10/16/2006 - Packet AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i
• •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 16, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall, Meads,Vermilyea
(arrived late), and Walsh.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Harbison and Munro
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager;Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner;Denver
Igarta,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Commissioner Walsh reported on the Tree Board. He advised that the Tree Board will attend a
workshop with the Planning Commission on November 6th to discuss two proposed code
amendments. At their last meeting, the Tree Board also discussed the Costco parking lot
canopy.
Commissioner Buehner reported that the City Center Advisory Commission met last week.
They decided to leave the rest of the design review issues to the discretion of the Planning
Commission. They will start working on the Master Plan for the park and the outreach effort
to the downtown property owners.
Commissioner Buehner also reported on the Transportation Financing Task Force. They are
scheduled for public meetings on the 9th and the 30th to discuss the gas tax proposal.
Commissioner Meads reported on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. They are working
on financing for a start up recreation program in Tigard. They will be adding it to the budget
for the next fiscal year. The Board would like to use existing resources as much as possible.
They hope to have a pilot program with some classes and after school activities.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 1
• •
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the October 2, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2006-00001/
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2006-00004 HABITAT-
FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
REQUEST: Amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Volume I) and
Community Development Code (Sections 18.360, 18.370, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775,
18.810) in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 (Nature in
Neighborhoods) to adopt the Significant Habitat Areas Map and to implement the
recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish &Wildlife Habitat Program aimed at
encouraging the use of habitat-friendly development practices. The proposed
amendments will not result in increased development restrictions but will give developers
the option to take advantage of greater regulatory flexibility in exchange for the use of
habitat-friendly practices. Amendments will remove barriers to, and provide code
flexibility for development that incorporates habitat-friendly techniques. The complete
text of the proposed Code Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at
http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: CBD,
C-G, C-P, I-H, I-L, I-P, MUC, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2,MUR-1, MUR-2, R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-
4.5, R-7, R-12, R-25. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775 and 18.810;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2, 3 & 4; Metro Functional Plan Title 3 and 13; and Statewide
Planning Goals 1, 2, 5 and 6.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Denver Igarta gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A) on proposed
habitat-friendly development code amendments. He advised that the purpose of the
amendments is to encourage the use of habitat-friendly development methods by
implementing the Tualatin Basin Fish Wildlife Habitat Program. The intent is to convey a
benefit to the developer in exchange for use of development practices that are sensitive to
habitat on site. It is not intended to increase development restrictions. The program is a
voluntary, incentive-based approach.
Igarta advised that the program would be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goal 5
and Metro Functional Plan, Title 13. He noted that there are 3 steps involved with the
inventory of habitat areas (a regional significant habitat inventory completed by Metro; an
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 2
• •
assessment of conflicting uses - environmental, social, economic, energy [ESEE] assessment;
development of a program).
The focus of the implementation phase of the program is on habitat-friendly development (a
broad-range of techniques that reduce the impact on fish and wildlife habitat). There are
two steps involved—remove barriers for the use of habitat-friendly practices and develop
guidelines for using habitat-friendly development practices.
The Tualatin Basin Partners wrote a report for implementing the program to protect habitat.
The recommendations included a list of 11 techniques of habitat-friendly development
practices. In reviewing the techniques, Tigard determined that the City was substantially
meeting a number of them through local ordinances already in use. However, there is a gap
and some amendments are needed to address the rest of the techniques.
Igarta reviewed the significant habitat area map and described the habitat "limit"
classifications. He detailed each of the proposed amendments for the Commission.
With regard to the proposed amendment for on-site density transfers, Igarta noted that the
Planning Commission discussed this amendment earlier and decided not to support it at this
time; they will revisit on-site density transfers at a later time.
Igarta advised that the Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing tonight and
sending a recommendation to Council. City Council is scheduled for a workshop on
November 21st and will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on December
12th.
Commissioner Buehner asked about the letter from Dayle Beach. He referred to a gap on
Red Rock Creek along 72nd Ave. Igarta advised that when Metro did their inventory, they
carried out the regional inventory. When the Tualatin Basin Partners took over the
inventory, they performed a more specific district-wide inventory that looked more closely at
resources on site and did an ESEE assessment. Complementary to this, we also have Clean
Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards which include vegetative corridor
restrictions to development directly adjacent to streams. For the site Mr. Beach is referring
to, those resources are protected by more strict regulations that are part of the CWS Design
and Construction Standards. They supersede the habitat benefits provisions which are
completely voluntary.
Commissioner Walsh asked about lot adjustments. Igarta answered that this provision
allows the property owner to choose to resituate a building envelope to save resources;
without the provision, there may be standards that restrict how that could happen. For
example, the provision could allow a set back adjustment where the owner could put the
structure closer to a lot line in order to preserve a resource on the other side of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 3
• •
Igarta reported that,when staff was looking at the habitat-friendly recommendations, they
did an extensive assessment of the existing code. Some of what is in the existing code
covers a lot of the Tualatin Basin recommendations. Where there is a gap, there are
standards in place that could be extended to the habitat areas. The proposed habitat-friendly
code provisions are intended to complement the existing code to provide for preservation of
significant habitat.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
None
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION
Fred Fields, 1149 SW Davenport, Portland, OR 97201, asked if the Tualatin Basin Partners
were a legally constituted organization. Commissioner Buehner answered that the Partners
were made up of representatives from all the jurisdictions in the Tualatin Valley. Metro
delegated the responsibility of reviewing standards to this group. Each jurisdiction will
review the recommendations and decide whether or not to implement them into their own
codes. Igarta advised that the Tualatin Basin Partners submitted their program report to
Metro. Metro adopted the program report, maps, and analysis as part of their Nature in
Neighborhoods Program which has been adopted as a functional plan for the region.
Mr. Fields asked about compensation for property owners. President Inman advised that
this will provide increased flexibility for builders. Commissioner Meads also noted that the
measures are voluntary—property owners are not required to do anything that they wouldn't
want to do.
Mr. Fields asked about increased density. The Commission advised that the density transfer
portion of the proposed amendment is not going to be included with the rest of the code
amendments at this time. That particular recommendation is being deferred for discussion
at a later time. That section of the existing code is not going to change at this time.
Sue Bielke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, OR 97223 testified on several issues (a copy of her
testimony is included as Exhibit B). She believes that the program proposed by the Tualatin
Basin Partners would protect fewer habitats than the region-wide program. She noted that
there are segments of some streams not shown on the significant habitat areas map, e.g., a
tributary of Ash Creek located north of Cascade Blvd. a small permanent creek north of
Tigard Street, and other gaps on the map for streams. In addition, she noted that some areas
shown on the map indicate less protection for some habitat areas. She recommended that
the current map not be adopted until corrections can be made.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 4
• •
Ms. Bielke believes that "strictly limit", "moderately limit", and "lightly limit" don't give
adequate protection to some resources. She would rather change it to "prohibit", "strictly
limit", and "moderately limit". She also recommends increasing buffer areas in some areas.
Ms. Bielke opposes the exemption for the Clean Water Services Healthy Streams Plan. By
exempting CWS, citizens would not be allowed to comment on projects. Citizens should be
able to ask questions and raise concerns about CWS projects.
Commissioner Meads asked about making modifications to the map. Staff advised that the
process would be to obtain a form from Metro, provide documentation/support materials,
and submit it all back to Metro. For delineation errors, the Tualatin Basin Partners are
establishing a delineation methodology for how to verify precise boundaries of resources on
site. The methodology will be adopted as part of the code amendments.
Igarta advised that the map is intended as a general location map which would trigger on-
the-ground delineation. It is not intended to show the precise location of resources.
Commissioner Buehner asked if amendments would have to go through DLCD. Staff
answered that amendments would go to Metro. Commissioner Buehner also asked what the
process would be if she had an issue in terms of a particular spot. Staff answered that she
would need to fill out the form at Metro. Metro updates their maps and verifies requests for
changes. Metro staff reviews the documentation requirements to determine whether or not
the materials are correct. They take action based on that determination. The map is updated
on a regular basis, not necessarily immediately. There is no deadline for this. Map
maintenance is a coordinated effort between Metro and the jurisdictions.
President Inman asked if the map itself will be going into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
answered yes, but we do not have an inventory that accurately maps all the resources. Sue
Bielke said this could be something to add to the Comp Plan— a future comprehensive
survey of resources (wildlife, fish, etc.) and make it a goal. The Commission noted that it
would be extremely expensive to do this, but that additional changes could be made during
the Comp Plan update process.
Commissioner Walsh asked if the public would not have an opportunity to comment, if the
CWS exemption section was adopted. Dick Bewersdorff advised that exemptions are
already in the code — they are uses that are allowed outright. He said this could be an area
for the Comp Plan update and Zoning Code update. If it would result in more takings, there
could be more ballot measure 37 issues. The Commission asked to what extent there is
opportunity for public comment with respect to CWS Healthy Stream Plan projects. Staff
answered that CWS would need to go through DSL for their Healthy Streams Plan projects,
but there would be no opportunity for citizen input if they are exempt from sensitive lands
review. Commissioner Vermilyea clarified that if we adopt this specific amendment,we are
precluding public comment as it relates to Clean Water projects.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 5
• •
Commissioner Buehner noted that there is not a lot of leverage with CWS. She wonders
why the City should give up the little bit of leverage we have for the convenience of CWS.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard, OR 97223, asked when an amendment for
density transfer would be considered. The Commission advised that they will probably
discuss it next year during the Comp Plan update.
Mr. Frewing asked that the record be held open for 7 days so he could have time to review
materials he received in response to questions he had. Staff advised that this was a legislative
hearing and the Commission would have to consider the request.
Mr. Frewing agreed with previous discussion about public testimony for CWS projects. He
asked if the CWS exemption was part of the Tualatin Valley Partners recommendation for all
jurisdictions. Staff answered yes.
Staff explained the process for map corrections to Mr. Frewing. The City would be notified
whenever Metro maps are updated. Tigard would then update the significant habitat map.
It was noted that the map only shows general areas of resources. When land is developed,
the developer would have an analyst do the delineation. Map errors will show up during the
development stage. The map acts as reference point, it is not specific or accurate as far as
significant habitat areas.
Staff advised that the City is not proposing amendments to Volume II of the
Comprehensive Plan at this time. The significant habitat map is part of the inventory,it's
not regulatory. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to encourage habitat friendly
development.
Regarding Code Section 18.360.090, Mr. Frewing suggested defining the word
"consideration". Commissioner Buehner proposed looking at this as we go through Phase
II of the Comp Plan process. Commissioner Vermilyea said that maybe a description of a
process for demonstrating consideration could be used.
Mr. Frewing referred to the proposed list of innovative methods listed in Section
18.360.090.A.2.C. He suggested adding a 7th method - retaining vegetative cover and
retaining canopy cover.
For Section 18.775.140 A.1.a.2, Mr. Frewing would like to see clarification of the term
"flood areas". Commissioner Vermilyea suggested being consistent with the existing
language under 18.775.010 (on page 5).
For Section 18.775.140 A.1.a.3, Mr. Frewing asked about unidentified wetlands —is there any
obligation to pick those up? The Commission discussed changes to the proposed language
[see motion for final proposed language].
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 6
• •
Tim LeBrun, 13275 SW Greenfield Dr., Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak but left the
meeting before doing so.
Duane Wilson, Five Centerpointe Drive, Suite #280, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, asked if this
is voluntary,why delineate? If a developer chooses not to participate in habitat friendly
construction, what recourse does the City have? The Commission answered that there is no
recourse by the City; however, CWS has some requirements. It was noted that the
regulations weren't intended to be voluntary when the discussions first began, but when
Measure 37 passed, Metro had to make the regulations voluntary.
Mr. Wilson asked about limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses. Staff answered that the limit
decision and conflicting use analysis are based on the process laid out by Statewide Goal 5
procedures for inventorying the resources. When assessing the ESEE consequences of the
uses, the voluntary regulations encourage developers to take advantage of flexibility to
protect resources.
Mr. Wilson asked about benefits for the developer. President Inman put forth a scenario
where a developer is doing a project that involves a significant habitat and is being required
to provide right-of-way for access. The developer could perhaps have the flexibility to
narrow the street improvements to minimize the impact to the habitat. This flexibility may
not be currently allowed. It could also allow a developer to take a benefit by using pervious
asphalt for an apartment complex project. These regulations would give the developer the
ability to do that,which is not currently in the code. These regulations allow the developer
to take those kinds of measures/advancements, and do more green projects without being in
conflict with the current code.
Mr. Wilson believes the term "limit or prohibit conflicting uses" should be defined. Staff
advised that this term, as written in the staff report, is not in the Code. This is just
background information, showing the process for Statewide Goal 5 rules. It will not be part
of the Development Code.
Staff advised that delineation in sensitive lands would be required to take advantage of the
program flexibility. If developers want to use the benefits from the program, they must do
the delineation. They are not required to delineate habitat areas if they do not want to take
advantage of the provisions.
Mr. Wilson asked, if the City is adopting the map into the Comprehensive Plan, wouldn't
any change to the map require a Comp Plan Amendment? Staff advised that the map will be
adopted as an inventory document; it's not part of Volume II which is the policy document.
The map will be in Volume I, which consists of non-binding background information.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 7
• •
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
After deliberation, the Commission modified some of the proposed code language.
Commissioner Vermilyea then moved to recommend to City Council approval of the habitat-
friendly development provisions and proposed amendments as presented, except as modified
by the Planning Commission [noted below],including the staff report and testimony heard this
evening. Modifications the proposed amendments include:
1. On page 2 of 10, under 18.360.090 A.2.c., add number 7 to read, "Preservation of
existing vegetative or canopy cover."
2. On page 5 of 10, under 18.775.020 C. Exemptions — delete this section.
3. On page 6 of 10, under 18.775.140 A.1.a.2, change language to read: "Locate all 100-
year floodplain areas or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater,within 100
feet of the property."
4. On page 6 of 10, under 18.775.140 A.1.a.3, the first sentence shall end after the word
"property"; the rest of the sentence shall be deleted. The second sentence shall read,
"Identified wetlands on the property shall be further delineated consistent with
methods currently accepted by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Commissioner Buehner seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
• NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT - Continuation
Denver Igarta gave a PowerPoint presentation on Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
(Exhibit C). He advised that the wetland inventory was conducted in 1994 by a consultant.
The local wetland inventory looked at significant habitat based on functional assessment. The
City's Safe Harbor process puts regulatory restrictions on grading, excavation,placement of fill,
and removal of vegetation.
Igarta reviewed the wetland statistics with the Commission. He noted that the local wetland
inventory map was submitted to the Department of State Lands (DSL) and approved. It has
been adopted as part of our Development Code. He advised that the consultant performed the
inventory,which was approved by DSL. The map is maintained based on approved Comp
Plan amendments and delineations that we receive from DSL. DSL sends us a notification if
they have changed their map inventory. We are required to amend our maps to represent what
the State has changed. Metro is not involved with this process.
Staff confirmed that there are two separate methods for determining wetlands inventory in
Tigard—Metro and DSL. Typically,if there is a development proposal that would affect
wetlands (to fill or remove wetland), the proposal has to go through the Comp Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 8
• •
amendment process to remove the Safe Harbor provisions and then is submitted to DSL so
they can update their map. Until there is a development activity that will potentially have an
adverse impact to a wetland,we may not know that the wetland exists. An on-the-ground
delineation is a very expensive endeavor. Commissioner Vermilyea believes that if the City
knew what is truly out there, there would be an opportunity to plan,protect, and be proactive.
The current process is entirely reactive with regard to wetlands and habitat.
Senior Planner Beth St. Amand noted the local wetlands inventory was done in 1994,which set
the baseline. There is a question about anything identified since then. Delineation is just a
survey; there should also be an assessment, such as with the ESEE process, that should be
done. There is a potential to make some changes when going through the Comp Plan update
process.
Commissioner Vermilyea would like to be able to identify areas of concern that can be taken
into consideration as the City goes through the Comp Plan process. The goal should be to
have our information be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. It was suggested that there may
be a way to gather supplemental work that has already been done.
Igarta explained the importance of coordination with other jurisdictions with regard to fish and
wildlife habitat. He reviewed the statistics and findings of the fish and wildlife habitat analysis
and the habitat map produced the Tualatin Basin Partners.
John Frewing noted that there have been dozens of developments in Tigard over the past
several years. In some cases, they have included a natural resources assessment. He wonders if
staff has incorporated that information from those individual applications onto this map. Staff
answered that previous applications have not been examined to update the map. The map is
intended to be a general location map.
President Inman asked the Commissioners if they thought they had enough information to
evaluate where we are and what we want to do with the Comp Plan. Also, as part of the Comp
Plan review, does the Commission want to spend the resources to prioritize and update the
maps? Commissioner Buehner believes it would be a good idea to pull development
applications where there are known wetland delineations. Staff noted that they would be
limited to floodplain,drainageways, and buffers.
Commissioner Vermilyea believes that getting closer to reality on the maps,rather than general
delineation,would be better than what we have now. President Inman noted that the maps are
used to trigger an analysis for development. If the development has already occurred,why do
we need to update the map that would no longer be used for a trigger for that site? She is more
concerned about property that does not show the resources to generate further analysis. Staff
suggested looking for a gap analysis now. It was noted that the information being presented at
this point is a general overview of the different areas of the Comp Plan—types of resources,
where they are located, etc.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 9
• •
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Jerree •' •• Planning Co 'ssion Secretary
c).s;.....s._:_T.----.s.._..;,..„_„%..._._._
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 16,2006—Page 10
• •
G r
tlhir:,: Yprndlt
l
Dom`/�10ucI1 :;I1? r'f911: 19n;
CPA 2006-00001 I DCA 2006-00004
'y ... 4 ""'oeti
zi 1
Pile October 16,2006
Proposed Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code Amendments
Purpose
1..
•■ Encourage the use of"habitat-friendly"
development methods by implementing the
Tualatin Basin Fish it Wildlife Habitat Program
} %; • In compliance with:
,,,��; • Statewide Planning Goal 5
• Metro Functional Plan Title 13(NIN)
What is Goal 5?
Oregon's 19 statewide planning goals are the
r framework for local land use planning programs
�„a.� Statewide Aims to protect
'+< Planning •Natural resources
•
•Scenic and historic areas
GOAL 5 •Open spaces
it...0
tv.
Provides guidelines for local governments
•Inventory natural resources
•Identify the most significant resources
•Take steps to protect them
1
• 0
l
Goal 5 Steps: Relationship to Metro and
Tualatin Basin Program
h STEP STEPS STEPC BTEPD
Program
lmpkme•tatlo• Gap Amend Code
'i�S
It':
Ogg Am. U 06 Dec 06
1157-11q-,47/M Ali
ge.Ofit --st, „,...rx.....trq; - 1
q
E"5.E E ',,O® r. ,--4r iP
INVENTORY_ 4 ',:, _.__,__.._..,....u_ i., if4?"'^ --
i
Implementation
Habitat-Friendly Development
,. Reduce detrimental impacts of development on fish
9 and wildlife habitat.
*, ; Steps ,
'4 `; • Remove barriers to the use of *11 , -
,ter
4,A''' habitat-friendly practices ,
• Develop guidelines to 1:
encourage habitat-friendly tx '' M
development practices k4 ^ '1.
rTf
y
Gap Analysis
Review existing regulations for consistency with
"habitat-friendly development"recommendations
of the Tualatin Basin.
Summary of Findings
4 ■ 11 recommendations were determined to be
substantially met by existing regulations
1,,;`,;:, •Lot Coverage Flexibility •Use of Native Plants
14!.a •Parking Ratios •Tree Canopy Preservation
..:Vii •Shared Driveways&Parking •Minimum Lot Size Reduction
•Parking Stall Dimensions •Maximize Street Tree Coverage
•Parking Lot Landscaping •Use Stormwater Management
•Location of Landscaping Facilities
•
2
• •
Proposed Amendments
Based on Gap Analysis:
1 Amendments required to address the following:
•Adopt inventory of Significant Habitat Areas
' •Site-spec�c delineation methodology
t
•Encourage habitat-friendly development practices
•Allow pervious paving for certain surfaces
i!3": •Modify net-buildable area and allow on-site density transfer
4..-; from habitat areas
„:1'•i
•Allow reduction to minimum density required
•Permit CWS Healthy Streams projects
•Lot dimensional adjustments for habitat areas
•Allow adjustments to street standards within habitat areas
Proposed Amendment
Tigard Significant Habitat Areas
Proposed Amendment
• Adopt the Significant Habitat Areas Map
't • Add Significant Habitat Areas to the list of
Sensitive Lands
a Purpose
Adopt a map to establish the general location of
each habitat"limit"classification defined based on
the ESEE analysis.
r
Sig• ' cant Habitat Areas
• Lind'
1r ) Aena:68D
di\. 111W 0 a1:16 um Pal
;-� j moan
Aar..:070
IN
�f `�1 7' , SLIM metes(UV
It ''Class Qaaa
Sens:D33
-L- I"II aL:,a.ar.aarw
+•�e:�Comdcr .rf
m200:1(o.w0
Acres:US
i39s dw li
Total Ae,m
a_ City BMW 74"
Aati>•:1310 me
sundae*:101 m"
3
• •
Proposed Amendment
_ t
Habitat Delineation Methodology
I Proposed Amendment
• Incorporate a habitat delineation methodology
based on Metro's Model Ordinance
t �
4!,J. Purpose
, =,,, ..',1 Establish procedures for verifying the precise
boundaries of the inventoried habitat areas
Proposed Amendment
"Habitat-Friendly"Development Methods
Proposed Amendment
gi • Innovative methods and techniques to reduce impacts to site
hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat shall be considered.
V .Roof runoff controls
Water quality facilities
,� • Pervious pavement •Habitat-friendly Fencing
�t4 • Soil amendment •Redirected outdoor lighting
if"("',t
.,iii Purpose
Encourage the use of techniques , »j
designed to reduce negative impacts on ;., ';7
the environment o
Proposed Amendment
Pervious Paving Materials
I Proposed Amendment 4.10: .,r tt
• Add pervious paving to list of sc 4 i
allowed hard surface materials for 'e';;;;a..
walkways,parking areas and ,
,ry .; access drives. ,
.iV.'J Purpose
Allow paving techniques which reduce impervious
area and storm water runoff
4
• •
Proposed Amendment
On-Site Density Transfer
iTualatin Basin Recommendation
K • Allow all development potential to be transferred
from significant habitat areas to development area.
• Planning Commission Consensus
:': • May result in development which is incompatible
"_:+ with the surrounding neighborhood
• Needs further consideration of appropriate design
review standards and approval procedures
• Planning Commission decided to not support an
amendment to allow density transfers at this time
Proposed Amendment
Permit Healthy Streams Projects
Proposed Amendment °�d`
• Exempt projects performed in
coordination with the City to
implement the CWS Healthy
' Streams Plan from sensitive
An land provisions. -r-
Purpose
.Remove regulatory barriers to implementing HSP
projects to improve watershed and stream health
Proposed Amendment
Lot Dimension Adjustments
Proposed Amendment
• Extend area eligible for adjustment
to the highest value riparian areas: ).
i'4, • Strictly Limit-Riparian Habitat a..,s `\:=I
I • Moderately Limit-Riparian Habitat „-`, I
;•�• Purpose ,,. ,
Allow flexibility to encourage habitat _
sensitive site designs „m;�. w ea...
_,l h.ISC.1
5
• •
Proposed Amendment
Minimum Density Requirement
Proposed Amendment
• Allow reduction of minimum density requirements
in significant habitat areas.
;'-�
. Purpose
t'z.=
i,.:0 Alleviate pressures and impacts on significant
habitat areas resulting from minimum density
requirements
Proposed Amendment
Adjustment to Street Standards
Proposed Amendment
. • Add significant habitat areas to the list of natural
features eligible for adjustments to street
improvement standards.
t'f, Purpose
`v;`." Allow for reductions to required paving within
A significant habitat areas.
1 0 :‘,:-,.,-,. ,
Schedule
• Public Hearing-Oct 16
Recommendation to the City Council
• City Council Work Session-Nov 21
• Council Public Hearing-Dec 12
41
6
• •
C1/4f �
October 16, 2006
•
To: Tigard Planning Commission, City of Tigard
Re: Comments on Proposed Changes to Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community
Development Code(see applicable sections below), in compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods), and adoption of the
Significant Habitat Areas Map.
We are writing to comment and submit recommendations regarding the proposed changes
to above referenced plans and map. We are very concerned about the proposed changes
as we do not feel they will adequately protect and enhance our existing remaining natural
resources in the City of Tigard, in particular habitats for certain species such as the State
Listed Western Painted and Pond Turtles, and rare plant communities, such as the
Willamette Prairie/Oak habitats that remain in our city. The Tualatin Basin Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Program, in which Tigard is a partner and was actively involved in
developing, would protect less habitat(estimated at 10-30%)than the region-wide
program adopted by other cities in the region. Citizens in Tigard care about their fish,
wildlife, and habitats, and do NOT want less and weaker protections for those resources.
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/NATURAL RESOURCE SECTION
Proposed Significant Habitat Areas Map—
o Upon reviewing this map, we find that portions or entire segments of some
streams are not even on the map; this includes 1) a tributary of Ash Creek,
located north and south of Cascade Blvd; 2)a small, permanent creek located
north of Tigard Street just northeast of its junction with SW 115th street. 3)
Other areas, such as the open space on the Fowler school district property on
Tigard street, show a reduction in protections for wetlands, uplands, etc., as
compared to the current Significant Habitat Areas Map. We do not agree with
this change on the Fowler site, and dispute how and why other changes on the
map were made that resulted in less habitat protection. This is important, as it
proposes to REDUCE overall,the amount of habitat protected in the City
of Tigard for a variety of species that use these habitats, including State
listed native turtles which overwinter and nest up to 1/4 mile from a body
of water,Neotropical songbirds including several declining in their rangel
and the State listed Northern Red-legged Frog. We strongly recommend
this map NOT be adopted until corrections can be made. Since we have
inventory data for many areas in Tigard from our surveys, we will gladly
share this with staff working on the Map to ensure corrections are made.
o Regarding above Map, we recommend that the"Strictly Limit,Moderately
Limit and Lightly Limit"be changed, in this order, to"Prohibit, Strictly
Limit,and Moderately Limit". This would afford greater protections to
streams and adjacent riparian habitats that have some of the greatest biological
diversity left in our city, including rare neotropical migratory songbirds such
• •
as Willow Flycatchers, State Listed Painted and Pond Turtles and Red-legged
Frogs. Tigard's current 3 categories would inadequately protect the above
listed species, since it would not give strong enough protections for example,
for overwintering sites on land for turtles, which need to be free of
disturbance,and habitat for red-legged frogs, which need and can be found up
to 'A mile from a water source during much of the year, using these areas for
resting, cover, feeding, and overwintering. Allowing even strictly limited
development, such as a trail, to be put in these habitats for these State listed
species has the potential to be extremely disruptive and have both short and
long-term negative impacts to these imperiled species.
o Regarding above Map, we also recommend increasing buffer areas to up to
500-1000' in some areas, in particular where State listed Sensitive species
occur. This would more adequately meet the intent of Goal 5, which is to
ensure long-term protections and conservation of our natural resources. This
additional increase in the buffer size would also help in catastrophic scenarios,
such as 100year flooding, which can greatly alter habitats and cause major
environmental damage.
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
o 18.715.030—We oppose the Basin recommendation allowing all density to be
transferred up to double the density allowed on the remaining buildable
portion of the site. This is ridiculous, as it would most likely result in for
example, no trees to be preserved on the site since the developer would.have
no room to preserve trees. Tigard is already allowing too much density, and
this proposal further would impact resources since it would place a greater
burden on parks,trails, etc.,to have to accommodate double the number of
people allowed on a development. If the Basin program is to be seriously
considered a plan to PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES,than it needs to
not allow any more density than is currently allowed.
o 18.715.020.A.1 —We recommend that the"e"proposed to be added should be
mandatory, not"optional" as is currently recommended,as all lands on the
Map are "sensitive" in nature.
o 18.775.020.0—Exemptions—We absolutely do not support exemptingthe
CWS Healthy Streams Plan from provisions of this section. Doing so
would prohibit citizens from reviewing and commenting on proposed plans
affecting our public natural resources in the city. In addition, #5. currently
exempts routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities
projects from this provision, and we also recommend NOT allowing this as an
exemption. Too many times we have seen areas in greenways and open
spaces be demolished by storm water projects and other activities, where
roads are put into relative pristine open spaces,trees and all vegetation is
bulldozed and wildlife is lost. These activities must not be exempt from
public comment and scrutiny.
•
o 18.360.090A.2.b. Approval Criteria—We recommend that the wording be
changed to"Trees must be preserved .....", in order to more adequately
protect our natural resources in our city; the present"shall" is too often left
open to such a degree to interpretation that in many developments NO trees
are left on the site at all.
o 18.775.020.B.1 and 7.—We recommend that accessory uses such as lawns,
gardens, etc. have to have a permit if a landowner proposes to put such in a
floodplain, etc., since lawns, etc. provide zero habitat and in fact often
increase the amounts of fertilizers,etc. used and going into a nearby
waterway. If someone has a forested area and wants to turn it into a lawn,
they should have to get a permit and justify what it is alright to do this. We
recommend the same with fences (#7)as they also can restrict the movement
of wildlife through an area and greatly disrupt movement through an area for
many species of wildlife.
In conclusion, we recommend greater protections for our natural resources than what is
being proposed by the Basin Plan and Tigard's proposed revisions to the Significant
Habitat Areas Map. We believe our quality of life, as well as the continued protection of
our natural resources in our city,demands a larger area of habitat be preserved, greater
buffers,etc., in order to ensure our resources are protected and truly meet the intentions
of Goal 5 and that of the Metro Title 13.
Thank you for consideration of these comments/recommendations.
.Sincerely,
-15i../..W1)
Sue Beilke, Director
The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
• i
Comprehensive Plan Update
Natural Resources
WETLANDS/
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
A0
kIt3*AR a?EA
DOGS
p OR ND FISM�NG {
ee* ADM
Denver Igana,Associate Planner
Natural Resources Overview
October 2:
•Streams and Riparian Areas
•Groundwater
•Minerals(Geology,Aggregate Resources&Soils)
October 16:
•Wetlands
•Fish and Wildlife Habitat
WETLANDS
FUNCTIONS
• Aesthetic,Educational and
Recreational Values 1
• Ecological
•Flood Control ir}
•Water Quality
•Aquatic&Terrestrial
Habitat _
Sauna:.now pm powboctiAmtlerclakiviks6m h./
Potential Threats
•Encroachment by development,altered drainage
patterns,pollution and nuisance plant species.
1
•
WETLANDS
FEDERAL/STATE PLANNING&PERMITTING
• US Army Corps—federal permitting for compliance with
Section 404of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act
• Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5
• Oregon DSL
•Approves Local Wetlands Inventories(LWI)
•State permitting for removal and fill in wetlands
WETLANDS
GOAL 5 INVENTORY PROCESS ,
• Local Wetland Inventory(LWI)
• Significance Determination
• Alternate Processes • ' ,
•Standard ESEE
•Safe Harbor
WETLANDS
SAFE HARBOR PROTECTIONS
Locally Significant Wetland(LSW):
Wetlands which ranked highest on four of
the assessed ecological functions(i.e.
wildlife habitat,fish habitat,water quality
&hydrologic conuol)
Regulatory restrictions on: .17.; • --
•Grading
•Excavation
•Placement of fill
•Vegetation removal
2
• •
WETLANDS
STATISTICS&FINDINGS
•The City has 120 wetlands cover approximately 287 acres
• Roughly 99%of the City's wetlands are classified as
"locally significant wetlands,"
•In 1997,the City adopted"safe harbor"protections for
locally significant wetlands
•Since 1997,approved hardship variances amount to a net
loss of 0.45 acres of significant wetlands.
•Sensitive Lands Provisions-"significant"wetlands&
CWS"vegetated corridor"buffer
CITY OF TIGARD WETLANDS
erg \.,_ v
4j �' J
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
FUNCTIONS -
•Enable fish and wildlife species t^Y■
to meet their most basic needs t'
(food,water,mobility,security i -. Syr. 7,
and reproduction)
•Vegetation has aesthetic value, Al!" - -
controls runoff and erosion,
moderates temperatures,reduces
air pollution and provides
protective cover for wildlife
3
• •
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
COORDINATION
•Federal Endangered Specks Act
•Oregon Statewide Goal 5
•Procedures for compliance
•Oregon Natural Heritage Program—listed species
•Oregon Fish and Wildlife—species and habitat data
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
COORDINATION(cont.)
•Metro Nature in Neighborhoods—Title 13,functional plan
for riparian and upland wildlife habitat
•Inventory of regionally significant riparian —
and upland habitat areas i •«*
•Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places
IEBIEEE PROGRAM IBPLEMEIIT
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
COORDINATION(cont.)
Tualatin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program intended to
complement:
•Clean Water Services(CWS)
•Design and Constructions Standards
•Healthy Streams Plan
•Stormwater Management Plan
•Existing local regulations
•Tigard Development Code
•Sensitive Lands
•Tree removal
4
• •
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
STATISTICS&FINDINGS
•Metro`vegetative cover"map shows roughly 11%of the
City is covered by forest canopy(2002)
•Inventoried"significant"habitat in Tigard is heavily
concentrated adjacent to local stream corridors—nearly
80%classified as riparian habitat.
•Roughly 20%of City's"significant"habitat is classified
as upland resources.
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT
STATISTICS&FINDINGS(cont.)
Tualatin Basin Economic,Social,Environmental and
Energy(ESEE)findings of the inventoried regionally
significant habitat:
•588 acres designated as highest-value(strictly limit)
•370 acres was designated as medium-value
(moderately limit)
•422 acres was designated as lower-value
(lightly limit)
FISH&WILDLIFE HABITAT MAP
III
1°4° -'. ‘-,... ' 7,..- • -2..1 -
pi, 4'.
I . N, l .i.w:�.
lam' a
•„.... si il_
5
• •
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing Date: /0 /G-06
Starting Time: 7- JZ) (//4_
COMMISSIONERS: nman Inman odi (President)
� )
Gretchen Buehner
Rex Caffall
Patrick Harbison
Kathy Meads
Judy Munro (Vice-President)
J)jkIi Jeremy Vermilyea
David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
Gary Pagenstecher Ron Bunch
Cheryl Gaines /Denver Igarta
Emily Eng Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Beth St. Amand
Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar
Sean Farrelly
• •
• CITY OF TIGARD
• , COMMilUNITY II OREGON
NEWSPAPMS
TIGA.RD
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland,OR 97222• PO
Box 22109•Portland,OR 97269 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning
Email: legals @commnewspapers.com Commission on Monday October 16, 2006 at 7:00 PM at the
Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,
Oregon.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing
on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of
procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommen-
depose and say that I am the Accounting dation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then
Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision.
Tualatin & Sherwood , a newspaper of Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard
Planning Division(Staff contact: Denver Igarta) at 13125 SW
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171.
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)
2006-00001/
City of Tigard DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT(DCA)2006-00004
Hearing Item -HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS-
Public
Public 5 REQUEST: Amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan
(Volume I)and Community Development Code(Sections 18.360,
18.370, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775, 18.810) in compliance
a copy of which is hereto annexed, was with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 (Nature in
published in the entire issue of said Neighborhoods)to adopt the Significant Habitat Areas Map and to
newspaper for implement the recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish &
1 Wildlife Habitat Program aimed at encouraging the use of habitat-
.friendly development practices. The proposed amendments will
successive not result in increased development restrictions but will give
following developers the option to take advantage of greater regulatory flex-
ibility in exchange for the use of habitat-friendly practices.
September 28, 2006 Amendments will remove barriers to, and provide code flexibility
for development that incorporates habitat-friendly techniques.
The complete text of the proposed Code Amendment can be
viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code
Ma/ �-1 C th ((„ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: CBD, C-G, C_-
P, I-H, I-L, I-P, MUC, MUE,.MUE-1, MUE-2, MUR-1, MUR-2,
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Ma ager) R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, R-12, R-25. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
September 28, 2006 Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765,
18.775 and 18.810;Comprehensive Plan Policies 2, 3 &4; Metro
Functional Plan Title 3 and 13;and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,
QUJO■V-LVI 5 and 6.
. Publish 9/28/2006 TT 10865
NOTAR PUBLIC FOR OREGON
My commission expires \Ay�8�%- is 17
Acct#10093001 q�-�-�.�ti- - -`-�-�-�..-�-�-`�-�-�-�
Patricia Lunsford ) OFFICIAL SEAL �J)
( =:: ,s, SUZETTE I CURRAN f
City of Tigard I)1�° � NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON I)
13125 SW Hall Blvd. () COMMISSION NO.373063 )
Tigard, OR 97223 1 M1'COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.28,2007 l)
Size:2 x 7.25
Amount Due $121.07
'Remit to address above
• •
J'4
o � .
Tigard Planning Commission IrM1A%5
NOTE: If you would like to speak on this item, please print your name &address on this form.
Agenda Item# S I Page l of Date of Hearing /O-« -U C
Case Number(s)( / 02 at-O0oDi A(ya act,-- notav'"
Case Name 4, / L 71 - a�� _ e U ,l . . Pry Ui 54 o os
Location C j w,-d
Please PRINT your name, address, and zip code
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: Name:
Address: Address: --5 i 2 1 4 t Pc-
City, Zip: City, State Zip: 1 - 9•1-z Z
Name: Name: 4.--2.5 17 Ft (4,
Address: Address: (j1(._ -� W Aczrcti�.�(lad
City,State, Zip: City, State, Zip: l R71.-01
Name: Name: j 4 O ge-gvY 6TJ rs
Address: f ? Address: 1 i -5VW
City, State, Zip: City,State,Zip: 17f-- �� 3
Name: Name: �-
Address: Address: k SL0 G‘se- n %-Akbc-.
City, State, Zip: City,State, Zip: —�; a , l`1 ad3
Name: Name: 13
Address: Address: Y;vL L'c,diroo0PO C "ri/C ' 280
City, State, Zip: City,State,Zip: I:0 O'< q �OIS
• •
Agenda Item: �.
Hearing Date: October 16,2006 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
n
PLANNING COMMISSION =
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
CASE NOS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA 2006-00001
Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA 2006-00004
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
PROPOSAL: Amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Volume I) and Community
Code (Sections 18.360, 18.370, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775, 18.810
in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 (Nature in
Neighborhoods) to adopt the proposed Significant Habitat Areas Map and to
implement the recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat
Program aimed at encouraging the use of habitat-friendly development practices.
The proposed amendments will not result in increased development restrictions but
will give developers the option to take advantage of greater regulatory flexibility in
exchange for the use of habitat-friendly practices. Amendments will remove barriers
to, and provide code flexibility for, development that incorporates habitat-friendly
techniques.
LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING: CBD, C-G, C-P, I-H, I-L, I-P, MUC, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUR-1, MUR-2, R-
1, R-2, R-3.5,R-4.5, R-7, R-12, R-25.
COMP PLAN: Commercial, Industrial, Mixed Use, Residential.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.705,
18.715, 18.765, 18.775 and 18.810; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2, 3 & 4; Metro
Functional Plan Title 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5 and 6.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Development Code Amendment meets the necessary approval criteria.Therefore,staff
recommends APPROVAL of the CPA 2006-00001 and DCA 2006-00004 according to the findings found
in Section IV of this report
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 1 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro's Regional Goal 5 Program
One of the 19 statewide planning goals which form the framework for local planning programs, Goal 5
aims to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Under Goal 5,
Metro is authorized to adopt as part of their Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional
Plan), regional programs to address all applicable requirements of Goal 5 and State Administrative Rules
for designated "regional resources".
Goal 5 establishes three basic steps to comply with its standard inventory process, which include:
conducting an inventory and map of significant resources; analyzing the economic, social, environmental
and energy (ESEE) impacts of protecting inventoried resources; and, developing a program to implement
the ESEE decision to allow, limit or prohibit conflicting uses.
In 2002, Metro completed the first step by completing an inventory for Regionally Significant Riparian
Corridors and Wildlife Habitat. As part of this effort, Metro established criteria to define and identify
regionally significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat.
Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program
Also in 2002, an alliance was formed between local jurisdictions within Washington County, known as the
Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places (Partners), working with the Portland Metropolitan Service
District (Metro),Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District and Clean Water Services, to develop a basin-
specific approach to protecting fish and wildlife habitat. Councilor Sally Harding represents the City of
Tigard on the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC), comprised of elected
officials, while Associate Planner Denver Igarta serves on the Steering Committee, which is comprised
technical staff.
The Tualatin Basin partnership initiated the second step of analyzing the environmental, social, economic,
and energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting (ALP) conflicting uses in areas
identified in Metro's inventory of regionally significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat. The ESEE
analysis was completed in July 2004 and resulted in the Tualatin Basin ALP Map, which forms the basis
for the proposed Significant Habitat Areas Map.
Finally, the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program was developed to address the third required
step by implementing the recommendations of the ESEE analysis. The TBNRCC voted to send on to
Metro their Goal 5 Program for improving the environmental health of the Tualatin Basin. In September
2005, Metro incorporated the Tualatin Basin Program as part of the regional Nature in Neighborhoods
Program (Title 13). Under an intergovernmental agreement between the Tualatin Basin Partners and
Metro, local jurisdictions must now implement applicable elements of the Basin program. Recently, the
Partners formulated a strategy for local implementation of program elements. The Program
Implementation Report prepared by the Partners recommends development code amendments for local
jurisdictions to incorporate habitat-friendly development provisions and remove regulatory barriers. The
amendments being proposed were identified based on an analysis of these recommendations and existing
City of Tigard regulations.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 2 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
Proposal Description
The primary intent of the proposed changes is to encourage habitat-friendly development by implementing
recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program in compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and Metro's Nature in Neighborhoods Program (Title 13).
Amendments are being proposed to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to
implement the recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program by adopting the
proposed Significant Habitat Areas Map and habitat-friendly development provisions. The proposed
amendments will not result in increased development restrictions but will give property owners and
developers the option to take advantage of greater regulatory flexibility in exchange for the use of habitat-
friendly practices. Amendments will also remove barriers to development that incorporates recommended
habitat-friendly techniques.
SECTION IV SUMMARY OF REPORT
❖ Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions
• Tigard Community Development Code
o Chapter 18.360
o Chapter 18.370
o Chapter 18.380
o Chapter 18.390
o Chapter 18.705
o Chapter 18.715
o Chapter 18.765
o Chapter 18.775
o Chapter 18.810
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
o Policy 2, Policy 3 &Policy 4
• Applicable Metro Standards
o Title 3 &Title 13
• Statewide Planning Goals
o Goals 1, 2, 5 & 6
❖ City Department and outside agency comments
SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18)
Chapter 18.360. Site Development Review
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.360.010 Purpose
A. Promote general welfare. The purpose and intent of site development review is to promote the
general welfare by directing attention to site planning, and giving regard to the natural
environment and the elements of creative design to assist in conserving and enhancing the
appearance of the City.
B. General purposes. It is in the public interest and necessary for the promotion of the health,
safety and welfare, convenience, comfort and prosperity of the citizens of the City of Tigard:
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 3 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
C. Environmental enhancement. To prevent the erosion of natural beauty, the lessening of
environmental amenities, the dissipation of both usefulness and function, and to encourage
additional landscaping, it is necessary:
The proposed amendments are aimed at encouraging development that incorporates habitat-friendly
methods and techniques as part of site planning considerations. The proposal directly addresses the
objective stated in 18.360.010.C. of preventing "the erosion of natural beauty, the lessening of
environmental amenities, the dissipation of both usefulness and function, and to encourage additional
landscaping." In particular, the proposed amendment to 18.360.090.A.2.c. would complement the purpose
statement "to encourage the innovative use of materials, methods and techniques" by encourage
developers to incorporate techniques for reducing site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat impacts into
their site planning.
Chapter 18.370.Variances and adjustments
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.370.010 Variances
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for the granting of variances from
the applicable zoning requirements of this title where it can be shown that, owing to special and
unusual circumstances related to a specific property, the literal interpretation of the provisions of
the applicable zone would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no use variances
shall be granted.
The proposed amendments will result in adoption of the proposed "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which
depicts the inventory of"significant" riparian and upland habitat areas. The inventory process factored in
the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) impacts of protecting inventoried resources.
Based on this analysis a program was developed to implement the ESEE decision by proposing
amendments to local regulations. The proposed amendments will offer greater regulator flexibility to
encourage developers to give special consideration to "significant habitat areas" located on their
properties.
Chapter 18.380. Zoning Map and Text Amendments:
18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map
A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by
means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code would
establish rules and regulations to be applied generally to all similarly affected properties (with inventoried
significant habitat) throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being processed as a
Type IV Procedure,Legislative Amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060.G..
Chapter 18.390. Decision- Making Procedures
18.390.020.B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative
matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV
matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the
City Council.
The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code will
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 4 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in the Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this
section, the amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission with City Council
making the final decision.
18.390.060G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the
decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197;
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable METRO regulations;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances.
The findings presented in this staff report address the review criteria listed above as being applicable to the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.
Chapter 18.705. Access, Egress, and Circulation
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.705.010.A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and regulations for
safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site.
The proposed amendment to this chapter explicitly adds pervious paving surfaces to the list of hard
surfaced materials for paving required walkways. The provision requires any pervious paving surface to be
designed and maintained to remain well-drained to ensure the long-term function of the walkway to
provide safe and efficient access and circulation.
Chapter 18.715. Density Computations
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.715.010.A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by
establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted.
Currently, the Tigard Development Code Section 18.715.030 allows for 25% of the unbuildable area
within sensitive lands (i.e. 100-yr. floodplain, steep slopes, drainageways) to be transferred to the remaining
buildable land areas (not to exceed 125% of the maximum permitted by the applicable comprehensive plan
designation). The Planned Development Chapter of the Code allows for a density bonus of up to 10% as
an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/ or site variation incorporated
into the development. In addition, the Tree Removal Chapter allows for a density bonus of up to 20 % as
an incentive for retaining existing canopy cover (trees over 12 inches in caliper).
At their September 25, 2006, work session, the Planning Commission considered the Tualatin Basin
recommendation to allow "all development potential to be transferred" from qualified habitat areas. The
Planning Commissioners expressed concerns that the lack of adequate design criteria for, and the
proposed administrative-level approval of, density transfers may result in development which is
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They conferred that design standards for transferring
density, and perhaps a higher-level of review, may be required to ensure an adequate degree of
compatibility. The Planning Commission decided to not support an amendment to allow density transfers
at this time; rather, to return to this issue at a later date, when more time can be devoted to the
development of appropriate design review standards and procedures.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 5 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
Applicable comprehensive plan policies are addressed within this staff report.
Chapter 18.765. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.765.010 Purpose
B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas
which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any
hazardous conditions on the site and at access points.
The proposed amendments to this chapter explicitly add pervious paving surfaces to the list of appropriate
surface materials for paving access drives, and vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. The provisions require
any pervious paving surface to be designed and maintained to remain well-drained to ensure the long-term
function and safe condition of the surface.
Chapter 18.775. Sensitive Lands
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.775.010 Purpose
A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks.
B. Implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program.
C. Implement Clean Water Service(CWS) Design and Construction Standards.
D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
E. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources).
F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare.
G. Location.
As described in Section III (Background) of this report, the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program
was developed as a basin-specific approach to meet Statewide Goal 5 requirements for inventorying
riparian areas and wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan Title 13 (the regional Nature in Neighborhoods program). In addition, the Tualatin Basin program was
developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards to protect the
beneficial uses of water (including rivers, streams and creeks) within the Tualatin Basin. The amendments
proposed are intended to implement the Basin-wide program by adopting habitat-friendly development
provisions aimed at reducing the detrimental impacts of development on fish and wildlife habitat within
the City of Tigard.
The inventory of significant fish and wildlife habitat was conducted in accordance with Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-023 Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5. Based on the
findings of an economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis, the Tualatin Basin assigned a
different "limit" decision to areas and mapped the strictly, moderately and lightly limit areas. The proposed
Significant Habitat Areas map delineates the "general location" of each "limit" classification, and the
proposed delineation methodology provides procedures for verifying the precise boundaries of the
inventoried habitat areas. The proposed amendments would adopt the proposed "Significant Habitat
Areas Map" and add "significant habitat areas" to the list of sensitive lands potentially unsuitable for
development.
Applicable comprehensive plan policies are addressed within this staff report.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 6 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
Chapter 18.810. Street and Utility Improvement Standards
This chapter does not include review criteria relevant to the proposed amendments. Since revisions to this chapter are being
proposed, the purposes of the chapter were reviewed to determine consistency with the proposed amendments.
18.810.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the
implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage.
18.810.030.A.7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if
compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as
wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees.
The Streets Section (18.810.030) of this chapter provides for approval of adjustments if compliance with
street standards would result in adverse impact to natural features. The proposed amendments would
adopt the proposed "Significant Habitat Areas Map", add "significant habitat areas" to the list of sensitive
lands, and provide for flexibility in development standards to minimize impacts on resource areas. The
proposed changes to this chapter would add inventoried "significant habitat areas" to the list of natural
features where street standards may be adjusted.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy the
applicable review criteria and are consistent with the purposes of the chapters being amended within the
Tigard Community Development Code.
CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed
amendments:
Policy 2—Citizen Involvement
2.1.1 The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall ensure that
citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Since 2002, the Tualatin Basin Partners (including the City of Tigard) had been engaged in a lengthy series
of outreach efforts through the inventory, analysis, and program development phases of their cooperative
effort. Regular steering committee and coordinating committee meetings held monthly were open to the
public. A total of nine open houses were held as part of the Tualatin Basin effort (three for each of the
three phases — inventory, analysis and program), and three public hearings were also held. In September
2006, a stakeholder dialog was held with individuals representing the environmental and development
communities. In addition, the Partners produced a project website, newsletters and information booths (at
various events) and held CPO (Citizen Participation Organization) and panel discussions. Throughout the
process, program status updates were posted on the City of Tigard website.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notices were sent to 2,674 potentially
affected property owners informing them of the proposed amendments and public hearings scheduled
with the Planning Commission and the City Council. An information sheet was enclosed in the mailing to
provide a brief background and overview of the proposed changes, as well as, contact details to obtain
more information. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the September 28, 2006, issue
of the Tigard Times.
Policy 3—Natural Features and Open Space
3.4 Natural Areas
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 7 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
3.4.1 The City shall designate, in accordance with Goal 5, the following as areas of significant
environmental concern.
c. Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal or aquatic life, or having
endangered plant or animal species, or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect
natural areas.
The proposed amendments address the policy to designate "significant" habitats and will result in
adoption of the inventory of fish and wildlife habitat areas within the City of Tigard. The proposed
"Significant Habitat Areas Map" is based on the inventory of regionally significant riparian corridors and
wildlife habitat completed by Metro in 2002. As part of this effort, Metro evaluated habitat sites based on
two sets of criteria, one for riparian habitat and one for upland wildlife habitat. Habitat areas were ranked
based on their relative health and importance for providing benefits to fish and wildlife. The inventory also
factored in data on sensitive species sighting locations, sensitive bird sites, and wildlife species and habitats
of concern, as well as the habitat needs of sensitive wildlife and the amount of potential habitat available.
The inventory followed the steps outlined by Statewide Goal 5 including an assessment of economic,
social, environmental and energy (ESEE) impacts. Based on this analysis, the Tualatin Basin assigned a
different "limit" decision to areas and mapped the strictly, moderately and lightly limit areas. The proposed
Significant Habitat Areas map delineates the "general location" of each "limit" classification, and the
proposed delineation methodology provides procedures for verifying the precise boundaries of the
inventoried habitat areas. The proposed amendments would adopt the proposed "Significant Habitat
Areas Map" and add "significant habitat areas" to the list of sensitive lands potentially unsuitable for
development. The proposed amendments will offer greater regulator flexibility to encourage developers to
give special consideration to the preservation of sensitive habitat on their properties.
3.4.2 The City shall: a. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the
riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural
vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent
possible;
The proposed amendments will offer greater regulator flexibility to encourage developers to preserve
"significant habitat areas" located on their properties to the maximum extent possible. Habitat-friendly
provisions would encourage the preservation of fish and wildlife habitat (including along stream corridors)
by allowing reduction of minimum density requirements, adjustment to site dimensional and street
improvement standards, and low impact development techniques.
3.5 Parks, Recreation and Open Space
3.5.1 The City shall encourage private enterprise and intergovernmental agreements which will
provide for open space, recreation lands, facilities, and preserve natural, scenic and historic areas
in a manner consistent with the availability of resources.
Based on the recommendations of the Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program and the inventory
of "significant fish and wildlife areas", the proposed amendments were identified to encourage property
owners and developers to preserve the significant habitat resources on their properties.
Policy 4—Air,Water, and Land Resources
4.2 Water Quality
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 8 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
4.2.1 All development within the Tigard Urban Planning Area shall comply with applicable
Federal, State and Regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water
Services' Design and Construction Manual.
The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program ,which formed the basis for the proposed amendments,
was developed as a basin-specific approach to meet Statewide Goal 5 requirements for inventorying
riparian areas and wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan Title 13 (the regional Nature in Neighborhoods program). In addition, the Tualatin Basin program was
developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards to protect the
beneficial uses of water (including rivers, streams and creeks) within the Tualatin Basin.
The proposed amendment to 18.360.090.A.2.c. would encourage developers to incorporate innovative
methods and techniques for reducing site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat impacts into their site
planning.
3. The City shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Service District and other appropriate agencies
to establish practices which minimize the introduction of pollutants into ground and surface
waters.
The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, an alliance of local governments in Washington County,
collaborated with Metro and Clean Water Services to develop the basin-specific approach and to meet
federal, state and regional requirements for protecting fish and wildlife habitat.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy the
applicable policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
METRO Framework Plan
Metro Functional Plan Title 3 — Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat
Conservation — protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and flood
management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones around resource
areas to protect from new development.
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments to comply with Title 3
of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which outlines water quality and flood
management requirements for the region. The adopted standards were based on a unified program
developed by local governments in the Tualatin Basin and implemented through the Clean Water Services
District's (CWS) Design & Construction Standards, which provides for vegetated stream corridor buffers
up to 200 feet wide and mandating restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.
The multi-jurisdictional approach undertaken by Tualatin Basin jurisdictions was continued with the
formation of the Tualatin Basin alliance to develop a program to meet Statewide Goal 5 requirements for
inventorying riparian areas and wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan Title 13 (the regional Nature in Neighborhoods program). The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Program was developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards
to protect the beneficial uses of water (including rivers, streams and creeks) within the Tualatin Basin.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 9 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
In addition, Clean Water Services, local cities, Washington County, Metro, and Tualatin Hills Park and
Recreation District, partnered on a parallel effort to develop the CWS Healthy Streams Plan (HSP), an
updated watershed plan designed to enhance the functions of the Tualatin Basin surface water system and
address the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA). One of the proposed changes to the
Development Code would allow HSP projects to be permitted outright when performed in coordination
with the City.
Metro Functional Plan Title 13 — Nature in Neighborhoods — conserve, protect, and restore a
continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams' headwaters to their
confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their flooplains in a manner that is integrated
with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent
water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve
water quality throughout the region.
As stated above, the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program was developed to address Statewide
Goal 5 requirements for inventorying riparian areas and wildlife habitat and to comply with Metro's Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan Title 13 (the regional Nature in Neighborhoods program). As stated
under Metro Code Section 3.07.1330 (B) (5), the Tualatin Basin Program serves as an alternative for
member jurisdictions to implement Title 13 as established by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
between Metro and the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (113NRCC).
One of the conditions set by the IGA is that Tualatin Basin members must adopt provisions to facilitate
and encourage the use of habitat-friendly development practices where technically feasible and
appropriate. The Program Implementation Report, prepared by the Tualatin Basin Partners, recommends
development code amendments for local jurisdictions to incorporate habitat-friendly development
provisions and remove regulatory barriers. The amendments being proposed were identified based on an
analysis of these recommendations and existing City of Tigard regulations.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy the
applicable Metro regulations.
Statewide Planning Goals
Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and
changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
A series of outreach efforts was undertaken by the Tualatin Basin Partners, including Tigard, throughout
inventory, analysis, and program development phases of this effort. Regular steering committee and
coordinating committee meetings held monthly were open to the public. A total of nine open houses and
three public hearings were held as part of the Tualatin Basin effort. A stakeholder dialog was held in
September 2006 with individuals representing various environmental and development interests. In
addition, the Partners produced a project website, newsletters and information booths (at various events)
and held CPO (Citizen Participation Organization) and panel discussions. Throughout the process,
program status updates were posted on the City of Tigard website.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, public notices were sent to 2,674 potentially
affected property owners informing them of the proposed amendments and public hearings scheduled
with the Planning Commission and the City Council. An information sheet was enclosed in the mailing
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 10 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
and a webpage was create on the City website to provide a brief background and overview of the proposed
changes, as well as, contact details to obtain more information. In addition, notice of the public hearing
was published in the September 28, 2006, issue of the Tigard Times.
Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning:
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.).
The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide
planning goals.
The proposed amendments to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are
being processed as a Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or
state statutes or regulations, METRO regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing
ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision-making process. All applicable review criteria have been
addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met.
Statewide Planning Goal 5—Natural Resources
Requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites
suitable for removal and processing of mineral and aggregate resources.
Goal 5 establishes three basic steps to comply with its standard inventory process, which include:
conducting an inventory and map of significant resources; analyzing the economic, social, environmental
and energy (ESEE) impacts of protecting inventoried resources; and, developing a program to implement
the ESEE decision to allow, limit or prohibit conflicting uses.
Metro completed the first step by adopting an inventory for Regionally Significant Riparian Corridors and
Wildlife Habitat. The Tualatin Basin Partners completed the second step by analyzing the environmental,
social, economic, and energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting (ALP) conflicting
uses in areas identified in Metro's inventory. The final step was partially completed when Metro
incorporated the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program as part of the regional Nature in
Neighborhoods Program. Now Tualatin Basin members must adopt provisions to facilitate and encourage
the use of habitat-friendly development practices, where technically feasible and appropriate. The
amendments being proposed will implement the habitat protection program in compliance with Goal 5
requirements and Metro's regional Title 13 program.
Statewide Planning Goal 6—Air, Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state.
Once a regional functional plan has been acknowledged by the State Land Conservation and Development
Commission, local governments within Metro must apply the requirements of the functional plan to
comply with Statewide Planning Goals. In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Code Amendments to comply with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which
outlines water quality and flood management requirements to comply with Goal 6 water quality provisions.
The adopted standards were based on a unified program developed by local governments in the Tualatin
Basin and implemented through the Clean Water Services District's (CWS) Design & Construction
Standards, which provides for vegetated stream corridor buffers up to 200 feet wide and mandating
restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.
Title 3, section 3.07.350.C., directed Metro to complete the inventory, analysis and program development
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 11 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
to protect fish and wildlife habitat. The regional Nature in Neighborhoods Program and Title 13 of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan were the outcomes of this effort.
The proposed amendments are intended to implement the Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Program, which was developed to complement Clean Water Services Design and Constructions Standards
to protect the beneficial uses of water. The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Program maintains
protections offered through Title 3, while providing for the removal of barriers to habitat friendly
development that minimizes impacts to site hydrology and habitat.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
State or Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
In 1973, the Federal Government passed the Endangered Species Act to protect and recover imperiled
species and the ecosystems which they depend. Under Statewide Planning Goal 5, local governments are
required to obtain current habitat inventory information for wildlife habitat inventories.
The proposed amendments will result in adoption of the inventory of fish and wildlife habitat areas within
the City of Tigard. The proposed "Significant Habitat Areas Map" is based on the inventory of regionally
significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat completed by Metro in 2002. In determining habitats of
concern, Metro gathered data on sensitive species sighting locations, sensitive bird sites, and wildlife
species of concern; linked sensitive wildlife species to their habitat needs; and estimated the amount of
potential habitat available.
Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act regulates impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters of the United
States.
The Tualatin Basin Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program is one of multiple efforts developed in coordination
with Clean Water Services, the surface water management and sanitary sewer system utility for urban
Washington County, to protect surface water quality. The proposed amendments are intended to
implement the Tualatin Basin Program, which was developed to complement other efforts developed in
coordination with Clean Water Services (including the Healthy Streams Plan, Stormwater Management
Plan, Design and Constructions Standards) and designed to address the Clean Water Act and Endangered
Species Act (ESA).One of the proposed changes to the Development Code would allow HSP projects to
be permitted outright when performed in coordination with the City.
SECTION VI. CITIZEN COMMENTS
John Frewing reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments:
General Response:
The proposed amendments were identified to implement the recommendations of the Tualatin Basin
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro's Nature in
Neighborhoods Program (Title 13). Further revisions to the City of Tigard existing regulations which
go beyond the scope of this application should be addressed as part (and incorporated into) the
larger Comprehensive Plan update process and any subsequent code enhancements identified for
the City's local implementing ordinances.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 12 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
1. Volume II (Policies) of the Tigard Comp Plan should be amended to implement habitat-
friendly development provisions.
Response: Applicable polices contained in Volume II of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
have been reviewed within this staff report. Based on the analysis, the proposed amendments were
determined to be consistent with existing Comp Plan policies. The City is currently in the process
of updating both Volume I and Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan. Any amendments to the
policies and strategies contained in Volume II (Findings,Policies & Implementation Strategies) will
be considered as part of the larger Comprehensive Plan update process.
2. A. The proposed change to TCDC 18.360.090 only addresses stormwater runoff, it does not
address many other factors which are included in habitat-friendly development
Response: The proposed text change to Section 18.360.090.A.2. has been broadened (beyond
stormwater issues) to address potential impacts to site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat.
Also, a list of six broad categories of habitat-friendly development methods has been added, which
includes: water quality facilities, pervious pavement, soil amendment, roof runoff controls, habitat
friendly fencing and re-directed outdoor lighting. These categories were identified to cover the
methods and techniques recommended by the Tualatin Basin Partners.
B. The proposed changes to TCDC 18.360.090 call for 'consideration' of innovative
methods and techniques regarding stormwater runoff. This word (consider) is used
elsewhere in the Tigard code regarding evaluation of habitat-friendly design features. A
definition of'consider' should be added to the Tigard code.
Response: The proposed revision to Section 18.360.090.A.2. invites developers to consider
methods and techniques for reducing impacts to site hydrology and fish and wildlife habitat based
on the surface water drainage patterns and inventoried habitat areas on their property. The
standard groups these techniques into six broad categories (i.e. water quality facilities, pervious
pavement, soil amendment, roof runoff controls, habitat friendly fencing and re-directed outdoor
lighting). "Consideration" of the habitat-friendly development techniques would be determined to
be met if this review criterion is addressed within the development proposal in relationship to on-
site conditions.
3. The Proposed Tigard Significant Habitat Areas Map has an important note on it, to the
effect that its information is for "general location only'. A. The TCDC should have added
to it a definition of Significant Habitat Area (Chapter 18.120) and should include a
procedure (Chapter 18.775) for any party to add or subtract significant habitat areas to the
proposed map within the context of a specific development application; as proposed, only
the applicant can make such change.
Response:
The general location of "strictly", "moderately" and "lightly" limit habitat areas is shown on the
proposed "Significant Habitat Areas Map"; however, the standards shall be applied to a specific
site based on the delineation methodology proposed under Section 18.775.140 of the Sensitive
Lands Chapter. As required for wetlands and floodplains, the precise delineation of the "limit"
areas shall be surveyed by a qualified professional.
For adjustments to the regional (riparian and upland) habitat inventory, the Tualatin Basin
Program utilises the regional "map correction" process established by Metro. A map correction
request form may be obtain on Metro's website and submitted along with sufficient evidence
documenting the mapping error. As part of the regional program, local jurisdictions must
coordinate with Metro for on-going maintenance of the habitat inventory maps.
B. The map and associated implementation procedures should include provision for
identification and protection of individual habitat of concern' areas outside the
generalized definitions and colorings of the map.
Response: The proposed "Significant Habitat Areas Map" is based on the inventory of regionally
significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat completed by Metro in 2002. As outlined by
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 13 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
Statewide Goal 5 rules, Metro identified habitats of concern by gathering data on sensitive species
sighting locations, sensitive bird sites, and wildlife species of concern; linked sensitive wildlife
species to their habitat needs; and estimated the amount of potential habitat available. The
inventory "significant" habitat areas and the analysis of consequences of allowing, limiting or
prohibiting (ALP) conflicting uses were conducted according to the procedures and requirements
for complying with State Goal 5 as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023.
Resources situated outside the mapped boundaries (for significant habitat areas) must be delineated
by a qualified professional following the proposed delineation methodology.
4. The proposed TCDC amendments to allow alternative pervious surfaces for parking
include the requirement that such surfaces be maintained in a well-drained condition.This
is a good requirement, but it is almost unique in the TCDC to place an ongoing
responsibility of the land owner in the TCDC.
Response: The text revision requiring pervious paving surfaces to be designed and maintained to
remain well-drained borrows existing language from the "bicycle parking resign standards" found
in 18.765.050.D. The current standard requires surfaces to be "designed to remained well-drained."
Since pervious surfaces must be maintained to ensure long-term permeability, the requirement for
maintenance was added as part of the text revision.
Tualatin Basin effort has been coordinated with concurrent efforts by Clean Water Service (CWS),
including their Healthy Streams Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, and update of the Design and
Constructions Standards. CWS is currently in the process of revising its Design and Construction
Standards to include technical details on stormwater management techniques identified
incoordination with the Tualatin Basin Partners.
5. The meaning of these Class I and Class II areas should be explained and they should be
applied to development standards in Chapter 18.775.
Response: A summary of the Tualatin Basin `Limit"Decision was added (refer to Table 18.775.3) to
the methodology for verifying boundaries for inventoried riparian habitat (18.775.140.A.1.)
describing the relationship between "Class I & II" riparian areas and the "strictly limit"
"moderately limit" areas on the proposed Significant Habitat Areas Map.
6. Audubon Society Stormwater Pavement Impacts Reduction (SPIR) Report: These changes
define and add reference to practices which can reduce the impact of stormwater and
pavement on the flora and fauna habitat in Tigard.
Tigard standards for stormwater retention in new development applications should be
clarified to require the use of bioswales, rain gardens,ponding, etc.
Response: The text revisions being proposed were identified to complement the current
standards within the Tigard Community Development Code and existing language which
encourages the preservation of existing trees and the use of native plants. Amendments to the
Development Code are being proposed to promote the use of low impact/habitat-sensitive
development techniques. These techniques were grouped into six broad categories, which include
water quality facilities, pervious pavement, soil amendment, roof runoff controls, habitat friendly
fencing and re-directed outdoor lighting. For instance, the category for water quality facilities
covers techniques for infiltration, retention, detention and/or treatment of stormwater, such as
bioswales. These categories were identified to cover the methods and techniques recommended by
the Tualatin Basin Partners and those systems approved by Clean Water Services.
Dayle Beach reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comment:
1. Almost all the land bordering Red Rock Creek has been classified as habitat-friendly with
the exception of a big gap between 72"d Ave. and the theater entrance from 99W. I strongly
suggest that the planners take another look at this Red Rock Creek area.
Response: As part of the assessment of conflicting uses, the Tualatin Basin Partners conducted a
site-specific economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis of inventoried
subwatershed sites. This analysis factored in site characteristics and features (such as land uses and
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 14 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
natural features) resulting in some site-level adjustments to the regional inventory.
The area in question was originally mapped by Metro as Class II riparian habitat. The site is
designated as publicly-owned right of way and is currently protected under Clean Water Services
"Design and Construction Standards" and the City of Tigard's Development Code. Existing
regulations are more restrictive and therefore supersede the proposed habitat-friendly development
provisions.
10 — 09 -2006.
PREPARED B . Denver Igarta DATE
Associate Plann-
! /0 v6
REVIEWED ;Y: Richard Be sdorff DATE
Planning I%n.:er
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS—Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 15 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
i� T I '-1 , Proposed
.._t. J r 1 1.01 —r ♦ --
, T ,r } : _ '` -' Significant
r '�_..� _, I- , �'„�.....1'.._ - _ -- I .�_, �:�- Habitat Areas
`; 1..\ - FtR \� ! - L I City of Tigard
rtr
.. �jj Oregon
/mss°"• id , 7�.•
I S ( \ _
111611�, I _ r r; I 7' %'•
1.
r r ___'A
I Jr �I \• 1 _ _; f 7_ I r \ I �� �� tom_ Ili'
�' ; J� �I+-} •1,minia....4 ''r,:•••••-----,\--- ---‘-„*.,' ,..,„....,,,,---, ,,>•.‘ •\ '., ',t , 5,6;0°wry S( t i j CI f r ,�` 7,77 I Moderately Limit
�' O Dtb i l_� I_ (' I 1 1 ��'''''• � y Lightly Limit
T1 ! J �' ti” [ 1 a /4- -t- • \ i ,• I I i l l
-v ;___.-7. j(�p l I �-� +,�•/ a C; .227.-.. +�i I , . I r — Major Street
LJ'•. . �' i i-1 -,- _ -f_1 1� ��
\`''-, / r1 -r- 1 - 1 - Street
11.\� �', yy <'�,J 11 a i � ' + 7 l c\ ::,
s. �- ,�\ ,.._.1_1.__ 1. i Railroad
-11‘‘
sN
� �. � • �� l Y �)1 ;' 0 City of Tigard
I .l- MOUNTAIN r YRDI 44 )•'Il __ .L_� _(. 5 _.. ._cc,
�f -.•i , _. ... i
• ..
• c ' 1 •
, I ., ,� . 1_____ . ....
-, . I ......-. --_..... j 1
- -I 1\ _ pia xooe:..��.m�,u.. an
>nDem.vo u. .+a.�r ■11
',,'' -i -7,!.1 L'-.:..4_ r4 .}. 1, Alla. I .:1 .--- i
A I I-+J JO ••-,-,-.1_0) _ ,-"''' , A___
I "�. 'I -.... Y J
LT o, 00 0.
. \ ' )• • 1] I i 4 -- i -;,.--,,,,"? I Fru _ _, i
i , . - l ( ---Aer/r
.
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS-Staff Report to Planning Commission PAGE 16 OF 16
CPA 2006-00001/DCA 2006-00004
• •
HABITAT-FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
CPA 2006-00001 /DCA 2006-0000
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The following amendments are proposed to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, (Volume I) and
Community Development Code (Sections 18.360, 18.370, 18.705, 18.715, 18.765, 18.775, 18.810) to
adopt the Significant Habitat Areas Map and to implement the recommendations of the Tualatin
Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro
Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods). The proposed habitat-friendly development provisions will not
result in increased development restrictions. Rather, the changes will give property owners and
developers the option to take advantage of greater regulatory flexibility in exchange for the use of
habitat-friendly development practices. Amendments will remove barriers to, and provide code
flexibility for, development which incorporates habitat-friendly techniques.
Proposed amendments are shown as follows:
• Each section begins with commentary explaining the intent of the code amendment followed
by the specific language to be revised.
• Language to be added to the Community Development Code is underlined.
• Language to be deleted is shown in striltedteetigh.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NATURAL RESOURCE SECTION
Commentary
The Basin's IGA with Metro requires jurisdictions to encourage habitat-friendly development
practices in areas Metro identified as Class I and II riparian habitat areas (or Strictly Limited and
Moderately Limited). Provisions may be extended to other inventoried resources, including Class
III riparian areas & Class A uplands (or Lightly Limited).A map must be adopted to establish
the generalized locations of Significant Habitat Areas within Tigard.
Amendments
• Adopt: Significant Habitat Areas Map
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE—TITLE 18
SECTION 18.360—SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Commentary
The intent of this amendment is to address recommendations for certain innovative techniques
requiring further technical specifications, such as soil amendment and building design solution.
18.360.010.0. —Site Development Review
2. To encourage the innovative use of materials, methods and techniques and flexibility in
building placement;
Code Amendments
18.360.090.A.2. Site Development Review, Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
Page 1 of 10
• •
c. Innovative methods and techniques to reduce impacts to site hydrology and fish and wildlife
habitat shall be considered based on surface water drainage patterns, identified per Section
18.810.100.A.3, and the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat Areas Map". Methods and
techniques for consideration may include,but are not limited to,the following:
(1)Water quality facilities(for infiltration, retention,detention and/or treatment)
(2) Pervious pavement
(3) Soil amendment
(4)Roof runoff controls
(5)Fencing to guide animals toward safe passageways
16)Re-directed outdoor lighting to reduce spill-off into habitat areas
SECTION 18.370—VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS
Commentary
This amendment is identical to the text changed in Sect 18.810.030.A.7 (Streets, Improvements)
Code Amendments
18.370.020.C. — Special adjustments.
11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements,
based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards
will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed
development, or on natural features such as wetlands,bodies of water, significant habitat
areas,steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the
Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of
strict application of the standards.
SECTION 18.705—ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION
Commentary
18.705.030- General Provisions
Add pervious paving surfaces to list of hard surfaced materials for required walkways.
Code Amendments
18.705.030
F.4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt,
stone,brick,other pervious paving surfaces,etc. Any pervious paving surface must be
designed and maintained to remain well-drained.Walkways may be required to be lighted
and/or signed as needed for safety purposes.
SECTION 18.715—DENSITY COMPUTATIONS
Commentary
18.713.020./1—Density Calculations
Definition of net development area currently deducts sensitive lands. Amend this definition to
include "Significant Habitat Areas",which may also be deducted and transferred to the
remaining buildable area as per 18.715.030.
Page 2 of 10
• •
18.715.030—Residential Density Transfer
The Basin recommendation suggests allowing all density to be transferred up to double the
density allowed on the remaining (buildable) portion of the site.
At their September 25, 2006, work session, the Planning Commission considered the Tualatin
Basin recommendation to allow "all development potential to be transferred" from qualified
habitat areas. The Planning Commissioners expressed concerns that the lack of adequate
design criteria for, and the proposed administrative-level approval of density transfers may
result in development which is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They
conferred that design standards for transferring density, and perhaps a higher-level of review,
may be required to ensure an adequate degree of compatibility. The Planning Commission
decided to not support an amendment to allow density transfers at this time; rather, to return
to this issue at a later date, when more time can be devoted to the development of appropriate
design review standards and procedures.
Code Amendments
18. 715.020./1
Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by
subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres,which is all of the land included in
the legal description of the property to be developed:
1. All sensitive land areas:
e. Optional: Significant habitat areas, as designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Habitat
Areas Map".
18.715.030— Residential Density Transfer
A. Rules governing residential density transfer.
1. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. 1 a- c from
the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following
limitations:
a. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would
have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and
27 b. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of
units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation.
2. • . . . . - _ - -•••_ - • •. - - Wetlands. Units per acre calculated by
subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.0320 A. Id. from the gross acres may be
transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 subject to
the following limitations:
-1-: a. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would
have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations;
2 b. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross
acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation.
GB.Underlying development standards. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the
development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the
provisions of Chapter 18.440, Planned Development. •
Page 3 of 10
• •
SECTION 18.765—OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Commentary
The Basin recommends removal of barriers to, and encourages the use of pervious paving
materials in parking areas and low traffic private streets (equated with access drives).
18.763.040.B—Access Drives
Address concern of design standards &subgrade limitations. Some type of maintenance
agreement may be necessary (as with tree survival& street performance)
18. 765.050.D—Bicycle Parking
Pavers are already allowed under the current standards. Address concern of design standards &
subgrade limitations. Some type of maintenance agreement may be necessary (as with tree
survival& street performance).
Code Amendments
18.765.040..B. —Access drives.
5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt,er concrete, or pervious paving surface,
Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and
18. 765.040..Fi—Parking Space Surfacing
1. Except for single-family and duplex residences,and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas
as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or
maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt,er concrete or
pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to
remain well-drained;
2. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an
asphalt,er concrete,or pervious paving surface.Any pervious paving surface must be
designed and maintained to remain well-drained;
18. 765.050—Bicycle Parking Design Standards
D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material,i.e.,
pavers, asphalt, concrete,other pervious paving surfaces,or similar material. This surface
must be designed and maintained to remained well-drained.
SECTION 18.775—SENSITIVE LANDS
Commentary
18.775.010.G. Location
Add significant fish and wildlife habitat areas to list of sensitive lands.
18.775.020.C. Exemptions
The Basin recommends permitting culvert replacement and associated enhancement work
outright and not requiring additional land use or vegetative corridor mitigation review for
projects listed in the Healthy Streams Plan.
Add to exemption clause when performed under the direction of the City or in the
implementation of the CWS Healthy Streams Plan.
Intent of Amendments:
Page 4 of 10
• •
• Address recommendations for adjustments to site design standard (lot dimensions: setbacks,
height, and lot area) by extending provisions to areas within, or adjacent to, significant
habitat.
• Establish delineation methodology& set minimum criteria for significant habitat areas.
• Allow reduction of minimum density in significant habitat areas.
Code Amendments
18.775.010 Purpose
G. Location. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their
location within:
1. The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line,whichever is greater;
2. Natural drainageways;
3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the
City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map";-aftel
4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground. (Ord. 05-01); and
5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard"Significant
Habitat Areas Map". Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on the map;specific
delineations shall be conducted in accordance with the methodology in Section 18.775.140
18.775.020.0 Exemptions
C. Exemptions. When performed under the direction of the City,or in coordination with the City
to implement the Clean Water Services Healthy Streams Plan,and in compliance with the
provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area
Management, on file in the Engineering Division, and Clean Water Services Design and
Construction Standards,the following shall be exempt from the provisions of this section:
18.775.100 Adjustment to Underlying Zone Setaek-Standards
B. Adjustment criteria. A special adjustment to the standards in the underlying zoning district
may be requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or
adjacent to the vegetated corridor area or within or adjacent to areas designated as "Strictly
Limit" or"Moderately Limit" on the City of Tigard"Significant Habitat Areas Map."
2. Explicit consideration ahas been given to maximizing vegetative cover, minimizing
excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on taibuildable land.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,including but
not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence close to the street to reduce
driveway distance, maximizing the use of native landscaping materials, minimizing parking
areas,minimizing hydrologic impacts and garage space.
6. Protected vegetated corridor,significant habitat areas and adjacent buffer areas must be:
a. Placed in a non-buildable tract or protected with a restrictive easement;and
b. Restoration and enhancement of habitat and buffer areas required,including monitoring
for five years.
C. Reduction to Minimum Density Requirements for Developments That Include Inventoried
Significant Habitat Areas.The minimum number of units required by Section 18.510.040
Density Calculation) may be waived if necessary to ensure that impacts on habitat areas are
minimized.
1. Approval criteria: Reduction requests will be approved if the review body finds that the
applicant has shown that the following criteria are met:
Page 5 of 10
• •
a. Delineation of habitat boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on
the "Significant Habitat Areas Map"; specific delineation of significant habitat
boundaries will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense using the
methodology described in Section 18.775.140.
b. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the neighboring area.
c. The proposal will directly result in the protection of significant habitat areas through
placement in a non-buildable tract or protected with a restrictive easement.
2. Procedure:
a. The amount of reduction in the minimum density shall be calculated by subtracting the
number of square feet of inventoried significant habitat that is permanently protected
from the total number of square feet used to calculate the minimum density requirement.
b. Requests for a reduction are processed as a Type II procedure along with the
development proposal for which the application has been filed.
18.775.140 Significant Habitat Area Delineation Methodology.
A. Delineation Methodology.The Significant Habitat Area Map shall be the basis for determining
the general location of Significant Habitat Areas on or adjacent to the site. If resources are
indicated on the map, delineations shall be conducted by a qualified professional in
accordance with the following methodology to verify the precise boundaries of the inventoried
habitat areas.
1. Verifying boundaries of inventoried riparian habitat. Locating habitat and determining
its riparian habitat class is a four-step process:
a. Locate the Water Feature that is the basis for identifying riparian habitat.
1) Locate the top of bank of all streams, rivers, and open water within 200 feet of the
property.
0 2) Locate all flood areas within 100 feet of the property.
3) Locate all wetlands within 150 feet of the prope .. _ : . • ••• • .c: .
. .• •• _ . -;• p ' ' , 6" ..• . a • _• -- ►I '_ : :; •• " .r. - G • . r .4 .p
. •. . . , _ . .- . ,4 :. . D ! Gran Ave`
_ - ..Ee-Genter._6OD--�I.�—�-����. Portland,
6R97232). Identified wetlands shall be further delineated consistent with methods
currently accepted by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
b. Identify the vegetative cover status of all areas on the property that are within 200 feet
of the top of bank of streams, rivers, and open water, are wetlands or are within 150
feet of wetlands,and are flood areas and within 100 feet of flood areas.
1) Vegetative cover status shall be as identified on the Metro Vegetative Cover Map
2) The vegetative cover status of a property may be adjusted onl,y_if Jl) the property
was developed prior to the time the regional program was approved, or (2) an error
was made at the time the vegetative cover status was determined. To assert the latter
type of error, applicants shall submit an analysis of the vegetative cover on their
Page 6 of 10
• •
property using summer 2002 aerial photographs and the following definitions of
vegetative cover types in Table 18.775.1.
Table 18.775.1
Definitions of Vegetated Cover Types
Type Definition
Low structure Areas that are part of a contiguous area one acre or larger of
vegetation or open soils grass,meadow,crop-lands, or areas of open soils located within
300 feet of a surface stream (low structure vegetation areas may
include areas of shrub vegetation less than one acre in size if they
are contiguous with areas of grass,meadow,crop-lands,
orchards, Christmas tree farms,holly farms, or areas of open
soils located within 300 feet of a surface stream and together
form an area of one acre in size or larger).
Woody vegetation Areas that are part of a contiguous area one acre or larger of
shrub or open or scattered forest canopy (less than 60% crown
closure) located within 300 feet of a surface stream.
Forest canopy Areas that are part of a contiguous grove of trees of one acre or
larger in area with approximately 60% or greater crown closure,
irrespective of whether the entire grove is within 200 feet of the
relevant water feature.
c. Determine whether the degree that the land slopes upward from all streams,rivers, and
open water within 200 feet of the property is greater than or less than 25% (using the
vegetated corridor measurement methodology as described in Clean Water Services
Design and Construction Standards);and
d. Identify the riparian habitat classes applicable to all areas on the property using Table
18.775.2 and 18.775.3.
Page 7 of 10
• •
Table 18.775.2
Method for Locating Boundaries of Class I and II Riparian Areas
Development/Vegetation Status
Distance
in feet Developed Low Woody vegetation Forest Canopy
from areas not structure (shrub and (closed to open forest
Water providing vegetation or scattered forest canopy)
Feature vegetative open soils canopy)
cover
Surface Streams
0-50 Class II Class I Class I Class I
50-100 Class IIz Class I Class I
100-150 Class II if Class IIz if Class IIz
slope>25% slope>25%
150-200
Class IIz if Class IIz if Class II if slope>25%
slope>25% slope>25%
WetlandsjWetland feature itself is a Class I Riparian Area)
0-100 Class III Class I Class I
100-150 z
Class II
Flood Areas(Undeveloped ortion of flood area is a Class I Riparian Area)
0-100 I I Class IIz I Class IIz
The vegetative cover type assigned to any particular area was based on two factors:the type of vegetation observed in aerial
photographs and the size of the overall contiguous area of vegetative cover to which a particular piece of vegetation belonged.
As an example of how the categories were assigned in order to qualify as 'forest canopy"the forested area had to be part of a
larger patch offorest of at least one acre in size.
Areas that have been identified as habitats of concern, as designated on the Metro Habitats of Concern Map(on file in the
Metro Council office), shall be treated as Class I riparian habitat areas in all cases, subject to the provision of additional
information that establishes that they do not meet the criteria used to identify habitats of concern as described in Metro's
Technical Report for Fish and Wildlife. Examples of habitats of concern include: Oregon white oak woodlands, bottomland
hardwood forests,wetlands,native grasslands,riverine islands or deltas,and important wildlife migration corridors.
Table 18.775.3
Tualatin Basin"Limit" Decision
CONFLICTING USE CATGEGORY
RESOURCE High Intensity Other Urban Future Urban Non-Urban
CATEGORY Urban (2002 and 2004 (outside UGB)
additions)
Class I&II Riparian
Inside Vegetated Moderately Strictly Limit Strictly Limit N/A
mi
Corridor -
Class I&II Riparian
Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Vegetated
Corridor Limit Limit Limit Limit
All Other Resource Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit
Areas
Inner Impact Area Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit
Outer Impact Area Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit
*Vegetated Corridor standards are applied consistently throughout the District in HIU areas
they supercede the Limit Decision.
Page 8 of 10
• •
2. Verifying boundaries of inventoried upland habitat. Upland habitat was identified
based on the existence of contiguous patches of forest canopy, with limited canopy
openings. The "forest canopy" designation is made based on analysis of aerial
photographs, as part of determining the vegetative cover status of land within the region.
Upland habitat shall be as identified on the Significant Habitat Areas Map unless corrected
as provided in this subsection.
a. Except as provided below, vegetative cover status shall be as identified on the Metro
Vegetative Cover Map used to inventory habitat at the time the area was brought
within the urban growth boundary (available from the Metro Data Resource Center,
600 N.E. Grand Ave.,Portland, OR 97232).
b. The only allowed corrections to the vegetative cover status of a property are as
follows:
• 1) To correct errors made when the vegetative status of an area was determined based
on analysis of the aerial photographs used to inventory the habitat at the time the
area was brought within the urban growth boundary. The perimeter of an area
delineated as "forest canopy" on the Metro Vegetative Cover Map may be adjusted
to more precisely indicate the dripline of the trees within the canopied area provided
that no areas providing greater than 60% canopy crown closure are de-classified
from the "forest canopy" designation. To assert such errors, applicants shall submit
an analysis of the vegetative cover on their property using the aerial photographs that
were used to inventory the habitat at the time the area was brought within the urban
growth boundary and the definitions of the different vegetative cover types provided
in Table 18.775.1;and
2) To remove tree orchards and Christmas tree farms from inventoried habitat;
provided, however, that Christmas tree farms where the trees were planted prior to
1975 and have not been harvested for sale as Christmas trees shall not be removed
from the habitat inventory.
c. If the vegetative cover status of any area identified as upland habitat is corrected
pursuant to 18.775.140.A.2.b.1. to change the status of an area originally identified as
"forest canopy," then such area shall not be considered upland habitat unless it
remains part of a forest canopy opening less than one acre in area completely
surrounding by an area of contiguous forest canopy.
SECTION 18.810—STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
Commentary
The intent of these amendments is to address recommendations for reducing the amount of
paving in habitat areas for roadways, sidewalks (planter strips), stream crossings and block length.
18.810.030.A.7:Streets, Improvements
In 2002, street widths were reduced with the TSP update following a great deal of negotiation
with TVFR (BR). "Skinny" roadway widths are allowed on local streets if criteria is met. The
Page 9 of 10
• •
code provides for adjustments to the Street Utility Improvement Standards to minimize adverse
impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees.
In order to further address recommendations to minimize paving, sidewalk reduction and
narrow street right-of-ways through stream crossings, "significant habitat areas" shall be added
to the list of natural features considered for adjustments to street improvement standards.
18.810.040.B. Block Size
Explicitly add "significant habitat areas" to the list of natural features precluding block size.
18.810.070.C. Sidewalks, Planter Strip Requirement
Explicitly add " habitat areas" to the list of significant natural features.
Code Amendments
18.810.030.A.7:Streets, Improvements
The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance
with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands,bodies
of water,significant habitat areas,steep slopes, or existing mature trees.
18.810.040.B. Block Sizes.
1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the
centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands, significant habitat areas
or othcr bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or
18.810.070 Sidewalks
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb
and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following
conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on
predominant portions of the street;it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant
natural features (large trees,water features, significant habitat areas,etc) that would be
destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required,or where there are existing structures in
close proximity to the street (15 feet or less)_Additional consideration for exempting the
planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than
one street frontage.
Page 10 of 10
• •
To: Tigard Planning Commission
Re: Habitat-Friendly Development Provisions (Goal 5)
Red Rock Creek from
72' Ave. to Theater Entrance
Almost all of the land bordering Red Rock Creek has been classified as habitat-friendly with the
exception of a big gap between 72nd Ave. and the theater entrance from 99W. This gap is more
than 500 feet long and over 200 feet wide. This area comprises well over two acres of land,
which is very thickly covered with trees,bushes and other vegetation. It could provide a habitat
for any number of animal species
It appears to me that the planners must have overlooked this area and thus have failed to include
it on the city map that shows habitat-friendly areas. I strongly suggest that the planners take
another look at this Red Rock Creek area.
Respectfully,
•l_J
16ayle Beach
11530 SW 72nd Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
•
D A iii_il,„_,:,,_
APPENDIX 3 DJ -\ n 11
APPENDIX 3
OREGON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISPED SPECIES
FOUND WITHIN THE LOWER TUALATIN WATERSHED
Fungi Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Amanita novinupta fungus ... ... 3
Vascular plants
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Cimicifuga elata' tall bugbane SC C 1
Delphinium leucophaeum• white rock larkspur SC LE 1
Erigeron decumbens var.decumbens Willamette daisy PE LE 1
Horkelia congesta ssp.congesta shaggy horkefia SC C 1
Lupinus sulphureus ssp.kincaidii IGncaid's lupine PT LT 1
Montia diffusa branching montia ... ... 4
Sidalcea campestris meadow sidalcea ... C 4
Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson's sidalcea LT LT 1
Insects Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Acupalpus punctulatus marsh ground beetle ... ... 3
Fish Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Lampetra tridentata Pacific lamprey SC SV 3
Oncorhynchus clarki clarki coastal cutthroat trout SV 3
Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon C SC 1
Oncorhynchus mykiss' steelhead trout FT SV? 1
Amphibians Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Bufo boreas western toad SV 3
Rana aurora aurora' northern red-legged frog SC SV 3
Rana pretiosa Oregon spotted frog C SC 1
Reptiles Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Chrysemys picta painted turtle ... SC 2
Clemmys marmorata marmorata" Northwest pond turtle SC SC 2
Contia tenuis sharptail snake ... SV 4
Birds Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Branta canadensis leucopareia Aleutian Canada goose(wintering) LT LE 1
Branta canadensis occidentalis dusky Canada goose(wintering) ... ... 4
Chordeiles minor common nighthawk(SC in WV) ... SC 4
Contopus cooperi dive-sided flycatcher SC SV 3
Empidonax traillii brewsteri little willow flycatcher SC SV 3
Eremophila alpestris strigata streaked horned lark ... SC 3
Haliaeetus leucocephalus' bald eagle LT LT 1
Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat(SC in WV) ... SC 4
Melanerpes foricivorous acorn woodpecker ... ... 3
Pooecetes gramineus afnis Oregon vesper sparrow ... SC 3
Progne subis purple martin ... SC 3
Sialia mexicana western bluebird ... SV 4
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark ... SC 4
Mammals Federal ODFW ONHP
Scientific Name Common name status status schedule
Arborimus albipes white-footed vole SC SV 3
Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii' Pacific western big-eared bat SC SC 2
Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat ... SU 3
Myotis evotis bng-eared bat SC SU 4
Myotis thysanodes fringed bat SC SV 3
Myotis volans bng-legged bat SC SU 3
Sciurus griseus western gray squirrel ... SU 3
'Confirmed by ONHP to be(or to have been)present within the Lower Tualatin Watershed.
Lower Tualatin Watershed Analysis,Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District,
J.T. Hawksworth, August 2001.
Comprehensive Plan Page 35
12/06
APPENDIX # DJ n
Lower Tualatin Watershed Analysis,Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District,
J.T. Hawksworth,August 2001.
Comprehensive Plan Page 36
12/06
APPENDIX 2 D D A „,:' - -
I .
APPENDIX 2
SUMMARY OF 1994 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
RATINGS FOR AQUATIC RESOURCE UNITS
AQUATIC Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 Unit 11
RESOURCE Upper Ash Lower Ash Upper Summer Derry Dell Red Rock Middle Lower Tualatin Short Pinebrook
UNIT Creek Creek Fanno Creek&2 Creek& Creek Fanno Fanno Ck& River Tributaries Creek&4
Creek Tribs. part of Creek Lower Ball to Tualatin Ponds
FUNCTION Fanno Ck Creek River
& VALUES •
Wildlife Habitat Diverse Some Diverse Diverse Diverse Some Diverse Some Diverse Diverse Some
habitat species habitat habitat habitat species habitat species habitat habitat species
Fish Habitat Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Contributes Potentially Contributes Potentially Potentially
Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute Contribute
Water Quality Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide Potential to
benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits provide
Hydrological Control Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Provides Potential to
control control control control control control control control control control provide
Education Not Not Potential Has uses Not Not Has uses Not Has uses Not Potential
appropriate appropriate uses appropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate uses
Recreation Potential to Not Provides Provides Not Not Provides Not Provides Not Potential to
provide appropriate Opp. Opp. appropriate appropriate Opp. appropriate Opp. appropriate provide
Aesthetic Quality Pleasing Potentially Pleasing Pleasing Pleasing pleasing Pleasing Pleasing Pleasing Pleasing PPleasingy
•
Sensitivity to Secondary Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially
effects sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive sensitive
Enhancement Potential Can be Some Can be Can be Can be Can be Can be Can be Can be Can be Some
enhanced potential enhanced enhanced enhanced enhanced enhanced enhanced enhanced enhanced potential
Approximate Acres 8 acres 25 acres 32 acres 75 acres 9 acres 23 acres 54 acres 40 acres 24 acres 6 acres 2 acres
Source: City of Tigard, Local Wetland Inventory 1994
Comprehensive Plan Page 34 12/06
Denver Igarta - Statewide Planning Goa' �•Aetro Nature in Neighborhoods t• Page 1 j
From: <timothy.w.peck @exgate.tek.com>
To: <denver @tigard-or.gov>
Date: 10/9/2006 2:45:26 PM
Subject: Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Nature in Neighborhoods
I just received the Habitat Friendly Development Provisions notice about
preserving watershed greenspaces. I live at 9809 SW Landau Place and
have watched the destruction of prime habitat bordering Ash Creek during
this year. There were many acres of Red Cedar forest that should have
been protected to preserve this watershed. I am glad to see that the
Tigard City Council is considering protecting greenspaces going forward,
but am extremely disappointed that they decided to develop one of the
few remaining significant cedar forests that could have made a big
contribution to this initiative.
Tim Peck
503-627-2728
Denver Igarta - Statewide Planning Goetro Nature in Neighborhoods •i Page 1
From: <timothy.w.peck @exgate.tek.com>
To: <denver @tigard-or.gov>
Date: 10/9/2006 2:45:26 PM
Subject: Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Nature in Neighborhoods
I just received the Habitat Friendly Development Provisions notice about
preserving watershed greenspaces. I live at 9809 SW Landau Place and
have watched the destruction of prime habitat bordering Ash Creek during
this year. There were many acres of Red Cedar forest that should have
been protected to preserve this watershed. I am glad to see that the
Tigard City Council is considering protecting greenspaces going forward,
but am extremely disappointed that they decided to develop one of the
few remaining significant cedar forests that could have made a big
contribution to this initiative.
Tim Peck
503-627-2728
• •
2 . WETLANDS Di - n w
O V E R V I E W
A "wetland"is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or ground
water at a frequeng 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 660-023-0100
Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries, play a crucial role in the healthy of an
ecosystem by providing essential habitat for waterfowl, fish, amphibians and many other animal and plant
species. These areas also serve several natural hydrologic functions, including absorbing flood waters,
sustaining summer stream flows, replenishing ground water,
and filtering out harmful pollutants from waterways. Notable rules, statutes or plans that
Wetlands also offer prime sites for people to witness the apply to wetlands within the City include:
wonders of a unique natural setting where fish, wildlife, plants 1.Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5:
and water converge. These beneficial functions of wetlands, Natural Resources, Scenic & Historic
however, may be adversely affected by human activities such Areas, & Open Space
as encroachment through development, alterations to natural 2.Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
drainage patterns, pollution, and the introduction of nuisance 660-016:Requirements &Application
plant species. Procedures for Complying with Goal 5
3.OAR 660-023: Procedures and
According to the 2000 Oregon State of the Environment Requirements for Complying with
Report, the Willamette Valley has lost approximately 57% of Goal 5
its original wetlands and a recent study indicates the valley 4.OAR 141-085: Issuance &
continues to lose more than 500 acres per year. According to Enforcement of Removal-Fill
the study, 29% of statewide native wetland plant communities Authorizations
(and 44% within the Willamette Valley) are designated as 5.OAR 141-086:Wetland Conservation
"imperiled." These statistics reinforce the importance of Plan
addressing the threats to existing wetland areas.
The Federal Government regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United
States, including wetlands, through a program established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers administers the Wetland Regulatory Program including the permit review for
proposed activities impacting wetlands.
In addition, the Oregon State Remove and Fill Law requires those who plan to fill, remove or alter materials
in waters of the state, including wetlands, to obtain a permit from the Oregon Department of State Lands
(DSL). Under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023, local governments may develop a program to
protect locally significant wetlands using either the standard Goal 5 Economic, Social, Environmental and
Energy (ESEE) process or a "safe harbor" ordinance as defined in OAR 660-023-0100. Locally Significant
Wetlands, as defined under OAR 141-086-0330, are "those wetland sites that provide functions or exhibit
characteristics that are pertinent to community planning decisions made at a local scale."
In 1997, the City of Tigard adopted an overlay district under the Goal 5 "safe harbor" provisions to protect
locally significant wetlands. The safe harbor provision restricts grading excavation, placement of fill, and
Comprehensive Plan Page 10
12/06
• • � �
LI Li
2 . WETLANDS j \\/ - \ I
vegetation removal within significant wetlands. Additional wetland regulations contained in the Tigard
Community Development Code apply to significant wetlands, as well as, existing or created wetlands
covered by Clean Water Services "vegetated corridor" buffer as defined in their Design and Construction
Standards. The Sensitive Lands chapter also specifies that "precise boundaries may vary from those shown
on wetland maps"; thus necessitating site specific delineation of wetland boundaries for proposed
development.
L o c a l R e s o u r c e s
In 1994, the City of Tigard contracted with Fishman Environmental Services (now known as SWCA
Environmental Consultants) to update the City's existing wetlands inventory (originally conducted by
Scientific Resources, Inc in 1989) to meet statewide Goal 5 requirements and Department of State Lands'
(DSL) Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) requirements. Local wetlands were identified and delineated using
three sets of criteria (as outlined by the 1989 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation manual),
including vegetation criteria, hydric soils criteria and hydrology criteria.
The 1994 Local Wetlands Inventory was performed by Fishman Environmental Services in close
coordination with DSL staff. The Local Wetland Inventory was carried out using a "watershed" approach
based on a stream corridor assessment, which emphasized the interrelationship with related aquatic
resources within the same ecological system. Stream reaches and zoning patterns were used to delineate 11
aquatic resource units. The study area included all areas within the City's border (including unincorporated
islands) and some properties directly adjacent to the city limits.
The majority of wetlands inventoried in Tigard are closely associated with Fanno Creek and its tributaries,in
particular along Ash Creek and Summer Creek. A few isolated wetlands and two small streams flowing
directly into Tualatin River were also inventoried. Field investigations were conducted by Galen &Walker
during August through October 1994. Each site was field checked, except when access was denied, in order
to update the off-site wetland inventory to LWI standards.
The Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method was used to assess six wetland functions: wildlife
habitat, fish habitat, water quality, hydrological control, education and recreation. It also assess the
conditions of sensitivity to impacts, enhancement potential and aesthetics. The results of the function and
value assessment for each of the 11 aquatic resource units are summarized in the Appendix 2.
As outlined under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-086 for Wetland Conservation Planning, "locally
significant wetlands" were designated according to the criteria and procedures for identification of
significant wetlands adopted by the Oregon Department of State Lands (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 120 wetlands
present within Tigard's city limits, roughly 99% are classified as "significant" wetlands. Refer to Table 2 for
a summary of significant and insignificant wetlands.
Comprehensive Plan Page 11
12/06
• 0 D A 1 Lj Li
2 . WETLANDS Di e\ n I* $
Table 2. City of Tigard Wetlands
Wetland Type Quantity Acres Percent
Significant Wetland 109 284.17 99%
Insignificant Wetland 11 3.01 1%
Total 120 287.18 100%
In 1997, the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) and Wetlands Assessment was approved by the
State 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.
The City's safe harbor regulations for significant wetlands provide affected property owners with the option
to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment under a "hardship" variance, which would be approved
based on a site-specific Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis or a determination of
wetland "insignificance". Since completion of the LWI, some refinements have been made to the inventory
based on site-specific delineations and loss of wetlands due to land form alteration or development. A map
of inventoried wetlands within the City of Tigard is shown in Figure 2.
Comprehensive Plan Page 12
12/06
*
COY***tot T$4Aft0
xx
• • o
2 . WETLANDS J n
K e y F i n d i n g s
• According to the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI), there are 120 wetlands covering
approximately 287 acres within the City's borders.
• Roughly 99% of the City's wetlands are classified as "locally significant wetlands," per procedures
outlined under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-086.
• The City of Tigard coordinates the development review of proposed activities impacting wetlands with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands and Clean Water Services.
• The City of Tigard has adopted "safe harbor" provisions provided under Statewide Planning Goal 5 to
protect locally significant wetlands from grading, excavation,placement of fill, and vegetation removal.
• The Tigard Community Development Code requires Sensitive Lands Review for any development which
would impact"significant" wetlands or the"vegetated corridor" buffer to wetlands, as defined in Clean
Water Services Design and Construction Standards.
• Wetlands in their natural state perform vital ecological functions including the storage, absorption,
detention, and natural filtration of water, the provision of diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, the
recharge of groundwater, and the growth of unique vegetation communities.
• 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.
Comprehensive Plan Page 14
12/06
• • -1
D � �
3 . FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT It
O V E R V I E W
"Wildlife habitat"is an area upon which wildlife depend in order to meet their requirement for food,
water, shelter, and reproduction. Examples include wildlife migration corridors, big game winter range,
and nesting and roosting sites. — Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-0100
Despite growing urbanization, Tigard and the surrounding area remain home to an impressive diversity of
birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. This is evidenced by the 2006 opening of the nation's tenth
urban wildlife refuge just a few miles up the Tualatin River
from Tigard's city limits. The Tualatin River Wildlife Refuge Notable rules, statutes or plans that
apply to
hosts several notable native plant and animal species, including the City fi ch d d wildlife habitat within
bald eagles, painted turtles and beaver. Fish and wildlife
species depend on a complex array of habitat conditions for 1.Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5
their food,water, mobility, security and reproductive needs. Natural Resources, Scenic &Historic
Areas, & Open Space
Wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard is heavily 2.Oregon Administrative Rule 660-016:
concentrated adjacent to waterbodies, such as streams and Requirements and Application
wetlands. However, there are patches of upland habitat in drier, Procedures for Complying with Goal
higher elevations across the City. Vegetation contributes to the 3.Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023:
aesthetic quality of the community and serves as an essential Procedures and Requirements for
element in controlling runoff and soil erosion, moderating Complying with Goal
temperatures, reducing air pollution and providing protective 4.Metro Urban Growth Management
cover for wildlife. Functional Plan, Title 13: Nature in
Neighborhoods
In 1973, the Federal Government passed the Endangered Species Act to protect and recover imperiled
(endangered and threatened) species and the ecosystems which they depend upon. The U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for listing species
in danger of extinction and identifying their critical habitat.
Under Statewide Planning Goal 5, local governments are required to obtain current habitat inventory
information for wildlife habitat inventories (at a minimum including threatened, endangered, and sensitive
wildlife species habitat information; sensitive bird site inventories; and wildlife species of concern and/or
habitats of concern) from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and other state and
federal agencies. Refer to Appendix 3 for a list of Oregon Natural Heritage Program listed species found
within the Lower Tualatin Watershed, which includes in the southeastern portion (covering Tigard) of the
Tualatin River Basin from river mile 28.2 to the Willamette River.'
Goal 5 rules outline a standard process for inventorying significant habitat areas which follows three basic
steps, including inventorying habitat areas; performing an economic, social, environmental and energy
(ESEE) analysis, and developing and implementing a protection program. Since fish and wildlife habitat is
considered a "regional resource", each phase of the standard Goal 5 process was coordinated between
Metro and local jurisdiction in collaboration with other agencies (such as Clean Water Services).
4 Lower Tualatin Watershed Analjuis,Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District,J.T.Hawksworth,August 2001.
Comprehensive Plan
Page 15
12/06
.....,.
::. '•••••.."::"... '''........,.... ...
.. • .
•.1......' ::::'::::::.. .
: , ,. .. .." .. •..".:::. .
:.
....l.":::::::::: • .
........,1 • . •
.- •.'lll..1..' •
. . .
. .
. • •••••":"."......1..}... . •..'•. ....• l".!....1"...... •
":"....,....4.........•.......
..
. . . .
. . .
•
41.! ..•
. •
'::::•:.
. ..
..
. ..
. .
,....„.,
...,
. .
•
' ..•••••.; .
.,...
• ...1•1 . ....:
„.
.....•
.iiii......,,, .. •••' ...'' ..... .... ,-
„ ...,
,••••,,, '...:
••:',1:
.• •••• ...........••:. ,.... -.
,.... ,,..
..
• . (1., ' • ,.. ., .
..'„••••.
' •
•
. ....•
••(..4.
• .,„„ . ..*: •• ., .,.,:i. ..,,,•••• i„-,,'''...
. ....",".:: .
••.
...l.l. ....ilk.......I..:... ..•
..
.. -
• .:•::!::::::::'•••••• •••..... ..::::::...:::.......q.
..
• • .
:... : .: ..'l.:11111:14.... ••
• ...1.1.11,......1 if I I I....I k.... ..
...• . .....
•
. •
.:::•• • .11....I i l 1'l •••• •:•• ...:..'...'.....,::1. ....:::"
•
k I i I
•:.:1.4. • •.'. .!•••••, •......1 ifill: .."'.
1•
..
. . ...".
•
. .
. .
. .
• .. . .
.. .
..
..... .. . .
• .
•
. . ..
I..
•
.. .
..
..
..
..
. ._.
..
..
. .
. .
•
.....
. .
. . :....... .
• ....
..
•
......1 .
• .
. .
.: .
. .
. . . .
•
.. . .
.,
.. .
... . •
. ..
.•
.......'
• .
• .
•
- .....„
..
..
,.....,
. .
• . . .
. . .
........ .
.. . .. .
•.
..
•
• .
. .
. .
• •
•
. .
..
• •
. . . • . ..
•
. .. "
..
.. .
.. . .
. •
' . . . .
'
..
••••
. • •
...
. .
..
' .
. . .
..
• .
..
• ' . .
. . . .
• ..
•
...
...... .
• •
D
3 . FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT I
Metro ranked the riparian and wildlife habitat areas based on their relative health and importance for
providing benefits to fish and wildlife. The regional habitat inventory divided significant riparian areas into
three types; Class I is the highest value, Class II is moderate value, and Class III is the lowest value.
Significant upland wildlife is also divided into three types; Class A is the highest value, Class B is moderate
value, and Class C is the lowest value. Table 4 summarizes the acreage for each significant riparian and
upland type identified within the City.
Table 4: Inventoried Habitat by Class within Tigard limits
Metro Habitat Classification Acres
Riparian Class I 704
Riparian Class II 259
Riparian Class III 144
Upland Class A 22
Upland Class B 172
Upland Class C 94
Much of the habitat designated by Metro as Class I riparian areas is protected by regulations restricting
development within and adjacent to Clean Water Services' (CWS) "vegetated corridor" as established in
their Design & Construction Standards. Other regulations exist within the Tigard Community
Development Code, which restrict development within "sensitive lands", including streams and streamside
(or riparian) resources such as drainageways,wetlands and the 100-year floodplain.
The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places, an affiance of local governments (including Tigard)
throughout Washington County, 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.
Based on the ESEE analysis, a basin-wide Allow-Limit-Prohibit (ALP) decision was made, and the range of
"limit" classifications was broken down into "lightly" limit, "moderately" limit, and "strictly" limit habitat
areas. The delineation of Tualatin Basin "limit" classifications for inventoried habitat areas are mapped on
Figure 3.
As shown in Table 5, 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.
Comprehensive Plan
Page 17
12/06
• • o
3 . FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT n ` I
Table 5: Inventoried Habitat by Class within the City Limits
Habitat"Limit" Class Acres within Percent of City
Tigard border Covered
Strictly Limit 588 7.84%
Moderately Limit 370 4.94%
Limit 422 5.63%
City of Tigard Total Area: 7,496 acres
The Tualatin Basin Fish & Wildlife Habitat Program was developed by the member of the county-wide
affiance to implement the findings of the ESEE analysis. In September 2005, Metro incorporated the
Tualatin Basin Program as part of the regional Nature in Neighborhoods Program (Title 13) and instructed
local jurisdictions to implement applicable program elements. A primary component of the program is the
local adoption of provisions to facilitate and encourage the use of habitat-friendly development practices,
which include a range of development techniques that reduce detrimental impacts on fish and wildlife
habitat.
Comprehensive Plan
Page 18
12/06
*
.11001.1
'11
•
••
........
.•
.•
....... •
........
.......
.•
..
,...•
.......
UDA
3 . FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT .J` I
K e y F i n d i n g s
• There are more than 1,100 acres of regionally significant riparian habitat inventoried within Tigard's city
limits: 704 acres of the highest value (Class I), 259 acres of the moderate value (Class II) and 144 acres of
the lowest value (Class III).
• Wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard is heavily concentrated adjacent to waterbodies.
• A large portion of the Class I and II Riparian Resources are currently protected under City of Tigard's
Development Code and Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Standards.
• Nearly 300 acres of regionally significant"upland" habitat have been inventoried within the City of
Tigard: 22 acres of the highest value (Class A), 172 acres of the moderate value (Class B) and 94 acres of
the lowest value (Class C).
• Metro Vegetative Cover Map shows forest canopy covering roughly 11% of the City,low structure/open
field covers roughly 7%, and woody vegetation covers only 0.2%
• 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".
• Fish and wildlife species depend on a complex array of habitat conditions for their food,water, mobility,
security and reproductive needs.
• Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community and serves as an essential element in
controlling runoff and soil erosion, moderating temperatures,reducing air pollution and providing
protective cover for wildlife.
• Since 2002, the City of Tigard has collaborated with other jurisdictions within Washington County,Clean
Water Services, and Metro to complete an inventory of significant fish and wildlife habitat and develop a
program to conserve, protect and restore inventoried resources.
Comprehensive Plan
Page 20
12/06