quality of
life of those that live in such areas. The specifics of how unincorporated development is
harmful must be acknowledged.
Step 3: Stop Making the Problem Worse: The County, Metro, and their regional
partners need to cease actions that promote unincorporated urban development.
Step 4: Get Help to Solve the Problem: Acknowledge that the problem cannot be
resolved without involvement and commitment of the County, Cities, Metro, service
districts, and the state.
Step 5: Pledge Mutual Trust and Support: Solving this problem requires mutual trust
and support. All those involved must pledge to one another that the well-being of the
region's existing and future citizens overrides the specific agenda or interests of any one
political entity or the short-term interests of development.
Step 6: Admit How the Problem was Created: The problems of unincorporated
urban development were caused by specific actions and decisions. To resolve the crisis it
is important for all involved to understand how the problem was created and resolve
together to not make the same mistakes in the future.
Step 7: Use the Experience of Others: This problem is not specific unique to the
Portland Metropolitan Area. It is important to use the experience of other jurisdictions
through-out the Country to propose solutions. An example is King County, Washington.
Step 8: Propose Solutions in an Open and Collaborative Process: All those affected
by unincorporated urban development must honestly engage in a face-to-face process to
propose solutions.
Step 9: Agree on and Commit to a Course of Action: All involved must genuinely
commit to implement a course of action to solve address the problems of unincorporated
development and to ensure future urban development is efficient, sustainable and livable.
•
• •
Draft Ron Bunch
12-19-07 Ext 2427
Step 10: Address the Consequences of existing Unincorporated Urban
Development: Any effort to prevent future unincorporated development must also
include a strategy to deal with issues posed by existing unincorporated urban lands.
Step 11: Resolving These Problems will Take a Long Time: The problems of
Unincorporated_Urban Development will be with the region for a long time. It will be
important for all those involved to take the view that solving these problems requires a
long-term sustained effort. -
Step 12: Monitor Performance and Adjust if Necessary to Prevent Recurrences:
The success of this effort requires it to be objectively evaluated and changes made if
necessary to ensure • . • - that unincorporated urban development does not
reoccur.
12 steps to address the issues of unincorporated development
CT
• •
SUBJECT: To: Washington County City Issue Paper No. 1
Urbanization Philosophy— Managers Group
Portland Metropolitan Region
Date: January 5, 2007 Attachments: None
Previous Issue Papers on this Author: Ron Bunch,Assistant
Topic: Yes_ No_ If Yes - Community Development
Date: Title:
Director
INTRODUCTION:
The following presents for discussion three urban growth management issues that potentially impact
Portland Metro area cities. Recommendations for each are also provided. These issues are:
• Unincorporated Urban Areas
• Potential for Incorporation of New Cities, and
• Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Compact Development inside the UGB
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Unincorporated Urban Areas
Cities and counties in the Portland Metropolitan region face a common challenge of accommodating a
growing population and providing urban level services. From the municipalities' standpoint the challenge
is made more difficult by the presence of large, unincorporated urban areas in Washington and Clackamas
Counties. These areas exist in a service and governance conundrum. They are typically underserved due
to strained county budgets. Sometimes residents and businesses in these areas complain of political under-
representation. They are a small part of a geographically large political entity and the seat of governance is
often far away. Despite this, residents of non-municipal urban areas are reluctant to annex to cities due to
increased property taxes that come with more complete services. Also, some fear the loss of a low density
life-style and autonomy.
Cities are often de-facto service providers to unincorporated urban areas. For example park facilities,
transportation, and emergency public safety services can be readily accessed. In addition,many
unincorporated area residents work in Cities whose investments have made economic development
possible.
Potential for Incorporation of New Cities
If one starts with the premise that the Region 2040 Plan, approved by the voters in the early 90's,is
important for good land use planning and effective and efficient service provision, then the relative ease
that new cities can incorporate in the Portland Metropolitan Region raises grave concerns about the ability
of the region to achieve its goals. For example:
1) The easy ability of new cities to incorporate with an already developed urban area, like the Portland
Region, has potential for profound regional land use planning,public facility, and financial impacts.
1
• •
2) The Oregon incorporation statutes are not supportive of the region's desire for cost effective and effi-
cient land use planning and service provision. For example, the incorporation of new cities in the
Portland metro region are not currently evaluated against criteria that determine if such actions would
further state and regional growth management goals. This is in contrast to the fact that major planning
actions within already incorporated jurisdictions are subject to these criteria.
Fragmentation of urban governance and services can have many consequences. An example, are possible
economic development impacts. For instance when new businesses seek appropriate locations to diversify
or expand their market share, they look for communities that are large enough to have built in synergies
and a high quality of life. These elements are-often found in economically healthy cities that have a full
service base rather than in ones that have revenue problems either due to stagnated growth or too small of
an economy of scale to provide a full level of services. Cities must have land available to accommodate
economic development needs. Furthermore, they must have land available to provide the full range of
housing opportunities that employees and employers desire. They must also have the ability to provide
safe and affordable environments with high quality of life amenities including parks, educational and cul-
tural opportunities, public safety,responsible and accessible governance.
Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Need for Compact Development inside the UGB
In order for the Portland metro region to accommodate projected household and job growth, the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) will need to include more land. Also development will need to be more compact
and efficient inside the current UGB, particularly in Regional and Town Centers and along transportation
corridors. This strategy depends on the ability to provide infrastructure and services. For example,
before new UGB land can be urbanized, concept plans have to be developed. However, because of its
expense, this basic level of planning has not met expectations. In instances where Concept Plans have
been completed, urbanization has been stalled because of the inability to pay for needed infrastructure—
roads, sewer,water, and water quality. It is important to note that how to pay for continuing services
such as public safety, facility maintenance, governance, etc. is also a challenge.
Infrastructure funding problems affects the success of compact development as well. Redevelopment in
most areas of the region also requires public investment to upgrade aging and often inadequate public
services. This is beyond the capacity of most jurisdictions. Where redevelopment has occurred,urban
renewal has played a key part. The work done by the Portland Development Commission is an example.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations are proposed to address the above issues:
1. Unincorporated Urban Areas
A. Washington County Cities should urge county government to recommit to an urbanization agenda
that would:
i. Focus new urban development inside existing cities;
ii. Encourage existing unincorporated areas to annex to existing cities when feasible;
iii. Seek to provide an adequate level of services until such time that annexation takes place; and
iv. Emphasize the provision of county level services suited to a large geographic area, such as
public health,jails, rural area planning, rural roads construction / maintenance, etc.
2
9)
2. Potential for Incorporation of New Cities •
B. Washington County Cities should support legislation that would:
i. Require proponents of incorporation within a designated Metropolitan Service Area (MSA) af-
firmatively demonstrate that such action would also conform to all land use goals, statutes, and
administrative rules, including those of a regional government as a condition of incorporation;
and
ii. Within the Portland Metropolitan Region the final decision-maker on any city incorporation /
disincorporation request should be the Metro Council and not a County government.
3. Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Compact Development inside the
UGB
C. It is recommended that Washington County Cities ask the County to work with them, Metro, and
the state to:
i. Develop stable funding sources for concept planning and infrastructure development for UGB
expansion and redevelopment activities. For example, several ideas have been discussed to date
including, tax increment financing;windfall profit tax (associated with new UGB areas);
restructured system development charges;real estate transfer fees;transportation facility user
fees, and; establishment of a regional funding bank dedicated to infrastructure funding,
File: Cities Briefing Paper 1 Urbanization Philosophy 12-1-06
•
•
•
3
•
1
• •
SUBJECT: To: Washington County City Issue Paper No. 2
Urbanization Philosophy—Portland Managers Group
Metropolitan Region: Infrastructure
Date: January 5, 2007 Attachments: None
Previous Issue Papers on this Topic: Author: Ron Bunch,Assistant
Yes No_ If Yes -Date: Community
Title:
Development Director
INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses issues about paying for infrastructure to accommodate urban growth within the
Portland Metropolitan Region. Its premise is that infrastructure costs of growth should be evaluated and
addressed on a policy level- on the basis of whether it occurs either:
1) Inside existing city limits;
2) In "green field" areas,resulting from Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) expansions that are made part
of cities, or
•
3) Inside the UGB,but within unincorporated areas.
This paper results from a non- empirical evaluation and is intended to set the stage for further discussion
on how key public facilities can be paid for,and costs appropriately allocated.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Incremental Infrastructure Needs
Much of the concern about urban growth is over the "fiscal costs" that must be borne by various levels
of government to provide services to accommodate in-migration. There are two kinds of costs that must
be addressed. The first category is incremental infrastructure costs. These are costs needed to improve
existing infrastructure to serve new residents and continue service to existing residents. Costs associated
with improving piped facilities (sewer,water, storm drainage) can be accommodated through various
means associated with utility revenues.
Equitability issues associated with incremental facility costs often vex existing residents because it is
sometimes not possible to charge all infrastructure improvement costs back to the people that caused
them. This often creates divisiveness,because existing residents often feel that tax,rate or fee charges
caused by population growth are neither fair nor.equitable.1
In this context,paying for incremental transportation improvements is more challenging than piped
facilities due to transportation's reliance on gasoline taxes and state and federal transfer payments -the
growth of which has stagnated in recent decades. Motorists and the United States, especially in the West
have resisted user fees to finance needed transportation projects.
In Oregon it used to be widely accepted that industrial and commercial development paid more in property taxes than the
service costs they imposed. However,changes in Oregon's tax structure in the last decade has probably changed this
condition. In general,with a few exceptions,the property tax burden has been shifted to residential development,except in
one key area—schools. Non-residential development does not by itself create the need for education services. However,
many argue that business benefits from a strong public education system. The irony of this situation is that much
residential development requires more public services than paid for by its contribution in property taxes.This situation
argues for both tax reform and as much efficiency as possible in providing and managing public services.
1
1 C�
•
• •
Studies in Oregon have estimated the incremental cost of needed infrastructure investment at about
$20,000 to $35,000 for a "typical" three-bedroom home built in the state's urban areas. In Washington
State the cost is estimated at$83,000. The difference is that Washington's estimates include a much
greater off-site transportation impact of about$56,000. Despite the cost difference between the two
states and how impacts are apportioned,the common theme is that a substantial part of off-site •
incremental costs are left unaddressed. The most obvious manifestation of this is increased traffic
congestion and a decline in the condition of transportation systems. Under current conditions the
general taxpayer/ratepayer will ultimately have to bear the burden of transportation problems caused by
growth... if it is to be addressed at all.
New Infrastructure
Paying for growth gets much harder when a"tipping-point" is reached that requires major investment in
"new infrastructure" such as arterial roads and freeways;water mains;water storage facilities;police and
fire stations;public libraries, schools; storm drainage;parks, etc.Assigning these capital costs to users is
very difficult-both conceptually and legally. This is the situation the Portland region now faces with new
UGB lands added in 2000 and 2004-- 05.
The Pleasant Valley and Springwater UGB areas in Gresham are good examples. After spending more
than $3.5 million to concept plan these areas,there is still no timetable for development due to difficulties
in financing the initial infrastructure, such as major streets;main sewer and water lines;water storage
facilities; storm and water quality facilities,and parks.
In the Pleasant Valley UGB area, Gresham tried an approach that relied on systems development charges
to pay most of the"start-up"infrastructure costs. This was partly in response to the reluctance of
existing Gresham residents to subsidize new urban growth. However,the costs are so great that
developers are not willing to participate. Also,the city would be faced with the "carrying costs" and risks
associated with selling multi-million dollar bonds to front the cost of infrastructure. Another concern is
that if market conditions negatively affect the housing market, this city would not have funds (from SDC
fees) to pay off the bonds. In this case, existing taxpayers would pay the costs.
Urban Development in Unincorporated Areas
Often new urban development in unincorporated areas is residential. It is assumed development in these
areas pay lower system development fees than comparable development in cities. One reason is that
counties provide lower levels of service. However,it is suggested that the unpaid off-site development
costs are greater than if the same development occurs in a city. This is because cities offer a more
complete range of services because a wider variety of land uses result in a closer balance between tax
revenues and service expenditures. For example,residents in unincorporated areas must drive on urban
roads to access jobs that are in cities. These employment opportunities are made possible by the
investment of cities and their citizens. Also, City's are more likely to make investments in cultural and
recreational facilities that county residents enjoy, such as libraries and parks. County residents and
businesses also benefit from the often close proximity of city public safety services that are available,
through mutual-aid agreements, to respond to emergencies.
Urban Development (infill and redevelopment) Inside Cities
The Portland Metro region has made a policy decision to emphasize compact development and efficient
use of urban land,particularly within regional and town centers.Accomplishing this will require
additional investment to upgrade strained infrastructure,particularly transportation systems. Over the
•1
2
• •
past several years, federal transportation investments have declined. Without this assistance and other
outside aid, the cost to cities to solve major transportation issues are staggering.
Infill and redevelopment in most parts of the region require substantial public assistance. Recent studies
have shown that investment returns within town/regional centers of suburban communities are not
adequate to foster mixed-use private development unless public subsidies are involved. Portland is an
excellent example of how a public urban renewal agency(Portland Development Commission)has
helped urban redevelopment to become economically self-sustaining.
Therefore if growth is to be accommodated, then development of existing underutilized and vacant lands
in cities,rather than in unincorporated areas represents the best opportunity to not pass costs on to the
general public. As already stated,cities have developed infrastructure systems that are result of a
balanced relationship between tax revenues and service expenditures. Cities have a much better capacity
to sustain services to their urban citizens than do counties.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS2
Incremental Infrastructure Costs
When growth requires improvements to existing infrastructure;achieving absolute cost equity between
existing and new residents is not achievable. A fact of urban economics is that the costs of many urban
services rise as cities get bigger and more complex. A mitigating circumstance is that economic activity
increases as urban areas grow and incomes for many commensurately expand. However, this is not true
for many others. Fairness in apportioning costs for public services is an abiding public value and requires
consideration when making decisions to invest in facility improvements required by growth. •
Solving the equity question cannot be done through financial means alone. Because residential
development often imposes more public costs than it generates in taxes and economic development,
cities need to ensure that balanced land use and economic development plans are part of long-term
financial strategies. Cities should also support actions that have potential to increase the economic well-
being of their citizens, such as education and job training. The goal should be to lower the cost of
services as a proportionate share of household income.
New Infrastructure
It may be that the cost of new infrastructure to serve new UGB areas is beyond the capacity of individual
cities. Expanding the UGB and paying for needed infrastructure to accommodate a million new people
in the next 20 years should be considered a regional and state responsibility. Therefore new funding
tools are needed. This will require Metro to take a break from expanding the UGB and concentrate on
engaging citizens,its municipal and county partners and state government to resolve this issue. During
the interim, cities should be allowed within designated urban growth areas to grow incrementally within
the capacity of existing infrastructure.
Bold solutions should not be discounted, such as requiring user fees to pay for new major transportation
facilities or the formation of a regional public facility funding bank that would finance qualified
infrastructure projects.
•
2 I would like to acknowledge the following sources that contributed to this paper:Overview of the Costs of Urban
Growth,by Bill Ward,Professor of agricultural and applied economics and director of the Clemson University Center for
international trade;Paying for Prosperity:Impact fees and Job Growth, Arthur C.Nelson and Mitch Moody,Brookings
Institution.
3
IZ
•
Urban Development in Unincorporated Areas
Not all "down- stream infrastructure costs" from new development can be accounted for. However,
policy-makers should seek to not promote policies/actions that pass on disproportionate"off-- site
costs" to others. Some see this as a fundamental principal of fairness.
It is suggested that urban level development on unincorporated lands passes on to the general taxpaying
public a greater share of"downstream" costs than comparable development in cities.
Development inside Cities (Infill and Redevelopment)
Urban renewal and tax increment financing will be important to financing infrastructure improvements
necessary to achieve compact mixed-use urban development in the region's many centers. However,in
some centers the growth in the tax increment may be too slow to effect change. Because "vibrant and
economically healthy centers"is a regional goal, state and Metro financial assistance may be needed. An
examination of ways to improve urban renewal and other financial tools is needed. This may require
state legislative action.
File: city issue paper#2 infrastructure.doc
•
•
4
t3
• •
Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director
WA Co. City Managers Meeting,February 6, 2008
•
Research Notes—Washington County Unincorporated Development Issues
•
1. Population Growth
•
City 2007 City Population(PSU 2000 City Population
Estimate) (Census)
Banks 1435 1286
Beaverton 85560 76129 •
Cornelius 10895 9653
Durham 1400 1382
Forest Grove 20775 17709
Gaston 650 600
Hillsboro 88300 70186
King City 2700 • 1949
Lake Oswego 20 15
• North Plains 1890 1605
Portland(Partial) 1500 1388
Rivergrove(Partial) 35 37
Sherwood 16365 11191
Tigard 46715 41223
Tualatin 26025 20127
Wilsonville (Partial) 1655 4
305920 254484
•
Total City Population Growth
2000-2007 = 51436
•
WA Co. WA Co. 2000 WA Co.2007 Population PSU
1990 Census Estimate
Population
Census
311,554 445342 511075
•
Findings:
a. Unincorporated population grew by 14,300 people during the period 2000 to 2007.
b. During the period 1990 to 2007,unincorporated population grew from 149,000 to
205,352, or about 55,000 people.
c. City population growth resulting from annexations was nominal compared to overall
population growth. During the period 1990—2000, 4,769 people annexed to cities,
and during the period April 2000—2007, 4,039 people annexed to cities.
PA I
• •
.m1
•
• MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
RE: Definition of"Hazard Tree" for Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA2008-00002)
DA'Z'E: April 25, 2008
At the April 21, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding the Urban Forest
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008-00002), staff was given direction by the Planning
Commission to revise the definition of"hazardous tree" based upon the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) definition. The following is a discussion of draft language presented at the
hearing, a suggested alternative received during public comment, and staff's recommendations as
based on the ISA Dictionary.
The following definition of"hazardous tree" was recommended by the Tigard Tree Board, and is in
the existing Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Hazardous Tree -a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, .split, leaning, structurally unsound, suffering from
infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall
and injure persons or property and where pruning or other treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard.
Ken Gertz, member of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland, put forth the
following definition of"hazardous tree", stating that it tracks more closely with the ISA definition
and takes into consideration future improvements constructed around trees:
Hazardous Tree -a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally unsound, suffering from
infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fail
and injure persons or damage property either existing or potential and where pruning or other commonly accepted
arboricultural practices treatments will not significantly alleviate the hazard.
The ISA On-Line Dictionary does not have a specific definition for"hazardous tree", however it
does define"hazard"in the context of arboriculture. The following definition of"hazard"was
pulled verbatim from the ISA On-line Dictionary of Arboricultural Terms:
Hazard -situation, condition, or thing that may be dangerous. (1)in tree management, a tree or tree part that is
likely to fail and cause damage or injury, and the likelihood exceeds an acceptable level of risk. (2)in tree care or
forestry operations, the presence of a condition or situation that may cause harm or injury to workers.
Page 1 of 2
• •
While the ISA On-line Dictionary does not have a specific definition of"hazardous tree", staff's
opinion is that the above definition of"hazard" as it relates to tree management represents an
equivalent substitution. Also, since the term"hazard tree" is more consistent with the content of
the Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan Amendment and common arboriculture industry usage, staff
recommends defining the term"hazard tree" as opposed to "hazardous tree" in the document.
Based on the above findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following ISA
based definition of"hazard tree":
Hazard Tree -a tree or tree part that is likely to fail and cause damage or injury, and the likelihood exceeds an
acceptable level of risk.
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD 2027
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: John Floyd, Associate Planner
RE: Goal 5 — Natural Resources and Historic Areas Workshop
DATE: April 28, 2008
At the May 5`h Planning Commission meeting, staff will present draft goals, policies, and
recommended action measures for the Natural Resources and Historic Areas Comprehensive Plan
chapter for Planning Commission review, discussion, and editing. These draft goals, policies, and
recommended action measures are intended to reflect the community's values and aspirations for
natural resource and historic areas planning. They also aim to organize and coordinate the
relationships between people, land, and resources to meet the current and future needs of Tigard.
This language is founded,in part, on the following sources:
• The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Visioning Process
• Community surveys over the past several years
• Tigard 2007: A Comprehensive Plan Resource Report
• Public Comments received at Policy Interest Team Meetings
This meeting gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to ask questions of staff on the
concepts or content of the language that is included in the draft goals, policies, and recommended
action measures. Previous chapters reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council have
revealed that both bodies want to receive and honor citizen recommendations, but that final
language should provide flexibility regarding future implementation. As such, this is the appropriate
time to evaluate the Policy Interest Team recommendations versus the views of the Commission on
what it ultimately recommends to City Council.
The intended outcome of the meeting would be a consensus on the final draft background, goals,
policies, and recommended action measures that will be brought before the Planning Commission
for a public hearing on May 19t. To meet this timeline, a thorough review of the materials before
the meeting, with questions ready, will help to ensure a focused review and discussion that is
efficient.
Remember, staff is available to answer any questions or concerns that you may have leading up to
the meeting and we encourage you to call or email us to ensure a productive meeting. Please
contact John Floyd at 503-718-2429 or johnflQtigard-or.gov with questions, comments or concerns
relating to this agenda item.
1
• •
The attached material for this topic includes:
• Draft background information,goals, policies, and recommended action measures
• Policy Interest Teaming After Meeting Memo of October 3, 2007
• Policy Interest Team After Meeting Memo of November 19, 2007
Included below are some definitions that may be helpful to your review:
Goal
Definition - A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to
achieve that end.
Obligation -The City cannot take action which violates a goal statement unless:
1. Action is being taken which clearly supports another goal.
2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case)
over another.
Policy
Definition - A statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are
more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals.
However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals.
Obligation - The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive
Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use such as public facility plans, and
zoning and development standards or show cause why the Comprehensive Plan should be amended
consistent with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such an amendment must take place following
prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise violate a Plan policy. However,
in the instance where specific plan policies appear to be conflicting, the City shall seek solutions
which maximize each applicable policy objective within the overall context of the Comprehensive •
Plan and Statewide Goals. As part of this balancing and weighing process, the City shall consider
whether the policy contains mandatory language (e.g., shall, require) or more discretionary language
(e.g., may, encourage).
Recommended Action Measures
Definition -A statement which outlines a specific City project or standard which, if executed, would
implement goals and policies. Recommended action measures also refer to specific projects,
standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific issues.
These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions and
agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Obligation - Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships
or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as
citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc.
2
• •
The City should periodically review and prioritize recommended action measures based on current
circumstances, community needs, and the City's goal and policy obligations. These statements are
suggestions to future City decision-makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing
of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them. Neither
do recommended action measures impose obligations on applicants who request amendments or
changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The list of recommended action measures is not exclusive. It
may be added to, or amended, as conditions warrant.
3
• •
Attachment "1"
Natural Resources and Historic Areas
Each community possesses certain natural and historic resources that help to establish its
identity. Tigard is fortunate to contain a variety of these resources that contribute to its high
quality of life. From the riparian corridors along the Tualatin River and its tributaries, to the
City's wetlands, to the upland habitat resources, the community's natural resources are a
visual and ecological asset. The historic and cultural resources of the community represent a
part of the community that provides a living history of the area. Protecting and conserving
these resources are vital components to a successful land use planning program.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
"To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open.daces."
As awareness of the importance of natural and historic resources and their relationship to
the quality of life has increased, so has concern for protecting these resources. Protecting the
City's valuable natural and historic resources is thus one of Tigard's primary goals. In
addition, the City must comply with federal, state, and regional laws protecting the resources,
including sensitive, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats. The following
resources are addressed in this chapter:
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat
• Wetlands
• Streams
• Groundwater
• Historic and Cultural Resources
As Tigard's population continues to grow, so does the potential for conflict between the
desire to preserve resources and the need to provide adequate land for growth. As
development patterns change to accommodate growth, more pressure is placed on the
resources that are present. The tension between the built and natural environments results
from the competition for land resources. The steady trend of growth and development
further necessitates the importance of fording a suitable balance in the future, both locally
and regionally.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Despite growing urbanization, Tigard and the surrounding area remain home to an
impressive diversity of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. Fish and wildlife
species depend on a complex array of habitat conditions for their food, water, mobility,
security, and reproductive needs. Wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard is heavily
concentrated adjacent to water bodies, such as streams and wetlands. However, there are
patches of upland habitat in drier, higher elevations across the City. This upland vegetation
not only contributes in providing protective cover for wildlife, but also contributes to the
aesthetic quality of the community and serves as an essential element in controlling runoff
and soil erosion, moderating temperatures, and reducing air pollution.
CPA2008-00003 1 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
A number of agencies are involved in the effort to address the management and protection
of fish and wildlife habitat. In 2000, Metro began work on a regional inventory of significant
fish and wildlife habitat, focusing on riparian corridor and wildlife habitat resources. Shortly
after completion of the inventory in 2002, the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, an
alliance between Washington County and local cities (including Tigard) working with Metro,
Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District and Clean Water Services, was formed to meet
relevant federal, state, and regional requirements. Metro entered into an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places to develop a basin-
specific approach to protect Goal 5 (riparian and wildlife habitat) resources in compliance
with the Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 3 (Water Quality and Flood
Management) and Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods). The result of the IGA was the City
adopting voluntary habitat friendly development provisions in December 2006 that seek to
protect the wildlife habitat identified within the community. The provisions include an
opportunity for low impact development practices that can reduce impacts to the identified
resources.
The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places used the regional habitat inventory as the
basis for conducting a general analysis of the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy
(ESEE) consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting uses that would negatively impact
inventoried resources. The site-specific component of the ESEE analysis provided a more
localized analysis and an opportunity to refine the Basin-wide "limit" decision where
necessary.
The analysis results show that the City of Tigard has 588 acres of habitat designated as
"strictly" limit (i.e. Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean
Water Services Vegetated Corridor). An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian
habitat situated outside the Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor are designated as
"moderately" limit. In addition, 422 acres of non-Class I and II riparian resources within the
City are designated as "lightly" limit, including both upland and lower-value riparian habitat
areas.
Wetlands
Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries, play a crucial role in a
healthy ecosystem by providing essential habitat for waterfowl, fish, amphibians and many
other animal and plant species. The state defines a wetland as an area that is inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-
0100). These areas also serve several natural hydrologic functions, including absorbing flood
waters, sustaining summer stream flows, replenishing groundwater, and filtering out harmful
pollutants from waterways. Wetlands also offer prime sites for people to witness the
wonders of a unique natural setting where fish, wildlife, plants, and water converge. These
beneficial functions of wetlands, however, may be adversely affected by human activities
such as encroachment through development, alterations to natural drainage patterns,
pollution, and the introduction of nuisance plant species.
CPA2008-00003 2 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
As outlined under OAR 141-086 for Wetland Conservation Planning, Tigard's locally
significant wetlands were designated according to the criteria and procedures for
identification of significant wetlands adopted by DSL. Inventoried wetlands were deemed
significant if they received the highest rating on at least two of the four primary wetland
functions, namely wildlife habitat, fish habitat, water quality,and hydrological control. Of the
wetlands (within the City limits) identified in Tigard's Local Wetlands Inventory, roughly
98%are classified as significant wetlands.
In 1997, the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) and Wetlands Assessment were
approved by DSL. Approval by DSL means that the wetlands inventory meets state LWI
standards, and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands Inventory and must be used in
lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory.
Since the approval of the LWI, several new wetland delineations have occurred within the
city limits. These new delineations were performed by wetland professionals and concurred
by DSL. The newly delineated wetlands become part of the LWI, although a function
assessment was not performed. Without the assessment, significance cannot be determined.
However, the majority of the newly delineated wetlands is currently under protection from
the City's sensitive lands review process because of their location in a stream corridor, 100-
year floodplain, or within the CWS vegetated corridor. The remaining wetlands, although not
covered by the City's sensitive lands review process, are subject to the state Removal-Fill
Law and must secure permits as required by the law.
Streams
Roughly 30 miles of stream corridors cross through the City and nearly all the streams in
Tigard drain into Fanno Creek, which'then flows into the Tualatin River. These stream
corridors provide a complex ecosystem linking water, land, plants, and animals and perform
several ecological functions, including storing and conveying surface water, modulating
flows, removing pollutants and providing vital habitat for aquatic organisms.
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services (CWS), the surface water management and
sanitary sewer system utility for urban Washington County, to protect local water resources.
Through CWS Design and Construction Standards, local governments in the Tualatin Basin
(including Tigard) developed a unified program to address water quality and flood
management requirements for Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within and adjacent
to sensitive water resource areas, including streams, through standards in the CWS Design and
Construction Standards. The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers, ranging
from 15 to 200 feet wide, and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded
condition. In addition, land-use applicants proposing development near streams and
wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior to
submitting a land use application to the City.
Additionally, the Tigard Community Development Code (18.775) contains a chapter devoted to
the protection of sensitive lands, including natural drainageways, wetlands, and the 100-year
CPA2008-00003 3 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
floodplain, by requiring applicants proposing development within a sensitive area to obtain a
permit for certain activities depending on their nature and intensity.
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing Clean Water Services' Healthy Streams
Plan (June 2005). The goal of this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for
community benefit by recommending a number of policy and program refinements, as well
as outlining a capital projects program. The capital projects focus on stream preservation and
enhancement, flow restoration, community tree planting, stormwater outfall and culvert
replacement.
Groundwater
The importance of groundwater to the community is twofold. First, it serves the function of
naturally replenishing surface waters such as wetlands, streams, and lakes. This helps provide
vital habitat for aquatic organisms and wildlife. Secondly, it is a source of clean water to help
meet human water needs for drinking, household use, commercial/industrial use, and
irrigation.
The western portion of the City of Tigard is located above the Cooper Mountain/Bull
Mountain Critical Groundwater Area. The Critical Groundwater Area was declared in 1973
in response to heavy pumping and the slow rate of recharge. This is significant because the
City owns water rights to withdraw groundwater from the aquifer and it was once an
important source of drinking water. Currently, the City of Tigard Water Division has one
groundwater well in operation that is available to supplement the drinking water supply in
times of high demand. The Water Division has also developed Aquifer Storage Recovery
wells that allow potable water to be injected into the aquifer during the winter to supplement
the summer high demands.
Historic and Cultural Resources
In 1984, the City adopted a Cultural Resource Overlay District to manage significant historic
resources. Section 18.740 of the Community Development Code governs the application
and removal of the district overlay, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate the
protection, enhancement, and conservation of landmarks and historic and cultural sites and
areas. Under state law (ORS 197.772) enacted in 1995, a local government is required to
allow a property owner to remove a historic property designation that was imposed by the
local government; in addition, the property owner may refuse to consent to the designation
at any time in the process, thus removing the property from consideration for all but the
National Register of Historic Places.The implication of the statute and rule for Tigard's
current historic code provisions is that if the property designation does not have owner
consent, the provisions are no longer relevant or enforceable.
Local conservation efforts can be combined with the National Register of Historic Places
(the National Register), a list of cultural resources of national, regional, state, or local
significance that is kept by the Department of the Interior's (DOI) National Park Service
(NPS). Being listed on the Register does not protect a property from demolition, but it does
document and evaluate the property's historic significance based on National Register
CPA2008-00003 4 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
criteria and makes the property eligible for federal grants when available, including
rehabilitation tax credits.
Many of the cultural resources associated with the original development of the Tigard area
have not survived the City's growth during the last forty years. Improvements to Hwy 99W
also contributed to the demise of the City's resource base. Those resources that survived
include a mix of residential, educational, and commercial buildings.
Currently, nine resources have the overlay designation. Two sites, the John F. Tigard House
and the Shaver-Bilyeu House, are listed on the National Historic Register. The only property
from which the overlay has been removed was the Tigard Feed and Garden Store when the
owner initiated the removal request. Chapter 18.740 of the Community Development Code
requires that if an overlay property receives approval for demolition, a condition of approval
will require submittal of a graphic and pictorial history and artifacts to the Washington
County Museum.
Key Findings
• Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Standards establish a vegetated corridor
buffer adjacent to the City's streams to protect water quality; the City adopted these
standards in 2002.
• In addition to contributing to the general aesthetic quality of the area, streams and
the adjacent riparian areas perform several ecological functions.
• Roughly 98% of the City's wetlands are classified as "locally significant wetlands,"
per procedures outlined under OAR 141-086.
• The Tigard Community Development Code requires Sensitive Lands Review for any
development which would impact significant wetlands or the vegetated corridor
buffer to wetlands.
• Wetlands may be adversely affected by human activities such as encroachment
through development, alterations to natural drainage patterns, pollution, and the
introduction of nuisance plant species.
• Based on the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis
conducted by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, 588 acres of the
inventoried regionally significant habitat was designated as "strictly limit", 370 acres
was designated as "moderately limit" and 422 acres was designated as "lightly limit."
• In December 2006, the City of Tigard adopted voluntary Habitat Friendly
Development Provisions (Ordinance 06-20) that encourages the protection of
habitat with the use of low impact development practices.
• The Critical Groundwater Area on Cooper Mountain and Bull Mountain was
declared by the State of Oregon in 1973 and restricts the withdrawal of groundwater
on the western half of the City.
• Groundwater wells currently in operation are limited to one traditional well and two
aquifer storage recovery (ASR)wells.
• In 1984, the City adopted a Historic Overlay District to manage significant historic
resources.
• In 1995, ORS 197.772 required local governments to allow a property owner to
remove a historic property designation that was imposed by the local government.
CPA2008-00003 5 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
The implication for Tigard's current historic code provisions is that if the property
designation does not have owner consent, the provisions are no longer relevant or
enforceable.
• Nine resources have the overlay designation. Two sites, the John F. Tigard House
and the Shaver-Bilyeu House, are listed on the National Historic Register; only the
Tigard house has the Historic District overlay.
• The citizens of Tigard value trees and natural resources and feel that protecting these
resources will benefit the community.
• The citizens of Tigard are concerned about the impact of growth on the
community's natural resources.
Goal
5.1 Protect and restore natural resources, and the environmental
and ecological services they provide, through naturally
functioning systems that demonstrate a high level of
biodiversity.
Staff Notes: While definitions are not being formally considered at this time, staff has prepared the
following draft definitions at the request of the PIT and to assist the Planning Commission during
deliberations:
Biodiversiy: The full range and variety and variability within and among organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or communi y diversity, species diversity, and genetic
diversity.
Natural Resources: Inventoried resources and natural resource systems including fish and wildlife habitats;
wetlands;streams and associated riparian corridors;groundwater;and rare and endangered fish and wildlife,
plants, and plant communities.
Policies
1. The City shall protect and restore natural resources in a manner that will:
a. Contribute to the City's scenic quality of Tigard and its unique sense
of place;
b. Provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and
buffering between differential land uses;
c. Maximize natural resource functions and values including fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality; and
d. Result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high
level of biodiversity.
2. The City shall continue to protect and restore natural resources through a
variety of methods. Such methods shall include, but not be limited to, the
use of development and land management regulations, acquisition of land
CPA2008-00003 6 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
and conservation easements, educational outreach, and external
partnerships as appropriate.
3. The City shall encourage public and private development to use
sustainable building technologies, low impact development techniques,
and incorporate existing and potential natural resource functions and
values into the landscape and infrastructure designs of development
projects.
4. The City shall actively coordinate and consult in the inventory, protection,
and restoration of natural resources with landowners, local stakeholders,
and governmental jurisdictions and agencies.
5. The City shall utilize periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the
City's programs and regulatory structures to inform future decisions
regarding natural resource protection, management, and restoration.
6. The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives as appropriate to prevent
property owners from removing or degrading natural resources prior to
annexation.
7. The City shall preserve and restore riparian and upland habitats for fish
and wildlife to the maximum extent possible on public and private lands
through:
a. Land use regulations and standards that protect and restore essential
habitat elements that satisfy the food, water, shelter, mobility, and
reproductive needs of fish and wildlife;
b. Land use regulations and standards that mitigate the loss of habitat
elements and functions as a result of development, with priority given
to protection over mitigation;
c. Preservation and creation of linkages between wildlife habitat areas,
when possible, as a key component of parks, open space, and surface
water management plans; and
d. Implementation of outreach and regulatory programs to identify and
remove invasive species that threaten habitat areas.
8. The City shall preserve, maintain, and restore the diverse ecological and
non-ecological functions and values of streams, wetlands, and associated
riparian corridors. Strategies shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Compliance with Federal, State and Regional regulations as they apply
to streams,wetlands, and associated riparian corridors;
b. Mitigating the loss of wetlands and their associated functions and
values as a result of development, with priority given to protection
over mitigation;
c. Protection of riparian vegetation necessary for erosion control, water
quality, and fish and wildlife habitat; and
CPA2008-00003 7 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
d. Maintenance and restoration of hydrologic regimes that support fish
and wildlife, provide flood control, enable natural recharge of
groundwater, and other ecological and community benefits.
9. The City shall continue to protect groundwater by:
a. Continuing to work with regional and state agencies to identify and
•
address potential sources of contamination;
b. Minimizing the amount of impervious surface area covering the City
that prevents the natural recharge of groundwater aquifers; and
c. Supplementing groundwater extraction with alternative sources.
10. The City shall maintain and utilize a baseline inventory of natural resources through
surveys and monitoring.
11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse
methods including education,incentives, planned development standards and
regulations, and conservation easements.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Identify and inventory locally significant habitats and plant communities
not included in the Nature in Neighborhoods and Tualatin River Basin
studies.
ii. Establish baseline measures and periodically evaluate natural resource
protection and restoration activities in a manner that will measure success
and enable further refinement towards measurable goals.
iii. Inventory and preserve small perennial streams as natural resource for
their contributions to fish and wildlife habitat.
iv. Inventory and preserve locally significant tree groves not considered
regionally significant habitat.
v. Identify and preserve areas demonstrating high scenic quality, and
implement mechanisms for preserving, maintaining and/or enhancing this
quality.
vi. Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing natural resource
protections with the Development code; identify gaps, conflicts, and
opportunities for enhancement.
vii. Continue membership and active involvement with nonprofit and
government agencies such as the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources
Coordinating Committee.
CPA2008-00003 8 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "1"
viii.Identify opportunities for, and encourage the use of habitat friendly
development practices and low impact development techniques.
ix. Incorporate bioregional conservation strategies, such as those identified in
the Oregon Biodiversity Project, into regulations and restoration
programs.
x. Utilize indicators of biodiversity as a measure of the quality and health of
natural resource systems, and as a measure of success of City actions and
strategies.
xi. Identify mechanisms for stabilizing or reducing surface and groundwater
extraction for residential and commercial uses.
Goal
5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally
significant resources.
Policies
1. The City shall actively promote the protection and preservation of historic and cultural
resources and cooperate with organizations involved in their protection.
Recommended Action Measures
i. Promote and publicize historic resources in the City.
ii. Support volunteer programs to preserve historic resources.
iii. Encourage rental and use of historic buildings,where appropriate.
iv. Consider holding City functions in historic buildings,where appropriate.
v. Support efforts to obtain historic designation at the city, county, state, and national levels
for public and private historic sites.
vi. Facilitate the development of economic options and alternatives for historic and cultural
resources and organizations involved in their protection,when requested.
CPA2008-00003 9 Goal 5
City of Tigard
• •
Attachment "2"
MEMORANDUM
t.
TO: Long Range Planning Staff
TIGARD 2027
FROM: John Floyd
RE: Natural Resources Policy Interest Team Meeting of October 3, 2007
DATE: October 5, 2007
On October 3, 2007 the Policy Interest Team (PIT) for Natural Resources convened in the
second floor conference room of the library, between 6:30 and 8:30 pm. In attendance were
four members of the public:John Frewing, Warren Aney, Sue Bielke, and Brian Wegener of
Tualatin Riverkeepers. Building blocks were presented and comment solicited from
attending members regarding the direction and content of the building blocks.
Topics discussed at the meeting included a general description of the General Plan process,
the purpose of the PIT, draft goals, and both the tone and content of the building blocks
that will form the foundation of future policies and action measures. The dot exercise was
not undertaken as the group wanted to finish the comment period prior to the close of the
meeting.
Comments received by staff were both general and specific. A summary of these comments
is below:
> The draft goals significantly overlap and do not adequately address upland habitat
> Biodiversity should be a cornerstone goal, and the protection of upland habitats
should be explicitly referenced in the goals.
➢ The policies should leverage opportunities provided by development, and not focus
only on restricting it
> Members of the PIT felt that implementation of incentives to encourage resource
sensitive development has rarely occurred in this and other jurisdictions
> Tigard should not automatically defer all regulatory responsibility to single purpose
agencies as Tigard may have a broader set of objectives than another other agency or
agencies (i.e. DEQ, CWS, etc.)
➢ Tigard should not just inventory resources, but perform ongoing monitoring and
evaluation of changes to measure and assess success or failure. There were also calls
by some members to develop inventories of locally significant habitats and streams,
not just regionally significant ones.
> There should be a discussion of the ecological services provided by natural resources
and their value to humans (human habitat, pollination, microclimate control,
air/water purifications)
> Natural Resource policies should include language regarding when, how and where
to annex new land.
> The City should incorporate recommendations of the Oregon Conservation Strategy
prepared by ODFW a broad and proactive framework for the long-term
conservation of Oregon's native fish, wildlife, invertebrates and plants.
> The City should take greater interest in monitoring smaller perennial streams, the
illegal diversion of water, and the protection of groundwater not only for drinking
water but the maintenance of adequate flow levels for fish and wildlife.
•
Attachment "3"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Long Range Planning Staff
TIGARD 2027
FROM: John Floyd
RE: Natural Resources Policy Interest Team Meeting of November 14, 2007
DATE: November 19, 2007
On November 14, 2007 the Policy Interest Team (PIT) for Natural Resources convened in
the second floor conference room of the library, between 6:30 and 8:30 pm. In attendance
were four members of the public:John Frewing, Sue Beilke,Tony Tycer, and Ben Boudreau.
Draft policies were presented and comment solicited from attending members regarding the
direction and content. Staff also requested that the repeat members,John Frewing and Sue
Beilke, to make sure that their comments submitted at the first meeting were properly
understood by staff and incorporated into the draft Goals and Policies.
Topics discussed at the meeting included a general description of the General Plan process,
the purpose of the PIT, and draft goals and policies written subsequent to the previous
meeting. .
Comments received by staff were both general and specific. A list of recommended changes
is below. In addition, the PIT requested more information regarding the status and
appropriateness of existing policies. This issue will be presented at the next PIT meeting.
DRAFT GOALS
Goal 1: The City shall Protect, restore, and enhance significant
natural resources and the ecological and non-ecological
functions and benefits they provide. Significant natural
resources shall include:
a. Fish and wildlife habitats;
b. Wetlands;
c. Streams, and associated riparian corridors;
d. Groundwater; and
e. Rare and endangered fish and wildlife ads,
plants, and plant communities
Goal 2: Achieve healthy, naturally functioning ecological
systems that demonstrate a high level of biodiversity.
[see definition for biodiversity]
• Attachment "3"
DRAFT POLICIES
Policy 1: The City shall protect and restore natural resources in a
manner that will:
a. Retain the scenic quality [Create definition ::of
scenic'. quality] of Tigard and its unique sense of
place;
b. Provide educational opportunities, recreational
amenities, and buffering between land uses; and
c. Maximize the ecological and hydrological services
they provide such as fish and wildlife habitat,
surface water management, and drinking water.
Policy 2: The City shall continue to protect and restore natural
resources through a diversity of methods including but
not limited to: development and land management
regulations, transfer of development rights, acquisition of
land and conservation easements, preferential
assessments, educational outreach, and external
partnerships as appropriate.
Policy 3: The City shall require public and private development to
use green building technologies, low impact
development techniques, and incorporate existing natural
resources into the landscape and infrastructure designs of
development projects. Site plans shall recognize existing
natural resources as both amenities and green
infrastructure. Development techniques that restore
degraded natural resources or mimic natural resource
functions shall be encouraged.
Policy 4: The City shall actively coordinate and cooperate in the
inventory, protection, and restoration of natural resources
with landowners, regional, state and federal jurisdictions
and agencies.
Policy 5: The City shall use a systems-wide management approach
to protect, restore and manage natural resources, with
periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the City's
programs and regulatory structures.
• •
Attachment "3"
Policy 6: The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives as
appropriate to prevent property owners from removing or
degrading natural resources prior to annexation.
Policy 7: The City shall protect and restore fish and wildlife
riparian and upland habitats for fish and wildlife to
the maximum extent possible on public and private
lands through:
a. Land development practices that protect and
restore essential habitat elements that satisfy the
food, water, shelter, mobility and reproductive
needs of fish and wildlife;
b. Mitigating the loss of habitat elements and
functions as a result of development, with
priority given to protection over mitigation;
c. Preserving and creating linkages between
wildlife habitat areas as a key component of
parks, open space, and surface water
management plans;
d. Encouraging land maintenance and management
practices that minimize harm to fish and wildlife
and the habits upon which they depend;
e. Prioritizing the protection and/or restoration of
natural resource areas home to rare and
endangered species; and
f. Implementation of outreach and regulatory
programs that identify and remove invasive
species that threaten habitat areas.
Policy 8: The City shall protect, maintain, and restore the diverse
ecological and non-ecological functions and values of
streams, wetlands, and associated riparian corridors.
Strategies shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Compliance with Federal, State and Regional
regulations as they apply to streams, wetlands,
and associated riparian corridors; and
b. Mitigating the loss of wetlands and their
associated functions and values as a result of
development, with priority given to protection
over mitigation;
•
Attachment "3"
c. Protection of riparian vegetation necessary for
erosion control, water quality, and fish and
wildlife habitat; and
d. Maintenance and restoration of hydrologic
regimes that support fish and wildlife, provide
flood control, enable natural recharge of
groundwater, and other ecological and
community benefits.
Policy 9: The City shall continue to protect groundwater from
contamination and over-extraction by:
a. Working with regional and state agencies to
identify and address potential sources of
contamination;
b. Minimizing the amount of impervious surface
area covering the City using flexible approaches
that prevents the natural recharge of groundwater
aquifers; and
c. Supplementing groundwater supplies through
alternative sources such as aquifer storage
recovery wells and securing a long-term supply
of water from sources external to the City.
Policy 10: The City shall maintain and utilize a baseline
inventory of natural resources through surveys and
monitoring.
Policy 11: The City shall assist landowners in the protection of
natural resources through diverse methods.
DRAFT RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
Identify and inventory locally significant habitats and plant
communities not included in the Nature in Neighborhoods studies.
ii. Periodically evaluate natural resource protection and restoration
activities in a manner that will measure success and enable further
refinement.
iii. Inventory and identify small perennial streams for potential regulation
and protection.
•
Attachment "3"
iv. Inventory and identify significant forested areas not considered
regionally significant habitat.
v. Inventory and identify significant scenic views within Tigard and
mechanisms for preserving those views.