The URL can be used to link to this page

11/06/2006 - Packet • • 1,11 . AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i • • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing Date: 1/" G -0 6 Starting Time: ? : Onrkvi COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) `// Gretchen Buehner Rex Caffall Patrick Harbison ✓✓ y Kath Meads Judy Munro (Vice-President) Jeremy Vermilyea David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee Gary Pagenstecher /Ron Bunch Cheryl Caines Denver Igarta Emily Eng `/ Duane Roberts Kim McMillan t/ Beth St. Amand Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar Sean Farrelly ✓ POrr -7- s 5 • • CITY OF TIGARD • ; PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 6, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall, Meads,Munro, Vermilyea, and Walsh. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Harbison Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager;Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner;Duane Roberts, Associate Planner;Darren Wyss,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Caffall reported that the Transportation Financing Task Force will be holding an open house on Thursday night to discuss the proposed gas tax open house. He also provided an update on the Committee for Citizen Involvement (Attachment A). Commissioner Buehner advised that the Tigard United Methodist Church has a large Tongan congregation. The church might be a good reference for the CCI. Commissioner Buehner reported on the City Center Advisory Commission. She noted that the Commission held 2 outreach meetings with Downtown business owners to provide information about commuter rail, the station, preliminary land use designations, design review, and recommendations. There were quite a few major stakeholders who attended. The CCAC is hopeful that they will be able to solicit more information and involvement over the next couple of years. Commissioner Munro reported on the Commuter Rail groundbreaking ceremony. The attendees were brought in on a ceremonial train. The track replacement machine is traveling down the tracks replacing rail. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 1 • • It was moved and seconded to approve the October 16, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Munro abstained. 5. WORKSHOP WITH THE TREE BOARD • PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE— LANDSCAPE & SCREENING,TREE REMOVAL Tree Board Members Present: Janet Gillis, Robert Cancelosi III, Dennis Sizemore, Betty Hagan There were some members of the development community who asked to speak to the Commission about the proposed changes to the development code. Alan DeHarpport, Roundstone Development, spoke to the Commission and provided copies of suggested modifications to the proposed language (testimony is attached as Exhibit B; the proposed modifications are attached as Exhibit C). DeHarpport also presented a list of all the builders in the Homebuilders Association (Exhibit D) to show how many people are affected by the tree code. He said that his proposal is consistent with the cities of Beaverton and Tualatin— trees that are located near proposed or existing rights-of-way are exempt and street trees are counted towards mitigation. He is also requesting that building pads be exempt. Ernie Platt from the Homebuilders Association agreed with Mr. DeHarpport. He thinks that trees removed by necessity to build streets and roads within a development should be exempt from mitigation calculations. Trees that are replanted as street trees should be allowed to be taken as credits towards mitigation. He believes the calculation for fee in lieu (per caliper inch) can get to be a huge number very quickly and doesn't necessarily result in any more trees being planted. A tree for tree basis would make more sense. A straight inch for inch replacement could be a large number of trees, especially if there's no place to put them. Ken Gertz, Gertz Fine Homes, advised that he has come to the realization that the tree code is really looking for preservation of trees, having a nice looking community with trees that will develop into mature,majestic trees. We are also trying to reforest Tigard. Issues to consider should be safety and usability. He thinks the proposed mitigation is out of line. Mr. Gertz presented other versions of the tree code with his suggested revisions (Exhibits E and F). Al Jeck from Alpha Community Development noted that every one of his developments in Tigard has been subject to the tree code. He said that trees on the site make for more livable neighborhoods and they really want to preserve them. He believes there are some problems with the existing code that have created an unequal balance between the motivation to preserve trees and the motivation to develop the community in a sensible way. He agrees with the changes proposed by the developers and encourages the Commission to consider them. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 2 • • The developers asked that, during the process, their suggestions be written as alternative options. They noted that there is no public land left to plant trees for mitigation. President Inman told the developers that the Commission will read and consider the developers' edits. Perhaps there can be a way to mix the two. The developers said they would be available to help or answer questions. Commissioner Buehner noted that when she's working with neighborhood associations or hearing development cases, she doesn't hear from the development community. She only hears from citizens concerned about losing trees. It's difficult for fact finders and planners to only hear one side of the argument. The developers said that they don't receive notices of proposed code changes because they don't live in the City limits. President Inman assured them that they would receive notification of the next workshop or public hearing. Janet Gillis and Robert Cancelosi III gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed code changes recommended by the Tree Board (Exhibit G). They advised that the proposed code changes have been reviewed by the City's legal department and the Community Development Department. The Commissioners had the following comments regarding the proposal: • The table for street tree planting soil volumes gives a cubic foot volume requirement, but there is nothing about dimensions. How does the Tree Board intend for this to be applied? The Tree Board members said relied on nursery experts and the City Forester for this recommendation. • Did the Engineering Department or Capital Improvement staff respond to this recommendation? President Inman noted that street trees have a very limited landscape buffer. Physically, she doesn't know how the table requirements can be applied and still meet the Public Works Standards. She wants to be sure we're not implementing a standard that is contradictory to Public Works or private building standards. • Trees planted next to sidewalks sometimes cause the sidewalks to buckle because of shallow roots. Tree Board members responded that the City has a list of recommended street trees to use next to sidewalks. Commissioner Buehner noted that several trees on the list cause sidewalk buckling and believes the list should be reviewed. Mr. Cancelosi said the City Forester is a good resource for information on which street trees to choose. • Long Range Planning Manager Ron Bunch remarked that trees need sufficient parent (organic) material so their root system can grow below the surface. Long term maintenance of the trees is also very important. • Street trees need to grow in very constricted areas — the table is very optimistic. Further refinement of the table is recommended. • It was recommended that inspection of street tree installations needs to be done in accordance with specifications. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 3 • • • President Inman is concerned about setting hard standards for volume requirements in the code. • Commissioner Buehner asked about fences and landscaping heights. Ms. Gillis and Mr. Cancelosi responded that the Tree Board did not recommend any changes to that section of the code. Their focus was on trees. Commissioner Buehner said she would like to bring this issue up when it comes in front of the Planning Commission. • President Inman asked if the intent of the code is to "encourage" or"require" uses. Ms. Gillis said they originally had "require" in the language, but one of the City Councilors said that was not a good idea. The Tree Board came back with "strongly encourage". It was recommended that the proposed code language be consistent with the term. • Discussion was held about the feasibility of achieving 35% canopy cover in a parking lot in 20 years. President Inman said that hard, fast numbers and rules without examples make her uncomfortable. She likes to have an understanding of what it means, so everyone can buy into what is being proposed. Mr. Cancelosi said he would provide information showing that it is possible to attain 35% canopy coverage in 20 years. • Commissioner Walsh asked about the intent of the 35% canopy—is it to get 35% or is it to provide additional canopy and is there a way to work with developers to assure a success? • It was asked what would happen if the 35% couldn't be achieved in 20 years —what's the remedy? Is the developer penalized 20 years after a project is completed? Commissioner Vermilyea said he would be very uncomfortable proposing a statute that has no appropriate mechanism to meet the requirement. He suggested that maybe it could be called an aspirational goal and that the Tree Board think about how the requirement is written, how it's going to be implemented, how it's going to be enforced, and know for sure that the number is attainable. Dick Bewersdorff advised that by not meeting the 35% requirement, the applicant would be in violation of their conditions of approval and the next step would be to go to court. • Commissioner Buehner asked if the new Tree Code would be consistent with the new PD Code. Dick Bewersdorff doesn't think it's much different; however, Ernie Platt disagreed. Commissioner Walsh said that one of the goals of the PD Code was to have flexibility. He believes this is complementary to the PD Code. • Commissioner Vermilyea asked about Measure 37 and Dolan effects. Staff advised that the City Attorney reviewed the proposed language and believes that Measure 37 and Dolan issues wouldn't apply. There was discussion on what the City is trying to achieve—what are we trying to protect. Do we need to save every fruit tree, hazelnut tree, ornamentals, etc.? It was noted that there is some discretion in the current code. The developers believe there is a problem with the inch to inch mitigation requirement in the code. If a 30" diameter tree was removed, the developer would have to plant fifteen 2" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 4 • • trees as a replacement. On a 5,000 square foot lot, there isn't enough space to plant that many trees. After more discussion, it was decided to hold additional workshops with the Tree Board and invite members of the development community to attend. The next workshop will be held on December 11th. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES—2007 COUNCIL GOALS - DISCUSSION ITEM Planning Manager Ron Bunch advised that Council will hold a retreat on December 11, 2006 to discuss City goals for 2007. This year, Boards and Commissions have an opportunity to contribute to the City Goals by sharing their own 2007 goals with Council. Bunch said that the Long Range Planning Division identified 6 topics that the Commission might want to consider as goals or objectives (Natural Resources; Land Use/Transportation Policy; Land Use Codes and Standards; Downtown Tigard Urban Renewal; Land Use Information Collection and Analysis; and Citizen Education, Participation and Involvement). Bunch reviewed the topics with the Planning Commissioners and asked for input. Commissioner Buehner noted that the Planning Commission has directives from Council to get all the land use and design review issues resolved, codified, and passed for the Downtown Plan by the end of June. She wonders if we have the resources to divide ourselves in so many ways when there are already some big projects that need to be completed. It was decided to prioritize the list. Commissioner Buehner thinks that the Downtown Plan is a high-priority issue for the early part of the year because of the tight timeline. She believes the second priority should be Part 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Ron Bunch remarked that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to Council to follow up with recommendations to the Hwy. 99W Corridor Study as a part of the Transportation Plan. Commissioner Meads said the Comp Plan Update is a high priority and sees all of the goals suggested by Mr. Bunch as falling under the Comp Plan. If the Comp Plan is updated, some of the goals will fall into place naturally. Commissioner Vermilyea said he puts the Comp Plan and Downtown Urban Renewal as #1a and #1b in terms of priority. Commissioner Buehner advised that another project slated for next spring is the Parks Master Plan for the Downtown. Bunch confirmed that the Planning Commission sees the Comp Plan and Downtown Urban Renewal as categories #1a and #1b, with transportation issues being #2 to include the Hwy. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 5 • • 99W Corridor study. He noted that land use codes and standards implement the Comprehensive Plan. We need to have updated land use codes and standards, but from a priority standpoint, they might be a category #3. President Inman sees them as being sequential— first the Comp Plan and the Downtown Development Plan, and out of that, going into revising code sections. Other categories identified during the Comp Plan update process (e.g., Natural Resources) can be discussed as goals for next year. Commissioner Walsh noted that there were things identified during the PD Code process that could be added in the future (the subdivision code). We don't want it to be overlooked. Density bonus transfers were also mentioned. President Inman suggested adding these 2 items as a category #3 for next year. Commissioner Walsh pointed out that the some of the items for Goal Category 7 could fit into higher-level goals. Commissioner Meads asked if Goal Category 6 for Citizen Involvement isn't really a City goal. Mr. Bunch asked if there were things the Planning Commission would like to accomplish as a goal in terms of engaging citizens or is it something that can be taken care of in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission would rather take care of it in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bunch will summarize the Commission's comments in a memo and send to the Commission to review before December 6th. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE • PARKS & OPEN SPACE • PUBLIC FACILITIES OVERVIEW Senior Planner Beth St. Amand advised that the Parks and Open Space item wouldn't be discussed tonight. St. Amand talked about the Commission's upcoming schedule. After review, it was decided to begin the December 11th meeting with Comp Plan items and move the Tree Board workshop to 8:00 that night. The November 27th meeting is still on the schedule as a reserve for Comp Plan items. There will not be a meeting on December 4th. St.Amand advised that the Commission will meet with the Visioning Group sometime in January. The Natural Resources gap analysis will be discussed at the November 27th meeting. Associate Planner Darren Wyss provided a memo in response to previous Planning Commission comments on Environmental Quality (Exhibit H). He also presented a PowerPoint overview of the Public Facilities Topic Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update (Exhibit I). The components of the report include public infrastructure (stormwater, wastewater, drinking water); public safety (police services, fire protection services); and community facilities (parks and recreation, library, schools, government facilities, utilities). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 6 • • Wyss will return to the Commission on December 18th for further discussion. OTHER BUSINESS None 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. /C.A Jerree Lev's, Planning Commis ion Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—November 6,2006—Page 7 t- _ x Subject: CIC report for planning commission ` Rex Caffall commissioner representative to the Committee for Citizen Involvement Meeting held 10/18 7:pm We were visited by Gerri Mitagyow an immigrant form the island of Yap. Gerri and her family are residents of Tigard along with many other islanders form the Micronesia group of islands in particularly Truck and Roatonga. She brought to the attention of the committee the need for her community become more involved in community activities and their attempts at becoming more assimilated in to city life in Tigard and surrounding areas. She along with Susan Stark Haydon who is the director of communication for the Tigard Tualatin School district, told us of a program at Metzger school that will specialize in specific issues of Pacific Islanders living in our area. The committee further discussed how we might improve upon the cities Cultural and family fair that is struggling to become a bigger event than it has been. It was the decision to work with Gerri to see about involving the Pacific Islanders in this event and she was invited back to our next meeting and it was suggested that she bring along a couple of friends and neighbors who come form Truck and Roatonga as well. All in all it was quite an interesting discussion for this commissioner to realize that 3% of the population of Washington County are Pacific Islanders. It became as well apparent that 99% of the services needed for all immigrants to Washington County can only be found in and around the court house in Hillsboro. The question this committee intends to ask of the county is why are the cities of Tigard and Tualatin left with out a satellite office for such services? Many of our residents are not as yet familiar with using mass transit; many of these families do not own vehicles. We did further discuss the opportunities offered by local churches to these folks, yet there is still the void with our county and state office locations away form Hillsboro. Our next discussion was conducted with Susan Stark Haydon relating to the use of school weekly news letters which are sent home with each student on Fridays. The committee has an interest in sending out messages to the general population relating to community events and further reaching out by this committee to the public in general. Susan was open to the idea and it appears the CIC will submit its requests to her office and so long as the information to go out is not of a political or monetary nature it will be included in the hand outs to students. • • Committee members were given copies of the school superintendent's update and a copy of the Tigard-Tualatin welcoming package given to students and parents at the beginning of school. Liz Newton gave the committee a report and up date on the new Neighborhood program that will begin next year. The program will be focused on neighborhoods surrounding the schools. The purpose of this program is to produce more citizen involvement in community affairs and functions, not to mention the fact that it actually may get people talking to each other. The program will have its own web page with in the city web site and it will have hyper links to each individual neighborhood committee and will focus on events city wide and locally within the neighborhoods. Liz stated that this web page will be up and running full tilt my spring 07. There was further discussion relating to neighbor and cultural events and the need to seek out some professional help in the base organization of such events. The committee discussed the issue of developing job descriptions for all volunteer positions within the city so that such information could be posted on the web and other places to advise prospective volunteers as to what can be expected of them should they apply and be appointed to a position. It was suggested that the present volunteers filling positions now could write up the descriptions and submit them for review and editing. The city of Tualatin supposedly already is doing this and it was suggested that they be contacted and the CIC acquire a copy of what Tualatin is doing. We were all given a copy of the Tigard City Community Volunteer Opportunities list for our review. Ms. Kelly Johnson who is the committee member representing the Parks and Rec committee reported that the P&R is looking for money form the city to fund some park activities and other related programs for community youth. She said P&R would be keeping us informed of the progress. Sean Farrley Gave the committee a presentation relating to the proposed Downtown Code Amendment outreach program and gave the dates of the meetings to be held with downtown business owners. The next meeting is scheduled for November 15th where it is hopeful we will be meeting more of our Pacific Islander residents and discussing in more depth the family and cultural fair program of the future for the City. • November 6, 2006 To: City of Tigard Planning Commission Fr: Alan DeHarpport, Chair, Government Affairs and Legal Action Committee, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland Re: Proposed Amendments to Tree Ordinance Section 18.790.010 through 18.790.060 Whereas the City is currently proposing to amend the current tree ordinance, we appreciate the opportunity to incorporate our proposed modifications as set forth in the attached draft of Chapter 18.790 entitled Tree Removal . Nearly every builder and developer that I have spoken to regarding trees and their aesthetic impacts to Tigard and the surrounding area agrees that trees are a valuable resource to City residents and the community. In addition,trees add value to the new communities in which they are preserved. They are also costly to remove. For these reasons, developers want to save trees whenever possible. However, we are also confronted with zoning requiring minimum densities, dedication of streets, construction of streets, and location of building pads for all subdividable properties within the City. Concurrently, we have a steadily growing population coupled with Metro goals, which require a reserve of buildable inventory for residential, commercial, and industrial lands in exchange for valuable transportation funding. The current code has created the somewhat contradictory requirements for the zoning of property for subdividing while at the same time,requiring replanting of trees removed. In the event trees cannot be planted on-site,they are to be planted either on public lands or on other private property with the consent of that property owner. According to the City Forester,Matt Stine, no more public lands are available for planting, and all private property owners within the City I have spoken with are unwilling to allow for mitigation trees to be planted since those mitigation trees must remain in perpetuity due to the requirements of placing deed restrictions upon the property or properties where they are planted. When trees cannot be planted,the result is a requirement for compensation to the City of$120 per caliper inch for all trees that cannot be mitigated. With no public land on which to plant trees, what will be done with these funds, which are budgeted solely for the purpose of planting trees? There are also financial consequences to property owners who have trees upon their property. As an example, I offer my most recent development of an 8-lot subdivision on 1.9 acres located at 9550 SW McDonald Street named Fletcher Woods, which is currently under development. The owners,Paul and Betty Fletcher are both octogenarians who purchased the property in the mid 1970's. Mr. Fletcher planted a large number of trees upon the property shortly after they acquired the property, which have all matured over the past 30 years. We attempted to save as many trees as possible, but still ended up being required to plant and maintain over 350 four-inch trees in Cook and Englewood parks. The cost for us to plant and maintain the trees will be approximately 1$80,000 or$10,000 per lot. As a result of the tree ordinance, we were left in the unenviable position of explaining the situation to the Fletchers and requesting an • • $80,000 discount on the purchase price to make up for the additional cost to mitigate trees in order to legally develop the property. I am sure there are other developers who can share similar testimonials that resulted in property devalutations due to the City's tree ordinance. I believe that if a developer or a property owner were to take the time and expense to legally challenge the City either with a Measure 37 claim or by citing the famous Dolan case requiring"rough proportionality"to the scope of the development, the City would be in the unfortunate position of spending valuable public resources to defend the charges. If I recall correctly,the Dolan case took approximately seven years to exhaust all appeals and resulted in the City paying for the plaintiff's costly attorney fees as well. By incorporating the changes we are proposing, I feel that the result will not only diminish the City's potential liability, but will also be fundamentally more fair and reasonable to property owners and the development community who contend with the development code on a regular basis long after the ordinance is approved. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Planning Commission this evening and look forward to answering any questions or listening to comments. Sincerely, Alan DeHarpport • • • Proposed modifications to City of Tigard Code by Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBA) Proposed City changes are in bold underlined font. Proposed HBA changes are in bond. [red. unnaD¢a{Igm¢dlffant. Proposed deletions are in strilctlreugh-few Notes are in italic font. Chapter 18.790 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 18.790.60 Illegal Tree Removal 18.790.10 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural grown and planting by residents,the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community,help clean the air,help control erosion,maintain water quality. Note: acoustical engineers attest that no measurable decrease in decibel readings can be achieved by the planting of trees. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting, and replace of trees in the City whim sdlnwfiu j joe Sn fan sankiliveded nand devello all ace®irailnan an on nand rmroxe i or ortEes. 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for tree plan,which takes into account the need Tor otrstructures for developing properties. 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C.Recognize need for exceptions. The city recognizes that,notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may vsrEH be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, gfmts off wnz, streets,ADesvde[Iamczs,sf lev✓n➢C,Arnanbl� AEn all_min tcc.utilities,and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; • • 2. "Certified Arborist"means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as a Certified Arborist; 3. "Commercial Forestry"means any commercial activity relating to the establishment,management, harvest,and re-establishment of Forest Tree Species. This pertains to the removal of ten 4'nnV or more trees per acre for sale within a two one year period. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered Commercial Forestry under this definition. 4. "Diameter at Breast Height"(DBH1"means a tree's diameter in inches when measured at four and a half feet above the ground level on the uphill side. 5. "Decurrent"refers-te means n tree crown or crowns that are made u. of a s stem of co-dominant scaffold braches; lacking a central leader; 6. "Excurrent"refers to means a tree crown or crowns that have strong central leaders present to the top of a tree; 7. "Forest Tree Species"means any tree species capable of producing logs,fiber,or other wood material suitable for the production of lumber,sheeting,pul),firewood;or other commercial forest products e_gsgma tf rewo_od`TI_e ff®Illow�n�4 s_s off tr¢¢s s niZ n®4 be c zoua➢carr¢sil"IFoiles4'Tree EgmecE s"`4rees_rrown fforr anulstcnnas ttreecejorroducVon,_4r¢¢sivae n Tor Trann4 orenarls,or¢Gr¢Qs pr®wn ff®r fiantscC£)JIDn `®�an jra erVig zone d naskile_i ttiall,Lconting Tfigkor hntatt Ed 8. "Hazardous Tree"means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation,age, or Elia other condition that i affirmed ed ((toga Cerffied Arborioi Chat presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 9. "Pruning"means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture; 10. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50%(fifty percent)or more of a crown,trunk,or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or 11. "Tree"means a standing woody plant,or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more at DBH; 12. "Sensitive Lands"mean those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General Rule. Except where t he context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting,removal and protection of trees prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be provided for any lot,parcel,or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review,planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing Trees including Trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing Trees or mitigate Tree removal over 12 inches DBH. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the • • following standard and nynmaaonee Trees required by other development code provision for landscaping, streets,and parking lots. 3. IIalem46fiengon off nll trees thatt pre lgsnled Main eniginp,or jam aoseatlJmanlollnc riRlInslofl'way_anccil baniildinAjmnds for anv enistnmp,OT Gin nu.e strauetnres;, 4. )ianstnm 'Trees To oseal to remnovedl 21oat fare losnteaill wutlaim eriistnm ar oseal Nt off m wn�v no fire mat from nntn�nt8om reetaanremnemts. 5. IEans2nnfr eesfiro_noseal)to he removed gnat are locateafl witinin the_ ro_n sed IlDuEdingmad TOT nn' imrrolmen•tv_a®meal residenn4 d, om mereufal OT nndanstriall are enemmnat TTOM mmntiRatio n reaatanireurkents. ➢ Retention of less than 25%of existing trees that are not euemnlmt Tromn uniting= re:twirl:mem*that are over 12 inches DBH requires a mitigation program in accordance with section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees ➢ Retention of from 25%to 50%of existing trees Ant fare Want enemmnt from mnu4Ration rean_anna emaents OW are over 12 inches DBH requires that two thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigation in accordance with section 18.790.060D; ➢ Retention of from 50%to 75%of existing trees that are m®2 elc.¢unizt ffr®rn la fruM n6o_u r econirenneants thaLa re over 12 inches DBH requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigation in accordance with section 18.790.060D; ➢ Retention of from 75%or greater of existing trees gnat ETe 11102 e �ffLIDosm aanut6�atn®on rea>Liremmeants 21110 are over 12 inches DBH requires no mitigation. ➢ . intaet. 6. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed. 7. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the application to pretect trees during and after construction. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of two-ears one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. 18.790.40 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of the development review approval and the provision of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.040: 1. Density Bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provide by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density computation of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain,slopes greater than 25%, drainageways,or wetland that would otherwise be precluded from development. llm tlne edema n ffrricgon • • of n whole ournher of Owls resets. Ifie number shell he roPnmdedln. 66 the fraction lls.50 or ii?teu• lLe.4.S0 demsitd llto mms es m coded to 5 ailclltllomal unfits . 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; . O o to .- 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan a 1%reduction in the amount of required landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted for any one development; B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this plan,may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or as a condition of approval for a conditional use,and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such a tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a Certified Arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. The City's Planning and Building Departments may adjust design specifications on the building plan to accommodate tree retention where possible as long as it does not interfere with local,State or Federal building code laws as they apply to Tigard. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.50 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system,wither by direct deposit, dropping,discharge,or as a result of the action of erosion; • • b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows;or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil sloped where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Clean Water Services Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one mild onne from the date of the approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for aperiod of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree ncconglaip to Cerrtirned Arharriul. 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code 4. Is sued for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of Commercial Forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit of development approval;or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or its root system. 3. Tree protection measures that are moved or modified without the approval of the project arborist and City Forester during any portion of the development phase. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,which may include a written statement from a Cued Artmnvst showing that • • removal of the tree was permitted under this chapter 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop work order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code 5. If tree protection measures are moved or modified without the consent of the project arborist or City Forester the infraction(s)will be reviewed by a third party certified arborist chosen by the Ci but 'aid for b the : • • : : • : .. : • - mr,r res.orras Oeff®r nanaho non•., mmowurip`ox mmodi in the tree tmrotecti®nn unensanres. The third party certified arborist will assess the impacts, and determine the course of action necessary to remedy any damage to the tree(s)including,but not limited to,the trunk,roots and branches. 6. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to$500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include,but not be limited to,the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimate value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree,as determined using most current edition of the International Society of Arborculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 4. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable,the Director shall requirement replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated DBH of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on thither property within the City, either public property,or with the consent of the owner, private property. 5. Replacement trees shall be species native to the Willamette Valley,and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under section D, above,a party may,with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. The fee in-lieu costs are based on rates quoted by licenses landscaping and/or tree planting organization to plant the necessary number and variety of trees required to satisfy tree mitigation obligations. The quote provided must be in accordance with tree species selection and installation guidelines set forth by the Oregon Landscape Contractor's Association. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. • • • Amberwood Homes Concept Construction Inc. .(503)661-0699 Remodelers LLC (503)590-1052 Sandra L. Emrick David Hubbs Coopridge Group ..(503)282-0545 American Heritage Homes (503)690-8388 Lane Cooper Randy Reeve Barbara Fisher RC Anchor Homes LLC (503)291 4911 Craftsman Homes Group LLC ......(503)292-0474 Michael Goeckner Thomas R. Payne RC Ashwood Homes Inc. (503)626-2119 Critchlow Construction . (503)245-7525 Ivy Yip Chris Critchlow B.K.Marek Construction Inc. (503)628-5448 Crown Construction Brian K. Marek of Oregon LLC (503)421-2382 Margie Tucker BC Custom Homes Corp. (503)722-8700 Bill Winkenbach Custom Construction and Remodeling .(503)519-6160 Beaver Homes Inc. (503)632-7070 . Steve Ray RC Paul Seifert Dale F.Lumpkin Bernard Custom Construction (503)647-2358 General Cont.,Inc. (503)697-9300 Richard A. Bernard Dale Lumpkin Bethany Group Dana Erickson Design/Constr (503)617-1553 Construction Inc. (503)579-4556 Dana Erickson Chuck Yett David R.Eldredge Bob Thayer Construction (541)354-2053 Construction Co. (503)622-4434 Robert C.Thayer David R.Eldredge Both Sides Construction (503)257-4672 Dennis L.Reader Construction . ...(503)591-5525 Don Etter Dennis L. Reader Bridge City Homes LLC (503)650-6999 Don Young&Associates Inc. ... ...(503)292-2107 Craig Schultz Don Young Brooke-Lee Homes Ltd (503)223-7887 Don-Hunt Construction Co.Inc. . ...(503)636-9912 Fred Buller Don Holman Cascade Restoration (503)246-6433 Doug Moore Homes Inc. ...(503)661-2858 Steve Pruitt RC Doug Moore CastleRock Homes Inc. (503)292-7252 Eaton Construction Corp. .... .:.(503)351-9447 Robert R. Linnell RC Craig Eaton Cecil Smith Construction (503)666-8746 Eck Construction Inc - (503)625-1305 Cecil Smith Steve Eck Chad E Davis Construction (503)357-8587 Edelweiss Construction (503)658-1936 Chad E. Davis Christopher Flury RC Christensen Elk Ridge Development Co.LLC (503)519-9292 Construction NW LLC (503)614 4791 Mark Unzicker Larry Christensen 152 • • Evergreen Pacific Inc. (503)624-1337 Holt Homes (360)892-0514 Gail Oldham Pete Dewitz Exceptional Homes Homes With Style Inc. (971)563-7509 by Andre,Inc. (503)422-6161 Joe Hughes Andre W. Koshuba Hymark Custom Homes Inc. (503)655-2466 First General Services Greg Sams of Portland (503)519-3067 Brent Williamson Intex Construction,Inc. (503)860-6001 Joe Bauschelt Four D Construction Company ......(503)590-0805 David J. DeHarpport Ironwood Homes Inc (503)625-4391 Patrick Huske Frontier Development Inc. (503)760-3320 Tom Ellis Irving Co. g Develo ment p (503)245-3525 Gemini Homes Inc (503)642-3512 David H. Bruce RC Michael Arnett J.C. Reeves Corporation (503)297-2200 x107 Gertz Construction Co.Inc (503)692-3390 Jerry C. Reeves Ken Gertz James Frank Construction Inc. ....(503)408-8850 Gibson Construction LLC (503)572-7175 Thomas Frank Lisa Gibson RC Jeff Koopman Construction (503)256-4804 Gomes Construction Company (503)668-6127 Jeff Koopman Jerry Gomes Kavanaugh Custom Homes LLC ....(503)292-5021 Goodwood Homes (503)698-3714 Dennis Kavanaugh Edward Mansoor KDC Construction,LLC (503)260-0146 Greg Larson Construction (503)628-0860 Keith Coppenger Greg Larson Lakeside Custom Homes Inc. (503)665-2525 Gregory Construction LLC (503)710-0284 Tracy Schmitt Travis Gregory Larry Boitano Builder Ltd .(503)466-9441 Haggart Luxury Homes (503)654-2030 Larry Boitano Jeff Haggart Larry Brown Incorporated (503)292-4455 Hansel(Construction Inc. (503)702-8716 Scott Brown Dean Hansell Leo Leathers Const.,Inc. (503)472-6884 Hartford Homes (503)544-1515 Leo Leathers Ed Willette Level-Line Construction Inc. (503)794-9100 Hartwell Homes (503)617-9766 Zandy Butler John Hartwell Lifestyle Homes (503)644-6644 Hearth and Home Mike Arnett Residential Const.Inc (503)690-8750 Karey Cresap Loranger Builders L.L.0 (503)648-1911 Claire Loranger Hillcroft Construction Inc. (503)650-4878 Steven Varner Luttrell Custom Homes (503)349-1049 • • Manor Construction Inc. (503)533-5339 Silver Oak Custom Homes Inc (503)495-3832 Dean Duitsman Richard E. Edwards Mountain View Development (503)223-2169 SLS Custom Homes (503)691-9878 Brandon T. Sauer Steve Stolze RC Neil Kelly Design/ Steve Hankins (503)658-5896 Build Remodeling (503)288-7461 Steve Hankins Tom Kelly RC Steven Heiteen Construction (503)244-3525 Northern Development Inc. (503)780-1448 Steve Heiteen RC Dave Kling Stone Castle Homes Inc (503)722-1853 O'Neill Builders (503)781-7664 Matthew Handris William O'Neill Stone Ridge Custom Homes Inc. ...(503)313-5224 Paul Marto Building Co. (503)635-9000 Vitaly Martinov Paul F. Marto Stoneridge Custom Pays Custom Homes Inc. (503)591-5078 Development,LLC (503)639-6070 Todd Pays John Tercek Pioneer Homes Inc. (503)591-7453 Strickler Construction Inc. (503)637-3017 Robert Brander Steven M. Strickler PMV Construction/Consulting (503)538-5020 Sun Ridge Construction Inc (503)658-6440 Rodney M. Pelling Rod Sauer Powell Built Homes Inc. (503)538-0717 Taylor Davis Homes Inc. (503).985-7082 Matthew Powell Steve Taylor Progressive Builders Northwest...(503)246-1950 Terrafirma Building Inc. (503)282-2271 James Feild IV RC David Hassin Ribar Construction Co (503)538-2449 Thistle Construction (541)923-8681 Richard J. Lipinski,Jr. Bill Atteberry Richard Washington TJ Trepanier Construction LLC (503)757-5755 Construction (503)659-2058 Tye J. Trepanier Richard Washington Tryon Creek Construction (503)245-4813 Ridgecrest Homes (503)246-8808 Jan Lewis Karl Hoffses Rigert Homes (503)614-0393 Visionary Homes Inc. (503)515-9386 Daniel Dinette aniel Lamb Warner Werings Roundstone Construction Co. (503)619-4668 &Stauffer Builders Inc (503)397-1314 John Gerritz Glen Werings Royal Oaks Development Co. (503)639-4869 Weiss Enterprises,Inc. (503)590-5878 Sam Gotter Kurt Weiss Schumacher Custom Homes Inc...4503)774-7171 Wellington Homes (503)632-1144 Harry Schumacher Jim Scrutton Scottco Building&Design Inc. ....(503)524-6777 Steve Scott • • Westside Construction (503)659-3311 Westside Construction (503)659-3311 Tony Sanseri Tony Sanseri Westside Stairs (503)380-6893 Windsor Properties Ltd. (503)640-1755 David Dempsey Carl Spitznagel Willamette Construction Inc. (503)740-7143 n: � rB ..._e s NAPo rams e.; ia,Clay Poppert Yalecrest Homes,LLC (503)970-4122 Gary Lee Vaughn Builder Inc. (503)645-7659 Bryce Linton Gary Vaughn r - . °pus �°-i JLS Custom Homes .9503)533-4006 = � i � 'e, i Ciowouse/G4ido z " Bruce Barns Bella Terra Homes,LLC (503)292-9344 Kimball Hill Homes ..(360)546-5357 Chris McGehee Mark Lee Brownstone Homes/ Skyline Development Inc (503)992-8892 Randall C.Myers Inc (503)598-7565 David Huttula Randall Myers . Centex Homes (503)608-3060 x241 ;y`p � � i1Rstde�ittal- x ;rr art Steve Puls Abney Revard Inc (503)682-8823 DeCal Custom Homes Ron Abney &Construction Inc (503)366-0797 Carolyn Baty Action Building Services,Inc. (503)481-3860 Lynn Cameron . Derek L.Brown &Associates Inc. (971)233-0075 Adair Homes Inc. (360)448-6050 Derek L. Brown Chuck Day Fish Construction N.W. Inc. (503)292-9891 Alternate Building Jeff Fish Concepts Inc (503)209-6000 Donald W. Earle,Jr. Legend Homes Corp (503)620-8080 x205 Jim Chapman Amburn Construction LLC (503)491-9276 Shannon Amburn Nupark Development L.L.0 (503)297-6551 Roger Neu Anchor Homes LLC (503)291-6911 Michael Goeckner Park Place Investments LLC (503)574-3111 Tammara Engesether Apollo Development (503)246-3142 Dan Grunewald Polygon Northwest (360)695-7700 Dave Gutschmidt Applaus Creative Solid Surface ...(503)885-0888 Tama King RC R.K.Wilson Corp. (503)723-7435 Ronnie K.Wilson Asset Construction L LC (503)302-6286 Joe Kessi Riverside Homes Inc. (503)645-0986 Todd Boyce Bay Creek Development (503)691-2046 Ruth Anne Hobbs Tom Walsh&Co. (503)973-5001 Tom Walsh Beacon Homes NW Inc. (503)570-8828 • • Beaver Homes Inc. (503)632-7070 Chattel NW LLC (503)829-9055 Paul Seifert Marina A.Sharabarin Bella Terra Homes,LLC (503)292-9344 Chilberg Enterprises Inc. (503)638-4245 Chris McGehee Chris Chilberg Blake Middleton Co.Inc. (503)224-4164 Christensen Construction Blake Middleton NW LLC (503)614-8791 Larry Christensen Blazer Development Inc (503)598-3992 Ray Derby Claud E Davis (503)357-5170 Claud E. Davis Blazer Development Inc. (503)598-3992 Rick Lesniak Cliff Schilling Const.Inc. (503)254-2428 Cliff Schilling Bob Thayer Construction (541)354-2053 Robert C.Thayer Colas Construction,Inc. (503)292-4025 Aneshka L. Dickson Bogart Construction Co. (503)852-6563 Tim Bogart Concrete Designs Inc. (503)864-2052 Michael Plymale Both Sides Construction (503)257-4672 Don Etter Conifer Group (503)239-0015 Jim Irvine Boyd Brown&Sons Inc. (503)636-0909 Eric Brown Cooper Mountain Custom Homes (503)642-4372 Brewer Brothers Const.Inc (503)292-1640 Jerry Young RC John Brewer RC Costa Pacific Communities ....(503)682-6815 x11 Brian Pascoe Construction (503)682-9152 Rudy Kadlub Brian Pascoe Coyote Homes Inc. (503)538-0984 Bridge City Homes LLC (503)650-6999 Mike Willcuts Craig Schultz Craytor Construction Inc. (503)794-1102 Bruneau Construction Inc. (503)892-1186 Richard Craytor Theresa Bruneau Crisp Homes,Inc. (503)650-4618 C&L Properties LLC (503)646-1309 Ron Crisp Larry Wright Crown Construction Caffall Construction Co. (503)692-3797 of Oregon LLC (503)421-2382 Rick Caffall Margie Tucker Caron Construction (503)656-4298 D&J Development (503)521-1102 Terry Caron Dennis Thelin Carpenter Homes Inc. (503)636-0381 D.R.Horton Inc. (503)222-4151 Merrill Carpenter Ryan M. Selby Centex Homes (503)608-3060 x241 Dale Michael Steve Puls General Contractor (503)849-7241 Dale MichaeL RC Centurion Homes Incorporated ....(503)620-2047 Philip M. Gentemann Dalton Construction Inc. (503)293-6165 Steve Dalton Chaffey Development (503)620-1267 RinV.arrl ciek r • • Dave Anderson Inc. (503)266-8866 ESCM Inc ...(503)635-2431 Dave Anderson Edwin Swartz RC David Craig Construction Inc. (503)538-8814 Eslinger Builders Inc. (503)620-9515 David Craig Chad Eslinger David Green Construction, LLC .. ..(503)648-9805 Exceptional Homes David Green by Andre, Inc. (503)422-6161 Andre W. Koshuba David Knight General Contractor (503)760-5889 Firestone Contractors Inc. (503)843-3333 David Knight RC Steven Firestone David R.Eldredge First General Services Construction Co. (503)622-4434 of Portland (503)519-3067 David R. Eldredge Brent Williamson DeCal Custom Homes Fish Construction N.W. Inc. (503)292-9891 &Construction Inc (503)366-0797 Jeff Fish Carolyn Baty Follow Through,Inc. (503)530-8505 Delmer Eisert Inc (503)246-8845 Holly A. Godwin Delmer L. Eisert Foote Development Co. (503)699-8585 DeLozier Enterprises Inc. (503)557-9620 Charles Foote Wynne DeLozier Four D Construction Company (503)590-0805 Dennis Myers Designer Builder ...(503)246-3038 David J. DeHarpport Dennis Myers Frontier Development Inc. (503)760-3320 Dillavou Properties LLC (503)697-1898 Tom Ellis Douglas L. Dillavou G Cam Ltd. (503)263-2005 Don Morissette Homes Inc. (503)387-7538 Georgi Cam Don Morissette GCL Construction (503)681-2079 Don Young&Associates Inc (503)292-2107 John Doctor Don Young Gentry Homes LLC (503)655-7383 Double D Development Inc. (503)598-7848 Thomas Gentry Dennis Derby Gertz Construction Co.Inc (503)692-3390 Eastside Remodeling Ken Gertz &Construction (503)258-1704 Azuwie Ayaribil GLC Homes,Inc. (503)227-0207 Torri J. Engler Eaton Construction Corp. (503)351-9447 Craig Eaton Glenn Schroeder Construction ....(503)628-2800 Glenn Schroeder Eck Construction Inc (503)625-1305 Steve Eck Global Housing,Inc (503)626-7170 Mark Kovalev Endeavor Development LLC (503)246-0833 Brooks Howard Goldstar Homes/ Cascade Communities (503)658-6344 Ernest E. Platt&Associates (503)603-4515 Don Oakley Ernie Platt • Goodwood Homes (503)698-3714 Icon Construction • Edward Mansoor &Development LLC .(503)657-041 Mark Handris Gregory Construction LLC (503)710-0284 Travis Gregory Innovation Construction Inc. (503)620-541 Jim Grey Halton Development Ltd (503)635-5294 Boni Halton Integrity Homes Inc (503)985-720 Steve Sanow RC Hansell Construction Inc. (503)702-8716 Dean Hansel) Interlocking Enterprises Inc. (503)531-363 Terry Dondino Harrington Homes (503)624-9199 Chet Harrington Intex Construction,Inc. (503)860-600' Joe Bauschelt Hartford Homes (503)544-1515 Ed Willette J&B Williams Construction Inc. (503)661-245 Hasson Co.&Bitter Creek Bruce Williams Bev.&Construction Co.LLC (503)906-7148 Mike Hensley J.T.Roth Construction Inc. (503)639-2639 Tim Roth Hearth and Home Residential Const.Inc (503)690-8750 J.T.Smith Companies (503)657-3402 Karey Cresap Jeff Smith Hillcrest Construction,Inc (503)659-7500 Jack McLeod (503)239-4434 Kyle Bigbee Jack McLeod Hillcroft Construction Inc. (503)650-4878 James Dean Construction (503)246-8281 Steven Varner James Dean Hockert Homes,Inc (503)669-3067 Jay C.Jurgens Construction (503)628-6068 Greg Hockert Jay C.Jurgens Holt&Everhart Inc. (503)669-9125 JDL Development (503)248-2030 Garth Everhart Joe Lyons Holt Homes (360)892-0514 JDR Contracting Inc. (503)643-0847 Pete Dewitz Joe Robertson Home Builders Service Center ....(503)233-4841 Jeff Koopman Construction (503)256-4804 Renda K. Horn Jeff Koopman Home Port Inc (503)256-1112 JIL Development Inc. (503)642-7214 Elizabeth Aguon G.Hunt Schuler Home Trends Northwest LLC (503)657-4201 JLS Custom Homes (503)533-4006 Scott Huskey Bruce Barns Homes With Style Inc. (971)563-7509 Kavanaugh Custom Homes LLC ....(503)292-5021 Joe Hughes Dennis Kavanaugh HOST:Hm. Ownrshp. Kelley&Raisl Const_. Inc. (503)655-0294 One Street At a Time (503)331-1752 Dan Kelley John Miller Kelley-Speer Homes Inc. (503)252-3966 Patrick Speer 4en • • Kelly-Harrison Inc. (503)925-8277 Mountain View Development .....(503)223-2169 Kevin Kelly Brandon T. Sauer Kimball Hill Homes (360)546-5357 Northwest Homes Mark Lee &Development (503)328-5535 Gordon Thompson Kimco Properties Ltd. (503)668-7075 Francis Gaudette NW Natural (503)721-2471 Phil Damiano Larry Boitano Builder Ltd (503)466-9441 Larry Boitano O.A.K. Custom Contractors Inc. ....(503)829-2513 John Ouellette Lee Land Homes (503)635-1343 Robbin L. Lee Olsen Homes Inc. ..(503)636-6030 Brian Schmidt Leo Leathers Const.,Inc. (503)472-6884 Leo Leathers Olson Construction &Development ..(503)396-0110 LES Inc ..(503)266-5488 Dennis Olson Thomas Scott Olympic Homes Inc. (503)620-8435 LHL Homes,Inc. (503)624-7714 Jerry Belmore Richard Hartung RC Oregon Home Services LLC (503)772-4663 Lifestyle Homes (503)644-6644 Mark Hylland RC Mike Arnett Ostercraft Inc. (503)772-0022 Louis Construction Jeremy Osterholm Company Inc (503)848-9995 Ralph L. Puncochar P B H Inc. (503)228-2800 Peter B. Hoffman MacDuffee Homes (503)380-7997 Larry MacDuffee Pacific Custom Home Packages Inc. (503)297-8254 Masonry Builders Inc. (503)644-3970 John Fergison Gary Nelson Pacific Northwest Matrix.Development Corp. (503)620-8080 Development Corp. (503)626-9999 David Oringdulph 0. M.Wilson Maywood Co.Inc (503)534-1370 Pacific Western Larry Todd Homes Inc. (503)252-3745 x216 Tom Skaar McAllister Custom Homes (503)579-0111 Robert R. McAllister Park West Properties Inc (503)620-8860 Richard Brown MDM Resources,LLC (503)590-8600 Michael Hanks Parker Development NW Inc. (dba Northwest Quality Homes) ...(503)742-1942 Michael P.Lockwood (503)636-3040 Jeffrey Parker Michael P. Lockwood Pat M. Bridges&Assoc.Inc. (503)378-9066 Mike Parker Construction, LLC ....(503)642-5582 Pat M. Bridges Mike Parker Persimmon Properties LLC (503)674-3200 Millennium Homes Inc. (503)489-0763 Mary McSwain Mac Even Petrina Construction Inc. (503)331-1669 • • Pine Butte Builders Inc. (503)663-4396 Ruben J.Menashe Inc. (503)255-9680 Joel M. Mumford Jack R.Menashe Pioneer Homes Inc. (503)591-7453 Ryan Olsen Development Inc. .....(503)288-5175 Robert Brander Ryan Olsen Polygon Northwest (360)695-7700 S C Jackson Construction Inc. .....(503)324-3232 Dave Gutschmidt Stephen Jackson Polygon Northwest (360)695-7700 Schneider Homes Inc. . (206)248-2471 Fred Gast Kenneth E. Peckham Polygon Northwest/Real Estate... .(503)221-1920 SCI (503)789-2613 Meg Gosselin Michael Sperber Precision Contracting Inc. (503)429-8040 Scottco Building&Design Inc. ....(503)524-6777 Allen M. Suess Steve Scott Providence Builders (503)735-1779 Sentaur Inc. (503)771-6130 Greg Sawyer RC Harry Hanna Rainier Pacific Sequoia Custom Homes LLC (503)723-7188 Development LLC (503)223-2465 Tom Liesy Gregg Opsahl Skreen Construction (503)657-6931 Renaissance Development (503)636-5600 Brad Skreen Timothy Breedlove SLS Custom Homes (503)691-9878 Renaissance Development (503)636-5600 Steve Stolze RC Randal S. Sebastian Smelser Homes Inc. (503)656-4738 Ribar Construction Co. (503)538-2449 Dale Smelser Richard J. Lipinski,Jr. Stearns Marnella Rich Bailey Construction (503)397-3783 Construction,LLC (503)654-6642 Rich Bailey Tony Marnella Richard Washington Steve Hankins (503)658-5896 Construction (503)659-2058 Steve Hankins Richard Washington Steve Smelser Homes Inc. (503)760-4233 Ridgecrest Homes (503)246-8808 Steve Smelser Karl Hoffses Stone Castle Homes Inc. (503)722-1853 Rivercrest Construction Matthew Handris Company (503)654-8488 Floyd McCollum Stone Ridge Custom Homes Inc. ...(503)313-5224 Vitaly Martinov RJR Construction Inc. (503)661-4685 Randy Russell Stonewood Homes Inc. (503)761-8686 Scott Kamprnann Room For Improvement Inc. (503)292-6850 Dan Heacock RC Streamside Inc (503)701-1418 Randy Wright. Roundstone Construction Co. (503)619-4668 Steve Gibson Strickler Construction Inc. (503)637-3017 Steven M. Strickler Taurus Homes Inc. 0356-1975 West Hills S Diane Parke Development Co. .(503)641-7342 x202 Dennis Sackhoff Taylor Davis Homes Inc. (503)985-7082 Steve Taylor - - Willamette Construction Inc (503)740-7143 Clay Poppert Teton Construction (503)666-4791 Egil Sjaastad Wilshire Homes LLC (503)524-8030 Steve Allsup The Construction Group dba Longshot Construction (503)249-8673 Wilson Homes Terry Long &Developments Inc. (503)655-9294 Keith Wilson The Grout Company (503)222-5654 x113 Randy Grout Windsor Smith Construction LLC...(503)640-1755 Brad Smith The Jerry Bonn Co. (503)848-7190 Jerry Bonn Wingate Homes (503)657-3300 Barry Desbiens The Shelburne Co.Inc. (503)692-6383 Gregory R. Heinze �Y.,� Thistle Construction (541)923-8681 Bill Atteberry Brooke-Lee Homes Ltd. (503)223-7887 Fred Buller Tim Mason Const. Inc. (503)538-9468 Tim Mason Doug Moore Homes Inc. (503)661-2858 Doug Moore Timberland Homes Inc. (503)620-8860 Steve Brown George A.Zifcak&Co.Inc. (503)255-9119 George A.Zifcak Tom Walsh&Co. (503)973-5001 Tom Walsh Halton Development Ltd. (503)635-5294 Boni Halton Trinity Builders Inc. (503)538-6270 Dan Ritter Kassebaum Construction Inc. (503)631-8247 Richard Kassebaum Tryon Creek Construction (503)245-4813 Jan Lewis Larry Brown Incorporated (503)292-4455 Scott Brown Verity Homes Company (503)643-2576 Gabriel J. Sugarman MacDuffee Homes (503)380-7997 - Larry MacDuffee Wallace Custom Homes (503)723-5292 Darrel Wallace R S Wallace Construction Co. (503)236-1249 Richard Wallace RC WD Builders Inc. ... . (503)985-7887 Donald F Wilson SM Builders Inc. (503)968-6500 S. Miles Schlesinger WE-BE Homes LLC (503)774-0312 John J. Fiscchi Stoneridge Custom Development,LLC (503)639-6070 Weiss Enterprises,Inc. (503)590-5878 John Tercek Kurt Weiss Wellmade Homes LLC (503)255-2994 West Hills Ed Marcia Development Co. (503)641-7342 x245 Donald Z. Guthrie Windsor Smith Construction LLC...(503)640-1755 Brad Smith 161 . 0 • Woodcraft Interiors Inc. (503)636-0783 Claud E Davis (503)357-5170 Scott Schroeter Claud E. Davis Crisp Homes,Inc. ... .(503)650-4618 ' 0 � 7, f , 4 ;. ., : . Ron Crisp Jireh Construction Inc. (503)668-3442 Daniel MacNaughton Inc (503)699-0972 Marci Duby Daniel MacNaughton Terrafirma Building Inc. (503)282-2271 Dolphin Properties Inc. .(503)658-7987 David Hassin Bill Heintz Gemini Homes Inc. (503)642-3512 rt,. > ;^ - r ,^7i.gyp:.:• -i- , i.: 1: r4 q g `: Michael Arnett ..gW ype. I� 0. 1 Ssi .f 1 bK:'y,u. .L A��+`��'•� J.��.v`Ai��i�hy�� }At M�' � �1:Yi� i Bethany Group George A.Zifcak&Co.Inc. (503)255-9119 Construction Inc. (503)579-4556 George A.Zifcak Chuck Yett Hymark Custom Homes Inc. (503)655-2466 Buena Vista Custom Homes Inc. ...(503)443-6033 Greg Sams Roger M. Pollock Kassebaum Construction Inc. (503)631-8247 C&L Properties LLC (503)646-1309 Richard Kassebaum Larry Wright KDC Construction,LLC (503)260-0146 Chad E Davis Construction (503)357-8587 Keith Coppenger Chad E. Davis Legend Homes Corpi 4' (503)620-8080 x205 Jim Chapman r •�„ 5 C•\, xfly $jl�t., gp �..II l,•.3 f,,`- i•'}.?. �_. ter,.,\ /';:. lt�)cfl.�.�:I'1�i�::il.rl ��,^�� Fl.r/: \ . i '' ' (7-N,2_1_14::,- ':*.P f 4 .. -:_ z.2 .v ti' r,i Y ::_.1 •c _I `_1 t_ Quality products at every price level. Steam/Whirlpool Baths Cabinet Hardware Decorative Plumbing Bathroom Cabinets Bath Accessories Door Hardware Discounts to trade professionals. Portland, Oregon ^'� Bellevue, Washington --- _^ ... -•^- .. 12001 N.E. 12th St. #38 ! r Manor Construction Inc. (503)533-5339 Sideco Inc. (503)691-2245 x205 Dean Duitsman Katarina Pozdeev Ostercraft Inc. (503)772-0022 �%' Jeremy Osterholm tt4 ^z y Burlt(trig Ca[itsultarts r` xn Polygon Northwest (360)695-7700 Bernard Custom Construction .....(503)647-2358 Fred Gast Richard A. Bernard R.K.Wilson Corp. (503)723-7435 Eagle Institute,Inc. (360)882-9177 Ronnie K. Wilson Wes Wilson Roundstone Construction Co. (503)619-4668 Ore Pac Building Products (503)682-5050 John Gerritz Mike Maharg Roundstone Construction Co. (503)619-4668 UBuildlt (503)252-4206 Steve Gibson Margaret Jaquay RC Royal Oaks Development Co. (503)639-4869 ''"E-i�fa r'.r+tt�.mt r.t3""`'�'�'�l` ard+`��s � R"art a�� uJ �f 7rt Y ;'1 Sam Getter �0 Silco Commercial Construction,Inc. (503)286-8691 Emerald Home Inspection Inc (503)665-5056 Don Silvey Dan Temple Wellmade Homes LLC (503)255-2994 gtggla�tgr7 # X Ed Marckx Westland Industries Inc./ Granite Building Products (503)684-4988 Touchstone Townhomes LLC (503)639-3104 Robert Caruso Jim Standring IWP (503)650-9663 Windsor Properties Ltd. ...(503)640-1755 Dave Stelle Carl Spitznagel Keith Brown Building Materials ...(503)584-2009 Yutzy Builders (503)472-6636 Pat Brady Sam Yutzy Louisiana Pacific Corp. (503)692-8473 Tom Con churatt RC PlOnagliWitigiaManli Lumber Products (503)692-3322 Chown Hardware (503)243-6500 Edy McCartney Tim Sweeney RC Jerry Steele RC O'Neill's Tools Inc. (503)254-6805 Lumbermens (503)357-2178 Mike O'Neill Rick Johnston McFarland Cascade (503)777-2030 O'Neills Tools,Inc. (503)254-6805 John Hedges RC Featuring the largest selection of nails and staples for pneumatic nailers and staplers. .w Power tools,air tools,com ressors and accessories. .71VB ingilPrigtams ': -Ti_�' : Outside sales and delivery with a full-service repair shop on site. Energy Trust of Oregon (503)445-7621 www.oneillstools.com Diane Ferington RC 1 , , Proposed modifications to City of Tigard Code by Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBA) Proposed City changes are in bold underlined font. Proposed HBA changes are in bold,red,underlined font. Proposed deletions are in s ethret fent. Notes are in italic font. Chapter 18.790 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 18.790.60 Illegal Tree Removal 18.790.10 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural grown and planting by residents,the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community,help clean the air,help control erosion,maintain water quality. . Note: acoustical engineers attest that no measurable decrease in decibel readings can be achieved by the planting of trees. B.Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation,planting,and replace of trees in the City while allowing property to be subdivided and developed according to the applicable zoning upon any property or properties. 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for tree plan,which takes into account the need for new roadways and the siting of structures for developing properties. 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C.Recognize need for exceptions. The city recognizes that,notwithstanding these purposes,at the time of development it may will be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, rights of way, streets, bicycle lanes,sidewalks,public and private utilities,and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; Page 1 • • 2. "Certified Arborist" means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as a Certified Arborist; 3. "Commercial Forestry"means any commercial activity relating to the establishment,managements harvest,and re-establishment of Forest Tree Species. This pertains to the removal of ten twenty or more trees per acre for sale within a two one year period. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered Commercial Forestry under this defmition. 4. "Diameter at Breast Height"(DBH)"means a tree's diameter in inches when measured at four and a half feet above the ground level on the uphill side. 5. "Decurrent"refers-to means a tree crown or crowns that are made up of a system of co-dominant scaffold braches; lacking a central leader; 6. "Excurrent"refers-to means a tree crown or crowns that have strong central leaders present to the top of a tree; 7. "Forest Tree Species"means any tree species capable of producing logs,fiber,or other wood material suitable for the production of lumber,sheeting,pulp,firewood;or other commercial forest products except firewood. The following types of trees shall not be considered"Forest Tree Species": trees grown for Christmas tree production,trees grown for fruit orchards,or trees grown for landscaping on properties zoned residential,commercial,or industrial; 8. "Hazardous Tree"means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation,age,or aa other condition that is affirmed by a Certified Arborist that resents a known-and-immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 9. "Pruning"means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture; 10. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50%(fifty percent)or more of a crown,trunk,or root system of a tree,or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or 11. "Tree"means a standing woody plant,or group of such,having a trunk which is six inches or more at DBH; 12. "Sensitive Lands"mean those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General Rule. Except where t he context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting,removal and protection of trees prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be provided for any lot,parcel,or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision,partition,site development review,planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location,size and species of all existing Trees including Trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing Trees or mitigate Tree removal over 12 inches DBH. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the Page 2 • • following standard and may include Trees required by other development code provision for landscaping,streets,and parking lots. 3. Exempt trees shall include Hazard Trees,trees less than 30 feet in height,fruit trees and nut trees. 33.4. Identification of all trees over 12"DBH that are located within existing or proposed public right(s) of way and building pads for any existing or future structures; 4.5. Existing Trees over 12 DBH proposed to be removed that are-have root systems substantially located within existing or proposed public right of way or PUE are exempt from mitigation requirements. 3:6. Existing Trees proposed to be removed that are leeated-that have root systems substantially within the proposed building pad or paved surface for any property zoned residential,commercial or industrial are exempt from mitigation requirements. 7. Existing trees proposed to be removed due to grading,installation of utilities,or required public improvements shall be exempt from mitigation > Retention of less than 25%of existing trees that are not exempt from mitigation requirements that are over 12 inches DBH requires a mitigation program in accordance with section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees ➢ Retention of from 25%to 50%of existing trees that are not exempt from mitigation requirements that are over 12 inches DBH requires that two thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigation in accordance with section 18.790.060D; ➢ Retention of from 50%to 75%of existing trees that are not exempt from mitigation requirements that are over 12 inches DBH requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigation in accordance with section 18.790.060D; > Retention of from 75%or greater of existing trees that are not exempt from mitigation requirements that are over 12 inches DBH requires no mitigation. > Credit will be provided toward the required mitigation inches for retaining existing trees between six(6)and 12 inches DBH and trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping,streets and parking lots. To be considered,trees must be spaced at least 10 feet on center,receive proper root zone protection during construction and have the propert form to allow the tree to grow to full and viable maturity. Trees with excurrent crowns must have a defined central leader,with terminal buds intact. Trees with decurrent crowns must have a defined system of codominant scaffold branches with terminat buds intact. This paragraph was left in. 6:8. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed. 79. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the application to pretect protect trees during and after construction. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of two years one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. 18.790.40 Incentives for Tree Retention Page 3 • • A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of the development review approval and the provision of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.040: 1. Density Bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provide by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density computation of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain,slopes greater than 25%, drainagewaysdrainage ways,or wetland that would otherwise be precluded from development. 1ln the event a fraction of a whole number of lots results,the number shall be rounded up if the fraction is .50 or higher (i.e.4.50 density bonus is rounded to 5 additional units). 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; What's wrong with item 4? Seems logical to me. o to 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan a 1%reduction in the amount of required landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted for any one development; B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this plan,may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or as a condition of approval for a conditional use,and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such a tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a Certified Arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. The City's Planning and Building Departments may adjust design specifications on the building plan to accommodate tree retention where possible as long as it does not interfere with local,State or Federal building code laws as they apply to Tigard. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. Page 4 • • 18.790.50 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion,soil stability,flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud,dirt,sediment or similar material exceeding%2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets,adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system,wither by direct deposit, dropping,discharge,or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows;or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil sloped where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Clean Water Services Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one half years from the date of the approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit,a tree removal permit shall be extended for aperiod of up to one year if the Director fmds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree according to a Certified Arborist. 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code 4. Is sued-used for Christmas tree production,or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of Commercial Forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2.,excluding D.4.above is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or b.In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c.In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit of development approval;or Page 5 . . . • • d.In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or its root system. 3. Tree protection measures that are moved or modified without the approval of the proiect arborist and City Forester during any portion of the development phase. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,which may include a written statement from a Certified Arborist,showing that removal of the tree was permitted under this chapter 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop work order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code 5. If tree protection measures are moved or modified without the consent of the project arborist or City Forester the infraction(s)will be reviewed by a third party certified arborist chosen by the City,but paid for by the party responsible for authorizing moving or modifying the tree protection measures. The third party certified arborist will assess the impacts., and determine the course of action necessary to remedy any damage to the tree(s)including,but not limited to,the trunk,roots and branches. 6. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to$500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include,but not be limited to,the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimate value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree,as determined using most current edition of the International Society of Arborculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal with a maximum of$5,000.00 per tree: 4. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable,the Director shall requirement require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated DBH of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on mother property within the City,either public property,or with the consent of the owner, private property. S,Replacement trees shall be species native to the Willamette Valley,and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: Page 6 • • 1. A replacement tree shall be a species native to the Willamette Valley. and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3.Trees will be replaced on a one tree to one tree basis. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private Property. 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. 5. Replacement trees shall be species native to the Willamette Valley and grown from seed source within the Willamette Valley. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under section D,above,a party may,with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. The fee in-lieu costs are based on rates quoted by licenses landscaping and/or tree planting organization to plant the necessary number and variety of trees required to satisfy tree mitigation obligations. The quote provided must be in accordance with tree species selection and installation guidelines set forth by the Oregon Landscape Contractor's Association. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Page 7 • • • Simplified Tree Code 11/5/06 This is pretty rough,but addresses the general idea of equitable replacement of trees and city wide reforestation Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Provide a safe,responsible,simplified tree code 2. Allow property to be developed to its potential. 3. Require trees be preserved or planted in every new development. 4. Locate trees where they are less likely to damage structures and utilities 5. Have the advantage of redistributing trees throughout the city. 6. Reforest areas that have been cleared long ago. 7. Allow for removal of trees that become hazardous or a nuisance 8. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 9. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 10. Protect water quality 11. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection 12. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Certified Arborist" means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as a Certified Arborist; 3. "Commercial Forestry"means any commercial activity relating to the establishments management,harvest,and re-establishment of Forest Tree Species. This pertains to the removal of ten twenty or more trees per acre for sale within a two one year period. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered Commercial Forestry under this definition. 4. "Diameter at Breast Height"(DBH)"means a tree's diameter in inches when measured at four and a half feet above the ground level on the uphill side. 5. "Decurrent"ce€ers-to means a tree crown or crowns that are made up of a system of co-dominant scaffold braches; lacking a central leader; 6. "Excurrent"refefs-to means a tree crown or crowns that have strong central leaders present to the top of a tree; 7. "Forest Tree Species"means any tree species capable of producing logs,fiber,or other wood material suitable for the production of lumber,sheeting,pulp,firewood, Page 1 • • or other commercial forest products except firewood. The following types of trees shall not be considered"Forest Tree Species": trees grown for Christmas tree production,trees grown for fruit orchards,or trees grown for landscaping on properties zoned residential,commercial,or industrial; 8. "Hazardous Tree"means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation,age,or any other condition that is affirmed by a Certified Arborist that presents a known hazard to persons or to public or private property; 9. "Pruning"means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture; 10. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50%(fifty percent)or more of a crown, trunk,or root system of a tree,or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or 11. "Tree"means a standing woody plant,or group of such,having a trunk which is six inches or more at DBH; 12. "Sensitive Lands"mean those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General Rule. Except where t he context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting,removal and protection of trees prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be provided for any lot,parcel,or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision,partition,site development review,planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location,size and species of all existing Trees over 12 DBH including Trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Provide a plan to save as many existing Trees over 12 inches DBH as is practical. 3. Identify hazard trees for removal. 4. Exempt trees shall include Hazard Trees,trees less than 30 feet in height,fruit trees,nut trees. 5. Non exempt trees over 12 DBH may only be removed if they are hazardous,have root systems substantially located within existing or proposed public right of way,PUE, building pads for any existing or future structures or paved surfaces,necessary utilities,or as required for site grading. • • Zoning Trees District required per lot R1 7 R2 6 R3.5 4 R4.5 3 R7 2 R12 2 R25 2 R40 1 A similar chart can be provided for Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. D. Subsequent Tree Protection. Each property will record a protective covenant on the property for a term of 15 years,providing for tree replacement should any tree die or need to be removed. Trees may be replaced by another species and may be relocated on the property as approved by the Director. 18.790.40 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of the development review approval and the provision of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.040: 1. Density Bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provide by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density computation of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain,slopes greater than 25%,drainage ways,or wetland that would otherwise be precluded from development. lln the event a fraction of a whole number of lots results,the number shall be rounded up if the fraction is.50 or higher (i.e.4.50 density bonus is rounded to 5 additional units). 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in the development plan for any land division under chapter 18.400,lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial,industrial,or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements,a 1%reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than 20%reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH that are preserved and incorporated into a development Page 3 • • • plan a I%reduction in the amount of required landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted for any one development; B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this plan, may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or as a condition of approval for a conditional use,and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such a tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a Certified Arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. The City's Planning and Building Departments may adjust design specifications on the building plan to accommodate tree retention where possible as long as it does not interfere with local,State or Federal building code laws as they apply to Tigard. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.50 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion,soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud,dirt,sediment or similar material exceeding'/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets,adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system,wither by direct deposit,dropping,discharge,or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows;or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil sloped where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Clean Water Services Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland,tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one half years from the date of the approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. Page 4 • • • • • D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree according to a Certified Arborist. 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code 4. Is used for Christmas tree production,or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of Commercial Forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2.,excluding D.4.above is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or b.In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c.In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit of development approval;or d.In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or its root system. 3. Tree protection measures that are moved or modified without the approval of the project arborist and City Forester during any portion of the development phase. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,which may include a written statement from a qualified-arherist-er forester Certified Arborist,showing that removal of the tree was permitted under this chapter 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop work order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code 5. If tree protection measures are moved or modified without the consent of the project arborist or City Forester the infraction(s)will be reviewed by a third party certified arborist chosen by the City,but paid for by the party responsible for authorizing moving or modifying the tree protection measures. The third party certified arborist will assess the impacts,and determine the course of action necessary to remedy any damage to the tree(s)including,but not limited to the trunk,roots and branches. Page 5 • • • " • ' 6. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to$500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include,but not be limited to,the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimate value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree,as determined using most current edition of the International Society of Arborculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal with a maximum of$5,000.00 per tree • 4. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable,the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated DBH of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property,the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City,either public property,or with the consent of the owner,private property. Replacement trees shall be species native to the Willamette Valley,and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. Page 6 • • r. - ,,,. , , Tigard Tree Board Tigard city code changes to Chapter 18.745 and Chapter 18.790 Presented November 6, 2006 Chapter 18.745 Landscaping '-? and Screening ?� ..• liI , ., , ., • Installation — Encourage native Willamette valley species — In accordance with Oregon Landscape Contractors Association — Certificate of Occupancy issuance November 6.2006 2 1 • • ,r Chapter 18.745 : y4 • Size and spacing of street trees. ='�-; — Added minimum requirements to allow for growth — Amended sidewalk cuts to specify soil volume requirements to sustain tree to maturity — Buffering and screening requirements November 6.2006 3 } Chapter 18.745 ; r..- �i • Parking Areas i.:_ .-, - spacing and size - spacing — maximums and minimums - soil volume requirements — for viability - to match Street Tree - 20 year canopy coverage requirements November 6.2006 4 2 • • Chapter 18.790 Y . Tree Removal j: • • Definitions - Terminology defined and updated • Tree Plan Requirement - DBH (diameter at Breast Height) - Credit given to save smaller trees, 6-12" November 6,2006 5 Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal i' � ' k:r i • Incentives for Tree Retention ,T .; - change from caliper to DBH - allow adjustment to design specifications to accommodate tree retention if possible November 6.2006 6 3 • • Chapter 18.790 . Tree Removal . i • Permit Applicability #. • Illegal Tree Removal - violation if moved or modified tree protection w/o approval - remedy if tree protection measures moved or modified w/o approval - fines November 6.2006 7 Chapter 18.790 , . Tree Removal t Ail • Illegal Tree Removal - replacement with native species, with consideration to site - in lieu-of payment defined with city approval November 6.2006 8 4 ic` • • INI q • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner RE: Response to Comments - Environmental Quality (Comp Plan) DATE: November 2, 2006 The Environmental Quality Topic Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update was presented by City staff at the Aug. 21,2006 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners and the public were asked for their comments and this memo addresses all comments received to the extent possible in view of the availability of information and staff resources. Planning Commission Comments Air Quality: Can we get DEQ to rate AQI index for Tigard? There are no current plans for new monitoring stations. What about carsharing in Tigard? Flexcar has 130 vehicles in the Portland Metro area. None are located in or near Tigard. The closest vehicle is located at 141"and Millikan Way in Beaverton. (Added to the Topic Report) What is the rest of the world doing to reduce household emissions? Education is the predominate activity. (Added to the Topic Report) 99W needs to be a regional approach. Ifyou remove the bypass traffic, what does that do for Tigard air quality and traffic?? Less traffic will mean less air pollution.The Regional Transportation Plan addresses region-wide traffic flow issues and recommends projects for implementation.Tigard needs continued involvements in the process to ensure the City needs are met. The City was also recently awarded a $200,000 TGM grant to evaluate long-term traffic alternatives for land use and transportation improvements along 99WVV. Land Quality: Can we look into using Washington County and Metro educational programs for business rerycling? An abundance of materials are available and the City's Recycling Program Coordinator is actively involved in outreach efforts. (Added to Topic Report) Water Quality: Need to emphasize non point as "us", or our individual actions. Added to Topic Report Why are non-native trees allowed for street trees? By choosing the right tree for the right location a lot of time and money may be saved in necessary tree maintenance,utility conflicts,sidewalk and roadway repairs,and tree removal requirements. Any combined sewer overflows in Tigard? Engineering knows of no cross connections within the City infrastructure. • • Do we allow for low-impact development? Yes,we currently follow CWS design and construction standards and the proposed Habitat Friendly Development Provisions will allow for additional options for protecting water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. What is Tigard's infiltration quality? The Natural Resources Topic Report addresses soils. Does the water quality rating system take into account a rivers naturally occurring sediment content? Yes, streams are classified based on slope, soils,urbanization,and other characteristics of the watershed. What are other community responses to removing pesticides or encouraging alternative uses? TMDLs address commercial(agricultural) applications,but homeowner's must be targeted for education on their individual impacts upon water quality.The Oregon Pesticides Right to Know Law was passed in 1999. The law is intended to provide critical information about when,where, and in what amounts pesticides are used in urban and rural settings,including schools, hospitals, agriculture and forest lands, and neighborhoods. Energy Is anyone using fuel cellr in the City? Data is not available. Oregon Energy Trust has a 50%match program. Added to the Topic Report Business Energy Tax Credits are available. The Credits are included in the Topic Report. What does no facility mean? The City of Tigard does not produce electricity or natural gas,and does not own the supply lines. Can we or do we use solar for pump stations? No,we currently do not have solar power capabilities. Public Works is investigating the costs of taking advantage of the PGE Green Energy Program,which buys renewable energy.Added to Topic Report John Frewing Comments Air Quality Doesn't mention 99W congestion and air quality. Added to Topic Report Doesn't mention lawn mowers and other 2-cycle engines Lawn mowers and 2-cycle engines are included in the Topic Report Doesn't mention number of hybrid cars in 9722.3 and 97224 Data not readily available Doesn't mention start up of commuter rail and necessary infrastructure for hi use Beyond scope of work for air quality Doesn't mention health care costs of air pollution Beyond scope of work for air quality Doesn't mention need for impact studies for new development Addressed in the Industrial/Commercial Pollutants section Need number of autos registered to 97223, 97224 addresses,same for trucks/diesels Beyond scope of work for air quality Need objective data on visibility index Oregon Visibility Plan only addresses 12 Class I areas,which does not include any urban areas. Need bus mutes, areas not served map Addressed in Transportation Topic Report Doesn't mention anginal air qualiry;necessary to support `restore'air quality policy Data not available and difficult to analyze as conditions have changed over time.There is no such policy in place. Doesn't mention trees role in noise and pollutant absorption Added to Topic Report Doesn't mention "heat island"in downtown Tigard where no or few trees No documented evidence of a heat island in downtown. Should mention DEQ recommended policies for air quality DEQ and their role/plans/programs are mentioned throughout. Should mention lack of info now and needed information with new development applications. Beyond scope of work Water Quality Doesn't mention specifics of City role in implementing CWS standards Beyond scope of work as the roles are clearly defined and outlined in other documents that are referenced in the report. Doesn't mention low impact development,says green building encouraged? Changed language in Topic Report Says stream health is poor, but doesn't suggest areas for improvement—shade? Yes it does and this will be addressed in the policy phase. Mentions private water quality facilities, but doesn't mention monitoring. CWS provides direction for private facility monitoring and Tigard must remain active in developing policies that ensure private facilities remain in good working condition. Need map of water quality facilities Will be addressed in GIS needs assessment Doesn't mention percent loss of native fish Addressed in Natural Resources Topic Report Doesn't mention lack of information for management of water quality/quantity, i.e. how.many water rights are inp 97223 and 97224—provide a map? Beyond scope of work Should develop a cost estimate for fr.x-ing old stormwater outfalls and retention facilities Information is included in CWS Healthy Streams Plan and addressed in Tigard CIP Should list NPDES permits individual}'for Tigard Durham Treatment Plant is only NPDES permit in Tigard.Added to Topic Report Need information to support a `restore'polity for water quality Data not available and difficult to analyze as conditions have changed over time. DEQ and CWS operate in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Land Quality Doesn't mention lack of power line under grounding Beyond scope of work Doesn't mention number of HOAs which do maintenance Data not readily available Doesn't mention canopy cover and extent of forested areas now and long ago Natural Resource Topic Report Doesn't mention invasive weeds No data available Doesn't mention extent of non permeable surfaces No data available • • \� Doesn't mention priorities for fixing old storm drainage ystems Information is included in CWS Healthy Streams Plan and addressed in Tigard CIP Doesn't mention hatiardous materials entering streams from private drainages—oil It does to a limited extent,but there is no data available Doesn't mention condition of stream banks and buffers near streams Beyond scope of work Doesn't mention progress in last 20 years toward the natural amenities of Washington Sq. Beyond scope of work Should have basic information on geology and soil or reference them and limitations for use Addressed in Natural Resources Topic Report Energy Mentions pedestrian paths, but no map or priorities Addressed in Transportation Topic Report Need map of sidewalks Data is currently not available and will be addressed in GIS needs assessment Get list of state tax credits for solar units in 97223 and 97224 Beyond scope of work Get list of certified housing/buildings for energy efficiency(note the standards) Beyond scope of work ... -..._..... • 0 .f Comprehensive Plan Update Public Facilities—Defined Public Facilities Topic Report "To plan and develop a timely,orderly,and efficient Planning Commission Overview arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a ,t. • framework for urban and rural development." .t.,,!,.,::;t :°" , ,,•:.. - .'..' i 2',4"'":C'e"4-. .: ,--..-- ' •Community Facilities i 1 . 411$0 _ - •Public Safety 11,. . _ , ... .., .... .,, , I •Public Infrastructure Darren Wyss,Associate Planner Long Range Planning City of Tigard November 6,2006 Community Facilities Public Safety •Parks and Recreation •Police Services •Existing Facilities •Incident Responses .1 •Parks Master Plan - -' -'-''':IV'.*Y-ir;-'`'.7.1 ,-,1 •Facilities ' "...'' if.■1 :!..., ,,;:,:':t•(.'4,-",1:.. •Library •Crime SIIIIIStifS !'.!;;Vt0.-:.f.Xii4,1 •Use&Seri ices i-liei.. •Strategic Plan .+43/,. 2' ''Z ::*:,, (I:;,..!0',..:,y, •Fire Protection Services 'IC ,,,.- -.*:., ' , ,,,, .--, ...; •Schoitls •Facilities(current&planned) •Incident Responses FR,4•ir,,!...!- ;...,4r...r, •Enrollment&Capacity ''s -st,ttl- i'. •Growth Projections ■,;1?=s•.:,. •Fire I lydram Locations . •Government Buildings 11.*.:.:" .' 1:' -;,-,:-• .; :','""-'7!)-7 ' -"'".7 •Current Uses t.,,?1,,,,.., t.''' '.,::.'. ..i''' .,;,,..7:...7„,---7. , , . .■-•vi, f. - i.. . -:-.-- •Facilities Plan CiV.. .; Ok!. /- •Utilities -;‘ - :." ,.,0.,.,:fr,..z-:%M ..: ,..: .., „.. . •Communication Towers ...1 ,-;s747.7' re 1 .. ,..'ii:"... •ROW Agreements '- i''''0 't '1;''^-•'-lials-— ....iii Public Infrastructure Public Infrastructure-Stormwater •Stormwater glik _.. _ 11Wrir 1 •Existing Facilities - i\\ illilii •Protect Water Quality • •Planning&Maintenance I •Funding 1 ./ ,,,....?; ii:'::,:„.pil •Flood Control 1,1 r 74it,. . •Habitat Protection •Wastewater i , . J• ', ,.. '',, • - - . •Existing Facilities [-.7 .r' •Planning&Mainteriance • •NPDES&MS4 Permits ti,,,•-,, •Ftituting : .. 4:''714 •CWS Stormwater NIngt Plan • .- :, I..' V 1 •Fanno Creek Watershed Mngt •Water Distribution iiik,ID,..., ,v, ..... 1 1 % •Organizational Structure --W-- 44'.<st ' *t' I Plan - ---,, •Planning IY. - l '' '' ! .. •CWS Design and Construction I •Supply/Distribution/Demand s." • •Future Demand ' "II f k 1 Standards •Funding , Public I Acilitio. 1 • • J` - ■ Public Infrastructure-Stormwater Public Infrastructure-Stormwater •CWS Stormwater Mngt Plan SWIIWZOR .. u.a.. •CWS• Design and Construction Standards ?' � •Last update-Spring 2006 o wl.M.0 vrs M z ow.. see no •Reduce impacts(quantity&quality) •Outlines BMPs water 0.•r Fr4m pmM p.aaarl m ,e oro.. •Implemented by City _ 1 •IGA as"Self-service provider" e.... n 121e s Fare System s •Development review process ,a,>" •Maintenance programs Delerftn rank t'o .a •City engineer •Fanno Creek Watershed Mngt Plan •Funding y' •83/of City' Table 1-1.saaae.e M..a.n.n..el Stemma.,s..a �r" ` pan.m c •Developer construction •Inventors'&Evaluations �q vM.olmpMlbnaplp.lams Tyam •In-lieu-of connection fee(SDC) •Recommended Projects Ro• •°dollo.6In.p.ckon scars >; ' W.Gulling a Repair .ream •Surface Water Mngt Fee M.MOIVC.tell Meth InspmborMe.nne t roar WM.rOu•My F.rWrinap.c, .mane. Monads .j''F., .: ,�. .,. rear Fekup seasonal r.....cwvran as Public F.16614, \ear 4,2111 \.n 4,20114 f)rcrr icrr In I'lannin�I;..mmiv.inn Public Infrastructure-Wastewater Public Infrastructure-Wastewater •Collection ° •CWS/Tigard mum, d IGA •Transport •Design and Construction Standards •Treatment/Disposal tw i "',... •Rules&Regulations } •Rates&Charges •CWS/Tigard IGA }{? •CWS Regional Authority _ •NPDESpertnit x. ••CWS Collection System Master -- Existing Infrastructure b. Plan - •City owned<24"<CWS owned �P• :: 4.,.k�,r •Neighborhood Sewer Extension •Durham Treatment Plant /�C Program y""a- •Pump Stations r •CWS Design and Construction •12,671 connections(Oct 2006) { Standards •160 miles mainline(G to 21") I'nhlic 4acililic. \„r 4,2004 Ilaceria.n'n.I'Ixnning I..,,,,,,4.,,, I'nhlic I'uciliric. \,n l.,211114 ()acr,'icn'n.I'Innnin�r:,nnmi..imr Public Infrastructure-Wastewater Public Infrastructure-Wastewater 1.400.4-: , }-. 1 •CWS Collection System Master Plan --— l i •Scheduled update in 2007 •CWS Design and Construction Standards •Implemented by City thru IGA •Inventory&Anal Analyze - I Wp.p k.p.ow of Pipe Worm ins. •Development review process s , •Found adequate capacity Ina GLa.y.m Repo. - ive •IGA outlines maintenance '''''''''• .I.eM' r.a. •City engineer -; 1 I$ .i •Funding ;_ •Neighborhood Extension Program '_t; •Developer construction •Extend infrastructure ' .ek;• •Incentive Program 'fi rt'•' 7-' 's'`- •Connection Fee(SDC) •528 properties identified I •Sewer Sen'ice Fee(monthly bill) I'uhlic I a.iliri.v \..r ,211114 Ih.,rl.rr n.i i,,,, _ nnm,•"ml I'ul+h.1'ncihli,v \,n 1,2154, ()ra rr nrr u.I'Innn,;;(:nn mr..l.m 2 ce) , T. i....% --`•I c . C.' I II/ / II il Z 147%....4T, 0 . ..., 0 .. .. .- E .-. N.......N...., -,.. -• s 1:: .. . ... . 1 g . . W - m E 1 .. 7 o ..._ .... ._, A m 7... c,' I 0.) ...... ..... • : b . . E , > , ..... 1... 7 7 .4 I ' / 1'1 1 i I . th tt • C.) 5.. :II C..) ,....r. , = .... , , = c■ ,j (..) 4: .• • tr = = 7; ..r. = ... ^ t. E., = T , = c'7') - /12 i III 1 4 1, ea a J I t 2 ! ni a rii 1 I , = Cd 7 c = ..! (..) .4 - 2 c f ; E- r.• > -2- . ..._. -L. ..',-,!, r c 7 ■ ',Z 7 * Cl c. i, 7 ..-. C i -. ■ , t'1, t, 7. I 'a.' C.' :.^. Q 7 * '-, 7 . R = 1 oi...g T., . 2.' . 0 - '—' 3 g a. ,i =.. --,'. E 7 = 1—, - . L c. 1 ..-. E , .:.: ,-; 77. --. L' 1 ?--- .= ::. - -2 ..:.= 1.' - ,_ -. - -. _ :-.. _ , , .,. 4 . =, .. ii i* _ ,c _ 7... = X 2 -..:.- P ' 2 ‹ 6; - 7: , .14 = 7 CT< .2 w el•..:= - - 00 (.4 —Mill ' (..) U Ilza.lte.a _-1 '5 • • c • • • .1 f . • • .th _..;. .: .m ,-. . ,., .■• - --_,_] .'.1' ■ C g ... , , - - c I i ,,-, 6w w M -,. O Ix W 1. <LJ [-d-,- .. .. C=/ - .. CI , III 4 = = ill 2t at 2,,T, g., 4. V . .c . ...AR.1 C.. C. t .11 - CZ y acou - - 1 , " r• u . 6 J .. •'.'L & t.L, - 70" . ,-- •>• > 4. .... 2 E M'ffill111111 5 2 "E' 1 i i c. ...... I ..' U 7 4 I Pi: .. I 2.. h 1 L. - ..... 4 7 %.,-. 1 , ..-,.., 0 = .-4; 7, a - - I! 1 • A ..., . c..) ., :...! A . 4 c = 0-0122 A u 3 . ,-, . ,..,, i . i . 6, . . . -, E i / 11 1! ; 4.. 4:: g E E : lEE4cO°: ■—■ _ -2 -; p2i. "2, 3 ',?, ...,. •-g G.' ; i ,_, 0 t c -IMMO :....i: , TG , , —=,-- 11 CI ,',.. ■=. ; ' "' ''. 1 ..3 - 1 : ^ = - = . 0 E-. •-' ,7," ..:•• 7.... c. -, • • .. .. p-, = • • C.) 2 f .4 • • ' ' ' 111111 2. , • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner RE: November 6,2006 Planning Commission Workshop Tigard Tree Board Recommendations for revised Landscape and Screening (18.745) and Tree Removal (18.790) Chapters of the Tigard Development Code DATE: October 23, 2006 Background In April 2004 the Tigard City Council requested that the Tree Board review and propose amendments to the Landscape and Screening(18.745) and Tree Removal (18.790) Chapters of Title 18 of the Tigard Development Code. In November 2005, the Tree Board presented its recommendations to Council. Mayor Dirksen requested Councilor Wilson and Community Development Director, Tom Coffee, to work with the Tree Board concerning specific concerns the Councilors and Mayor had regarding Section 18.745. Councilor Wilson and Mr. Coffee attended the November 14, 2005 Tree Board meeting. The Board accepted most of the suggested changes that Councilor Wilson and Mr. Coffee proposed for Section 18.745 and submitted their proposed amendments to the Public Works Department for review by the City Forester. In addition, the Community Development Department's current planning and engineering Staff reviewed the proposed amendments and provide the following general summary for the Commission's Workshop discussion. Landscaping and Screening (18.745) Overall, the proposed amendments are more restrictive than the existing code including provisions for 1) cash assurances instead of bonds, 2) quantified soil volumes for tree wells, 3) a 35% minimum canopy coverage for parking lots instead of no minimum, 4) mandatory two-inch caliper landscape trees for residential and commercial lots greater than 7,000 square feet instead of no minimum, and 5) strong encouragement for replacement trees native to the Willamette Valley. Tree Removal (18.790) Overall,the proposed amendments are more restrictive than the existing code including provisions for 1) defining "commercial harvest" as ten or more trees in a two-year period instead of a one-year period, 2) requiring mitigation for trees removed within a two-year period prior to development application instead of one year, 3) allowing for third party arborist review of tree protection violations, 4) and additional fines to cover costs incurred by the City in the collection of illegal tree removal fines. In addition, in-lieu of tree replacement compensation would be determined through case by case rate quotes for each development proposal instead of a fixed cost determined by the City of $125/caliper inch. This would most likely reduce mitigation costs to the developer and encourage in-lieu payments. Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through; proposed•itions/changes are in bold and underlined. Chapter 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Sections: 18.745.010 Purpose 18.745.020 Applicability 18.745.030 General Provisions 18.745.040 Street Trees 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 18.745.060 Re-vegetation 18.745.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for landscaping, buffering, and screening of land use within Tigard in order to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City: 1. By protecting existing street trees and requiring the planting of street trees in new developments; 2. By using plant materials as a unifying element; 3. By using planting materials to define spaces and articulate the uses of specific areas; and 4. By using trees and other landscaping materials to mitigate the effects of the sun, wind, noise and lack of privacy by the provision of buffering and screening. 18.745.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is nonconforming(Section 18.760.040.C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. When site development review does not apply. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director of Community Development shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the applicable standards in this chapter. C. Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director of Community Development shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, shall be replaced or repaired as necessary, and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. B. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that: Landscaping and Screening 18.745-1 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. C. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; 2. All plants used for landscaping or screening are encouraged to shall be native to the Willamette Valley and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. 3. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock(ANSI Z60, 1-1986, and any future revisions); and 4. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth by the Oregon Landscape Contractor's Association . D. Certificate of Occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a cash assurance. E. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). F. Care of landscaping along public rights-of-way. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. G. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. H. Height restrictions abutting public rights-of-way. No trees, shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause Landscaping and Screening 18.745-2 Notation: Proposed deletions indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director of Community Development. At-least-WA-of-the Trees selected are encouraged to mast be native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. C. Size and spacing of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040.C.2 below; 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart,but no less than 15 feet; b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart,but no less than 25 feet; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart,but no less than 30 feet; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; e. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) in the tree well; g. On-premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and Landscaping and Screening 18.745-3 Notation: Proposed deletions•indicated by a strike-through; proposed a• dditions/changes are in bold and underlined. (2)Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall :- : -. .. -- : allow for ample air and water into the root area. The table below shows the required high quality soil volumes for street tree plantings. Ultimate Tree Size—DBH Open Soil Volume Required (Cu Ft) 4" 200 Cu Ft 8" 400 Cu Ft 12" 700 CU Ft 16" 1000 Cu Ft 20" 1200 Cu Ft 24" 1500 Cu Ft (3) Soil is defined as a dynamic natural body composed of mineral and organic materials and living forms in which plants grow (Brady & Weil, 1996). D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director of Community Development by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a. F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the Director of Community Development. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director of Community Development. G. Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director of Community Development by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director of Community Development may allow trees closer to specified intersections which are signalized,provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance Landscaping and Screening 18.745-4 Notation: Proposed deletions a indicated by a strike-through; proposed aTditions/changes are in bold and underlined. of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director of Community Development's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart,but no less than 10 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart, but no less than 25 feet apart; (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart,but no less than 25 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four- foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or Landscaping and Screening 18.745-5 Notation: Proposed deletions'.e indicated by a strike-through; proposed a7ditions/changes are in bold and underlined. b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the Director of Community Development as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval; 8. Fences and walls a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director of Community Development; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and • d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. 9. Hedges a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050.C.2.a and 18.745.050.C.2.b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.C.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; Landscaping and Screening 18.745-6 Notation: Proposed deletionse indicated by a strike-through; proposed a aditions/changes are in bold and underlined. 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: (1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; (2) Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; (3) Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; (4) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy coverage of a least 35% of the entire parking area after 20 vearscffect; and (5) The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be in accordance with the required soil volumes in 18.745.C.2.1.(2)three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which Landscaping and Screening 18.745-7 Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through; proposed a ditions/changes are in bold and underlined. would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; 3. Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by City of Tigard Building Code; 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. (Ord. 02-33) 18.745.60 Re-vegetation A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed, encouraging use of using-only trees and shrubs native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and 1. Such storage may not be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved; and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. C. Methods of re-vegetation. 1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: a. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area; Landscaping and Screening 18.745-8 Notation: Proposed deletions ai"e indicated by a strike-through; proposed a ditions/changes are in bold and underlined. b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. 18.745.070 Parking Lots A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. B. Species Selection. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director of Community Development, using only trees and shrubs native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. C. Planting of trees. Tree wells are to be excavated and then inspected by landscape/project architect to insure that proper depth,top soil depth are met for best possible survivability, before final planting. Landscape/project architect will sign off that depth is appropriate after visual inspection. D. Size and spacing of trees. 1.The specific spacing of trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced 10 feet apart; b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced 15 feet apart on center; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart, but no less than '5 f^ti d. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing tree; e. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g.,water and gas meters) in the tree well f. On-premises utilities (e.g.,water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; g. Trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; h. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; Landscaping and Screening 18.745-9 Notation: Proposed deletions e 0 indicated by a strike-through; proposed aTditions/changes are in bold and underlined. i. Where there are overhead power lines, the tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity,will obtain 35% canopy coverage of the entire parking lot and will not interfere with the lines; I. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and (2) Adequate conditions shall be provided to allow trees to grow to full maturity, and will obtain 35% canopy coverage of the parking lot after 20 years. (3) Planting areas for tree planting shall allow for ample air and water to permeate to the tree's root area. The table below shows the required high quality soil volumes for parking lot tree plantings. Ultimate Tree Size—DBH Open Soil Volume Required (Cu Ft) 4" 200 Cu Ft 8" 400 Cu Ft 12" 700 CU Ft 16" 1000 Cu Ft 20" 1200 Cu Ft 24" 1500 Cu Ft (3)Parking lot planting areas shall be large enough to allow for the proper soil volumes as shown in the table under 18.745.070.C.1.k.2. (4) Variances on number of parking spaces to allow for more area for planters shall be considered, if Structural Soil outside of islands is installed prior to covering of parking spaces. E. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 18 feet above roadways within the parking lot. F. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing frees may be used if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director of Community Development by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a. G.Replacement of trees. Existing frees removed by development projects or other construction shall be replaced by the developer with trees approved by the Director of Community Landscaping and Screening 18.745-10 • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. Development. The replacement trees shall are encouraged to be trees and shrubs native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. H. Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the tree requirements may be granted by the Director of Community Development by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.0301 using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b. I. Location of trees near stop signs and intersections. The Director of Community Development may allow trees closer to stop signs and intersections, provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. 18.745.080 Landscaping A. Residential and commercial locations. Landscaping with trees for residential and commercial properties shall be required for lots 7000 square feet and larger. Minimum caliper size for landscape trees is 2 inches caliper at 6 inches. ' es 2. Only The use of trees and shrubs native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley, are encouraged for use in nmay-b landscaping. Landscaping and Screening 18.745-11 Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. TABLE 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX PROPOSED USE Single Units, Attached Single Attached Mobile Commercial Neighborhood Mixed Light Heavy Parking Lots Detached; Units and Single Units Home Zones(CC, Commercial Use Industrial Industrial 4-50 50+ Manufactured Multifamily, and Parks CG,CP, Zone(CN) Employ- Zones Zones spaces spaces Units 1-5 Units; Multifamily, CBD) ment (IP,IL) (IH) EXISTING/A13UTTINC USE Duplexes 5+Units Detached Single Units;Manufactured Units -- A C C D C C E F C D Attached Single Units and Multifamily, A -- B C D C C E F C D 1-5 Units,Duplexes Attached Single Units and Multifamily, A A -- C D C C E F C D 5+Units • Mobile Home Parks A A B -- D C C E F C D Commercial Zones(CC,CG,CP,C13D) C C C C -- A A D D -- -- Neighborhood Commercial Zone(CN) C C C C A -- A D D -- -- Mixed Use Employment Zone(MUE) C C C C A A -- D D -- -- Light Industrial Zones(IP,IL) D D D D A A A -- D -- -- Heavy Industrial Zone(IH) D D D D D D D D -- -- -- Parking Lots C C C C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Arterial Streets A A A A -- -- -- A D -- -- Note: See Table 18.745.2 for alternative combinations for meeting these screening requirements. • Landscaping and Screening 18.745-14 SE Update: 07/01 Notation: Proposed deletions are 0 indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING [1] Options Width Trees Shrubs or Screening (feet) (per linear feet of buffer) Groundcover A -- 10 -- Lawn/ -- living groundcover B -- 10 20'min/30' max spacing Lawn/ -- living groundcover 1 10 Shrubs 4'hedges C 2 8 15' min/30' max spacing Shrubs 5' fence 3 6 Shrubs 6' wall 1 20 Shrubs 6'hedge D 2 15 10'min/20'max spacing Shrubs 6' fence 3 10 Shrubs 6' wall 1 30 10' min/20'max spacing Shrubs 6'hedge or fence E 2 25 Shrubs 5' earthen berm or wall F -- 40 10' min/20' max spacing Shrubs 6'hedge,fence, wall or berm [1] Buffers are not required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street as specified in Section 18.745.050 A2. [2]Adjustments from these requirements can be obtained; see Section 18.370.020 C4. Landscaping and Screening 18.745-13 SE Update: 07/01 Notation: Proposed deletions awe indicated by a strike-through; proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 121 t.e4: awry . A) e' 'roof° 1,. A F1 _ ,e› ..., a -roe", 'rreg, -free,,, �/ s hh.+ o;:a g'� e... g•°g , gg• -I'ruft I -f G -rte 4 # , 1.../01t , 'r-r. / 'rre.o4 ,rri.Gb II\\ ft pm /,,,, - 1 `' 1 .2'6, N\ *61114 '� 'fir : '-'4 hkri46 : 71r %"r ° Skv410 'r �''i 'J�' -free 'ire964 Lam/ �Ciuf, aw. o ,�,ar l tbArr4 ae • Landscaping and Screening 18.745-14 SE Update: 07/01 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. Chapter 18.790 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Permit Applicability 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community,help clean the air,help control erosion,maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation,planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Certified Arborist" means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as a Certified Arborist; 3. "Commercial forestry" means any commercial activity relating to the establishment, management, harvest and re-establishment of forest tree species. This pertains to the Tree Removal 18.790-1 SE Update: 10/04 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. removal of ten or more trees per acre for sale within a two year period. the removal often or - . - _ . . .. . . -. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 4. "Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)" means a tree's diameter in inches when measured at four and a half feet above the ground level,on the uphill side. 5. "Decurrent" refers to tree crowns that are made up of a system of codominant scaffold branches; lacking a central leader; 6. "Excurrent" refers to tree crowns that have strong central leaders present to the top of a tree. 7. "Forest Tree Species" means any tree species capable of producing logs, fiber or other wood materials suitable for the production of lumber, sheeting, pulp, firewood or other commercial forest products except trees grown for Christmas tree production; 8. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 9. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture - _ . -- - practices; 10. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent(50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal"shall not include pruning; 11. "Tree" means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more at DBH . . • - -- • • . . . -- -- - . .• - ; 12. "Sensitive lands"means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches DBH in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in Tree Removal 18.790-2 SE Update: 10/04 • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches DBH in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches DBH ialiper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches DBH in-oaliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches DBH iii-eatipef requires no mitigation. e. Credit will be provided toward the required mitigation inches for retaining existing trees between six (6) and 12 inches DBH. To be considered, trees must be spaced at least 10 feet on center, receive proper root zone protection during construction and have the proper form to allow the tree to grow to full and viable maturity. Trees with excurrent crowns must have a defined central leader, with terminal buds intact. Trees with decurrent crowns must have a defined system of codominant scaffold branches, with terminal buds intact. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of two years one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH in ealiper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH in-saber in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; Tree Removal 18.790-3 SE Update: 10/04 • • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. 3. Lot width and depth. To retain existing trees over 12 inches DBH der in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH in-ealiper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off- Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches DBH inal-iper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. The City's Planning and Building Departments may adjust design specifications on the building plan to accommodate tree retention where possible as long as it does not interfere with local, State or Federal building code laws as they apply to Tigard. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; Tree Removal 18.790-4 SE Update: 10/04 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Clean Water Services Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and-ene-half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above, is not permitted. 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. 3. Tree protection measures that are moved or modified without the approval of the project arborist and City Forester during any portion of the development phase. Tree Removal 18.790-5 SE Update: 10/04 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050., initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. If tree protection measures are moved or modified without the consent of the project arborist and City Forester the infraction(s) will be reviewed by a third party certified arborist chosen by the City, but paid for by the developer or builder. The third party certified arborist will assess the impacts, and determine the course of action necessary to remedy any damage to the tree(s) including, but not limited to, the trunk, roots and branches. 6. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current edition of the International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 3. Require the negligent party to pay all fines, in addition to all costs incurred by the City related to the collection of those fines. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be . .. •• •- • . - a species native to the Willamette• Valley,and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley,taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the Tree Removal 18.790-6 SE Update: 10/04 • • Notation: Proposed deletions are indicated by a strike-through;proposed additions/changes are in bold and underlined. estimated DBH caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the DBH caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. 5. Replacement trees shall be species native to the Willamette Valley, and grown from a seed source within the Willamette Valley. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. The fee in-lieu costs are based on rates quoted by licensed landscaping and/or tree planting organizations to plant the necessary number and variety of trees required to satisfy tree mitigation obligations. The quote provided must be in accordance with tree species selection and installation guidelines set forth by the Oregon Landscape Contractor's Association. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive.■ Tree Removal 18.790-7 SE Update: 10/04 • • T-��,,,, -cP • 1,1 • . MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Chair Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager RE: Opportunity to Share Planning Commission Goals with City Council DATE: October 31, 2006 INTRODUCTION Council will hold a retreat on December 11, 2006 to discuss City goals for 2007. This year, boards and commissions have an opportunity to contribute to the City Goals by sharing their own 2007 goals with Council. Commissions may also comment on what other goals the Council should consider. Therefore, the Planning Commission is requested, at its November 6, 2006, meeting to discuss and identify its own goals for next year. Staff has prepared the appended "Concepts for Planning Commission Goals and Implementing Actions" (Attachment "A") to assist the effort. For additional reference,Attachment `B" lists the City Council's 2005 - 06 Goals. The City of Tigard Issues and Values Summary is also provided (Attachment "C"). Staff is providing this material as a "tool" only. The Commission may wish to delete, add to or modify staff's suggestions. We realize this is short notice; however boards and commissions and their supporting staff have been requested to provide their input to the City Manager, by December 6, 2006. Because of a very heavy agenda, there probably won't be time to discuss this matter any further at the Commission's November 20 meeting. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Attachment "A" proposes six goal categories as follows: • Natural Resources • Land Use / Transportation Policy • Land Use Codes and Standards • • • Downtown Tigard Urban Renewal • Land Use Information Collection and Analysis, and • Citizen Education, Participation and Involvement Associated with each category is a "goal statement" that describes the goal, a "program" and implementing measures that illustrate how the goal can be implemented. Examples of relevant completed / ongoing tasks are also listed. At the end of the document, six additional "other" goal categories are identified that the Commission may wish consider as goals / work tasks either now or in the future. Please note that some of Long Range Planning's work does not fall under the Commission's general charge as a land use decision-making body and advisory to the County on legislative land use matters. Therefore, some of the Division's tasks are not related to the above Goals, except that they contribute to the City's livability / quality of life. These include administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; managing affordable housing programs; grant writing and administration and park and open space planning. Long Range Planning also staffs the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). After the City Council determines its Goals for 2006 — 07, Long Range Planning will develop a staff work program that reflects the Council and Commission's priorities. Thank you. Attachment "A" Concepts for Planning Commission 2007 Goals and Implementing Actions Attachment `B" Tigard City Council 2005 — 06 Goals Attachment "C" 2002—2006 City of Tigard Issues and Values Summary Copy: Tom Coffee,Community Development Director Dick Bewersdorff,Development Planning Manager Phil Nachbar,Senior Planner File:PC cover memo goals 10-30-06 i • Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning October 30, 2006 Ext: 2427 Attachment"A" CONCEPTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 2007 GOALS AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS November 6, 2007 Goal Category 1 - Natural Resources Goal Statement: Tigard's natural resources and wildlife habitat(wetlands, stream corridors, tree groves and forested areas) shall be protected and restored. Program: Tigard Natural Resources Protection Program' Examples of Implementing Measures: • Inventory, Mapping and Monitoring • Land Use Codes and Standards • Engineering Standards and Practices • Public Information, Technical Assistance and Encouragement • Protection and Restoration Incentives • Funding Mechanisms • Land and Easement Acquisition • Coordination with Other Entities • Water Quality Management • Urban Forestry - Protection of Trees and Other Vegetation, Planting and Management Examples of completed/ongoing tasks: Maps, and development standards to implement Tualatin River Basin Stream Protection Program; stream/wetland restoration projects; volunteer projects such as stream restoration and tree planting. Goal Category 2 - Land Use/Transportation Policy: Goal Statement: Tigard shall have a contemporary land use and transportation policy framework to inform and guide decisions. Program: Land Use and Transportation Policy Examples of Implementing Measures: • Develop and maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map • Develop and maintain an up-to-date and coordinated Transportation System Plan (TSP) Tigard does not now have an integrated natural resources protection program. This topic poses the question of,"Is an integrated natural resources program needed?" • Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning October 30, 2006 Ext: 2427 • Develop and periodically update a Public Facility Plan and a coordinated Capital Improvement Plan • Monitor land use and transportation activity and trends and periodically evaluate relevance of City policies and propose changes as necessary Examples of completed/ongoing tasks: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update; Transportation System Plan; Highway 99W Corridor planning (TGM Grant); Capital Improvement Plan Goal Category 3: Land Use Codes and Standards Goal Statement: Establish and maintain contemporary land use regulations and development standards specific to the Tigard's desire for a high quality, livable and economically vital urban environment; Program: Development and maintenance of contemporary land use codes; monitoring and update Implementing Measures: • Maintenance, monitoring and update of the Tigard Development Code • Monitoring development activities, trends and standards and proposing development code amendments when necessary. Examples of completed/ongoing tasks: Planned Development Standards; Tree Standards Goal Category 4: Tigard Downtown Urban Renewal Goal Statement: Downtown Tigard shall be an economically strong, attractive and vibrant urban center. Program:2 Establish and maintain a land use and regulatory framework to promote the urban renewal of the Tigard Downtown. Examples of Implementing Measures: • Land Use and Transportation Goals, Policies and Action Measures • Plan and Zoning Map Designations • Design Guidelines and Standards • Downtown Transportation and Circulation Plan Examples of completed/ongoing Tasks: Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Action Measures; Design Guidelines; Land Use Designations 2 There are several program elements to the Tigard Downtown Urban Renewal. Community Development Long Range Planning focuses primarily on the Land Use Policy and Regulatory Framework • Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning October 30, 2006 Ext: 2427 Goal Category 5: Land Use Information Collection and Analysis3 Goal Statement: Develop and maintain a land use information system to provide staff and decision-makers the information tools necessary to make technical and policy decisions pertaining to land use, transportation, natural resources and related topics. Program: GIS Information System Development and Maintenance; Research and Coordination with other Information Providers i.e. Metro Data Resources; PSU Dept. of Population Research and Census; Oregon Employment Division, etc. Implementation Measures: • Collection and analysis of land use, natural resource and public facility information necessary to inform decisions on development applications and guide development of land use and transportation policy • Periodic update, monitoring and analysis of land use, economic and socio- demographic data Examples of Completed/Ongoing Tasks: • Mapping and related data collection for Natural Resources and Public Facilities; • Background information and findings for Comprehensive Plan Development; • Data collection and mapping for Tigard Downtown Urban Renewal Program Goal Category 6: Citizen Education, Participation and Involvement 4 Goal Statement: Ensue accessible and "user-friendly" opportunities for citizens to learn about and meaningfully participate in City decisions about land use policy and development application Program: Citizen Involvement/Participation in Land Use Planning Implementation Measure(s): • Land Use Public Involvement Program 3 This effort involves also involves other departments. It is proposed as a Planning Commission Goal because it will provide better information tools to aid in decision making. a This goal category proposes that Citizen Involvement in Land Use activities has characteristics and needs different than the City's broader citizen engagement program. For example,land use activities involve specific quasi-judicial and legislative processes not part of other citizen involvement activities. The City's citizen involvement program can b augmented by efforts directed at land use, • • Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning October 30, 2006 Ext: 2427 Examples of completed/ongoing Tasks: • Comprehensive Plan Public Involvement Program • Public Engagement in Natural Resources Protection Program • Downtown Planning Public Involvement • Development and Dissemination of Land Use and Socio-Demographic Information Goal Category 7: Other Possible Goal Topics • Quality of Life Indicators to guide local, Metro, state and federal policy efforts to maintain and improve Tigard's Quality of Life; • Community Sustainability to guide decisions to maintain a sustainable socio- economic, environmental and cultural environment necessary for a high quality of life. • Neighborhood planning to guide land use and public facility and services decisions at the "neighborhood" level. • Economic Development Planning and Coordination • Transportation planning to maintain and improve mobility necessary for quality of life and economic sustainability • Community Design Quality and Character to contribute to Tigard's attractiveness, quality of life and as a place to live, work, and invest. File: Planning Commission Goals and Implementing Actions.doc • • 2006 Tigard City Council Goals - Approved 1/24/06 Continuation of 2005 Tigard City Council Goals 1. Revise City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan • Complete draft by year end 2. Implement Downtown Plan • Implement catalyst projects including improvements to Burnham Street and identify and purchase land for a Downtown public gathering place • Work to assure passage of the Urban Renewal Plan Ballot measure • Identify and make changes to the Tigard Development Code needed to implement the Downtown Plan (e.g., zoning overlays,design standards) 3. Improve 99W Corridor • Complete Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Corridor Study • Continue Greenburg Road intersection project • Continue Hall Boulevard intersection project Other Important Goals for 2006 • Improve Communication and Relationship with Citizens • Implement the new neighborhood program throughout the City • Conduct a city-wide scientific survey/report card on City services • Connect Council with students in schools • Consider Opportunities for Major Greenspaces Purchases • Purchase first-refusal options • Explore School District property exchange • Clarify City's Position on the Provision of Urban Services to Unincorporated Areas and in the Best Interests of the Citizens of Tigard • Secure Long-Range Water Source(s) • Stabilize Financial Picture • Review Financial Strategy Task Force recommendations • Take appropriate action to control costs . 0 • , ,.`= ,• tom . •,f -• . •'-fit; : CITY OF TIGARD ISSUES AND VALUES SUMMARY 2002-2006 202- T i g a r d 2 0 2 7 T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n U p d a t e Produced by the City of Tigard ' s L o n g R a n g e P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t J u l y 2 0 0 6 Community Development Director: Tom Coffee Project Manager and Report Author: Senior Planner Beth St. Amand 503/718-2435 1 • P r e f a c e What do Tigard residents value? From 2002 to 2006, the City conducted 11 surveys of its residents, from written surveys distributed at the library to 12-minute phone surveys, to find out what citizens think about a variety of issues from parks to city services. Today, that body of work represents an important historical record of Tigard residents'values and identified community issues. Viewed individually, each survey provides detailed information to inform decision-making about a particular topic. Collectively, the data forms a solid foundation for the City's Comprehensive Plan Update (Tigard 2027). The City's updated Comprehensive Plan will guide decisions on land use, the provision of public facilities and services, and community livability for the next 20 years. As the community develops alternatives for its future through Tigard 2027,it will build upon these issues and values. Every topic is inter-related; choices made for one topic will affect another,but all will be based on this commonality of values. To aid and inform all citizens, elected officials and staff involved with the Comprehensive Plan Update, the following document provides a unified summary of all results. Taken together,what themes emerge from the last four years, and what areas does the Comprehensive Plan Update need to consider more closely?Through this cohesive review, areas of consistency and contradiction became apparent. Areas of conflicting views for further examination have been identified,as well as areas that clearly stand out as priority. A Note About Surveys It should also be noted that the method of data collection should be considered. Surveys that are "self-selected" are considered to capture less of the public opinion spectrum;often,those on either extreme of an issue are motivated primarily to respond. Surveys that are "randomly selected"in a "scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture the range of opinion on an issue. Where applicable, this analysis attempts to link each type of survey on a common issue to examine consistency. A survey index is located at end of the document. 2 4.0 • I n t r o d u c t i o n In 1993, the City of Tigard asked its residents to "talk" about their community in the first Community Attitude Survey entitled"Tigard Talks." Residents were,in the words of the report, "fairly pleased" with Tigard as a place to live. Residents rated Tigard's livability as a 7.7 out of 10,citing location and atmosphere as their top reasons for enjoying life here. Top rated services included the library, senior services,police,and parks. Thirteen years later, the City of Tigard conducted its second Community Attitudes Survey. The news remained positive: the City's livability rated a 7.8 out of 10, and Tigard's citizens consistently gave living in Tigard and its services high ratings. A majority of residents also mentioned location (61%) as what they like most about living in Tigard,with atmosphere (community character (nice/quiet), safety, trees) coming in second. Once again, top-rated services included the library,police and parks.' And when residents were asked about what they liked least about living in Tigard, the second-highest response was"nothing I like least." In a world where life moves fast and change can be swift,it's encouraging to view these two surveys and see that after all,values have stayed constant in Tigard during the last thirteen years. The ideals that draw and keep residents here continue to make this a place that people call home. However,when Tigard's residents were asked in 2006 about the City's future livability, they were almost evenly divided, saying either it will be better (33%),worse (34%), or stay the same (27%). Over time,the issues faced by a community can shift and change happen incrementally. Surveys allow the City to monitor citizens' experiences and concerns and respond accordingly.A comparison of the top citizen-identified issues (Table 1) shows that over the last 13 years, the top three issues for Tigard are consistent,but the ranking has changed. Whereas in 1993 growth and development ranked as the top threat to quality of life (the question as asked then),in the last three years citizens have consistently ranked transportation and traffic concerns as the biggest issue. Table 1. What is the Most Im'octant Issue for T''ard? 1993 Tigard Talks Survey 2004 Tigard Beyond 2005 Tigard Downtown 2006 Community Attitudes (Q: Biggest threat to Tomorrow Community Improvement Survey Survey quality of life) Survey Random,mailed survey of Self-selected survey(409) Random,scientific survey of Random,scientific survey of residents resident voters(483 responses) resident voters(401) (400) 1.Development and 1.Traffic Congestion 1.Roads,traffic and 1.Traffic and congestion Growth(41%) transportation(37%) problems(37%) 2.Traffic and 2.Growth 2. Growth,population and 2.Growth(9%) Transportation(27%) annexation 3.Safety/Crime 3. Environmental 3.Education 3. Street and road Preservation improvement/maintenance* 4.Taxes and Costs 4.Downtown 4.Infrastructure/Public 4.Schools and School Funding Services 5.Poor Planning 5. Community 5. Public Safety Appearance 6.Education/Schools 6.Safety *2005 included this topic in roads,traffic,transportation. 'The 2006 survey did not ask about senior services. 3 • • As we embark on the Comprehensive Plan Update, these values and issues will guide Tigard's path to the future. The following report takes an in-depth look by topic, as defined by our citizens through their words and responses over the last four years. Transportation is Number One Issues Clearly,Traffic Congestion ranks as Tigard citizens'number-one issue. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, and the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey,Tigard residents named traffic congestion as the top community issue. In addition,one in two residents mentioned traffic as what they like least about living in Tigard (2006 Community Attitudes Survey). While some of the responses mentioned 99W, others focused on neighborhood traffic: In both the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey and the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey results, neighborhood traffic ranked as the first and second most important residential neighborhood characteristics. Citizens also recognize the effect of transportation and traffic on Downtown. In the 2004 Downtown Survey,respondents identified Transportation one of the top two areas for improvement. Specifically, residents cited modification of the 99W/Main Street relationship,improving traffic flow, accessibility and improving the pedestrian environment. In the 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey, 17 open-ended responses addressed transportation,despite the survey's communications topic. These comments focused on traffic, traffic control,and neighborhood traffic. Tigard-Beyond Tomorrow'.:;; Residents also recognize that the transportation system needs The vision statement does not improvements. Nine percent of respondents ranked street and road address transportation. However improvement/maintenance as the most important issue for Tigard the 2005 Traffic and Transportation (2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2005 Tigard Downtown Direction statement includes the ) Improvement Survey). Street improvements to provide better access following(bold highlights key" to Downtown produced the most support for Tigard Downtown points): Improvement financing in the 2005 Tigard Downtown -Tigard takes proactive role,in . Improvement Survey. regional transportation'planning • -Have adequate funding sources to Summary of Values build and maintain system - Tigard residents value their travel time and want to be able to travel -Streets safely handle traffic from point A to point B easily and without being mired in traffic; for designed to serve specific roads, 99W is most frequently cited as a problem, -Local traffic served by well- . particularly its effect on accessibility to the Downtown area. connected street network/perry Considering 99W's central location throughout Tigard,it affects a roads accommodate through-traffic majority of trips throughout the City and citizens' daily experience. to minimize traffic impacts on At the same time, residents want to preserve their neighborhood local neighborhoods livability by minimizing neighborhood traffic levels. Residents also -Alternative transportation - recognize that the street system needs improvements,particularly in methods available and encouraged the Downtown area. These conclusions are consistent with the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow direction statement. Future Growth and Development Issues While traffic and transportation run away with the top ranking,growth and growth management take second place in the community's consciousness. Growth has two components: an general perception of overall City growth, and a more personal perspective that considers neighborhood effects of development, which will be considered under"Community=." 4 II/ The 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey named growth as Tigard's second most important issue (density, control or manage growth,and overdeveloped/crowded conditions), and it remained second in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey. When 2006 respondents were asked what they liked least about living in Tigard,growth ranked third, behind traffic and"nothing I like least." In the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 27% of residents cited growth, population and annexation issues as the most important issue facing Tigard,almost half as many as the top choice (47% for roads,traffic and transportation). Respondents addressed small lots,overcrowding, and a need for better community and growth planning. Regarding growth through annexation,while the majority of Tigard residents were supportive of annexing Bull Mountain (2002 Bull Mountain Annexation Public Attitude Survey), specific comments Tigard Beyond Tomorrow • reflected a concern how growth would impact city services and taxes, The vision statement does including future funding sources. not address growth. However, the-2005 Growth In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey,when residents were asked and Growth Management_ "as more people move to the region, do you believe the City should Direction Statement states. promote growth, accommodate growth, or attempt to limit growth?", the following(only growth they were evenly divided between accommodate and limit (43%),with elated statements included): 10 percent advocating for promoting growth. These results turn on the -Growth will be • definition of"accommodate" and how residents perceived it. It could accommodated while either lean more toward"promote" (allow) or reflect a resignation that protecting the character growth will happen regardless. In any case, this question shows the and livability in new and difference in opinion for the City's future growth. established neighborhoods. , Summary of Values Growth is on Tigard residents' minds, although traffic and transportation is still the clear priority. Perhaps the difference in growth and traffic management reflects personal experiences.Almost every person who has to travel within Tigard experiences traffic on a daily basis. It also could relate to location of, and age of, homes;those residents located in older neighborhoods may have experienced new development within their neighborhood,while new residents are part of growth. The 2006 survey shows that the longer a respondent lived in Tigard, the corresponding percentage of"limit" growth responses increased: While 33 percent of new residents said "limit"growth, 54 percent of 20-Year-and-Over residents said limit. 2 This question reflects a difference in opinion for the City's future growth. With the failure of the Bull Mountain annexation,Tigard is essentially land-locked with growth focused on remaining parcels within Tigard's boundaries. How will Tigard grow?To answer this question, the Comprehensive Plan Update will focus on this critical topic to define the terms (accommodate), and understand the needs of existing neighborhoods and long-time residents, as well as those of new neighborhoods and residents to the area. The section regarding neighborhood characteristics (under"Community") also shows that perhaps certain amenities can affect how people accept or perceive new development/growth. Additional exploration of these characteristics will be done during the growth alternative phase to address future development and design. Lastly, it is important to citizens to consider the impacts of new growth on existing City residents and services. 2 The highest percentages of"limit"by geographical area isn't as clear,as 20 percent of respondents were unable to identify their neighborhood school. 5 • • Community ( Housing and Employment ) Housing To assess growth's impacts on neighborhoods, both the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey asked respondents to rate the importance of residential characteristics to neighborhood livability. Table 2 shows that the top four characteristics are almost identical,with the exception of compatibility and protection of trees and natural resource areas.While compatibility is ranked fifth in the 2006 survey, natural resources have taken a higher priority. Table 2: Residential Livabili Characteristics 2004 Characteristics Score 2006 Characteristics Score (Somewhat (from 1- or Very 10;10 Important) highest) 1.Compatibility between 92% 1.Protection of trees and natural 8.4 existing and new resource areas. developments 1.Neighborhood traffic 92% 2.Level of neighborhood traffic 8.2 management 3.Pedestrian and bike paths 89% 3.Maintaining existing lot sizes 7.8 within established neighborhoods 4.Maintain existing lot sizes 87% 4.Pedestrian and bike paths 7.7 within established neighborhoods 5.Undeveloped open 84% 5.Compatibility between existing 7.6 space/greenways within half and new development mile of home 6.Large lot sizes 83% 6.Bus service 7.4 7.Small neighborhood parks 82% 7.Strengthening regulations to 7.4 within a half mile of home improve the appearance of the community 8.Variety of housing types 54%said 8.Neighborhood parks within a half- 7.2 within new developments somewhat or mile of home very unimportant 9.Small lot sizes 70%said 9.Variety of housing types 7.0 somewhat or very unimportant 10.Neighborhood commercial 6.1 within a half mile of home. Overall,Table 2 shows that residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat, a place away from high levels of traffic, that allows for recreation,views of trees and other natural areas. They also value maintaining existing densities and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new development. As neighborhood commercial within walking distance ranked lowest on livability indicators (2006 Community Attitudes Survey),yet pedestrian and bike paths ranked highly,it could be inferred that most residents already perform their errands by car or bus and want recreational trails in neighborhoods, as the survey shows is a strongly held value, and could want to keep their neighborhoods separate from commerce. This conclusion will be tested during the Comprehensive Plan Update. While a variety of housing types ranked significantly in the 2006 survey, it was considered unimportant to almost half of respondents in the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow survey. This difference could be due to the additional 2004 wording: within new developments,which would possibly bias residents to focus mostly on their dislike or like of new developments. It could also be based on a respondent's definition of"variety": while the 2006 survey intended to refer to a diversity of product (single-family, apartments, condominiums, townhouses), the respondents could have meant aesthetics;i.e., facades and colors. 6 • • Downtown Downtown has been a focus of the community.Although only one survey identified Downtown as a top issue for Tigard (2004 TBT), other surveys reflect that the community values Downtown. In the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 58% of respondents feel that it is either extremely important or important to have a vital downtown area that is uniquely Tigard. Eighty-four percent said that improving Downtown will be good for the whole community, and investing in Downtown will help attract business and stimulate the Tigard economy. Eighty-one percent of 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey respondents said that redeveloping/reenergizing Tigard's Downtown area was very and somewhat important. The passage of the Urban Renewal measure in May 2006 by 66%of Tigard Beyond Tomorrow voters also shows strong community support for Downtown's The vision statement does revitalization. Downtown issues, as identified earlier,include not specifically refer to transportation and access, as well as appearance (2004 Downtown Downtown.The Community Survey). In the 2004 Downtown Survey, 62% of respondents felt that Character and Quality of Life the look and feel of Downtown should change. Both the 2005 and direction statement includes 2004 Downtown-related surveys show that Downtown is very well "The Main Street Area will used; approximately 60% of respondents visit at least once a week, be seen as a focal point for _ mostly to shop, use the post office, eat, or personal services. the community." What do people like best about Downtown?The 2004 Downtown Survey named the old-town historical character;convenience/location and businesses as primary reasons. Seventy-nine percent of the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey respondents said they would be more likely to use the Downtown if it had more shops and restaurants. Many of the responses for Downtown also asked for a gathering place for the community. Business The 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey also asked questions specifically on business. A high percentage of respondents felt Tigard Beyond Tomorrow that retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses was very The vision statement states and somewhat important,with Downtown a slight priority over other that"small and local commercial areas. Respondents felt very strongly about the beautifying businesses thrive. Business the appearance of existing commercial areas. This emphasis on owners are involved and take appearance was also seen in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, responsibility for the impacts where respondents gave a 7.4 out of 10 to "Strengthening regulations to their businesses have on the improve the appearance of the community"under residential community." neighborhood livability characteristics. Lastly,as mentioned above, a high percentage of 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey respondents believe that Downtown plays a major role in Tigard's economy,agreeing that investing in Downtown will help attract business and stimulate the Tigard economy. Summary of Values Residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat,a place away from high levels of traffic, that allows for recreation,views of trees and other natural areas. They also value maintaining existing densities and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new development. Regarding housing choice: more work will need to be done to clarify the conflicting results on these questions. Downtown is important to residents;many use it on a weekly basis. They value it for the convenience,the services, and its feel. But they also recognize that changes are needed, particularly in transportation, pedestrian environment,and appearance. Many are seeking it as a gathering place,a center for the community. 7 • • Regarding business, residents believe that having commercial businesses is an important part of Tigard's mix, but emphasize beautifying its appearance. Natural Resources : Preserve / Protect / Respect Issues Four surveys asked specific questions regarding natural resources (wetlands,open space,greenways, trees): the 2004 Recreation Survey,2006 Community Attitudes Survey, 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, environmental preservation—which included comments addressing preservation or the need for more open space,greenways, trees and parks - was ranked as the third most important issue for the Tigard community, although it did not rank in the 2005 or 2006 surveys. The other surveys identified community values. When the 2004 Recreation Survey asked residents if they liked that the city is "considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways" and if they favored the idea "that would preserve our natural resources," 69% agreed. Reasons Tigard Beyond Tomorrow: for support included need to preserve open space and it's good for the The vision statement includes.• environment. Slightly less than half of respondents favored a bond the following statement measure focused on this issue;22%were willing to pay an additional . amount per year. In general, the concept is supported, not funds (bond or fees). The 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey shows community value to respect open spaces and stronger support for Downtown projects: 86 % of respondents said ;. they would support projects that preserve and restore greenspaces in natural features'encourages .; and around Downtown Tigard. However, that question did not tie the access to these by our concept to a specific funding source. citizens.. • . • In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey,protection of trees and The 2005 Urban&Public J . natural resource areas was viewed strongly as the most important Services Direction Statement • does not address this topic neighborhood livability characteristic (8.4/10). In addition,respondents - cited the city's "small/rural feel" (18%) and trees/greenspaces (6%) as specifically;however,it dcies what they liked most about Tigard. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond include the goal"Open space Tomorrow Community Survey, 84%of respondents ranked &greenway areas shall be undeveloped open space/greenways as an important residential preserved and protected." characteristic. Summary of Values When asked,Tigard's citizens consistently value natural features and areas,linking them with Tigard's identity. The strongest support is recorded when these spaces are linked with residential neighborhood livability or Downtown. This reflects residents'personal experiences with these areas. While there is strong support for the concept, there is less support for specific funding measures. Combined with environmental protection not ranking consistently in the top issues, this could show that while residents value these features, the current approach could be viewed as effective and these areas are not viewed as threatened. The Comprehensive Plan Update will need to examine this topic further. The words "respect, "preservation" and "protection" have all been used in conjunction with natural resources,in the surveys and in Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. The Comprehensive Plan Update process will need to clearly define each of these terms and further explore citizen support for these approaches. Most importantly, the financial considerations tied to these proposals must be examined, as well as trade-offs associated with additional preservation and its effect on growth. 8 • • Public Facilities and Services Issues and Values Survey questions on City services primarily focus on two areas: current performance and future services. For current Tigard Beyond.Tomorrow • performance, a low rating could identify an issue for the The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision community. The City's 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, statement includes the following related which focused on performance ratings,reflected an overall tatements: "• satisfaction with current services. Of the 13 services tested, ••• ,Tigard is a safe,dyrWmic. • eight scored 7.5 or above (includes Library, Police,Parks, community supported by • Sewer/Water). The next three—the Permit Center', coordinated and efficient public services. Fun "for services is" recreation and leisure activities, street maintenance—all scored around 6.5,and community planning received a 6.1. stable and recipients pay their share. •Citizens are educated about.how•to The last service,ranked 5.3,was ability to get around the • " .. ,: city. While still above the halfway point, both street access public services and maintenance and recreation activities have been identified as :understand their responsibility to -'.r p p " issues in other surveys. These survey results do indicate d ate as members of the community concern over street conditions, the lack of • community. " recreation activities, traffic/transportation,and the ,•" •Many leisuretime and recreational: effectiveness of the City's planning efforts. opportunities are available for our commurity, Regarding future service provision, the 2005 Tigard The direction statement for Public Downtown Improvement Survey ranked . ;" .Safety includes: the following(repeated. infrastructure/public services as the fourth most important :themes"from statement not included): issue facing Tigard. This included more parks and recreation • • Public Safety service providers shall facilities;water treatment and supply;and more police, fire plan for their service delivery in and library. These results were not replicated in the 2006 such a way as to minimize the Community Attitudes and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow negative impacts of the regional Community Survey. It could be due to one survey allowing ;populations that travel to and multiple answers and the latter two only allowing through our community:each day. respondents to choose the Most Important response. The . "•.• Stable funding will provide sections below focus on specific services named by citizens: uninterrupted public safety services •at desired levels. . Public Safety. Ranked as the fourth most important issue in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, consistent with the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey. While citizens rank their perception and experience with the Police Department highly, the identification of public safety as an issue differs. Residents may have identified it as an issue,when it may be actually a strongly held value. This is an area that needs further definition to properly inform the Comprehensive Plan process. Recreation and parks. In the 2004 Recreation Survey, respondents supported the creation of a Recreation Division over a special Recreation District, but struggled with the tax increases that would come with proposals for additional recreational opportunities. Even though slightly more than half of respondents opposed a bond measure for a Community Recreation Center,information that it would enhance recreational opportunities for all residents significantly increased support for the proposal (although not supportive of additional costs associated with it). Library The Library yearly survey (2003-2006) shows that users value this facility, and accessibility and convenient hours in particular. Over half of respondents visit the library at least 4 times a month, and rate the majority of services as good or excellent. These results are consistent from year to year. 3 71%of respondents had no interaction with this service. 9 • S Summary of Values Tigard residents value the current level of service they receive.As the above surveys show, the police,library and parks are all well-valued services by City residents. Future service improvements or provision will need to consider the cost and impact to existing residents and systems. Other Topics Identified by Residents • Education. Although the School District provides education, not the City, education has been identified as an issue. The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey included schools and school funding as the third most important issue for the City of Tigard (9%of respondents),which is consistent with the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey (25%,multiple responses allowed). Tigard Beyond Tomorrow,which included school district staff in the visioning process,includes education in its vision statement: both for life-long learning and the responsibility of each citizens to promote and support quality education. The Schools and Education direction statement emphasizes quality education and stable funding for efficient delivery of services. The current Comprehensive Plan briefly addresses schools. • Communication The 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey addressed this topic. Residents have not identified this as an issue specifically in previous surveys as an issue or a value;Tigard Beyond Tomorrow addresses communication as a goal of Community Character and Quality of Life. However, the 2005 Communications Survey found that there is no one best way to stay in touch with the City's residents;a multitude of approaches are needed. This diverse approach will be followed throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update. • Community Appearance This issue was named as part of the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, both for residential and commercial concerns. "Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the community" had support in the recent 2006 survey under residential neighborhood livability characteristics. This is an issue that will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update to determine what residents mean by this statement and what they support. 10 • Table 3. Surve Index Survey Name Date Number of Type of Survey Responses 1. "Tigard Talks" Community 1993 483 Random'mailed survey of voters Attitude Survey 2. Bull Mountain Annexation 2002 305 (151 City of Random phone survey of voters Public Attitude Survey Tigard residents) 3.a. Library Community Survey 2003 1481 Self-selected 3. b. Library Community Survey 2004 1261 Self-selected 3. c. Library Community Survey 2005 2834 Self-selected 3. d. Library Community Survey 2006 2366 Self-selected 4. Recreation Survey 2004 383 Random phone survey of voters 5. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow 2004 409 Self-selected Community Survey 6. Downtown Survey 2004 588 Self-selected 7. Tigard Downtown 2005 401 Random phone survey of Improvement Survey "supervoters" (voted in most recent elections) 8. Tigard Citizen Leadership 2005 Over 230 Self-selected Communications Survey 9. Community Attitudes Survey 2006 400 Random phone survey of residents 4 Surveys that are"randomly selected"in a"scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture the range of opinion on an issue. 11 • THE COMP PLAN PROCESS: How Do We Get From Here to There? Example: Open Space of� 1. VALUE: Protect Open Spaces (from Tigard Beyond Tomorrow and city surveys) 3 �y,0!L► What our citizens want for Open Space in our community • 2. INVENTORY: How many acres, type, location, ownership? • How is it protected? How much is unprotected? J V Examine data (past and current characteristics) Examine state goals and requirements 1 3. ASSESS: How many acres can we protect? l - Impact of regulations (local, regional and state (Goal 5) and federal) Limits (financial and regulatory), projected needs and potential 4. ALTERNATIVES: Level of protection - high, medium, low; evaluate impacts on community, development � Approach? (Acquisition, regulations, incentives?) Lively community discussions to develop and decide Examine trade-offs, impacts • 5. DRAFT PLAN LANGUAGE: Goal/Value: The role/value of Open Space 2006-2027: Protect, maintain, enhance? Policies: Our City commits to course of action to achieve goal; City policy and approach 0-\\ Actions: Work program to make it happen, monitoring. Yearly Update: Are we on track? • • T-1,-(444 • MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner RE: Public Facilities Inventory—Comp Plan DATE: November 1, 2006 At the November 6, 2006, meeting, the Planning Commission will be presented with an overview of the Public Facilities Topic Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The components of the report are as follows: Public Infrastructure Stormwater Wastewater Drinking Water Public Safety Police Services Fire Protection Services Community Facilities Parks and Recreation Library Schools Government Facilities Utilities In addition, the Public Infrastructure topics will be discussed in more detail and a draft report is attached. I:\LRPLN\Wyss\CompPlan\Public_Facilities\PC_Memo_N ov2006.doc • • 4 1 . Public Infrastructure I N V E N T O R Y STORMWATER SERVICES The applicable rules, statutes and plans that impact stormwater services within the City include: 1. Clean Water Act 2. Oregon Revised Statute 468b: Water Quality 3. Oregon Administrative Rule 340 4. Clean Water Services MS4 Stormwater Management Plan 5. Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards 6. Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan 7. Tigard Community Development Code The primary objectives of stormwater services within the Stormwater City of Tigard are the protection of water quality, and Precipitation that accumulates in natural flood control. To accomplish these objectives, the City and/or constructed storage and collaborates with Clean Water Services (CWS) in the stormwater systems during and planning and management of the system. The plans immediately following a storm event currently used for City efforts are the CWS Stormwater Stormwater management Management Plan (SWMP),which addresses water Functions associated with planning, quality protections, and Fanno Creek Watershed designing, constructing, maintaining, Management Plan (Fanno Plan),which addresses flood financing, and regulating the facilities (both control in the City. constructed and natural) that collect, store, control, and/or convey stormwater The Stormwater Management Plan is submitted by CWS to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as a requirement of the combined National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. The SWMP is revised on a five-year cycle and was last updated in spring 2006. It outlines the best management practices (BMPs) that will ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act to the maximum extent practicable.To implement the plan, the City has an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) with CWS as a "self-service provider". This designation means the City has operation and maintenance authority over storm drain systems,water quality systems,and roadside ditches under City jurisdiction. The IGA outlines the CWS work program standards that must be followed by the City. Current maintenance programs are shown in Table 1-1. City stormwater infrastructure that is subject to the IGA maintenance programs can be found in Table 1-2. The Stormwater Management Plan also Table 1-1. Scheduled Maintenance of Stormwater System follows an adaptive management process Program Cycle that allows CWS and the co-implementers Video Inspection of Pipe Interiors 7 years to regularly evaluate the plan strategies. Roadside Ditching & Inspection 5 years Strategies not performing as well as Line Cleaning & Repair 4 years anticipated can be adjusted and applied to Manhole/Catch basin Inspection/Cleaning 1 year the BMPs. The changes resulting from the Water Quality Facility Inspection/Maintenance Monthly adaptive management are documented in Leaf Pickup Seasonal annual reports to the Department of Source:CWS/Tigard IGA Environmental Quality. Public Facilities Page # • • 1 . Public Infrastructure The 1997 Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan, prepared by CWS for all jurisdictions within the basin, Table 1-2. City Stormwater Infrastructure is the principal plan for drainage in the City. The Fanno Type Number Size Plan covers 85% of Tigard (the remaining 15% of the Stormwater Pipe n/a 113.4 miles jurisdiction drains directly to the Tualatin River) and Catch Basins 3975 n/a has been adopted by the City. Included in the plan is an Outfalls 588 n/a inventory of drainage structures, an evaluation of their Water Quality Facilities adequacy of capacity,and recommended City Pond (wet or dry) 40 16.0 acres infrastructure improvements to reduce flooding. Swale 23 12.1 acres Filter System 5 n/a The Fanno Plan divided the recommended projects by Detention Tank 1 n/a priority,with the highest being the replacement of Detention Pipe 10 n/a bridges and culverts determined to have inadequate Source:City of Tigard Public Works openings underneath to pass flows of the 100-year flood.Three bridges spanning Fanno Creek and one culvert on Summer Creek were rated as high priority. Medium priority projects are replacing inadequate culverts along tributary streams. The Fanno Plan recommended that culvert replacements should be evaluated for the need of fish passage as required by the Endangered Species Act. A number of low priority projects were recommended,with two bridge replacements on Ash Creek included. Funding for these projects is available through the Storm Sewer Fund. In addition to the operation and maintenance of the existing stormwater system, the City is responsible for adopting land use policies and regulations that implement statewide planning and land use goals to protect water quality and habitat. Some key areas include the protection of resources and ecosystem function, minimizing the amount of stormwater run-off associated with new development and impervious surfaces, and reducing pollutants entering the surface water system from stormwater infrastructure. Although CWS does not have land use authority, they have been involved in reducing the impacts of stormwater by developing design and construction standards that are implemented by the City. The standards outline appropriate stormwater infrastructure and design that is needed to accommodate new development. The design and construction standards address topics such as water quantity and quality facilities, protection of sensitive areas, and many more. Since 1991, CWS has required all stormwater to be pretreated before being discharged into any surface water. In addition, the majority of new development is required to construct water quantity facilities to reduce peak flows. To ensure stormwater infrastructure is meeting the design and construction standards, a Public Facility Permit is required by the City as part of the development review process. This function is outlined in the IGA between CWS and Tigard and is carried out by a city engineer. Funding for the stormwater system is generated from three sources. The first is from System Development Charges (SDCs), also known as in-lieu-of-connection fees, that are assessed on new developments that cannot provide their own water quantity and quality facilities. The money is placed in the Storm Sewer Fund,which is managed by CWS and used for capital projects included in plans formulated by CWS. The second is connection fees that are assessed during the building permit process. Connection fees are only required when water quality or quantity facilities are not available. Finally, the Surface Water Management Fee is a monthly charge that is collected on utility bills. The City keeps 75% of this fee for operations and maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure. Public Facilities Page # S • 1 . Public Infrastructure WASTEWATER SERVICES The applicable rules, statutes and plans that impact wastewater services within the City include: 1. Clean Water Act 2. Oregon Revised Statute 468b: Water Quality 3. Oregon Administrative Rule 340 4. Clean Water Services Collection System Master Plan 5. Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards 6. Tigard Community Development Code Wastewater services within Tigard are managed through an agreement between the City and CWS. The agreement assigns the City to enforce design and construction standards, rules and regulations,and rates and charges governing the use of, and connection to, the wastewater system. In return, CWS acts as the regional wastewater authority that provides, owns, and maintains sewer lines with a diameter of 24 inches or greater (the City owns less than 24 inch lines), as well as pump stations and treatment facilities. CWS is also responsible for the planning of wastewater collection in the Tualatin River basin. The CWS Collection System Master Plan Update (2000) is the current plan for wastewater collection in the Tualatin basin, including the City of Tigard. The primary focus of the plan was to analyze all sanitary sewer lines at least ten inches in diameter and eight inch lines with known capacity problems. Fifteen inch diameter or greater trunk lines required to serve areas without service were also identified. The analysis found that all existing lines within the City of Tigard have adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. This means that any new lines will be the responsibility of the City as no 24 inch or greater pipes are necessary. An update to the Collection System Master Plan is scheduled for completion in 2007. In order to meet service demands of residents, the City evaluates adequacy of capacity and has also developed the Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan Map. The evaluations are used to prioritize projects and schedule improvements to the system through the Community Investment Program (CIP). The facility map is continuously revised and shows the locations of all current and proposed lines within the City. The map allows the City to plan for new construction and also identify developed neighborhoods not currently being served by the wastewater system. As of October 2006, there were approximately 12,671 connections to the City's wastewater system. The evaluations The Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program was established in 1996 by the City to extend public infrastructure to unconnected neighborhoods. The program requires property owners, upon connection, to reimburse the City for a fair share of the total cost. To encourage participation, the City also established the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program that provides options for limiting the financial burden on the property owner. There are currently 528 properties that have been identified that need wastewater services extended. The wastewater infrastructure within the City of Tigard is either owned by CWS or the City. CWS owns and operates the Durham Wastewater Treatment Facility. The facility is operating under the basin-wide NPDES permit and is in compliance with Clean Water Act regulations. The City has an IGA with Clean Water Services to perform management and maintenance tasks on City-owned wastewater infrastructure to ensure continued compliance with the regulations. Current maintenance programs outlined in the IGA are shown in Table 2-1 and apply to the 160 miles of wastewater mainline (6 to 21 inches) owned by the City. Public Facilities Page # • 1 . Public Infrastructure A - In addition to the operation and maintenance of Table 2-1. Scheduled Maintenance of Wastewater System the existing wastewater system, the City is Program Cycle responsible for implementing the CWS design Video Inspection of Pipe Interiors 7 years and construction standards. Land use applicants Line Cleaning and Repair 3 years are required to obtain a Public Facility Permit Manhole Inspection/Rehabilitation 3 years when connecting to City owned wastewater Source:CWS/Tigard IGA infrastructure and must comply with the design and construction standards as part of the development review process. This function is outlined in the IGA between CWS and Tigard and is carried out by a city engineer. Funding for the wastewater system is generated from three sources. First, developers finance the construction of new sewer lines needed to service their new developments. Secondly, during the building permit process a connection fee is collected by the City. Most of the fee is transferred to CWS, but a portion of the fee is retained by the City. Finally, the monthly sewer service fee is collected on the utility bill and a portion is retained by the City for operations and maintenance of the wastewater system. WATER DISTRIBUTION SERVICES The applicable rules, statutes and plans that impact water distribution services within the City include: 1. Oregon Revised Statute 448 & 536 2. Oregon Administrative Rule 333 & 309 3. City of Tigard Water Master Plan- 2000 4. Tigard Community Development Code 5. Water Operation Manual—City of Tigard Water Division The City of Tigard Water Division provides water to most of the City's residents. It also supplies the City of Durham, King City, and the Bull Mountain area of unincorporated Washington County which is represented by the Tigard Water District.The northeast corner of the City is supplied water by the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD),which operates independently from the City Water Division. The provision of water services in the City by two different entities is the result of Tigard expanding its boundaries through annexation. The service areas are shown on Map 3-1. The TVWD is governed by a five-member Board of Commissioners and operates under the TWVD Water Master Plan/Management Plan (2000). The plan is currently undergoing an update process that will be completed in Spring 2007. To implement the plan,TVWD has developed Water System Standards,rules and regulations, and uses a Five-Year Capital Projects Program for direction. TVWD water supply is purchased from the City of Portland under a 10-year contract signed Summer 2006. Additional water comes from the Joint Water Commission OWC),which is a governmental water purveyor created by the cities of Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton,and the TVWD. There are currently 24 covered reservoirs in the TVWD system that can store 53 million gallons of water. Tigard has no role in the operation or management of TVWD, but has collaborated with them on long-term supply studies and is also capable of sharing water in emergency situations. The City of Tigard Water Division provides potable water to approximately 55,990 people through approximately 17,300 residential, commercial,and industrial service connections. The Tigard Water District was the original supplier, but the City took over the system in 1994. During the transfer of supply responsibilities, an IGA created oversight for the water system through the Intergovernmental Water Board (IGWB), which consists of a member from Tigard, Durham, King City,Tigard Water District, and one at- Public Facilities Page # • • 1 . Public Infrastructure large member. The IGWB advises Tigard City Council on issues relating to rate setting and water supply. The IGWB was created as a result of the City supplying water outside of its boundaries. The Water Distribution Hydraulic Study (2000) is the current master plan for the City water supply system. The study provides direction for system improvements and three feasibility studies must be completed before an update is performed: • Joint Water Supply System Analysis with Lake Oswego • Willamette Water Supply Consortium • Joint Water Commission Feasibility Study The three feasibility studies will help to provide direction for the City's long-term supply options.The City owns and operates the water distribution system under license from the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Oregon Water Resources Department (ORWD). As a requirement of the license, a sanitary survey is performed every three years by DHS. The latest survey was July 2006 and the City water system passed with marks of good operating conditions,good staff,and a well-maintained system. Current Supply The City of Tigard does not own a water source capable of meeting the current and future demands of its residents. In order to meet demand,Tigard purchases nearly 90% of its water from wholesale water providers such as the Portland Water Bureau (PWB). The PWB manages the Bull Run Watershed, a surface water supply, located in the Mount Hood National Forest. In cases of emergency and/or high demand, the PWB also maintains groundwater wells located along the Columbia River. The City signed a 10-year agreement in Summer 2006 to continue purchasing water from PWB. In addition, the City purchases water from the City of Lake Oswego,which draws its water from the Clackamas River Basin. During periods of high water demand, the City can supplement its supply with water from City-owned aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells and native groundwater wells. Additional supply is available for purchase from the Joint Water Commission (JWC). Water from the JWC is delivered via the City of Beaverton system, making it Tigard's only fluoridated supply. Table 3-1. City of Tigard Water Storage Reservoirs Overflow In 2005, the Oregon Departments of Human Capacity Elevation Pressure Services and Environmental Quality conducted a Name (mg) (ft) Zone source water assessment on Tigard's groundwater High Tor A 1.10 713 713-foot wells. Within the Tigard water service area, 50 sites High Tor B 1.00 713 713-foot were identified as potential sources of drinking High Tor C 0.20 713 713-foot water contamination if managed improperly. 10 MG 10.00 475 410-foot Reservoir#4 1.00 417 410-foot The City also has system inter-ties with Beaverton, Baylor St. A 1.00 416 410-foot Tualatin, and the Lake Grove Water District that Baylor St. B 1.10 416 410-foot allow the City to supply them water under Reservoir#2 0.28 413 410-foot emergency conditions. Reservoir#3A 0.80 412 410-foot Reservoir#3B 2.50 412 410-foot Current Storage Reservoir#1A 1.00 410 410-foot The City of Tigard's water system contains 13 Reservoir#1B 1.00 410 410-foot reservoirs with a total combined storage capacity of Menlor 3.50 410 410-foot approximately 24.5 million gallons. Table 3-1 Source:Tigard Water Division presents a summary of the City's storage reservoirs. Public Facilities Page # • • 1 . Public Infrastructure A .. The City is also in the planning stages of constructing a three million gallon underground reservoir on a recently purchased piece of property along Bull Mountain Road. The reservoir site may also double as a park in the future. Current Distribution The City of Tigard's water distribution system contains eight pump stations,which are presented in Table 3- 2. The pump stations help to distribute potable water to residents around the City. Table 3-2. City of Tigard Pump Stations Name Horsepower Capacity(gpm) Supply To Canterbury Pump Station 50 1,000 550-foot High Pressure Zone ASR-1 & Reservoirs 50 1,000 Pump Station#2 100 2,000 10 MG Reservoir 150 1,400 High Tor Reservoirs SW 132"d Ave Pump Station 50 350 High Tor Reservoirs 50 350 Transfer Pump Station 200 2,000 High Tor Reservoirs ASR-2 & Reservoir 350 1,736 10 MG Reservoir High Tor Pump Station#1 25 800 713-foot High Pressure Zone 25 800 High Tor Pump Station#2 25 800 713-foot High Pressure Zone 25 800 25 800 Bonita Road Pump Station 100 1,755 410-foot Pressure Zone 100 1,755 100 1,850 Hunziker Pump Station 30 1,400 410-foot Pressure Zone Source:Tigard Water Division The water service area water distribution system is also composed of various pipe types in sizes up to 36 inches in diameter. The total length of piping in the service area is approximately 209 miles. The pipe types include cast iron, ductile iron, steel and copper. The majority of the piping in the system is cast and ductile iron piping. Table 3-3 presents a summary of pipe lengths by diameter. Table 3-3. City of Tigard Pipe System Pipe Diameter Estimated Length (inches) (miles) 4-inch or less 4 6-inch 62 8-inch 65 10-inch 2 12-inch 49 16-inch 9 24-inch 7 36-inch 1 Total Length 209 miles Source:Tigard Water Division Public Facilities Page # • • • .; • • 1 . Public Infrastructure Current Demand The Water Division has identified a number of differing methods for calculating water consumption in the service area. Each has its pros and cons, but all methods show a decrease in total consumption and per capita consumption from the period 2001 to 2005.Table 3-4 shows total consumption based on the City's Utility Billing database. Table 3-5 shows the number of accounts that were receiving water from the City. Table 3-4. Total Water Consumption (MG) -Tigard Service Area Type of Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Commercial 338 343 341 327 316 Industrial 20 26 19 18 15 Irrigation 64 73 74 70 63 Multi-unit 473 486 444 458 441 Hydrant 0 0 2 13 3 Residential 1,240 1,292 1,315 1,301 1,254 Total (MG) 2,135 2,220 2,195 2,186 2,093 Source:Tigard Water Division Table 3-5. Total Number of Accounts-Tigard Service Area Type of Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Commercial 636 640 644 646 648 Industrial 14 14 14 14 14 Irrigation 138 147 152 163 177 Multi-unit 594 596 592 593 595 Hydrant 0 0 12 7 6 Residential 14454 14713 15087 15363 15715 Total 15,836 16,110 16,501 16,786 17,155 Source:Tigard Water Division Using the Utility Billing data and population served by the Tigard Water Division, the gallons per capita per day (gpcd) can be calculated. Table 3-5 shows the results. Table 3-6. Per Capita Water Consumption -Tigard Service Area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Population 50,750 51,798 52,846 53,894 54,942 Multi-unit& Residential Consumption (MG) 1,713 1,778 1,759 1,758 1,695 Multi-unit& Residential gpcd 92 94 91 89 85 Total Consumption of All Uses (MG) 2,135 2,220 2,195 2,186 2,093 Total gpcd 115 117 114 111 104 Source:Tigard Water Division Repairs made in water line leaks, rising costs,and the Water Division's Conservation Program have contributed to the decrease in per capita water use. Both the Conservation Program and rising costs could have a continued effect on water demand capacity. Public Facilities Page # • • . 1 . Public Infrastructure Future Demand The Water Division produced the Water Demand Forecast Report (Sept 2006) that used projected population growth and anticipated per person water demand to forecast future demand. The data used for the forecast includes: • 10 year period average dwelling unit per acre density is 6.8 units/acre • 5 year period average dwelling unit per acre density is 8.2 units/acre • State Metropolitan Housing Rule requires Tigard to provide for and overall dwelling unit per acre density of 10 units/acre • The number of units is multiplied by the average population density of 2.5 persons per unit (Washington County) • Long Range Planning has identified 570 buildable acres within Tigard/Bull Mountain Area; 32 buildable acres within Durham and 107 buildable acres within King City; Total buildable acres is estimated at 709 acres (build out) • Year 2005 calculated water demand is 110 gallons per person per day average • Current 5 year average water demand is 120 gallons per person per day average The results of the forecast are: • Population growth from 12,053 to 17,725 persons (17,725 population increase would require all available lands built to 10 unit/acre density) within the next 10 years is possible • Water demand per person could range from 110 to 120 gallons per capita per day • Annual water demand could range from 2,732 million gallons to 3,229 million gallons (3,229 MG is based on the max density of 10 unit/acre) • Average Daily Demand could range from 7.5 mgd to 8.8 mgd (8.8 mgd maximum based on 10 unit/acre density and 120 gpcd) • Peak Demand Day estimates range from 15.6 mgd to 18.4 mgd (18.4 mgd maximum based on 10 unit/acre density and 120 gpcd) • 3 Day Peak Demand estimates range from 15.0 mgd to 17.7 mgd (17.7 mgd maximum based on 10 unit/acre density and 120 gpcd) Funding The City of Tigard Water System is set up as an enterprise fund. The budget needs no money from the City general funds and operates based on solely on revenue the Water System creates. System Development Charges for new construction and connections, and rates for water consumption are the two main sources of revenue for the budget. Public Facilities Page # • • 1. Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space O V E R V I E W The City of Tigard provides park services consisting of parks,trails,and open space to the area within the City limits. These public lands and facilities are highly appreciated by Tigard's residents and are major quality of life amenities. They become especially important as the City begins to approach full development. The Tigard park system includes 169 acres of City parkland and 182 acres of greenway and other preservation-oriented sites. These figures equate to 3.7 acres of developed area and 4.0 acres of natural area per thousand residents. Most of this park and greenway land is located within the floodplain. In addition to parks and open spaces,Tigard has developed a successful trail program,consisting of 9 miles of completed trails. These trails provide both recreation opportunities and transportation links throughout the community. A major source of parkland acquisition and development funds has come from the park ISystem Development Charge(SDC)on new development,first imposed in 1972 - Deleted: lj Deleted:8j The City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation district. The Tigard Path System Master Plan,adopted in 1999,covers the city proper and the unincorporated Urban Services Area. The plan includes a detailed action element intended to provide operational guidance to the development of the Tigard system. Subsequent to the master plan's adoption in 1999.the City added 19.3 acres of parkland and 24.1 acres of greenway. Because of population increases during the same period, the City's existing level of service to 2006 held steady at 7.7 acres per thousand population. In 2005,the City adopted a new park SDC methodology based on a parks capacity program that addresses selected needs identified in the park system master plan and in the 2004 Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Space. As discussed later,the new SDC study established a much higher or capacity increasing level of service as the City's operational standard. This topic consists of several sections:a)Inventory,b)Parklands,c) Other Parks and Open Space and Recreation Facilities,d)Trails,e)Recreational Programs,f)Parks Maintenance,g)Funding,h)City Park • Development Initiatives,i)Summary of Major Issues,j)and Key Findings. Public Facilities&Services 1 • • • 1. Parks and Open Space IA • I N V E N T O R Y PARKLANDS (See Map 1-4"Parks&Open Spaces) Parklands in Tigard are classified in the Park System Master Plan as follows: Parklands: Pocket Parks(Size range:2,500 square feet to 3 acres): Pocket parks provide recreation opportunities for residents in areas not adequately served by neighborhood parks,such as town centers or areas of high density development. Pocket parks may include passive or low intensity activities,such as children's play areas,pathways,multi-use paved areas,public art,small scale sports facilities,seating,picnic areas,community gardens,multi-purpose performance space,and landscaping. Neighborhood Parks(Size range:4 to 14 acres): Neighborhood parks are the foundation of the parks and recreation system,providing accessible recreation and social opportunities to nearby residents. When developed to meet neighborhood recreation needs, school sites may serve as neighborhood parks. Neighborhood Parks should include both passive and active recreation opportunities,such as children's play areas,informal sports areas,picnic facilities,public art,open turf areas,landscaping,community gardens,and pathways. Security lighting may be provided if needed. Community Parks(Size range:Greater than 15 acres): Community parks provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all age groups. These parks are generally larger in size and serve a wider base of residents than neighborhood parks. Community parks often include developed facilities for organized group activity as well as facilities for individual and family activities. In addition to those amenities provided at neighborhood parks,community parks may include sports facilities for team play,group picnic areas,skateboard and rollerblade facilities, natural areas,botanical gardens,amphitheaters,festival space,swimming pools,interpretive facilities,and community centers. Higher quality children's play areas may be provided to create a family play destination. • Linear Parks(Of adequate size to protect natural resources and accommodate intended uses): Linear parks may be developed along built along built or natural corridors to provide opportunities for trail- oriented outdoor recreation. Linear parks may also provide some active and passive recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs,especially in areas not adequately served by traditional neighborhood parks. Linear parks connect residences to major community destinations. Linear parks can include paved or soft- surface trails to accommodate jogging,biking,walking,skateboarding,dog walking,horseback riding, canoeing or rollerblading. Active and passive recreation facilities may include small-scale sports facilities, such as basketball hoops,public art,picnic tables,lighting,community gardens,and landscaping. Natural Areas: Greenspace/Greenways(Size should be adequate to protect the resource): A greenspace or greenway is an area of natural quality that protects valuable natural resources and provides wildlife habitat. It also provides opportunities for nature-related outdoor recreation,such as viewing and studying nature and participating in trail activities. Development features that support outdoor recreation and trail-oriented recreation,such as trails,picnic areas,benches,interpretive signs,and native landscaping, Public Facilities&Services 2 III may be provided. Trail amenities,such as S scale parking,portable restrooms,bike racks,and trash enclosures,may be included. Trails and Connectors • These are public access routes for commuting and trail-oriented recreational activities,including sidewalks, bikeways,multi-use trails,and paths. Width of the trail and right-of-way depends on its intended use and location. A variety of pathway types are needed to accommodate activities such as walking,running,biking, dog walking,rollerblading,skateboarding,and horseback riding. Trails can be located within parks,within linear parks and greenways,or be designed as a part of the citywide transportation system. Waterways can provide trail-like facilities for boating and canoeing. Each type of trail should be designed to safely accommodate users,and meet recognized design standards. Table 1-Parks Inventory,City of Tigard Classification Size Pocket Parks 2,500 square feet to 3 acres Liberty 0.75 Main Street 0.25 Windmill 0.15 Total Neighborhood Parks 4 to 14 acres Bonita 5.57 Jack 5.50 Northview 3.45 Woodard 10.06 Community Parks Greater than 15 acres Cook 79.05 Summerlake 23.80 Linear Parks No size range Commercial 0.75 Englewood 14.97 Fanno Creek 31.50 Natural Areas No size range Greenspace/Greenway 182 • Park Needs, _--- Deleted:I The Tigard Park System Master Plan identifies 21 underserved neighborhoods inside the City. To meet the AB areas of the City are not equally served by parks. Based on residential park needs of these areas,the plan identifies the need for the creation,renovation,or expansion of 2 pocket development within a half mile radius of a parks.10 lineal parks.8 neighborhood parks.and 4 community parks. Since the master plans adoption.1 public park or usable open space,the level of park facilities and development vanes pocket park currently is underway(along Bull Mt Road).3 neighborhood parks(Northview.Bonita, widely. Woodard)have been completed or expanded and,2 community parks have been expanded and/or renovated(Summerlake and Cook). This gives a revised estimated need for 1 pocket park.10 lineal parks.5 neighborhood parks.and 2 community parks. Further.3 of the neighborhoods identified as park deficient are served by school playgrounds,each of which includes some neighborhood-level park facilities,such as playfields and play equipment,but no picnic facilities or natural areas. As of 2006,based on residential development within a half mile radius of a public park or usable open space.the level of park facilities and development varies widely. The area most served by existing City parks and school playgrounds is northwest Tigard,which includes three parks and two school sites,all within Public Facilities&Services 3 III close proximity. Other highly served areas a central Tigard and south Tigard around Cook Park and Tigard High School. The area where neighborhood parks needs are greatest is the_summit and south stone of the incorporated Bull Mountain area. Other underserved areas are southwest Tigard and the north Triangle and northeast Metzger areas. As the city approaches buildout,,the biggest challenges facing the park system area,meeting existing park ----{Deleted:one of deficiencies and the,park and open space needs generated by new development. -(Deleted:is CCCj Deleted:the Significantly,a 1996 survey and evaluation of vacant areas within the City to meet park and open space needs excluded sites smaller than five acres. This was because of the high maintenance costs associated with them and because of the then-current and still existing City policy against the acquisition of small sites. Today,with vacant land acreage diminishing and land costs rising,smaller sites within neighborhoods are attracting renewed attention. An example of this new focus on smaller sites includes the City's 2006 acquisition of a 2.7-acre site on Bull Mountain for a combined neighborhood park and underground reservoir. Another 2006 example is the City's acceptance,in lieu of park SDC fees,of two small open spaces within the recently approved Dakota Glen subdivision located on North Dakota Street. A third recent example is the City's current pursuit of a 1.2-acre site located in neighborhood located the eastern quadrant of the City. In addition to the limited supply and high cost of land,the rationale for the City's new approach to parkland acquisition and development is that small sites within neighborhoods provide close-by recreation opportunities and visual amenities for neighborhood residents and improve the livability of neighborhoods. Small parks also can contribute to neighborhood identity. Non-City-Owned Recreation Facilities In addition to City-owned facilities,many non-City-owned facilities located inside or near the City serve the park and leisure needs of Tigard residents. • Local schools provide many of the same recreation and leisure opportunities found in neighborhood and community parks. Altogether,the Tigard-Tualatin School District's current inventory of public open space in Tigard includes approximately 109 acres. Residents have access to facilities at six elementary schools,two middle schools,one high school,and three other school district sites. A caveat is that the school district has not had adequate funds to maintain these fields for public use. • Metzger Park is a 7-acre park located in unincorporated Metzger at the corner of Hall and Hemlock. The park,which includes an indoor rental facility,is maintained by Washington County Facilities Management. The existing park was improved,in the mid-1970s through the formation of ----f Deleted:It was established a local improvement and maintenance district. The boundaries of the district include incorporated and unincorporated portions of Metzger. 1 o The Wetlands Conservancy owns and managers two wetland properties within the City. One is a -- l Formatted: Bullets and Numbering heritage grasslands area. • Metro owns approximately 27 acres of parkland within Tigard,consisting of two larger and several smaller sites.The land was acquired through an open space and parks bond measure approved by the region's voters in 1995 that enabled acquisitions of natural areas and related lands in the metropolitan area. In 1998 and 2000,Tigard entered into intergovernmental agreements(IGA)with Metro for City management of Metro-purchased greenspace properties located inside the City. The IGAs obligate the City to manage the properties as natural areas. Before the properties can be opened for formal public use,the City is required to develop site-specific management plans with public involvement. The plans,which are subject to Metro Council approval,are required to set Public Facilities&Services 4 • . forth the types and levels of public°use,the location of trail and other improvements,and specific management and maintenance standards. • In 2006,some 16 years after it was first conceived and 13 years after its official establishment by the federal government,the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge took its place among the most important publicly accessible natural areas in metropolitan Portland. June 2006 marked the • completion of the first phase of visitor use facilities and the Refuge's official opening to the public. Located west of Tigard along both sides of the Tualatin River,the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is notable as one of only ten urban refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The first land acquisition for the Refuge occurred in 1992. Today,1,580 acres of an eventual 3,060 acre Refuge are in public ownership and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Refuge consists of floodplain and wetland habitats. Each year thousands of migrating waterfowl use this area. Threatened and sensitive species that frequent the Refuge include peregrine falcon,bald eagle, western pond turtle,dusky Canada goose,northern red-legged frog,and winter steelhead. The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is important to the Tigard community because it enhances the quality of life for Tigard-area residents. The western portion of the refuge is located opposite Beef Bend Road and has natural drainage linkages to the Bull Mountain area. As a wild place,the refuge will preserve precious habitat and open space along the western edge of the Tigard urban area.The refuge also provides a range of close-to-home recreational,educational,and volunteer opportunities for Tigard-area residents. In future,Refuge-related recreational activities could include pedestrian and bicycle linkages between the Refuge and the proposed Westside,or Powerline,Trail. Lastly,the refuge will economically benefit the City. Many Refuge visitors who live outside the city will spend their recreational money in the local economy. , -,--{Deleted:1 • The Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge,scheduled for completion in 2007,spans the Tualatin River between the cities of Tualatin and Durham. The 250-feet long, 12-wide bridge is part of a three-city strategy to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Tualatin River that will interconnect the trail systems and major parks of the adjoining cities of Tigard,Tualatin,and Durham. Tigard contributed some half a million dollar,,toward the$1.6 million cost of the bridge. In 2006,the City ,,--I Deleted:s completed a trail extending from Cook Park that will serve as a connecting approach to the bridge for Tigard residents. o The John Tigard House,build in 1880 on Cantebury Lane,is one of two Tigard sites listed on the a;,-{Formatted: Font: Bold National Historical Register. It is significant in its association with the son of Tigard's namesake and l Formatted:Bulleted+Level: 1+ • as an example of early frame construction. It is owned by the Tigard Historical Association and is Aligned at: 0.25"+Tab after: 0.s^ open to the public the third Sunday of every month. The land is leased from the Tigard Water +rodent at: and Adjust space P P y ry $a between Latin and Asian text,Adjust District and is the site of the original donation land claim. space between Asian text and numbers TRAILS Completed sections of the Tigard trail network have become a prominent attraction for community residents. These trails are not only very popular recreational attractions themselves,but also serve a significant number of transportation oriented trips,i.e.,commuting,shopping,etc. Tigard's trails function as conduits between various destinations and as recreation destinations in and of themselves. Unlike many other park providers,the City does not have a plan or document that specifically deals with trail locations and development within the community. Instead,trails are a component of the Tigard Park System Master Plan. A shortcoming is that the master plan's treatment of trails is limited to a half page of text and the depiction of an interconnected network of five trails in the Parks Master Plan Map. The five,all multi-modal,trails identified in the parks master plan include the Fanno Creek,Pathfinder- Genesis,Summer Creek,Krueger Creek,and Tualatin River Trails. In 2001,the Washington Square Master Plan identified a loop trail around the Washington Square area and linking at both ends to the Fanno Creek Public Facilities&Services 5 • • Trail. This Washington Square Loop Trail la er was incorporated into the Metro Regional Trails 1\ap. The lower or southern potion this trail is located within Tigard. Tigard's official trails are in various stages of completion. The Tualatin River and Fanno Creek T ails idenfieedin`Deleted:t • the 1984 Comprehensive Plan as the"backbone"of the City's trail systenre �aapproximately 85%and 60% Formatted: Right: -0.5",Don't completed.respectively. At the other end of the scale,the Powerline Trail on Bull Mountain,exists as a line on'(he adjust space between Latin and City trail ma with no sections designed or installed. Although also a line on the map at resent,a segment ofe}3� Asian text,Don't adjust space ty p, between Asian text and numbers Washington Square Loop Trail(HWY 217-Hall Boulevard)is programmed for 2008 construction.Altogether, i Deleted:I. approximately nine miles of trail have been completed within the City. 'Deleted:the City's oldest State,regional,and adjacent community trail plans and documents form the framework for the planning and t Deleted:is implementation of the Tigard trails system. The next section will focus on this larger context. Oregon Trails Plan In 2005,the State adopted Oregon Trails 2005-2014:A Statewide Action Plan.This plan,consisting of goals,objectives,and strategies,is the state's official plan for recreational trail management for the ten year , period to 2014. It serves as a state-wide and regional information and planning tool to assist Oregon recreation providers in providing trail opportunities and promoting access to Oregon's trails and waterways The following list includes the three top regional trails issues identified within the Northwest Trails Planning Region,defined as including Washington and thirteen other counties: A. Need for trail connectivity within the region providing access from urban to rural trails,connections between public facilities,parks and open space,and connections from state and regional trails to community trails. B. Need for additional non-motorized trails(for all user types)—especially in close proximity to where people live. C. Need for additional funding for non-motorized trail acquisition and development. For all intents and purposes,these state-identified priorities are consistent with Tigard local and Metro regional trail priorities. Regional Trail System In 1992,Metro established a regional network of interconnected trails and corridors in the Greenspaces • Master Plan. Existing trails that had been planned and developed in the region were the foundation for the regional system. The regional trails are intended to provide access to most communities within the metropolitan area and selected connection points to adjacent counties. As with the Tigard trail plan,the regional trail plan has not been fully implemented and there remain many uncompleted sections. The design standard for the trails is a 10-feet width of hard surface. The Tigard trail system is part of this larger,interconnected regional trail network and includes portions of four regional trails. The four are the Fanno Creek,West Side(or Powerline),and Tualatin River Regional Trails,plus the Washington Square Loop Trail. The Fanno Creek Regional Trail extends from Willamette Park in Portland to the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge. The West Side Trial is another major north-south • connector and extends from Forest Park to the Tualatin River under the BPA powerline. The Tualatin River Regional Trail is designated as a water-based trail. Water-based trails are on rivers that are navigable by small craft. These trails provide water-based recreational opportunities,offering connections that might not be feasible on land-based trails. They include trail-like facilities for boating and canoeing. SW Trails Group The SW Trails Group,a standing committee of the SW Neighborhoods of Portland,developed a SW Urban Trails Plan that was adopted by the Portland City Council in 2000. The plan identifies five east-west and Public Facilities&Services 6 IP two north-south trails. Trail 3,the Willame ver to Fanno Creek Greenway Trail connects wit e ' Fanno Creek Trail in Garden Home. Trail 5,which also begins at the Willamette River,approaches the Washington County line at Dickinson Street. The SW Trails Group has requested that this trail connect to the Regional trail circling Washington Square,specifically at Metzger Park. SW Trails has identified an on- and off-street tentative route proposed to be considered for the Tigard trail plan. It generally follows easily lipwalked streets to get SW Portland area walkers to Metzger Park and the Washington Square Loop Trail. Tigard Neighborhood Trail System In addition to the official,City-wide trail network,another important opportunity for trail connections within the community are neighborhood trails. These trails are the most difficult type of trail to identify, monitor,and preserve. They primarily are informal,soft surface trails,which appear on public and private property throughout the City. Neighborhood trails can connect neighborhoods to the City trail network or provide recreational opportunities separate from the City system. The 2002 Tigard Transportation System Plan,,or TSP,contains a set of goals and policies to guide ---{Deleted: (2002) transportation system development in Tigard. Several of these policies pertain specifically to neighborhood pedestrian needs. For instance,Goal 2,Policy 5 states that bicycle and pedestrian plans shall be developed which link to recreational trails. Strategy 7,"Pedestrian Corridors that Connect Neighborhoods,"puts priority on linking neighborhoods together with pedestrian facilities. This is described as including walkways at the end of cul-de-sacs and direct connections between neighborhoods to avoid"walled" communities. In the case of new development,through the use of impact studies and code provision requiring hard surface bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights of way every 330 feet,City development staff has been successful in implementing the TSP provisions regarding block links and pedestrian connectivity. Impact studies also have been used to provide for future trails by requiring dedication of easements through plats that are on trail routes proposed in the park plan. The City has been less proactive or successful in addressing gaps in the pedestrian system within older neighborhoods. Many of the subdivisions developed in Tigard years ago did not provide sidewalks or pedestrian connections between neighborhoods. These historic gaps in the pedestrian walking system become more important as land development and activity grow,creating new demands for an integrated pedestrian system. • Suggestions for filling in these missing links include conducting an inventory of potential hard and soft surface trail connections within neighborhoods. The City could accomplish this by working with various trail user and neighborhood groups to identify existing neighborhood trails and ask these same groups to make suggestions for projects that would help create better lineages into and within neighborhoods. A number of specific needs already have been identified and catalogued in the Metzger area by the Tigard-Bull Mountain trails friends group. Together with the City's newly established sidewalk in-fill program,which provides S100,000 annually for sidewalk improvements,a neighborhood trail program,which includes benefits to property owners who would allow public use of some portion of their property for trail purposes,could provide the additional connections needed to form a truly integrated system for non-motorized circulation throughout the City. Willing Seller Policy The City in the past has followed an unofficial policy of not condemning land for trail right-of-way. This willing seller policy has led to significant gaps in the trail system. For example,the City has reached the point of progress where in-filling gaps in the Fanno Creek trail cannot be achieved because of unwilling Public Facilities&Services 7 411/ . sellers. Most of the Fanno Creek properties question are industrially-zoned. In a riparian corri dor that is ' I reaching build-out, he C ity has few choices about where to look for trail development. --{Deleted:,a condition that describes 1 -- ;most of the other City's tall corridors as RECREATION t r eu j As noted,the City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation 0 district. In consequence of this,residents have limited opportunities to participate in recreation programs. Opportunities that are available include the following. • The School District sponsors organized sports for school-aged residents. __-{Formatted:Font: Bold • Tigard Youth Association,a non-profit organization,sponsors youth programs including Drug ---_--(Formatted:Font: Bold Abuse Resistance Education(DARE) for 4th and 5th grade students,Gang Resistance Education and Training(GREAT)for 7th grade students,Peer Court,Kids Day/Bicycle Rodeo,and two-week summer camps. They also offer scholarships for youth participation in sports programs sponsored by the school district. • The Twality and Fowler Middle Schools operate After-School Activities that include programs of ---{Formatted:Font: Bold interest to their particular group of students. In the past,these have included sports,hip-hop dance, crochet,and robotics. The Tigard-area Police Activities League,or PAL,also operates weekday after-school programs -_--{Formatted:Font: Bold at the same two Tigard middle schools. PAL is a non-profit organization that provides educational and recreational programs to youth of the Tigard Area. PAL strives to connect law enforcement and youth in a positive way. Members may take advantage of a wide range of educational,athletic, and arts and craft programs. Activities also include a learning or homework help center.The local PAL is operated independently with support and direction from the Tigard Police.Participants are provided with transportation home at the end of dayb Deleted:.11 • Youth sports leagues operating in Tigard include: Tigard Basketball Association,Tigard Junior ---f Formatted:Font: Bold Baseball,Tigard Little League,Tigard-Tualatin Babe Ruth,Tigard Youth Football,and Southside Soccer Club. Atfalati,a non-profit group,was organized in the late 1990's to support these team sports. Tigard residents are not included in the Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District,but may elect to pay out- of-district fees to participate in the programs and use its facilities. In 2000,a ballot measure sponsored by a non-profit group to form a recreation district(the Atfalati Recreation District)within the area served by the Tigard-Tualatin School District was defeated at the polls. • In 2006,the Park and Recreation Advisory Board adopted as two of its goals,the establishment of a small Recreation Program for the City of Tigard in FY 2007-2008 and,in the long-term,consider recommending a local tax levy election be conducted in November,2008 to provide funds to begin a comprehensive recreation program in Tigard. Private Environmental and Special Purpose Groups r In addition to those named above,several other private,recreation-and/or resource-related_groups are ----}Deleted: based in or near Tigard and,provide a range of recreational,educational,and volunteer opportunities for - Deleted: operate within the community residents. Two,the dog and skate park groups,are loosely affiliated with the City,but are not official,City-sponsored citizen groups. Th;private groups include the Tualatin Riverkeepers,Fans of _--{Deleted:se Fanno Creek,Friends of the Refuge,Tigard Dog Parks Committee,Tigard Skate Park Task Force,and Friends of Tigard-Bull Mountain Trails. The City interacts with each of these groups to various degree,and :_-{Deleted:various many local residents belong to or support one or more of these groups. {Deleted:s I • TheTualatin Riverkeepers,established in 1989,is a community-based organization working to ---{Formatted:Font: Bold protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. The Riverkeepers build watershed stewardship Public Facilities&Services 8 • • through public education,access to ature,citizen involvement and advocacy. The Riverkeepers are responsible for creating the 200-page Exploring the Tualatin River Basin,published by the Oregon State University Press. This is a guide to the wildlife,ecology,and history of the Tualatin River Basin. In 2000,the City contributed to the cost of the field guide's first-year publication. • I • TheFans of Fanno Creek,formed in 1991,are volunteers dedicated to the protection,restoration --- t Formatted:Font: Bold and enhancement of Fanno Creek and its tributaries. In 2004,the Fans supported the City's successful request for state grant funds to finance the construction of the Tualatin River Trail segment between Cook Park and the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge. • TheFriends of the Refuge(FOR).is a community-based volunteer organization supporting the --- t Formatted:Font: Bold Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge(TRNWR). It is dedicated to the protection and restoration of the Refuge for the benefit of fish and wildlife,and for public education and recreation. In 2006, the City contributed to the cost of a FOR-organized refuge grand opening event. • Thejigard Dog Parks Committee is a volunteer group,now consisting of some 55 people that ---{Formatted:Font: Bold monitors compliance with rules for use of Tigard's three dog parks and assists with day to day and annual maintenance. In 2001,the committee contributed$1,000 toward the cost of constructing Potso Dog Park. • The Tigard Skate Park Task Force grew out of a 2001 Mayor's Youth Forum proposal for the --- l Formatted:Font: Bold construction of a skate park in Tigard. The task force was instrumental in raising private donations to partially finance a proposed facility. This skate park,scheduled for 2007 construction,will be named after the late Mayor Jim Griffith,who was an avid supporter of Tigard youth and a strong advocate of the park. • The Friends of Tigard-Bull Mountain Trails was formed in 2006. The group's goals are to _---t Formatted: Font: Bold promote the use of the trail system,cooperate with unincorporated Bull Mountain on trail development,and create an up-to-date trails map. This group recently endorsed a Metro-sponsored Westside Trail federal transportation grant proposal. The trail includes Tigard and unincorporated Bull Mountain portions. • FUNDING: MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Maintenance As discussed,the City of Tigard's park system facilities range from high-maintenance,intensive-use areas to lower- maintenance wetlands and habitat areas. At present,all facilities are well maintained. Although most maintenance is provided by the City itself,some sports fields are maintained by the Atfalati Recreation District and some other facilities and grounds are maintained by private contractors. Problems found during an evaluation of existing facilities conducted in the late 1990's as part of the park system master planning effort were: o Flood damage to trails,including broken asphalt.silting.and mud deposits; a --{Formatted: Bullets and Numbering o Drainage problems on sports fields: o Lack of Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)accessibility; o Safety hazards in children's play areas;and o Lack of access to parks by public transportation. Since that time,the above noted problems have been addressed as follows: Public Facilities&Services 9 • us'o A re• lar trail re•lacement •lan re.and resurfaces trails• • ---{Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • ' o Drainage on the sports fields has been Unmoved: o Implementation of an intensive,in-house field renovation program has improved the play ability of sports fields.• o Regular ADA upgrades are im rp Dying accessibility in the parks. In 2000,the City underwent an AD A assessment of all facilities including all .ark facilities. This stud• • •des ret ar ADA im.rovements. New facilities meet ADA requirements when constructed: o Play areas have been put on a routine schedule of replacements and improvements. Currently_only a few remaining play grounds do not meet present standards for safety. These playgrounds have been placed on a replacement schedule. The City also keeps multiple Certified Playground Inspectors on the park crew. In the period since 1999,crew size has increased from 7 to 9 field personnel. The City also has added a City Arborist and Park manager,who deals primarily with planning issues. -` Deleted:The Tigard Park System Master Plan identified the following common . issues that affect all neighborhood Parks: aging facilities that require replacement Funding such as children's areas and site furnishings;safety issues,such as designs As mentioned earlier,the City's main funding source for parks is a park system development charge(SDC). that may encourage vandalism;crime and safety It is imposed on both new residential and since 1996,on both residential and non-residential development. hazards in children's play areas;and accessibility improvements needed to meet The fee structure is updated annually using an index formula based on land and construction cost increases. Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) requirements. 1 In January 2005,Council adopted a new SDC methodology and fee structure based on a parks capacity Maintenance staffing levels in the Parks/Grounds program that addresses selected needs identified in the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan and Parks/Grounds Division have not increased to address the continued Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces. The reason for including the expansion of park lands and greenspaces. unincorporated Bull Mountain Area is that the City is the designated ultimate park provider for this area Each f u ll-time employee(FrE)is curre ntly responsible for over"vice as many acres as Under this methodology,the current residential fee for a single family development is$4,023 per unit. The ten years ago.The expenditure per acre current non-residential fee is$273 per employee. The"improvements-driven"approach used to develop has also failed to keep pace. According to a 1998 assessment,the Cin has a lower the updated parks SDC methodology equate to a standard of service of some 20 acres per thousand.as expenditure per acre than the cities of compared with an existing standard of 7.7 per thousand population. comparable stre.9 A key feature of the new SDC study,tided the Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update,is that it assumes deficiencies in the City's current level of service. Under state SDC statutes,improvement fee SDC revenues must be used only for growth needs and may not be used to 0 remedy deficiencies now existing. For this reason,the parks SDC methodology requires that only a set percentage of a capital project be funded with SDC revenue. The remaining portion of the project cost must be funded though another source. The City has been using General Fund revenues and grants to fund the non-SDC portion of a project. However,because of declining balances in the General Fund,this will not be a feasible long term funding solution. Until the City obtains a stable non-SDC revenue source,the Park SDCs collected cannot be fully used in developing an expanded parks program in the City. Because of this lack of alternative funding,the 5-year Parks Community Investment Plan,or CIP,identifies no SDC-funded projects during the 3-year period FY 07-10.For the same reasonmhe City's Five Year Financial ,--- Deleted:.With no outer year projects Forecast projects;high park SDC fund balancepi$10.5 million by 2008. scheduled -k,` Deleted:at As suggested,another major problem with the parks SDC methodology is that many of the projects s, 4 Deleted:,the ._ _] identified on the facilities improvement list are located in the Bull Mt Urban Services Areas. Specifically, 1 Deleted:is projected to reach $12.5 million,or 47%,of the aggregate cost of projects included are located within this area.Because it derives no park SDC revenue from new development in the Urban Services Area unless the landowner annexes to the City,Tigard currently has a limited incentive to provide park improvements within this extraterritorial area Public Facilities&Services 10 • . ' • i 0 As a potential means to raise non-SDC funds,the Park and Recreation Advisory Board has adopted as one of its three goals the consideration of a general obligation bond measure election to be conducted in November 2008 to purchase and develop parks and greenways. • City Park Development Initiatives Since 2000,the City of Tigard has employed three new ideas and practical approaches to create more active park acreage in the Tigard community. These ideas and approaches have included the first use of a new state program linking livability with the economy and two locally developed approaches involving industrial land for parks. The creative financing device used by the City was the first-ever use of a twenty-year old Oregon Public Works Loan Program to finance a park project,in this instance,a$2.3 million,28-acre Cook Park expansion. The two other devices were legislative changes to the Tigard Community Development Code that maximize the use of available land. They included amending the code to make industrial upland available for parks as a temporary use and to make industrial flood land available for permanent park use. The two code amendments were key to the creation of Potso and Bonita Parks. Oregon Public Works Fund In the late 1990's,a comprehensive master plan for the expansion and renovation of Cook Park was developed by a citizen task force working with a park planning consultant. At the time,completion of Cook Park was the City of Tigard's highest priority park and recreational goal. The Council-"accepted"master plan study recommended a phased approach to the plan's implementation using existing revenues. Following this course,completing the park would have taken some ten years. To facilitate an earlier completion date,the City Finance Director researched and developed a creative funding strategy that would allow the city to complete the park expansion in one early phase. This strategy was to seek a low-interest loan for the master plan's construction cost through the Oregon Economic Community Development Department(OECDD). In 1985,the Oregon Legislature created the Special Public Works Fund Program to provide financial assistance to eligible public entities for the purpose of studying,designing,and building infrastructure. In 2001,the Finance Director was instrumental in obtaining a$2.3 million OECDD Special Public Works Fund Program loan for Cook Park's expansion. The loan was secured by current and future park SDCs collected by the city. It was made a year after lobby efforts were successful in expanding the list of eligible activities to include parks. • The OECDD loan at a favorable rate enabled the City to complete the Cook Park master plan in one phase ending in 2003,many years earlier than had been anticipated,at a cost savings of$471,000 in project construction costs in addition to a substantial savings on the cost of borrowing. The Tigard loan is significant as the first park project financed though the now twenty-year-old Oregon Special Public Works Fund and,also,as the state's first instance of linking parks and open space funding with the economy. Additional cost savings were realized when the city applied for and received a then-maximum$250,000 Oregon Local Government Park and Recreation Grant for Cook Park construction. Another funding source was a generous bequest from Christine Tupling,a local citizen to whom parks were an important and lasting legacy. Park maintenance cost savings were realized by expanding and upgrading the park's irrigation system to utilize recycled waste water available from a nearby sewage treatment plant. Public Facilities&Services 11 • • III Industrial Land Amendments In spite of long-standing local zoning restrictions and restrictive state and regional industrial land policies designed to protect the state and region's industrial land base,in 2000,Tigard developed and adopted 0 innovative code changes to authorize recreational uses within industrial zoning districts. The objective was to provide access to industrial properties for active recreational uses under circumstances that were consistent with local,regional,and state land use laws. The impetus for the changes were specific opportunities that appeared to be available to help remedy the problem of the dwindling supply and high cost of land suitable for active park development. These opportunities included land that was not available to other industrial users because it was tied up or not suitable for industrial development. In one instance,the code changes in question allowed industrial floodplain to be used for outdoor recreation,provided the recreational use does not preclude so-called balanced cut and fill potentially needed to develop the upland portion of an industrial property. The second and coincidental part of the industrial land amendments changed the City development code to allow industrial upland,or land located outside flood and wetland areas,to be used conditionally for recreation. This amendment mainly makes available land held for future use or expansion,where the owner has no interest in selling or leasing and,also,where a low impact park use may be compatible with or mix well with existing industrial activities. As with the first,the goal of this second amendment was to make additional land available to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the community,without interfering with or overwhelming industrial uses. Land developed for an outdoor recreational use on buildable industrial land would not be removed from the city's industrial land inventory,but would continue to be available for conversion to industrial use as market conditions or expansion plans dictate. By making finer distinctions in classifying industrial land based on its ability to be used,the amendments enabled the City to make more land available for parks without constricting land for companies to grow. Following their adoption,the first use made of the industrial land amendments was to tackle what was at the time the increasingly volatile community issue of lack of space for dog owners. In 2002,the new flexibility provided by the changes enabled the City to locate a suitable site for a first-class dog park,called Potso Dog Park. The site was within an industrial area,away from neighborhoods and limited park properties. This park,together with two smaller,newly-created dog parks located in other quadrants of the city,helped to 0 reduce tensions between dog owners and non-dog owners. The second example created a much-needed outdoor recreation space(Bonita Park)in a low-income and minority area that had no parks. The space was 5.5 acres of industrial floodplain deeded to the city as greenway in 1989 as a condition of City development approval of an industrial subdivision. This occurred at a time when local governments could more easily require a property owner or developer to dedicate land for greenway or other public purpose. The primary funding source for constructing and equipping this facility were Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds. The CDBG is a federal program designed to benefit low and moderate income people. The park project was eligible for CDBG funding because the primary users of the park had low and moderate incomes. A Bonita Road pedestrian-activated crossing light serving the park was installed in summer 2003. Park construction was started in fall 2003. A park dedication ceremony took place in June 2004. Also completed was a split-rail,cedar fence around a(Native American)heritage plant area. Collaboration with the private,non-profit"Friends of Trees",continuing to spring 2005,resulted in the planting of 1,300 native trees and shrubs,mainly in the park's riparian zone. Public Facilities&Services 12 • • • KEY FINDINGS • Many areas of the City are park deficient. • Given the current density in Tigard,sufficient land for a neighborhood parks is unavailable to meet • the needs of underserved residential and non-residential areas. • The City does not have a plan or document that specifically deals with trail locations and development within the Tigard community. • The City has not been proactive in addressing gaps in the off-street pedestrian system within older neighborhoods • The City in the past has followed a policy of not condemning land for trails,regardless of the consequences. This willing property approach has led to significant missing links in the trail system. • The City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation district. In consequence of this,residents have limited opportunities to participate in recreation programs. This deficiency includes ethno-specific activities appealing to Tigard's growing minority populations. • Overall Ci .ar- .nds are well maintained.Maintena ce .roblems identified in the 19 Ti= rd Deleted:Maintenance staffing levels in Park System Master Plan have been or are being addressed. the increased Parks/Grounds Division have not being nsceased to address the continued • SW Trails has identified a trail route within Northeast Tigard that includes on and off street expansion of park lands and greenspaces. Each frill-time employee is currently segments and inter-connects with the City of Portland-adopted SW Communities trail network. responsible for over twice as many acres as The group proposes that this route be considered for adoption into the Tigard trail plan. ten years ago.The expenditure per acre also has The new Park SDC methodology sets a per-project percentage limit on the use of SDC funds. failed to keep pace. • Some 63%of the cost of park improvements is assigned to non-SDC funding sources. At this time, the City does not have a stable source of revenue that can be used as the companion funding source for capital projects. • Many of the projects identified in the Parks SDC parks capacity program are located in the former Bull Mt Urban Services Area. • 1:\LRPLX\CO]IPPLAN\Parks,Recreation,Trails and Open Space Document.doc Public Facilities&Services 13 • 4 46 A 1 -s, i APPENDIX 3 DJ -\ n APPENDIX 3 OREGON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Listed Species Potentially 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 elate' 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 horkeia SC C 1 Lupinus sulphureus ssp.kincaidii IGncaid's lupine PT LT 1 Montia diffuse 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 SW 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 Brenta canadensis leucopareia Aleutian Canada goose(wintering) LT LE 1 Brenta 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 ittle willow flycatcher SC SV 3 Eremophila alpestris strigata streaked homed lark ... SC 3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus' bald eagle LT LT 1 Icteria Wrens yellow-breasted chat(SC in WV) ... SC 4 Melanerpes foricivorous acorn woodpecker ... ... 3 Pooecetes gramineus affinis Oregon vesper sparrow ... SC 3 Progne subis purple martin ... SC 3 Sialia mexicana western bluebird ... SV 4 Stumella 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 long-eared bat SC SU 4 Myotis thysanodes fringed bat SC SV 3 Myotis volans long-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. STATUS:LE=Listed Endangered,LT=Listed Threatened,PE=Proposed Endangered,PT=Proposed Threatened,C=Candidate Species,SC=Special Concern,SV=Sensitive Vulnerable,SP=Sensitive Peripheral,SU=Sensitive Undetermined. ONHP SCHEDULE:1=Threatened or endangered throughout range,2=Threatened,endangered or extirpated from Oregon,but secure or abundant,3=Review,4=Watch. Lower Tualatin Watershed Analysis,Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District, J.T. Hawksworth, August 2001. Comprehensive Plan Page 35 12/06