02/06/2012- Packet Completeness
TIGARD Review for Boards,
Commissions and
Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
February 6,2012
Date of Meeting
-ate a .
Signature
Doreen Laughlin
11/6/14
Date
II '' City of Tigard
0 NI
TIGARD Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2012; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:17 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING—URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT 7:20 p.m.
CPA2011-00004/D CA2011-00002
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master
Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree
Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120, 18.310,
18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790,
and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments, amendments are proposed to the Tigard
Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide.
6. BRIEFING—8:50 p.m.
FINAL BYLAWS REVIEW
7. OTHER BUSINESS —9:10 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT— 9:15 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— FEBRUARY 6, 2012
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,
IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
TIGARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday,
February 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm, and before the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm. The
public hearings will be conducted in the Town Hall of the Tigard Civic Center at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard,
Oregon 97223. These hearings are for the purpose of receiving testimony from the public.
FILE TITLE: TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT
FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2011-00004
Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2011-00002
INFORMATION: Visit www.tigard-or.gov/ufcr to see the full text of the proposed amendments and for additional
information or contact the staff planner Gary Pagenstecher at 503-718-2434 (Tigard City Hall, 13125
SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223) or by e-mail to garyp@tigard-or.gov.
APPLICANT/ City of Tigard
OWNER: Attn: Gary Pagenstecher
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-8189
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan
the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree
Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120,
18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640,
18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments,
amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40,
8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide.
ZONE: Citywide.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen
Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 5, Natural Resources; 6, Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8,
Parks Recreation, Trails and Open Space; 9, Economic Development; 10, Housing; 11, Public
Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 14, Urbanization;
METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 3, 12 and 13; Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, and 5 through 14.
Public Hearing Process:
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of chapter
18.390.060.e of the community development code and rules of procedure adopted by the Tigard
planning commission and city council and available at city hall.
Assistive listening devices are available for persons with impaired hearing. The city will also endeavor
to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters and qualified bilingual interpreters upon request.
Please c0503-639-4171, ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (tdd - telecommunications devices for the
deaf) no less than one week prior to the hearing to make arrangements.
Public oral or written testimony is invited. Anyone wishing to present written testimony on this
proposed action may do so in writing prior to or at the public hearing. Oral testimony may be
presented at the public hearing. At the public hearing, the planning commission will receive a staff
report presentation from the city planner, open the public hearing, and invite both oral and written
testimony. The planning commission may continue the public hearingto another meeting to obtain
additional information or close the public hearing and take action on te application. The purpose of
the planning commission's review is to make a recommendation to the city council. The council will
then hold a public hearing on the item at a later date.
More Information:
All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or
copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at
the time of the request. At least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, a copy of the staff report will be
available for inspection at no cost, or a copy can be obtained for twenty-Eve cents (25c ) per page, or
the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request.
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner
Re: February 6, 2012 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Consideration of the
Staff Proposed Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Date: January 30, 2012
At the January 9, 2012 Planning Commission workshop project staff summarized the process,
answered questions, and received preliminary Planning Commission feedback on the Staff
Proposed Draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions. The Hearing on February 6th will be the first
evidentiary hearing for public testimony and commission deliberation on the proposal. Based on
the issues raised in citizen comments received in response to the public hearing notice and
agency comments in response to the requests for comments, staff recommends a second
Commission hearing on March 5, 2012 be added to the approval process to allow adequate time
for analysis and to provide findings in response.
In preparation for the February 6, 2012 public hearing, the following materials are included in
this packet:
Packet Materials
Page 1: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Proposed Draft Staff Report to the Planning
Commission provides the legal findings on which a recommendation to adopt the
proposed amendments to Council is based.
Page 37: Citizen Comments from John Frewing, dated January 12, 2012 and 23, 2012; and
Steve Martin, dated January 11, 2012.
Page 45: Agency Comments from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife dated January
20, 2012.
Page 53: Comparative Fee In-lieu Rates Memo to address the issue raised by the
Commission at its January 9, 2012 workshop.
Page 56: Solar Access Analysis Memo to address the issue raised by the Commission at its
workshop.
Page 58: Draft Ordinance An ordinance is not usually subject to review by the Planning
Commission because it is used to implement the decision of the Council. However,
the draft ordinance is included here because Measure 56 notice of the public hearing
stated that "The City has determined that adoption of the Code Amendment
ordinance may affect the permissible uses of your property, and other properties in the
affected zones, and may change the value of your property." The draft ordinance will
be available to interested parties for their information.
Page 60: Urban Forestry Code Revision Process is a revised schedule that includes a second
Commission hearing on March 5th,if necessary, and pushes out City Council
workshop and hearing dates.
Adoption Volumes I, II, and III were previously included in your January 9, 2012 workshop
packets. These volumes are incorporated by reference in the Proposed Draft Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
Hearing Process
On February 6, 2012, Planning Commission will hear the staff report and recommendation,
accept public testimony, ask questions of staff, deliberate, give staff direction, set the period for
the open record, and continue the hearing to a time and date certain.
Staff recommends Planning Commission leave the record open until February 10, 2012 to
receive any additional public testimony in response to items raised at the hearing. Staff will then
prepare an amendments request document summarizing requested amendments, staff responses
to those amendments, and staff's recommendation on those amendments.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the hearing to March 5, 2012 to accept
public testimony on the amendment requests, deliberate on the amendments request, and
forward a final recommendation on the urban forestry code revisions to Council.
The following staff will be available at the hearing in support of the Planning Commission:
Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, will be available to answer policy
related questions such as how to leave open the record, how to continue the hearing, and how
staff and the Planning Commission should respond to amendment requests.
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, will present the staff report and recommendation, and
answer questions related to the staff report.
Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist, will be available to answer technical questions on the
urban forestry code revisions.
Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, will be available to answer questions on the tree grove
preservation incentives and the goal 5 process used to develop the incentives.
Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner, will be available to answer questions on the public
involvement process and opportunities for the urban forestry code revisions project. Marissa
will also provide informational materials on the urban forestry code revisions for the public in
the lobby.
(UFCRP,Volume I) Agenda Item: 5.1
Hearing Date: February 6,2012 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
p
PLANNING COMMISSION = •
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT
CASE NOS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA 2011-00004
Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA 2011-00002
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
PROPOSAL: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Urban
Forestry Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree Groves Map ' and Tigard
Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120, 18.310,
18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640,
18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798.
LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING: All zoning classifications
COMP PLAN: All Comprehensive Plan Designations
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan
Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 5, Natural Resources; 6,
Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8, Parks Recreation, Trails and Open Space; 9,
Economic Development; 10, Housing; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12,
Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 14, Urbanization; Downtown;
METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Tides 1, 3, 12 and 13;
Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, and 5 through 14.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Development Code Amendments meets the necessary approval criteria according to the
findings found in Section IV of this report. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 1 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
1
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
The City of Tigard has a proud history of commitment to preserving, enhancing and maintaining its urban
forest. The city's trees provide an important backdrop for life in Tigard. Unlike natural forests or managed
timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscapes interspersed
with buildings, roads and other elements of the urban environment.
On June 3, 2008, Tigard City Council adopted an Urban Forest section as part of its Comprehensive Plan
in order to establish broad goals and policies to guide the long term management and enhancement of the
urban forest. During this process, the public voiced concern over existing development code provisions,
particularly with regard to tree mitigation standards. Development interests felt the standards were overly
punitive and served as impediments to development. Environmental interests felt the standards were
ineffective at achieving the goal of a healthy and sustainable urban forest.
Soon after adoption, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland filed a notice of intent to
appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Urban Forest section of Comprehensive Plan was
voluntarily remanded as a result. While the city was unable to fully understand the specific concerns of the
Home Builders Association, they did take the opportunity to provide more detailed findings to further
support and explain the rationale for the city's urban forest goals and policies. These additional findings
can be found in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III of the Proposed Draft
Adoption Volumes which are more fully described on page 4 of this staff report. On August 10, 2010,
Tigard City Council readopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan with the additional
findings. For reference, the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan is included beginning on
page 330 in Volume III.
To create a roadmap that implements the urban forest goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan,
Tigard City Council directed staff to develop an Urban Forestry Master Plan which is included in its
entirety beginning on page 247 of Volume III. The Urban Forestry Master Plan was developed through a
public process which included specific outreach and involvement of development and environmental
interests, as well as the community at large. On November 10, 2009 the Urban Forestry Master Plan was
accepted by council and it outlines issues with the management and regulation of the urban forest, and
detailed recommendations for addressing those issues. Among the recommendations are suggested code
revisions to support the implementation of the urban forest goals and policies in Comprehensive Plan.
The main issues and recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan include:
Is sues:
1. The code does not promote the preservation of high quality trees.
2. The mitigation structure encourages overplanting and the preservation of large diameter trees that
are often less likely to survive development impacts.
3. The fees for tree removal are excessive.
4. The code unfairly penalizes those property owners with existing trees more than those owners
without trees.
5. The code is administratively difficult to implement because it is challenging to track protected and
replacement trees in the years and decades following development.
6. The code lacks specificity and has conflicts between various provisions, which present
administrative challenges for the City.
7. The code does not require sustainable installation and maintenance methods for trees.
8. The code does not provide flexible standards and incentives for preserving native tree groves.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 2 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
2
Recommendations:
1. Update Tigard's urban forestry standards for development.
2. Ensure urban forestry standards promote sustainable design and maintenance of the urban forest.
3. Establish an incentive based program to preserve Tigard's remaining groves of native trees.
4. Develop an equitable and efficient hazard tree identification and abatement program.
5. Improve management of the urban forest by ensuring information is readily available for both the
city and the public when making decisions.
6. Promote community wide participation in urban forest stewardship.
To implement the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, City Council
directed staff to undertake a major update of Tigard's urban forestry related code provisions. Developed
over two years from February, 2010 to the spring of 2012, the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project
reflects Tigard City Council's direction for a comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry related
code provisions with enhanced public involvement.
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project has involved ongoing, extensive collaboration with city
residents and stakeholders, internal city departments, and outside agencies. A Citizen Advisory Committee
was appointed by council in February 2010 to ensure representation of a broad set of viewpoints during
the update process. This committee included two Planning Commissioners, two Tree Board members, two
Parks Board members,two developers (including a representative for the Home Builders Association), one
certified arborist, one natural resource advocate and one at-large citizen. In January 2011, the Citizen
Advisory Committee timeline was extended to ensure ample time for the committee to discuss code
topics. In finalization, the committee reached consensus on a set of guiding principles for each of the code
topics.
A Technical Advisory Committee was formed at the same time as the Citizen Advisory Committee. The
Technical Advisory Committee included city staff and representatives from outside agencies to advise the
project management team on the technical aspects of the code during the update process.
A public involvement plan was developed specifically for the project to provide enhanced opportunities
for participation for the overall community throughout the process. This plan included outreach at city
events like the Balloon Festival and Farmers Market, an email newsletter specific to the urban forestry
code revisions project, three open houses and a variety of other methods for community feedback.
The draft urban forestry code was peer reviewed by outside development and urban forestry experts in
October 2011 to provide additional assurance of technical soundness.
From this collaborative process emerged the staff proposed draft code amendments which can be found in
pages 1 through 349 in Volume II. The proposed development code amendments to Title 18 are the
subject of this application and staff report and can be found on pages 135 through 341 in Volume II. The
significant tree groves map that is part of the ESEE analysis on beginning on page 17 of Volume III is the
subject of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment
allows the significant tree grove preservation incentives on pages 317 through 325 of Volume II as
required by statewide planning goal 5 rule requirements.
Amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 thru 8.20,
9.06, and 9.08 to address the management of trees when land use regulations are not applicable. For
example, these non-land use amendments would address trees that are hazards to people or property
outside the land use process. While they are not part of the comprehensive plan or development code
amendments in this application, they are included for reference and can be found on pages 9 through 133
of Volume II.
In addition, proposed administrative rules in the form of an Urban Forestry Manual can be found in
Volume II from pages 349 through 462. The proposed Urban Forestry Manual contains detailed
specifications and procedures to support implementation of the proposed code. The Urban Forestry
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 3 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
3
Manual is provided for reference only because it does not contain land use regulations and is not part of
the comprehensive plan or development code amendments in this application.
Volumes I, II, and III of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project, is presented in three volumes which are incorporated by
reference in this staff report: Volume I is the Project Description, which tells the story of the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions project; Volume II is the Staff Proposed Draft Code Amendments, which
contains the proposed draft code and urban forestry manual; and Volume III contains technical reports
and research that contributed to the proposed code amendments. The materials in these volumes are not
necessarily land use regulations unless specifically identified as such in this staff report. Below is a more
detailed description of the content of each of the volumes.
Volume I: Project Description includes the following sections:
Guiding Principles includes the consensus views of the Citizens Advisory Committee developed to
help guide the adoption process.
Existing Conditions summarizes the history and existing conditions of Tigard's urban forest.
Policy Framework describes the major federal, state and regional agencies and programs that
influence or are benefitted from urban forest management in Tigard.
Process Summary describes the planning process and public involvement efforts during the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions project.
Summary of Community Ideas and Concerns includes a general description of ideas and concerns
raised by community members, a description of the Planning Commission's and City Council's
deliberations and decisions.
Appendix A is this staff report to the Planning Commission which will be incorporated at a later date.
Volume II: Staff Proposed Draft Code Amendments (these amendments will change based on
Planning Commission and Council decisions during the adoption process)
Staff Proposed Draft Code Amendments is the staff's draft proposed changes to land use
regulations in Title 18 and non-land use regulations in other titles of the Tigard Municipal Code. This
section includes commentary on the amendments.
Urban Forestry Manual consists of administrative rules that implement the details of the urban
forestry related code provisions in Title 8, Title 18 and other applicable titles in the Tigard Municipal
Code.
Appendix B is the peer review,which demonstrates how the draft code and urban forestry manual would
work in application.
Volume III: Technical Reports
Tree Values includes information and current research on the environmental, economic, social and
aesthetic benefits of trees. This information was used as additional findings to support the readoption
of the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Canopy Standards explains the reasons for adopting canopy cover standards, as well as the methods
used to arrive at the proposed standards.
Soil Volume details research about the soil volume required to support mature tree canopy.
Tree Canopy Fee discusses research used to develop a square foot value for tree canopy.
Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis (ESEE). This report addresses Statewide
Planning Goal 5 —Natural Resources requirements for protection of Significant Tree Groves.
Regulatory Comparison is a report prepared by Metro and the Audubon Society that summarizes
regional urban forestry programs and regulations.
Urban Forestry Master Plan is the City of Tigard's recommended plan for achieving the urban
forestry goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Log of Input lists the input received and any changes from the last meeting of the CAC to the staff
proposed draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 4 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
4
Procedural Note
For the purposes of review and adoption, the proposed urban forestry code revisions are comprised of
four basic elements: 1) The significant tree groves map which is the subject of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment, 2) amendments to the land use regulations in Title 18 which are the
subject of the proposed development code amendments, 3) amendments to the non-land use regulations
in all other titles except Title 18 which are not part of this application, and 4) administrative rules in the
Urban Forestry Manual which are also non-land use regulations and not part of this application. Because
of Oregon land use law, the land use elements which are the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments will be adopted by separate ordinance from the proposed non-land use
amendments in titles outside of Title 18 which will be adopted through a separate process by council. The
Urban Forestry Manual will be adopted as administrative rules through a separate rule making process in
TMC 2.04 so that future amendments to these technical specifications can be made using the same
process.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would incorporate the significant tree grove map into the
city's Comprehensive Plan Resource Document (Volume 1) as a new goal 5 natural resource inventory and
the proposed development code amendment in section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards to protect significant tree groves listed in the inventory. Oregon Administrative Rule
660-23-0250(3) requires local governments to address goal 5 requirements when a post acknowledgement
plan amendment "creates...a resource list...or a land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant
goal 5 resource." Therefore, the significant tree groves map and regulatory incentives and flexible
standards are subject to goal 5 requirements as further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis
beginning on page 17 of Volume III.
However, goal 5 requirements are not applicable to proposed code amendments that support general
urban forest enhancement activities such as tree planting and preservation when not associated with
significant tree groves. These activities do not create or amend a resource list or land use regulation
adopted in order to protect a goal 5 resource.
In order to provide for a comprehensive view, Planning Commission may review, take testimony,
deliberate, and comment on both the land use elements and non-land use elements that are referenced in
this application. However, the Planning Commission recommendation to Council is limited to the land use
elements of the proposal which are the. comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the significant tree
groves map and development code amendments to Title 18.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 5 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
5
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18)
Chapter 18.380. Zoning Map and Text Amendments:
18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map
A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by
means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G.
The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments would establish rules and
regulations to be applied generally to all similarly affected properties throughout the City of Tigard.
Therefore, the application is being processed as a Type IV procedure,which is a legislative amendment, as
governed by section 18.390.060.G.
Chapter 18.390. Decision-Making Procedures
18.390.020.B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative
matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV
matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the
City Council.
The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments would result in the creation,
revision and large-scale implementation of the city's urban forestry goals and policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the application will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed
in the Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the comprehensive plan and development
code amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission with City Council making the
final decision.
18.390.060G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the
decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197: Goals 1, 2, and 5 through 14;
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable METRO regulations: Titles 1, 3, 12 and 13;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies: Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2,Land Use Planning; 5,
Natural Resources; 6, Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8,Parks Recreation,Trails and Open Space; 9,
Economic Development; 10,Housing; 11,Public Facilities and Services; 12,Transportation; 13, Energy
Conservation; and 14,Urbanization; 15, Downtown; and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances: Chapters 18.380 and 18.390.
CONCLUSION: The review criteria listed above are applicable to the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments
will be reviewed through the Type IV legislative procedure. The Planning Commission and Council are
basing their decisions on applicable federal, state, METRO, and local policies and regulations which are
enumerated and addressed in this staff report. Therefore, the applicable Tigard Development Code
provisions are met.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 6 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
6
APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
GOAL 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate
in all phases of the planning process.
As described in the Process Summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I, the City has provided Tigard
citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions multiple and varied opportunities to participate in all
phases of the urban forestry planning process. This included 11 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
where people representing diverse interests and viewpoints discussed and reviewed code concepts and
language at 11 meetings hosted by an independent facilitator. In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee
which included representatives from multiple city departments such as Public Works and Community
Development, and outside agencies such as the Oregon Department of Trasportation and Clean Water
Service met 14 times to discuss and review code concepts and language resulting from the Citizen
Advisory Committee process. 14,225 public hearing notices consistent with Measure 56 requirements were
sent to all Tigard property owners on January 13, 2012. Public hearing notices were also provided to
interested parties on January 17, 2012, to affected agencies on January 20, 2012 and published in the
Tigard Times on January 19, 2012. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code
amendments will be further considered through the public hearing process at the Planning Commission
and City Council prior to adoption. Therefore, citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions have been
provided the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process consistent with this policy.
GOAL 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to opportunities to communicate directly to the City
and information on issues in an understandable form.
Policy 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with
community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored boards
and committees.
As described in the Process Summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I, the Citizen Advisory Committee
inlcuded representatives from city boards such as the Tree Board, Parks Boards, and Planning
Commission, representatives from community organizations and interests groups such as the Tualatin
Riverkeepers and HBA, and citizens at large. These and other public involvement opportunities
demonstrate that the city has sought citizen participation and input through collaboration with community
organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to city sponsored boards and committees
consistent with this policy.
Policy 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and
commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them.
The community had opportunities to participate in the Citizen Advisory Committee process by providing
written, electronic,and verbal communication at each Citizen Advisory Committee meeting. Staff provided
three open house opportunties to provide opportunities for additional community feedback. Two open
houses allowed opportunties for property owners with significant tree groves to provide input to the city
during the inventory phase and development of regulatory incentives and flexible standards. An additional
open house provided opportunties for the overall community to provide feedback on additional urban
forestry code ammendments which are not subject to the goal 5 rule requirements. Therefore, the city has
provided Tigard citizens the opportunity to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff
regarding urban forestry issues that concern them, consistent with this policy.
LAND USE PLANNING
GOAL 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action
plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 7 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
7
Policy 1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state
and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests.
In 2008, the city completed its periodic review and update of its Comprehensive Plan, which has been
acknowledged by DLCD as consistent with statewide planning goals. Included within the Comprehensive
Plan is an Urban Forest section which was initially adopted on June 3, 2008 and readopted on August 10,
2010 with additional findings that further support the goals and policies in the Urban Forest section. The
Urban Forest section can be found beginning on page 330 of Volume III and the additional findings can
be found in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III. On November 10, 2009, City
Council accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan as consistent with and supportive of the urban forestry
goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Urban Forestry Master Plan, which can be found
beginning on page 247 of Volume III, set realistic timelines and provides a balanced framework for
implementing updates to the city's urban forestry code provisions, policies and programs. The proposed
comprehensive plan and development code ammendments have been guided by these past planning
processes which have established clear policy direction in compliance with state and regional requirements,
and serve citizen's interests consistent with this policy.
Policy 2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be
consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan.
The Urban Forestry Master Plan provides a roadmap in the form of a matrix for implementing urban
forestry goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation matrix can be found beginning
on page 255 of Volume III. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code ammendments
implement the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan matrix. Therefore, they are consistent
with related plans and implement the Comprehensive Plan as required by this policy
Policy 3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use
program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies.
Request for comments on the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments were
sent to Metro —Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation,
US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J, and the Cities
of Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, King City, and Durham. Representatives of the Oregon
Department of Transportation and Clean Water Services were also members of the Technical Advisory
Committee. DLCD was provided the opportunity to comment and coordinate the application for the Post
Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process per ORS 197.610. Therefore, the city has coordinated the
adoption, amendment, and implementation of the proposed comprehensive plan and development code
ammendments with potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies consistent with this policy.
Policy 4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation
of incentives and redevelopment programs.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.0 beginning on page 313 of Volume
II include incentives and flexible standards for the preservation and planting of individual trees while
accommodating development. These incentives and flexible standards include lot size averaging, setback
adjustments, and parking adjustments.
In addition,incentives and flexible standards for the preservation of significant tree groves are proposed in
section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II. These incentives and flexible standards inlcude
density transfer, setback adjustments, and additional building height to preserve significant tree groves
while accomodating development. Therefore, the city has promoted the efficient use of land through
incentives and flexible standards that accommodate the preservation and planting of individual trees and
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 8 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
8
the preservation of significant tree groves consistent with this policy.
Policy 7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the
Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: E) Overlay districts
where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves
covering 544 acres. As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of
Volume III, goal 5 rule requirements allow significant tree groves within the overlay to be eligible for the
proposed incentives and flexible standards for the preservation in section 18.790.050.D. Therefore, the
proposed comprehensive plan and development code ammendments implement the Comprehensive Plan
by creating an overlay district where natural resource protections and special planning and regulatory tools
are warranted consistent with this policy.
Policy 12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design
standards, and conservation easements that encourage results such as: C) Protection of natural
resources; D) Preservation of open space; and E) Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to
adapt to site conditions.
Incentives and flexible standards for the preservation of significant tree groves are proposed in section
18.790.050.D such as reduction of minimum density, density transfer, setback adjustments, and additional
building height to preserve significant tree groves while allowing development to adapt to site conditions.
Significant tree groves are a Goal 5 natural resource and the proposed amendments would facilitate the
protection of these resources consistent with this policy.
Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable,
amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following
specific criteria: G) Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the
City's natural systems.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment creates a significant tree grove overlay which overlaps with
sensitive lands defined in chapter 18.775 which together represent the city's natural systems. The proposed
flexible standards and incentives for preserving significant trees groves would enhance rather than detract
from the viability of the city's natural systems consistent with this policy.
Policy 18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate
legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or the
Community Development Code.
To implement the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, in February
2010 City Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive update of Tigard's urban forestry related
code provisions. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments reflect City
Council direction for a comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry related code provisions, which
they have found to be in the overall public interest consistent with this policy.
Policy 20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and
regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to
community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law,
administrative rules, and regional requirements.
The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments were developed in response to
community needs identified through the Urban Forestry Master Plan and Urban Forestry Code Revisions
projects. Both of these projects involved a Citizen Advisory Committee to ensure community needs were
well represented during the planning process. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 9 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
9
amendments are current and responsive to the community's needs as evidenced by the Citizen Advisory
Committee's unanimously approved guiding principles beginning on page 15 of Volume I.
In addition, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment creates a significant tree grove map which
provides reliable information. Each significant tree grove was inventoried and assessed using GIS
technology and site visits. The inventory and assessment process is further described in the Tree Grove
ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of Volume III. The proposed comprehensive plan and development
code amendments conform to applicable state, administrative rules, and regional requirements as identified
in the findings for this staff report and the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis. Therefore, the proposed
comprehensive plan and development code ammendments are consistent with this policy.
Policy 21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development
regulations.
The urban forestry plan requirements in chapter 18.790 beginning on page 299 of Volume II would
continue to require an urban forestry plan for land use projects that were previously required to conform
to the chapter requirements. Two additional review types (Downtown Design Review and Sensitive Lands
Review) would also be required to conform to the chapter requirements. Therefore, the proposed
development code amendments would continue to require all land use projects as well as two additional
review types to conform to urban forestry site design and development regulations consistent with this
policy.
Policy 22. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment creates a significant tree grove overlay for 70 inventoried
significant tree groves covering 544 acres. The Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of
Volume III provides greater context for the proposed overlay which has been designated consistent with
goal 5 rule requirements. The proposed flexible standards and incentives in section 18.790.050.D
beginning on page 317 of Volume II are designed to facilitate the protection of significant tree groves
consistent with this policy. It is important to note that goal 5 rule requirements are not applicable to the
preservation and planting of individual trees because individual trees are planted and preserved primarily
for their aesthetic, air, and water quality benefits as further described in the Tree Values Memo beginning
on page 1 of Volume III.
Policy 24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to
enhance the community's value,livability, and attractiveness.
The proposed development code amendments in chapters18.610 through 18.640, 18.745, and 18.790 in
Volume II include design standards for the planting and preservation of individual trees which are
recognized for their aesthetic benefits as more fully described in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page
1 of Volume III. The Tree Values memo explains that individual trees are proven to enhance property
values and thereby promote quality urban development and enhance the community's value, livability, and
attractiveness consistent with this policy.
GOAL 2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic,
ecological, and social benefits of trees.
Policy 1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations, and standards to
inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree and
vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits.
The Urban Forestry Standards for Development which are in pages 135 through 341 in Volume II require
an inventory and plan to manage, preserve, and mitigate the loss of the trees as part of the development
process. Incentives in chapter 18.790 such as the urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 10 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
10
encourage the preservation and planting of trees, but a fee-in-lieu of planting or preservation is allowed to
mitigate the loss of trees.
In addition, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would create a significant tree grove overlay for
70 inventoried significant tree groves covering 544 acres. The Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on
page 17 of Volume III provides greater context for the proposed overlay which has been designated
consistent with goal 5 rule requirements. Flexible standards and incentives are proposed in section
18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II to facilitate preservation of significant tree groves.
Through these comprehensive plan and development code ammendments, the city is maintaining and
updating its policies, regulations and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and
economic benefits consistent with this policy.
Policy 2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards, and programs relating to landscaping,
site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be consistent with, and supportive of,
one another; administration and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
Tigard City Council directed staff to pursue a comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry code
provisions to ensure the various code, regulations, standards, and programs relating to landscaping, site
development,mitigation, and tree management are consistent with an supportive of, one another. Staff has
paid particular attention to ensure consistency between the proposed land use regulations in Title 18 and
the non-land use regulations in other titles so adminstration and enforcement is coordinated before,
during, and after the development process. In addition, staff from variously impacted departments and
outside agencies that have a role in urban forestry served on the Technical Advisory Committee to
coordinate on developing the urban forestry code provisions. Adminstration and enforcement of the
urban forestry code provisions will be assigned to the Community Development Department. The city's
comprehensive approach to developing the proposed comprehensive plan and development code
ammendements, and planned adminstration and enforcement by a single department is consistent with this
policy.
Policy 3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees within environmentally sensitive
lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
Trees within environmentally sensistive lands and lands subject to natural hazards as defined in chapter
18.775 would continue to be subject to the proposed urban forestry plan requirements in chapter
18.790.030 as part of the development process. When development is not proposed, trees within
environmentally sensistive lands would still be regulated by the provision of chapter 8.12 which are non-
land use regulations and not part of this application. The proposed development code amendments in
chapter 18.790.030 would continue to regulate the removal of trees within environmentally sensitive lands
and on lands subject to natural hazards, consistent with this policy.
Policy 4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide ample room for
the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the use of flexible and incentive based
development standards.
The proposed design standards in chapters 18.610 through 18.640, chapter 18.745, and section 18.790.050
require ample room and allow flexible standards and incentives for the planting of trees. Included are
increased dimensions for tree planting spaces, reduction in parking for planting parking lot trees, flexible
sidewalk locations for planting street trees, and minimum soil volume standards for parking lot and street
trees. Through the proposed development code amendments, the city will ensure that street design and
land use standards provide ample room for the planting of trees,including the use of flexible and incentive
based development standards, consistent with this policy.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 11 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
11
Policy 5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street trees, unless
demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhancement projects. Trees should be planted
within planter strips, or at the back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit
the preservation of existing trees.
Through the proposed development code amendments in chapter 18.745.040 beginning on page 263 of
Volume II, the city will require the replacement and/or installation of new street trees, unless
demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhancement projects that are part of the listed land use
permits. New roads or road enhancement projects that do not require a land use permit are not part of this
application. The existing street design standards in chapter 18.810 require street trees within planter strips
but allow planting in the back of sidewalk if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees. Chapter 18.810 is not proposed for revision as part of this application.
Therefore, the proposed development code ammendments in chapter 18.745.040 that require new street
trees and the existing street design standards in chapter 18.810 that require street trees in planter strips are
consistent with this policy.
Policy 6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's investment in
trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways, and on other public lands and
easements.
The proposed development code amendments on pages 135 through 341 in Volume II are applicable to
trees located in parks, within right-of-ways, and on other public lands and easements as part of the land
use permitting process for certain development activities in those locations. Additional provisions in
Volume II from pages 9 through 133 protect the public's investment in trees located in parks,within right-
of-ways, and on other public lands and easements outside the development process but are not land use
regulations and not part of this application. The proposed applicability of land use regulations protect the
public's investment in trees located in parks, within rights-of-ways, and on other public lands and
easements consistent with this policy.
Policy 7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement program to
improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and economic value of Tigard's streets
and neighborhoods.
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project is part of the city's ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program. The proposed development code amendments on pages 135 through 341 in
Volume II require development to improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and economic
value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods through tree planting and preservation requirements as part of
the land use process, consistent with this policy..
Policy 8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved tree lists for
specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees, parking lot trees, and trees for
wetland and riparian areas.
The proposed development code ammendments in chapters 18.610 through 18.640, chapter 18.745, and
section 18.790.050 reference the Urban Forestry Manual for a list of recommended trees for specific
applications and site conditions such as street trees, parking lot trees, and trees for wetland and riparian
areas when planting is required as part of the land use process. While the Urban Forestry Manual itself not
part of this application, referencing the recommending trees lists within it during the land use process is
consistent with this policy.
Policy 9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other plants through
the development review process.
The lists of recommended trees referenced in Goal 2.2 Policy 8 do not inlcude invasive trees. In addtion, a
nuisance (i.e. invasive) tree list is included in the Urban Forestry Manual and nuisance trees are not eligible
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 12 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
12
for credit when planted to meet the urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030. While the
Urban Forestry Manual itself not part of this application, not allowing nuisance trees to meet the tree
planting standards that are part of the development review process dicourages their use and retention and
is consistent with this policy.
Policy 10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation as buffering
and screening between incompatible uses.
The proposed development code amendments retain the existing buffering and screening requirements for
incompatible uses in section 18.745.050 beginning on page 269 in Volume II. The spacing requirements
and names of the specific tree types have been amended slighly for consistency with the spacing
requirements and names of trees in other sections in Title 18. The slightly modified development code
ammendments would continue to require appropriate use of trees and other vegetation as buffering and
screening between incompatible uses and is consistent with this policy.
Policy 11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master
Plan.
Council accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan beginning on page 247 in Volume III on November 10,
2009 consistent with this policy. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project implements the
Comprehensive Plan as recommendationed by the Urban Forestry Master Plan. While the Urban Forestry
Master Plan is not part of this applicantion, is not a land use regulation, and does not contain relevant
approval criteria for this application, its development and implementation has helped shape the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions and is consistent with this policy.
GOAL 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well designed urban
development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future
generations.
Policy 1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize
the reduction of existing tree cover,with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that
are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread.
The proposed development code amendments are designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree
cover through the urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 299 of
Volume II. Section 18.790.030 requires tree canopy cover standards to be met as part of the land use
process. The standards for meeting tree canopy cover requirements are within the Urban Forestry Manual
and are designed to minimum the reduction of existing tree cover by granting bonus credits for preserving
existing trees. In addition, standards are designed to give priority to long lived and broad spreading trees
because these tree types will most facilitate acheivement of canopy cover standards.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.0 beginning on page 313 of Volume
II include incentives and flexible standards for the preservation of individual trees. The ammendments are
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover by allowing lot size averaging, setback
adjustments, and parking adjustments.
In addition, incentives and flexible standards for significant tree groves are proposed in section
18.790.050.D such as density transfer, setback adjustments, and additional building height to preserve
significant tree groves. These incentives and flexible standards for significant tree groves are designed to
minimize the reduction of existing tree cover while prioritizing native trees that are long lived and provide
a broad canopy spread. Flexible standards and incentives for the preservation of signficant tree groves
were developed through the goal 5 rule requirements as required by state law. Goal 5 rule requirements are
not applicable to the preservation and planting of individual trees because individual trees are planted and
preserved primarily for their aestheitic, air,and water quality benefits.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 13 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
13
Therefore, the urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030 and the incentives and flexible
standards for preservation in section 18.790.050 have the effect of minimizing the reduction of existing
tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a
broad canopy spread consistent with this policy.
Policy 2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give priority
to the protection of existing trees, taking into consideration the related financial impact of
mitigation.
The proposed development code amendments prescribe the mitigation of the impacts of development
through urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 299 of Volume II.
Section 18.790.030 requires tree canopy cover standards to be met as by planting new trees, preserving
existing trees, or paying a fee in lieu of planting or preservation. The standards are designed to minimize
the reduction of existing tree cover by granting bonus credits for preserving existing trees.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.0 beginning on page 313 of Volume
II include flexible standards to facilitate the preservation of individual trees. The flexible standards include
lot size averaging, setback adjustments, and parking adjustments.
In addition, incentives and flexible standards in section 18.790.050.D would facilitate the preservation of
significant tree groves. These incentives and flexible standards inlcude density transfer, setback
adjustments, and additional building height to accomodate the preservation of significant tree groves.
A fee in lieu of planting or preservation is proposed and takes into consideration the financial impacts of
mitigation. As further described in the Tree Canopy Fee Memo beginning on page 15 of Volume III, the
tree canopy fee was established using a conservative estimated value of tree canopy based on appraisal
standards developed by the International Society of Arboriculture.
The peer review results beginning on page 463 of Volume II demonstrate that the proposed canopy
requirements are likely acheivable through planting and preservation for most development projects. This
further informed the city's consideration of related financial impacts of mitigation when developing the
proposed fee in lieu of planting or preservation.
Finally, a discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II is proposed
to be allowed in lieu of meeting the urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030. The
discretionary urban forestry plan review option would allow an applicant to mitigate the lack of canopy
cover by incorporating innovative, alternate development proposals that provide equivalent environmental
benefits as trees.
The range of options for meeting the proposed urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030
prioritize the protection of existing trees. However, applicants would be allowed to mitigate through
acheivable planting requirements, fee in lieu of planting or preservation, or a discretionary review option.
These proposed alternatives to preservation were developed with consideration of the financial impacts of
mitigation consistent with this policy.
Policy 3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect trees, including root
systems, selected for preservation during land development.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II
would require a tree preservation and removal site plan by a certified arborist. The specifications for the
tree preservation and removal site plan are in the Urban Forestry Manual and would require the certified
arborist to identify methods for protecting trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during
land development. The required methods would include, but are not limited to, displaying the type, size,
and location of tree protection fencing to scale on the tree preservation and removal site plan.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 14 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
14
In addition, section 18.790.060 beginning on page 327 of Volume II would require the certified arborist to
perform regular inspections of the tree protection fencing and other tree protection methods throughout
the land development process. The proposed development code requirements for a tree preservation and
removal site plan along with regular inspections and reporting on that plan during the development
process are designed to protect trees,including their root systems, consistent with this policy.
Policy 4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to prevent and resolve
verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
The proposed development code amendments beginning on page 333 of Volume II allow tree removal if
the certified arborist determines a tree has become a hazard during the development process. The rating
system for determining tree hazards is within the Urban Forestry Manual and cross referenced by the
proposed code ammendments on page 333 of Volume II. Therefore, the proposed development code
ammendments beginning on page 333 of Volume II ensure the prevention and resolution of verified tree
related hazards during the land development process, consistent with this policy.
Additional provisions on pages 79 through 81 in Volume II would prohibit verified tree related hazards
and allow for their emergency abatement, but these provisions are not land use regulations and not part of
this application.
Policy 5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce the
aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces through the use of trees and other
vegetation.
The proposed development code amendments in chapter 18.745 beginning on page 259 of Volume II
would require the planting of street trees and parking lot trees as part of the land use process. Street trees
would be required based on the amount of street frontage of the development and parking lot trees would
be required to provide 30% minimum tree canopy cover at maturity over the parking area. These proposed
site design and landscape requirements were developed and would be enforced to reduce to the aesthetic
and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces consistent with this policy.
Policy 6. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow
and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development review.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.0 beginning on page 313 of Volume
II would allow and encourage flexibility in site design for the preservation and planting of individual trees.
These flexible site design standards include lot size averaging, setback adjustments, and parking
adjustments.
In addition, flexibility in site design standards are allowed and encouraged for the preservation significant
tree groves by the proposed development code ammendments in section 18.790.050.D. These flexible site
design standards inlcude density transfer, setback adjustments, and additional building height.
Therefore, the proposed development code ammendments in section 18.790.050.0 and 18.790.050.D
include flexible site design standards that would allow and encourage flexibility to preserve existing trees
and ensure new trees will thrive consistent with this policy.
Policy 7. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare and
implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen trees and other plant
materials appropriate for site conditions.
The proposed development code amendments in chapters 18.745 and 18.790 beginning on pages 259 and
299 of Volume II respectively would require tree preservation and landscaping plans that are appropriate
to site conditions. These requirements are applicable to city projects.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 15 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
15
The term "development" is so broad that any material change to a property, such as installing a shed,
could fall within the definition. Staff and the Citizen Advisory Committee discussed the scale of
development that should be required to implement tree preservation and landscaping plans. It was
determined that those land use permit types listed in chapters 18.745 and 18.790 are of appropriate scale
that requiring tree preservation and landscaping plans would be roughly proportional to the impacts of
development. After evaluating smaller scale projects such as shed installations or residential additions, it
was determined they are usually desinged in ways that have minimal impacts on trees and surrounding
neighborhoods.
Therefore, the proposed development code ammendments would require appropriate tree preservation
and landscaping plans for all development with significant impacts, inlcuding city projects, consistent with
this policy.
Policy 8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses, other
jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to manage and preserve street
trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian areas, tree groves, specimen and heritage trees, and
other vegetation.
As described in the Process Summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I, the City cooperated with
property owners, businesses, other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities in
developing code amendments as part of the urban forestry code revisions project. The proposed
development code amendments in chapter 18.745.040 beginning on page 263 of Volume II contribute to
the management and preservation of street trees during the land use process.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II contribute to the preservation significant tree groves during the land use process. Flexible site design
standards for the preservation of signficant tree groves were developed through the goal 5 rule
requirements as required by state law.
Individual specimen and heritage trees would be required to be included as part of the urban forestry plan
through the proposed amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II. Including
specimen and heritage trees in the urban forestry plan will contribute to their preservation and
management because they could be considered and utilized to meet the plan requirements.
The proposed development code amendments do not affect the preservation and management of
wetlands, stream corridors, and riparian areas except to the extent that trees preservation and planting
activities may overlap with these areas. However, the proposed development code amendments are
intended to support the preservation and management of trees and significant trees groves, not wetlands,
stream corridors, and riparian areas.
The proposed development code amendments were developed in cooperation with property owners,
businesses, other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities. The proposed
development code amendments support the management and preservation of street trees, significant tree
groves, specimen, and heritage trees during the development process. The proposed development code
amendments were not specifically designed to affect the management or preservation of wetlands, stream
corridors, or riparian areas. Therefore, the proposed development code amendments are consistent with
this policy.
Policy 9. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that prioritize the
retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves instead of isolated specimens.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves
covering 544 acres. The proposed flexible standards and incentives in section 18.790.050.D beginning on
page 317 of Volume II include allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer, increased building
height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to street and
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 16 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
16
utility standards. The proposed flexible standards and incentives would facilitate the preservation of the
significant tree groves in cohesive and viable stands instead of isolated specimens consistent with this
policy.
Policy 10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be reviewed by a
certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II
would require urban forestry plans to be cooridnated, reviewed, and approved by a certified arborist. The
city currently employs a certified arborist to review land use permit applications to determine whether
urban forestry related requirements are met. The requirement for urban forestry plans to be cooridnated,
reviewed, and approved by a certified arborist and the city's current practice for land use applications to be
reviewed by a certifed arborist employed by the city is consistent with this policy.
Policy 11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their residential
landscapes.
The proposed development code amendments in chapter 18.790 beginning on page 299 of Volume II
would allow applicants to meet urban forestry plan requirements through any combination of preserving
existing trees, planting new trees, or paying a fee in lieu of planting or preservtion. In addition, a
discretionary review process in section 18.790.040 beginning on page 307 is available as an alternative to
providing the required trees. Finally, section 18.790.070 would allow individuals to modify their urban
forestry plan after the land use approval process to provide additional flexibility to adapt to changing site
conditions or personal preferences. Therefore, the proposed development code ammendments in chapter
18.790 recognize the rights of individuals to manage their residential landscapes consistent with this policy.
Title 8 ammendments beginning on page 59 of Volume II inlcude tree permit procedures that allow for
increased flexibility for tree management activities outside the land use process. However, ammendments
to Title 8 are not land use regulatiosn and are not part of this application.
NATURAL RESOURCES
GOAL 5.1: Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide
and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and
high levels of biodiversity.
Policy 1. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources in a variety of
methods to: A) contribute to the City's scenic quality and its unique sense of place; B) provide
educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and buffering between differential land uses; C)
maximize natural resource functions and services including fish and wildlife habitat and water
quality; and D) result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high level of
biodiversity.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves
covering 544 acres. As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 27 of
Volume III key evaluation criteria in the inventory and selection of significant tree groves were grove
maturity/tree size, grove size, health/viability, visibility, screening and buffering, accessibility, rarity,
educational/recreational potential, wildlife habitat value and connectivity, and the amount of existing
disturbance.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 17 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
17
The evaluation criteria used for the inventory and selection of significant tree groves and the proposed
regulatory incentives and flexible standards support this policy by allowing for the maximum preservation
of the functions and values of significant tree groves with the attributes identified in this policy.
Policy 4. The City shall actively coordinate and consult with landowners, local stakeholders, and
governmental jurisdictions and agencies regarding the inventory, protection, and restoration of
natural resources.
As more fully described in the Tree Grove ESEE analysis beginning on page 17 of Volume III, the city
actively coordinated and consulted with landowners, local stakeholders, governmental jurisdictions and
agencies throughout the development of the proposed comprehensive plan and development code
amendments.
During the inventory phase, all property owners with an inventoried tree grove on their property were
provided notice compliant with goal 5 rule requirements. As part of the notice, property owners were
invited to a tree grove open house which was held on October 6, 2010 to learn more and provide feedback
about the process.
After developing draft regulatory incentives and flexible standards based on community input, property
owners and the community were invited to a second tree grove open house on February 17, 2011 to learn
more and provide feedback on the proposed regulatory incentives and flexible standards.
In addition, the city coordinated with local stakeholders and governmental jurisdictions and agencies as
part of the Citizen Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee processes which are more
fully described in the process summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I. Both the Citizen Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed and approved the proposed regulatory incentives
program for significant tree groves. The Citizen Advisory Committee approval is documented in their
guiding principles for the Tree Grove Preservation Incentives beginning on page 17 of Volume I.
Therefore, the city coordinated and consulted with landowners, local stakeholders, and governmental
jurisdiction and agencies during the inventory and development of regulatory incentives and flexible
standards for preserving significant tree groves consistent with this policy.
Policy 5. The City shall utilize periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the City's programs
and regulatory structures to guide future decisions regarding natural resource protection,
management, and restoration.
The city utilized periodic canopy assessments as part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan process. The
periodic canopy assessments demonstrated a 24% decline in canopy clusters of over 5 acres in size from
1996 to 2007. These and other findings were used to develop recommendations in the Urban Forestry
Master Plan on page 257 in Volume III that helped guide the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments. Therefore, periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the city's
programs and regulatory structures were used to guide the proposed comprehensive plan and development
code amendments aimed at the protection, management, and restoration of significant tree groves
consistent with this policy.
Policy 6. The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives, to the extent feasible, to discourage
property owners from removing or degrading natural resources prior to application for
development or annexation.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to facilitate the preservation of significant tree
groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density, density
transfer,increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban forestry plan requirements, and
adjustments to street and utility standards. The regulatory incentives and flexible standards are voluntary,
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 18 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
18
and thus there is no incentive for property owners to remove or degrade significant trees groves prior to
application for development or annexation. Therefore, the proposed development code amendments in
section 18.790.050.D are consistent with this policy.
Policy 7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent
feasible on public and private lands.
The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments facilitate the preservation of
significant tree groves located in both riparian and upland habitats and on public and private lands. The
city also has non-regulatory programs to protect and restore riparian and upland habitats, but these are not
land use regulations and not part of this application. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves in both riparian and
upland habitats on both public and private property which allows for their further protection and
restoration through non-regulatory programs consistent with this policy.
Policy 10. The City shall complete a baseline inventory of significant natural resources and update
or improve it as necessary, such as at the time of Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review, changes
to Metro or State programs, or to reflect changed conditions, circumstances, and community
values.
The city completed a baseline inventory of 70 significant tree groves in compliance with statewide planning
goal 5 rule requirements as further detailed in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of
Volume III. The significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III represents the baseline inventory
which will be adopted through the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and updated and improved
as necessary consistent with this policy.
Policy 11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse
methods including, but not limited to: education,incentives,planned development standards and
regulations, and conservation easements.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to assist landowners in the preservation of
significant tree groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum
density, density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban forestry plan
requirements, and adjustments to street and utility standards. Permanent protection of significant tree
groves through instruments such as conservation easements would be required to utilize the incentives and
flexible standards. These incentives and flexible standards would assist landowners in the protection of
natural resources consistent with this policy.
Policy 12. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures that mitigate the loss
of natural resource functions and services,with priority given to protection over mitigation.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to prioritize the preservation of significant tree
groves over mitigation. In utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible standards applicants would be
required to preserve at least 10,000 square feet of significant tree grove canopy and to maximize the
connectivity and viability of the remaining portion of the significant tree grove under the direction of a
certified arborist. Considerations in the Urban Forestry Manual are cross referenced in section
18.790.050.D to provide additional guidance for the certified arborist in the preservation of a connected
and viable significant tree grove. Therefore, the proposed development code amendments in section
18.790.050.D create standards and procedures that mitigate the loss of natural resource functions and
services, with priority given to protection of significant tree groves over mitigation, consistent with this
policy.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 19 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
19
Policy 13. The City shall identify, preserve, and create linkages between wildlife habitat areas, to
the extent feasible, as a key component of parks, open space, and surface water management
plans.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 28 of Volume III, the city
identified 70 significant tree groves using wildlife habitat functions, connectivity, and diversity as key
criteria. The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of
Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves. In
utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible standards applicants would be required to maximize the
connectivity of the remaining portion of the significant tree grove under the direction of a certified
arborist. Considerations in the Urban Forestry Manual are cross referenced in section 18.790.050.D to
provide additional guidance for the certified arborist in the preservation of a connected significant tree
grove. Identified significant tree groves overlap parks, open spaces, and surface water management plan
areas. Significant tree groves may be preserved to create linkages between wildlife habitats areas when
plans are updated for these areas, consistent with this policy. However, this application is not intended as
an update to any parks, open space, or surface water management plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
GOAL 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region.
Policy 6. The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural
resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain their positive contribution to air quality.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to encourage the maintenance and improvement of
significant tree groves. In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030
beginning on page 303 of Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting,
preservation, or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program. One benefit of these
development code amendments is they encourage the maintenance and improvement of tree canopy
citywide which, as further detailed in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III, is well
documented to have a positive contribution to air quality, consistent with this policy.
GOAL 6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality.
Policy 3. The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce
stormwater impacts from new and existing development.
The discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II allows the use of
techniques that minimize hydrological impacts such a those detailed in Clean Water Services Low Impact
Development Approached (LIDA) Handbook as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective urban
forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030 on page 297 of Volume II. Therefore, the discretionary
urban forestry plan review option encourages the use of low impact development practices that reduce
stormwater impacts from new and existing development consistent with this policy.
Policy 4. The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural functions
of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution to water quality.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to encourage the maintenance and improvement of
significant tree groves. In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030
beginning on page 303 of Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting,
preservation, or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program. These proposed development
code amendments protect, restore, and enhance the natural functions of trees which have a positive
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 20 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
20
contribution to water quality, as evidenced by the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III,
consistent with this policy.
HAZARD S
GOAL 7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe
weather hazards.
Policy 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and
wetlands as valuable water retention areas and, where possible, find ways to restore and enhance
these areas.
As described it the Process Summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I, the city included Clean Water
Services as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
project. The main purpose of Clean Water Services participation was to ensure the development code and
comprehensive plan amendments in this application do not conflict with other standards that protect
natural drainageways and wetlands. The city and Clean Water Services did determine the standards are not
in conflict. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are
consistent with this policy.
Policy 13. The City shall retain and restore existing vegetation with non-invasive species in areas
with landslide potential to the greatest extent possible.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 27 of Volume III, the city
identified 70 significant tree groves using the presence of non-invasive species as a key criterion. The
significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree
groves, many of which overlap areas with landslide potential. The proposed development code
amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include regulatory incentives
and flexible standards to retain significant tree groves.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. In meeting tree canopy standards, nuisance (i.e. invasive) trees
are prohibited from planting by the Urban Forestry Manual. These standards support this policy by
encouraging the preservation of significant tree groves with non-invasive species and prohibiting the
planting of invasive tree species including within areas with landslide potential.
PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS,AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including:
A) developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B) undeveloped areas for nature-
oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the
parks and open space system.
Policy 2. The City shall preserve and, where appropriate, acquire and improve natural areas
located within a half mile of every Tigard resident to provide passive recreational opportunities.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 27 of Volume III, the city
identified 70 significant tree groves using visibility, accessibility, and educational/recreational potential as
key criteria. The significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70
significant tree groves, which are distributed citywide. The proposed development code amendments in
section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible
standards to retain significant tree groves. These proposed comprehensive plan and development code
amendments support this policy by contributing to the preservation of visible, accessible, and potentially
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 21 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
21
educational/recreational natural areas located within a half mile of every Tigard resident to provide passive
recreational opportunities.
Policy 16. The City shall continue to encourage and recognize the important role of volunteers
and community groups in meeting City park, trail, open space, and recreation needs, and in
building stewardship and promoting community pride.
The process summary beginning on page 31 in Volume I details the Citizen Advisory Committee's role in
providing recommendations to staff during the development of the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments. The Citizen Advisory Committee included representation from the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board to allow community interests relating to parks, trails, open spaces, and
recreational needs to be well represented throughout the process. The proposed comprehensive plan
amendment creating a significant tree grove map and the proposed development code amendments in
Title 18 are applicable to certain development actions within parks, trails, open spaces, and recreational
areas. Inclusion of a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board member on the Citizen Advisory Committee is
supportive of this policy in that encouraged and recognized the important role of volunteers and
community groups in meeting city park, trail, open space, and recreational needs, and in building
stewardship and promoting community pride.
Policy 17. The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that
preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and federally
listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 28 of Volume III, the city
identified 70 significant tree groves using wildlife habitat value and connectivity as a key criterion. The
significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree
groves, many of which overlap with city's park and open space resources. The proposed development
code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include regulatory
incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves. In utilizing these regulatory incentives
and flexible standards applicants are required to maximize the connectivity of the remaining portion of the
significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist. While rare, state and federally listed species
were not specifically inventoried as part this process, the preservation of significant tree groves is
supportive of their preservation. Therefore, this policy of maintaining and managing park and open space
resources in ways that preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and
federally listed species and providing "Nature in the City" opportunities is supported by the proposed
comprehensive plan and development code amendments aimed at the preservation of significant tree
groves.
Policy 19. The City shall seek to establish and manage a fully functional urban forest.
The Urban Forestry Master Plan beginning on page 247 of Volume III provides recommendations for
establishing and managing a fully functional urban forest. The recommendations require comprehensive
plan and development code amendments to implement the goals and policies in the Urban Forest section
of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are
consistent with the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Therefore, the city is seeking to
contribute to the establishment and management of a fully functional urban forest with this application
consistent with this policy.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 9.1: Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy.
Policy 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to
promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made
available.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 22 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
22
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and development code amendments in section
18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
retain significant tree groves. In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section
18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting,
preservation, or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program. Therefore, the proposed
comprehensive plan and development code amendments have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to
promote economic development opportunities and allow the provision of required infrastructure
consistent with this policy,while concurrently supporting the city's urban forestry goals and policies.
GOAL 9.3: Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business.
Policy 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well-designed and
attractive urban environment that supports/protects public and private sector investments.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, which is more fully described beginning on page 247 of
Volume III, the community identified the urban forest as a key component of a well-designed and
attractive urban environment. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and development code
amendments would create land use regulations and standards that incorporate trees and significant tree
groves within the urban environment to support and protect public and private sector investments
consistent with this policy.
Policy 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life
(public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.)
to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, which is more fully described beginning on page 247 of
Volume III, the community identified the urban forest as a key component to improving and maintaining
quality of community life. In addition, the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III
describes the ability of trees to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy. The proposed comprehensive
plan and development code amendments would create land use regulations and standards that incorporate
trees and significant tree groves within the urban environment to improve and maintain the quality of
community life and to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy consistent with this policy.
HOUSING
GOAL 10.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs
of current and future City residents.
Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide
opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial
capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents.
Tigard's current policies, codes and standards provide opportunities for a variety of housing types
including single-family through multifamily on land zoned R-1 to R-40, mixed use, and variations through
the planned development overlay. As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on
page 17 of Volume III, the city identified 70 significant tree groves through the statewide goal 5 planning
process. The significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70
significant tree groves, many of which exist within lands zoned for residential uses. The proposed
development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include
regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow variation in housing types such as attached units to
retain significant tree groves.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 23 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
23
support the city's urban forestry program.
These proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments have been designed to be
flexible and adaptive to continue to allow a variety of housing types, while concurrently supporting the
city's urban forestry goals and policies. The proposed development code amendments on pages 135
through 341 continue to allow opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs,
preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents consistent with this policy.
GOAL 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability.
Policy 1. The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of its
residential neighborhoods.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, which is more fully described beginning on page 247 of
Volume III, the community identified the urban forest as a key component of the quality and integrity of
the city's residential neighborhoods. In addition, the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume
III describes the aesthetic, economic, and social contribution of trees to residential neighborhoods. The
proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments would create measures to protect and
enhance the quality and integrity of the city's residential neighborhoods consistent with this policy by
incorporating trees and significant tree groves.
Policy 3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life
public safety, education, transportation, community design; a strong economy, parks and
recreation, etc.) as the basis for sustaining a high-quality residential environment.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, which is more fully described beginning on page 247 of
Volume III, the community identified the urban forest as a key component of a high-quality residential
environment. In addition, the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III describes the
positive contribution of trees to community life, public safety, education, transportation, community
design, a strong economy,parks, and recreation. The proposed comprehensive plan and development code
amendments would incorporate trees and significant tree groves into residential, commercial, industrial,
and institutional environments as well as the transportation system to maximize the benefits they provide.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments will have the effect of
improving and maintaining the quality of community life and thereby sustaining a high quality residential
environment, consistent with this policy.
Policy 5. The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by
promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, easy access to public transit
and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and parks, resource efficient
design and construction, and the use of renewable energy resources.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II encourage sustainable development patterns that conserve natural resources through regulatory
incentives and flexible standards that allow the preservation of significant tree groves. These regulatory
incentives and flexible standards would promote the efficient use of land by allowing reduction in
minimum density, density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban
forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II
promotes the use of renewable energy sources by allowing onsite energy production such as solar
technologies as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective urban forestry plan requirements in
section 18.790.030 on page 297 of Volume II.
These proposed development code amendments would support sustainable development patterns by
promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, and the use of renewable energy
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 24 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
24
sources consistent with this policy.
Policy 7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational
characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural resources,
availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of Volume III, the city
identified 70 significant tree groves through the statewide goal 5 planning process. The significant tree
grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of
which exist within lands zoned for residential uses. The proposed development code amendments in
section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II would allow reduction in minimum density as
one of the methods to preserve significant tree groves in residential areas. Therefore, the proposed
comprehensive plan and development code amendments support this policy by ensuring residential
densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of
natural resources.
Policy 8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more
intense, land uses on residential living environments, such as: A) orderly transitions from one
residential density to another and B) protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and
provision of open space areas.
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis on page 27 of Volume III, the city identified 70
significant tree groves using screening/buffering ability as a key criterion. The significant tree grove map
on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of which exist
within lands zones for residential uses. The proposed development code amendments in section
18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
retain significant tree groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in
minimum density, density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban
forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to street and utility standards. In the density transfer option,
compatibility with adjacent development with the same or lower density zoning would be ensured by
restricting lot size reductions to 75 percent or greater of the base residential zoning district. Also, when
additional building height is allowed, applicable buffering and screening requirements would still apply
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.745.050 beginning on page 269 of
Volume II continue to require buffering and screening with only slight adjustments to tree spacing
requirements to ensure consistency with tree spacing requirements in other chapters.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments would require measures
to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living
environments by ensuring orderly transitions from one residential density to another and protecting
existing vegetation,natural resources and open space areas consistent with this policy.
Policy 9. The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with
existing neighborhoods.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards such as residential density transfer to retain
significant tree groves. In the density transfer option, compatibility with adjacent development with the
same or lower density zoning would be ensured by restricting lot size reductions to 75 percent or greater
of the base residential zoning district. This would ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods when
designing infill development.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. The requirements would apply to Minor Land Partitions which
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 25 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
25
are a primary contributor to infill development. As demonstrated by applying the code to infill
development as part of the peer review beginning on page 463 of Volume II and further described in the
Canopy Standards memo beginning on page 7 of Volume III, the amount of tree canopy resulting from
the proposed development code is estimated to be compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are designed to require
infill development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods consistent with this policy.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
GOAL 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water
resources, and wildlife habitat.
Policy 7. The City shall encourage low impact development practices and other measures that
reduce the amount of, and/or treat, stormwater runoff at the source.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to retain significant tree groves. In addition, the
proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II
would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to support
the city's urban forestry program.
In addition, the discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II
would allow the use of techniques that minimize hydrological impacts such a those detailed in Clean Water
Services LIDA Handbook as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective urban forestry plan
requirements.
The Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III documents the ability of trees reduce and treat
stormwater at the source. The Clean Water Services LIDA Handbook also documents the ability of the
constructed systems detailed within the handbook to reduce and treat stormwater at the source. Therefore,
the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments encourage low impact
development practices and other measures that reduce the amount of and/or treat stormwater at the
source consistent with this policy.
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL 12.1: Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the
livability of the community.
Policy 6. The City shall support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
preserve the function of the transportation system.
The proposed Development Code Amendments on pages 135 through 341 in Volume II incorporate trees
and significant tree groves within existing land uses and the transportation system. The Tree Values Memo
beginning on page 1 of Volume III details the ability of trees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
sequestration and shading which reduces fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive
plan and development code amendments support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and preserve the function of the transportation system consistent with this policy.
ENERGY
GOAL 13.1: Reduce energy consumption.
Policy 3. The City shall require future development to consider topography, vegetation, and solar
access during the design phase to reduce demands for artificial heating, cooling, and lighting.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 26 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
26
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that would allow future development to consider
retaining significant tree groves during the design phase. In addition, the proposed development code
amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II would require the achievement of
tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program.
These proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments have been designed to be
flexible and adaptive to allow future development to consider topography, trees, and solar access during
the design phase.
In addition, the discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II
would allow techniques such as solar to reduce the use of fossil fuels for heating, cooling, and lighting as
an alternative to meeting the clear and objective urban forestry plan requirements.
The Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III documents the ability of trees reduce demands
for heating and cooling through strategic placement and shading. Therefore, the flexibility in placement of
trees afforded by the proposed development code amendments and the allowance of alternative
techniques that minimize use of fossil fuels is consistent with this policy which requires future
development to be designed in ways that reduce demands for artificial heating, cooling, and lighting.
Policy 6. The City shall support energy conservation by: D) providing flexibility in the land use
process to take advantage of solar radiation.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of Volume II
require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to support the city's
urban forestry program. These proposed development code amendments have been designed to provide
flexibility in tree preservation and planting to take advantage of solar radiation.
In addition, the discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II
would allow the use of onsite energy production such as solar power as an alternative to meeting the clear
and objective urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030 on page 297 of Volume II.
Therefore, the proposed development code amendments support energy conservation by providing
flexibility in the land use process to take advantage of solar radiation consistent with this policy.
URBANIZATION
GOAL 14.3 Promote Tigard citizens' interests in urban growth boundary expansion
and other regional and state growth management decision
Policy 3. The City shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single family
residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in its regional and
town centers and within major transportation corridors to be consistent with Statewide Planning
Goals and the Metro Framework Plan.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards such as reduction of minimum density and
residential density transfer to retain significant tree groves. Reduction of minimum residential density
would be allowed based on the area of significant tree grove preserved. In the density transfer option,
compatibility with adjacent development with the same or lower density zoning would be ensured by
restricting lot size reductions to 75 percent or greater of the base residential zoning district. This measures
allow for the maintenance of the low-density residential character of existing single family residential
neighborhoods consistent with this policy
SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS: DOWNTOWN
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 27 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
27
GOAL 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into
downtown.
Policy 1. Natural resource functions and values shall be integrated into downtown urban design.
There are no significant tree groves in downtown Tigard, so this policy is not applicable.
GOAL 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians,
automobiles, bicycles, and transit.
Policy 5. Streetscape and public area design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly
environment without the visual dominance by automobile-oriented uses.
The proposed development code amendments to chapter 18.745.040 would continue to require street trees
in downtown Tigard. Street trees enhance the pedestrian environment as further explained by the Tree
Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III. Therefore, the proposed development code
amendments contribute to streetscape and public area design that create a pedestrian friendly environment
consistent with this policy.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments are consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the City
of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
APPLICABLE METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLES
Metro Functional Plan Title 1 — Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation --
calls for a compact urban form and a fair-shared approach to meeting regional housing needs. It
is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to
maintain or increase its housing capacity, except as provided in section 3.07.120.
To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum
density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80% of minimum density requirement for development in 1998,
which means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units allowed by the zoning
designation. As provided in section 3.07.120, a city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity to
protect natural resources.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree
groves covering 544 acres.As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of
Volume III, goal 5 rule requirements would allow significant tree groves within the overlay to be eligible
for the proposed incentives and flexible standards for preservation in section 18.790.050.D. The proposed
incentives and flexible standards would allow for the full development of property under current zoning.
Alternatively, the significant tree grove portion of a site may be removed from the minimum density
calculation, reducing the density of the site, as allowed in section 3.07.120 of Title 1.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. These proposed development code amendments have been
designed to be flexible and adaptive to continue to allow for a compact urban form and a fair-shared
approach to meeting regional housing needs, consistent with Metro Title 1.
Metro Functional Plan Title 3 — Water Quality, Flood Management, and Fish/Wildlife Habitat
Conservation — protect beneficial uses and functional values of water quality and flood
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 28 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
28
management resources by limiting uses in these areas. Establish buffer zones around resource
areas to protect from new development.
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted comprehensive plan and development code amendments to comply
with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Title 3 protects the region's health
and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution
of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements statewide planning goals 5, 6 and 7 by protecting streams,
rivers, wetlands and floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating development impacts on these areas.
The areas subject to these requirements have been mapped and adopted by the Metro Council, specifically,
the FEMA 100-year floodplain and the area of inundation for the February 1996 flood. Title 3 also
protects rivers and streams with buffers that are typically 50 feet wide, requires erosion and sediment
control, planting of native vegetation on stream banks when new development occurs, and prohibits the
storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in significant
protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams and floodways.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to encourage the preservation of significant tree
groves. In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page
303 of Volume II would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in
lieu to support the city's urban forestry program. While these comprehensive plan and development code
amendments are not required to meet Title 3, they would result in the planting, preservation, and
maintenance of trees which support water quality, flood management, and fish and wildlife conservation,
as evidenced by the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III consistent with Metro Title 3.
Metro Functional Plan Title 12 -- Protection of residential neighborhoods from air and water
pollution, noise and crime and to provide adequate levels of public services.
Title 12 protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from increasing density in certain areas,
providing access to commercial services within neighborhoods while not creating excessive traffic,noise or
air pollution, and requiring safe and convenient walking, biking access to schools, parks and greenspaces
for City residents.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, which is more fully described beginning on page 247 of
Volume III, the community identified the urban forest as a key component of residential neighborhoods.
In addition, the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III describes the positive contribution
of trees to preventing air and water pollution, noise and crime. The proposed comprehensive plan and
development code amendments would incorporate trees and significant tree groves into residential
neighborhoods while allowing for the provision of adequate levels of public services consistent with Metro
Title 12.
Metro Functional Plan Title 13 — Nature in Neighborhoods — conserve, protect, and restore a
continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams' headwaters to their
confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their flooplains in a manner that is integrated
with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and control and prevent
water pollution for the protection of the public health and safety, and to maintain and improve
water quality throughout the region.
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat designated as
"highest" value (i.e. Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the Clean Water Services
Vegetated Corridor). An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat situated outside the Clean
Water Services' vegetated corridor are designated as "moderate"value. In addition, 422 acres of non-Class
I and II riparian resources within the City are designated as "lowest" value, including both upland forests
and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest and moderate value habitats are currently protected
through other regulatory processes and agencies such as Clean Water Services. The lowest value habitat
consists of primarily upland forests and is currently vulnerable to development. Approximately 22% or 118
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 29 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
29
acres of the significant tree groves are located on buildable lands outside of Title 3 sensitive lands and
overlap with the lowest value habitat described above.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree
groves covering 544 acres.As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of
Volume III, goal 5 rule requirements would allow significant tree groves within the overlay to be eligible
for the proposed incentives and flexible standards for preservation in section 18.790.050.D. Regulatory
incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer,increased
building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to
street and utility standards.
Although the city is in compliance with Title 13, the regulatory incentives and flexible standards that
facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves are consistent with and supportive of Metro Title 13,
particularly with regards to preserving vulnerable upland habitat designated through Title 13.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the applicable Metro regulations.
APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS
Federal Endangered Species Act
In 1973, the Federal Government passed the Endangered Species Act to protect and recover imperiled
species and the ecosystems on which they depend. Under statewide planning goal 5,local governments are
required to obtain current habitat inventory information for wildlife habitat inventories. Tigard previously
adopted the significant habitat areas map, based on the inventory of regionally significant riparian
corridors and wildlife habitat completed by Metro in 2002.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves using wildlife habitat value and connectivity as a key criterion
as further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 28 of Volume III. The
significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree
groves. The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of
Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves. In
utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible standards applicants are required to maximize the
connectivity of the remaining portion of the significant tree grove under the direction of a certified
arborist. While endangered species were not specifically inventoried as part this process, the preservation
of significant tree groves is supportive of their preservation to the extent that they depend on these
habitats. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments for the
preservation of significant tree groves contribute to the protection of wildlife habitat in support of the
Endangered Species Act.
Federal Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act regulates impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters of the United
States. The State Department of Environmental Quality is also charged with establishing standards,
regulating, and monitoring Oregon's waters for compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Within Tigard, runoff from impervious surfaces, pet waste, and
erosion/ sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preservation of significant tree groves. In
addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. These proposed development code amendments would result in
the preservation and planting of trees which have a positive contribution to water quality, as evidenced by
the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III. While the proposed comprehensive plan and
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 30 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
30
development code amendments in this application are not required for compliance, they are supportive of
Federal Clean Water Act requirements.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT manages approximately 283 acres of right-of-
way in the City of Tigard including Hall Boulevard, and Highways 217, 5, and 99W. State Bulletin RD06-
03(B) provides specifications for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT rights-of-way. These
specifications are intended to balance the need for safety along state roadways with the planting and
maintenance of street trees.
ODOT served on the Technical Advisory Committee for the urban forestry code revisions project. One of
the purposes of ODOT's participation was to meet a project goal of clarifying jurisdictional requirements.
The city and ODOT met this goal by defining street and median trees as trees within right of way under
City of Tigard jurisdiction in chapter 18.120 beginning on page 149 of Volume II. This proposed
development code amendment would clarify that trees within ODOT right of way are under ODOT
jurisdiction. Since the city and ODOT have differing standards for street tree planting, the proposed
development code amendments would ensure consistency with ODOT requirements by allowing each
jurisdiction to apply its regulations separately in right of way under its jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments in Volume II
support or do not conflict with the applicable State or Federal regulations. All affected agencies have been
notified of the proposed amendments and have been given the opportunity to comment.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, outlines the citizen involvement requirements for
adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
As described in the Process Summary beginning on page 31 of Volume I, the City has provided Tigard
citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions multiple and varied opportunities to participate in all
phases of the urban forestry planning process. This included 11 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
where people representing diverse interests and viewpoints discussed and reviewed code concepts and
language at 11 meetings hosted by an independent facilitator. In addition, the Technical Advisory
Committee which included representatives from multiple city departments such as Public Works and
Community Development, and outside agencies such as the ODOT and Clean Water Service met 14 times
to discuss and review code concepts and language resulting from the Citizen Advisory Committee process.
In additon, 14,225 public hearing notices consistent with Measure 56 were sent to all Tigard property
owners on January 13, 2012. Public hearing notices were also provided to interested parties on January 17,
2012, to affected agencies on January 20, 2012 and published in the Tigard Times on January 19, 2012.
The proposed amendments will be further considered through the public hearing process at the Planning
Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Citizen involvement opportunities utilized to create the
proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments have been consistent with statewide
planning goal 1.
Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, establishes a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are being processed as a Type IV
procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations,
METRO regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances, be addressed as
part of the decision-making process. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff
report. Therefore, the requirements of statewide planning goal 2 have been met.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 31 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
31
Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, requires the inventory and protection of natural
resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and
aggregate resources.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree
groves covering 544 acres in compliance with goal 5 rule requirements. As further explained in the Tree
Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 27 of Volume III key evaluation criteria in the inventory and
selection of significant tree groves were grove maturity/tree size, grove size, health/viability, visibility,
screening and buffering, accessibility, rarity, educational/recreational potential, wildlife habitat value and
connectivity, and the amount of existing disturbance.
During the inventory phase, all property owners with an inventoried tree grove on their property were
provided notice compliant with goal 5 rule requirements. As part of the notice, property owners were
invited to a tree grove open house which was held on October 6, 2010 to learn more and provide feedback
about the process.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments for significant tree
groves would result in a limited protection program in compliance with statewide planning goal 5.
Goal 5 requirements are not applicable to proposed code amendments that support general urban forest
enhancement activities such as tree planting and preservation when not associated with significant tree
groves. These activities do not create or amend a resource list or land use regulation adopted in order to
protect a goal 5 resource.
Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality, requires the maintenance and
improvement of the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to encourage the maintenance and improvement of
significant tree groves.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. One benefit of these development code amendments is they
encourage the maintenance and improvement of tree canopy citywide which, as further detailed in the
Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III,is well documented to have a positive contribution
to air quality. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are
consistent with statewide planning goal 6
Statewide Planning Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards, requires the protection of life and
property from natural disasters and hazards.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree
groves covering 544 acres. The significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the
location of these 70 significant tree groves,many of which overlap areas subject to natural hazards.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program. In meeting tree canopy standards, trees may be planted or
preserved in lands subject to natural hazards.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 32 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
32
One benefit of these comprehensive plan and development code amendments is that tree roots, canopies,
and leaf litter have the ability to prevent erosion and thereby protect areas subject to natural hazards. This
is more fully described in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III. Therefore, the
proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are consistent with and supportive of
statewide planning goal 7.
Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Opportunities, requires satisfaction of the recreational needs
of the citizens of the state and visitors.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves using visibility, accessibility, and educational/recreational
potential as key criteria as further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 27 of
Volume III. The significant tree grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70
significant tree groves, many of which overlap with city's parks and open space resources.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves. In utilizing these
regulatory incentives and flexible standards applicants are required to maximize the connectivity and
viability of the remaining portion of the significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist.
Significant tree groves provide opportunities for passive and active recreational opportunities for citizens
of the state. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are
consistent with statewide planning goal 8.
Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, requires provision of adequate opportunities
throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to public health,welfare, and prosperity.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves through the statewide goal 5 planning process as further
explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on page 17 of Volume III. The significant tree
grove map on page 105 of Volume III identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves. The
proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume II
include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program.
These proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments have been designed to be
flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities and allow the provision of required
infrastructure consistent consistent with statewide planning goal 9.
Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, requires balancing the needs of tree and forest planting and
preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban land.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards also provide for needed housing and promote the
efficient use of land by allowing density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments
to urban forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy requirements through planting, preservation, or a fee
in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program. This would allow applicants to design sites efficiently
while providing needed housing and incorporating trees.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are consistent with and
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 33 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
33
supportive of statewide planning goal 10 while meeting the city's urban forestry goals.
Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities/Services, requires planning and development of a
timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban
and rural development.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards would allow adjustments to street and utility
standards.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy requirements through planting,preservation, or a fee
in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are consistent with and
supportive of statewide planning goal 11 because they allow maximum flexibility for the efficient
arrangement of public facilities while incorporating trees.
Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, requires provision of a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
As stated above, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page
317 of Volume II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of
significant tree groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards would allow adjustments to street and
utility standards.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy requirements through planting,preservation, or a fee
in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments are consistent with and
supportive of statewide planning goal 12 because they allow maximum flexibility for a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system while incorporating trees.
Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires land and uses developed on the land to be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves. In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page
303 of Volume II require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation, or a fee in lieu to
support the city's urban forestry program.
In addition, the discretionary urban forestry plan review option beginning on page 307 of Volume II
allows the use techniques such as solar power generation that minimize the use of fossil fuels an alternative
to meeting the clear and objective urban forestry plan requirements in section 18.790.030.
The Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of Volume III documents the ability of trees to reduce energy
demands through strategic placement and shading. Therefore, the flexibility in placement of trees afforded
by the proposed development code amendments and the allowance of alternative techniques that minimize
use of fossil fuels is consistent with statewide planning goal 13 which seeks to maximize energy
conservation based on sound economic principles.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 34 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
34
Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, requires provision of for an orderly and efficient transition
from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban
growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
The proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.050.D beginning on page 317 of Volume
II include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree
groves. Regulatory incentives and flexible standards would allow density transfer, increased building
height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to urban forestry plan requirements, and adjustments to street and
utility standards.
In addition, the proposed development code amendments in section 18.790.030 beginning on page 303 of
Volume II provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy requirements through planting,preservation, or a fee
in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program.
Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments provide flexibility in
tree preservation and planting strategies to allow for the efficient use of land to accommodate urban
population and employment within the urban growth boundary consistent with statewide planning goal 14.
Inapplicable Statewide Planning Goals include Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands)
because they address rural land outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary; Goal 15 (Willamette River
Greenway), because the Willamette River does not flow through Tigard; and Goals 16 (Estuarine
Resources), 17 (Coastal Shorelines), 18 (Beaches and Dunes), and 19 (Ocean Resources), because they
relate to Oregon's coastal resources.
CONCLUSION_ Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals.
SECTION V. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Comments were received in response to the public hearing notice to interested parties and Measure 56
notice to all city property owners. These comments will be provided to the Planning Commission with this
staff report.
SECTION VI.AGENCY COMMENTS
Metro —Land use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation,
US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J were given the opportunity to review this
proposal and submitted no comments or objections.
The Cities of Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, King City, and Durham were given the
opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections.
Oregon Department of Transportation and Clean Water Services have reviewed the proposal as
members of the Technical Advisory Committee and provided input that contributed to the proposed
amendments.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments which will be provided to the Planning
Commission with this staff report.
Verizon, Comcast Cable Corp, Qwest Communications, Portland General Electric and NW
Natural Gas Company were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 35 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
35
or objections.
PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE
Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ron Bunch DATE
Community Development Director
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT—Draft Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 36 OF 36
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002
36
Dear Planning Commission Members,
January 12, 2012
I write you in advance of your February 6 hearing on draft code amendments for
Tigard's Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project. I participated in these draft
amendments as the public member of the CAC and my comments below address public
policy. I believe that the draft amendments as they relate to development should be
substantially changed for the betterment of Tigard. Please know that I am not trying to
destroy the considerable effort done to date -- I have worked on this issue for a decade
in Tigard. Instead, I and I hope you want to influence the result so that Tigard will have
a practical and enforceable urban forest ordinance.
THE CANOPY TARGET APPROACH IS NOVEL TO THE UNITED STATES.
Increasing tree canopy in Tigard is agreeable to most, but the code proposal which
calculates potential tree canopy decades into the future and uses that as the basis for
development approval today has not been used in any other city or county jurisdiction in
the United States.
Early in Tigard's code revision effort, I questioned Todd on this matter and a vague
reference to Athens, GA was the reply. I spoke with the planning department in
Athens, GA and found that their approach gave incentives for retention of large trees
(i.e. tree canopy) on a lot, but also required that existing trees be retained in almost all
situations. Searching further, I contacted planning departments elsewhere in Virginia
and New Jersey and found the same structure for their development codes.
Most close to home, I interviewed staff at the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and
Sustainability and found that their multi-year "Report and Recommendations to Planning
Commission and Urban Forestry Commission" also required the retention of a
calculated percentage of existing trees on a development site. One staff response
noted for Portland "We opted to use canopy as a measure of citywide and
neighborhood level forest performance over time, but when it comes to
on-the-ground implementation, performance based standards for trees are
exceedingly difficult to enforce (trees march to their own performance tune).
This also complicated by the fact that the city"s leverage is mostly during the
development period (this is where plans are reviewed, inspections are performed,
and final approval is granted to occupy the structure). Returning to a property
owner 5 or 10 or 20 years later to say that the trees didn't grow well enough will
generally not be well received and leaves questions as to what the proper
solution should be in these cases. Ask yourself what 'maturity is for a tree. A
redwood is a couple hundred years, while an alder may be 30 or so years."
As part of the CAC study, we were presented with a survey of some 20 regional
jurisdictions showing the main features of their urban forest regulations -- none relied
on the canopy target approach in their regulations. Beaverton has a tree retention
37
requirement. A citizen working group for Washington County, which has no tree code,
has developed with a broad base of parties a model for tree retention which again calls
for retention of a calculated percentage of existing trees.
Staff could not provide any other reference to where this major reliance on theory and
future tree growth is used for regulatory purposes today. It is not prudent for Tigard to
rely so heavily on what is a nice theory, but untried elsewhere.
The canopy target approach is fraught with a wide range of uncertainty. My favorite is
that future tree branch growth is assumed to be in a perfect 360 degree circle, and this
circle is assumed to exist at tree maturity. Almost no trees grow in such a manner, so
that the square feet of canopy coverage will be different than assumed. As another
example, there is nothing in the code or Urban Forestry Manual which limits the
'assumed' mature spread of tree canopy when a tree is located beneath
power/communication lines or adjacent to a building.
There is nothing wrong with a canopy target for the city. But by not requiring the
retention of a calculated percentage of existing trees, it "kicks the can down the road"
some 40 years without retaining today's canopy wherever possible. Only at such later
date will Tigard find out whether tree canopy in the city has been enhanced or not.
A case in point regarding canopy approach enforcement for Tigard is the recent
replanting of trees in the large COSTCO parking lot. Development approval some 15
years ago called for 30 percent canopy cover in 15 years time. Two or three years
ago, I happened to look at the development approval and initiated a Tigard enforcement
action, since 13 years had gone by and canopy cover was about 5 percent and a
number of the parking lot trees were dead or dying. The canopy requirement was no
where logged as a continuing requirement for COSTCO. COSTCO did replant trees in
somewhat larger root spaces, but the canopy goal will not be met for years to come, if
then (there is no basis for enforcing success of the new planting).
I urge you to require a calculated percentage of existing trees on the development
impact area of a site to remain as a condition of approval. Certainly there is a role for
future tree canopy estimates, including incentives, but not the near total reliance which
is in the draft code.
Staff has stated that requiring some calculated percentage of existing trees would be
inequitable as between those applicants with and those without existing trees. Such a
preexisting condition which may present development limitations is no different than a
site which has wetlands, steep slopes or other impediments to construction on of every
square foot of property.
THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT THE CANOPY COVER APPROACH. As staff
has described, CAC consideration of regulation changes was done in three stages --
38
first a briefing and survey, then presentation of draft concepts and finally consensus on
detailed wording.
Please look in your materials at the CAC survey (first stage of consideration) dated
November 10, 2010: Question 2 asked whether the code should continue to allow
removal of all trees, subject to mitigation or whether "a base level of preservation of
quality trees if feasible" should be the basis for a revised code. The second option was
favored by a 5-to-3 survey vote. The survey included NO consideration of a canopy
cover approach in revised rules. Similarly, there was NO consideration of a canopy
cover approach in the associated options memo (see page 42 of minutes, CAC Meeting
5) for development rules throughout the city; the only mention of canopy was in
conjunction with street trees and parking lot trees (18.745).
At CAC Meeting 6, staff proposed the canopy cover approach as a new and pure
concept, with no background on its practicality. Staff jumped from consideration of the
survey alternative (i.e. continue to allow all tree removal subject to mitigation) to an
entirely subject and new choice, the canopy cover approach. The proposed canopy
cover approach actually goes against the survey preference -- all trees can be removed
under the draft regulations provided new trees are planted which are projected to have
an 'effective' canopy cover of 40 percent at maturity.
There was no consideration by staff or the CAC of any other alternative or combination
of a preservation plus canopy incentive approach to development regulations, as City of
Portland had drafted and later adopted. I urge you to start from the survey finding that
not all trees should be allowed to be removed, subject to mitigation, and then ask staff
to develop alternatives, which are in actual practice around the country. A repeat of
CAC consideration or your own evaluation should follow.
REVISIONS IGNORE SMALLER SITES WHICH PREDOMINATE IN TIGARD. It has
long been acknowledged that most developments and redevelopments in Tigard will
occur on existing or small 'infill' sites. The drafted code changes substantially ignore
redevelopment on existing developed sites. The City of Portland has set a good
example, requiring compliance with the new urban forest code when a specified major
change occurs on an existing site -- e.g., a specified change in square foot of the
development or a specified monetary addition to a development. Such provisions
should be included in the Tigard code.
Certainly, for small modifications, it is not reasonable to require new street tree
plantings or canopy coverage, but for significant site changes and given that the
NUMBER of these changes is large, incorporating urban forest code requirements
cumulatively will have an impact on Tigard's urban forest. Application of the draft
regulations to new major developments, e.g. west Bull Mountain, is surely appropriate,
but most of today's citizens do not live there.
39
THE PUBLIC HAS NO INPUT FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. The "guiding
principles" for the urban forest code revisions project state (page 1) "(The UFCR)
reflects Tigard City Council's direction for a comprehensive urban forestry code update
with enhanced public involvement."
Exactly the opposite has evolved for significant changes. Placement of canopy target
rules in 'administrative rules', namely the Urban Forestry Manual, means that there is no
public notice or participation in changes to these rules, which are the heart of the entire
code revisions.
For urban forestry plans which have been initially approved (see 18.790.070),
subsequent changes proposed by the applicant eliminate any public notice or
participation. As drafted, the rules would allow ANY modification of an approved tree
plan to go forward with only a Type 1 decision process. Staff originally proposed and I
agree that significant changes to an urban forestry plan should be decided by a Type II
process. The definition of significance might well be when 10 percent of trees or tree
DBH or proposed tree canopy are changed in location or species. In an associated
condition, there should be at least SOME limitation on the possible reasons that a tree
originally planned for retention cannot later be retained -- i.e. it should not be allowed
that contractor work (trenching, tractor compaction, etc.) has caused a tree to become
not viable.
THE CANOPY TARGET APPROACH IS NOT ENFORCABLE. Oregon statutes
(197.307(3)(b) and 227.160) require regulations to contain 'clear and objective' 'criteria
or standards' for development approval.
In the draft development code, reference to canopy cover first appears at 18.790.030 A,
'Urban Forestry Plan Submittal Requirements'. This is a submittal requirement, not a
criteria or standard for development approval. In matters of legislative construction, the
wording of a title supersedes the wording within a rule. Submittal requirements are not
required to be met; the recent case involving Fred Fields and his failure to have all land
owners sign the application for development east of Wall Street is cited as one example
of this peculiarity. The Tigard hearings officer ruled (page 12, Final Order) that the
signature is "an application standard, not an approval criterion." I have encountered the
same objection in appeals to LUBA over the past several years -- only code 'criteria or
standards', identified as 'approval criteria' are enforceable under state law. LUBA ruled
in McConnell v City of West Linn that failure to meet submittal requirements is not in
itself a basis for remand or disapproval of city actions. Seel 7 OrLUBA 502.
Similarly, a description of canopy cover provisions in the Urban Forestry Manual
(administrative rules) are not 'ordinances or regulations' which are the domain of
Oregon land use rules; compliance with a variety of referenced materials has been
40
found not required by LUBA unless such materials are expressly stated in the code as
approval criteria. See for example Wuester v. Clackamas County, 27 OrLUBA 314.
Similarly, the lack of standards in the regulations has been found to grant 'unfettered
discretion' to the local jurisdiction in approving or disapproving an application
(Heidgerken v. Marion County 39 OrLUBA 313). Movement of substantive definitions
for urban forest management away from Chapter 18 of the Tigard code into Section 8 of
the Tigard code is another example of removing certainty from the regulations and
placing total discretion over the process in the hands of city staff. The Planning
Commission should stick up for Tigard citizens and require discipline on city staff by
placing the tree related definitions of Chapter 8 into Chapter 18.
Staff has argued that the underlying development section of the code (e.g. Section 360
of the code on Site Development Review for subdivisions) has as a requirement that the
Urban Forestry Manual guidance on canopy cover must be met. But (please look it
up!) the proposed revision of this section DELETES the requirement that 18.790 is to be
considered as 'approval criteria'. In fact, the commentary on 18.360.090 notes only
that a 'cross reference' to 18.790 has been provided in 18.360.070, which itself is not an
approval criterion. So the revised section (18.360.090) never mentions canopy cover,
only requiring "compliance with all applicable requirements of this title" (at subsection
A.1) and requiring that "all landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 and 18.790".
There is no definition of 'applicable' or definition or 'landscaping' in the code; hence,
the applicability of some or all canopy cover provisions (in administrative rules which
can be changed without public input) is entirely up to the judgment of applicant or at the
whim of city staff. LUBA has ruled that when 'applicable criteria' are not provided, the
local government "commits procedural error which prejudice a petitioner's substantial
rights." See Naumes Properties v. City of Central Point 46 ORLuba 304. Certainly
the canopy cover provisions are not 'clear and objective'.
Staff has responded, simply saying generically that these matter has been reviewed by
city attorneys, but not giving any citation of statute, rule or case law which find the
proposed draft enforceable; you should ask for such.
I look forward to your review of these issues, your deliberations on these issues and am
willing to try answering questions which this memo may cause to rise up.
John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 503-245-5760
gkjfrewing@gmail.com
41
From:John Frewing f mailto:gkjfrewing@gmail.coml
Sent: Monday,January 23, 2012 7:21 AM
To:Todd Prager
Subject: Comments on Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Todd,
Please consider these comments as input to the Planning Commission hearing on February 6.
1. The new(to me) memo on canopy cover dated 11/7/11 in the PC workshop packet that I received on
January 9 is not understandable to me or the general public. Could you have the consultant try again
(maybe with graphics) how they came up with the ultimate potential for canopy coverage in Tigard (i.e.
the 100%of canopy coverage which is the start for the UFP goal of 40% canopy coverage)? I am
concerned that the memo seems to exclude water and wetlands, even when CWS calls for canopy cover
over these areas to cool waters of the Tualatin basin. I am concerned that the memo seems to exclude
ALL school grounds instead of just the playing fields associated with them. I am concerned that the
memo seems to exclude public right of way. I am concerned that the memo seems to assume that
'landscaped areas' have canopy cover; surely a landscaped area such as a lawn is not covered by tree
canopy.
2. Regarding adquate soil volume for trees: I think there should be some provision to the effect that the
same root volume should not be counted for more than one tree. This might be possible when one tree
includes areas as far as 50 feet from the trunk of the planted tree.
3. The ESEE appears to be written only for the tree grove program. As I look at the requirement for an
ESEE, it should also apply to canopy cover regulations, soil volume regulations, etc. Please conduct an
ESEE for these additional parts of the code revision project or explain why an ESEE is not needed.
Thanks for your consideration.
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
503-245-5760
42
From: stevef [mailto:sb.martin@frontier.com]
Sent: Wednesday,January 11, 2012 11:08 PM
To: Darren Wyss
Subject: MUE Tree Grove Incentives
Hello Darren,
In an MUE zone with tree groves, if incentives for retaining the groves are to be economically
meaningful enough to alter decisions to remove them, a significantly higher residential density than 25
units per acre will be needed in conjunction with a significantly higher allowed building height.
Hopefully,the limitations on density will be removed as it appears to be in the MUE 1 zone. Obviously,
for the increased density to have economic meaning and provide the necessary amount of incentive to
keep the tree groves, height restrictions also need to be increased or removed in order for it to be
possible to make use of the increased density.
Although the added 20 feet in building height may provide some degree of incentive to retain tree
groves, within MUE zones, a maximum height of 65 feet is a troublesome height as to construction cost
efficiency since a seven or eight floor building can be expected to have greater cost efficiency than a five
to six floor one. For this reason and the small amount of MUE land eligible for the incentives,the
economics of each situation should be allowed to govern as to height. If a maximum height must be set,
then it should be at least 85 feet.
Alternatively, allowing the administrator flexibility to raise the height at least another 20 feet to 40 feet
above the existing 45 feet could be helpful as to incentives to maintain tree groves. However, it is
always much more difficult to establish cost estimates and the incentive to consider a project when
restrictions are left uncertain.
Increasing the reduction in required canopy coverage over that presently proposed would also provide
increased incentive since the current proposed reduction appears too restrictive in regard to designing
buildings around trees. Alternatively, giving the administrator greater flexibility to reduce the maximum
canopy coverage as needed would also be useful. Another alternative (or separate incentive) could be
to allow roof top canopy coverage to count towards required canopy coverage.
Designing a project around an existing tree grove can be expected to add considerable complexity to a
project.Therefore,to keep complexity within acceptable limits for a developer, it will be best to remove
as much future uncertainty as to density, height restrictions, setbacks, and required canopy as possible.
Otherwise, it will probably be found more economical to cut the tree grove and work with restrictions
which are certain.
In summary, large buildings are difficult to locate amongst existing trees in MUE areas. Consequently,
the density, height, setback, and canopy incentives need to have the greatest significance possible to
help ensure tree groves can be maintained. Present rules along with proposed MUE incentives appear
to be insufficient as to justifying the maintenance of the groves. With regards to what is allowed on a
given site,the ability to quickly"know" is of paramount importance. For this reason, giving the
administrator considerable flexibility on all incentives and issues associated with tree groves is
important because circumstances not covered by ordinance will inevitably need to be addressed on a
timely basis to preserve the trees.
43
Thank you,
Steve
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If
requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public
Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative
Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule."
44
rF�, - �'� Department of Fish and WildlifeFc Ore on
tip Sauvie Island Wildlife life
r . z North Willamette Wildlife District
John Kitzhaber, Governor
18330 NW Sauvie Island Road
\�a s Portland,OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3488
Fax: 503-621-3025
http://www.dfw.state.or.us
Date: January 18,2012
OREGON
To: Gary Pagenstecher
City of Tigard Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Blvd Fish&Wildlife
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Request for Comments: Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating Significant
Tree Groves Map and Tree Code Revisions
Dear Mr. Pagenstecher:
This correspondence is in response to the request for comments received by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) from the City of Tigard Planning Division. The City
plans to updated and revise current tree code standards, and incorporate the Urban Forestry
Manual (UFM) and significant tree grove map. ODFW highly supports any effort by
municipalities that more accurately portrays the natural resources present in their area. The
significant tree groves map will help retain existing tree stands that provide green space and
important habitat in Tigard that may not otherwise be protected. ODFW also appreciates the new
flexibility standards incorporated into the Urban Forestry Standards for Development and Tree
Grove Preservation Incentives. Making landscapes work for fish and wildlife often relies on
project level actions and allowing flexibility in order to accommodate the natural landscape and
habitat is an important step forward in urban tree management for habitat and wildlife. Lastly,
ODFW is pleased that the City has defined `Hazard Tree Abatement' that includes limbing and
other options to reduce risk rather than solely removing the tree. This action will also have a large
positive benefit to wildlife.
After review of the tree code revisions, ODFW has recommendations to further reduce the impact
of the proposed code to wildlife that reside in Tigard and use trees for part or all of their critical
life history requirements (what they need to survive).
In December 2010, ODFW submitted recommendations to the committee charged with reviewing
Tigard's tree code. They reviewed it at their January 12th, 2011 meeting. ODFW encourages the
City of Tigard to take into consideration each of the recommendations. All of the
recommendations provided could improve wildlife habitat without increasing costs to developers
or danger to residents. These recommendations are attached and remain viable options that the
City of Tigard could consider to benefit wildlife within City limits. ODFW recommends that the
City closely consider the proposal of a 'tree removal season' in order to comply with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act,a federal law.
Specific recommendations for the Urban Forestry Code revision documents are listed below:
Significant Tree Grove Map
45
ODFW Recommendation: Add intact forest stands along Fanno Creek in the Hall
StBurnham/Hunziker area. Supply ODFW with process for selection of tree groves and
allow for public review.
The selection process for the significant tree groves is not included in the materials for this
review. ODFW would like to understand the process, provide the City of Tigard with any State
information/data that may be helpful to determine significance, and have an opportunity to
comment on the selection process. From the map, it appears that forest in the area around Fanno
Creek between the streets named above has been omitted. The forest patches in this area are
healthy,may be developed in the future, and would benefit from this designation.
In General
ODFW Recommendation: Strike that `existing' trees may be used as replacement trees
throughout the Code and Urban Forestry Manual.
Allowing existing trees to be used as required replacement trees will result in a net loss of trees
(over time) within City limits. Mitigation for tree removal is common and should result in a net
benefit over time. The City could consider tree replacement based on DBH of trees removed. The
services to both humans and wildlife provided by mature large DBH trees are not replaced
immediately by saplings.
ODFW Recommendation: Add language in the UFM and Code to support preservation of
Oregon white oak and appropriate replacement of oak with oak,if removal is necessary.
Oregon white oak habitat is a globally imperiled ecosystem. The lack of prescribed fire and
overharvesting and/or removal by humans for development combined with the slow growth rate
of this species has resulted in sharp decline of oak species everywhere. Wildlife species that
specifically depend on this tree are also in sharp decline including the Western grey squirrel and
the acorn woodpecker; both Oregon Conservation Strategy species. Because oak species takes
100-300 years to mature, services provided by mature oaks virtually vanish after removal.
Although the City of Tigard may not have large expanses of pure oak woodland or savanna,
individual oaks are also critical to many species of wildlife because of the food resource and
shelter they provide. Oaks are found in both wet and dry habitats, although most commonly
associated with upland habitats. As such, they are not regulated by any means other than
voluntary conservation at the present moment. The City of Tigard has the opportunity to manage
the remaining oaks within the City limits in a way that will halt the continued loss of these
important wildlife trees. Many options exist including: allowing flexibility in development to
retain oak trees similar to the new Significant Tree Grove Guidelines; replacing removed oaks
with oaks; and moving to classify all Oregon white oaks over a certain DBH as Heritage Trees
within City limits.
ODFW Recommendation: Add language in the UFM and Code to support leaving 5-20 feet
of the trunk of a `hazard' tree located in designated sensitive lands, natural areas, or a
significant tree grove if `hazard tree abatement' requires much of the tree to be removed.
Leaving dead and dying standing wood is becoming rarer, not only in urban areas, but in rural
areas as well. These types of trees provide a disproportionate amount of services to wildlife and
ecosystems. Often, the hazard is removed after limbs or most of the tree is removed. Leaving at
least part of the trunk standing can still support many wildlife species and is an appropriate action
46
in sensitive land areas or other natural/open space areas. If`hazard tree abatement' calls for the
entire tree to be removed, it is important to consider leaving 5-20 feet of the trunk.
ODFW Recommendation: Add language in the UFM and Code that requires 50 percent of
newly planted trees to be native in a development/landscape plan.
Native species have evolved with native trees. As such, native trees are most useful to sustain
Oregon's wildlife populations. The City of Tigard could benefit wildlife within city limits by
requiring a certain percentage of newly planted trees to be native in new developments.
ODFW Recommendation: Add language in the UFM and Code that require native trees
removed to be replaced with native trees.
If native trees are removed for development and replaced with non-native ornamentals,net loss of
native flora will occur over time to the detriment of wildlife species. If the City is reluctant to
require a certain percentage of native trees to be planted in a development, at a minimum, native
trees that are removed should be replaced by native trees to maintain function for arboreal
species, like migratory song birds.
Chapter 8.12 Trees in Sensitive Lands
8.12.040 Sensitive Lands Tree Removal
ODFW Recommendation: Strike Criteria#2 from the UFM Section 6 for removal of
trees in Sensitive Lands
ODFW understands that dead and dying trees may not be desired for aesthetic and safety
reasons in medians, parking lots, or as street trees. However, the criteria for removal in
Sensitive Lands should not include Criteria #2: "The tree is dead or declining". Criteria
#2 is not appropriate for sensitive lands areas. Sensitive lands are designated as such
because they function as part of a riparian system that provides critical services to the
City and are a part of Statewide Planning Goal 5. Dead and dying trees are part of that
system and, if not a hazard to humans (Criteria#1), should be left standing for wildlife,
nutrient inputs into the soil after they fall, and water retention/filtration (fallen trees act
like sponges on the forest floor).
ODFW Recommendation: Strike "In addition to newly planted trees, existing trees
less than 6"DBH can be used as replacement trees...."in the UFM Section 6
This practice will result in a net loss of trees in impacted sensitive lands and is not
aligned with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
ODFW Recommendation: Provide language in the UFM specifically for Oregon
white oaks that are impacted in Sensitive Lands
Oregon white oak populations are declining and more protection in lands classified as
sensitive areas will help retain oaks that are left within the City of Tigard. Avoidance
remains the most helpful action for this slow growing species and is appropriate for trees
existing in sensitive land areas. Incentives for preservation will help avoid removal. In
addition, mitigation for oak removal should be higher than other faster growing trees. For
47
instance, 2-3 oaks planted for every one oak removed may help replace some of the value
that is lost.
Chapter 8.18 Heritage Trees
ODFW Recommendation: Include Code specifically supporting Oregon white oak
conservation within the City. Enroll all Oregon white oaks 80 years or older on city
property as Heritage Trees to raise oak conservation awareness. Identify mature oaks
throughout the City on private land and notify landowners of the resource they have on
their property and the support services offered from the City if enrolled as a Heritage Tree.
8.18.070 Removal of Heritage Tree Designation
ODFW Recommendation: Require a minimum of 1 replacement tree if a Heritage
tree is removed in Section 9 of the UFM.
Section 9 allows no replacement if a heritage tree is removed. This policy is explained by
the statement that there is no way the value of a heritage tree can be replaced, thus a
replacement isn't needed. That reasoning can be applied to any mature tree, especially the
slower growing species. Although value is lost every time a mature tree or a heritage tree
is removed, whether it be a social or an ecological value, it is important to replace it so
that future generations of humans and wildlife have mature trees available to them. The
City of Tigard may want to consider several trees, or perhaps a small grove, as mitigation
for one Heritage Tree removed.
Chapter 18.79 Urban Forestry Plan
ODFW Recommendation: This Chapter references Section 10, Part 5 of the UFM,
Significant Tree Grove Preservation Considerations often. Part 5 should be modified so that
dead or dying trees that provide wildlife value and that do not pose a threat to humans or
structures do not indirectly affect the rating of the Significant Tree Grove by the arborist.
It is clear that considerations for Significant Tree Grove Preservation are geared toward a stand of
very robust, young, and healthy trees. Forests include trees at all stages of life and maintain soil
health by returning plant matter to the soil through dead and dying plant material. The
considerations, if applied, may result in a bias toward young groves and less preservation of older
groves that supply important, limited, and rare ecosystem services. Adding a consideration for
older groves and/or wildlife snags will reduce the likelihood of this outcome.
18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements
ODFW Recommendation: Include number of dead/dying trees in tree preservation
and removal site plan in Section 10,Part 1 or Part 3 of the UFM
Currently, dead trees are not afforded a number during site evaluation by certified
aborists. Conversely, these trees are the trees that provide the highest degree of wildlife
services. Understanding the wildlife value that is to be lost by the development is useful
information for the City and the developers and can be used, perhaps, to mitigate some
loss of these functions and help inform the City forester how quickly these elements are
being lost within City limits.
48
18.790.050 Flexible Standards for Planting and Preservation
ODFW Recommendation: Strike the base requirement "The 10,000 square feet of
significant tree grove canopy is not already protected by floodplain, stream corridor
and/or wetland regulations" to qualify for Subsection C and replace with more
appropriate language or leave out.
Trees are often not protected or taken into consideration during other regulatory
processes that focus on cut and fill to assess impacts. Forested wetland is mitigated for,
however, often the mitigation for trees is inadequate because the trees are not replaced
on-site and tree density may be different than the number of trees removed wherever
mitigation occurs. Also, trees are not necessarily protected by federal floodplain
requirements (based on cut and fill only). Provide the regulation that adequately
addresses tree protection during it's process or strike this requirement to quality for
Flexible Standards in Subsection C.
ODFW appreciates the opportunity to provide recommendations to support the best stewardship
of the state's fish and wildlife resources as possible and to support the City of Tigard in
protecting natural resources, benefitting wildlife species, and increasing functioning habitats that
are dwindling within the UGB and within the City. ODFW applauds the actions taken in this
Code revision by the City of Tigard and encourages the City to take this opportunity to make
even more positive change for the City's wildlife, remaining Oregon white oaks, and snags.
Please address any questions you may have regarding these comments to Elizabeth Ruther at
503.621-3488 x228.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Ruther
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Willamette Watershed District
Cc: Tom Murtagh, ODFW
Encl: ODFW Tree Recommendations for Cities.doc
49
ODFW TREE RECOMMENDATIONS for City Development Codes
Created by: Elizabeth Ruther,Habitat Conservation Biologist
Last revision: 12/21/10
Background Information
Trees provide many needs for wildlife. In urban areas they are particularly important for birds.
Trees provide food(nectar,insects, seeds,bark),places to nest, and places to hide/escape,rest, or
perch while hunting for food.
When bird habitat is gone,birds react two ways. They go elsewhere or their population declines
when reproduction success drops, eventually leading to smaller populations and extinction.
Unfortunately,the latter is occurring more than the former because `elsewhere' doesn't
necessarily exist if a given bird species has specific habitat needs. The common birds we know so
well, like jays, crows,robins, and sparrows, are called generalists because they adapt to change
well and even have learned how to exploit the human landscape for their benefit.Many,many
other bird species are called specialists and do not thrive in the human landscape.Among the list
of needs includes specific trees, specific nesting sites, and specific food sources. These are the
species of birds that are declining in the region. Slight changes in tree management can greatly
offset impacts to these species and help stabilize, if not increase,their populations.
It is important to understand the value of mature trees and the length of time that value is lost
after a mature tree is removed.Not only do large trees increase property value,provide cooling
shade, and nice views,they provide habitat that is not replaced by young `mitigation' plantings.
Trees mature over long periods of time. The quickest(relatively speaking) are riparian trees(30-
50 years)and others,like oak take much longer(100-200 years). Mature trees provide habitat
structure,nesting sites, and food sources that young trees don't provide.When applied to standing
dead tress (snags), add the time to maturity that is mentioned above plus the time the tree lives
after it matures and it becomes clear why snags are becoming rarer in the area. Depending on the
species,mature tree snags take 30 to 300 years or greater to replace. Every time a mature tree or
snag is removed for development, depending on the species, it may take from one to multiple
human lifetimes to replace the value that is lost. From this perspective, it is important to know
what tree resources the City possesses,how to reduce long term impacts, and conserve/support
mature tree habitat within City limits.
The recommendations in this document stem from impacts observed while commenting on land
use applications. The recommendations are structured so that the recommendation is underlined
and stated first. The reasoning for the recommendation is provided in the paragraph following
each recommendation.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are actions that the City of Tigard could implement to increase
the wildlife-friendliness of the city and support the bird populations that are declining the region.
1) Consider requiring only native species be planted in developments. Require `street trees'
be native species. At the very least,replace native trees with native trees.
Native trees that have evolved with our native bird species are often removed during
development of commercial and residential buildings and non-native trees are planted in their
50
place.Non-native trees do not necessarily provide the same services as the native tree that
native birds use. For instance,non-native trees may have a different branch structure that
doesn't support the nest of a native bird, or a food source is lost because insect communities
change from tree species to tree species. Also,the non-native tree may not have the tendency
to produce cavities like a native tree,resulting in the removal of nesting habitat. There are
many aesthetically pleasing native trees that also have the bonus of providing great habitat.
2) Require planting plans from developers that consider spatial arrangement and vertical
structure as well as species and quantity of trees.
Landscape with wildlife in mind. Planting plans for commercial development have limited
habitat function. Habitat is made up of a number of factors,not just a certain plant. Spatial
arrangement of plants is also important. Planting in clusters of 3-5 of the same native shrub
provides more habitat than 5 shrubs equally spaced. The current tradition of planting one tree
every 20 feet is not natural and has limited habitat potential. One tree and two shrubs, or
clumping three trees nearer each other is better than a row of widely spaced trees for birds.It
also has the benefit of being more aesthetically pleasing.
3) Consider implementing a snag removal permitting process similar to the tree removal
permit process encouraging avoidance first,trimming second, and requiring removal
mitigation third.
a. Leave snags when possible.
b. If there is a public safety concern, determine safety hazard. If only part of the tree
is hazardous,trim offending branch(es),leaving as much of the snag as possible.
c. If all branches are unsafe,trim branches and leave the trunk.
d. If the trunk is very tall and considered unsafe, leave 20—40 feet.
e. Snags in City parks are the easiest to maintain because structures are generally
not nearby and the property is publicly owned. Plant underneath the tree to
provide a branch drop zone that is people-free.
Dead trees (snags) are very important habitat elements.Raptors like to perch on them,birds
that don't nest in other trees nest in them,the insects that are eating the dead wood feed
woodpeckers and other species. However, dead trees can also be considered a safety hazard.
A more detailed decision process about the dead tree and its removal can remove the safety
hazard,while maintaining some of the tree for habitat.
4) Require that dead trees be inventoried.
Right now,the arborist report that developers are required to obtain for the City's permitting
process do not inventory dead trees and they are removed as if they don't exist. Dead trees
are a natural resource and it is important for the city to be aware of how much of the resource
is being removed in order to make an educated decision about the policy surrounding this
resource.
5) Implement a tree removal season: September 1st to February 1st,with special
consideration given to the months of August and March.
Right now,many trees are removed during the nesting season,the most critical time for birds.
During the nesting season, a usually wide-ranging group,they are bound to one place(their
nest), and they use an amazing amount to energy to build the nest,reproduce,find food for
their offspring, and protect their territory. For many species, if their nest is removed,that is it
51
for the season and a nest that could have produced 1-2 offspring failed. The cumulative
effects on bird populations from tree removal during this time become clear. It is important
to remove trees/shrubs in preparation for construction, for yard maintenance, or to remove a
hazard tree,outside of the critical nesting period.The critical nesting period for birds is April
15t to August 1st. Many raptors begin nesting earlier than April l st,as does Anna's
Hummingbird. The ideal tree removal season is from September 1st to January 1st.It is
important to note that active nests(occupied) are protected by federal law under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This Act has been getting more attention in the last year. The City
of Portland implemented their vegetation removal season this year.
6) Require that tree habitat potential be included tree inventories.
Currently, arborist reports grade trees on their condition and determine removal through this
established system. However, less than perfect trees(i.e. lopsided crowns, a stumpy dead
branch, a hole in the branch or trunk) are the trees that provide the most niches and habitat for
wildlife and are also the most frequently removed based on the current approach to inventory.
Habitat value should be considered when grading a tree's condition and less than perfect
trees,if healthy overall, should not be removed.
52
41 City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Comparative Fee-in-Lieu Rates
Date: January 19, 2012
This memorandum compares fee-in-lieu requirements under current and proposed urban
forestry regulations for the City of Tigard, and contextualizes them within the metropolitan
region.
Tigard's existing tree regulations are mitigation focused.1 Required mitigation can take the form
of replanting on site, or the payment of a fee-in-lieu at a rate of$125 per caliper inch. The fee-
in-lieu option is intended to compensate the City for costs associated with tree replacement
elsewhere in the city, and includes the average cost to purchase and plant. For heavily forested
sites with large diameter trees, the monetary mitigation requirements can be substantial as there
is often insufficient room to replant sufficient replacement trees on site.2
In a change to provide more flexibility, the proposed code would allow either the preservation
or establishment of a minimum level of tree canopy, rather than focusing on mitigation alone.
Tree protection and planting requirements would be based on specified and achievable canopy
targets that are unrelated to the number and size of the trees removed.3 This approach was
chosen as tree benefits (aesthetic, stormwater management, air quality, etc.) are derived primarily
from their canopies, not their trunk size. Moreover, objective canopy targets treat property
owners more equitably than a strict mitigation approach. For applicants who cannot or choose
not to meet minimum canopy requirements through preservation or planting, two alternative
paths are available. The first is a discretionary process to allow green building and development
1 Mitigation requirements are based on the percentage of trees over 12"in diameter that are being removed from a
development site. The more trees that are removed,the higher the mitigation requirements. See Tigard Development
Code(1'DC)18.790.030.B.2 for more detail.
2 The largest mitigation payment to date originated from a 29-lot subdivision that resulted in a$430,750 fee-in-lieu
payment despite trees being preserved on site. Other projects have resulted in payments ranging from$1,125 for a new
commercial building,to$140,875 for a 23-lot residential subdivision.
3 For a discussion of the viability of the proposed urban forestry regulations,see "General Case Study Memo for Peer
Review of the Urban Forestry Plans and Follow Up Reports for Six Development Sites,"by AKS Engineering and
Forestry;December 8,2011.
53
methods (i.e. green roofs, solar panels) in lieu of planting or preservation to the stated canopy
requirements. The second would be a fee-in-lieu option set at the replacement value of canopy
not provided by the applicant. The proposed fee-in-lieu option is recommended to be set at
$2.95 per square foot of canopy. This fee is based upon the median wholesale cost to purchase
a three-inch deciduous tree ($174) with an average 59 square feet of canopy ($174 59 sq. ft. =
$2.95 per square foot).4 Installation and maintenance costs are not included as this fee is based
upon existing canopy at the time of purchase.
Given the new code's focus on viable canopy standards, applicants with forested development
sites can expect to pay no or very little in mitigation under the new regulations as compared to
existing regulations. In addition, the peer review study performed by AKS Engineering and
Forestry determined that sites without existing tree cover would be the most challenging to meet
canopy standards, but are likely to pay no or minimal fees because canopy standards are
intended to be achievable by applicants regardless of the number of trees on the pre-
development site.
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has surveyed regional fee-in-lieu rates for tree
mitigation or installation. While Tigard's canopy approach is new to the region, the proposed
fee rate is based on cost assumptions at the lower end of the range when compared to
proximate local governments. A list of comparable rates is included on the next page.
4 The tree canopy fee was developed by converting the wholesale median tree cost in the Willamette Valley developed by
the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Socity of Arboriculture(PNWISA)to a unit canopy cost. According
to the PNWISA,the median wholesale cost of a 3-inch diameter deciduous tree is$174. The formula developed by
Krajicek,et al for open grown,broad spreading trees (maximum crown width(feet) = 3.183+1.829*DBH (inches))was
then utilized to convert tree diameter to canopy diameter. According to the Krajicek formula,a 3-inch diameter tree
should have a crown width of 8.67 feet or crown area of 59 square feet. These dimensions were confirmed as
reasonable by staff through several local field samples. Using the median cost of a 3-inch deciduous tree($174)and the
crown area of a 3-inch diameter tree(59 square feet),the unit canopy cost or tree canopy fee should be$2.95 per square
foot.
54
Fee-in-Lieu Costs for Tree Mitigation in the Portland Metropolitan Region
City Fee Fee Per Context
Caliper Inch*
City of Tigard $125 per caliper inch $125 Based on average cost to purchase, install, and maintain a
(existing) two-inch caliper replacement tree.
City of Tigard $2.95 per square foot of $87 Based on the median wholesale cost of a three-inch deciduous
(proposed) canopy tree in the Willamette Valley ($174).
Beaverton $90 coniferous $45 coniferous Costs are based on the purchase and planting of two-inch caliper
$175 deciduous $87.50 deciduous trees to mitigate for loss of Significant Trees/Groves on a 1:1
$200 street tree $100 street tree basis.
Gresham n/a n/a No established fee-in-lieu program per planner on duty.
Hillsboro n/a n/a No established fee-in-lieu program per planner on duty.
Lake Oswego $328 per mitigation tree $164 Code strongly emphasizes protection over mitigation.
Oregon City $290 per mitigation tree $145 Fee-in-lieu to replacement tree standards of two-inch caliper
deciduous or six-foot high conifers.
Portland $300 per caliper inch $300 Applies to all trees regulated under Portland Code.
Tualatin n/a n/a No established fee-in-lieu program per planner on duty.
West Linn $175 per street tree $87.50 Mitigation fees not required. Applicants can pay the City $175 to
install street trees, or $75 to inspect developer-installed trees.
Wilsonville Market Price Market Price Applications must include the actual cost of the required
replacement trees (generally 1:1),with documented bids included
with application materials. Per planner on duty.
Vancouver,WA Market Price Market Price Fee-in-Lieu rates based on estimated market cost to purchase,
install and maintain required tree units (based upon DBH).
Applicant submits documented bid with application materials.
*Fee per caliper inch column is an approximate conversion by City of Tigard staff to establish a common unit for comparison.
55
41 City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Urban Forestry Code Revisions and Solar Access
Date: January 23, 2012
At Planning Commission's request, staff has examined the issue of solar access within the Urban
Forestry Code Revision (UFCR) project. Solar access is desirable for aesthetics, gardening, and
heating/energy technologies that rely upon access to sunlight.
Existing Development Code
The Tigard Community Development Code addresses solar access in three chapters. In all three
instances, the code exempts solar panels from rooftop screening requirements within the
Downtown District (18.610.020.B.3), Tigard Triangle (18.620.040.A.6), and Washington Square
Regional Center Design Standards (18.630.060.A.6). The remainder of the code is silent on the
matter of solar access. As the UFCR project does not affect rooftop screening requirements,
the UFCR will not affect or conflict with existing regulations.
Proposed Regulations
The UFCR provides flexible development standards to ensure long term solar access on a
project site. This flexibility is provided through multiple components:
➢ During development, an applicant is free to plant from a range of tree species of various
heights and canopies, and in the specific location of their choosing. This allows some
flexibility in site design to avoid undesired shading of photovoltaic cells or other
technologies.1
1
Street trees, parking lot trees, screening trees, and trees within sensitive land areas are subject to
locational restrictions. Invasive trees are prohibited within city limits.
1 of 2
56
➢ Preservation of existing trees will count as double-credit towards minimum canopy
requirements, providing more flexibility in site design of the areas not covered by existing
canopy.
➢ The Discretionary Urban Forest Plan Review Option provides for flexibility from the
clear and objective UFCR standards by allowing techniques that reduce dependency on
fossil fuel use, such as the use of solar energy for heating and energy needs.
➢ A fee-in-lieu of canopy is allowed, if an applicant cannot or chooses to not utilize one of
the options above.
The UFCR is not intended to prioritize tree canopy over solar access. Sufficient flexibility is
provided within the code to achieve both when desired. Nor does the code compel action or
affect the rights of neighboring landowners if a tree is shading an adjoining property.
State Statue
A search of state statues revealed three applicable references to solar access. The UFCR is in
compliance with all three.
➢ Recently adopted HB 3516 (Solar Energy Generation by Retail Electricity Consumers)
restricts a local government's ability to regulate solar panels for the purposes of making
their installation quicker and cheaper. This bill only applies to installation, and not access
to light. As such this statute does not apply to the UFCR project.
➢ ORS 227.190 (Solar Access Ordinances) was adopted in 1981 and enables cities to adopt
solar access ordinances to regulate development to provide and protect access to
sunlight. Such ordinances must be consistent with a City's acknowledged
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. The City of Tigard does not have a solar
access ordinance, nor would the UFCR prohibit the future adoption of such an
ordinance. As such this does not apply to the UFCR.
➢ ORS 105.880-895 (Solar Energy Easements) was adopted in 1979 for the purpose of
regulating the form and content of solar energy easements, and voiding any deed
restriction that prohibits solar energy systems. The UFCR would not prohibit the
establishment and use of solar easements between landowners.
2 of 2
57
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 12-
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENTS—CPA 2011-00004 AND DCA 2011-00002—TO ADD A SIGNIFICANT TREE
GROVES MAP TO VOLUME I OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND URBAN FOREST
CODE REVISIONS TO THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE —
CHAPTERS 18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620,
18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790,AND 18.798.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council approved Ordinance 08-08, adopting CPA 2008-00002 to
include urban forestry Comprehensive Plan text amendments and readopted the same with revised
findings through approval of Ordinance No. 10-11;
WHEREAS, the urban forestry Comprehensive Plan policies call for the development and
implementation of an Urban Forestry Master Plan,which council accepted by Resolution No. 09-69;
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to undertake a major update of Tigard's urban forest
related code provisions to more adequately reflect the needs of the changing and growing Tigard
community, consistent with the new urban forestry policies and other applicable policies in the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project, developed over two years from February,
2010 to the spring of 2012, implemented Tigard City Council's direction for a comprehensive urban
forestry code update with enhanced public involvement;
WHEREAS, an enhanced public involvement process included Tigard citizens, affected agencies and
other jurisdictions, through Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees, open houses, outreach at
outside events,project newsletters and website access as described in the Process Summary in Volume
I of the Urban Forest Code Revisions Project,January 2011;
WHEREAS, public hearing notices were sent to all City of Tigard residences on January 13, 2012 to
comply with Measure 56 Notice requirements;
WHEREAS, in compliance with the notice requirements for legislative land use amendments under
Title 18.390.060(D), notice was sent to interested parties and on January 17, 2012, to affected agencies
on January 20, 2012 and published in the Tigard Times on January 19, 2012;
WHEREAS, on February 6 , 2012, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
and take public testimony on CPA 2012-00004 and DCA 2012-00004;
ORDINANCE No. 12-
Page 1
58
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2012, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended City Council approval of CPA 2012-00004 and DCA 2012-00004; and
WHEREAS, on (Insert Date), 2012, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation on CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2012-00004,hear public testimony and
apply applicable decision-making criteria.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the Significant Tree Groves
Map per"EXHIBIT A."
SECTION 2: The Tigard Municipal Code, Title 18 (Community Development Code) is amended
per"EXHIBIT B" to include urban forestry code revisions.
SECTION 3: The findings and conclusions contained in the Draft Staff Report to the Planning
Commission dated January 30, 2012, the Planning Commission meeting minutes for
February 6 and March 5, 2012, and two memoranda to Council pertaining to
Proposed Urban Forest Code Revisions and Response to February 6th Public Hearing Issues and
Comments both dated Feb , 2012, ("EXHIBIT C", "EXHIBIT D", "EXHIBIT E",
and "EXHIBIT F") are adopted by reference, respectively.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective (Insert Days) after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and tide only, this day of , 2012.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2012.
Craig Dirksen,Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
ORDINANCE No. 12-
Page 2
59
N, \ NPI.
City of Tigard ./. 10.,.../' •
Tr�Aili RD Urb ____ .
an Forestr Code Revision Process
Y
.1/4
NN UUFCR Citizens Advisory Committee Consensus, �``
Comments Received, Planning Commission Feedback, Jo``ti
y'%e City Council Feedback, Comprehensive Review_
tn mo
v ,zt 4t
Citizens Advisory Committee Guiding Principles
lilililili�
0
ei r Technical Advisory Committee Review, cc cn
E 1—`I N Peer Review -H
—_
v W E¢
W = LL
O LL
G3 O
Discussion Draft
y
W
..1
Na.
r v
i_y o Comment Period (10/11/11-12/12/11), ? z
a.W cu N Open House (12/8/11), Code Editing a.
0
11
Staff Proposed Draft (1/9/12)
caW
W LU
Planning Commission Workshop (1/9/12) W I- ui
—
cc 2 a
2 Sr
Planning Commission Public Hearing (2/6/12) cC 0 W W
Staff Report, Public Testimony, Deliberation W JCC
J >
0
y Amendments Request Document (2/24/12) y
co)LLI N 0
ON a
0 c Planning Commission Public Hearing on cn
CL 'Q Amendments Request Document (3/5/12) uu.1
aN Public Testimony, Deliberation, Final Decision F
O ..
V
dPlanning Comm. Recommended Draft (4/10/12)
a
City Council Workshop (4/17/12)
City Council Public Hearing (5/22/12)
Adopted Code
This timeline assumes two meetings for the Planning Commission&one meeting for the City Council public hearings.
If additional dates are needed,this timeline will shift.Visit www.tigard-or.gov/ufcr for process updates.
60
City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission Agenda
TIGARD
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 — 6:30 — 8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library- 2nd Floor Conference Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions 6:30 — 6:35
2. Review / Approve January Minutes 6:35 — 6:40
3. Non-Agenda Items/ Public Comment 6:40 — 6:45
4. Liaison/subcommittee reports 6:45— 7:00
Action item: Review CC AC Public Art Subcommittee recommendation for gateway art
5. Committee/liaison assignments 7:00 — 7:10
(Chair Craghead)
6. CCAC Executive Session* 7:10 — 7:35
Property purchase discussion
7. CCAC Goals for 2012 7:35 -- 7:55
Action item:Finali.e draft goals from CCAC Retreat
(Chair Craghead)
8. CCDA/CCAC Joint Meeting 7:55 — 8:10
Preparation for February 2 i,1 meeting
(Chair Craghead, Vice Chair Thornburg, and Sean Farrelly)
9. Proposed Tenant Improvement Program 8:10 — 8:30
Action item: Review memo and make recommendation on program
(Sean Farrelly)
10. Adjourn 8:30 p.m.
*EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Center Advisory Commission will go into Executive Session to discuss real property
transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e).All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from
the Session.Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but
must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision.Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— February 8, 2012
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
Upcoming meetings of note:
February 14, CCDA Executive Session,Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 6:30 PM
February 16,Downtown Events Group, Fanno Creek Brewpub, 4:30-6:30 PM
February 21,Annual joint CCDA/CCAC meeting,Tigard Town Hall,6:30 PM
March 1,Main Street Green Street Open House,Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce,4:30-6:30 PM
March 6, CCDA Meeting,Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 6:30 PM
March 8,Downtown Tigard Networking meetings,location 1'BD,4:30-6:30 PM
March 14, CCAC regular meeting,Tigard Public Library, 6:30 PM
March 21, CCAC Public Art Subcommittee,Red Rock Creek Room, 6:15-7:15 PM
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— February 8, 2012
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of2
City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
T I GARD
Date of Meeting: January 11, 2012
Location: Tigard City Hall—Red Rock Creek Conference Room
Called to order by: Chair Thomas Murphy
Time Started: 7:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:45 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Alexander Craghead; Ralph Hughes; Peter Louw; Chair Thomas
Murphy; Elise Shearer; Philip Thornburg; Linli Pao; Sherrie Devaney; Deanie Bush
Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson
Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Bob Kellett, Planning Project
Assistant
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Introductions were made.
AGENDA ITEM #2: Approve Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Louw, seconded by Commissioner Craghead, to approve the
minutes of the December 14, 2011 meeting. The motion passed.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Non-Agenda Items/Public Comment
Commissioner Pao provided an update from the recent Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
(DRAB) meeting. She said that Councilor Woodward made a presentation about the city's recreation
activities with a focus on how to get a recreation district up and running. She said that Councilor
Woodward would like this to be coordinated with downtown renewal and the potential urban plaza.
Commissioner Pao also mentioned that demonstration signs for The Intertwine will be appearing
on the Fanno Creek Trail in February.
Councilors Pao and Shearer volunteered to be the commission's representatives on the
CCAC/PRAB subcommittee.
AGENDA ITEM #4: CCAC Officer Elections for 2012
Chair Murphy nominated Commissioner Craghead for chair and Commissioner Thornburg for
vice-chair. The motion passed with Commissioners Craghead and Thornburg abstaining.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 11, 2012 Page 1 of 3
Chair Craghead recognized the work of Commissioner Murphy as chair over the past year.
AGENDA ITEM #5: CCAC Recommendations for FY 2012-13 CCDA Budget Priorities
Sean Farrelly discussed the CCDA's operating and capital financing. In previous years it has
borrowed from the city's general fund and to date has made one payment back. With pressures on
the general fund there is uncertainty about this method moving forward. Sean said last year's TIF
was $330,000 which was essentially flat from the year before. He anticipates the FY 2012-13
revenue to be close to that amount.
Councilor Henderson asked how much money CCDA could borrow. Sean replied that $22 million
is the plan's maximum indebtedness, but the amount it can borrow at one time depends on the level
of the tax increment income stream to repay the loan/bond. No new indebtedness can be repaid
with tax revenue after 20 years. He will double check the procedure if$22 million has not been
collected within the 20 year limit.
Sean described a list of potential projects for the purpose of having the commission rank the
priority.
Rehabilitation/Redevelopment Grant and Loan Program: Commissioner Louw talked about using
this to leverage other resources such as lottery funding. Commissioner Shearer talked about a
program in Birmingham, Alabama that could serve as a good example. Commissioner Murphy
asked if it would be better to place the Facade Improvement Program under this since they both
aim to improve the physical condition of building. Sean replied that the Facade Improvement
Program is easier to express as a public benefit since it involves that outside of properties rather
than the inside. Commissioner Hughes asked if it would be easier and less costly to promote one
program instead of multiples programs. Chair Craghead reminded the commission that it was being
asked to prioritize projects and not establish budgets at this time. Commissioner Devaney said that
improvements on inside and outside are important, but most tenants feel that outside
improvements are more than they want to take on themselves.
Development Technical Assistance: Sean explained that this is geared toward property owners who
may not always know what their redevelopment options are. Commissioner Murphy said there isn't
a perceived need for this at this time and that it could be addresses with money from elsewhere
when the needs arise. He recommended it be considered a contingency item.
Main Street Green Street Related Projects: Sean explained that art wasn't budgeted for the Main
Street Green Street project for this fiscal year and it commission wants to make it a priority this
would be one avenue. Commissioner Pao asked how the art program would work. Sean replied that
the details would need to be worked out. Commissioner Louw commented that to engage people
on Main Street the art would need to engage pedestrians rather than cars like the possible gateway
art. Commissioner Devaney asked if the potential clock tower could be considered public art. She
talked about an idea to have citizens buy bricks to help pay for it. Sean mentioned there is also
interest from the Rotary Club to be involved in a clock tower project.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 11, 2012 Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Thornburg asked about the status of the temporary parking lot to be used during
Main Street Green Street construction. Sean replied that money has already been allocated for this
and it is not part of this year's rankings. Commissioners Louw and Shearer said that this should be a
priority and completed well in advance of construction.
Chair Craghead said that this is an important time for Main Street and that the art program should
be a priority.
The commission's priority rankings were:
1. Marketing Technical Assistance
2. Main Street Art
3. Facade Improvement Program
4. Rehabilitation/Redevelopment Grant and Loan Program
5. Clock Tower
6. Development Technical Assistance (contingency item)
Commissioner Murphy asked how the dollar amounts will be allocated. Sean replied that this will be
determined by how much will come from the general fund and that the CCDA budget committee
will make the final recommendation to Council.
AGENDA ITEM #6: CCAC Executive Session
The City Center Advisory Commission went into Executive Session at 8:23 p.m. under the
provisions ORS 192.660(2) (e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. All discussions
within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this session may be disclosed by those
present. Executive Session concluded at 8:43 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #7: Adjourn
Commissioner Shearer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Pao seconded.
Motion approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Bob Kellett, Acting CCAC Secretary
ATTEST:
Chair Alexander Craghead
CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 11, 2012 Page 3 of 3
U
i 1
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: City Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: Cover memo for February 8th meeting
DATE: February 1, 2012
Agenda Item 4
This agenda item includes a report from the CCAC Public Art Subcommittee. One action
item will be to review their recommendation that the proportional allocation between the
"gateway art" (larger pieces of art which to be built on the Main Street gateway areas and to
be visible from Pacific Highway passing traffic) and "pedestrian art" (smaller pieces of art
that will be placed along Main Street in an "art walk" be 80% gateway and 20% pedestrian.)
This gateway art would be in addition to the stone gateways similar to the Burnham Street
gateway that were planned as part of the Downtown Streetscape Plan (concept attached.)
The art and gateway design would be integrated.
Agenda Item 9
A memo outlining different approaches to a program that would provide grants, low
interest loans or other financial support for desired tenants will be sent out electronically
next week before the meeting.
Downtown Public Art Subcommittee of City Center Advisory
Commission
Meeting Notes
Date of Meeting:January 18, 2012
Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room
Time Started: 6:15 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:00 p.m.
Voting Members Present: Alexander Craghead,Sherrie Devaney, Sharon Francis, Susan Gallacher-
Turner,Elise Shearer,Brett Vinsant
Voting Members Absent:Alice Ellis Gaut
Non-voting Members Present: Councilor Marland Henderson
Staff Present: Sean Fancily,Valerie Otani (Public Art Consultant)
1. Project Updates
Sean reported that the design of the Main Street Green Street improvements is at 90% and construction
is planned for summer 2013. It is not decided whether the related water/sewer upgrades will happen at
that time or in the following summer. There is an open house on March 1st at 4 pm to share the designs
and plans.
The stonework gateways similar to the one at Hall and Burnham are budgeted with urban renewal
money for this fiscal year. It is possible to proceed with art at the gateways in the upcoming fiscal year. It
is anticipated that an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with ODOT will be in place in the next few
months. This is necessary because the gateways are on ODOT land.
2. Public Art
In order to make sure that there will be power for the art elements on Main Street, Sean and Valerie
identified some preliminary locations for artwork. The committee reviewed and discussed the locations.
Because the changes to the street have not yet been made, there was a request to do a walking tour to
clarify the locations. There was interest in taking advantage of the natural pausing places as well as
marking the intersection with the Fanno Creek trail.
There was discussion of the proposed location at the TriMet transit station. Councilor Marland
Henderson renewed the proposal to place a clock tower at the TriMet Station. He brought information
from the Verdin Company whose tower would be in the $140,000 - $180,000 range. Rotary International
has discussed a bicentennial gift in the $15,000 range.A community fundraising effort would be
necessary.
* The committee recommended placement of a clock tower either at the station or across Main
Street in a similar central location,with funding to come from sources other than the urban
renewal public art funds.
In reviewing the proposed locations along Main Street, there was discussion about the "eye" shaped
island at the western end at the Maplewood drive intersection.This location is a unique feature, but may
change or be unsuitable once we see the actual configuration. Traffic safety and durability of the artwork
would be factors to consider. It should remain as a location to consider. Not all the identified locations
will necessarily become artwork sites dependent upon the artwork selected, funding and street
development.
• The committee recommended designating the locations identified as potential sites for artwork.
'With the construction of the green street improvements scheduled for 2013, the committee discussed
the advantages of proceeding with permanent gateway sculptures at Liberty Park and the SW Gateway.
By advancing with the gateways, there will be visible markers to downtown to signal that something is
happening,with potential to have a positive impact on the business and civic environment.
There was discussion of the stonework with hope that the vertical elements shown in the plan be less
prominent not to detract from the artwork. The committee wondered if any cost saving in stonework
could be put towards artwork.
At the SW Gateway, the committee felt the SW corner was more visible,but that the smaller SE location
could remain under consideration. The SW location may be outside the urban renewal district. Property
ownership for both locations needs to be clarified.
• The committee recommended proceeding with the commissioning of gateway artwork. A call to
artists would ask the artist to address both Liberty Park and the SW Gateway.At the SW
Gateway, both the SW and SE corners of Main are potential locations.
Budget. Estimated funds available are $80,000- 100,000. The committee is interested in the comparative
cost of different artworks.The sculpture at Beaverton Civic Park was $50,000 for a single large element.
With two gateways, significant funds would be needed to make an impact. The pedestrian scale elements
will be less expensive and there is a potential that more funds would be available at the time of
construction.
• The committee recommended a proportional allocation 80% for the gateways and 20%
pedestrian art walk.
3. Next steps
The Subcommittee recommendations will be presented to the City Center Advisory Committee at their
next meeting.
The next Subcommittee meeting will focus on the elements of the call to artists with discussion of the
goals for the artwork,geographic range of the artists, themes and materials. Valerie will present images of
relevant work with budgets. She will send some discussion questions for consideration in advance of the
meeting.
The next meeting will be on Wednesday,March 21st at 6:15 pm in the Red Rock Creek Room
Ai
QTS
V V '$4 +b • I' u'a - 3 e a" O '+�. F.
0_ 4, a 3 r r'E6 ' i s r0. 3
�-., la 111
_ ' t= a J5 °'t fig_ 1 I
g tn ' c .7 en 47- m w;., ^r = ' a- = cE c C
CO
411
C • - ., 9 L. - = T. .may
mmall. Wel
1 41
M.-
�'• r
I
Aurn
,L.-- . .
..^„ .L
9. ,
, .A
, ,, ,
„,,,
L., ,., .,
_ _ ,
„,.. .
, ,__
I I_,, , c, . .. } I
-- illr I
p k l -
t .=
0 / 1 �
sik
_ 4e t
•Alli <51r•ird b' 41 •
I
lb-44h '' - .,. lit 1---
<3\1\ ” r
e
40111'
(1) ..) — #CI. _ 7 6 ', CD
P - '
::. -=-_-: ••= , .24 c ,
'6
AA.- _
0
I
CU N,,,. ,•# ' • 'Ai, P .,,, -..: :: - ., .?.. # 51 :.-ef: z ...,.
S Z.LA
1,}
.-.,
,e; , Lt. ..:s. g Fl..5 1 IA, r CI)
..:' -:11 g E F4 . ''• -6 — ,i. .„)
75.- V u — '''' i...4 a
, ,„... 0 =- E. .4 ..,. t '' g''.V. 4 . 1.4'.,_,.ii Pi T.. In '13
2 ... 2 M Ill
0 .,
,.? -, ,••- s
-
_ ..
111 .: ' .• ,., , , .. _ _,,, „
— = ..7. — ,- - --.., -. 1,10 'I;... 0 GI
E : . 4' -1.: '.f; L" '' - '1 N E.. 7.,
f, A a 4- LI ID 3 V.E A 2
.: _.: _, .„: -: , . 2 -- - 7, 1sL. -..0 ,1 a
- c.. - e .= ..) E. ,- 5 :: .. '4= -'„ - ill -d iti to"d. -I.-.
AI '' il 2 7. 2 ;. ..... 1 -i tf... c: ,. 7. 2,4 11- . .v - -7- t5 a:5' is:. CD II I
-. IAEE L'3 - - 70 .- ,, 2 E :-.. .- --
• E .;,,:, 1, t ,J, , ,: , t *t. - - - 7, := 5 ,„,q '' -p-i
: ...... _ ,, 5. 8 rap ]t7,. ',1 ,7, E- g - -. i„
t 2 7 - 5 5,1 .-s: 7, ..=.. -.. 7. . .77-5 .,T,A v MI
(13 .ig T., -... .- ,.. :: :.f. E -7. E: '5.---• - ? "2 ,,'. W., = ...—— .-... 51..-,2, V. W c
... . - - . .-+ - . . _. . - %rc.a. .5 ci
..t' ... .. = .a-.. 7 - 7.-8,
Cl) A.rie-184:--: :.4-.;:] 10 =' .- L-•= 2 . . •4 .I. W i.
>4 0
- - e .::",1.7N. ,h ,-.-_ C "I
.•,. .4,
.
1 ,'.. -- IL 5 >.
4.-11 0 .. 1r I '-'<, VIIIV-
.'""1._iIPP' LAPP 1
, 0
CO I t , 0 (3
1, i . 1
7 -‘4,1,1r11
.... .., - t .1.
...,
O.. ,...",,Ov;
,
,P.," gli
1 : .
,
- , Cit '
It k
. l
: '
. -I 71.,,
, '' .'1 I '
E 1 -</' . r I 77'---:1,--1..3:,
il
LLIAC" , 1, ' 1 A.
1 %
l''' 1 '
1 .11 t ht‘kk 'PI n
1 i 1
.
' til6k,'•. L.A 1
#' ..
„ , ,. '•J
I , Lel- lit' 14" ii
°
- • ,...1 !.'N'Icr-% Id
.is
k i.
I 1 -.L.
Ail.: I° 1
--'
/1111 61:1.41
a wiN.
„
I
0 , I II.
, . /
/
I
I I ,
a
, ii/
4
7=EMI
I1
• ' f
' N
-.., e-
I " 7
\,,, 0 ,, „
,
i ,i1
*N. I ..
.„
,
,
,
,
,.
,,
i.
,.
,,\,
i
i
11..,...'.-'-'-.--
\ '.
r.,-.
X
1-26-1Z Downtown Tigard Meeting
Attendees:
Marc Woodard, Tigard City Council
Marland Henderson, Tigard City Council
Jane Davies, Meadow Group
Ralph Hughes, CCAC, Financial planner
Deanie Bush, The Tigard Times/CCAC
Geoff Purisinger, The Tigard Times
Marvin Bowen, Max's Fanno Creek Brew Pub
Pete Louw, Tigardville Station/CCAC
Richard Shavey, Planning Commission
Sherrie Devaney, Sherrie's Jewelry Box/CCAC
Debi Mollahan, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce
Elise Shearer, CCAC
Jeff Mauro, CCAC
Alexander Craghead, CCAC
Phil Thornburg, CCAC, downtown business owner
Nick Wilson Tigard City Council/downtown businesses owner
Marty Wine, City of Tigard
Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard
Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard
Ron Bunch, City of Tigard
Michelle Reeves, Civilis
The meeting started with brief networking time. Michelle Reeves reminded us about the value
of identity and destination plus highlighted the need to 1. Make Connections and 2. Connect
Downtown to the Area.
Bridget introduced herself and started the discussion about the concept of building the
downtown community through events. Her position is being funded through the City of Tigard
for approximately 6 months.
She is a community event organizer and considers herself a professional "nag." Events are a
great way to get to know one another and build a vibrant commercial corridor.
The remaining notes are reflections and brainstorming ideas from attendees.
Events should have:
M Food vendors
12] Sidewalk vendors
11 Use Downtown Tigard in Name for all events***
Consistent marketing
11 No events permit fees
Sponsors: Industry, Large Tigard Employers, Small Biz Vendors
El Downtown Businesses: Time, Talent or Treasure
Downtown Tigard Event boundaries to include:
II Main Street
ICI Burnham St.
CI Commercial St.
0 Hwy 99 -from Greenburg to Hall
0 Scoffins St.
I] Tigard St.
ILI Wall St.(Tigard Public Library)
171 Hall Blvd.
Monthly Events
Cl Downtown Tigard Night Out- currently 3rd Fridays
1] Open Late
0 Advertising
0 Outside Music- options at Car Wash, US Bank parking lot, Max's brewpub patio
Needs: Consistent marketingfidentity
Outside vendors
Indoor music needs to be marketed to work
Spring Kickoff for remaining monthly events
CI Downtown Tigard Monthly Networking- either 2:00 or 4:00pm at local businesses
downtown
Seasonal Events
El Flower Fest
CI Home & Garden
Master Gardener's programs
Extension services
Sustainable Green Vendors
D Arbor Day
Annual Events
0 Holiday Tree Lighting
0 Halloween -
Contests: Dogs, Pumpkin carving
Music: Oktoberfest
Go Carts
0 Balloon Festival - June 22 - 24
Connect through activities:
Remote helicopters
Soap Box Races
0 Tigard High School Homecoming Parade
Invite downtown afterward?
II Nano Brew Fest- Feb & August at Max's
C] Railroad Antique Cars - loop with rides
El Run/Walk - Use Fanno Creek trails and others
LI Classic Car Show- Marland connected to a "Shelby" club
Handouts distributed:
• 18 Ingredients for an Outstanding Downtown
• Event Planning Outline
• Street Fair Marketing Tips
• 10 Tips for Successful Volunteers
• Volunteer Worksheet
Samples of:
• Event Timeline &Task lists
• Member Forms
• Assn. Bylaws
• Board Manuals
• Promo Materials
• Maps
• Event Fliers
NEXT MEETING: Feb 16, 4:30prn at Max's Brew Pub
Agenda: Calendar planning for Annual Event and Downtown Tigard Night Out(s)
Downtown Tigard Networking Meetings -Second Thursday Monthly (tentative)
Starts: March 8, 4:30- 6:30pm
CCAC 2012 DRAFT Goals
I. Infrastructure Projects
a. Oversee, review and provide input including the following key projects:
Main Street/Green Street Phases 1 and 2
Ensure mitigation for impacts of construction of Main Street/Green
Street phases 1 and 2.
iii. Public Parking Lot on Burnham Street near Main Street
iv. Open Space/Downtown Park/Plaza Site
v. Consider public restroom accommodations near plaza or transit
center
b. Monitor ongoing projects:
99W/Hall Gateway
ii. Lower Fanno Creek
iii. Tigard Street Trail Pedestrian/Bike Boulevard
II. Economic Development
a. Support the efforts of downtown businesses and property owners to better
market the area.
Receive reports from and monitor the work of the contracted
facilitator in downtown.
ii. Engage neighborhoods, business owners, property owners,
potential tenants and developers within the process.
b. Ensure that Main Street/Green Street phases 1 and 2 are constructed with as
little economic impact as possible on downtown businesses.
Examine now completed Burnham Street process for lessons to be
applied to Main Street/Green Street phases 1 and 2.
ii. Include businesses on and adjacent to Main Street within this
process.
I I I. Development
a. Promote downtown Tigard
Outreach to developers/Solicit businesses.
ii. Land assembly and direct development options.
iii. Hold a developer's forum before end of year.
b. Review incentives matrix and advocate as necessary for implementation with
CCDA.
c. Improve our knowledge of the downtown businesses and customer base using
census information, cultural demographics, trends, and other statistics
IV. Façade Improvement Program
a. Review program outcomes
Review progress and outcomes of existing program.
ii. Define program success.
iii. Develop evaluation metrics that are qualitative and quantitative.
b. Continue to promote, expand, and adjust the program.
Consider expanding program onto streets in addition to Main.
ii. Pursue endorsements from participants.
iii. Consider expansion to include non-facade elements such as
internal improvements or landscaping.
iv. Survey to determine how much additional investment and jobs were
created by the grant
V. Land Use & Transportation Planning
a. Review Circulation Plan for recommendation before final adoption.
b. Advocate to TTAC, CCDA on behalf of top three priority Circulation Plan
elements.
c. Engage in regular communication with TTCAC to ensure High Capacity Transit
planning, other transportation plans meet the needs and values of downtown and
the greater community.
d. Continue to locate and define the "Heart" of downtown.
e. Monitor and encourage a solution for the RR crossing at Ash Avenue.
f. Begin a long-range plan to cover the 5, 10 and 15 years left in the URD
V1. External Communication
a. Liaise with PRAB, TTAC, Budget Committee, and other boards.
i. Establish joint committee with PRAB for downtown parks matters.
b. Engage in on-going communication with CCDA, Council, and Staff.
Establish rotating liaison role with CCDA.
d. Engage in on-going communication with citizens of Tigard through Cityscape
and other means.
e. Publish a Five-Year Report of accomplishments
VII. Internal Communication and Ongoing Processes
a. Improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to:
Annual calendar development.
ii. Continue to evolve meeting efficiency and agendas.
iii. Set aside regular time for liaison reports on each agenda.
b. Increase awareness of the impact our work has on the community
Continually work to include in city processes increased
transparency with citizens
ii. Continue quarterly financial reports of Urban Renewal Funds
c. Increase training of CCAC to be better prepared for duties.
Increase financial literacy of CCAC regarding budgets, urban
renewal funds, and other matters.
ii. Receive training for advocacy roles, e.g. talking points.
iii. Receive training refresher on ethical and legal matters pertaining to
being a public official.
164A41.41 XIT1
CCAC 2011 Goals
I. Project Infrastructure -
a, Oversee, review and provide input including the following key projects;
i. Main Street/Green Street Phase 1
u. Open Space/Downtown Park/Plaza Site
iii. Burnham Street Completion
iv. 991'W/Hall Gateway
v. Lower i^anno Creek
vi. Transit Center Revital gation
vu. Tigard Street Trail Pedestrian/Bike
Boulevard
viii. Full Utilization of WES Park & Ride
1r I. Economic Development Q
a. Work with Metro consultant to develop marketing plan for downtown
i. Engage neighborhoods, business owners,
property owners,potential tenants and
developers within the consultant process
b. Advocate for implementation of approved plan
III. Development
a, Promote downtown 'l ugard
i. Outreach to developers/Solicit businesses
:ui. Land assembly and direct development
options
b. Advise CCDA on possible incentives
c. Improve our knowledge of the downtown businesses and customer base using census
information, cultural demographics, trends, and other-statistics
JV. Façade Improvement Program
a. Continue to promote and expand program
i. Consider expanding program onto streets in addition to Main
ii. Pursue endorsements from participants
Develop evaluation metrics that are
qualitative and quantitative
V. Circulation Plan
a. Review recommendation before final adoption -_
b. Engage in regular communication with HCTCAC to ensure HCT transportation plan
meets needs and values of downtown and the greater community
c. Continue discussing about the"Heart" of downtown
d. Keep focus on RR crossing at Ash Avenue and opening to WES park and ride
VI. Communication
a. Liaise with PRAB, HCTCAC and other boards
b. Engage in on-going communication with Council and Staff
i. Attendance as warranted at council and CCDA meetings
ii. Representation at downtown project meetings
c. Engage in on-going communication with hired consultants
d. Engage in on-going communication with citizens of Tigard
e. Publish a Five-,Year Report of accomplishments
f. Begin a long-range plan to cover the 5, 10 and 15 years left in the URD
VII, Ongoing Processes
a. Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to:
i. Annual calendar development
ii. Continue to evolve meeting efficiency
and agendas
b. Increase awareness of the impact our work has on the community
i. Continually work to increase transparency with citizens
ii. Establish a quarterly financial report of Urban Renewal Funds
c. Perform other duties as assigned by CCDA
6.f/011,44°4 tad,V1
9
1.1
1.1MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: City Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Alexander Craghead, Chair
RE: Preparation for February 21 Joint Meeting with CCDM
Ds41'l ; January 31, 2012
On Tuesday, February 21, the CCAC will hold its annual joint meeting with the
CCDA/Council. In preparation for this event, the commission needs to consider what
topics we ought to raise with the CCDA/Council.
Traditionally, this meeting is where we present our annual goals to the CCDA/Council. The
CCDA/Council receive our goals in advance in their packet and will be familiar with their
basic substance. Therefore, rather than using this meeting to recite the entire goals, it is my
intention to use this meeting as an opportunity to lobby for specific projects and goals that
need CCDA/Council backing to move forward.
I recommend that we concentrate our time with the CCDA/Council on at least two (2) and
no more than four (4) projects or goals. Below I have listed some potential projects or goals
to highlight during our time together. Please consider them carefully and be prepared to
choose which of these would be most timely when we next meet.
In addition, if there axe projects/goals not listed here but that you feel ought to be
considered, feel free to suggest them at our next meeting on February 8th. We will also
discuss at that time how we will present our top issues to the CCDA/Council,
• Mitigation and construction impacts of Main Street Green Street, including construction
parking lot on Burnham prior to street reconstruction.
• Site acquisition and construction of public plaza.
▪ Continuing support for efforts by downtown businesses to launch and manage events.
• Increased developer outreach and a developer's forum.
• Budgeting of replacement public works yard outside of downtown to facilitate the
redevelopment of the existing yard.
▪ Continuation of the facade program and establishment of a tenant improvement program.
• Advocate for top three Connectivity Plan projects: Ash railroad crossing, Scoffins re-
alignment at Hall, Commercial Street connection realignment at Main Street.
• Rail Trail conversion from Main Street to Tiedeman.
• Funding for lower Fanno Creek Park creek remeander project.
• Funding and staff support for clocktower concept.
011111
MEMORANDUM
TIG RI
TO: Cir}, Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: Cover memo for Agenda Item 9
DATE: February 7; 2012
Agenda Item 9: Proposed Tenant Improvement Program
Attached is a memo from the real estate consultants, Shiels Obletz [ohsen. They make
recommendations to increase incentives with the goals of:
'• Fill vacancies on Main Street
▪ Attract retail and food service businesses that will enhance the vitality of Main Street
• Improve the physical quality of Main Street for to fill vacancies in the Downtown,
attract
The goals are consistent with the 2012 goals of the CCAC and Council/CCI A.
The memo contains two recommendations, one to increase the match of the Facade
Improvement Program and one to fund a grant program for tenant improvements.
Tomorrow's discussion will focus on the proposed Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive
Program. The recommendation for the Facade. Improvement Program will be considered by
the Facade Improvement Program_Joint Committee at a later date.
S
0
SHIELS I ORLETZ I JOHNSEN
1140 SW 11th Avenue - Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
503-242-0084
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard
FROM: Francesca Gambetti, Project Manager, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc.
DATE: February 7, 2012
SUBJECT: Overview of Potential Business Incentive Programs for Downtown Revitalization
Shiels Obletz Johnsen (SOJ) has been retained by the City of Tigard to analyze and recommend potential
incentive programs for the revitalization of downtown. In the process of exploring program options and
elements, SOJ researched incentive programs offered by a number of cities across the country, including
Portland (OR), Cedar City (UT), Urbana (IL), Monroe (NC), Santa Rosa (CA), Oakland (CA), San Angelo
(TX), Mandan (ND), Newport (AK), Wichita (KS) and Boca Raton (FL). Interviews conducted with the
economic development staff from most of those cities provided useful information regarding program
successes, challenges, and lessons learned. SOJ is still in the process of contacting local real estate
brokers and Main Street property owners to get input on the program proposals. These discussions will
help further identify the major barriers faced by property owners and potential tenants and provide
additional input on what would be most effective form of city incentive.
Based on the research and analysis conducted to date, and discussions with City of Tigard staff, we
recommend the consideration of two actions:
(1) Modify the existing Facade Improvement Program to increase participation by raising the City's
percent share from 50% to 75%.
(2) Establish a new Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive Program (TRIP) that provides grant
funds to attract new active retail and food service businesses to Main Street by helping offset the
cost of tenant improvements.
These recommendations are discussed in more detail below.
page 1
PURPOSE OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
With urban renewal tax increment financing available, the City is positioned to make investments that help
shape the future of downtown Tigard and stimulate new investments in the area. A toolkit of incentive
programs can be highly effective in attracting new businesses, enhancing existing businesses and
creating a more attractive, vibrant and economically robust downtown area. The programs can be
designed to stimulate investments that support the goals and visions of the Tigard Downtown
Improvement Plan, Comprehensive Plan and City Center Urban Renewal Plan.
Goals of the Incentive Programs:
• Fill vacancies on Main Street
• Attract retail and food service businesses that will enhance the vitality of Main Street
• Improve the physical quality of Main Street
INCENTIVE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Facade Improvement Program
The City already has a Façade Improvement Program in place that offers free design services as well as a
50% matching grant (up to a maximum of$25,000) for improvements made to building facades, exterior
signage and lighting. The City budgets $75,000 per year for the program, including design services
(average $3,000 per project) and matching grants.
The program was established in 2009 and has had moderate success. To date, 11 businesses have
utilized the design services and three (3) of those business have received grants and completed the
improvements. One additional property owner was awarded a $25,000 grant and has improvements
underway.
Ratio
City Business Total Cost of Incentive/Total
Applicant Investment Investment Improvements Investment
Tigard Liquor Store $25,000 $55,000 $80,000 31
Under Water Works $7,781 $11,000 $18,781 41%
Tigard Stamp & Stationery Store $4,484 $5,050 $9,534 47%
Total $37,265 $71,050 $108,315 34%
Recommendation:
Façade Improvement Programs are quite common in communities across the country. The amount of
funds available and the percent of the city's match varies among the programs researched: maximum
grant amounts range from $10,000 — $50,000 (Portland offers $32,000 max) and the percent of the city's
match ranges from 50 — 80% (Portland offers up to 75%). Based on discussions with staff from several
communities, we recommend that the CCDA raise the percent of the City's share to 75% to increase the
participation rate in the program. Based on the experience of other communities, increasing the city's
share to 75% will likely significantly increase the level of participation. Further, our research indicates that
even if a City offers a higher percent share, participating businesses tend to spend significantly more than
their corresponding share. For instance, Cedar City, Utah offers an 80% match, but in the last 9 months
page 2
has given out $130,000 in grants for$535,000 of improvements, which is only 24% of the total investment
in improvements. The City of Tigard's own experience supports the notion as well; as indicated in the table
above, the City's share of the total improvement costs is 34%.
A phased approach to the match should also be considered to incentivize immediate action from property
owners. The 75%/25% match could be offered in Year 1 of the modified program, and the match ratio
could decrease to 60%/40% in Year 2, and then back to 50%/50% in Year 3 and following.
Tenant Improvement Program
The following provides a summary of a new incentive program recommended for the continued
revitalization of Main Street. Note that the recommendations provided below provide a general framework
for the program; there are a variety of ways that the program can be structured. The program elements—
including maximum amount of funding and the percent match—should be carefully considered
with additional stakeholder input.
Program Description:
The Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive Program (TRIP) offers matching grants to prospective retail
and restaurant tenants that plan to locate their business on Main Street. The grant helps offset the cost of
tenant improvements to the interiors of vacant commercial spaces. The program will help attract new
businesses that add vitality and increase the shopping, dining, services and entertainment offerings of
downtown Tigard.
Grant Amount:
A 50% matching grant up to $25,000 will be available for Tenant Improvements to ground floor retail that
will enhance downtown and increase business opportunity. A 50% matching grant up to $40,000 will be
available to restaurateurs.
Grants will be awarded to eligible applicants subject to the availability of funds and project qualifications.
Grants will be distributed in the form of a reimbursement, once construction is complete and the terms
stated in the Reimbursement Agreement have been met.
Options to consider:
• The maximum grant award for each project could be based on the square footage of occupied
commercial space. For instance, the program can match up to $10.00 per square foot not to
exceed $25,000 for retail and $15.00 per square foot not to exceed $40,000 for restaurants.
• A phased approach to the match should also be considered to incentivize immediate action from
businesses. A 75%/25% match could be offered in Year 1 of the program, and the match ratio
could decrease to 60%/40% in Year 2, and 50%/50% in Year 3 and following. Or if the grant award
is based on square footage, the funding could start higher in Year 1 and phase down over the first
few years of the program.
• Rather than providing a grant, the funding could be offered as a loan. Most of the communities we
researched offer grants, rather than loans, in part because it provides a stronger incentive. Santa
Rosa, CA offered an interest-free loan program for several years that did not attract any applicants.
However, it is worth considering a loan that is forgiven over 3-5 years; businesses that relocate or
close down would be required to repay a pro-rata share of the funding.
• Include SDC fee waivers as part of the program.
page 3
Eligible Applicants:
Applications will be considered from businesses locating on Main Street that (a) will have operations on
the ground floor, (b) will generate foot traffic and improve the retail climate of Main Street, (c) provide
employment opportunities, and (d) are consistent with the vision presented in city planning documents.
First-time retailers/restaurateurs, new and expanding business concepts by existing retailers/
restaurateurs, and expansion of retailers/restaurateurs not currently located on Main Street will be
considered for funding.
Grants will be available to a variety of businesses, including:
• Food-related ventures such as grocery stores, restaurants, coffee/tea shops, bakeries, produce
markets, health food stores and other specialty food stores
• Active retail, such as apparel stores, bookstores, drugstores or pharmacies, general merchandise
stores, hobby shops
• Neighborhood services such as shoe repair shops, movie rentals, dry cleaner and hair salons.
Key Requirements:
• Applicant must have a signed lease for the subject property with at least 3 years remaining from the
estimated completion date of the proposed tenant improvement project.
• Applicant must obtain written approval from the property owner to participate in the program.
• Owner and tenant applicant must be current on any current City charges, taxes or assessments.
• Businesses must comply with current zoning ordinance.
Eligible improvements
• Hazardous materials abatement, such as asbestos removal
• Demolition and shell reconstruction
• Plumbing, mechanical and electrical improvements
• Fire/life safety improvements, including seismic upgrades and fire suppression systems
• Interior finishes including flooring, painting and built-in casework
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements
Ineligible uses
Ineligible uses include but are not necessarily limited to pawn shops, currency exchanges including check
cashing agencies and some non-bank financial retail outlets, and passive real estate ownership and
management firms and other non-active uses.
Key Program Elements to Consider:
• Allow grant proceeds to be paid directly to the contractor, so that the business owner does not need to
provide equity for the full cost of improvements.
• Are both property owners and tenants eligible applicants?
• Are national franchises eligible?
• Must the building be currently vacant? If so, for how long?
page 4
Other Programs and Considerations
Lease Subsidy Programs. A lease subsidy program is another incentive tool to consider for the
revitalization of Main Street. These programs typically subsidize a portion of a business's rent for one to
three years. Interviews with other communities revealed some challenges with these programs, including
landlords that take advantage of the program by raising the rent, city investments that are "lost" to
businesses that quickly go under, and problems arising from poorly defined eligibility parameters. In one
community the program became highly politicized and was recently terminated.
Commercial Property Improvement Loan Program — Research on programs offered by other communities
indicates that grant programs for smaller amounts of funding are more effective and efficient than loans.
However, a loan program that offers more substantial funding could reduce the barrier created by limited
access to capital. After implementing and gaining some experience with the proposed TRIP, the City
should evaluate whether a low/no-interest loan program is needed to support larger improvement projects.
This should be considered for loans of substantial size to justify the added costs and complexities of
managing the program.
page 5
City Center Advisory Commission
beanie Bush
14670 SW 88th Ave Ron Bunch
Tigard,OR 97224 CD Director
Bus:503-546-0773 Appt: 12/20/11 ron(ir7,tigard-or.gov
dbush(7commnewspapers.cont Ends: 12/31/14 503-718-2443
Sean Farrelly
Alexander Craghead Appt: 8/29/2006 Redevelopment Project Mgr.
12205 SW Hall Blvd Ended:12/31/07 sean(u%tigard-or.gov
Tigard,OR 97223 503-718-2420
Cell: 503-347-4059 Appt: 2/9/2008-alternate
alexander.craghead tt gmail.com Ended: 3/24/09
3/24/09-fill unex term
for Lily Lilly
Ended: 12/31/09
Appt: 12/8/09
Ends: 12/31/12 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD/COUNCIL
Sherrie Devaney Craig Dirksen
725 NW Mawcrest Dr craigdlltigard-or.gov
Gresham,OR 97030
Cell:503-421-1342 Nick Wilson
Bus: 503-598-0144 Appt: 12/20/11 nick[a,tigard-or.gov
sherriesjewelrybox@yahoo.com Ends: 12/31/14
Gretchen Buehner
Ralph Hughes Appt: 4/10/07 gretchen t@tigard-or.gov
12855 SW Morningstar Dr. Ended: 12/31/09
Tigard,OR 97223 Marland Henderson(Liaison)
Bus: 503-780-3332 Appt: 12/8/09 marland@tigard-or.gov
ralh are onseaside,com Ends: 12/31/12
Marc Woodard
Peter Louw 6/10/2008-fill unex.term marc( tigard-or.gov
PO Box 230624 for C.Switzer
Tigard,OR 97281 Ended:12/31/09
Bus: 503-442-3106
Res:503-442-3106 Appt: 12/8/09
jpalouw tz,hotmail.com Ends: 12/31/12
JeffMauro-Alternate Appt: 12/20/11
10962 SW Durham Rd. Ends: 12/31/12
Apt 14
Tigard,OR 97224
Res: 503-995-3524
mauroj5 i,rnsn.com
Thomas Murphy 12/18/07-fill unex.term
8152 SW Ashford Street for R.Potthoff
'I'igard,OR 97224 Ended: 12/31/08
Bus: 503-620-4540
Res: 503-968-2466 Appt: 12/9/08
murphy999@hotrnail.com Ended: 12/31/11
Appt: 12/20/11
Ends: 12/31/14
Lin lr Pao Appt: 6/10/2008-alternate
7444 SW Ashford St. Ended:12/31/09
Tigard,OR 97224
Bus:503-616-6721 Appt: 12/8/09-alternate
Res: 503-684-1620 Ended: 12/31/10
linlipao@gmail.com
Appt: 12/14/10
Ends: 12/31/13
Elise Shearer Appt: 12/18/2007
9980 MX'Johnson Street Ended: 12/31/10
Tigard,OR 97223
Bus: 503-639-4179,ext.255 Appt: 12/14/10
Res: 503-620-3140 Ends: 12/31/13
elisesarge2@usa.net
Philip Thornburg- Vice Chair Appt: 12/8/09-alternate
14780 SW 98th.Ave. Ended: 12/31/10
Tigard,OR 97224
Bus: 503-598-0219 Appt: 12/14/10
Res: 503-639-9379 Ends: 12/31/13
phil.thornburg@winterbloorninc.com
Purpose: This committee's role is defined in the City Charter and is to assist
the Urban Renewal Commission in developing and carrying
out an Urban Renewal Plan.
Committee members: As set in the Charter,7-12 members.
Committee Meets: Second Wednesday of each month.
Staff Liaison: Sean Earrelly,Redevelopment Project Manager
Council Liaison: Councilor Marland Henderson
Resolution 05-27A Preliminary Urban Renewal Plan Pnbbc Outreach Program
Resolution 05-28A City Center Adviso y Commission-Initial Selection Process
Resolution 05-32 Reactivating City Center Development Agency-A nUrbanRenewalAgency
Resolution 05-52 Appointing Members and Alternates to the Cite CenterAdvisoy Commission
Resolution 07-10 Resolution re-assi ping City CenterAdvisary Commission membership terms
INCity of Tigard
TIGAIDWMemorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Susan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director
Re: Review of Proposed Bylaws and Recommendation to Council
Date: January 30, 2012
At the November 21, 2011 Planning Commission Workshop, the commission reviewed and
commented on draft revisions to the Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws. The commission's
comments have been incorporated into the attached Proposed Tigard Planning Commission
Bylaws. Some additional changes are proposed to improve internal consistency, address
alternate members, apply the AP style standards, and further clean-up/clarify the bylaws.
Completing the commission's review of the bylaws will fulfill council's direction to revise the
bylaws to be consistent with the Model Bylaws approved by council last year.
Following the commission's review on February 6, 2012, the final version of the bylaws will be
presented for Council review and adoption, by resolution, on March 27, 2012. At the same
time, proposed amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 2.08, Planning
Commission, consistent with the revised bylaws,will be presented in a public hearing for council
review and adoption by ordinance. No further changes were made to Chapter 2.08 since the
commission's last review.
Attached are:
• Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws in strikethrough/underline and clean
copy
• Proposed TMC Chapter 2.08, Planning Commission in strikethrough/underline and
clean copy
Staff requests that the Planning Commission review these documents and, following your
discussion and if desired, incorporating final revisions, make one of the following motions:
1. The Planning Commission recommends the Tigard City Council adopt the Proposed
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws and finds the associated amendments to the Tigard
Municipal Code, Chapter 2.08 are consistent with those bylaws.
2. The Planning Commission recommends the Tigard City Council adopt the Proposed
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws, as modified, and finds the associated amendments
to the Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 2.08 are consistent with those bylaws.
If more extensive modifications are needed, or the commission wishes more time to consider
the bylaws, staff suggests the item be rescheduled to a future meeting.
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
SECTION I.CHARGE AND DUTIES
A) The Tigard Planning Commission, hcrcaftcr referred to as the "Commission"1 shall have no
powers except as conferred by resolution of the City Council, City Charter, Tigard Municipal
Code(TMC 2.08),Tigard Development Code(Title 18)or the Oregon Revised Statutes.
B) It Shall be a function of tThe Commission fact as an advisory body to the City Council
,n. in .- ifi . .u. i-'u.' iAm. -r hs h-r- .uth.ri
C) The Commission,and its members and alternates shall conduct itsclfact in a manner that's that is
in keeping with applicable federal, state,and local laws pertaining to conduct and ethics and the
City of Tigard Code of Conduct. Any violation of the provisions of such laws and guidelines
shall be grounds for removal from office.
D) The powers and duties of the Commission shall be as delineated in TMC Chapter 2.08.100,and
may also include other duties assigned to it by the City Council. i Comment[Ai]:This language is duplicative of
(A)above.
E)D) Advisory committees to the Commission may be appointed by the Commission,by majority
vote of the Commission members, for the consideration of special assignments. Advisory
committees formed by the Commission and subcommittees formed by action of City Council
shall not be authorized to operate under separate bylaws and shall operate in accordance with
the Tigard Municipal Code, Planning Commission bylaws Bylaws and any modifications the
Council may make.
E)E) The Planning Commission;shall act as the Committee for Citizen Involvement or land use
related matters and, will meet annuallywith City Council to evaluate the effectiveness of the i Comment[A2]:Adding this language clarifies
citizen engagement process. (Resolution No.10-62) the scope of this charge.
SECTION II.COMPOSITION
A) The Commission shall consist of nine kmtimembers _("member or members"appointed by i Comment[sgh3]:This will distinguish between
the City Council with the following representation and restrictions: voting"members"and non-voting`alternates".
1. Not more than two members may be nonresidents of the city.
2. Not more than two members may be City Officers,who shall serve as ex officio nonvoting
members.
3. Not more than two voting members may engage principally in the buying, selling or
developing of real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or
officers or employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or
developing of real estate for profit;
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 1
4. Not more than two voting members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation,
business,trade or profession.
5. Two members shall have an expertise related to the design' or development lof sites, i Comment[A4]:PC proposed adding this
buildings, structures or landscapes lu.'n• out nit lirni -. to .r - 1, . ..- language to broaden eligibility for these members.
However,this may be at odds with 3 above which
architects,engineers,and urban design planners.[ limits voting members to two engaged principally in
...developing...real estate...
B) Membership may temporarily drop below required minimums due to resignations and/or N Comment[A5]:Since the purpose of these
difficulty in recruiting qualified applicants. members is to provide expertise in design,it would
be clearer to explicitly list types of designers.
C) - •mmi ion m, • h. - u• . s. • non- •tin• alt-mat- m-m.-r . t-mat- or
1 rn,t " .••sin -. . th- is • n
SECTION III.APPOINTMENTS
A) Council shall fill vacancies with individuals who meet the compositional requirements listed in
Section II.
B) Appointments of at large members and alternates shall be made by the City Council, with
recommendations from the Mayermayor.
SECTION IV.TERM OF OFFICE
AA)_Commission members serve for a term of four years beginning January l'errin_the year of
appointment.
A)B) The termfor an alternate begins Tanuar ls`or u on abbointment and expires when the next
full-term Commission position opens and shall not exceed two years.
B}C) Any vacancy in-on the Board Commission shall be filled by appointment by the Council
council and Mayor mayor for the unexpired portion of the term. The unexpired portion of a
term does not count towards the fulfillment of the maximum number of allowed terms.
CU_ Members may be reappointed for up to two consecutive full terms. Alternates must be
reappointed to serve more than two years.
D}E) Members shall receive no compensation for their services,but shall be reimbursed for duly
authorized expenses.The Community community Development development Director director
shall determine and authorize reimbursable expenses.
E) An individual Commission member may not act in an official capacity except through the action
of the Commission. .- Comment[A6]:This section is moved to Article
VII—Member Responsibilities.
F) A member who seeks to resign from the Commission shall submit a written resignation to the
president of the Commission, the staff liaison, or the city recorder's office. If possible, the
resignation should allow for a thirty (30) day notice so the City Council can appoint a
replacement.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 2
SECTION V.ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION
A) Officers. The Officers officers of the Commission shall be a President president and Vice -
r i n .
B) The Community community Development development Director director or designee shall be
the Secretary secretary of the Commission.The secretary is not a member of the Commission
C) Election.
1) The President president and Vicevice-Presidcnt president shall be elected at the first meeting
of each odd numbered year, and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified.
The term shall start with the first meeting in January,following clectionfollowing election or
upon election if there is not current presiding officer.
2) If the office of the President president or Vieevice-Presidcnt president becomes vacant,the
Commission shall at its next meeting elect a successor from its membership who shall serve
the unexpired term of the predecessor.
3) Nominations shall be by oral motion. At the close of nominations, the Commission shall
vote by voice vote upon the names nominated for the office. If requested by any member,
written ballots shall be used for voting purpose •
D) President.
1) Except as otherwise provided herein,the ' 4-president shall:
a) Have general directional powers over the Co mission_;
b) Preside over all deliberations and meetings of the Commission.
c) Vote on all questions before the Commission.
d) Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with these bylaws.
e) Sign all documents memorializing Commission action promptly after approval by the
Commission. The power to sign reports and other documents of the Commission may
be delegated,in writing,to the Secrctarysecretary.
f) Be an ex-officio member of all Planning Commission aub advisory committees.
g) Be the sole spokesperson for the Commission unless this responsibility is delegated to
another member or the staff liaison.
E) Vice-President. During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the Presidcntpresident,the
Vicevice-Presidcnt president shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the
responsibilities of the Presidcntpresident. In the absence of the President president and
Vieevice-Presidcntpresident, the remaining members present shall elect an acting
- - .re i.-nt.
F) Secretary.
1) The Secretary secretary shall:
a) Maintain an accurate, permanent, and complete record of all proceedings conducted
before the Commission including all applications, appeals, hearings, continuances,
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 3
postponements, date of noticea, final disposition of matters, and other steps taken or
acts performed by the Commission,its officers,and the Secretary.
b) Prepare the agenda and minutes for all Commission meetings.
c) Give all notices required by law
d) Inform the Commission of correspondence relating to Commission business and
conduct all correspondence of the Commission.
e)_Be responsible for meeting logistics,_
e)L-and-aAttend all meetings and hearings of the Commission or send a dcsignccsuhstitute.
2-)g)Thc Sccrctary ahall Pperform such other duties for the Commission as are customary in+ [Formatted
that role to support the duties of the Commission.
G) Staff liaisons are the primary contacts for City of Tigard boards and the primary interface
between these bodies and the City Council,City Manager,and departments.Besides serving as a
technical resource, staff liaisons are responsible for member recruitment and recognition and
monitoring board effectiveness.
SECTION VI.MEETINGS
A) Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the Council Chambers,
City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon, or at such other places as may be determined
by the Commission, at 7:00 p.m., or other time as determined by the Commission. Meeting
dates are normally chosen for timely action on applications submitted for the Commission's
consideration and are held at least once a month or as necessary. At regular meetings, the
Commission shall consider all matters properly brought before it without the necessity of prior
notice thereof given to any members.
B) Special Meetings.The President president of the Commission may call a special meeting,and the
President president shall call a special meeting or upon the request of a majority of the members
of the Commission.The call shall state the purpose of the meeting.Unless otherwise specified in
the call, all special meetings shall be held at the regular meeting place and time of the
Commission. Notice of special meetings shall be in writing and communicated to all members
and alternates by the Secretary at least forty-eight(48)hours before the meeting.
C) Open Meetings. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, except that the
Commission may hold executive sessions, from which the public may be excluded, in such
manner and for such purposes as may be authorized by law. Representatives of the news media
shall be allowed to attend executive sessions under such conditions governing the disclosure of
information as provided by law.
D) Notice of Meetings.
1) In addition to notice required to be given to Commission members and the
Sccrctarysecretary, public notice of all Commission meetings shall be given in a manner
reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons and consistent with all
applicable requirements of the Tigard Development Code. The notice shall consist of the
time and place of the meeting and an agenda or summary of the subject matter to be
considered.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 4
2) Notice shall be posted on a bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and disseminated to the
City Recorder, local news media representatives, and other persons and organizations as
provided by law. Agendas and minutes shall be posted for public notice on the City of
Tigard web page and in the lobby of City Hall in compliance with Oregon Public Meetings[ Comment[A7]:This is moved to a new section I.
Law. All meetings shall be-open-to the public. At the discretion of the Sccrctarysecretary, -(Comment[A8]:This repeats VI.C above.
notice may also be provided to persons and organizations known to have a special interest in
matters to be considered by the Commission.
3) Notice shall be given not less than forty tight(18)ftve(5)days in advance of a meeting i Comment[A9]:Changed to be consistent with
and he consistent with all applicable requirements of the Tigard Development Code. Model Bylaws.
However, in case of an emergency, a meeting may be held upon such public notice as is
appropriate in the circumstances.
4) Failure to provide notice as specified in this section shall not invalidate any decision or
proceeding of the Commission.
E) Agenda.
1) Order of Business. The order of business at all meetings shall be determined by the agenda
which shall be composed generally of the following items: k
a) Call to order; i �..
b) Roll call;
c) Communications;
d) Minutes of previous eetings;
e) Old business-Contin es;
f) New business;,.
g) Other business i
h) Adjournment. R
2) Any item may be taken out of order by direction of the .
3) Actions of the Commission are not limited to the prepared agenda except for those subject
to notice requirements for land use decisions.
4) Public hcaringsMeetings will be stoppcdend at 11:00 P.M. unless there is a motion froman
affirmative vote by the commission to extend the time of the hearing in progress. In the
absence of that motionvote, the issue,• - a . • will be taken up at the following
5) The Commission shall not consider a new item after 11:00 p.m. unless there is a motion by
the Commission to extend the time for the agenda item.[ Comment[A10]:This is no longer needed with
the additional language added to E.4.
F) Voting.
1) The concurrence of aA majority of votes by the members of the Commission present at an
open meeting shall be necessary to determine any question before the Commission. A tie
vote causes the motion to fail.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 5
1-)2) Alternates are not allowed to vote under any circumstances, except as provided in
Tigard Municipal Code 2.08.105(Downtown Design Review Board. _- Comment[All]:Provides clarity for the TMC
reference.
2)3) When a matter is called for a vote, the President president shall, before a vote is
taken, restate the motion and shall announce the decision of the Commission after such
vote.
3}4) Voting shall be by voice vote. All votes,whether positive, negative, or abstentions,
shall be recorded in the minutes.
4)5) Voting"in absentia"or by proxy is not permitted. 3Q<
5) The president shall vote on all matters before the Board unless having declared a conflict of
interest. .--- 1 Comment[Al2]:Duplicates Article V.Section D.
above.
G) Continuances,Remands.
1) Any item before the Commission may be continued to a subsequent meeting. A motion to
continue an item shall specify the date when the item shall next be taken up or the event
upon which continuation is to be based. If a matter which originally required public notice
is continued without setting time and place certain,the public notification must be repeated
when time and place are made certain. A list of continued items,showing the date at which
an item was continued,or the event upon which continuance is based,shall be recorded and
kept by the Secretary sectary and made available to the public.
2) Unless otherwise provided by the City Council upon remand of a legislative matter,any item
remanded by the City Council for reconsideration by the Commission shall be treated as a
new item and proceedings shall be provided for as if the matter were initially before the
Commission and noticed consistent with all applicable requirements of the Tigard
Development Code.
3) A member absent during the presentation of any evidence in a hearing may not participate in
the deliberations or final determination regarding the matter of the hearing,unless he or she
has reviewed the evidence received and the meeting minutes. Comment[A13]:Moved to Article VII.Member
and Alternate Responsibilities.
H) Rules of Procedure. All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in
accordance with the latest edition of"Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised". However, the
Commission has an obligation to be a3 clear and Simple in its procedure as po33ible.L Comment[A14]:Move to K below.
Minutes.
1) The Secretary secretary or a designee shall be present at each meeting and shall cause the
proceedings to be stenographically or electronically recorded. A full transcript is not
required,but wWritten minutes giving a true reflection ofsummarizing the matters discussed
at a meeting and the view of the participants shall be prepared and maintained by the
Sccrctarysecretary. Executive sessions are excluded from published minutes.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 6
2) Minutes shall be available to the public, upon request, within a reasonable time after a
meeting and shall include the following:
a) Members present;
b) Motions,proposals,measures proposed and their disposition;
c) Results of all votes,including the vote of each member by name if not unanimous;and
d) Substance of any discussion of any matter.
e) If the minutes are not yet approved by the Commission,if requested, draft minutes, if
available,may be provided.
3) Commissioners Members are expected to vote for approval of the minutes based on the
accuracy of representation of events at the meeting. If there are no corrections, the
President president may declare the minutes approved as presented,without the need for a
motion and vote. A vote in favor of adopting minutes does not signify agreement or
disagreement with the Commission's actions memorialized in the minutes.
4) Any Commissioner member not present at a meeting must abstain from voting on approval
of the minutes of that meeting.
1) Agendas and minutes shall be posted for public notice on the Citrgard web page and in the
lobb of Ci Hall in com•fiance with Ore on Publi Meetin rs La..
J) Rules of Procedure. All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in
assordance with the latest edition of"Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised". However, the
•mmi is• .. .. •a.. "e• • . l-.r an• sim•1- in i .r• -• . .• .1-
f}K)_Commission members and alternates shall not send or receive electronic communications
concerning any matter pending before the Commission during a Commission meeting.
Electronic Communications communications means e-mail, text messages, or other forms of
communications transmitted or received by technological means.
K L) Commission members and alternates_shall not use electronic communication devices to
review or access information regarding matters not in consideration before the Commission
during a Commission meeting. Commission members and alternates may receive emergency
communications regarding _personal or work related matters. Electronic Communications
communications Devices devices means include but are not limited to lap-top computers, smart
phones, cell-phones, notebooks, or other similar devices capable of transmitting or receiving
messages electronically.
I✓}M) Any electronic communications regarding a quasi-judicial matter to be considered by the
Commission is an ex-parte contact and shall be disclosed as required by law.
SECTION VII.COMMISSION MEMBER AND ALTERNATE RESPONSIBILITIES
IA) Members of the Commission members shall:
1) Regularly attend meeting and contribute constructively to discussions;
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 7
2) Consider and discuss issues from a Citywide perspective, as well as that of particular
stakeholder or interests;
2}3) Strive to reach consensus on matters under consideration;
3}4) Act with respect and consideration for the viewpoint of others;
•t . tin an .ffi Li _.. i -x -. hr.u.h h- . .n.f h- •mmii.n
4}6) Not make representations on behalf of the City of T•9"g� h{or
: Board whether
intentional or not,without authorization;
3}7) Thoroughly review all materials provided in advance;and
6}8) Contact staff liaison if clarification of applicable criteria or other matters 1 desired.
B) A member absent during the presentation of any e idence in , hea _. ma lot ..■ - . .-
.- .:.. . .. s- erminati.• -_, ._■! matter ofthe hewing, unless he or she has
reviewed the evidence received and the meeting minutes
C) Commission alternates shall have the ç onsibilities as members except that they shall not
vote. 222,. e . ba
B}D) Conflict of Interest Activities
1) A member or alternate of the Planning Commission shall not participate in any Commission
proceeding or action in which any of the following has a direct or substantial financial
interest:
a) The member or the spouse,brother, sister,child,parent, father-in-law,mother-in-law of
the member;
b) Any business in which the member is then serving or has served within the previous two
years;or
c) Any business for which the member is negotiating or for which the member has an
arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment.
2) Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the meeting of the Commission where
the action is being taken.
I €}E) Disclosure of Prehearing or Ex parte Contact
1) A member of the Planning Commiasionor alternate shall disclose to the Commission,prior
to any quasi-judicial hearing on a petition for a permit or with respect to any contested case,
any prehearing or ex parte contacts with the applicant's officers, agents and employees, or
any of the parties to a contested case concerning the permit sought or the question at issue.
2) A member of the Commiaaionor alternate shall disqualify himself or be disqualified by the
remaining members of the Commission present at a quasi-judicial hearing when it appears
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 8
that the impartiality or objectivity of any member has been compromised by prehearing or
ex parte contact.
SECTION VIII.ATTENDANCE
If a member of the Commission is unable to attend a meeting,he or she is expected to notify the
ISecretary secretary as soon as possible. If any member is absent from 6 meetings within one year or
three consecutive meetings without reasonable cause, the issue shall be placed on the upcoming
agenda, and, upon majority vote of the Commission, the Commission may recommend that the
position be declared vacant. The Commission shall forward their action to the Mayor mayor and
Councilcouncil,who shall vote whether to accept the Board's Commission's recommendation.
SECTION IX.QUORUM
A) At any meeting of the Commission,a quorum shall be a majority of the current members of the
Commission(excluding alternates). •_ t•- •.I.•s- of foam ug a quorum,members who have
.' .
-. • - -• 1- - - o .. _ i• '•n in .ny_matter shall he counted as resent.
No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum except to:
1) adjust the order of the.agenda; •
�` a
o
2) continue quasi-judicial matters and p:ublic hearings to a time and place certain;and
u •-n.a it-m n t r-•uirin. •mrni n a dory aria
4}4) adjourn the meeting.
The meeting may continue with discussion of agenda items not requiring Commission action.
from participation in any matter shall b..counted as pree..nt.
B) In the event a quorum will not be present at any meeting and no quasi-judicial items are
scheduled for that meeting, the Sccrctary secretary shall notify the Commission members and
alternates in advance of that fact, and all items scheduled beforccancel the meeting shall be
automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting unless time certain is required.
The Secretary secretary shall post notice of the continuance cancelation on the door of the
Council Chambers notifying the public of the continuance and specifying the date and time
when the matter will be before the Commission.
SECTION X.REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
A) The City Council may remove members of the Commission in accordance with Section VIII
Attendance.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 9
B) The Council may also remove members,when,in its judgment the conduct of a member does
not conform to the City of Tigard Code of Conduct for Boards,Commissions and Committees
or based on other conduct unbecoming a representative of the City.
C) The Commission may make a recommendation to Council for the removal of a member in
accordance with Section VII Member Responsibilities. Tl If the Commission wishes to shell
forward a recommendation for replacement to the Mayor and Ci Council, it shall do so in a
timely manner.
SECTION XI.ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
A) Not later than April l',the Commission shall present its annual report to the City Council.
B) The Annual annual Report report shall include a summary of key activities and proceeding and
any specific suggestions or recommendations which the Commission believes would be
noteworthy to the Council.
IC) The Annual annual Report report shall not be submitted unless approved by the Commission.
SECTION XII.AMENDMENTS
A) These bylaws are adopted by resolution of the Tigard City Council, are binding on the
Commission, and may be amended by the City Council. The Commission may propose
amendments for CityCouncil consideration.
B) Publication and Distribution. A copy of these approved bylaws shall be:
1) Placed on record with the City Recorder and the Secretary secretary of the Commission;
2) Available at each Commission meeting;
1-}3) Distributed to each member and alternate of the Commission.
Proposed Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws-Final Draft December 28,2011 10
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
SECTION I. CHARGE AND DUTIES
A) The Tigard Planning Commission ("Commission") shall have no powers except as conferred by
resolution of the City Council, City Charter, Tigard Municipal Code (TMC 2.08), Tigard
Development Code (Title 18)or the Oregon Revised Statutes.
B) The Commission shall act as an advisory body to the City Council and in specified quasi-judicial
matters, shall act as the review authority.
C) The Commission, its members and alternates shall act in a manner that is in keeping with
applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to conduct and ethics and the City of Tigard
Code of Conduct. Any violation of the provisions of such laws and guidelines shall be grounds
for removal from office.
D) Advisory committees to the Commission may be appointed by the Commission, by majority
vote of the Commission members, for the consideration of special assignments. Advisory
committees formed by the Commission and subcommittees formed by action of City Council
shall not be authorized to operate under separate bylaws and shall operate in accordance with
the Tigard Municipal Code, Planning Commission Bylaws and any modifications the Council
may make.
E) The Planning Commission shall act as the Committee for Citizen Involvement for land use
related matters and will meet annually with City Council to evaluate the effectiveness of the
citizen engagement process. (Resolution No. 10-62)
SECTION II. COMPOSITION
A) The Commission shall consist of nine voting members ("member or members") appointed by
the City Council with the following representation and restrictions:
1. Not more than two members may be nonresidents of the city.
2. Not more than two members may be City Officers,who shall serve as ex officio nonvoting
members.
3. Not more than two members may engage principally in the buying, selling or developing of
real estate for profit as individuals, or be members of any partnership, or officers or
employees of any corporation, that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of
real estate for profit;
4. Not more than two members shall be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business,
trade or profession.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 1
5. Two members shall have an expertise related to the design of sites, buildings, structures or
landscapes including but not limited to architects, landscape architects, engineers, and urban
design planners.
B) Membership may temporarily drop below required minimums due to resignations and/or
difficulty in recruiting qualified applicants.
C) The Commission may also have up to two non-voting alternate members ("alternate or
alternates") appointed by the City Council.
411
SECTION III. APPOINTMENTS '
A) Council shall fill vacancies with individuals who meet the co % itional requirements listed in
Section II.
B) Appointments of members and alternates shall bele by the City Council, with
recommendations from the mayor.
SECTION IV. TERM OF OFFICE
A) Commission members serve for a term of four years beginning January 1" in the year of
appointment.
B) The term for an alternate begins January 1st or upon appointment and expires when the next
full-term Commission position opens and shall not exceed two years.
C) Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filled by appointment by the council and mayor for the
unexpired portion of the term. The unexpired portion of a term does not count towards the
fulfillment of the maximum number of allowed terms.
D) Members may be reappointed for up to two consecutive full terms. Alternates must be
reappointed to serve more than two years.
E) Members shall receive no compensation for their services, but shall be reimbursed for duly
authorized expenses. The community development director shall determine and authorize
reimbursable expenses.
F) A member who seeks to resign from the Commission shall submit a written resignation to the
president of the Commission, the staff liaison, or the city recorder's office. If possible, the
resignation should allow for a thirty (30) day notice so the City Council can appoint a
replacement.
SECTION V. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION
A) Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be a president and vice-president.
B) The community development director or designee shall be the secretary of the Commission. The
secretary is not a member of the Commission
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 2
C) Election.
1) The president and vice-president shall be elected at the first meeting of each odd numbered
year, and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. The term shall start with
the first meeting following election or upon election if there is not current presiding officer.
2) If the office of the president or vice-president becomes vacant, the Commission shall at its
next meeting elect a successor from its members, who shall serve the expired term of the
predecessor.
3) Nominations shall be by oral motion. At the close of nom' "Vons, t_ ommission shall
vote by voice vote upon the names nominated for the offs f requestealt: any member,
written ballots shall be used for voting purposes. 14
'11111111I 111
D) President.
1) Except as otherwise provided herein, the president shall:
a) Have general directional powers over the Commission.
b) Preside over all deliberations and meetings of the Commission.
c) Vote on all questions before the Commission.
d) Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with these bylaws.
e) Sign all documents memorializing Commission action promptly after approval by the
Commission. The power to sign reports and other documents of the Commission may
be delegated,in writing, to the secretary.
f) Be an ex-officio member of all Commission advisory committees.
g) Be the sole spokesperson for the Commission unless this responsibility is delegated to
another member or the staff liaison.
E) Vice-President. During the absence, disability, or disqualification of the president, the vice-
president shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the
president. In the absence of the president and vice-president, the remaining members present
shall elect an acting president.
F) Secretary.
1) The secretary shall:
a) Maintain an accurate, permanent, and complete record of all proceedings conducted
before the Commission including all applications, appeals, hearings, continuances,
postponements, date of notices, final disposition of matters, and other steps taken or
acts performed by the Commission,its officers, and the Secretary.
b) Prepare the agenda and minutes for all Commission meetings.
c) Give all notices required by law
d) Inform the Commission of correspondence relating to Commission business and
conduct all correspondence of the Commission.
e) Be responsible for meeting logistics.
f) Attend all meetings and hearings of the Commission or send a substitute.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 3
g) Perform such other duties for the Commission as are customary in that role to support
the duties of the Commission.
G) Staff liaisons are the primary contacts for City of Tigard boards and the primary interface
between these bodies and the City Council, City Manager, and departments. Besides serving as a
technical resource, staff liaisons are responsible for member recruitment and recognition and
monitoring board effectiveness.
SECTION VI. MEETINGS
A) Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the Council Chambers,
City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon, or at such other places as may be determined
by the Commission, at 7:00 p.m., or other time as determined by the Commission. Meeting
dates are normally chosen for timely action on applications submitted for the Commission's
consideration and are held at least once a month or as necessary. At regular meetings, the
Commission shall consider all matters properly brought before it without the necessity of prior
notice thereof given to any members.
B) Special Meetings. The president of the Commission may call a special meeting, and the president
shall call a special meeting or upon the request of a majority of the members of the Commission.
The call shall state the purpose of the meeting. Unless otherwise specified in the call, all special
meetings shall be held at the regular meeting place and time of the Commission. Notice of
special meetings shall be in writing and communicated to all members and alternates by the
Secretary at least forty-eight (48) hours before the meeting.
C) Open Meetings. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, except that the
Commission may hold executive sessions, from which the public may be excluded, in such
manner and for such purposes as may be authorized by law. Representatives of the news media
shall be allowed to attend executive sessions under such conditions governing the disclosure of
information as provided by law.
D) Notice of Meetings.
1) In addition to notice required to be given to Commission members and the secretary, public
notice of all Commission meetings shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give
actual notice to interested persons and consistent with all applicable requirements of the
Tigard Development Code. The notice shall consist of the time and place of the meeting
and an agenda or summary of the subject matter to be considered.
2) Notice shall be posted in the lobby of City Hall and disseminated to the City Recorder, local
news media representatives, and other persons and organizations as provided by law. At the
discretion of the secretary, notice may also be provided to persons and organizations known
to have a special interest in matters to be considered by the Commission.
3) Notice shall be given not less than five (5) days in advance of a meeting and be consistent
with all applicable requirements of the Tigard Development Code. However, in case of an
emergency, a meeting may be held upon such public notice as is appropriate in the
circumstances.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 4
4) Failure to provide notice as specified in this section shall not invalidate any decision or
proceeding of the Commission.
E) Agenda.
1) Order of Business. The order of business at all meetings shall be determined by the agenda
which shall be composed generally of the following items:
a) Call to order;
b) Roll call; If���.
c) Communications; !!!!�•jj ..
d) Minutes of previous meetings;
e) Old business - continuances;
f) New business; 44444, g
g) Other business;
h) Adjournment. 1 1.1410-” N
2) Any item may be taken out of order by direction of the president.
3) Actions of the Commission are not limited to the prepared agenda except for those subject
to notice requirements for land use decisions.
4) Meetings will end at 11:00 P.M. unless there is an affirmative vote by the commission to
extend the time. In the absence of that vote, an item in progress will be continued as
described in G. below.
F) Voting. a'
1) A majority of votes by the members of the Commission present at an open meeting shall
determine any question before the Commission.A tie vote causes the motion to fail.
2) Alternates are not allowed to vote under any circumstances, except as provided in Tigard
Municipal Code 2.08.105 Downtown Design Review Board.
3) When a matter is called for a vote, the president shall, before a vote is taken, restate the
motion and shall announce the decision of the Commission after such vote.
4) Voting shall be by voice vote. All votes, whether positive, negative, or abstentions, shall be
recorded in the minutes.
5) Voting"in absentia" or by proxy is not permitted.
G) Continuances,Remands.
1) Any item before the Commission may be continued to a subsequent meeting. A motion to
continue an item shall specify the date when the item shall next be taken up or the event
upon which continuation is to be based. If a matter which originally required public notice
is continued without setting time and place certain, the public notification must be repeated
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 5
when time and place are made certain. A list of continued items, showing the date at which
an item was continued, or the event upon which continuance is based, shall be recorded and
kept by the secretary and made available to the public.
2) Unless otherwise provided by the City Council upon remand of a legislative matter, any item
remanded by the City Council for reconsideration by the Commission shall be treated as a
new item and proceedings shall be provided for as if the matter were initially before the
Commission and noticed consistent with all applicable requirements of the Tigard
Development Code.
H) Minutes.
1) The secretary or a designee shall be present at each meeting and shall cause the proceedings
to be electronically recorded. Written minutes summarizing the matters discussed at a
meeting and the view of the participants shall be prepared and maintained by the secretary.
Executive sessions are excluded from published minutes.
2) Minutes shall be available to the public, upon request, within a reasonable time after a
meeting and shall include the following:
a) Members present;
b) Motions,proposals, measures proposed and their disposition;
c) Results of all votes,including the vote of each member by name if not unanimous; and
d) Substance of any discussion of any matter.
e) If the minutes are not yet approved by the Commission, if requested, draft minutes, if
available, may be provided.
3) Members are expected to vote for approval of the minutes based on the accuracy of
representation of events at the meeting. If there are no corrections, the president may
declare the minutes approved as presented, without the need for a motion and vote. A vote
in favor of adopting minutes does not signify agreement or disagreement with the
Commission's actions memorialized in the minutes.
4) Any member not present at a meeting must abstain from voting on approval of the minutes
of that meeting.
I) Agendas and minutes shall be posted for public notice on the City of Tigard web page and in the
lobby of City Hall in compliance with Oregon Public Meetings Law.
J) Rules of Procedure. All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in
accordance with the latest edition of "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised". However, the
Commission has an obligation to be as clear and simple in its procedure as possible.
K) Commission members and alternates shall not send or receive electronic communications
concerning any matter pending before the Commission during a Commission meeting.
Electronic communications means e-mail, text messages, or other forms of communications
transmitted or received by technological means.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 6
L) Commission members and alternates shall not use electronic communication devices to review
or access information regarding matters not in consideration before the Commission during a
Commission meeting. Commission members and alternates may receive emergency
communications regarding personal or work related matters. Electronic communications devices
include but are not limited to lap-top computers, smart phones, cell-phones, notebooks, or other
similar devices capable of transmitting or receiving messages electronically.
M) Any electronic communications regarding a quasi-judicial matter to be considered by the
Commission is an ex-parte contact and shall be disclosed as required by law.
SECTION VII. COMMISSION MEMBER AND ALTERNATE RESPONSIBILITIES
A) Commission members shall:
1) Regularly attend meeting and contribute constructively to discussions;
2) Consider and discuss issues from a Citywide perspective, as well as that of particular
stakeholder or interests;
3) Strive to reach consensus on matters under consideration;
4) Act with respect and consideration for the viewpoint of others;
5) Not act in an official capacity except through the action of the Commission.
6) Not make representations on behalf of the City of Tigard or Board whether intentional or
not,without authorization;
7) Thoroughly review all materials provided in advance; and
8) Contact staff liaison if clarification of applicable criteria or other matters is desired.
B) A member absent during the presentation of any evidence in a hearing may not participate in the
deliberations or final determination regarding the matter of the hearing, unless he or she has
reviewed the evidence received and the meeting minutes.
C) Commission alternates shall have the same responsibilities as members except that they shall not
vote.
D) Conflict of Interest Activities
1) A member or alternate of the Commission shall not participate in any Commission
proceeding or action in which any of the following has a direct or substantial financial
interest:
a) The member or the spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law of
the member;
b) Any business in which the member is then serving or has served within the previous two
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 7
years; or
c) Any business for which the member is negotiating or for which the member has an
arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment.
2) Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the meeting of the Commission where
the action is being taken.
E) Disclosure of Prehearing or Ex parte Contact
1) A member or alternate shall disclose to the Commission, prior to any quasi-judicial hearing
on a petition for a permit or with respect to any contested case, any prehearing or ex parte
contacts with the applicant's officers, agents and employees, or any of the parties to a
contested case concerning the permit sought or the question at issue.
2) A member or alternate shall disqualify himself or be disqualified by the remaining members
of the Commission present at a quasi-judicial hearing when it appears that the impartiality or
objectivity of any member has been compromised by prehearing or ex parte contact.
SECTION VIII. ATTENDANCE
If a member of the Commission is unable to attend a meeting, he or she is expected to notify the
secretary as soon as possible. If any member is absent from 6 meetings within one year or three
consecutive meetings without reasonable cause, the issue shall be placed on the upcoming agenda,
and, upon majority vote of the Commission, the Commission may recommend that the position be
declared vacant. The Commission shall forward their action to the mayor and council, who shall
vote whether to accept the Commission's recommendation.
SECTION IX. QUORUM
A) At any meeting of the Commission, a quorum shall be a majority of the current members of the
Commission (excluding alternates). For the purposes of forming a quorum, members who have
disqualified or excused themselves from participation in any matter shall be counted as present.
No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum except to:
1) adjust the order of the agenda;
2) continue quasi-judicial matters and public hearings to a time and place certain;
3) discuss agenda items not requiring Commission action; and
4) adjourn the meeting.
B) In the event a quorum will not be present at any meeting and no quasi-judicial items are
scheduled for that meeting, the secretary shall notify the Commission members and alternates in
advance of that fact, and cancel the meeting. The secretary shall post notice of the cancelation
on the door of the Council Chambers.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 8
SECTION X. REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
A) The City Council may remove members of the Commission in accordance with Section VIII
Attendance.
B) The Council may also remove members, when, in its judgment the conduct of a member does
not conform to the City of Tigard Code of Conduct for Boards, Commissions and Committees
or based on other conduct unbecoming a representative of the City.
C) The Commission may make a recommendation to Council for the al of a member in
accordance with Section VII Member Responsibilities. If the Commission ,z les to forward a
•recommendation for replacement to the Mayor and City Council, it shall o in a timely
manner.
SECTION XI. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
A) Not later than April 1st, the Commission shall present its annual report to the City Council.
B) The annual report shall include a summary of key activities and proceeding and any specific
suggestions or recommendations which the Commission believes would be noteworthy to the
Council.
C) The annual report shall not be submitted unless approved by the Commission.
SECTION XII. AMENDMENTS
A) These bylaws are adopted by resolution of the Tigard City Council, are binding on the
Commission, and may be amended by the City Council. The Commission may propose
amendments for City Council consideration.
B) Publication and Distribution. A copy of these approved bylaws shall be:
1) Placed on record with the City Recorder and the secretary of the Commission;
2) Available at each Commission meeting;
3) Distributed to each member and alternate of the Commission.
Tigard Planning Commission Bylaws - Final Draft December 28, 2011 9
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.08 PLANNING COMMISSION more than two full consecutive terms on the
AND HEARINGS OFFICER Planning Commission, notwithstanding prior
appointment to an unexpired term. Commission
Sections: members shall receive no compensation but shall
. •
2.08.010 Per-pese.Planning Commission 95 26; Ord. 92 35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
i ' ! ! . .. . . " • •• : •
(Repealed by Ord. 10 17)
2.08.040 Vacancy. (Repealed by Ord. 10 17)
2.08.050 Voting Members.
.! ..1 : 1 _ e ! • . 2.08.040 Vacancy.
2.08.070 Meetings Quorum Voting.
.! :.! : ! _ . Any vacancy in such a commission shall be
s' ! filled by the appointing authority for the
2.08.090 Disclosure Of Prehearing unexpired term of the predecessor in the office.
Contact (Ord. 92 35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
2.08.100 Powers And Duties Of
Commission: 2.08.050 Voting Members.
2.08.105 Downtown Design Review
Board; No more than two voting members of the
2.08.110 Hearings Officer: Commission may engage principally in the
2.08.120 Hearing Procedures: buying, selling or developing of real estate for
profit as individuals, or be members of any
2.08.010 Perposc.Planning Commission partnership, or officers or employees of any
corporation, that engages principally in the
The purpose of the Tigard Planning buying, selling or developing of real estate for
Commission is to advises the City Council on profit. No more than two members shall be
general land use and transportation planning engaged in the same kind of occupation, business,
issues; long-range capital improvement programs; trade or profession. (Ord. 92 35 §2 (Exh. A)(part),
and to act as a hearings body for applications of
permits, land use applications and land use
appeals, or other matters as directed by the City 2.08.060 Election Of Officers.
Council. The Planning Commission shall operate
pursuant to bylaws approved by city Council, The Planning Commission, at its first
which may only be amended by action of the City •• _ - ... ..
Council. (Ord. 92-35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992). shall elect a president and a vice president, who
shall hold office at the pleasure of the
! : . .. . . .
shall be voting members of the Commission. The
The City Planning Commission shall consist vice president shall preside in the absence of the
of nine members, not more than two of whom president. (Ord. 92 35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
may be nonresidents of the City, to be appointed
by the Council to serve a tenn of four years. No 2.08.070 Meetings Quorum Voting.
person appointed after January 1, 1996 may serve
2-08-1 Code Update: 1/11
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
The Commission shall meet at least once in -- _ - . --• _ - ..
each calendar month or as necessary. A majority at issue.
of the members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum. A majority vote of those (b) A member of the Commission shall
members present at an open meeting of the disqualify himself or be disqualified by the
Commission shall be necessary to legally act on remaining members of the Commission present at
any matter before the Commission. (Ord. 92 35 a hearing when it appears that the impartiality or
§2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992). objectivity of any member has been compromised
by prehearing or ex parte contact. (Ord. 92 35 §2
-.! ;. ; ! • •. .. . . (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
2.08.100 Powers And Duties Of
(a) A member of the Planning Commission Commission:
shall not participate in any Commission
proceeding or action in which any of the (-u)A. Except as otherwise provided by
following has a direct or substantial financial the City Council, and described in the
interest: Commission's Bylaws, a-Citythe Tigard Planning
Commission may:
(1) The member or the spouse, brother,
sister, child, parent, father in law, mother in law (1) Make and alter rules and
of-the-member• regulations for its government and procedure
(2) Any business in which the member City Charter, this chapter and other ordinances of
is then serving or has served within the previous the City;
two years; or
R1) Recommend and make suggestions
(3) Any business for which the to the City Council and to other public authorities
member is negotiating or for which the member concerning:
has an arrangement or understanding concerning
prospective partnership or employment. (A)a. The long range
comprehensive land use plans for the Cycity, as
• • .. .. -• - well as any land use plans for specific areas
disclosed at the meeting of the Commission where within the Ccity,
the action is being taken. (Ord. 92 35 (Exh.
A)(part), 1992). (Blb. Plans for the € ycity-
wide transportation system, including the laying
2.08.090 Disclosure Of Prchcaring out, widening, extending and locating of public
ceutact thoroughfares; relieving traffic congestion
conditions; bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
(a) A member of the Planning Commission transit facilities and routes; design standards for
shall disclose to the Commission, prior to any transportation facilities; and parking lot
hearing on a petition for a permit or with respect regulations,
contacts with the applicant's officers, agents and (C)c. Any proposals to adopt
employees, or any of the parties to a contested or amend planning documents for the Gitycity-
2-08-2 Code Update: 1/11
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
wide transportation system, including the (-13}B. The City Council shall assign to the
transportation map of the comprehensive plan and Planning Commission such facilities and services
the transportation capital facilities program, as necessary to enable the Commission
commission to hold its meetings, transact its
(D)d. Establishment of districts business and keep its records. (Ord. 92-35 §2
for limiting the use, height, area, design, bulk and (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
other characteristics of buildings and structures
related to land development, including the 2.08.105 Downtown Design Review
creation of and amendments to the Tigard Board.
development code and the zoning map,
(a)A. The Council council may appoint
(E)e. Betterment of housing or designate a subcommittee of the Planning
and sanitation conditions, Commission as the Downtown Design Review
Board. The Downtown Design Review Board
(F)f.Protection and assurance of shall have the power to conduct Type III-C
solar access; hearings on applications for permits as specified
in the Tigard Development CodcTitle 18 of this
(22) Recommend to the Council council code.
and other public authorities plans for regulating
the future growth, development and design of the (b)B. The subcommittee shall consist of a
City city in respect to its public and private minimum of three members or alternate members
buildings and works, streets, parks, grounds and of the Planning Commission.
vacant lots; and plans to secure to the City
and its inhabitants sanitation, proper service of (e)C. Notwithstanding the provisions of
public utilities and telecommunications utilities, Section 2.08.070, aA majority of the designated
and shipping and transportation facilities; and subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. A
appropriate measures for energy conservation; majority vote of those members present at an open
meeting of the Bboard shall be necessary to
(43) Recommend to the Council council legally act on any matter before the Bboard. (Ord.
and other public authorities plans for promotion, 10-12 § 1,2010).
development and regulation of industrial and
economic activities in the community; 2.08.110 Hearings Officer.
(54) Do and perform all other acts and The Council council may appoint or
things necessary or proper to carry out the designate one or more qualified persons as
provisions of ORS 227.010 to 227.4-20170, and Planning and Zoning Hearings Officer(s), to serve
227.4175 to 227.180; at the pleasure of the City Council. The Hearings
hearings Officerofficer(s) shall have the power to
(g ) Study and propose such measures conduct hearings on applications for permits.
as are advisable for promotion of the public (Ord. 92-35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
interest, health, morals, safety, comfort,
convenience and welfare of the Citycity, including 2.08.120 Hearing Procedures.
the area that is expected to eventually become a
part of the City-city through annexation. (a)A. Procedures for the conduct of
quasi-judicial hearings as prescribed by Section
2-08-3 Code Update: 1/11
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
18.32.160Title 18 of this code shall apply with
respect to the conduct of hearings by the Planning
Commission, Downtown Design Review Board,
and Hearings hearings Officerofficer.
(b)B. Procedures for the conduct of
legislative hearings as prescribed by Section
18.30.100Title 18 of this code shall apply with
respect to the conduct of legislative hearings by
the Planning Commission. (Ord. 92-35 §2 (Exh.
A)(part), 1992). ■
2-08-4 Code Update: 1/11
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.08 PLANNING COMMISSION widening, extending and locating of public
AND HEARINGS OFFICER thoroughfares; relieving traffic congestion
conditions; bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
Sections: transit facilities and routes; design standards for
transportation facilities; and parking lot
2.08.010 Planning Commission regulations,
2.08.100 Powers And Duties Of
Commission c. Any proposals to adopt or
2.08.105 Downtown Design Review amend planning documents for the city-wide
Board transportation system, including the transportation
2.08.110 Hearings Officer map of the comprehensive plan and the
2.08.120 Hearing Procedures transportation capital facilities program,
2.08.010 Planning Commission d. Establishment of districts for
limiting the use, height, area, design, bulk and
The Tigard Planning Commission advises the other characteristics of buildings and structures
City Council on general land use and related to land development, including the
transportation planning issues; long-range capital creation of and amendments to the Tigard
improvement programs; and to act as a hearings development code and the zoning map,
body for applications of permits, land use
applications and land use appeals, or other matters e. Betterment of housing and
as directed by the City Council. The Planning sanitation conditions,
Commission shall operate pursuant to bylaws
approved by city Council, which may only be f. Protection and assurance of
amended by action of the City Council. (Ord. 92- solar access;
35 §2 (Exh.A)(part), 1992).
(2) Recommend to the council and
other public authorities plans for regulating the
2.08.100 Powers And Duties Of future growth, development and design of the city
Commission in respect to its public and private buildings and
works, streets, parks, grounds and vacant lots; and
A. Except as otherwise provided by the plans to secure to the city and its inhabitants
City Council, and described in the Commission's sanitation, proper service of public utilities and
Bylaws,the Tigard Planning Commission may: telecommunications utilities, and shipping and
transportation facilities; and appropriate measures
(1) Recommend and make for energy conservation;
suggestions to the City Council and to other
public authorities concerning: (3) Recommend to the council and
other public authorities plans for promotion,
a. The long range comprehensive development and regulation of industrial and
land use plans for the city, as well as any land use economic activities in the community;
plans for specific areas within the city,
(4) Do and perform all other acts and
b. Plans for the city-wide things necessary or proper to carry out the
transportation system, including the laying out, provisions of ORS 227.010 to 227.170, and
2-08-1 Code Update:
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
227.175 to 227.180; 2.08.120 Hearing Procedures.
(5) Study and propose such measures A. Procedures for the conduct of quasi-
as are advisable for promotion of the public judicial hearings as prescribed by Title 18 of this
interest, health, morals, safety, comfort, code shall apply with respect to the conduct of
convenience and welfare of the city, including the hearings by the Planning Commission, Downtown
area that is expected to eventually become a part Design Review Board, and hearings officer.
of the city through annexation. B. Procedures for the conduct of legislative
B. The City Council shall assign to the hearings as prescribed by Title 18 of this code
shall apply with respect to the conduct of
Planning Commission such facilities and services legislative hearings by the Planning Commission.
as necessary to enable the commission to hold its (Ord. 92-35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992). ■
meetings, transact its business and keep its
records. (Ord. 92-35 §2(Exh. A)(part), 1992).
2.08.105 Downtown Design Review
Board.
A. The council may appoint or designate a
subcommittee of the Planning Commission as the
Downtown Design Review Board. The Downtown
Design Review Board shall have the power to
conduct Type III-C hearings on applications for
permits as specified in Title 18 of this code.
B. The subcommittee shall consist of a
minimum of three members or alternate members
of the Planning Commission.
C. A majority of the designated
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. A
majority vote of those members present at an open
meeting of the board shall be necessary to legally
act on any matter before the board. (Ord. 10-12 §
1,2010).
2.08.110 Hearings Officer.
The council may appoint or designate one or
more qualified persons as Planning and Zoning
Hearings Officer(s), to serve at the pleasure of the
City Council. The hearings officer(s) shall have
the power to conduct hearings on applications for
permits. (Ord. 92-35 §2 (Exh. A)(part), 1992).
2-08-2 Code Update:
HBA
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
February 3, 2012
David Walsh, President
Commissioners
City of Tigard Planning Commission
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Urban Forestry Code Revisions
CPA2011-0004/DCA2011-0002
President Walsh and Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the 1000+ members of the Home
Builders Association of Metro Portland (HBAMP).We are very appreciative of the effort of the Urban
Forestry Citizens Advisory Committee (UFCAC) and their work in the preparation of this set of proposed
code revisions.
We do, however, have some questions and concerns:
Canopy cover. We endorse the concept of a canopy cover requirement, but at least want to put on the
table for further discussion its implementation. Specifically, the 40%coverage requirement for most
residential properties is generally workable if the following concern can be addressed. The development
of properties at the R-7 (5,000 sf lots) and the R-12 (3,600 sf lots) densities should either be grouped
with the other higher density districts at the slightly lower coverage percentage or outright exempted
from the canopy coverage requirement. It is quite impractical to achieve the 40%coverage on
developments at that density. There is simply not enough land not covered by impervious surfaces
(structures and paved areas) on which to plant enough trees in order to achieve the 40%coverage.
Also on the subject of the canopy cover, it would seem to make sense to allow the calculation of the
percentage to be done on a project/application basis, rather than a lot by lot basis, thereby allowing a
bit of averaging among individual parcels/lots within a proposed subdivision, but still achieving the
overall coverage requirement.
In other words, there might be a few lots available for those purchasers who simply do not want trees
on their lot.
Mitigation requirements. Somewhat linked to the above point, but the calculation of the mitigation
requirements could use some adjustment. Consider this scenario: A customer wants a lot with no trees
(other than the required street trees),If the developer/builder were to try to accommodate that desire,
he would have to pay into the mitigation fund in order to not plant more trees on that lot, In effect,
charge the customer a premium for a home on a non-treed lot. Does this make sense?
15555 SW Bangy Road 0 Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Phone: 503.684.1880 ® Fax: 503.684.0588 ® www.homebuildersportland.org
Striving for Affordability,Balance and Choice
Problematic terrain. Can there be consideration of exemption from the canopy cover requirement
calculations of problematic terrain?Specifically,water quality areas, rock outcrop areas, steep slope
areas and perhaps other situations where the planting of trees is virtually impossible.
Interpretation concerns. It is not clear quite what exemption from the type I requirements
(1.8.790.0708) actually provides to the applicant.The section cited calls for the submittal of information,
but then doesn't the mere review and acceptance of that information by staff become a type I
decision?
Again,thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I expect Ken Gertz, a member of the HBAMP
and of the UFCAC, to be present at the hearing and to offer his comments as well.
Sincerely
ie Platt
Director of Local Government Affairs
Home Builders Assn, of Metro Portland
111.
:�
Iri
TIGARD
PLEASE SIGN IN HERE
Tigard Planning Commission
Agenda Item #: 5 Page 1 of Date of Hearing: 2-6-2012
Case Number (s): CPA2011 - 00004/DCA2011 - 00002
Case Name: Urban Forestry Code Revision Project
Location: Citywide
If you would like to speak on this item, please print clearly providing
your name, address, and zip-code below:
Name: C7L C-'o n (3 x _ For
Address: / 35 F50 ;LL) 4-314 /lee _ Against
City, State, Zip: 76,4,0 c fZ 97 2-2 3 ' Neither For or Against
Name: RvED - For
Address: /4.1 e 5 D-141,Q12.16 1�'� Against
City, State, Zip:.1-(4,4, 9722- C Neither For or Against
Name: --r-P-0 NI BARS For f
Address: (f @ S o Sc,; k � P\ _ Against
City, State, Zip: c c2 O 0 12 — Neither For or Against
Page Number
TIGARD
Name: �� LLL \ E For
Address: \? Z`6 N( C Against
�T,
City, State, Zip: T\ L pAD m' Neither For or Against
2 2
Name:.0),1 fv„) f 1 ) 1� � ` ` For \r/c.-r zc
Address:'-) S\a S - LM t — Against
City, State, Zip:`�(W2P742 clj7 Z 2 I Neither For or Against
Name: rfttio..1 c),,c) u _ For
Address: X77 Cp , - �� t I Against
/�,
City, State, Zip: 1 Q-12- Os Neither For or Against PfeAV
Name: /03,4 _ For
d�ti
Address: I? g. : 1/6 ti‘ _ Against
City, State, Zip: 77.4.t,. ( „�.- OA- 77°‘72— --"-Neither For or Against
Name:g 12 c C t-1 v6Tl- L 1 S - For
Address: I // $30 _ Against
City, State, Zip: ` C I 2 r> a2 ? X.. Neither For or Against
Page Number
a
11,1
TI GARD
.t
Name: t ' ` _ For
Address: 1.1'S�°�'"��G113
l��C��S 5 _ Against
City, State, Zip: T!_ ()/ j Z 2 5' Neither For or Against
Name: _ For
Address: _ Against
City, State, Zip: Neither For or Against
Name: _ For
Address: I Against
City, State, Zip: I Neither For or Against
Name: _ For
Address: _ Against
City, State, Zip: _ Neither For or Against
Name: _ For
Address: _ Against
City, State, Zip: _ Neither For or Against
Page Number,_
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Walsh
Vice President Anderson
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Shavey
Alt. Commissioner Armstrong
Alt. Commissioner Miller
Absent: Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Ryan; Commissioner Schmidt
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Susan Hartnett,
Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin,
Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Tom
McGuire, Principal Planner;Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist;
Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner;John
Floyd, Associate Planner; Shelley LaBarre, Sr. Administrative Specialist
Also Present: Councilor Woodard, Council Liaison to the Planning Commission;
Councilor Henderson, and Councilor Buehner
CONSIDER MINUTES
January 9 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the January 9 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved
as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT: CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry
Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the
"Significant Tree Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters
18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640,
18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments,
l:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR-Briefing-Ilplaws Rem,TPC\(inures 2-6-12.doc Page 1 of 8
amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02
thru 8.20, 9.06,and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide.
President Walsh opened the hearing by advising everyone present of the scope of the Planning
Commission. He said the scope of the commission for this particular topic would deal with two aspects:
the Urban Forestry standards for development (canopy cover),and tree grove preservation. This hearing
would not deal with tree permit requirements or hazard trees. Since those two aspects are revisions to
the Municipal Code, they would be dealt with at a public hearing before the City Council [in April]. The
Planning Commission only has jurisdiction over the Development Code. He informed those present
that staff was available out in the hall to speak with them if they had questions or concerns regarding the
issues the commission was not dealing with at this time. A small portion of the audience went out to
speak with staff.
President Walsh noted the likely outcome of the hearing would be that it would be continued to March
5.
Susan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director, introduced the various staff present and
explained why they were there. She explained that she was present to answer procedural and big picture
policy questions and invited the commission to feel free to ask her those kinds of questions.
STAFF REPORT
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner,went over the staff report (the staff report is available
to the public one week before the hearing.)
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
President Walsh commended staff for the quality of the materials that had been provided to
the commissioners to prepare for the hearing.
One of the commissioners asked whether they would be getting more information on canopy
cover, as he had some questions regarding that topic. Susan Hartnett answered that, yes, they
would. She said that,in fact, the reason they're recommending that the hearing be continued
to a later time is so staff will have time to get back to them with answers to various questions
like that which undoubtedly would come up.
There were some questions about issues that AKS Forestry and Engineering had brought up.
Staff will come back to the next meeting with some of those issues/answers.
Gary Pagenstecher mentioned that, for the record, and as required by state law, the entire
Urban Forestry Code Revision project record is available and accessible electronically at this
hearing should questions with regard to that record come up during the hearing.
1:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR-Briefing-Bylaws Review\TPC Minutes 2-6-12doc Page 2 of 8
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) TESTIMONY
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard - commented on the process of arriving at the
set of guiding principles that are contained in Volume I of the Planning Commissioners
material. He said he appreciated the process and how staff handled it. He noted the guiding
principles were a product of the entire group. He said they represent a consensus of the
Citizen Advisory Committee. He noted the committee was time limited; they used the full
time, and the consultant was very organized in how the group worked through each meeting.
They had time limits as to how long they could speak. He said the guiding principles were not
guiding on them, as a CAC, but they were intended to guide going forward. The CAC didn't
have them to start with — they came to fruition at the end. He said everyone signed them.
President Walsh said he wanted to go on record that he was a member of the CAC, as well as
Commissioner Schmidt. He reiterated that the guiding principles were a product— a
culmination of the outcomes — and they, the CAC members, were all asked to sign them -
which they did.
Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner, read comments on behalf of Morgan Holen, 5300
Parkview Drive #1053, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (Exhibit A) —Marissa noted that Ms.
Holen was an active member of the CAC and is an ISA Certified Arborist as well as an ISA
Certified Tree Risk Assessor - and a business owner.
Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th, Tualatin, OR 97062, HBA Representative, spoke about how
pleased he was with the process and the outcome of the CAC.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR
Troy Mears 11680 SW 13th Place, Tigard, OR 97223
He said he represents the Parks and Rec Advisory Board for the City of Tigard and also
himself, as a local landscape architect. He was there to show support for the revisions to the
current code. He believes staff and all involved, did a great job revising a former code that he
believes was very difficult to adhere to — for all parties —developers and city members.
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223
He said he has great respect for the project, but has some issues and believes some changes
should be made. He said, while the CAC came to a consensus, he disagrees with a number of
points. He said nobody relies on just tree canopy. He believes a minimum level of tree
preservation should be included in the code. He provided written comments (Exhibit B).
He noted that this has been a long time in coming and he doesn't want to be misunderstood —
he's in favor of it and believes it should go forward; however, he believes some changes
should be made.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UPCR- Briefing-lil•lawcs Rc.Vc,,\TPC\Enure,2-6-12.doL Page 3 of 8
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
Rob Ruedy, 14185 SW 100th Avenue, Tigard, 97224
Mr. Ruedy was surprised to not see anything in the Cityscape [the city newsletter] February
issue related to this hearing. He believes hearing notices should be included in the Cityscape.
He believes there's no common sense — a voluntary mitigation is useless. He brought forward
some "are these being addressed— and if not,why not?" questions which he would provide to
staff for answers. [John Floyd will receive the comments for staff.] Mr. Ruedy said he would
appreciate a 2 week extension of holding the record open because of the delay of the draft
coming out. It would give people a chance to absorb the 60 pages. He believes it's important
to allow people to have opportunity to comment. President Walsh said they would take that
into consideration at the end of the meeting.
TESTIMONY NEITHER FOR, NOR AGAINST
Clean Cox 13580 SW Ash Ave. Tigard, OR
Mr. Cox said, "If you had enough people voicing their opposition to the staff's position,
would you ever actually take that into consideration and reverse your position? In 27 years I've
never seen that happen, and it bothers mel" Commissioner Doherty answered, "Yes, this has
definitely happened. It doesn't happen every time, but yes, we do go to staff and have them
change things when we believe it's warranted."
Brian Lewis, 12828 SW Walnut Street. Tigard, OR 97223
He said he supported_JohnFrewing's comments —particularly the comments regarding the
ratio of counting canopy to tree count. He believes some consideration should be made there.
He also agrees that everything should be included in the Cityscape — even if just one sentence.
He's sure that could easily be done, and he would appreciate it.
Fanny Bookout, 9775 SW Commercial, Tigard, OR 97223
Ms. Bookout had signed up to speak; however, she was a "no show" when called forward.
Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th, Tualatin, OR 97062
Mr. Gertz, representing the Home Builders'Association (HBA), gave a brief presentation and
submitted written comments (Exhibit C).
Eric Schultheis, 11180 SW Fonner Street,Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Schultheis, a twelve year resident—has a property with many trees. He wants enough
flexibility built into the code so people don't get stuck between "a rock and a hard place" e.g.,
the Fonner Woods Development that went in next door to him had many trees. They
removed most of them but left a few here and there. One that had been left has fallen already.
The trees put in to mitigate those that were taken out are mostly dying because he believes the
wrong trees were planted in the wrong places.
Question by President Walsh: Have jou had a chance to review the grove protection portion of the
proposed code? 'Very briefly, yes."Any feedback?'Well, we always have limbs falling but it looks
like I can take a tree out if it looks like it's going to be a problem for the safety of my family or
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612 -PH-UFCR- Briefing-By la Rr it z""TPC Jlino rc.?-6-12 df"c Page 4 of 8
my home— so that's good. I commend you for that. Don't make it impossible to keep a safe
home. Thank you."
Richard Bergen, 12305 SW Summer Street, Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Bergen had signed up to speak; however, he was a "no show" when called.
No other people had signed up to speak. President Walsh asked if there was anyone else
present who would like to speak:
OTHER TESTIMONY
Dennis Wilson, 12540 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Wilson stated that he's against anything that would inhibit the development of his
property.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING—7 Minute Break
PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED
President Walsh stated that before the break he'd meant to "Close Testimony" but
mistakenly had closed the hearing; thus, he reopened the hearing at this time.
DELIBERATIONS
Susan Hartnett said staff would like to know if something came up during the hearing thus far
that the commissioners believe they'd like to know more about... concerns... questions... etc.
She said staff was interested in the commissioners'ideas and feedback, so they can focus on
those things when they get back to them at a later time.
Some of the comments, concerns, and/or questions:
• Addressing adjacent property lines—particularly hazardous trees
• A limit on the level of tree preservation
• Averaging out the canopy on lots
• Information on Cityscape—people may not know they can sign up to get notifications
• Tree canopy of 40% seems a bit arbitrary
• Has there been a study as to how much daylight people need to exist? People should be
a consideration—not just wildlife. People need Vitamin D to exist.
• A balance of canopy versus tree preservation
• Sometimes people need to cut down trees for various reasons—maybe a dog, or a play
structure —it happens and it's perfectly legal on their property.
• We're trying to incentivize people to plant the right kinds of trees
• To what extent were some of the issues covered that have been brought up thus far?
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR-Briefing-Bylaus Aci icw\TPC Minutes 2-6-12.doc Page 5 of 8
• I'm struck with 40% tree canopy - that may be too much. I like the idea of the number
of trees versus the actual percentage. I think it's interesting to think of going with the
count as opposed to percentage.
• Protecting large tree groves on private property could possibly lower the value of that
person's property. It could make it less attractive to build on.
• It would be good if staff could bring some examples of the tree canopy just like Ken
Gertz did. It would be good to see examples of how the canopy can be met.
• I would like to hear more about the types of species that are desirable.
Project Manager Todd Prager said he wanted to point something out to the commissioners.
The 40% goal number came up earlier and he believes it may have been a mistake to frame it
in those words. They've been trying to move away from saying, "This code requires 40%
canopy per development" because it's a somewhat inaccurate way of thinking about it. He
noted they're really talking more about a range of canopy with development which can range
from as low as 13% canopy; based on the way the calculations are done because there's credit
for existing trees and street trees. He encouraged the commissioners to look at the peer review
results - in Volume 2, beginning on page 467—where they would get a sense of what the
outcomes were on the canopy. "Unfortunately," he said, "we've not been able to shake the
40% message, but I want to mention that because it's something that can be misunderstood."
He asked that they think about the canopy requirement in this different light.
Susan Hartnett spoke about the requests that had been made to hold the record open longer
than the one week staff had suggested. The thought was to move to keep the record open for
two weeks. Ms. Hartnett noted if they kept it open for the two weeks, it would remain open
until Friday, February 17, at 5:00 p.m. Those who would want to provide additional
information would need to meet that time criteria. They would provide it to Doreen Laughlin,
the Planning Commission Secretary, or to Todd Prager, the Project Manager.
President Walsh summed up the process, "The next meeting on the 5th of March will be more
of a workshop—kind of backwards - but it has to be done under the rules of the public
hearing for input to the staff; however,we will not be open to public testimony. At the end of
that,we will provide additional feedback just as we are now. From that we'll come back to a
final hearing where we will only entertain and take testimony on the amendments. We'll close
testimony, deliberate and, hopefully, will have a package that is satisfactory."
MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN
The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, and seconded by Commissioner
Shavey: "I move that we keep the record open until Friday, February 17, 2012, at 5:00
p.m. — all materials to arrive in written or electronic form by that time. I also move to
continue this hearing to a date certain - March 5, 2012."
The motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612 -PH-UFCR- Briefing-11ylays Revicv'\TPC Minutes 2-6-12.doc Page 6 of 8
BRIEFING — FINAL BYLAWS REVIEW
Susan Hartnett gave a brief review of what had happened up to this time with regard to the
revision of the bylaws. She said, "Back in November the first iteration was given to you which
was very confusing due to text being in various colors, underlined text, and text that was in
`strike-through.' It was complicated, and feedback was given by the commission at that time.
The revisions were put into a `clean copy' where staff could read it in its form, and then the
realization came that it needed to be done yet another time. The result was an iteration that
took into account changes that tried to make for internal consistencies. Because they were
putting together multiple documents, the end result was duplication of some things and some
parts of one thing in one section and other parts of the same thing in a different section, so
the objective was to bring that all together. Some of the changes included meeting the newly
required AP style guides the city adopted last year;in addition, the issue of`alternates'was
newly addressed."
Ms. Hartnett reminded the commissioners that in November, 2011 at the Planning
Commission workshop on this topic, she'd advised them that, not only would they be revising
the bylaws, but they would be recommending that council amend Tigard Municipal Code,
Chapter 2.08, so that what should be in the bylaws is in the bylaws, and what should be in the
code is in the code. The changes to TMC 2.08 have not changed at all since November, so the
commissioners don't need to revisit that unless they've changed their minds since their last
look at this. She assumed they're still good with it. What changed was what was shown in
strike-through/underline on the bylaws. This is scheduled to go to council on March 27. At
that point, the expectation would be that council would adopt the recommended bylaws and
would also make the amendments to Municipal Code 2.08.
Discussion followed and issues included:
• the portion in the bylaws referring to alternates and terms;
• whether the AP standards are correct; and
• the portion referring to providing an annual "report" to council. The concern was that
perhaps a written report was expected and,if not, whether it can be changed to say
"verbal report." It was decided to add the following sentence after the word "report":
"This may take the form of an annual joint meeting." The rest of the text would
remain the same.
President Walsh asked the commissioners if they had any comments to forward to council
regarding the TMC recommendation; there were none.
MOTION
The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty: "I move that we propose
to council that we accept the bylaws and the Municipal Code as printed and presented
to us tonight with the changes that we talked about." Commissioner Muldoon
seconded the motion and added to the motion, "and proofed to meet the [AP] style."
1:\LRPLN\planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR-Briefing-By6ncs \TPC:Minutes 2-6-12.doc Page 7 of 8
The motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONS (taken out of order)
Susan Hartnett provided the commission with a flyer (Exhibit D) from Metro on Climate Smart
Scenarios Project which was in response to new state legislation that was initially adopted in 2007
and further refined in 2009. It has to do with greenhouse gas reduction targets for the state.
Metro has been working on the response to those state requirements as a consolidated
Metropolitan area response.
There is a proposed joint meeting between the Beaverton and Tigard City Councils to which
both the Beaverton and Tigard Planning Commissions are being invited. It will be a joint
presentation by Metro Councilors Kathryn Harrington and Carl Hosticka on this topic. The
meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,April 10. It will be at Beaverton City Hall. Details will be
provided at a later date.
OTHER BUSINESS —There was some discussion as to how and when comments should
be distributed to the commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Coini\a4sion Secretary
•
7si,7f
ATTEent Date Walsh
G\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-P11-'UPCR- Briefing-Bylaws lime.c\TPC 9finurer 2-G-I2-doe Page 8 of 8
Morgan E. Holen
5300 Parkview Drive #1053
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
February 6, 2012
City of Tigard
Planning Commission
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to you as a member of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) and apologize that I am unable to attend your meeting this evening to
provide my testimony to you in person. Nevertheless, I will provide this written testimony for
your consideration.
I work as a consulting arborist in Tigard and throughout the Portland Metropolitan Region, and
am familiar with tree codes in many different jurisdictions. I served on the City of Tigard Urban
Forestry Management Plan CAC in 2009 and was excited to have the opportunity to help
implement the Plan by serving on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC.
The CAC consisted of a diverse group of individuals including arborists like myself and other
tree service providers, representatives from the development community and Metropolitan
Homebuilders, citizens at-large and citizens concerned with environmental protections and tree
preservation. Between June 2010 and September 2011,the CAC met regularly in an attempt to
consolidate, simplify, and update Tigard's urban forestry regulations. Recommendations
include:
A. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection standards in
the Community Development Code;
B. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection regulations
in the Tigard Municipal Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard
trees;
C. Development of a Tree Grove Protection Program;
D. Clarification and programming of tree removal mitigation funds; and
E. A design and maintenance manual for trees.
These recommendations are intended to implement the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the goals and sub-goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan,while also
maintaining consistency with State and Regional Policies and Standards, as well as Council
direction and community preferences based on surveys, open houses, and public comments.
My primary objective in providing this testimony to you is to communicate the consensus view
of the CAC. Members of the CAC represent diverse perspectives and agreement was not
reached on every single detail. However, the diverse perspectives made for interesting
discussions and helped to facilitate informed choices regarding broader urban and community
forestry values. The result is a set of Guiding Principles (see City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code
City of Tigard—Planning Commission
February 6,2012
Page 2
Revisions, Volume 1, pages 15-21)that represent the primary elements that CAC members
agreed to. We recognize that the code language is likely to change as the process moves
forward, but recommend that the Guiding Principles be preserved.
In addition, please refer to the December 29, 2011, memorandum from Marissa Daniels
(Associate Planner, City of Tigard)to the Planning Commission regarding Urban Forestry Code
Revisions Volumes. Attachments 2, items I-V provide a concise and accurate summary of the
main issues raised and discussed by the CAC. Item V in particular documents a number of
details that the CAC did not reach complete consensus on; hashing out such details to an end
went beyond our scope of work. For example, the CAC reached consensus in recommending
standards for development that include required effective canopy cover targets and that the
targets ought to be tiered percentages based on zone. However, not all members of the CAC
agreed on what the required canopy cover percentages should be.The draft code revisions
describe targets agreed on by the majority of CAC members, but the actual percentages
recommended were not unanimous.
Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to commend staff and JLA Public Involvement for all
of their time and effort on this project. Staff and the contracted facilitator did an outstanding
job of keeping the CAC organized and on-task. Staff was remarkably responsive to questions
and requests for additional information, and the facilitator moved the meetings along while
allowing multiple opportunities to discuss particular issues and making sure that everyone
provided input on each issue. I have been on a number of boards and committees around the
area over the last eight years and was pleasantly surprised by how much we were able to cover
and accomplish with so many diverse interests and contentious issues on the table. It was my
pleasure to participate on this committee!
I have said it before, but the City really has done a great job of responding to citizen input, and
the draft code represents a balance of the various viewpoints heard throughout the process. I
support amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Significant Tree Groves"
Map and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters in line with the Guiding
Principles agreed to by the CAC.
Thank you for your time and diligent efforts to improve the City's urban forestry regulations for
the benefit of this and future generations. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions
or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
11 or.
Morgan E. Nolen
Tigard Urban Forest Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee, Member
ISA Certified Arborist(PN-6145A)
ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor(No.449)
Morgan Nolen &Associates, LLC, Owner
2/6/2012
Commission President Walsh and other members of the Planning Commission:
First of all, I want to express my greatest respect for the Tigard staff and CAC members
who have worked on this Urban Forestry Code Revision Project. They have, in most
cases, carefully listened to a variety of points I have made, perhaps not fully or well,
and have tried to respond.
I have given some thought to how to persuade you this evening that some significant
changes, some rethinking, should take place before you pass this staff
recommendation on to city council. Of course the best way would be to have you
experience the impact of the changes yourself -- not feasible tonight. A second course
is to ask you whether you are looking for evidence-based changes or simply any
theory that staff proposes. With malice toward none, I offer you my shot at evidence
demanding change.
I presume that each of you have taken the time to read and apply the comments which
I have recently made since the time that the CAC completed its work; if not, I would be
glad to try answering questions or respond to your independent observations on the
proposed changes. I will not repeat those comments,,except to augment them and
instead focus on material which has developed in the past couple months.
Finally, as introductory matters, my notes this evening are limited to material for the
Tigard Code, Chapter 18. I understand that this is your scope of action. However, to
the extent that the public notice for this hearing also addresses other sections of the
Tigard Code and administrative rules, I ask (protest or appeal) for the required hearing
on material changes proposed for them as well.
Reliance on mature tree canopy cover.
I have previously noted how the CAC, when queried about whether 'a base level of
preservation' should be the basis for code revision favored such approach by a 5-3
vote rather than allowing removal of all trees with appropriate mitigation. Tonight, I
would simply point to other similar evidence that Tigard citizens want some base level
of tree preservation in the code:
A) In the 2008 Urban Forest Survey (Vol III, page 285), when people were asked what
could be done to improve the tree situation in Tigard, with an open ended
response requested, some 28 out of 210 total responses made reference to tree
preservation. In this same survey (see p297), citizens by a 2:1 margin
expressed interest in regulations to preserve trees.
B) In Tigard's Comp Plan (Vol III, page 330), Policy 1 of Goal 2.2 calls for the
'preservation' of trees in the city by appropriate regulations. Goal 2.3 calls for
development that 'minimizes the loss of existing trees' and Policies 1, 2 and 6
under that goal speak of 'minimize (ing) the reduction of existing tree cover',
giving 'priority to the protection of existing trees' and actions to 'preserve existing
trees'.
C) The UFMP itself, in its implementation matrix (Vol III, page 254) calls at Goal 1.1b to
'Modify code to focus less on mitigation and more on preservation of long-lived
evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous tree species. . .'
In recent materials, I would note that ODFW makes the same point as I promote -- that
removal of existing trees now for projected canopy some significant time in the future
removes 'habitat that is not replaced by young 'mitigation' plantings' and that the
preferred white oak natives of Tigard take 100-200 years to mature. (Staff report, Page
50). Canopy cover is needed now as well as decades or centuries in the future.
I pointed out in earlier comments how City of Portland chose not to rely so heavily on
forecast tree canopy cover during a recent code review and update there. Now,
Tigard's own 'peer review' consultant makes the same point -- referring to 'the cutting
edge and unprecedented nature of the proposed code' (Vol 11, page 481).
The staff report touts the 'peer review' as proof that the proposed code changes are
'workable' and it may be so, but the peer review looked at feasibility from the
developer's viewpoint. I looked up AKS Forestry and Engineering at its website to see
if they had any experience at environmental assessment -- searching for the words
'canopy cover' and 'environmental values' and the answer came back for both terms
"Your search yielded no results". I suggest that an additional peer review be
conducted by an organization sensitive and experienced in urban forestry
environmental assessment as used in land development situations (ODFW choice or
1000 Friends of Oregon consultants, or ??).
So what amendments do I request to implement these matters?
a) TDC 18.790 should be augmented to include clear and objective 'approval criteria',
which require that the urban forestry plan shall comply with the requirements of
the UFM and that compliance with the UFM be included as a Condition of
Approval for each subject permit.
b) TDC 18.790 should be augmented to require as an 'approval criterion' that 1) for
any development with more than 10 existing healthy trees > 6 inch DBH per
10,000 sq ft of development impact area, 33 percent of such existing trees shall
be preserved and 2) for any development with up to 10 existing healthy trees >
6 inch DBH per 10,000 sq ft of development impact area, 50 percent of such
existing trees shall be preserved. Such approval criterion should be waived
only in the case that the required tree retention increases site development
costs by more than 30 percent, and then only to the extent necessary to limit site
development costs to that increase.
Sincere'•• -' • 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223
gkjfrewing@gcom
Todd Prager,
Planning Commission
Dear Sirs,
These are my comments on the January update of the tree code:
18.360.090 The wording "where possible" is vague, and will open the tree plan to appeal. It
needs to be clear and objective. It should also be worded to allow for full development of the
site to the sites full development potential which would be in keeping with Metro goals
18.530.050 2.a I don't think requiring 3" street trees is an advantage to tree canopy.
Lan dscapers will tell you that a 2" tree will catch up with a 3" tree in one year, and a 3" tree is
harder to establish. Just leave them 2".
18:790.030 B The minimum 20% tree requirement is a bad idea. The way I read this is if I
were to meet my requirements for canopy coverage through preservation or planting on the
overall site, I will still have to pay a fee for any lot that is under 20% canopy. This idea is
counter productive to the intent of the preservation of trees under the UFM. There are a lot of
people that do not want trees on there lots. It is an incentive to me to be able to save or plant on
my other lots in order to provide some lots with no trees. Why should I save trees if I am still
going to have to pay in the end? The cost of saving may not be worth the effort if that is the
case.
18.790.030 B Canopy Averaging. Allow for averaging the tree canopy over the entire site as
the CAC discussed. One community may have a Buffer, a tract, 12,000 Sq Ft lots and 6,000 Sq
Ft lots all in one development, and the builder should have the ability to average the canopy over
the entire site as needed. Both existing trees and planted trees. This would have several benefits.
It could allow for planting of a grove of trees, as in the back lots at Edgewood East, where there•
is room for them, and would also for better dispersal of trees when trees are saved and double
canopy is calculated on those lots. If each lot has a minimum requirement, you are also
imposing an effective Maximum requirement when it comes to existing trees. I may save 3 trees
on one lot that would be the canopy along with the street trees for 3 lots, yet, I cannot as it is
currently, spread that canopy over the other lots. So I would have to ask myself, why I am
saving more than the one tree needed to satisfy mitigation for that single lot. This is an oversight
that should be corrected for this program to be successful.
18.790.030 C you skipped C and went directly to D.
18.790.050 C.3 Adjustment to Sidewalks. Include allowing putting sidewalks in easements
with reduced front setbacks for preservation and planting in this section for clarity.
18.790.070 A & B is confusing or not correct. We believe what you are allowing is a staff
decision with no fees. In A it says processed with a type I except 13. which says "activities shall
be exempt from type 1. What does that really mean? Is it a type 2 or 3 or just over the counter
flat out allowed? Confusing and ambiguous.
18.790.0702.b Payment of fee in lieu was what was approved by the CAC and should
absolutely be allowed. It is part of the flexible tree plan fundamentals.
Section 6-1.A.6. Change tree list to trees not listed in the native tree list for clarity.
Section 6-2.D.3 does not match Page 387 10-2.L tree Canopy Site Plan Requirements: Shouldn't
they be the same?
Page 386 Section 10-2 Tree Canopy Site plan requirements: More general delineation of
trees to be planted
On detached residential lots, I believe it is a waste staffs and my engineers time to locate every
planted tree with the development tree plan, because on every development I have ever done, the
trees get moved around depending on the home plan, final grading, sight lines to other homes
etc. It is a cost that would be redundant and under a flexible tree code, would be redundant and
unnecessary. It could be dealt with the building permit plot plan just like I have always done. It
appears your Technical Advisors at AKS agree with us as per their comments on page 6 of their
Pier Review report.
Section 10 Part 2 Street Trees: Medium size street trees need to be allowed in a standard
planter strip. Part 2 K.6 would preclude medium size street trees in a standard planter. It would
reduce the desired canopy over the streets and make it very hard to meet canopy requirements.
Page 393 J.6 Typo - you have an extra" ; and" at the end of the sentence.
Section 10 Part 3 N These numbers are way too high. At the CAC, staff hit this abruptly and we
did not have an opportunity to present evidence that would show these numbers were
unreasonable. I was asked to prepare a presentation for the next meeting, (Power Point) which I
did, but was then asked not to present it when the time came to keep the schedule.
The canopy requirement should be such as to allow for increasing trees across other lots so as to
provide some lots with no trees. As forests have meadows, so we should have shade free lawns.
Add: Section 10 part 3.M.l.a Problematic terrain. Subtract from the overall Development site
and each lot and tract, the areas of any problematic terrain, wetlands, water quality areas, rock
outcrop areas, steep slope areas, walkways,private drives and flags of flag lots, soil conditions
and other situations where the planting of trees would not be viable as represented by the project
Arborist.
Page 395 Section 10 Part 3 N 40% Tree Canopy
The entire HBA and I truly believe that 40% is way too high a number for canopy coverage.
This is a serious problem for us. Considering that the majority of developable land has no trees,
we have performed studies that show the 40% target as too aggressive to be met on site without
mitigation. We think a more reasonable number would be 25-30% for R4.5 and above and 20%
on R-7 and No requirement other than street trees for smaller than R7 lots, because the street
trees are the only option. (See attached drawings.) I would be happy to present my Power Point
with personal comments to the Planning Commission if necessary.
Single Family lots smaller than R-4.5 should be exempt as the majority of the tree canopy will
come from required street trees, as there is little room for planting trees in people's yards. Due
to demand for family homes on low maintenance lots, and the influx of A.D.U. and Casitas for
extended family members we are currently building 3400 Sq Ft homes on 4500 Sq Ft lots which
is within the allowable use of the property and is a preferred by Metro. The homes are all the
way to the setback lines with virtually no yards. By the time we build a deck or patio, there is no
room for appreciable trees in the back or side yards especially with the required buffer distanced
from the trees to buildings required by Section 10-2.L . It is only reasonable to exempt small lots
and save a lot of trouble and unnecessary expense. And just think what it will be like as we build
more and more single level home that the current demographics are starting to require. You
should consider having a different canopy requirement for one story homes.
It appears your Technical Advisors at AKS agree with us as per their comments on page 6 and 7
of their Pier Review report.
Let me also point out, that under the new code with our proposed canopy requirements, we
developers will be planting many more trees than ever before.
Section 10 Part 4 A.1 & 2 Mitigation Fees
This is a really high fee you are asking for. I was unable to find the price of a tree on the PNC-
ISA web site so I assumed the $174.00 referenced in the commentary on Page 218. A 7500
Square Foot Lot would equate to 50.847 trees. 50.847 X$174.00 = $8,847.46. With a number
like this, you can expect it to causing hard feelings between the citizens and the City and that the
home owners will plant the trees and remove them at their convenience. That is just plain
foolish.
One of the flaws in the math is the use of 59 Sq. Ft. If I were going to plant a tree, I would get
credit for a tree of 706 Sq. Ft. So why are we not using that number, which would be 4.25 trees.
4.25 X $174.00 = $739.50. This is consistent with Lake Oswego and other jurisdictions. That
seems a more reasonable number to use to charge someone to not plant trees on their own lot. I
cannot stress enough the distress this calculation is causing among the development community.
This is viewed as a back door way to legally replace the current tree fund with what we feel is an
SDC.
This is a serious problem for us.
Appendix 9 page 4-5 UFP — Supplemental Arborist Report Examples Template
We are confused by the term in the headings (w/ cond and pres.> 2). Please clarify.
Appendix 9 page 4-5 UFP— Supplemental Arborist Report Examples Template
Remove 20% coverage for each lot.
Thank you for your consideration
Ken Gertz
HBA Representative
Existing Example 1
30 . 20
. • _
7.•‘-'11re tptillii, 4 - "r -'- .7• il
e7 li . i . • , .. , .. . • _ . .1', (1/4ik; .., !
i , - „ ` - !F
x,
flillif;''.--
* 4
QV if , 441416 ...-• - i /
41.
y 7. i
OS
t .
r ,
y _ - p'1.
rOD) 192OO SW 4ith Ave, Tualatin,,OR 97062 ' �,
.
4F .
1114441. ,s,
to ��
or - ' iii ...., ,,
,, , _,
rel .sr.
il
rlr
Ili,:4 _ ,
, 1
. A
' ry
... _ _
r ...€
f• . . „op...F. ,\ .
..y,
. ._ , . oogIc
F Z2011 Googie `- a 3I
I ID 21)11 Europa Technologies 0
I . . 4 r el - .r 1.,r nr-.` •I^. 'O. ^ , . 1 ..,
ExistingHome Exam I 2
pe
17 . 79 CanopyCoverage
.. :
, , _it, ir_ri.....i;..
I ..1.. UN ;I 4.f4 ral' .,' .. .;" i r I I"... .,_
•
er
ti
} .• � ...It "'1 P 1 .tea""`"'• —r-_�--'�� 7
L
L LA LN
. .r. ph, . . ,' +11 r., .. ri
,. I #1111211.4, 'le*.'.. 4 I-• '111 '..r-,... ' .
. 4ir I 111 - -•••
r
M/"d A f-i �r
•
v ,. `.
fifIli
".
" °ice - -_ _ R _ •Jrr-,r j', �', i I __-
"iii
�`- i •!-
,k r I ,Igigal
ExistingHome Exam le 3
p
24 % Canopy Coverage
_.
„.,,_ _, y A r^ r l 4 . _, ,,,, _ ..„....' I r T IA
r' wIr
it
1�J f r
f -' x• I.
,// r-,j'
t
a rt f �;1`'L " .- .-.+-h --r-....rviii, --,-
^: I ■
A 312;0 0 loaf
liglIC
•
ta....--J3 , _.
. pri„,_.,..;,......_ ui
! ii, 'A K -, 1.' - 44 'I. , , ,
j. •_ 111 1-_• yy
.R'_ t in,it .. !S. !I 6., A ' ll I Yei1ji
-61 g
•
~ f ice' givzitiON * . A !!L 4 I
.- . .5 .. ,0 e I I 1, . IL A 'ark . • .4
yT��
_ . ; ,....'.4-1,-•-,-.. .� •.[ � 1w '.. 11. 4 . f,�
0-, .a -.
M
. .
L rill _ '':.
�r
k' I al �y
i l .b a. j11T. .'.; -
•
•
1
i.. 411'"• J�
•
•
r t . . _
• Q,:„...---__ ... fill'
I
0 t, fir} �r
Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility
was included in calculations
Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows
TREE CANOPY AT 40% COVERAGE R-4.5
Lot 40% 706.5 SF Trees
1 7586 3034 4.29
2 8286 3314 4.69
Missing Items: 3 7605 3042 4.31
Street Lights 4 6952 2781 3.94
Fire Hydrants 5 7355 2942 4.16
y 6 9521 3808 5.39 REQUIRED STREET TREES
Lawn Areas 7 7544 3018 4.27
Play Areas 8 7486 2994 4.24 LEFT IN PLACE
Play Structures 9 9210 3684 5.21
Swimming Pools 14 6026 2410 3.41
Sport Courts 15 6066 2426 3.43
Garden Plot 16 6158 2463 3.49
17 9382 3753 5.31
18 6307 2523 3.57
-
L\ 5 '� �r ,*���; '+ is - _ f
ltsiv
4.3 TREES mii .' 4.3 TREES J
llWarl [ 7.566 SF 111 7I,
+o , MI 1 d- rrn 2 6ao 3.6 TREES
j i CIFi'''
i ,014 iJraill7,544 -= r !,4Ili
n la...01-oh �I I r t —I��:::::: :
"11M1 114
r. ,: +�,„ ,.�. 111 rg!r! h� ` - '.AirR>t ,l� 1 \ �,rmefroxim " � � �,=;.I',�', ,, \-
'�
i ; , iw' 7.486 s !+'r►�
v / K '� , �'Mb, -' �" 4.2 EES �,___ -_
3.5 TREES
1 R, fun-J. 1 "'� �%k4 Over Planted
4.3 TREES '3 - 4,J 6.•'.�1' f,F ty.. ��� ,r � � ����i
Over Plant-d � ' ' or . L f' '-1 - . �'.- !`�/�=
.\� 1 i I -... 4►.:, i, %. ;,� i 1 1 a I �] 40 3.4 TREES
RE
� 1=~rte 1-g_ _ El pa ��` Over Planted
��__I E MI :i -;;. A 5.2 ES r,. AVIS
4.3 TREES °�. en. 7:°s p .1 '
, 14 �
Over Plant-d ~` ,�,r ,�. .� 3.4 TREES
r ii1 / _ . : Over Planted
5.4 TREES 6 � r 11111 ,r4� „ r, 1. �, ,,1*
Doesn't W - � Y .I . i 0 r 1 1�I- 6.00585E
Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was
included in calculations
Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows
TREE CANOPY AT 30% COVERAGE R-4.5
Lot 30% 706.5 SF Trees'
1 7586 2276 3.22
2 8286 2486 3.52
Missing Items: 3 7605 2282 3.23
Street Lights 4 6952 2086 2.95
Fire Hydrants 5 7355 2207 3.12
Lawn Areas 6 9521 2856 4.04 i REQUIRED STREET TREES
PlayAreas 7 7584 2263 3.28 LEFT IN PLACE
8 7486 2246 3.18
Play Structures 9 9210 2763 3.91
Swimming Pools 14 6026 1808 2.56
Sport Courts 15 6066 1820 2.58
Garden Plot 16 6158 1847 2.61
17 9382 2815 3.98
18 6307 1892 2.68
oN�M�ng=�icer �, •+ ., 7. I
3.2 TREES m - _
3.2 TREES f�' — f ii-
i SF
�' _
,...,_ • -' tib i I .+ �!
Mgt 3� -= 7 II2
! 2.7 TREES
.�1/ �, II 11,
, '`4 /3
3.5 -:-.-1F11.1
gier f il��. ��ll
;r. 8.28: ���.,a f Tj` aur�i ��� 1 _`
„Itt:a%moi, /.'
F��`=�\� r f �' _1�� �� 9.�2 4.0 TREES
:,
3.2 TREESMr� r rcflgni�G \ r ��
t kb
►/�► : NI 7sos '1 ti:j / live
'� J�
-`r "�'' _• 1 ,EES 1 ,,„,
Ecinull,
-
r. i r �, .... _.._t ' 1 . ,r�!Jt 1 TREES
11
2.9 TREES 1 • r '�
f �, MI -111, .� ,
Over Plant-d � ll r_�° OS k��/ C _r` - i'rt � =\ ^: r��/—`�
mi.. . ,I : - :„,�, -, 1 ‘ �0 f 0 2.6 TREES
f, Milli �'9
,,p. 9.210 -�
ii ► 1
iiiriaIN
3.1 TREES r/,. �,,., sF ►,.:m- i f` `.
:gib
r f 4 � _ �/—''proog 2.6 TREES
LIII_ fir_ / I
__'! ,: v�
i.
- A„„..-7,--,....-......w, ilk, I \
aa
4.0 TREES 1,2 ig
6 + :ira� r ,+ r, r
J ” 1s
�, i ` _ r / / 6.005 SF
711;
I
\,
Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was
included in calculations
Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows
TREE CANOPY AT 25% COVERAGE R-4.5
Lot 25% 706.5 SF Trees
1 7586 1897 2.68
2 8286 2072 2.93
MissingItems: 3 7605 1901 2.69
4 6952 1738 2.46
Street Lights 5 7355 1839 2.60
Fire Hydrants 6 9521 2380 3.37 REQUIRED STREET TREES
Lawn Areas 7 7544 1886 2.67
Play Areas 8 7486 1872 2.65 LEFT IN PLACE
Play Structures 9 9210 2303 3.26
Swimming Pools 14 6026 1507 2.13
Sport Courts 15 6066 1517 2.15
Garden Plot 16 6158 346 3. 2
2346 3
17 9382 3.32
18 6307 1577 2.23
2.7 TREES0
+''
2.7 TREES V4
! Esse sF
r '�
Mgr 1 b ,�_�- +��'10' >�a,,,,7;-�`xI` 2.2 TREES
U_ �_ Q .rar •p 1+ ;b
1 [ lEt icy t 111I 'Q EZI
Mi
2.9 TREESQ' - 1 -��i", i 1
IL
ip4F.,
f.-Wm 111111_ „ 1�� ���T"=.' 3.3 TREES
___ r//r -iii. 17 ;
2.7 TREES ' r_! \ �. !�M p 8 il�� `� � ,
We' _ Y\ _i. ire. ri1� Y
We'
, ! , '4.41 rr ,488 �,+.�al ..�ltl�
7, -�_�EL
2.6 -EES �0-= i �! �e -
i, -- C,ili
.. ,•i 4 B.-'a 1, 2.2 TREES
U-III Ell
il
2.5 TREES '� ^18*: ,+' :1I�� f,'� `
im• 111M-
_l�` s_ ,.tir• .6 r' �. 2.1 TREES
[12-111113
9,210
...r �•- z ��:1 EiA 3.3 ES r�i
2.6 TREES �1,���n -i,�,. 141
41�� rCaQ� Vit;" 21 TREES
V ��ri
3.4 TREES 1111 B 52 f 1` ''t.
%_ • M * r ' �/ 6,005 SF
/k�, IM
LKs �/ � �'_ VLA i,�,
.,/1.,, +vl it
TREE CANOPY AT 25% COVERAGE R-4.5
o� D,00 .oi
11,0011°
oiti/
(VAULTED) DINING) � 10, aTum, /
4c4
MASTER SUITE (vAuTED) DIrN INro
17/0x13/0 GREAT RM. (VAULTED)
22/2141418 I MASTER SUI
.Y 19!9x14/6
(VAULTED)
- �p I/ GREAT RM.
II,I • zg4xnno
- 7/7/7/!!—, .�?. (VAULTED)
=,Qt Qnezr, DINING 111411
Q _ I 3/a:3/o���� 1� BED.#3 1l /%'/ '
me uu9uua—� gg eo ,„0x,07/0 I , _
411
ha
HEARWATER (VAUL,ED) �I► / a. 1 BED.#z --..in./ -
rorEn �' E ugx,ag �� N
2-CAR GARAGE /" . ,
1 AtIlkCO
I ,` =NEE
//,MALL' r =V I' ullWWmmnw ' II / O
I '--C1 /0 ATUR ' GREEN DRAGDEN/BED,vox,n+z#2 �� �� �+ FENG SHU �TREE DEN/BED.#3�'� I o/ax,aa HOME
•
�0. 41 F�
NO .:L
MEDIUM -
STATURE k k
TREE ��.
1114Wr TR-1-N. orgilitial
ITY
�` � LT
. v o
.p • V •
NN.
p
•
V.
v.
.p
GERTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.
HOME SQUARE FOOTAGE i
MAIN FLOOR =2214 SQ.FT. BUILDING /`
UPPER FLOOR =0 SQ.FT. CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1977 3
(503) 692-3390 WIC
TOTAL =2214 SQ.FT. 13918 SW Bradon Ct.
GARAGE = 420 SQ.FT. Lot 3 McDonald Woods
2S12DC-03000 SCALE 1"=20'
GERTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.
PLOT PLAN 12/09/11
TREE CANOPY AT 20 . 1 % COVERAGE R-7
4.„.
.,.,
,_.
,... _,:.1._,, , -„, , , :
Missing Items:
Street Lights
r Fire Hydrants
;{ Y
a - <'
,; Lawn Areas
-. Play Areas
►� min-
PA11 , -\1► ,I -�1►. . �. �'" Play Structures
co IL
li
:o o� � ' �,� f=.•, =�a o:,'=_ - Swimming Pools
DI 111
3HSI�'�NIJ KIHQEIZHEK ii 213HSI� ?J]HSI� NI) •
KI�CEIZHES
.� „�, IF S p o rf Courts
� fri) I 71
7. i Garden Plots
1
{ �r _ r ;+ inimum Distance
41 to Structures
N3H2IH VUl I . II WATER lir
KIND FISHER
_'�° 11),;LISHER
.� v QUALITY( �° Developable Area 50 000
_ s S Ft.
=' a
/'►_1 ►�ti i .. i i►_� ►psi = q-
i■ — .. I FACILITY a,.F .1 1■ „ 8 Medium trees
6i %r.- 1----
4„,..
� 14 Small Trees = 10,044
,F 06 s. •y "ig' SF
I
�' O� �l „` �/ '• Canopy=2D.1
I iH 1
-
TREE CANOPY AT 31 % COVERAGE R-4.5
.. .
1 if,,,.,..,,_NIS rt
A Missing Items:
�yi ita n.e, i V,4:4 {_ 4fi�wa L.,
♦. ,1 c `: „S;"F' ' � }ra y 1._ rr1r a�rr> Street Lights
i e n�4r f?' �y u i',yrt s e t csla ; �Y 1 ' t
�f.; z1, , •.., ,,,. ., <.,. { _� w, - __ , �' } o Fire Hydrants
-- . M/ MI �� -- - �/ ` = = .1/11 WV ' -- Lawn Areas
I a, 'n"' I tap ' .' ' Play Areas`` _ = — "_n' = 'I I` — Play Structures
=\1►_. ►.li- =\I►:. -If1►�1 ►-411=
imp pr_,T' ��nioff,_ —:IV� Swimming Pools
I. �'�_ —IF�� °I ,s,74 .-:.-' IP, �+- -�� el
.1 213HSI3 EI2HEb er ii ii -0 ?J3HSI3 II ii b3HSI3 1 I LIZHE15 C n Sport Courts
-4111 - 11P1r- ri_,.,,,,,;,, ,.
Garden Plots
AK Pik r 1
Al Sol
tie if3 fir' I
X:rr tP }.yX ,4
, kr 4'-` €i
^+ , r, ' __ ? inimum Distance
WATER ,�. Iiii •� Ls"
to Structures
!! A3H2I3 FISHER !! !I A3HZI3 FISHER !!Ig. El
`_ ;y — ' rye u IE _" _ . Developable Area 50,000
-� ►•I imp r a I. �I`= I g 'n =�1_. ►_.1�= 1 Sq. Ft.
'e- I J- `C 1 L-'`Ti, ), 1 ,I 1� � 22 trees = 15,532 Sq Ft.
'cit'' �� ,� � � �, �a I Canopy=31%
kil WI
y(: : �/ �� ��.I -- --
1":4"1,,-,
�/ � . --
b+'h r- r moi? ,:-.4,;';.•. , ._:4 r` r
'.n.
761>r,-'',"te4{1 v-', :l--j -{ : .. ,: y.X21-,,V i:'s'
y rY3. .
taM Qyy1 a.s „ F
April 2011
` www.oregonmetro.gov
,..
Climate Smart
<< '‘• :"
w ,r.t. Communities Scenarios �' ;• 'f
fyu+r .ern_ i ers - .�
*ty } u tg. Background p
-., , .
In 2007,the Oregon Legislature established
n
{7,. :,, statewide goals to reduce carbon emissions— - ",a -' L ,�
`"' calling for stopping increases in emissions by
1.10,1M51: 2010,a 10 percent reduction below 1990 levels ' . 1:-, - ,..
" •4-.4„7,,. .., .
by 2020,and a 75 percent reduction below
1990 levels by 2050.The goals apply to all The 2040 Growth Concept-the r'egion's adopted growth
management strategy
The region's six sectors,including energy production,buildings,
desired outcomes solid waste and transportation.
In 2009,the Oregon Legislature passed House
State response Oregon Sustainable
Bill 2001,directing the region to"develop two Transportation Initiative
or more alternative land use and transportation The Oregon Department of Transportation
scenarios"by January 2012 that are designed and the Department of Land Conservation and
to reduce carbon emissions from cars, Development are leading the state response
small trucks and SUVs.The legislation also through the Oregon Sustainable Transportation
mandates adoption of a preferred scenario Initiative.An integrated effort to reduce carbon
after public review and consultation with emissions from transportation,the initiative will
local governments,and local government result in a statewide transportation strategy,
implementation through comprehensive plans toolkits and specific performance targets for the
and land use regulations that are consistent region to achieve.
with the adopted regional scenario.The Regional response Climate Smart
Climate Smart Communities Scenarios effort Communities Scenarios
responds to these mandates and Senate Bill
1059,which provided further direction to The Climate Smart Communities Scenarios effort
scenario planning in the Portland metropolitan will build on the state-level work and existing
area and the other five metropolitan areas plans and efforts underway in the Portland
in Oregon. metropolitan area.The project presents an
opportunity to learn what will be required to
Metro's Making the Greatest Place initiative meet the state carbon goals and how well the
resulted in a set of policies and investment strategies support the region's desired outcomes.
decisions adopted in the fall of 2009 and
throughout 2010.These policies and A goal of this effort is to further advance
investments focused on six desired outcomes implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept,
for a successful region,endorsed by the Metro local plans and the public and private
Council and Metro Policy Advisory Committee investments needed to create jobs,build great
communities and meet state climate goals.
in 2008:vibrant communities,economic
prosperity,safe and reliable transportation, Addressing the climate change challenge will
environmental leadership,clean air and take collaboration,partnerships and focused
water,and equity.Making the Greatest Place policy and investment discussions and decisions
included the adoption of the 2035 Regional by elected leaders,stakeholders and the public to
Transportation Plan and the designation identify equitable and effective solution: through
of urban and rural reserves.Together these strategies that create livable,prosperous and
policies and actions provide the foundation healthy communities.
for better integrating land use decisions Metro's policy and technical advisory committees
ittiN Metro with transportation investments to create will guide the project,leading to Metro
prosperous and sustainable communities and Council adoption of a"preferred"land use and
to meet state climate goals. transportation strategy in 2014.
About Metro
Clean air and clean ater do not Climate Smart Communities Scenarios planning process
stop at cit;•limits or count,.lines.
Neither does the need for jobs,a
thriving economy,and sustainable 2011 2012 2013-14
transportation and living choice Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3
for people and businesses in the
region.''oters have asked;.petro �� 1' 1t
to help:^•ith the challenges and ", ����` �''F \`"I�I"
opportunities that affect the 25 Understanding Shaping the Building the
cities and three counties in the choices direction .- strategy
i :, �.
Portland metropolitan area. ,(;�.. 11,111 "'. ''.1,7,/,1%
A regional approach simply makes
sense 'hen it comes to pro•'iding
, = Jan.1.04 Nov.2012 June2014
services,operating•venues and Confirm Adopt preferred
making decisions about hn.v the preferred strategy;begin
region grot:s. f.letro...forks with scenario implementation
communities to support a resilient elements
economy, keep nature close
by and respond to a changing
climate.Together t.a're making Phase 1
c great place,no' and for Understanding the choices that are underway in the region (e.g.,SW
generations to come. (We are here Corridor Plan,East Metro Connections
Sta,in touch,ith ne stories and firstphase of regional-level scenario Plan,Portland Plan,and other local land
things to do. g>
analysis will occur during summer 2011 use and transportation plan updates).
r.•.oregonmetro.go'connect
and focus on learning what combinations By the end of 2012,Metro's policy
Metro Council President of land use and transportation strategies committees will br asked to confirm a
Tom Hughes are required to meet the state greenhouse "draft"preferred scenario that will be
Metro Council gas emissions targets.Strategies will include brought fonvard to the final phase of
transportation operational efficiencies that the process.
tCraddick,
District can ensure faster more dependable business
1 � p Phase 3
Carlotta Collette, deliveries; more sidewalks and bicycle
eistrict 2 facilities;more mixed use and public Building the strategy and
Carl Hosticka, implementation
Districts transit-supportive development in centers
Kathryn Harrington, and transit corridors;more public transit The final project phase during 2013 and
District 4 service;incentives to walk,bike and use 2014 will lead to adoption of a"preferred"
Rex Burkhclder, public transit; and user based fees. land use and transportation strategy.The
oistri t 5 analysis in this phase will be conducted
Barbara Roberts, Potential impacts and benefits will �>e
District 6weighed against the region's six desired using the region's most robust analytic
Auditor outcomes.Findings and recommendations tools and methods—the regional travel
Suzanne Flynn from the analysis will be reported to demand model,Metroscope and regional
Metro's policy committees in fall 2011 emissions model,MOVES.Additional
before being finalized for submittal to the scoping of this phase will occur in 2012
Legislature in January 2012. to better align this effort with mandated
regional planning and growth management
Phase 2 decisions.
Shaping the direction This phase will identify needed changes
17
In 2012,the region will analyze more to regional policies and functional plans,
refined alternative regional-level scenarios and include updates to the Regional
that apply the lessons learned from phase Transportation Plan and region's growth
_ 1 to develop a"draft"preferred land use management strategy.Implementation of
. and transportation scenario.This phase approved changes to policies,investments,
provides an opportunity to incorporate and other actions would begin in 2014 at
Metro T strategies and new poli&es identified the regional and local levels to realize the
T through local and regional planning efforts adopted strategy.