11/27/2006 - Packet • •
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 27, 2006 7:00 p.m.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER-RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD T I GARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
4. HOUSING REPORT
5. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE OVERVIEW
6. NATURAL RESOURCES FOLLOW-UP
7. NATURAL HAZARDS OVERVIEW
8. OTHER BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT
• •
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing Date: / / -4)6,
Starting Time: 7 '. c)D r►�.
COMMISSIONERS: ✓ Jodie Inman (President)
Gretchen Buehner
1.1 Rex Caffall
Patrick Harbison
Kathy 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 Beth St. Amand / \
Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar °°o
Sean Farrelly
• • •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 27, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall (arrived late),
Meads, and Walsh.
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Harbison, Munro, and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager; Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner;
Duane Roberts,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
The next meeting is scheduled for December 11th.
Long Range Planning Manager Ron Bunch held a discussion about the proposed Tigard
Downtown Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Amendment schedule (Exhibit A).
Staff would like to establish a policy basis to adopt the land use program for the Downtown
early on. There will be a work session with the Planning Commission in December to discuss
the goals,policies, and action measures. Staff will then go to the CCAC for input. He advised
that the Planning Commission will be in the driver's seat with the Comprehensive Plan, but it's
important to involve other committees to get their advice.
After getting the Planning Commission's input on the policies, staff will define the land use
districts and draft the range of allowed uses. At the same time, the Planning Commission and
others will be asked under what kind of administrative process the design standards should be
drafted (e.g.,Type II,Design Review Board). Commissioner Buehner advised that there has
been almost unanimous consensus among the CCAC members that they would like to have a
design review process of some kind. They believe it's absolutely necessary. She wonders if
joint workshops might be helpful. Bunch said it is staff's objective to directly involve the
CCAC.
Bunch advised that staff is working on a policy to address non-conforming uses in the
Downtown. Commissioner Buehner noted-drat the CCAC had some outreach meetings with
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 1
• •
Downtown business and property owners. It was clear that these people want to be involved a
lot. She suggested inviting business/property owners to the workshops and have CCAC
members do outreach.
Bunch said the second phase of the schedule will involve a Planning Commission public
hearing on goals,policies, and action measures. After the public hearing, staff will hold a work
session with City Council. In the third phase, Council will act on the goals,policies, and action
measures. Staff will also be working on the concept behind the design standards and guidelines
and will be drafting code process amendments. In the fourth phase, there will be more
Planning Commission and Council work sessions and public hearings.
Bunch advised that the outcome of these efforts will be early on Comprehensive Text
Amendments, a new map showing zoning districts,land use design standards and guidelines,
process amendments, and conforming amendments to the code. Commissioner Buehner
suggested that as a part of the process,joint workshops with the Planning Commission and the
Council be held every other month or so in order to keep everyone updated.
5. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE OVERVIEW
This agenda item was taken out of order.
Associate Planner Duane Roberts reviewed the revised Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open
Space report with the Commission (Exhibit B). He noted that the current park acreage per
thousand population is 7.7 acres. He advised that the Parks Master Plan map does not
include all the new park acreage (Exhibit C).
The report includes an inventory of parklands, natural areas, trails, and non-City owned
recreation facilities. Roberts said our Parks System Master Plan does not identify any school
playground as meeting the definition of a neighborhood park. Commissioner Buehner asked
about City negotiations with the school district about Fowler and Alberta Rider properties.
If or when school property gets transferred, will that become part of the inventory? If there
are school sites that the City and the School District can come to an agreement on with
regard to public use, Ron Bunch said he believes the City could apply SDC funds. If the
property would be under control of a life estate, he believes there may be some restriction
on the use of City funds.
Roberts reported that the Parks Master Plan map (Exhibit C) identifies park needs within the
City as of 7 years ago. He said that the Park Master Plan identifies 21 underserved
neighborhoods inside the City. Since the Plan was developed, the City has created quite a bit
of additional active park acreage in the City. He pointed out that with the parkland
additions, the City has maintained the existing level of service over the past 7-8 years. It's
going to be difficult to maintain that level of service because the City is running out of land.
Commissioner Buehner asked about City-purchased reservoir properties that have plans for
parks on top. Could they be developed into small pocket parks? Roberts said he's aware of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 2
• •
1 that the City is moving forward with— the new property across from Alberta Rider School.
In the future,when the Cach Creek Park is improved and open to the public, that acreage
may be incorporated into the inventory. Also, there may be some trust for public land
property that could be incorporated into a large-acre natural area park.
Roberts reviewed the non-City owned recreation facilities. Ron Bunch asked if it was
possible to mention that there are nearby parks on the boundaries that Tigard residents
might utilize. Roberts answered yes— that is the purpose of listing the Tualatin River
pedestrian bridge. It makes Durham and Tualatin facilities available to Tigard residents and
makes our facilities available to their residents.
Roberts reported that there is a new generic state trails plan. There is also a Metro regional
system, which includes 4 trails in Tigard (Fanno Creek Trail, Westside Trail,Washington
Square Loop Trail, and the Tualatin River Trail). He advised that approximately 60% of the
Fanno Creek Trail has been completed in the City. All the trail sections where there were
willing sellers have been completed. Now we're left with properties owned by non-willing
sellers. It's been Council's policy in the past to not condemn properties for trails.
Commissioner Buehner noted that this issue may come up in the next year or so with the
development of a trail section as part of the Downtown Plan. Roberts said that if the City
wants to have continuous, connected trail systems, this will have to be addressed. It was
advised that the trails are on the Transportation System Plan, as a part of the overall
transportation network. If involved properties ever go through a land use process for
development or a change in use, they could be required to dedicate property as part of a rough
proportionality determination. Commissioner Buehner said that Councilor Wilson would be a
good resource for information about the Transportation System Plan.
Roberts suggested recommending a policy that the City develop a Trail Master Plan which
would identify priorities, a schedule for improving trails, etc. He advised that the Park Master
Plan includes an implementation program though the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It
was based on a park levy that would provide funding. There has not been a park levy— the
City has relied on park system development charges for funding. The Park Master Plan did
not identify the need for a Trail Master Plan. He noted that,if you apply a park SDC,it's a
state requirement to have a master plan that identifies what the fee will be used for. Roberts
reviewed the requirements for trails related to new development.
Roberts reported that Tigard does not have a recreation program within the City and is not
served by a park and recreation district. It was noted that there has not been enough citizen
support for a district in the past. One option for the City would be to join the Tualatin Hills
Park and Recreation District. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board is currently working
on a pilot program for a Tigard Recreation District. If there's enough interest, the City may
put forth a bond measure to expand programs. Ron Bunch said that if we want to make
Tigard a complete community with all the amenities of a desirable place to live, then having a
park and recreation district is a part of that. Roberts reviewed a list of private organizations
that are involved with sports and recreation activities.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 3
• •
Roberts advised that the main funding source for parks has always been the Parks SDC. The
fee methodology was recently updated. Discussion was held on the lack of funding
alternatives and the need for parks in unincorporated areas. It was noted that under state
statute, the City can't use capacity-increasing dollars unless the City has matching funds. At
the moment, there is a $3,000,000 balance in the Park SDC fund that the City can't use
because there isn't matching money available. The City may be getting some Metro matching
money which could be used to leverage some of the SDC money. The City may also consider
a park bond or levy in future years to provide more matching money.
Ron Bunch wonders if, by some way,Areas 63 and 64 were connected to the Tigard city
limits, could they receive park SDC money for parks development. Roberts said yes, but the
Parks Master Plan would have to be amended to include improvements in those areas. There
would still be the problem of needing other funding sources. Bunch asked if a possible
solution might be to amend the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and action measures, and
derive a capital investment program out of those policies to correct the funding problems.
How to be able to spend these monies is a critical issue. If we adopt new goals, policies, and
action measures based on current findings, the Parks Master Plan has to be congruent with the
adoption of the new policies. The City has the opportunity to drive the direction of the future
Parks Master Plan.
Commissioner Buehner noted that with the approval of the Library levy, the City might now
have the opportunity to look at reallocation of general fund dollars. President Inman said it's
important to listen to citizens before deciding to revamp the Parks Master Plan. It may not be
a priority in the community. Beth St. Amand advised that the recent City-wide survey
identified protection of trees and natural resource areas as being of major importance; also
listed was having neighborhood parks within a half-mile of home.
Additional comments:
• Commissioner Buehner advised that there is a 2.3 acre triangle behind Clearview and
below Hillshire that was dedicated as parkland/open space when Hillshire was built.
Somehow it never got transferred to the City.
• President Inman thinks trails are an important link in the City.
• Commissioner Buehner reported that she has been to the last 4 joint meetings with the
School District. The issue of joint use of facilities has not come up.
• We should look at the opportunities we have and focus on what we can do by using
minimal resources. It could enhance the system we already have.
• If we had a recreation program,we could optimize the use of what we have. It would
get people more engaged and gain more support.
• It was suggested using the land next to the Library Community Room for festivals or
other events.
Staff advised that comments heard tonight will be incorporated into the final report. There
will be more discussions in January and February about growth and development in general.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 4
• .
In the meantime, staff will draft some goals,policies, and action measures related to the Parks,
Recreation,Trails and Open Space segment of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. HOUSING REPORT
Senior Planner Beth St. Amand reviewed the changes in the draft housing report that were
made based on the last discussion with the Planning Commission (as noted in Exhibit D).
She presented a map that shows new residential construction from 1994 through 2006
(Exhibit E). It shows that most of the new construction has been in the western portion of
the City. Another map shows new residential construction from 2000 through 2006 (Exhibit
F). There is less land available on the western side; a lot of construction has taken place in
the southern quadrant, mostly on infill sites. A third map shows residential development
from 2002 to June 2006 (Exhibit G). This map shows that about 95% of new residential
development was captured on the buildable lands inventory. The remaining 5% were mostly
minor land partitions and were not captured on the buildable lands inventory. She reported
that there has not been a wave of people looking for zoning changes to build to a higher
level.
Commissioner Buehner advised that quite a few people have contacted the City about
annexing to Tigard. She thinks we may see a significant number of annexations, particularly
in the eastern part of Bull Mountain.
St. Amand mentioned possible redevelopment in some older neighborhoods, particularly
between Greenburg Road and Tigard Street. She advised that we will not be considering this
during this phase of the Comp Plan update; however, it is something that can be tracked by
the City.
St. Amand talked about housing affordability, the rental market, and condo conversions.
She reported that foreclosure rates are up in Oregon. She believes Tigard is relatively stable
compared to other areas in the state.
Regarding housing for seniors, St. Amand observed that a large part of Tigard's population is
in the 35-64 age group. The question is,will that population stay here after their children
have grown. There needs to be planning for the aging population— proximity to transit,
ways to allow people to stay in their homes (retrofitting them to be more accessible and
maneuverable).
Commissioner Walsh sees that demographic as moving here for a particular reason and then
moving on. Commissioner Buehner asked how much of our housing is in Summerfield,
which was originally designed with one story homes and smaller yards. People may have a
home here and a condo elsewhere. St. Amand noted that Census 2000 asked people living in
Tigard where they lived 5 years ago. Forty-five percent had not lived in the same house; the
majority of those came from elsewhere.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 5
. .
Commissioner Buehner asked, if we're looking at that segment of the population, should the
City work with King City in terms of maximizing resources? She noted that 2/3 of King
City is age-restricted. There are senior-service businesses that have offices in King City.
Perhaps there could be some complementary work done.
7. NATURAL HAZARDS OVERVIEW
This item was taken out of order.
Beth St. Amand gave a PowerPoint presentation on Natural Hazards (Exhibit H). She noted
the hazards that apply to Tigard are floods, landslides, earthquakes, and wildfires. Statewide
Goal 7 requires the City to look at these items to protect property and people.
St. Amand reported that in Tigard, there are 4 different levels of earthquake hazard (Exhibit
I). She also reported that Oregon building codes were revised in the mid-1990s to reflect a
devastating earthquake that occurred in the 1700s. The zones were revised and Tigard was
upgraded to a Zone 3,which is the second most hazardous zone.
St. Amand advised that most of the Comprehensive Plan policies related to natural hazards
will deal with being safe, making sure there are safeguards in place. Ron Bunch noted that
another element of the Comp Plan under Public Facilities is emergency management.
6. NATURAL RESOURCES FOLLOW-UP
Ron Bunch discussed approaches for assessing the gap between the adopted local wetland
inventory and the actual state of the City's wetland resources (Exhibit J). Staff has identified
4 approaches, all requiring staff resources. Staff is currently going through all the files since
2002 searching for wetlands delineated by the Oregon Division of State Lands. At the time,
the City did not have a GIS mapping section. About 22 wetlands have been identified that
had been delineated, but only 2 were shown on our map. They will be added to our
Wetlands Inventory map. Bunch estimates it will take approximately 3 weeks of staff time
and he hopes to have it completed sometime this winter.
Bunch detailed the 4 approaches. He noted that options #2, #3, and part of#4 would take
about 120 hours of staff time. He described some new technology (LIDAR) that can
provide information on topography which could also help determine the location of
wetlands.
Bunch noted that some of the Planning Commission's goals for next year are the Comp
Plan, transportation issues, and Downtown implementation. The bulk of staff resources will
be put into these goals. Once we have the new technology,we can look more closely at the
environment. Bunch reported that almost every jurisdiction in Washington County will be
on the Tualatin River Basin's approach from the voluntary standpoint. Other jurisdictions
have the same issues as we do.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 6
• •
Commissioner Buehner suggested adding the gap analysis process to the budget.
Bunch related his conversations with Tom Coffee about the Comprehensive Plan being a
vehicle for communicating the City's needs and setting priorities. If we're talking about what
makes a complete,high-quality,livable community, doing the Comprehensive Plan is
important. It establishes the City's aspirations and its regulatory context for the future. It may
also serve as a budget document—what will it cost to achieve the objectives.
Commissioner Buehner believes this has been one of the issues that the City has put off for too
long. There was discussion about doing a Comp Plan review in 1993. Every year, the concept
would be brought to the Council and every year it was delayed. As a result, she believes the
current update is a much bigger and more complex project. She recommends looking at it
every 5 years. It was also suggested looking at one section every year.
Bunch thinks that rewriting the Development Code could be another project. It should re-
written for a community in transition.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
None
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Jerree wis,Planning Co *ssion Secretary
A'1'1'EST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES— November 27,2006-Page 7
Draft-- Schedule Proposal - Tigard Downtown
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Amendments •
* Indicate Opportunities for Public Information and Input
November December January February March • April May June July August - 1
2006 2007 October2007
1. Draft Downtown Goals Policies * Briefings:Planning Commission,CCAC * 8. City Council Public Hearing on * 12. Planning Commission Public
and Action Measures and Other Stakeholders2 Goals,Policies and Action Measures Work Sessions(June)
5. Establish Downtown Plan and
2. Propose Administrative Format of 9. Draft Design Guidelines and * 13. Measure 56 Notice Out in June,2007
Downtown Development and Design Zoning Map Designations Locations Standards Concurrent Hearings—Plan Map,Zoning,
Standards— Two Track processu Designations,Design Guidelines and Standardss
* 6. Public Hearing --January/February 2007; * Briefings:Planning Commission,
3.Define the land vise districts and Downtown Tigard-Comprehensive Plan Goals,Policies C[AC and Other Stakeholders *14. First Planning Commission Hearings (Jul y)
draft the range of allowed uses and Action Measures Hearings Completed in August,20076
10.Draft Development Code Process to
*7. City Council Work Session on Goals,Policies and accommodate Downtown
4.Draft Non-Discretionary Type 1 Action Measures} 4 *15.Council Work Sessions,Hearings and Decision
Dimensional Standards I Code Administration on Planning Commission's Recommendation
* 11. Planning Commission Note: During this process a decision will be needed by •
• Public Work Session (May) Planning Commission and Council if a Design/
Development Review Board should be appointed to help
manage the Design Review Process.
Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager(November 20,2006)
Extension 2427
I"Two Track Process"refers to allowing an applicant to have the choice of a utilizing clear and objective design standards a Type II Process-or a discretionary design review process requiring judgment on part of the review
body as to the quality of a proposed design. Typically the discretionary process is conducted pursuant to Type II procedures and often involves decision by a design review board. In addition,there are administrative(Type I)
criteria development must comply with such as floor area ratios;parking requirements;height,etc. Some jurisdictions allow these criteria to be adjusted through a the Type III Discretionary Design Review process.
2 During this process,it is expected that there will be a number of small group briefings in addition to the formal citizen involvement meetings.
3 It is expected that there will be several City Council Work Sessions scheduled throughout the process .
4 This process will require involvement of the City Attorney at key junctures.
5 1 t is likely that there will have to be conforming amendments CO other parts of the Development Code. These will be identified and processed concurrently.
•
• • cl,
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
System Development Charge (SDC) on new development, first imposed in 1977.
The City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation district.
The Tigard Park 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, and j) Key Findings.
Public Facilities&Services 1
• •
1 . Parks and Open Space
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 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
may be provided. Trail ameniti such as small scale parking,portable res ooms,bike racks, and trash
may P P g�P ,
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
The Tigard Park System Master Plan identifies 21 underserved neighborhoods inside the City. To meet the
park needs of these areas, the plan identifies the need for the creation,renovation, or expansion of 2 pocket
parks, 10 lineal parks, 8 neighborhood parks, and 4 community parks. Subsequent to the master plan's
adoption, the development of 1 pocket park currently is underway (along Bull Mt Road), 3 neighborhood
parks (Northview,Bonita,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. Although not taken into account in the parks master plan, 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. Among
park deficient neighborhoods, clearly a neighborhood with a school playground is better off than a
neighborhood with no playground.
Public Facilities&Services 3
As of 2006,based on residentia evelopment within a half mile radius of a public park or usable open
P P P
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
close proximity to each other. Other highly served areas are 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 slope 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 are meeting existing park
deficiencies and the park and open space needs generated by new development. 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 example from 2006 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
example is the City's current pursuit of a 1.2-acre site located in an east Tigard neighborhood.
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 lands and facilities,many non-City-owned lands and facilities serve the park and
leisure needs of Tigard residents. These include a variety of public and private open spaces located inside or
proximate to the City.
• 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 its fields for
public use. Additionally,because of the fewer recreation amenities they provide, no local school is
identified in the Park System Master Plan as meeting neighborhood recreation needs.
• 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
a local improvement and maintenance district.
• The Wetlands Conservancy owns and manages two wetland properties within the City. These
include the 3.5-acre "Hart Wetland",located near Jack Park and the 1.9 acre "Knez Preserve",
located near HWY 217,between Hunziker Road and Park 217 Business Park. This latter site is one
of the few known tufted hairgrass prairies in the Portland Metropolitan area, a plant community in
great decline in the Willamette Valley.
• 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
Public Facilities&Services 4
• IGAs obligate the City Po manage the properties as natural areas. efore 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
forth the types and levels of public use, the location of trail and other improvements, and specific
management and maintenance standards. The City has developed one such plan to date.
• 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 these
habits. 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 Trail.
The refuge also will economically benefit the City. Many Refuge visitors who live outside the city
will spend their recreational money in the local economy.
• The Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge, scheduled for completion in 2007, spans the Tualatin
River between the cities of Tualatin and Durham. The 250-foot long, 12-foot 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 dollars toward the $1.6 million cost of the bridge. In 2006, the City
completed a trail extending from Cook Park that will serve as a connecting approach to the bridge
for Tigard residents.
• The John Tigard House, built in 1880 on Canterbury Lane,is one of two Tigard sites listed on the
National Historical Register. It is significant in its association with the son of Tigard's namesake and
as an example of early frame construction. It is owned by the Tigard Historical Association and is
open to the public the third Sunday of every month. The land is leased from the Tigard Water
District and is the site of the original donation land claim.
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 of the master plan's treatment of trails is that it is limited to a half page
of text,plus the depiction of an interconnected network of trails in the Parks Master Plan Map.
Public Facilities&Services 5
The five multi-modal trails identied in the P
p aster master plan include the anno 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 linking at both ends to the Fanno Creek Trail.
The Washington Square Loop Trail later was incorporated into the Metro Regional Trails Map. The lower
or southern portion this trail is located within Tigard.
Tigard's official trails are in various stages of completion. The Tualatin River and Fanno Creek Trails,identified in
the 1984 Comprehensive Plan as the "backbone" of the City's trail system,are approximately 85%and 60%
completed,respectively. At the other end of the scale, the Powerline Trail on Bull Mountain exists only as a line on
the City trail map,with no sections designed or installed. Although only recently defined as a City-recognized trail,
a segment of the Washington Square Loop Trail (HWY 217-Hall Boulevard) is programmed for 2008 construction.
Altogether, approximately nine miles of trail have been completed within the City since its incorporation.
State, regional,and adjacent community trail plans and documents form the framework for the planning and
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 are the top three 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 issues are consistent with Tigard local and Metro regional
trail issues and priorities.
Regional Trail System
In 1992,Metro established a regional network of interconnected trails and corridors in the Greenspaces
Master Plan. Existing trails planned and developed in the region were the foundation for the proposed
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 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
Public Facilities&Services 6
The SW Trails Group, a standing•
committee of the SW Neighborhoods o ortland, developed a SW Urban
Trails Plan that was adopted by the Portland City Council in 2000. The plan proposes five east-west and
two north-south trails. Trail 3, the Willamette River to Fanno Creek Greenway Trail connects with the
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
walked 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
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
to 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 code provision requiring hard surface bicycle and
pedestrian connections on public easements or rights of way every 330 feet, City development staff have
been successful in implementing the TSP provisions regarding block links and pedestrian connectivity.
Impact studies are 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 in addressing gaps in the pedestrian system within older neighborhoods.
Many of the subdivisions developed in Tigard in the sixties and seventies 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 increased 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. These same groups could be
asked to make suggestions for projects that would help create better linkages into and within
neighborhoods. A number of site-specific needs already have been identified and catalogued in the Metzger
area by the Tigard-Bull Mountain trails friends group.
The City's newly established sidewalk in-fill program provides $100,000 annually for sidewalk
improvements. This program, combined with 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
In the past, the City has followed a de facto or unofficial policy of not condemning land for trail right-of-
way. This unofficial policy has led to significant gaps in the trail system. In particular, the City has reached
Public Facilities&Services 7
the point of progress where in- gaps in the Fanno Creek trail cannot be achieved because of unwilling
� gg a P
sellers. Most of the Fanno Creek properties in question are industrially-zoned. In a riparian corridor that is
reaching build-out, the City has few choices about where to look for trail development.
RECREATION
As noted, the City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation
district. In consequence of this,residents, especially adults,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.
• Tigard Youth Association, a non-profit organization, sponsors youth programs including Drug
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 programs that include activities of
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
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 crafts 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 transportation home at the end of day;
• Youth sports leagues operating in Tigard include: Tigard Basketball Association,Tigard Junior
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.
• A few adult soccer and other sports leagues use City-owned playfields. None of these are Tigard-
based groups, but some may include Tigard-area residents as team members.
• The Tigard Swim Center, owned and operated by the School District and located on the Tigard
High School campus, offers early morning, noon, and evening adult lap swim times, as well as adult
water exercise classes, normally four per quarter.
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, consideration of
recommending a local tax levy election to be conducted in November 2008 to provide funds to begin a
comprehensive recreation program in Tigard.
Private Environmental and Special Purpose Groups
In addition to the above-named organizations that provide youth-oriented sports and recreation activities,
several other groups based in or near Tigard offer a range of recreation-related educational and volunteer
opportunities for local residents for all ages. Three of these groups, the Tualatin Riverkeepers, Fans of
Fanno Creek, and Friends of the Refuge,are private environmental or natural resource groups. Two, the
dog and skate park groups named below,are loosely affiliated with the City, but are not official City-
Public Facilities&Services 8
sponsored citizen groups. The ocus of the private Friends of Tigard-Bu) ountain Trails is the
bicycle/pedestrian trail network. The City interacts with each of these groups to some degree and many
local residents belong to or support one or more of these groups.
The Tualatin Riverkeepers, established in 1989,is a community-based organization working to protect
and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. The Riverkeepers build watershed stewardship through
public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. The Riverkeepers are responsible
for 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. In 2006, the Riverkeepers provided major advocacy
on behalf of a City $2.5 million Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program grant request to
finance the "green"redesign of the southern half of Main Street.
• The Fans of Fanno Creek, formed in 1991, are volunteers dedicated to the protection,restoration
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.
• The Friends of the Refuge (FOR) is a community-based volunteer organization supporting the
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.
• The Tigard Dog Parks Committee is a volunteer group, now consisting of some 55 people,that
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
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
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 Association 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:
• Flood damage to trails,including broken asphalt, silting, and mud deposits;
• Drainage problems on sports fields;
• Lack of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility;
• Safety hazards in children's play areas;and
• Lack of access to parks by public transportation.
Public Facilities&Services 9
• •
Since that time, the above noted problems have been addressed as follows:
• A regular trail replacement plan repairs and resurfaces trails;
• Drainage on the sports fields has been improved;
• Implementation of an intensive,in-house field renovation program has improved the playability of sports
fields;
• Regular ADA upgrades are improving accessibility in the parks. In 2000, the City underwent an ADA
assessment of all facilities,including park facilities. This study guides regular ADA improvements. All new
facilities meet current ADA requirements when constructed;
• Play areas have been put on a routine schedule of replacements and improvements. Currently, only a few
remaining playgrounds 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,park crew size has increased from 7 to 9 field personnel. The City also has added a City
Arborist and a Park Manager,who primarily deals with planning issues.
Funding
As mentioned earlier, the City's main funding source for parks is a park system development charge (SDC).
This charge is imposed on both new residential and, since 1996, non-residential development. The fee
structure is updated annually using an index formula based on land and construction cost increases.
In January 2005, Council adopted a new SDC methodology and fee structure based on a parks capacity
program that addresses selected needs identified in the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan and 2004 Bull
Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces. The reason for including the
unincorporated Bull Mountain Area is that the City is designated the ultimate park provider for this area.
Under this methodology, the current residential fee for a single family development is $4,023 per unit. The
current non-residential fee is $273 per employee. The "improvements-driven" approach used to develop
the updated park SDC methodology equates to a standard of service of some 20 acres per thousand
population, as compared with an existing standard of 7.7 per thousand.
A key feature of the new SDC study, titled 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
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 projects. However,because of declining balances in the General Fund, this is not 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 within the City.
Due to the 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. Due to the lack of projects, the City's Five Year
Financial Forecast projects a high park SDC fund balance of$8.5 million by 2011.
As a potential means to raise non-SDC funds, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board has adopted as
another of its 2006-7 goals the consideration of a general obligation bond measure election to be conducted
in November 2008 to purchase and develop parks and greenways. This is a companion to the board's
proposed and previously mentioned local tax levy election to fund a comprehensive recreation program in
Tigard.
Public Facilities&Services 10
A new, one-time source of non- C funds is the Metro Natural Areas Bond•
Measure, approved by the
regional electorate in November 2006. The bond measure provides $44 million to cities, counties and park
districts for projects that protect and improve natural areas,water quality and access to nature. Tigard's
local share of bond measure funds is $1.4 million.
As suggested, another major problem with the parks SDC methodology is that many of the projects
identified on the facilities improvement list are located in the Bull Mountain Urban Services Area.
Specifically, $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
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 first creative financing device was the first-ever use of a twenty-year old Oregon Public Works Loan
Program to fund 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. These 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 parks and recreation goal. The Council-"accepted" master
plan 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 enabled the City to complete the construction of 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
Public Facilities&Services 11
• •lastin legacy. Park maintenance savings were realized by expanding and upgrading the park's irrigation
system to utilize recycled waste water available from a nearby sewage treatment plant.
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
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 potentially
available opportunities to help remedy the problem of the high cost and dwindling supply of land suitable
for active park development. These opportunities included land that was not available to other industrial
users because it was held for future use or not suitable for industrial development.
In one instance, the code changes allowed industrial floodplain to be used for outdoor recreation, provided
the recreational use does not otherwise preclude the development of the upland portion of an industrial
property. The second, and coincidental, part of the industrial land amendments allows 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 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.
The first use made of the industrial land amendments was to tackle what was, at the time, an increasingly
volatile community concern about lack of space for dog owners. In 2002, the new flexibility 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 reduce tensions between dog
owners and non-dog owners.
The second use made of the amendments relates to the City's creation of a much-needed outdoor recreation
space (Bonita Park) in a low-income and minority area without parks. The space is 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 the fall of 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
Public Facilities&Services 12
• 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 13
• •
KEY FINDINGS
• The system of adding parks and related land and facilities in the City has kept up with growth in the
seven years since the Park System Master Plan's adoption in 1999.
• Many areas of the City are park deficient.
• Given the current density in Tigard, sufficient land for 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
• In the past, the City has followed a de facto policy of not condemning land for trails. 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, City parklands are well maintained. Maintenance problems identified in the 1999 Tigard
Park System Master Plan have been, or are being, addressed.
• SW Trails has identified a trail route within Northeast Tigard that includes on and off street
segments and inter-connects with the City of Portland-adopted SW Communities trail network.
The group proposes that this route be considered for adoption into the Tigard trail plan.
• The new Park SDC methodology sets a per-project percentage limit on the use of SDC funds.
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 Bull Mt
Urban Services Area.
• In recent years, the City has developed and employed innovative methods to create more active park
acreage to serve community needs. This has included making use of industrially zoned properties for
park improvements.
Public Facilities&Services 14
:,•:•:•:••,,,'!!.;
.44 .
41 .
•..•
.. • g .
g
.. gi, .
g g .
i • .
. d'.. .
• i .
• .
• 'w.f. •.•
I• . .
. .
• • • .... . . .: :
4t.:' ••
: . • .
. • ..•••,.. .• . .• . 1 .44'•'• 1 • , • : ..
.:. • . P
a! .•••
• . : . -, • -:..•• • '4::11•„ . .
'''.i : •• • • . .........„
. . .
. -,. • ..•
• ...ii: . .:
l• •••• •- -:; : . •
. .
. . . . . .
: . : ... . :: • tt •
'...... . . .
• .. ' i
. .
• • : . .•
• • •'• '.• - 1 •
, ....I:: I.....•••..! i....L.I • • . . .•.
•••:•: • • • . . „
4.
••....... ........ •,
1 •
': '4•: : i
: k•
. . f
:i. 1111 ••••• '.'•
..•••.,:*.{. .
...
•
. .. ...
. . ... ,, ..:.... s.. ,... 1 • .
1 .
1 • 1 •
• ' , • .
. --.. ....,
. .
.• .
. ---
1 ... • ... .
• to„„,
• 1k„.
• .
• . .
11 • .
' **1 I 1..••••: ' •• •-•,i
gi E44,..1...:,..4,
:::::,,,,:•---,
i. .
. : .
,\ ......,. J ...;;;I:A'Aii...,:it,„
i J . ' i . • ......... t ....„1 ......;:,:t.ieTir,4+4...„
• . .
•
k ,,,,,, 4 . i • • : 4 • • : : . 111.4 ,.•
. • . .. \
•;•••..4.4
. •.
; i•.•.
•
. .•
......... 4. . .• .
• •
• .••• .•
1.•
• . 1:11111••
• . •
.'':I i 1 4, . •
.., 1 .• :
, .• • 411111.114314.,-, •• . .,
. . • 1
1 1 1 41 .1 1. •••••• 41, :.
• • .• 1 .• 1111.1; .1.•0•1.111 \ .•
• : .1:.':',..I.'1,::. \ 44.
. :
: 11.4,,,. ' • •i •• • .
' •
• •; '
• :
; .1:1141111g1. i . • .4..1 ...: ;..
• 4.,14,1. . . .
.•• .1•••4 1...4..4,..•;1,,,,....r.1j, ;•; .1'.: •'
: ... . . , .
. , . ....; •
.••
•
• . ..11111.4.•1 31, ,;•• ' • • • • :1::14.i .•
. ..„.„ . I . •
••' I i '• 1 . ' • *** 1 • „.1 1,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,, .•. ', :. . :
. ; I '. ' : • 1 / ...,..••1.1...1•1.„1 t
Ci.„1:*•!1 3 ... . ••tilti!t!4!..,Aki, •• •.'„:,..........'...:114.;F.,.....::: • •
. . : • .• 1'4:i..4.I.•:•114.*.kli.?*i .:'.•••••'4144444
. . .
4 .4 • •
• •
. .• . . v'T.'"''..........,%IiiiiiiK4}41
•`" '..,":•. 1.
.....:.... I '•"*•* '''' .. i . .:
: ** ••• • .• 151411:1•4111:1:1Fiirq.';. ..... .:.•„. •1::, ,..,
.. ,
" ••
. . .`.:::',..1';•,.•:.Ilii!....eq,::,,k;',4 .• ..,
. . 1
.. I . „.
.•
,..4' .' • - : I • 4. .. 1 Iti..)%1Z.1.4.•'..
. • . I
• . • .
. 141.4 M,1. •1441• •••••• •••
. .••
. . .... . ; .1
i • . •• .
.. . •i 4.1!...?.71
..
4•
. • • .• . . .• 4
. ■ ; .•
1,4444•14.44•:. 4: 1 •• I 1 ! .
.•
.14 /
. • • '4 1 4 41114 ..•••4 4,4,4.4. • • 11 4411444 1441 4. 1 •
. • 1
,.. .
. :
• . .•
. . • ;
. .,
.• : .
. . .
: 411111144.4 ••• -4 .114 41 ; ••4 .4,:1.441.4•••1.• • '. •.... .• . : 1
;11 • •4. 1 4i.0.1. ' .• . .. .
•
„„.
. .
..
. .• .,,, . 4.4 .... .. 1 • •
: . .
4 • • 1
.., :. .
. 4 11.4..41.4.. •4... 1\• 4 , .4 : i •.441..i .
••
.,
. 11,444 4., •.44.1.1141411111,111141••4•4•gr.. ••4k. ,. : i ! ': ,.. ...1 . . : ,4
„. ... 1:::•:!•jfili...,:'2.•.: %;••••(,•101 A : t.t.., • ; • • .. I
. • :
.•
t. • .1.•'11;i '...1.11.11 i \..,:.,, IL „::. i . . ' 1 1 1 .........
1 .•
• . .
'14 ; I.. .... 114•:•..:•.'li.1.4 1.1•1;11.......• 14....741;1,......1....;.,...1...........,.......:••••••• tr- • ii "..• „ .. • i 1 l• -
kk .
. .
..,' .,.., .• ' '••• .... • i :
'1%, ?' •: -: ,.
• .•• •• •.
. . 4-I. ...4:44 N.. -1 t ....4• .•••• .. •: : •:. • .
: i i g• :
.• ..
- .•
•- . - : 14,
r t.. • g. I' "gg••• - ' : ...I"' It- -- --... .
t...• \ ,...... : i -,
• • 11
t %,_-...-....-- -.'g -,..„.1 g -4 1“:,.11 rt . 1. .. • -, 4..,,, .4.. 1
..t.„
'I.• ,.. .
• , 1. 74 7- • : ..• ' .„.1,..•' : . f-,,,, -71 i t ......
•,.• • t • • I • : ...... , r• • .. . .. 4 4 •
• • 'I'''. 4:- I: • 4.4 t :44.4.4401 • .. : ' I .1 4 .
. .
1: I 4 1 'I • •' N I .. '.••••••C. 1 . ..41. :g •g : .
•.
0 I. iii4 • L 1 1 s........7 •- 47 '
I .••
g .. .
. .• . • .
. .
: .• .
• g ....fig..' ' :
• . l• - 7 • ' 71 : . .
•
14 :
: ! , . • . t.,,,t L '"`" i' ...
[ '-•... .
i I: .... 1. .• . • ....
• .
•
. .-..• .• .....,
I • • • i : ...... \
'k ••4•••-••••• i
.. •1 1 i •
• . :. .
. .
••1 1
444
tg q r-gr, ' ' i" • . .
. \
•
. .
gg„ ....... ,gg. .
.44
i . -1 't - '1 • •••4 4 .1' • ••• : 441:
. .
1 • 44:
..4. -4.4.4 4 1 • 1
4. 41•44' .
• g
.•
.• : :4:4 . 4 .. 44...4 ' 1.
•• .
.• . : " 4 •: .. .........4.4::-.... ••••.•.,
: :4:44:•••: ..: •4.4. • i••:4 H:•••••••••:.4. 1
•••• •i• ..
• ::•:.• .4444:.....'"• .• 1
: .
1
• -.....4:
• . .
. .
1
1 :
••• I
1 :
..•
W •kill tilt II 1 it iiiiiiiiiiiiillItiiittitt11111111111111. 1
• •
CITY of TIGARD
/ •
/) ``\_ ,___ry I I GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM •
/.� i,. \ d` - 1 TAYLOR'S F ,....7. �• •
- � Imo-,//
. IjJ1 :: Qi^ - I PARKS . �
00•a I / -_ ' . --�. MASTER PLAN r -- 1 17 '
- 2 - '''' C I „3 I i /\/ Existing parks
00 BEAVERTON \_" \ --�" I . Proposed parks
PIO c P �/ included in 10 yr CIP WS 3
I. t _ �\ i i;e.::::d parks
.::.
f ��� � iE- � � _L i § „.
2 t c I
.p t �( �"`" ` \_`_ - f-;.:Y,., ,� j �� Id Greenspacel Greenway
..1 rl:N•4-'.�, }' Lc] Community Park
MO f �, '. _,�,- oAxa;A ( ° I 't :x..--i• * I vl Neighborhood Park
I L L ___r -
Linear Park
110 I V ,/�, t �!'t_ �— �� �1 " !� ".�.:4r 'R;r fi —1t;' ._4.411 ( CIT Boundary•
4111 _ r y,.�..i. ;•t? � t , .rF t � TRAILS
141 t I •.J' Y �i - J •-y.4i ,' M `.. _ ,. { ,�. sr a :>.' o°o, RXlstin�
'•• s ' °;,� , •,�;�,_,�." ti a- (<h p L J� \ ::„.„..:4 1,-, Ih''rOpOS d
i r- _ i Ti and Cit Limits
I ��� •
�_ i .� `*,1,:-,' «a4 „: \�� I, ) mom Tigard Parks
IMO t �� 1 ;.` ► � u • Greenways
w i:,,,, � " '► ! = ;I'''f '�_3, t County Owned Properties
--���� MI I R If,;•- , \ \ It:. 'S ':
•
1 Hnucing Report
O V E R V I E W
When it comes to housing,one size does not fit all.Each person seeking a new place to call home must find
a suitable match between price,location,housing type and lifestyle,which can be a daunting task.In
Oregon,the state planning goals aim to broaden the available selection: Each jurisdiction,including Tigard,
must provide the opportunity for different"sizes"of housing to fit residents'varied needs,considering
available land,price ranges,rent levels and housing type.
Providing this opportunity rests upon available residential land.
In the Portland metropolitan region,only land included in the Statewide Planning Goal 10
Metro Urban Growth Boundary(UGB),an invisible line that "To provide for the housing
separates rural areas from suburban,can be developed at needs of citizens of the state.'
residential densities requiring urban services. Buildable lands for residential use shall be
inventoried and plans shall encourage the
At the local level,each state and regional jurisdiction must availabi/ity of adequate numbers.of needed
inventory ts buildable land,which is defined as vacant and which are units m price to with and rent levels
ry � whirh arc rommensurate with the finanrial
redevelopable land suitable for residential use,to determine capabilities of Oregon households and allow
housing capacity.Tigard maintains a buildable lands inventory forflexibility of housing location,type and
(BLI)that tracks available residential land.Two policies—state density.
and Metro— help determine housing capacities on buildable
land: the state Metropolitan Housing Rule and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.Both
focus on increasing housing capacity in order to use land within the UGB efficiently.
• Metropolitan Housing Rule
The Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-007/Division 7)established regional residential density and
mix standards for communities within the Metro UGB.It set minimum residential density standards for
new construction by jurisdiction.Tigard must provide for an overall density of 10 or more dwelling
units per net buildable acre,as well as designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for
at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single-family housing or multiple-family
housing.
• Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Metro implements Goal 10 through Title 1.To meet Title 1,each jurisdiction was required to determine
its housing capacity and adopt a minimum density requirement.Tigard adopted the 80%of minimum
density requirement for development in 1998,which means that a development must build 80%of the
maximum units allowed through zoning.The City has a housing capacity number of 6,308 additional
dwelling units.This number shows Tigard's zoned capacity for additional dwelling units.It is an estimate
based on the minimum number of dwelling units allowed in each residential zoning district,basedpnn - {Deleted:in
minimum density requirements.
The City of Tigard maintains an up-to-date buildable lands inventory,a permit tracking system for
development,as well as complying with Metro's Functional Plan.The City is responsible for monitoring
residential development.All of these tools aid the City in monitoring its progress toward the above goals,
and determining if the opportunity remains for current and future residents to have diverse housing choices,
even as Tigard's borders become land-locked.
Community:Housing
• •
Affordable Housing
Metro also addresses affordable housing in Title 7.Title 7 includes voluntary affordable housing production
goals and other affordable housing strategies.Tigard has adopted by ordinance affordable housing strategies,
submitted a progress report to Metro that complies with Title 7,and completed the mandatory three-year
reporting requirement.
Community:Housing
• •
1. Housing A
I N V E N T O R Y •
H o u s i n g S u p p l y
Almost three-quarters of Tigard is zoned residential(68.6%).There are 19,468 single-family and multi-
family housing units in Tigard,with an additional 55 mobile homes and 14 manufactured homes(Census
2000).Eighty-one percent were built after 1970,with approximately 4,500 units built in each decade since.
The current decade is consistent with this building level,with 2,160 units built thus far.The majority of
residential land is zoned R=4.5 and R-7,which are low-and medium-density designations.This is consistent
with the City's overall residential density for new construction:since 1994,the overall density of residential
construction has been 6.8 units/acre.
Most new housing built since 1994 has been single-family attached or detached(82%),with 18%built as
multi-family units.During the last five years.new development has followed a similar trend,with single-
family products as the dominant housing type and breaking down as follows:single-family detached(65%),
single-family attached(20%),and multi-family(15%) (Table 3).Since 2000,the average single-family house
has been 2,415 square feet,with the last three years exceeding 2,500 square feet for the first time since 1996.
The average lot size has been 6,058,with lot sizes varying by year.
Tableel.Tigard New Single Family Development, Table 2-4.New Residential Construction Since 1994 ---{Deleted:XX
2000-2006* Single Family Multi Family Total
Year Bldg.Size Lot Size Dwelling Density Dwelling Density Dwelling Density
Year Units (DU/Acre) Units (DU/Acre) Units (DU/Acre)
2000 2319 7261 2005 301 8.1 108 26.6 409 10.0
2001 2214 5071 2004 267 6.9 0 0.0 267 6.9
2002 2371 6134 2003 294 7.1 42 15.3 336 7.6
2002 187 7.1 29 34.5 216 8.0
2003 2520 6166 2001 288 8.6 0 0.0 288 8.6
2004 2563 6337 2000 202 6.1 112 17.6 314 8.0
1999 244 6.3 0 0.0 244 6.3
2005 2502 5379 1998 200 4.7 8 100.0 208 4.8
Average 2415 6058 1997 298 5.1 4 100.0 302 5.2
1996 316 4.6 126 25.0 442 6.1
Includes both sinale-famiN and sinale-famiNattached _ 1995 ___335 5.0... ....0-___--__0.0___ ...335..-___-5.0_._ ----(Formatted:Font:7 pt
1994 320 5.0 298 15.4 618 7.4
Total 3252 5.9 727 18.9 3979 6.8
Sours:Community Development Department
Community:Housing
• •
Table 3.Total Housing Units in Tigard-July 1.2006
Housing Units Built _
Single-
Single- Family Multi- _
Year Family Attached Family Demolitions Total
2000(April 1)" 17 369
2000(after April 1) 147 6 104 24 233
2001 196 92 0 15 273
2002 138 49 29 25 191
2003 228 66 42 40 296
2004 226 41 0 26 241
2005 185 116 108 29 380
2006(July 1) 100 0 19 14 105
1220 369 302 173 1719
Walnut Island Annex(2000) _ - _ 380 {Formatted Table
Total 19.468
"From 2000 US Census _
Source:City of Tigard Community Development
Department -
Recent Development Trends
Over the last twelve years.the majority of new development occurred in the City's west quadrant(i\Iap A)in
previously undeveloped areas.Additional residential development also occurred on larger vacant parcels in
the southern quadrant.
When vacant sites or underdeveloped sites(i.e..an oversized lot with a single home)develop or re-develop
within the City's existing built-up area.it is called infill development.In the 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey.City residents recognized this potential trend and ranked new development's compatibility with
existing development(including lot size)as a major neighborhood livability component.A brief analysis of
recent infill development shows the following:
pevelopment has been built to current zoning.The City's residential zoning implements the residential .--{Formatted:Font:Bold J
densities planned for in the current Comprehensive Plan.No new development from 2000-2006 required
upzoning or downzoning.
Minimum density requirements In addition,new projects must meet minimum density requirements {Formatted:Font:Bold
(Metro Title 1).which require the project to build 80%of the maximum units allowed on the site.
Development built prior to 1998 was not subject to this requirement and could be built at lower densities
than the zoning allowed.
pemolitions of existing structures.The City can track infill development through a demolition permit {Formatted:Font:Bold
analysis.Over the last six years.residential demolitions averaged 27 per year.Tracking the geographical
location.number and zone of these demolitions can indicate if a particular area is experiencing more
development pressures;however,it does not capture the entire picture as some homes are retained during
redevelopment.A spatial analysis of demolitions from 2000-2006 shows that they were widely spread
throughout the City and preceded new development.These homes were located on larger lots which were
underbuilt for the existing zone,and in some cases,the lots were combined with adjacent lots to build a
subdivision.This situation was also true for cases where the existing homes were retained and the lots
developed from the remaining acreage.
Community:Housing
• •
In sununary,recent development has occurred at a level consistent with the City's current Comprehensive
Plan and zoning ordinance.As land prices continue to rise within the City limits and with the opportunities
for western expansion limited,the market will increasingly look to infill for needed housing.As the available
land within the City decreases,pressure may increase in particular areas.
The City could institute tracking measures or perform an analysis to identify a particular site or area's
probability of experiencing infill or redevelopment prior to its occurrence.In redevelopment,the lot
typically exceeds 50%of the property's value,significantly exceeding the building's value,according to the
American Planning Association's Zoning Practice(tune 2005).A land value to building value ratio analysis
could indicate .articularl vulnerable areas.Other factors—such as a•- of structure avers•- s.uare foota•-
lot size—can all indicate a property or areas that may be more vulnerable to infill,where neighborhood
compatibility and design measures may be appropriate.These actions can all be considered as the City
develops its policies and action measures.
Housing Affordability
The majority of Tigard residents own their homes(58%),with 41%paying rent(2000 Census).which has
stayed constant since the 1990 Census.Historically,the rate rose from 51%in 1980 and 45%in 1970,, ---{Deleted:.
Tigard's current ownership rate is slightly more than Tualatin(55%) and Beaverton(48%),but slightly less
than Washington County and Portland.Lake Oswego.King City.and Sherwood all have occupancy levels
over 70%.
Over the last five years,Portland region housing prices have rapidly escalated.In June 2006,the Oregon
Employment Department reported that house sale prices in the Portland metropolitan area increased almost
Table 4.Ratio of Wages to Housing Prices,Portland Metropolitan Area 20 percent from
Ratio of House Price 2005 Private Sector 2005 Median House 2004-2005,with
to Wages Wage Price an overall 52%
Portland area 6.8 41,623 282,900 increase over the
Oregon Labor Market Information System,June 2006 last five years.To
maintain
affordability,wages would need to increase as well.However,data from OED shows that wages remained
flat or grew slowly during this period,11%statewide. For the Portland metropolitan area,residents making
the average wage would need to pay almost seven times their annual income to purchase the median value
home.The housing becomes more unaffordable as the ratio gets higher.
In Tigard,housing prices increased
Median Sale Price for Residental Improved and Residential consistently with the region:the 2005 median
Condo Properties in Tigard from 1978-July 2006 0
house price was$269,900,up 18%from 2004,
1350,000 and 46%from 2000(2006,Washington
County Assessor Property Codes).In 2000,
1300.000 the median Tigard household income was
; $51,581;however,as that figure is six years
1250,000 old,this section instead uses the 2003 median
income for Washington County of$54,001
1200.000 • (2003 Census data).Using these figures,for a
median household to purchase a 2005 median-
$150,000 priced home with a 30-year,6.5%mortgage
•
•$100.000
with$0 down- and assuming no monthly
debt- would require an annual income of
150000 �•�.�• '.7,i.1 l.1.1.1.I. . . .
$102,030,almost twice the current media•ome. •
Table 5:Buying a Home in Tigard
2005 2005 2006* 2006*
Median Priced Home S269,900 S269,900 S315,000 S315,000
Mortgage type 30-Year at 6.5% 30-Year at 6.5% 30-Year at 65% 30-Year at 6.5%
Down Payment SO S53,980(20%) SO S63,000(20%)
Debt SO SO SO I SO
Monthly Payment(without S1,705 S1,365 S1,991 S1,593
taxes&insurance)
Required Annual Gross S102,030 S87,408 S119,079 S102,013
Income
Median Gross Income S54,001 S54,001 S54,001 S54,001
Figares lured on)/tp://unw.mortpiop-ah:tnm/mor(:fms/hottrimbriff rdhlm/Through July 2006.
The standard definition of"affordable"housing is housing that costs a household no more than 30%of its
gross income for rent and utilities.A Tigard resident making the$54,001 median income could spend no
more than$1350/month on housing costs.Judging by the above table,housing for a Tigard household
making the median income would not be considered"affordable"as the monthly payments exceed 30%of
gross income.
Rental Market
When home ownership becomes unaffordable,potential buyers enter the rental market instead.In a Fall
2004 survey of eight market-rate apartment complexes in Tigard,rents averaged$705 a month(Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan—Economic Analysis Study,Oct.2004).Using the same affordability formula,this
rent would be affordable for households making$28,200 or more annually,almost half of the median
income.Currently,Tigard has approximately 7,115 rental units.Fora full listing and map,please see
Appendix B.The study also found that the overall occupancy was 93%,which it found to be less than the
optimal 95%.In looking at future needs,the study found that in the short-term,there was weak
development potential for new apartment complexes.However,with the recent upswing in housing prices,
this market demand could easily increase.
"Afordable"Housing
Although the above sections refer to the affordability of housing,the term"affordable housing"is most
often used for subsidized housing or housing reserved for individuals making between 0 and 50%of the
median income.
The table on the following page summarizes the number of affordable housing units in Tigard.However,
the need is greater than the supply:According to the Washington County Department of Housing Services,
there are 495 Tigard households on the housing waiting list,representing 1250 people,almost half of whom
are under 18(July 2006 data).Eighty-seven percent of these households make 30%or less of the annual
median income($16,200 or less).This number reflects a 37%decrease since 2002,when 677 households
were on the waiting list.This decrease could be attributed to additional affordable housing projects opening
within the City:from mid-2001 to mid-2002,the inventory increased from 286 to 505 units.
Community:Housing
• •
In Title 7,Metro included a voluntary production goal of 319 affordable housing units in Tigard.The Tigard
City Council decided against adopting this goal As Tigard neither provides nor builds affordable housing,
this number must reflect actions by other agencies.However,the City does have a number of policies in
effect to encourage production:
City of Tigard Affordable Housing Strategies,20)2-2006
Land use strategies adopted
• An updated and streamlined development review process.
• Reduced parking requirements for affordable housing projects.
• Allowance of accessory dwelling units,which benefit the elderly and disabled.
Non-land use strategies implemented
• Tax abatement for affordable housing.
Table 2-6.Monthly Housing Costs as a Table 2-7.Affordable Housing in Tigard
Percentage of Income Washington County Housing Authority/State Housing
Owner Renter Division Units
Occupied Occupied Single Family&Duplex Housing 32 ,
%of Income % % The Colonies 96
Less than 15% 29.3 16.1 Bonita Villa 96
15 to 19% 18.5 15.0 Rent Vouchers 180
20 to 24% 17.3 13.2 State Tax Credits 600
25 to 29% 11.3 13.3 Community Partners for Affordable Housing(CPAH)
30 to 34% 9.5 9.9 Greenburg Oaks 84
35%or more 13.6 30.6 Metzger Park(unincorporated Metzger) 32
Source:2000 U.S.Census Village at Washington Square 26
Single Family Houses 1
Table 3-9.Household Income Breakdown
Tualatin Valley Housing Partners(TVHP)
Income Range Percentage Hawthorne Villa 119
Less than$15,000 8.8% Source:Community Development Department
$15,000 to$24,999 11.6%
$25,000 to$34,999 11.4%
$35,000 to$49,999 16.3%
$50,000 to$74,999 21.7%
$75,000 to$99,999 14.5%
$100,000 or more 15.7%
Source:2000 U.S.Census
• A budget set-aside to reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing development.
• Support for sale or donation of tax foreclosed and surplus County and City-owned properties to
non-profit housing providers.
• Financial support for the operation of the Tigard-based Good Neighbor Center homeless shelter.
• Identification and pursuit of available grants to finance needed on-and off-site public
improvements,such as sidewalks,streets,and storm sewers,serving affordable housing areas or
projects.
• Development of the Housing Inspection Program to maintain the City's existing housing stock
quality.
Community:Housing
• A Housing Emergency Fund to•occupants of housing declared to be unsafe or uSabitable
established
• The Enhanced Safety Program,administered through the Tigard Police Department,to improve the
safety of rental properties.
• Membership in the County-wide Housing Advocacy Group.
Vacant and Substandard Homing
In 2000,there were 862 units vacant,or 5%of the total surveyed for the 2000 Census.The Census defines
"vacant"as no one living in the unit during the Census.The City of Tigard does not have areas of vacant or
blighted housing units that could provide for a significant rehabilitation project;mostly there are isolated
cases that are addressed through code enforcement.Only a few Tigard dwelling units are considered
substandard housing;that is,housing without kitchen or plumbing facilities.The chart below provides
details.
Table XX. Substandard Housing
No Kitchen No Plumbing
Facilities Facilities
Renter Occupied 96 0
Owner Occupied 0 15
Some:Census 2001)
Housing for Seniors
In 2000.40%of the City's population ranged in age from 35 to 64 years.with 10%older than 65 years.In --{Formatted:Font:12 pt
20 years.assuming the population remained the same,Tigard could have at least 40%of its residents age 55 --{Formatted:Font:12 pt
and over.As the baby boomer generation ages,the City will need to consider ways topccommodate an - {Formatted:Font:12 pt
aging population.including housing options and modifications to existing homes,as well as housing's {Formatted:Font:12 pt
proximity to transit and other facilities such as social services.
Currently.three multi-tenant facilities are located within Tigard:Summerfreld Retirement Estates ..--{Formatted:Font:12 pt
independent living facility(capacity: 154);Woodland Heights assisted living(48 units);and Grant Street
Elite elderly care(currently under construction).In addition.the City also has Summerfield,a 55+retirement
community that includes a diverse selection of housing types,, ..•-{Formatted:Font:12 pt
Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold,
Buildable Lands ,Italic
Statewide Planning Goal 10 requires a buildable lands inventory.The City tracks buildable lands through a
yearly inventory process.The inventory excludes land constrained by natural hazards,subject to natural
resource protection measures,and publicly owned land.At the end of June 2006,less than 10%of land
within the City was considered buildable.The majority of available land was zoned residential(71.8%),with
lower totals for commercial(9.1%),industrial(12.2%),and mixed-use(6.9%).
Community:Housing
Table XX.Buildable Lands Inventory . Commerrial Land-Three of the five cc�rcial
ry(through�ne 2006) districts contain buildable land and 82%of that is
Zoning Acres zoned General Commercial. No Community and
C-C Community Commercial 0 Neighborhood Commercial land is available.
C-G General Commercial 40.1
C-N Neighborhood Commercial 0
C-P Professional Commercial 8.12 Industrial Land-No buildable land remains in the
CBD Central Business District 0.79 Heavy Industrial district.In Light Industrial,75%
I-H Heavy Industrial 0 (17.64 acres)is located on one property. Likewise,
I-L Light Industrial 23.46 81%(34.7 acres)of the buildable Industrial Park
I-P Industrial Park 42.72 land is owned by one individual
MUC Mixed-Use Commercial 2.75
MUE Mixed-Use Employment 22.12 Mixed-Use Land-Mixed use districts all contain
MUE-1 Mixed-Use Employment 1 8.03 some buildable land,but the majority is zoned
MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2 0.72 Mixed Use Employment(60%).
MUR-1 Mixed-Use Residential 1 2.9
MUR-2 Mixed-Use Residential 2 0.65
R-1 30,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 2.39 Residential Land-A large portion of the 2005 BLI is
R-2 20,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 0.99 zoned low density(54%is R-3.5 or R-4.5)or
R-3.5 10,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 22.85 medium density(26%is R-7). The remaining low
R-4.5 7,500 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 186.66 density residential land(R-1 and R-2)comprises
R-7 5,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 101.1 only 1%of buildable residential land and all is
R-12 3,050 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 42.5 partially developed. No land zoned R-40 remains
R-25 1,480 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 32.46 on the inventory.The majority of available lots are 1
R-40 40 Units Per Acre 0 acre or less in size.
Total 541.31
Source:Community Development Department
The adjacent table breaks the 2005 BLI down into the planning designations and distributes the buildable
lots based on size. Eighty percent of the buildable lots are less than one acre in size and 40%are less than
10,000 square feet. Large lots available for development are scarce with only 49(7%)lots greater than 2
acres.
Table XX.Lot Sizes of Buildable Lands Inventory,June 2006
Tigard City Limits
m 93 m
2 To E = X N To-
Lot Size o _ tr H
Less than 5000 sq ft 5 3 6 43 57
5001 to 10,000 sq ft 9 3 14 195 221
10,001 sq ft to 1 acre 21 9 38 220 288
1 to 2 acres 4 2 7 75 88
2 to 5 acres 5 2 2 28 37
5 to 10 acres 2 0 0 5 7
More than 10 acres 0 3 0 2 5
Total 46 22 67 568 703
Buildable Lands Capture Rate
Staff performed an analysis of how much of new development was predicted by the Buildable Lands
Inventory. or"captured."This analysis would indicate whether additional in fill development was taking
place in established neighborhoods on lands not anticipated to develop or redevelop.
Community:Housing
• •
The analysis shows that the BLI captured 80%of new development outright(Map XX),which means that
the newly developed land was on the inventory and subsequently deducted An additional 14.5%occurred
on lots where a portion of the lot was on the BLI.but the remaining acreage was not.due to an existing
home.Combining these totals shows that 94.5%of new development took place on BLI lots (Map XX).
The remaining 5.5%represented primarily new homes on minor lot partitions in the R-4.5 zone,a minimal
number overall.These larger lots lend themselves to partitioning.The City is not experiencing larger-scale
redevelopment in existing neighborhoods on lots considered to be"built out";that is.built to the existing
zoning.As the BLi continues to be depleted•monitoring can reflect any changes in these conditions.A
decrease in the capture rate would indicate changing conditions.
Community:Housing
FUTURE HOUSING CAPACI• •
Based on the June 2006 Buildable Lands data,if the City developed its remaining residential lands,an
additional 2,902 to 3,482 units could be built.This range includes all residential and mixed-use zoning
districts.The low number is based on the 80%minimum density requirements in the Community
Development Code;the high end is based on the density of new construction in each zoning district that
has occurred over the past five years.It also includes a 20%allowance for additional projects that occur on
land not included on the Buildable Lands Inventory,the current rate of new residential development on
parcels considered already developed.
Tigard's Zoned Capacity
Title 1 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan(Functional Plan)defines the City's
housing capacity as 6,308 additional dwelling units.This number is a zoned capacity for achieving additional
dwelling units.It is an estimate based on the minimum number of dwelling units allowed in each residential
zoning district and was originally based on the City's 1996 boundaries.Units on land outside the City's 1996
boundaries were included in Washington County's capacity numbers,which would include lands annexed to
Tigard since 1996.
As of April 2006,the City has reached 52%of its zoned capacity number,or 3,288 units,based on the
number of new units built in the City's 1996 boundaries.
Density
The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires Tigard to provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling
units per net buildable acre.
Tigard's new construction from 1994-2005 averaged 6.8 du/ac from 1994-2006: specifically,5.9 du/ac for
single-family construction,and 18.9 du/ac for multi-family. The City does have minimum density
requirements in place;the overall density reflects primary residential zoning districts in the City,which are
low to medium-density districts.
This lower number also reflects the predominance of single-family residential development in the City in the
last decade.Areas such as Washington Square,the Central Business District(Downtown Tigard),and the
Tigard Triangle allow for higher density residential projects but have had limited multi-family projects occur.
Housing Diversity
The Metropolitan Housing Rule also states that the City must allow for the opportunity for at least 50
percent of new residential units to be attached single-family housing or multiple housing units.Again,
although the number of buildable lots in the high-density range is limited,the opportunity exists in areas
such as Washington Square,the Central Business District(Downtown Tigard),and the Tigard Triangle.As
part of the City's zoned capacity calculations for Title 1,these areas were considered,with the Washington
Square Regional Center in particular.This number will be calculated for the next draft of this Housing
report.
Community:Housing
• •
1. Housing Al
KEY FINDINGS .
• Almost three-quarters of Tigard is zoned residential(68.6%).
• There are 19,468 single-family and multi-family housing units in Tigard,with an additional 55 mobile
homes and 14 manufactured homes.
• Eighty-one percent of housing units were built after 1970.
• Most new housing built since 1994 has been single-family attached or detached(82%).
• The majority of Tigard residents own their homes(58%),with 41%paying rent(2000 Census).
• Over the last five years,Portland region housing prices have rapidly escalated.In Tigard,the 2005
median house price was$269,900,up 18%from 2004,and 46%from 2000.
• The 2003 median income for Washington County was$54,001.
• For a median household to purchase a 2005 median-priced home with a 30-year,6.5%mortgage
with$0 down- and assuming no monthly debt- would require an annual income of$102,030,
almost twice the current median income.
• In a Fall 2004 survey,apartment rents averaged$705 a month,which would be affordable for
households making$28,200 or more annually,almost half of the median income.The 93%
occupancy rate was lower than the optimal rate(95%),showing weaker demand.However,recent
housing price increases could reverse this trend.
• Currently,Tigard has approximately 7,115 rental units.
• There are 495 Tigard households on the Washington County housing waiting list,representing 1250
people,almost half of which are under 18. Eighty-seven percent of these households make 30%or
less of the annual median income($16,200 or less).The City of Tigard has a voluntary production
goal of 319 affordable housing units,but does not produce or maintain housing units.The need for
affordable housing exceeds this number.
• 4 large portion of the 2005 BLI is zoned low density(54%is R-3.5 or R-4.5)or medium density Deleted:Available buildable residential
(26%is R-7). No land zoned R-40 remains on the inventory.The majority of available lots are on land°
(" rY I ty �•
acre or less in size. ------{Deleted:i
• Based on this data,if the City developed its remaining residential buildable lands,an additional 2,902
to 3,482 units could be built.
• The City has reached 52%of its Title 1 zoned capacity number of 6,308 units(Metro Title 1;based.
on 1996 boundaries).
• Since 1994,the overall density of residential construction has been 6.8 units/acre,less than the
required 10 du/ac.
• Areas such as Washington Square,the Central Business District(Downtown Tigard),and the Tigard
Triangle allow for higher density residential projects but have had limited multi-family projects
occur.
• Recent development has occurred at a level consistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan
and zoning ordinance.As land prices continue to rise within the City limits and with the
opportunities for western expansion limited,the market will increasingly look to infill for needed
housing.
Community:Housing
0
0
• • ��•
Hazards Planning
•Natural Features also can be hazards
Natural Hazards under certain conditions
Overview •Four urban hazards to examine: (Goal 7)
•Floods
i. • 'Landslide
City of Tigard
•Earthquake
41 Comprehensive Plan Update _ !Wildfire
•Why? Protect property and people
Who Plans for Hazards? Who Plans for Hazards?
•Agencies •Documents
•Federal Government(FEMA) •Flood Insurance Studies(FEMA)
•State of Oregon Office of Emergency •Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRMS)
Management •Washington County Natural Hazards
. *Washington County Emergency Management Mitigation Action Plan
*City of Tigard Public Works Dept. •Cit"y;of Tigard Natural Hazards Mitigation
•City of Tigard Community Development Action Plan Addendum,due 2007
•Tigard Comp Plan, Development Code,
S ,1 • j \-Municipal Code(Building)
•
How Do We Plan? Earthquakes ' 1i
•Historical Occurrences/Frequency •The Cascadia Subduction ti�
•Mapping Risk Factors Zone could potentially cause
.Geologic Conditions a 8+ magnitude earthquake f 'r,
•Inventory Built Environment
.Tigard=crustal fault
•Assess Risk earthquakes. These events typically do not
\}Develop Approaches to Minimize Risk 'exceed magnitude 4, but could go up to
4a magnitude 7.
S V
1
• •
Earthquakes Earthquakes
•http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/resfzn .Earthquake hazards based upon an
o.html analysis of soil type, fault locations, slope
• •There are four faults in Washington and bedrock
County and the Portland Hills Fault in .58% =greatest hazard level
,Portland. ':'2•1'%,,= next hazard level.
Tigard-is near the Portland Hills Fault; \ These areas include developed residential
-- additional maps are needed to determine and,poimmercial areas, as well as the
locations. Washington Square Regional Center.
,.,City Hall lies in both zones A and B.•
Earthquakes Earthquakes
•Built Environment: .Washington County and the City of Tigard
Wood-frame homes withstand earthquakes Public Works department perform hazards
better than unreinfiorced brick buildings. planning for earthquakes.
•The majority of Tigard's residential •Public Works is developing the 2007
• buildings are wood-frame construction. :s :°Natural Hazards Addendum.
iOregon Building Codes Division revised -+ {:.:
-- and,upgraded its construction standards -- —_m
'\for Zone 3; TMC follows
,S .
•
•
•
2
.. .... ..
0 . I
,.....:
• .
. ..
.,.. _ ...... •
.....
...
••••••^ ..... .
.... • ""
.-..,....
' • • •
• ...
.. .
•
"' ..• "' P:d.:.:
•
. .
•
.• ••••
.....t..t.<
........... ., ... 1.. *-1
L,Jj
......_,.....„......... .... . ••••• • • ••• ,.- _„
•
• .
-,•
: • ,-.:,..,
....,, ••
••: .. . , .. . .
• . .
.J•••••::-.... *:
j • .
. :
. :
. . ri::-••••••••rjj,....!
.1 ••••• .
. .
. .
•.. .
• ....... .. . •••••••.... .. ..
•
• •
. .
•
.•.•••:
•
...
. . .:
. :
.. ::. r4 •.
. ,
. : ....." .
.,.........:.,.
..._4
: :" „..;.;"; ; ;•••.$
.. .......
:„..;
•....
• 4=
;;;•„•••;
. ..
.....
• •
ex . s
•
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Denver Igarta, Associate Planner
RE: Wetland Inventory— Gap Analysis
DATE: November 3, 2006
During the discussion on the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan at the Planning
Commission's October 16th meeting, staff was asked to develop procedures for verifying that the
existing wetland inventory is largely accurate and there are no major gaps with unidentified wetlands
within the City. As a result, the following approaches were identified by staff for assessing the gap
between the adopted local wetland inventory and the actual state of the City's wetland.
Approaches for Verifying Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) Accuracy
In order to assess the adequacy of the City's existing LWI, staff could perform the tasks outlined
below. It is not possible to determine in advance the quality or quantity of information which might
be attained as the result of these actions.
1. Determine the limitations of the method used by Fishman Environmental Services (FES) to
conduct the 1994 Local Wetland Inventory (LWI).
a. Determine whether the scope of the inventory covered enough area.
b. Determine whether any new stream corridor segments have been identified requiring further
assessment.
c. Review the method for conducting site visits and determine the potential for more detailed
field investigations.
d. Compare wetland boundaries delineated based on 1994 aerial photographs (scale 1 inch =
400 feet) with the most recent aerial photographs.
2. Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) Statewide Wetlands Map
a. Request the GIS shapefile for the Statewide Wetlands Inventory.
b. Staff will compare and contrast the boundaries with Tigard's current wetland map to
determine whether discrepancies exist.
3. Review Oregon Department of State Land (DSL) Remove-Fill Records
a. Request a list sites where wetlands were delineated since 1994 (within Tigard) currently on file
with DSL.
b. Search Tigard's Tidemark Permit Database for all records or a sample of sites to locate
possible case file numbers for analysis.
c. Pull any relevant files for each site and review for wetland impacts.
d. Document new wetlands found and wetland loss (location, acres, etc.).
• •
e. Staff can review the findings to quantity the number of unmapped wetland acres identified as
the result of DSL required delineations since 1994.
4. Review City of Tigard Land Use Records
a. Search Tigard's Tidemark Permit Database to identify land use decisions involving wetlands
(since 1994) focusing on decision types (e.g. Sensitive Lands) rather than specific sites.
b. Obtain potential case file numbers for all records or a sample of sites for analysis.
c. Pull any relevant files for each site and review for wetland impacts.
d. Document new wetlands found and wetland loss (location, acres, etc.).
e. Staff can review submittal materials required by the City for specific development activities to
quantity the number of unmapped wetland acres delineated since 1994.
5. Other considerations
a. Staff time and other resource requirements:
. Approximately 120 hours of staff time will be needed to perform the tasked outlined
above.
. Any subsequent need for professional surveys or analysis (identified based on staff
findings) would require a substantial investment of both funding and staff time associated
with completing the inventory process and carrying out the legislative process to amend
the existing inventory/map.
b. New (more accurate) sources of data
. Near-term availability of new technologies: Metro is planning to create a digital terrain model
(DTM) of the region as part of the 2006 update to their digital orthophotographs, which
will include elevation data.This data will be collected using photogrammetric compilation,
LIDAR, or other sensor technologies. LIDAR data can provide canopy heights, ground
elevation (including beneath trees) and other information relevant to natural resource
conditions.
c. Staff could also explore opportunities to collaborate with local environmental/conservation
groups to identify resources missing from City inventories. The scope and timing for
completing a full analysis of new sites would depend on associated costs (e.g. consultant),
staff availability and policy priorities.
Next Steps
1. The Planning Commission may determine whether or not to recommend to City Council (via
staff) that resources be dedicated to the completion of some or all of the action alternatives
presented in this memo.
• • �
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
System Development Charge (SDC) on new development, first imposed in 1977.
The City does not operate a recreation program and is not served by a special park and recreation district.
The Tigard Park 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 [Rite
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, and j) Key Findings.
Public Facilities&Services 1