The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/28/1996 71, f ) E { . eaz«+.... ......",u.r .x .e., ncv. ..n .....o ,a.w . -m,.........a .Mm..ti w-s . a.,,~..~ ..uw.....-....v+u..e..~.......", v,.wm+.+aa.rav:n t - CI OF TIG D OREGON - i ~ E 7ff ~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING F F_" ' r 7 MAY 28 1996 n > tia 3 w _ 5- 4' ! y • I COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE A w4 TELEVISED f j' t i 4 C S t kkF ] FF 1F _ -j j I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 3 J 4 ' r ~ . a{ - & { 2 - - - - - ~ ~q, I , ,H, ~ , ~ , ~ , , , , -i 1. - I ~ - ~ - ~ Imi, , ` '.1 ~ 4..71M 1 - f'F R YP'~ x' - r f 2 a1- k- 1 i - _ 1 S .i. Sri S E I w. t. b w d F '°`r >xta"~ S is w.., - b ,E~ _ . Revised 5/24/96 - s-> - i w z rt x-, d4 y, - - } - aS~,~,, E- - ~ z 'fi t ys, k - ~ FTIG t ~ ~t'O!~"01UNC,MURAOS 1 1 CITY OF TIGARD t 4 I I'll, s t-> t a ~ r, PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the =r i ;->F1 appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the$ r~ Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to '',>V - -f ~ r 11 be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by t~ ; a° 4{ r, I if~,y~ contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. , „ tk rM1 „r i - di s, i ' Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying " ~ r v r be present by 7:13 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business ' ` ,1. - n a , F ' 'I , agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. r Y t jQ 1' {j r { Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and rzx should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the 2, i ; b ~ ` Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - _ s f-h~ ii aft` - J IF-1-1111111 Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). ' yd Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: . , ' R s Y y`C`E Yy,- • a Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing ` k Impairments; and ias 3 , t, t i n i i ~ry • Qualified bilingual interpreters. , t 5, a k h. ~Y A i Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is ~ a.M - important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your , 4, need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone = i { numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - ;,s g ~ , 11 t i 9 , Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). vxl-~ - ' i _I - SEE ATTACHED AGENDA " 1 7 Y i --r 3 !a S,i a :F. I r. l p I, < COUNCIL AGENDA -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 1 t r k x Asa „ r S t l f', Y -r{ - f A % l' } 1 s" f - i d § J y ~ .i ~ - ~ - E , " i, - ~ :iii - , - , ~ I I ~ ~ , r,, - ~ I I I " r i - - y -k y - X i _ F -vy li - k a F' Y L L i F X34 4 L t - _ g d, Ytr ?y T i f xa # ` t {4 1 x f % - 'k -1 t i I 2 { { ~ I - ~ I ~ . . ~ . ~ I -1 ~ . ~ 1. , ~ , . ; ~ ~ .y r_._ Wti ...,_.z _ _ r .r_ ._..W iW_.,.. _ . . _ - W. ~ ti.~,_ F. t _ t~ Y.3..i. F - _ ~''hrC c t y - - ; S4 . - - y - va - j..j- -},-3 ~ L - - - S i Z C S'r - - - - - - _ ~~.+-~++m+._........ww...w' ft'~txw,- .i'L _ # S-^ - x m ES < -F " ,,'~t°~4` ;'A;;' 28 1996 :r:,; CITY COUNCIL MEETING -MAY , AGENDA s t 6:70P•m- .~srf - STUDY SESSION ~ > Metro 2040 Update 4 , > Discussion - Engineering Fees Increase 1 g - zl~ . ~ > Discussion - Wetland Policies :3j ` > Agenda Review I 7:00 P.m. 4-, f n - ! ~z r- "f ! > The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the ; ; i 4 provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), u (h) to discuss labor a: r 4- ` relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation ~ i issues. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore, nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. ~ - 4xs z Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, F; ~ 3 but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. ~ ! } i 1 E: > Elections Training Information ~,rt . = r• y r d r.; x3 - 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING r r'-' f i~ 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ex Local Contract Review Board ~ ~ "a te r 1.2 ROII Call t ` ' ~5 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance } { I~ 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports e ? 't ' d 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items fi 'I 4~ - 7:35 P.m. r k - ~zxd~-~'-'a w 1 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) - _ 5 7:45 p.m. - ~ > v l N ,3 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be r r enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request - that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. r - r- a ~ rvfi yis.^r 1 Motion t0: 3 3.1 Approve Staff Recommendation to Participate in the Community ;MA ' Development Block Grant Program through Washington County 6 - 3.2 Approve Agreement for Engineering Services for Menlor Reservoir ` k r Project r 3.3 Support Partnering with Metro and Committing Systems - Development Charges Funds - Resolution No. 96-35 ~ r` - < a • Consent Agenda Items Removed for Separate Discuson: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate ~ " y,z r discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted i on those items which do not need discussion. , 7 0 - - - i - - - ~ - r_.,,--' .r 1 • 4.....:a ~ P COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 2 Sax i' P ifi ~ ! % J ~.'ti'sW`9krn:-., F:y:t:^ - - - - - y - - - - ' 4 r f ;S d 5~ _ .1 } } - - - -A - x _ L t - r t ~ t I { -Y - _ y r _ Y k, } A' , fti l a k p - 4 r - +'r - - - ,4 ai s _ _ - - - 1. I 11 1, N' Q_ Y -i a , r - - h 1~r ffl.07~" -1 , , e qu h bra, , +.1 r 4 t 1, - i - 4 _ 11 - tir l4~ :T• 1- sz' - Y - Y y"~.4' -rl~wpi,e'u ,xr.2 b Y _ 1 a } - - - "°a - e _ •rh v's~1..2r i " aY 7 - 11 gt 1~b S d`, - ` .rt,? arm; £ e r i { `7' , ' - 7:50 p.m. - i t `.~w. M 1-1 R ~ # 4. METRO 2040 DISCUSSION t 4 ; ~ ~Y 4 Mike Burton at John Fregonese -Metro z f { , C x a 3H s - 8:20 P.M. 5. VISIONING PROJECT _ Assistant to the City Administrator and Management Analyst/Risk x r '=r _tis - ' E - r j ~1 - j e6:4op•mPUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-]UDIClAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - _ z (ZCA) 96-0003 WEST FERN STREET ANNEXATION T REQUEST: The owners request annexation to the city of their properties, t which total 9.24 acres, and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning ,'t ` from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density V" - Residential/R-7. LOCATION: The western end of SW Fern Street, I , r<- immediately east of Ascension Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: , , a The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies ru w f 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, , h boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community _ ' ` ` ,V~~ _ vr- Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; ands L 4, 1, - 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, 4x . `r Washington County R-6.~' t a. Open Public Hearing " egg t e b. Declarations or Challenges " E ^ ztpi~ , Y y C. Staff Report: Community Development Department y d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation ) ~ -w W , 2111., y Council Questions ' W - -5 g- Close Public Hearing ' R - h. Council Consideration: Res. No. 96- V at Ord. No. 96- Q1 _`9~I'll "~~,i " ; 5 ,n 9 7~ P.M. GREENSPACE ACQUISITION PRIORITIES x _ i' 4~ Community Development Department r _ 4:2S p.m. t $ . 8. DISCUSSION: ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN I ~h ' I INVOLVEMENT TEAMS q x 3 i ;:*3 Community Development Staff - x r " - XU~ #,-1 I r 9:55 P.M. w 9. UPDATE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - EMPLOYEE _ 1, COMMUTE OPTION PROGRAM j 3 k f r t Community Development Staff t %5 € ~ ~ G 10:10 P.M. - x ~ r3 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS #L # [ a..r, x 1 r {L 1. I COUNCIL AGENDA -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 3 f " 'r s F _ _ n•4y~ ° 4 y SL a. k Y 1 P V ti i ✓x s r k , { ~A{ P $ _ - - - i p _ y k f'- E ' 'f `h t Z k. E , 1. - EN , _ , ; , _ ` - ~ ' ~ '_1 11 , ~ I ~ ~ - :1 ~ L , ~j : ~ ~ ` , - - 'i ~ , ~ - ~ I,- I % , , - , , , , - - _ `~K` ~ . ~ , . , . ~L q ~ , - , - 2 v - i 11 K .Fqt - - tr f f4 µa~w a - L a V~F RINI~ :x.;;:;,A~:t~i~r< 561 i 10:20 p.m. x? it. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive 0 hfi+"' _ -tea:,. € Ysst. i„ _ r- nE .},.:r,.- n= Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1 (c), Ex (h) to p°, discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending _r 41 litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are r # confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those ws 4- 91 'U F a 0. present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this sx session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. i, s~ r } »a 3x - ¢ 10:30 P.M. 12. ADJOURNMENT 'k-_ 4f i a m, ' 1Aadm\udiy\960528.doc 1 4:d ;I S r Ziv, w,z ~ EE N rt, 't t y t wed r 1¢ t i t Sbi 1, Ix 'ta 77 ;xa COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 4 IMP x t s s rs ra ~Pr+a k' 3vUal # 5 r `j - _ F .ter vies Er S 'v 'M E# y 44 g 3W - _ - s r M x . wvr - 1 .,,3 , - sa~ 11 k`D ro -e i > r _ r s I If 42 x 4- v ,t-,-'.'--, y4 44 ..x,y,t _ V ftt -F- r - L r ""a ~~r F : Agenda Item No. 311 `tL .`7 -''t Mec}inn M (nl n r va--.i{' y '9--iy;- t s~ _ - TIGAIZD CITY COUNCIL a r 3 k = . V.z , i . MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 1, of _y I . ; s STUDY SESSION t` t o S.. A Y - V F( t' X F k - e- t- > Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli t fY k - ,-1111 t r f _ > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and 3 4 Ken Scheckla. tl,4 4= > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Administrator , ' Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed x L I x';..t.,._:,,,,,,._."-..,....,, Wegner, Community Development Director Jim Hendryx, Human Resources . A. i I a 1 v y. Director Sandy Zodrow; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Senior Planner Nadine + rv x , Smith; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, x FT > Discussion: Metro 2040 Update ~ I s City Administrator Bill Monahan asked for Council comments regarding the , s draft letter on the functional plan to MPAC. 1tk d~ - 111- I'll -14t ~ Councilor Rohlf commented that he preferred a format with full text showing " v z _ blackouts and underlines. e>~ i " ~ Aa" qi , t Senior Planner Nadine Smith stated that she would incorporate any Council y y , , g ~ ' comments made tonight into the document and then forward the final letter to MPAC for the public hearing tomorrow night. ~_x , - I -1 r t, ~J Community Development Director Jim Hendryx noted that a similar letter to - ~ ~ ~ ; a MPAC from the City of Hillsboro showed that other jurisdictions were also ~ ° ; raising concerns about the functional plan. - ii"S , M--, m ' F Legal Counsel Tim Ramis reviewed the Mayor's cover letter, noting in , x - particular the request that the document be aspirational rather than mandatory `4 ~ , ~ I r r local { broecause cessestand the coovernments mment askinVenot had a chance to omthrough tot ben , + ` , W g i m £ p g that mandatory density minimums t n 5,4 imposed until the local jurisdictions went through their own processes. }l , ` P r Councilor Rohlf commented that he agreed with most of the bullet points. He ' t Fr ` stated that he wanted to be clear up front that they felt they had a right to be included in the process. Ms. Smith said that she took the philosophy she heard ' ` r t 1 .t r- fi d bit Y from Council and incorporated it into recommendations that were specific to the € _ r ,r~ - s plan. s- 1.y ~ 3 ' u Councilor Scheckla stated that while he thought Metro's guidelines were all right, ' ` % he was concerned about implementation, commenting that one shoe did not fit all.k He asked if Metro would allow the cities to have local control, and if Metro x } - 1 really had that much power when they did not know what the impacts would be. a j I 1, -1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 1 r -sz 1 2 r s - - ~r~ cr 5', f- } 1/ C , fy-5 ~ s fir-- - asy _ .:i „x r r - -L a d'- - ? f d t}1 r } 4 k J E ~ , , - , ~ ~ J , _ -R 1 -S-F3 `5 _ , t 1 _~1 - 1'v _ - r J~ 'yx r rg $ s'- 1 _ - - d -1 Jr. 1- § j of 4 _ - i- ¢ f F _ - - - i It ,1 3 tau, 3 1 ~ - 'I'' ~tl -1.1 - , , ~ - I ~ I ,-J { I a I SR A ~ - Y t x~ 4-S s _ - m 47} tx , - z - - - - - - t r ~^S- , E-k.+.., _ wuw+r,us.e aw-.._., v-_.,......-a....,w.bx _...1 ( ~S 2 p - _ '"y 4~2' t k S r, - `7i '1E - ,R h Mayor Nicoli reported that Mayor Drake of Beaverton told him that Mike Burton , . - F was getting the message that Metro has not allowed enough time for the process. t , t' ~ He suggested adding a similar comment to the letter. L 4 - F- 'al` Y - Councilor Rohlf commented that the plan seemed more like dictates to local , - ,4 jurisdictions than the partnership Metro said they wanted. He stated that without G the local jurisdictions buying into the plan as partners there would never be an , , effective partnership. He said that he did not want Metro to think that Tigard i ~ would support the process if Metro merely made the recommended changes; he m ' ' ' " a was fundamentally uncomfortable with the fact that Tigard was not a full partner , ` in the whole process. µ44,r k a- y' -fir t - Mayor Nicoli noted that the plan was developed by Metro staff and two Metro . Council subcommittees, MPAC and MTAC. He said that the Metro Council . , itself had nothing to do with the draft plan. He commented that when the plan as 0 a whole came before Metro Council, he thought they would see large lobbying a_ I groups from the business community objecting to the plan. He stated that the Council would not see the plan until September and said that Mike Burton has -~r been sensitive to the lack of time allowed for the cities and counties to give - proper input. The Council discussed specific changes to the letter. Mayor Nicoli suggested stating at the beginning of the letter their concern about not having enough time 4 ~ rn to respond to the draft in depth. Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought Metro g k- - r x ~ , z Counc orMoore referenced Councilor Schecklahs earlierc omment about treatin w cities differently because their situations were different. a , t g a Councilor Rohlf concurred. He said that while Tigard needed to cooperate in shy ` : k ~ working on regional issues, he disagreed with changing the community elements' 3 t that defined Tigard as Tigard. Councilor Moore reiterated that communities k } should be considered individually. - _ , _ } Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of who would pay for the upgrade to the x ~ - . F infrastructure. He said that the plan did not address that. Ms. Smith concurred. ?.,,o-F _ i She stated that she did not think that Metro would help pay for upgrades inside - - 3 the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She said that the only opportunity in the r~' i b } I plan for jurisdictions was to ask for an exemption to the required density on the s` , , l s ~k ar not accomm 1' - < infrastructure wasnot uldhere to support odt to growth in a particular area because the k. { t a, R Councilor Scheckla noted that the transportation issues were similar; Tigard did ; ' not have light rail, they had clogged streets with no relief in sight. `Z , f_ p -r _k t Mayor Nicoli asked if anyone opposed sending the letter. He said that he did not A ' j w 4 object to any of the changes suggested. Councilor Moore said that he was happy I - - ; 7 . - ; with the letter as amended. Councilor Scheckla commented that they needed to . r let Metro know how strongly they felt about these issues. 4 1 a+ ~ 1., Mr. Monahan asked for direction on sending the letter out with the changes and a x { L- w CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 2 i ~ 14 ~ J = t x , t x ` 4; f 4 t 4 x _i S 1 ~~lill-'f!~~1),~~'ll-I'~,-t.,~-'~,"~",:~ L ~ , ~ I - I It ~ " - . I p' 3- Y - k J a '1 C k a Y F Y y S 4 1 A r ti r t ,t !t -6~ U t - a --s . T.,._r._ . u _ 1. _ i ` "Z _ _ r - r , s t d 10 4 k4 i 3 - 7R Sys jp} 1 ~k eTi'_1-1-f Yw ~e R R, f* P 4# " " ruX- x, - J f Y- - a,ut.. yy 5x i F. I ,.~`"'=~.w ~',,t:arw4 y- fi1 - _ - - - y '"y ,i.C ~a" P1'gF'r, x s a esxt a Pk t - - - - _.e..._ ,t,.,; .-,.u.. Y s $ £ F ~il t4r t.~ _ l S - 4 x k 4~ ~4 i ' d, z I -1 Z'~i s t q- v'- _ _!.rS r ? 11 I'd , r stronger tone. Mayor Nicoli suggested keeping the body of the letter but ar f ` _ i a n l a beginning with a paragraph addressing the Council's dissatisfaction with the lack r ;R 1 ~j Y,- of time and expressing their concerns about the document. He said that he would ,LM FR X#p'*, - f v like to say that in its current condition, the Council would not support the i X53 { r " document. Councilor Moore said that he couldn't support it either. - - R! - Nz 4s li Councilor Rohlf concurred, stating that he said no to the plan to the extent that it ~ , ~ - _ _ fv;.x„ - - dictated terms to Tigard. He suggested inserting the following language to 4 ' r : -1, , l 1 i'Yl E.j>°~> s`` . strengthen the tone "For Metro to succeed it is necessary to engage the local t- ' ~ 11 ~ _ ~ , governments. It is we who must balance the needs of the region with the needs , l ' z of our citizens. We recognize that success in handling regional issues can only A , ~ a & r r, sT occur if Metro and local jurisdiction forge an effective partnership. Metro may Z-_ develop a variety of plans but it is the cities that will have to execute the plan. ~-,i Accordingly it is in our interests to be heavily involved in creating the tune to , ` ~ r~ J x which we all must march." N , 3 3i W r x s i Mayor Nicoli asked staff to bring back the rewritten draft at the of r end othe - s s,w : meeting for Council review. l z+~ , j > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:08 # r " 'k p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor a 1-1-11111, " ,i ,I 3~~ I 11 relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. E 1 _ -j ; s . N > Executive Session adjourned at 7:50 p.m. - t N * T { ui .Ce, 3 f - 5 , A lAOPW u 1,L 'I Y 1 11 - 1 a 0 1. BUSINESS MEETING ~ ~ I . a . ir, 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board AN1 ; k aA n ~ „ Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. -~i 1.2 Roll Call ~21 [j",--~~,7,`~~, -1~i r r Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, Paul " M~ ¢ [ t Hunt and Brian Moore.}x~ , t d .k a- a Aj L e Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Administrator i , M- r - 11 Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed 1 ~ x; "w - Wegner; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Legal Counsel Time t ',f ! Ramis; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; Associate Planner Duane Roberts; i r µ 5N Associate Planner Ray Valone; Associate Planner; and Planning Manager Dick s -1 ry ~ ' y Bewersdorff. 3 I' j fi - 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance x y < y i~ , 5 1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports uk h i - 5. 5 - -.nom}, ~ -J Councilor Hunt reported that they had an excellent turnout at the meeting for r ry r consultants submitting RFPs for Cook Park. _ Z~ k _ _ 'F x 2 4 JI } CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 3 a V, k g t''.E" of p J a -K ; _0 41 V I - - I,J° gin'{ R ,.4 S 1 1 - k4,T I _ _t _ t ~s A# ,t4 t - I ~RL 1 i ;7u d d_a y k S,P ti J Y 4iF 68f f J 1j {J' p f g' k t-5 -""-R ~y F+ s f - Z - - -11 I ij~ x i' J:~ _ 2 _ nEw 'rise r Y Y - - y > x ^r aC.y Vic'` s - , 'max Fr+.&- 3,F r 1~,~ } a s - , f v - sC.,....t?~sQl,,. INN " _ 1 _ - - - r _ 0,3F , 7 xt}. X 1 b n ,T fi ,a .t L . ••w ''..oa,-z4xr L,.M __-•.„.._r _ ; .....,-_..__L _.L.___.._-a-.,..,,..-.._~,..._..... 'may g"'a,, . v x - _ '`k - x z_x " Y - ~ ,s,119 1a 'N'T;~'A* 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None - 7"wR sa a y f 7 A, s f ~u 5 € x - x1 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA A . - 3 'F'z ? Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, a City of Tigard 1~'r { t ~s0 ~ -1 VA 1. I P e{ ! t ~ ;j Task Force to conserve city public funds similar to that of conserving City water within i ~ V i r -_-A the jurisdiction within the intergovermnental agreement water contract with the Cities of - g - a u i~zl Durham and King City and the Tigard Water District unincorporated areas. - - ems i 4 -r ,t'.cy.47td1 k- 1 ' , 3. CONSENT AGENDA x' sit ;f T ' Mayor Nicoli asked to pull Item 3.3 for discussion. b t~.- F F sj ` R al . .A ~ k { ti F Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt Consent f 4 $1 :V 44 Agenda Items 3.1 and 3.2. V"t~ iF i 4 , I i Y It a ! t~ t t ? Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, _ z Vt ,t~~M.: 7 Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") a - 4R ~ ry ~ 2 y 3.1 Approve Staff Recommendation to Participate in the Community Development V. x- ti -r t Block Grant Program through Washington County r, 4 ^ ~*r~_ 3.2 Approve Agreement for Engineering Services for Mentor Reservoir Project t M1 f ANY,-'~~ 11 } ~ • Consent Agenda -Items Removed for Separate Discussion ,e ~ ~ Ya c _ ~ X , , > 3.3 Support Partnering with Metro and Committing Systems Development Charges ' ~~`7 r { ~ Funds -Resolution No. 96-33 M ' t , ` E Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the dollar amount listed for the City's, y , _ portion. He said that he thought the City was to come up with $100,000 out of _ r "I their park capital fund instead of $200,000 over the next two years. }}R ,prm,~tt4 Mr. Hendryx stated that at Council's direction staff prepared a resolution ~ , " - Y r r - _ intending to stretch their SDC money as far as possible to leverage Metro's ' ~ f money in order to purchase the greatest percentage of property along Fanno , A ti Creek possible; they may have stretched it too far. r. ¢ , W ,W 2 _ Associate Planner Duane Roberts referenced the budget approved by the : x z ~ .V" G E r Council at a previous meeting showing an allocation of $200,000 over atwo-year , ,Y 1r- - E r- r - r s, - n period; this was identical with the amount shown in the seven year CIP. k In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Hendryx explained that the 1! a Ft ~ ~ j€ 1 resolution format was intended to indicate to Metro that Tigard was allocating a certain amount of money to order to leverage regional shared funds for the Fanno - ' z e Creek greenway. sr= k s ` a r~ Motion by Councilor Hunt seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution , t s t a- x No. 96-33. IV, v s t z a fr ~ 2- t , The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution No. 96-33. x ~ r a t r 2 a 1 17 I- ~11 77~1 CiTi COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 4 r x s e Nt - -E ~ a-f 'J , '71 T - 4- - - r s t' _ 4 Y- ~,t j ;M 4ti-s jS f P f k*"£#,k4 t t., I - , `~`,~`*~F~'i~"""qj " - , t'~ , , " t-. ,-'110,1' _`i~ ; .-Ii, " I-'- ',"N~-!!~~ _ . - J h F 2 i , cX„ rt` 4 _ ,5 t X KK hi ~3E i - i di^.d ti` r 6 .i a h ~ t ~F j )~,,t- 11 - t s 44 T T Ss _ _ l ~f S - E 5 _ - F - 1 tfz f ~xINz,''S.":',, 6:, 11 r,'' =izu:ms.. 'u~~*xe+ - ~ s t~ r ~ > ~ E. F, r sF r" - ~ , - z>~ v ` _ RESOLUTION NO. 96-33, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY'S q r ¢ DESIRE TO PARTNER WITH METRO ON THE ACQUISITION OF FANNO fi ~ f; .-,.,;•i CREEK GREENWAY AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS PARTNERSHIP, - , : ; - = ; THE CITY'S INTENTION TO ALLOCATE EXISTING LOCAL W`R- ' T, ss`> ` Jti, z" SHARE _`i r: s. - >11, ,V FUNDS AND FUTURE PARKS CIP FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION , r WITHIN DESIGNATED GREENWAY AREAS. _ ,f , , ti ~ r Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor ~ ~ Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4 4 ~~rt~~,i c r it 4. METRO 2040 DISCUSSION ter,r 5~~.~~g - - Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, and John Fregonese, Growth Management .4_, x+ t Program Director, addressed the Council. a Mr. Burton noted the concerns raised by local jurisdictions that Metro was moving too nN a fast on the 2040 elements, and concerns about terminology. He said that he did not , think they were moving too fast and reviewed the history of the Metro 2040 concept that x 4 began in 1973 with the adoption of the statewide land use goals and guidelines. He " w- MIN stated that the Metro Charter adopted in 1992 required the region to adopt a regional v~ ~ -g y Yk?-y _ framework plan by 1997. - - 'e ms. 5 Mr. Burton said that after Metro adopted the 2040 concepts his concern was how to manage the rapid growth they were seeing in the region and how to maintain the 'z , r'- t ~ ~ N s residential, commercial, and employment opportunities. He reviewed the factors driving ;A z- ,s nrtt , ~ ` the timelines that he and the Metro Council were working from, noting state and federal ~ 4 5 d ^'w?- fat s+ p 4 p: requirements in particular. He said that the changes in terminology were often the result , - ? 3 of trying to meet those requirements. , , , W ~ ti Mr. Burton said that right now Metro was asking local jurisdictions to respond to what .r % they thought their population would be, given their planning abilities, community plans - - 1 ` ° and employment/residential needs. ' , ~ _ >1 Mr. Burton noted the Tigard staff involvement in the process. He commented that the s~ re J Washington County representatives on MPAC were the Mayor of Tualatin and a ' , ~ } Cornelius City Councilor. He said that he had some concerns about the jurisdictions I who did not sit on MPAC. He stated that MPAC turned down his request that they ' "N, ~Rl temporarily expand their membership beyond the charter provisions to include'° x, M", I d 1- 1, representatives from other jurisdictions. He noted other opportunities for jurisdictions to - ? ° , .a r £ give direct input into the process. l.yu - i z .i Mr. Burton said that the focus of concern he heard from jurisdictions centered around `yh h k how much land there was in the UGB. He stated that he thought the question was more n ; what were they able to do with the land inside the UGB and how could they find a - I 1,1 t logical process to bring in the land needed to expand the UGB. He cited Tigard as an - ' { l example of a city whose rapid growth was projected to slow down by half by the year ' i, r a 2015, something they had to take into consideration when making their x ` ` x 3 r recommendations. x ~ t k ~ e , tf 3 i Mr. Burton commented that he was aware of the difficulty part-time elected officials had `*f , , f F ~ } _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES _ MAY 28, i.99v - PAGE 4-"'" t m Z 1 5 - r tSjqq } Y } 1 4£+" f id 5.~ _ {C~~- , , . ~ ~ - ~ ~ V ~ 1- . . . ~ xe - , P a L - - Yt. t i - _ ! 1 t s € L,}} r F 3 M 2,} - }Lw - J . 11 3E i, : F _T,, s _ -r- 1 A T Tgg,- ..fit.. - l C a a,~ ,...y 1c....a.:'t?..c'..._>e...Ga<sAiwix.. >v...._:__ __.b._.....,a.._____._.._ _w_.~.....~', 'Al 3~ 4- - (t «3 Z_;'a-, T'Zt `,t em .11 u,.-' T- , - y t,', T 9, Z M - t3 e ~..,.ri - - _ x Ea in keeping up with the process. He said that was why they have sent letters to i , f4- jurisdictions and were personally talking to many of them. He stated that he was r r *,4, X i concerned that they have communication and that the jurisdictions understand that their z r - input was important to Metro. _ 4 -g - - Mc Burton mentioned concerns about the process and the speed of implementation, - r , , ter given the differing abilities of each jurisdictions. He said that there was flexibility built w - into the process to allow for individual differences. t $q` - p Mr. Burton expressed concern about the ability to meet the regional transportation P ; aspects (which he considered woefully undersourced in the program). He said that, r though he was a strong supporter of light rail, the emphasis in the plan on light rail has , -11 been at the expense of developing other mass transit alternatives. This included building J , I ` s the road system that had been built into the assumptions behind the 2040 concept. He „ asp" R; , ~ ~ -s';. noted the importance of maintaining good access throughout the region, as this area was Y , - R j a key distribution area for surrounding states. ~e,.UFI -maw r: Mr. Fregonese reviewed overheads showing trends in the region. These trends included , the range of densities needed to accommodate the growth and the response of the 1} F r F marketplace. He noted that the number and popularity of townhouse style lots wasr I increasing in the area. He stated that they used the amount of net developable land to ` - figure the growth capacities, and their conclusion that their estimates for capacity on F~ udr~ry r r vacant land were conservative. He commented that the outlying communities with a lot * t' ` rt ' f of vacant land could meet their 2040 targets more easily thate communities with flat ,a ~L , " Y " 9 land close to light rail. f ; { r P Mr. Fregonese commented that lot and house prices were escalating. He said that one ~ ~'W , - ; r ( ~^rj third of building permits were going for mixed use areas. He said that Tigard should ~ ' . ~ j ?~1~ encourage redevelopment as their vacant lots decreased. He stated that they would like I, ` to see the residential building in mixed areas increase from 13% to 20%. ' ' Mr. Fregonese stated that their conclusion from this data was that the 2040 densities Sl I 1). were achievable in the marketplace. 1 Mr. Burton said that they were concerned about maintaining the balance between , ,1 11 ' ! residential and job growth; the tendency of people to change jobs seven times during r their life created an imbalance because they didn't change their houses that often. He ~k 4 said that he thought they needed a more frequent review process to manage growth than r ` going through this every 20 years. , ' t ,,,fix € i Mr. Burton noted that events that have occurred in the region in the 1990s have forever C _ ~ r changed the area, citing the growth of the electronics industry and the decline of the ' It 4 wood products industry. He said that they have had 1.6 million population growth in they # last four years. He expressed his appreciation for the Tigard staff's work. i- " ' ' Mayor Nicoll stated that the Council shared Mr. Burton's concern about the speed with a2 y. r which this plan has gone together and the lack of direct input into the process by Tigard. He said that they did not feel that they have had adequate time to review the current- 3 1 draft, though they would be sending a six- to seven-page letter to MPAC with changes Y 1 for consideration. , „ srx - 11 s t z x. , CITY COUNCIL MEEi'tNG MINUT1 5 - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 6 - , t yi f - .I b h * 3 -m....~ F, f ~°F4tR'vs.'- gnsrn.ln,.- - - _ r ~'k j b t - - 3 ,a~F 3 zF - ~ t ~ - LL , : ,I " . . , , , : ~ I ~ -1 ~ , , _ _ ~ A 1 11, I p'' ' f 1 , ; * t _ - - - Y ,,x- Y s - - r - - a;I 4 -4 - _ 7 F "i y ' .a L-__.~ a._. r... _..r_v-.?r_ n. _.....a ._L_.~ _~AN~....~ Lr~.. __1.1 •V_ __n.~ l_ ~ .n[~:_. _-~f. ~Tt. ._~.f.. ii r~._ c- _ `z._'I . . . - - . s _ x jr 1 u~r~. ~ 3 - -i, - - -ty- ?.y, b _ Fi" .:&G%~' d '.Y .~.-.:w ..n_f :uu...zar...,_te..v~'a,- ~....._..._._.~._-~,_--~«w-a.-..an...,.._A -.._.,~-..._,.v _w._....._.-, - _ } - 1 L Y- -p5' xT ' - ? ~.r P h # Mayor Nicoll said that the single biggest reason that he did not support the document k- k s .1 _ i 1 E was the insufficient time. He mentioned the lack of clarity on what the new terminology F in the draft meant. He pointed out that an assumption behind the document was service x ' ; j by mass transit but noted that Tigard did not have mass transit that went beyond the ' i main thoroughfares. He mentioned the issue of unfunded mandates, commenting that t ~-G 4` ` _ implementing the current draft would cost a lot of money that Tigard did not have in its- ^3 - - ` , g l `I i general fund. ,E .k g Ma or Nicoli said that the lan lacked firm olicies; it included im lementin } Y P P P g policies V- W"M+ t instead of stating general policies and allowing the individual cities to meet them 1 creatively, He commented that Metro talked a lot about guaranteeing the quality of life x k - - ` but that he did not see where the draft addressed that issue. - ~ F -1ZtO a- Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that there was a change occurring in the ground rules , } ~ x ' w d on how housing units were defined that might mean Tigard had a differential of ?r g+, s approximately 600 units. He stated that right now they could not tell if they could meet < ,W'N; F , the projections Metro made for their community. ~ _ C r Mayor Nicoli referenced a letter received from the former City Engineer, Mr. Randy, 5 - Wooley. In this letter, Mr. Wooley stated that while he did not want to see the ; - -r:Y ' ','r k1 raT e~un -r~-y u boundaries changed merely to facilitate growth, he did think they could clean up some of w # the boundaries, citing inclusion of the proposed Tualatin/Sherwood bypass and Beef f ¢_~Pl~ ~ K ; , r zs Bend/Elsner Road. The Mayor noted that the arterial formed by Beef Bend/Elsner (plus " - one more connection through Beaverton) would cross Washington County from one side 5 , x to the other; most cities have endorsed the project. s r, Q ~ ' Mayor Nicoll raised the issue of affordable housing as it related to quality of life, noting that the increased housing prices in Tigard. He said that when considering the changes r' g , . - to the boundary that they should look at land prices and affordability. ~ 't s xl ' Mr. Burton commented that Metro adjusted the timing in response to the concerns raised "3- e r,,~ - -3 a by the jurisdictions. He said that he thought the issue of direct input should be t-~ t addressed by the jurisdictions, reiterating that MPAC membership was outlined in the w-, Charter. He said that Lou Ogden and Jeannine Murrell have often raised the questions-~ ' k brought to them. He said that he agreed that there was a lot to do in a short period of Af x~ E ' ' time but the process began some time ago; this was the implementation document for the ~ i, . t" ' Metro 2040 concept plan (which was where the quality of life issues were addressed). ` _ ' Mr. Burton said that housing prices were affected by more factors than simply the ~ - I _ 7 availability of land, and the marketplace was one of them. He said that he didn't have a ' 1' ~ an answer on the issue of affordability but he did share this concern. r~ J i F- ' n - 3 rr;' L Mr. Burton concurred that Tigard did not have mass transit. He said that he did not , - - "`,aid - 3„Y t think that the plan was based on the assumption of all mass transit. The plan assumed ~ , i that certain roadways would be built. He stated that they were having aproblem - c- t r regarding how much transit they could afford. He said that he would appreciate having % ` L j Tigard's concerns in writing so they could respond to them. - u; r -a z r - E _ c - Mr. Burton said that he would look into the differential in housing units. He said that he ; s - assumed that they were all working off the same databases which contained the data - 4~ ~5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 7 A~ ; F a r t 1 , .t t t f 1 fik d n.-. - G. A _ - k -P } L # t r ' S rya " - - ~ E - Fo !F t _ - - .1 r J - -'l 2J { I 1 h'V - - k - .S . ,m.0.---- `r"- - n., - _ _.~~y S.Y. .._.u,r„ _~„„_.2 r~ Y - 3I -.y+F - - - Y - Tf ' - f I I 0 - , - - " , , ^ , t 5 u-'~ e;F4 -J.t - - - } i R- Syr t s .a a--i- - - _ t ,~e.~:: _r~ - . ,,_,........,__.s _ t r> F'-x. 7,wPI bih µ ¢ - 5 _ t4-, A} r sh Z;X r Metro collected population projections from each jurisdiction. r r r . ` erg - y_ - .I f - r v" Mr. Burton pointed out that the UGB was adjusted 33 times between 1980 and 1992, fi3-' t adding over 2700 acres. He said that the adjustment process was open to any . jriiisdiction or individual. He said that they were talking about doing adjustments in a r . s logical way to insure that a ciiy could provide urban services for an area that annexed to X14 it. He said that the needed to know if a jurisdiction could not serve an aica so that they could try to adjust for growth elsewhere. - - t Mr. Hendryx clarified that staff understood that the Growth Management Committee was f-N j reevaluating the assumptions that went into the growth numbers. He said that though r 1 !fs there was no difference in the numbers they were working with, they did want to Y reevaluate those numbers if the assumptions changed. h, } t Mr. Burton stated that he has expressed his concern to the Growth Management t ri F' Committee that they work off the same numbers and not change anything. He said that k s` >j Tigard should not do anything until they heard the final analysis. ,-g c z, Mr. Ramis asked if local jurisdictions would get another review of the numbers if the t - -~~:ar Metro Council decided to endorse the changed assumptions. Mr. Burton said no because 1 r 5~ -1 TJ Y;.-114D it was unlikely that the assumptions would be significant enough to make a big i t r difference. He said that the jurisdictions would decide on the numbers and the Metro ! - staff would determine the impacts. He said that he thought it likely that any changed assumptions would lower the density figures, not increase them. I , b ~ ~ " Mr. Burton explained that currently Metro was looking at adding about 4000 acres. He a , commented that some jurisdictions wanted adjustments made for industrial land, citing z Forest Grove's and Cornelius' fear that the would become bedroom communities for ` , Hillsboro because they didn't currently have sufficient jobs. r ` r - k ` N -u ' :mkt ter i , Mr. Ramis expressed concern that Tigard not get into a position where the Committee f proposed a certain number of acres based upon their changed assumptions and then the _ aop- numbers Tigard submitted to Metro would be portrayed as an alternate to theirs ~ ' assumptions. Mr. Burton said that they have asked the jurisdictions to give them estimates for a range of acreages. He reiterated that the numbers would probably go ;g, down, not up. g~ . Councilor Rohlf expressed his ongoing concern about a partnership with Metro. He said ~ ~ a 1 that right now this looked like Metro's plan, not Tigard's plan; this impression increased Y,k , ~ i the closer they got to implementation. He said that he understood that Metro had E f 1 I responsibilities to meet the regional needs but noted that they had responsibilities to meet s'L rf r their community's needs. He commented that they wanted Tigard to still be Tigard in T" * f 2040. a 1 Councilor Rohlf noted that the closer they got to implementation, especially if it was v~ a ` done in a rush, the more frightened people became; they might reject the entire concept. r a He said that he thought that Metro needed to look at ways to help cities incorporate the h , s 2040 concepts into local planning, including providing funding. zF}~~ o f 'I f , Mr. Burton commented that it was their intent to help cities incorporate the plan into i'" - w { - + ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 8 x i 4 ( ' a z _ ' Vii' - r 'l + r t- - - - - 1, r , f £ E r 3 r Y ty l- # - ~ ~ ; , y - F I, - _ )F yl AV --kr fS 1 l g P 1 -4 1 r r - ! - ~Ik G _ , E . . ~ ~ - I - , - " , - - - - , , ~ ~1- I ~ - - j - SL ~7" ~ ~ , ~ " : ~ , ~ - - - , - - , ~ , L , - ~ , y `1 _ - _ Fpm ""^'.w•^ ,+T -,-_-'_101_, ,,-,_,.'-;,"-,-,~.,,~,---7-''~,--"---",~,-,-~.-"~~----..,--,,---..-,,~,:'-~,~~~,.~---.--~ i I, 1~ I " - ~n,~_ -:,-2- k x k , ~V , t , R - z F~ 4 ~y ' - r~'$Y-, _"y'i - - j -,NSF- s- ~ - $V.~ , xx- c s t k' }fin t i } -t 1, fit £rMt 3 ,~-x their local planning. He said that any specific concerns about the plan would be very 4`, ~fiYy m ~ M ~ ' fi r helpful to Metro. He noted that this plan would change the way people lived, citing ~ Z' rtg b t Hillsboro's work on rezoning one third of their city. He said that he would be very r° 1, wf ' ft, : ' - , interested in Tigard's vision for their community. V ~ I, x - -`t Councilor Rohlf commented that the CITs were becoming aware that changes were t _ ich a~ F coming their way. He said that people ic,7ucd to view rcgatlrc, ,y ,,,a„scs aver wh they had no control. He noted that if Metro wanted the plan to be a success, they cu ~ ~ F-1-2, needed to get local support. , w4 -k - a., s° 3 Councilor Scheckla commented that the guidelines were nice but didn't necessarily fit -f 0 }_M z k everybody. He asked what strictures Metro had to enforce compliance with the plan; , ~ - "a could they pull revenue sharing? - d t _ . ~4 f$ ~v,ZX j yf Mr. Burton stated that the Charter adopted by the voters had a drop dead date in it. He ~s~ x ~ u said that Metro had the responsibility for the implementation of the regional framework f ~ N"~ plan mandated by state law. The plan had to be adopted with input from MPAC, the bx z A,,E 11 body that represented the local jurisdictions, by December 31, 1997. All 24 cities and three counties were required by the Charter to conform their Comprehensive Plans to the framework plan within two years of the adoption of the plan. The plan then went to r x LCDC for review. A ° , xs ~ Mr. Burton said that they could not pull revenue sharing because that was a State ; - responsibility. He said that he hoped they wouldn't have to enforce compliance. He % r' ; ' said that they were aware that there would be differences in specific plan requirements > T ~Y ` throughout te region. P \N - Mr. Fregonese stated that they have heard from other jurisdictions this concern that °t Metro's plan was not a local plan. He said that they have tried to include in the draft a performance standard that would allow local jurisdictions to develop their own local r visions while maintaining a regional framework for the regional responsibilities. He said ~Y~ t that they had a prescriptive way to implement the plan for those jurisdictions that tacked r,j~ "I I 1 the resources to develop their own plan in conformance with the performance standards. Mr. Fregonese said that Metro was committed to giving the jurisdictions an ~ : ~ - ~ r - 11 implementation plan in writing but that the jurisdictions could throw it away if they N , ~,~ZE, ~ I didn't like the plan and develop their own. Metro would work with a local jurisdiction's -f staff on ways to implement the standards. f -,1y j J K R ~xfi F r Mr. Fregonese explained the waiver system that allowed a jurisdiction to obtain a waiver 5 . ~ $F ~ ` I;. I if it could not meet a framework provision. He said that if there was a problem, they L could go to RUGGO which went beyond the Charter authority. He pointed out the 3x W r provision for a mediation process, should Metro and a local government disagree on , t implementation of the functional plan. After that a disagreement went to MPAC who r 1- t sent a recommendation to the Metro Council. The final step was to go to court. ` S ~NF£# s, Mr. Fregonese stated that Metro did have Charter authori to keep ^I " z ty jurisdictions focused - on the plan. He contended that developing a local vision was essentiali n rhP way a'f _ regional government really worked. He said that Metro 2040 was designed around the " _ " " a . local visions they heard from the jurisdictions. He said that they would work with q r, r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 9 r s r t L - 3' Y k _ k i5 - f4 F w"'r'_ _ R yF~. i } C~ d C i~ 3 L [ L.i - _ ry PT f - ; S Y _ ,r -,f C --4 e r y~, t+ y r - - _ k,_ th r , - T L ~ t - 1 - - - i L 2, I Y ' r .:i:_.,.r _~_C_ - - - . - _ ppa MR Y L SkP Y i ] -t fG'I - R rfi -3 Y.s - - - r K t . 3.(v ~ f t F tt RAM- y b^-- i,.~ Y - - _ ~.r - d way. \ '1 { Y• - a,~% ELF E i- - ( ; ? f a t,i~ t~'~o h s _x - y r~,- 8` `,ii ~Ir , _ , jurisdictions to be flexible in designing the plan so that it fit the different shapes and ' 4-- s ~f , z ; F sizes of the communities throughout the region. kr" Y,~ t w 3 Councilor Scheckla asked where Tigard would find the funding to upgrade their i> a = infrastructure if it was required to meet the population growth. F } Mr. Burton said that they might not have to comply. He commented that the UGB has 5 E- 44 - - b~.~.Vl 1111\. syb~Iic. I.IC S said ~.i that he woul td'Iil.l t'I",e to ~ concentrate o of 1.o ul,n,y tf' F-'t. P` - d 1 { k ,„,M . lfl Vil the question o. 1. "I wm-- ' would bring the land they needed into the UGB; what was the most logical way to _ ' j , determine on an annual or biannual basis whether or not they were meeting the densities = ~ and projected growths? If adjustments were needed, was there a master plan to make x,FI E ra } those adjustments? r a Mr. Burton said that he was anticipating an urban growth study to determine what 7r ` additional land jurisdictions really needed and to evaluate infrastructure and K v transportation availability. He said that if a jurisdiction could not serve an area, then ` - - ~ , J they needed to accommodate the growth somewhere else. He noted that in order to i . ,£,.A r maintain a good economic and residential base they needed to make urban services ; { §yf ,a available. -11-70 x > t Mr. Burton commented that a in for schools was not included in the mix at all. He { f r~ cited Cornelius' concern about how to PaY for schools without the tax base needed to do f' 4 'i~I~, - - ,h'- t;Q 4 so. He said that he would argue that providing facilities could be done more efficiently M{ 2" ' I t close in and that the same questions of who provided services arose for the 4000 S1, r i additional acres brought into the UGB. He stated that they needed input and concerns in rf6 order to do this logically so that they did not end up making mistakes. z J 1 F, sa Ky ffi Councilor Hunt complimented the City staff on their excellent letter to MPAC, noting j~ i a j that it included the specific concerns Mr. Burton said that Metro needed to hear. 4; { r, . . a I > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:10 p.m. ' > Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. -s~~ 11 Y a Jack Polaris stated that he agreed with the comments made by the Mayor and the City I. 11 Council. He raised concerns about where Tigard would get the funding to implement If Zk 1~ i the plan and the timing issues. He said that he did not support it. . 5. VISIONING PROJECT d * 1' w-` I Mayor Nicoli stated that he agreed with the comments in a letter received from former ` ~ City Engineer Randy Wooley. A~ Ms. Newton concurred with Mr. Wooley's comments on the importance of doing $ Y z -P' t i something with the results of this process. She said that the cities that had the biggest ' success with visioning were those who spent an equal amount if not more energy in 1, # I ongoing implementation of the plan. , r _ * i _ - ` s i Ms. Newton reported that Metro told her that they have no money to help with the z f 1 \ citizen involvement component of the visioning process. She said that John Fregonese _ ~ > r 4, K4 - seV' L 1 t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 10 . t ' t 1 t F t J P, Yi T` ' J ! F y t 9 I b L F ~r. :EfY i, r.»m- rw-.asnvanwmT- . J K- } 4 k -Y ? 4 ~ , - , 2 . , , , . - , . , ~ , . - , , , ~ , }T d P t- P '.t Yk U ~ " ~ - , , , - " 2i 4` i - - t r 'IFS' t i i y- ~ Zj _ xk z~' sj -r- - - c i r - at. x % f' _ l y h ' I E . . . ~ - , , ~ ~ : ~ - , , ~ ' 1: ' -•t J T ~1 :i j , -r ~c~ '~•-T-. .',",..,--"F--:- •T,."'r".! "I *r . Y S f ~ a,- 4 h p .'-L x t- * z! Y - - i - 11, F.Y 7' S - G- - f - - - g 1' 11 - ~ o - Y - suggested she try for LCDC grant money. She said that he had been very intrigued with - >4 n r t? the idea of using a visioning process to help local jurisdictions make the regional Metro r * t - 6 3331 plan work for their local community. 4 _ 4 - ' k }I y 4 ' , Ms. Newton reported that the colleges have contacted her again regarding the City's t z" ' - possible use of interns to work on this project; the professors would like information , z _ ` ~x . t 4 soon because they would be assigning interns to projects in the next few weeks. 4 ' ,s1-4 r ' Ms, Newton directed attention to Mr. Monahan's memo on the visioning project. She pointed out the interest of the Tigard-Tualatin school district in participating in the visioning project; staff was working with the district to determine which grade level to ' involve in the process. She stated that getting the kids involved was a good way to get the parents involved, especially those families with both parents working outside the - t rte: home who didn't have the time to get involved in the City. I ~,,,F Ms. Newton noted Mr. Monahan's point of using the process to redefine and evaluate Y' - r'.~,, ~ d z the CIT program to see if it was the effective means of grassroots involvement it was % intended to be. She said that she thought that the visioning process could involve a lot .-'i more people in the evaluation of the CIT program, and would be a good opportunity to f w 11. . : i ask people how they would like to be involved in shaping the community on an ongoing € z -11-11F basis. She stated that visioning would expand geometrically their citizen base to help J z staff determine the best ways to keep citizens involved in the future. . x 'x Ms. Newton commented on Mr. Monahan's point of using the vision to check t , ~ 1,0 1 F , r 11 r _ consistency when reviewing budget requests, service demands, Comprehensive Plan t t ' - V - - t ro amendments and other proposals. She said that staff envisioned this as an opportunity to ~4 .gyp1. Y doublecheck annually where they were with implementation and to have a consistent F _ 4,Z_= _s Y method to check back with the citizens. , - 4~ , ~ r ed on the i r projecteinvolved oncetthe processnitpselfawas completeg those citizens who worked on thepa y , xiMt, d~~ Mr. Monahan asked for direction on whether or not to go ahead with the visioning r process. t } t Councilor Hunt stated that though he has not been enthusiastic about the visioning process, he would now support it 100% because staff felt that it was an important tool to hki;4 F , help them further their goals. He said that he has been very happy with the direction s y ? * 0' E ' i staff has taken. 1 " , ~ f . - I' , . ~ 1_ Councilor Scheckla expressed his opposition to the project, stating that the City would z-; , not run as well with Mr. Monahan and the others taking time away from their job duties. ~ ~F - He said that they already knew that the citizens wanted more parks and recreation programs and more police. He expressed concern that nothing would be done with the h i { information gained because they wouldn't have the money to implement the programs _ coming out of the process. I a -h - r fi ~ Councilor Rohlf stated that virtually all the contact staff has had with the public indicated ; „ - a strong support for the process. He said that Metro also sunnnrte- their __ral prnrrcc - to develop a vision. He said that he thought that it was important to develop quantifiable - m ~ ' 3 F,~4 r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 11 f ' t - _,F r S S [ _ 5 - - { v' -k i ; 4, 4.3 - i 'Ttn.t z t _ 'r n - 1 t sF $~r, r Uf S", - , ~ , " . , . . I ~ , , , 2J , -1 - " _ - . - - - - - I - I i , - . ~ , W - r_'ctt~ _ _ _ ....___-e^..~ _ t 11 it 4;;via+i+~ ,....u~_~ a _ e,._c., _r L. _ c__ _ _r-~ ..c . s_ - ...c _i._ _ t.2 _ s l , - - - JF , - t 6 , - S &.11 ` A~_1i_4r%M1A_ ,J~r , , - _ " _ -,--,~-t- , , ~ ~t!" - ~ , - - 0 - 4~ "f^.i.+-.u w.4~4y.~.n 'C.d-13 3..E - i _ - p+ry~ - - 5 - - _ k - 1 ' -C~f ,d° Tr - - 1 - ~ jai { >M - - t,. ' 5 UY7 t u-}i to _ . ~+*5 y„ 't y~ - - _ I y - - ~ c ae4 - 0 - ~ `1v objectives and a plan to meet them. He stated that finding funding would be part of the t , ~ - d' , process. E x , r _,z W11 ~ ~ f A 3 " ~ ' = Mayor Nicoli stated that he had been somewhat skeptical about this but that staff's , Ss z=-', , r _z s approach to it and Randy Wooley's letter have convinced him that this would be a good ~ - _ ?Z, ffi I' -U; t thing for the City. $ , - J rv - 7 Sd A7 Fix Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to authorize the City s Administrator to go ahead with the plans laid out to implement the visioning; j z t - s process. Y , ~ , -11 L Motion was approved by voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors i t- ~ 4 Y~a~ ~ t t Y k Hunt, Moore, and Rohif voted "yes"; Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") - s -T - k ° 5 j 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) ' A s ' f _Y" 96-0003 WEST FERN STREET ANNEXATION Y k` t 4 Y R REQUEST: The owners request annexation to the City of their properties, which total F ; - " ~ i ~ 9.24 acres, and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County 11 t R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-7. LOCATION: The western end ;rt( r . , y' of SW Fem Street, immediately east of Ascension Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW r r ~ i _ a ~ , CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies za_ , 3-V - i 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10. service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; , and 10.1.3, zoning designation; Community Development Code chapters 18.136, o- f- T' ~r - s 3 annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: , , v- ~E~ ~s Presently, Washington County R-6. * 11 11 f- 4 - S 5 S% m$wm 4 N r S kkk ll a. Open Public Hearing r fr . }w~ :,rte F T" t,F E} v~,y ,~y3 ' ' Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. x s b. Declarations or Challenges: None ~ . - j - t~ C. Staff Report a +S t { c~ - i 1~~4Y p+- 'I Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the ,,s-'a~ F4 a specifics of the request. He stated that the request met all the City and Boundary ~f ` Commission requirements, and had adequate facilities available to it. He said } a I*~ b h ` that they have received no objections as a result of the noticing process. 4 € , d. Public Testimony { L t 1I`t , fi Opponent: t 7~ ,E -:~.`r~ - Jack Polaris, 16000 Queen Victoria, King City, expressed his opposition to this 4r { annexation, citing Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.L He said that more ~t , , a n 4 a information needed to be given to the CITs. , `-,z~ r f ~3~ 11 f _ { k r a ' l e. Staff Recommendation , - a M(1, , _ > Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and ' - t P CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 12 _ 3 _ i, ~'T Y 4 k nt5i 'w _ - - - - ~4 tt RR 1 t7 - t. - _ r f ;R F~tJ y, r , F x6 s Im ~ , _ " ti`s r '2 :W- - t , f i 3s L F i"Y ^k. F 4 M - F i y E s a r a +e xw . z ,fir- p .y r P r -r r s 3 3 Y , - , - - ~ - , , . '-~.t ~ ~ . 7 , C,+"ti-r 7---...T.-~' t r A - , g -r K ;n'a~45Fii 38 YS - r 3 y 'i , ',~r~a, e , f..sz f r L 9 - v.3 ! ;r { l3 - V, r t -e V r, ' # _ ~~g ti 3t loll ,rg y a x 3 - x x r"-.`r 5.;`~ `t 4s`` ° W -'s.-t~t+.°.-'at.,.-.c.`~n..Y.....__•.___..:.-.v_ x LL L ,..__._..........,.c.... - y vu "LDj r J ; y "~.`'r phi -v i . ~ r _ ; forward to the Boundary Commission for approval. I < a- _ - f I {Y _ i 7 # a; 3s rsi - y f. Council Questions: None F~ - g. Close Public Hearing E r x a f Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing V ~ G~, h. Council Consideration: Res. No. 96-34 & Ord. No. 96-21 i a r~' 4' T ' s r, - -s, _ Muiion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohil, to adopt Resolutia5:. 1 , - _ No. 96-34. fa f - 11 I", ~w The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. ,`kq ~ y a 9. "s k 'S 4, { RESOLUTION NO. 96-34, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO , THE CITY OF TIGARD OF TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A -o " A n AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-03. C `M* ' ' - ~ 3> _ _ , 3.* - R Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on why not all the properties in thaty x^ area were included in this request. Mr. Valone said that some did not respond to 14- ,i,~ t , the letter he sent informing them oft annex into his opportunity to the City. fx•<< ; t'.~;:~: r. Aso.. k.:_.. - _sa. Y.w,>C~+~.~ _1 5 Motion was approved b unanimous voice vote of Council resent. (Mayor ~x~k;=:'"`~$v(,,"'v + Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. Q S ` x Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance y`r CIZ-1 96-21.e u ' The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. k F ORDINANCE NO. 96-21, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 2 a CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN -l - Y; 11 r EFFECTIVE DATE, ZCA 96-03. 0 I T azz'' ii " l Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor ',,ir4 i Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. " - - p- Ste-' iY u_~~-,'~;f.-~,-,,- ~ 11_,-~~ ~ - ~ - [ L,_,'7~__"~_' ~ 7. ASSIGN GREENSPACE ACQUISITION PRIORITIES t Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He referenced the list of Metro greenspaces local share acquisitions that Council adopted last month. He reported 1 . ~ x 1 f ' Y : that the City now owned the Fern Street parcel. He explained that the owner of the ~ ~ ~r- y~ e Cook Park parcel lived out of state but was willing to negotiate with the City. He , - i „ a - recommended hiring a professional negotiator to deal with this item, and that they move i ` P on it soon. i ~t ri Y4w,. ? i Mr. Roberts reviewed the Bond Street property status, noting that the Wetland p N - ; (Conservancy wac frying to nnllrrt on the nriohhnnnrl In.ino- of the cz~ nnn .Q~ i - + ,"-"-,L,1-'11r1'1 o___-._. pb .p,,~,,vw iu~cuucu r!~. , - for the purchase of the parcel; the Conservancy has committed to making up any 'j & ' y + 1 ' k : ` _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 13 ~ , ~ ny `IT ass £ar - , ~ ` p~, . 3"~,~,~','r. t - i k y/4... i Y.F+ _ _ y 3 P_ J 5 f £ J ! SA S S-, - ` xg~! 'fik - j rt 12 L I - ~ , !;I ~ I . - , 0 b- t- t - M i,.. f 4 _ , -m T d 3 _`e i_ 4 t --j s~,S - r -emu J °4 11. - rs r z, : 9- - - f 4x az _ -fix C-'~» _ r zy. . rzr d . 1 - r - _ j- i d y I _ fi f .fix } y _ -r t k _ * s ` `1 k i. 4 . - - - - F y r^ - 'J - -7 ` ~'2 kz"a'"f 't 2 - _ s~ - ~ $ 1' 'Em s~ , 22M.0 . 4D At s 'ib r'x -..Iv 1111 1'. - 23 S _ i -04 - I p£ f~E o' Z- 1_ r C 2 9 k- 4 " is - rFr` ~,tx ti t E ',7,,h1 Y ref - b 4f k y.; + shortfall caused by people moving away. He recommended that the Council wait to , s n r 1 move on this property until after the money has been collected. ; W n < .v _ that the ommission would act their tro 3y ¢A r'*£ h k - greenspacesspro ectsdtn AugusC aount t tha Ctune Tigard would find out whetthe~ or not the`? 'yap 4 F ` „s Bull Mountain property would be included as a joint venture. He noted that the property i % ®P' , , owners intended to place the parcel on the market this summer and recommended that ~ fe 3 the City negotiate an option to establish a firm price and to prevent its sale during the k , ~ x _ _ summer. He stated that a firm price would be helpful in their negotiations with the y:;,; ,,.a:'nn'. `n y:,<,.,, 7 11 r ,ter - ~ , County. He said that the option would be contingent on the County paying 50%. { _ ' Mr. Roberts said that staff did not think it was appropriate at this time to pursue other 4 properties ` Dec^use 'hey did not know how their partnership with Metro on the regional ,t: a' shared funds would operate. ,,X - ` - _ _ . ~ y I, - In response to Council questions, Mr. Roberts reviewed the County process on Metro s.' ~ J greenspaces funds. t . ,t~,k ~ E~ Councilor Hunt pointed out that the distribution costs did not add up to the total assessed x,'I i j value for the last property listed, Fanno Creek on Main Street. He asked if staff 6 s intended simply to go as far as they could with the money. Mr. Roberts said yes, and f t ~ 1 ~ , that they had thought they could leverage more regional money. r f F 4 _ T I Councilor Hunt asked what happened to the other projects on the original list of 15-16 r~~ s, projects, noting this had only six projects listed. Mr. Roberts reviewed the various h, ~ 4~ reasons why the other projects were no longer on the list. " ~ - - ~ r "Pi C < n Mr. Roberts asked for approval to proceed with negotiations on F-2 and to proceed with _ , , g an option on the Bull Mountain property. z a k -11 Councilor Scheckla asked if there would be $294,000 left of the Metro funds if this was ~ $ ~ , approved tonight. Mr. Roberts said that he did not know because he didn't know what T - ~f.. the final prices would be or if they could even agree on a reasonable price. If not, the - 7 City could walk away from the option and pursue something else. He confirmed tot f Councilor Rohlf that staff would return to Council if the price was excessively higher - E: than estimated. 11 10 L,X.&11MM_ ~ kza~ - f ` Councilor Hunt commented that the policy of not increasing the number of full time * rs N , E employees was effectively offset by the practice of hiring consultants. He asked if staff ' couldn't handle the negotiations themselves. "C - =x t t_y``4 Mr. Monahan said that they could do so, depending on the staff work load. He f _ , ~ f fig- i commented that it was helpful to have a third party negotiate contentious discussions."` t' } , _ Mr. Roberts noted concerns with a potentially complicated negotiation for which the staff ; a lacked experience. Mr. Monahan said that they could get help from Finance and the ' ; rt rs r` I ¢ 1 City Attorney's office in evaluating any proposals. r s p Councilor Moore commented that they could spend as much money in staff time as they - -11 : v could on hiring a consultant. ~ I r ~ 12M 1 r'x . s CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 14 t + i - - U-', _ 7, .-a r - _--,3r t r ~ r r - - ..rJr~.~..-waSY,aaaan'{w`^,.`..""° , + - , , . - , . _ , _ h F ,~v _ z - ~t_ - - • _ " . ;s E z - r 1 J+ v0 _ - , - - rt - _I I 111111 ,1 - -t t k - q k.^ i - ,,-~i~ ~,~;Z~~,,',~, , L - ' - - - I - I ~ , , , , , ~ , . L ~ J ~ - - , ,,n~ X , s s r yt i E 1 r F - z c s, d ,1 e+r *ry s a 4 A 4"t' 3 F 4 tr - - 4 Y- f t 1 ~ _ E t ~n 9 3 j 1 L # , ; , , . r~ 7" , . , :i - ~ M I I ~ : . - I , I I I ~ I ~ I I . I I "I I ; ~ , - , f " - - _ r ~ r - _.~.i- -3~. _L-.,: _ :.:w__~.,.:. a,.~ c_~ - a _.._i:-_- .7: ~_•!e rr i la__`__._._. r...r1. .}j ~ V - w $ r, - s - a zr tr r e." .z - c .fir - - Y ~.~°TY - - - F l P ,gym 3 `"`tw k _ - - 't✓` € x , 4~~ - Ja wwY?.tiwr.......,_ wua>ef.6.w.1d,:i.v++T..r.n+.wr.._a.s-.._._........._a..e,+.._._......._ r.. .-3>.,..r... - - ,~~M ,~,t~~. ~1 -"Atlzl_t -ix Councilor Hunt asked that staff try it on their own first; if they ran into complications, r 1 then they could hire a consultant. 1+ f , ' , @ ' Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore to authorize staff to go iv,:,.,, r, T r ; # ahead with the negotiations for acquiring the F-2 property. [ $ , k j Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, y ~ z , Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") x-, F F * s Mr. Polaris asked if the land along Farmo Creek would be defined as a park and bike i Y rte} 5 ~ ` trail. Mayor Nicoli stated that they have not made that determination yet; they did not i ~ know yet whether the City or Metro would own the land. He said that it was too early E~ I- r in the process to make any decisions. ~z &QLE~~~Z,_--,l Councilor Moore asked what the option would cost. Mr. Roberts said that they did not * i~ , cost an s purchase t[t landtthat all.buildableStacresaff wanted to retain the ability to - , Yf. a_- - In response to Council questions, Mr. Roberts said that the option would be contingent F- x,?, on Washington County putting up half the purchase price. He stated that he has talked e y ,u y ' a to County staff, this property was on the semi final list of the Park Board for -1 r ' 4 . , - recommendation to the County Commission with a good possibility that it would make - ~r - ti } p r' the final list. He noted that there was considerable community support for the County to r purchase this land. ` , S- -t51 tx z bbl y .1-1--4111.1111- 0 , f Councilor Hunt expressed his opposition to negotiating an option. He said that he could ' ~ ~ fi~ x i t - not s°° spending that large a portion of the total funds on one area; if it wens through, ~ , ' then the money was gone before they had the chance to consider the other properties. s ,+~4 - - , "x' Councilor Moore said that he supported staff looking into an option. ~ " ' r_ , n I'll Motion by Councilor Moore to direct staff to proceed with negotiating an option. 3sr` F >~'z Councilor Rohlf concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments. c z a r, F~ i -f+, L~ 1 11 Councilor Moore withdrew his motion. * i ~ Mayor Nicoli expressed his concern that Bull Mountain had no open space set aside. He i 1 noted that it was within their UGB and would come into the City at some time. He said z , r ,A i > ~ - 1 _ that it was unfortunate that it was an area where the land was expensive but contended r- nt" --'h`j t~ that the residents deserved open space as much as any one else. He pointed out that this _ ~ r was probably one of the last opportunities they would have to purchase land there. ? V x t ' Councilor Hunt expressed concern about spending money on people who did not want to £{a f x i annex into the City and pay their share of taxes. He contended that buying this property 4s F would encourage them to stay out of the City because the amenities were being provided 1 i i anyway. - , F. ' wt- Mayor Nicoli noted that a good portion of Bull Mountain was already annexed into the y i , - City. He reiterated that this area which was within the UGB would eventually come ' - 1 ' F - r - E a~_, t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 15 , a y - . l F :a f" } -'-g Y S A' R - x 1 `,y PF - I p i 'r ,r - L - I 3 s, C - r r ,~'~'Z,:,', I - n', ~ ; I ~ - . _j , ~ - " " r o z c iM Tk t - ,a kf hC - 3r x x' 7 4 , r r 7 -r -r - 7-{ _ i - f E t - ~ ~ ~ , . - - I ~ 1; - ~ ,I - - -,;~~Z.~ j 1, L,'~~__._ 7~_ L-_5 _.r r-_...., u._-.-_., _,o«... fc' -v _~r.-_ - r. -.n. .c ....~_s..,,,..-s" _ __1 `1?•' . ~v v.rt? 4 - F - ~ I I- ~ - - " . - - - . ~ ~ , ~ 1 , ~ ` - , - , yvy. t `CS'C - f 5 1 '.ya$ jU/y"p' t'+F . 1.m ,`BSc}- 'i ~`s -S .-.S - + F l - - - -r has - J - - _ F zr_.s~.- - - Z $i 0131 ~ -11 1 , [ S - ,N # ` r - 1 - - d fy-, t" - I" I f s } - 'SSA k`k - a into their city limits as provided by State law. ; - } r at ; Mr. Monahan commented that purchasing the property showed commitment by the City ~ i Er - that it was interested in providing full services to the area. He noted that the annexation rv approved tonight included one individual who had strongly supported purchase of the v A Fern Street property. # Councilor Moore said that he understood the concern about money. He said that he did t f r not think he would support this if Tigard financed it 100% from its greens pace allocation : q; "5~ az but the County picking up half the tab made it more - attractive, r'' 'Y . ,~Y ~ '4. Councilor Hunt said that he might be able to support it if they took the other projects c ' ~ ^ j 7: first and used the money left over for this ProPertY• ~He reiterated that he was bothered ~~'~~""-,'-7~ Z " = 7- i b - 4 _ r V by getting this property first and removing the money from consideration for the other , f r projects. ~ 1 ` t Councilor Moore expressed concern that they could lose the possibility of having a ~ i :i greenspace on the mountain. He said that he has visited the site and that it was a good , f k spot for a park. He said that much of his support for the purchase came from listening - t - r ` i r i to two nights of testimony on the greenspaces proposed sites at the Planning a':.~-, s Commission. He stated that this property had been high on the priority list. 4 , ~ - lr,: B ra e , ` d Councilor 5checkla said that he liked the area but that he didn't see that there was that ' : { r _ ,i- ` much buildable land on the property, He stated that he could not support the option w ,F~ , x a either. z - - ' , y ~ . ! k. J Councilor Rohlf stated that the amount of public support on the record was more' convincing to him than other factors. He said that he was concerned about the money ~~z`"-e' #~~y =M s.,c, t and that the City might get stuck with the whole thing if the County backed out. r t air n r - - ' Councilor Moore commented that staff has stated that the option would include a ev provision that it was contingent upon the County joining in. He said that he thought that IS ~ 7' r - the citizens would understand that the city had tried everything it could but that they had , , to have the County support. N R- ` i Mayor Nicoli commented that the price could be lower than the estimate. Councilor `}k, 11 ~ P 1. - I } Hunt asked for clarification on whether or not it was legal for the City to negotiate a ti~ I, "er,- ii r price below the appraised market price when it was not a condemnation proceeding. `}I F " Mr. Ramis stated that legally they could negotiate the best deal they could get. t,~: ~ T~-'' 1 - " 1- ; I WS, i, ~ , . '`i Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by ~ Councilor RohlF, to direct staff to t " tom.' { , ll `11 1, , ~ "u a x negotiate an option on the property with the understanding as long as the County d , played, and to return to the Council with the cost of the option. # t ~~r Motion was approved by three to two voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, ' } ` r~ g r x t, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") ~ -~d ' 1 8. DISCUSSION: ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN - ' ` - INVOLVEMENT TEAMS f _ -Ll ~Y 4v - Z"T#3t^+.vy} f-"•R,•r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 28, 1996 -PAGE 16 ti _ f lh } 4th i1 i X F F d -4"~ - i l i a of _ a - -i 4 f fl C ; - - - P" T S` t LL A E -3 y f - - - ~ ^a I M 3 } X Yr 3.I r t J _ 1 d ~r } - ` F ! cF g - 04 ~ 5 ffi ~-~t ~ v uk- < , n rs t- 1-1 d x!- J r r-==' - ..da.-.aae.u _ . . .v___. ..-_...w...w.,n _ _ . _ ._.,T,r._ `'S t r t _Y qqq _ _ S t j _ u _ - y , ,7 }J 51", _ l i- i t - Mr. Hendryx reviewed the history of this issue, noting that it arose over the greenspaces t._ f ' ' " w and park funding and planning issues. l_ 4 , _ J Ms. Newton reviewed her memo laying out the policy drafted by staff to delineate the G roles of the Planning Commission and CITs in three general areas in light of the input 1-1 - they had received and the purpose of the two groups (memo available in the Council Packet). z Ms. Newton said that staff has asked that the CITs review all legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text or map in a timely fashion to avoid k- ` r ' - ` staiiing the applications; they should conduct a review at their next regular meeting and . - . - forward their comments to the Planning Commission. She said that staff has asked that 1 - the Planning Commission respond formally to the CIT comments in their 1 ' ,pry recommendation to Council. ' 'Y, Ms. Newton said that quasi judicial Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments L A H would be handled in a similar fashion with CIT review and comments forwarded to the - F r Planning Commission for inclusion in the Council recommendation. She said that single z ti zone changes would not go to the CITs but would be handled through the current F = ~ - neighborhood meeting process used now. ' " ' vet s z ~ " { Ms. Newton said that staff asked that the CITs provide comments directly to Council ` ~.r ~ > regarding the annual review of the seven year CIP budget, though their comments on the ~ " t update of that budget would go through the Planning Commission. -3"~~~~ t-c ;s'~ r a F' Ms. Newton asked that the CITs send input to the Planning Commission on park t ; r`" " g ti ! planning issues that involved Comprehensive Plan policies or changes to the Zoning rr " 1! Man, and input on levy or bond proposals that involved park or transportation y i n improvements. However the CITs would send input directly to the Council on ' 7 § ~x, ' ~ f development or expansion of park facilities or acquisitions that already conformed to , ~ ~ z Nf 40 0- r existing Comprehensive Plan policies. #x - r , s ; w ' 11 , ..y " t In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Ms. Newton reiterated that the Planning Commission would include the CIT input in their recommendations to Council. , i Ms. Newton recommended that staff define the role of the CITs and Planning ~ ' Commission at the beginning of any process dealing with special studies or consultant 9 - f g i services approved by Council that involved the use of land, fees, or charges paid by the ( ~ - ' ,T, public. She said that if staff did not intend to involve the CITs in the process, then staff- N a 1 at that time would indicate how they intended to involve citizens, thus allowing staff the F _ t E 4 _ I latitude to recommend task forces, etc. as appropriate; Council would have the final . N'6"",1 an - } * 3 approval on the citizen involvement vehicle used. , u,- - kf Ms. Newton stated that staff would like CITs to present their recommendations to the - Planning Commission in the format of a broad consensus rather than a vote specifically 5~ Y , - t supporting or opposing an issue. She commented that they would like to see the CITs - ; . - . ' present as broad a representation of the perspectives on the issue as they could. t. r a f Councilor Hunt asked if the staff recommendations included the role of the CITs in j , - transportation. Ms. Newton said that the CITs would come directly to Council with p1 ` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 17 y~ , sS J d' r - .r- - , £j 3 " m11r+m +wm^l_. .,,„1-. -.----~.._T.„._..,,._-.- - V t ~I f t t - . "I " L " t } S - - - - 4 1'• ~i 9 4 1 - - f, _ I A - - _ r {N I. 4 -n_ ti Y p - - - - -{CY^ 1 . y _ - - ' ~ : : ~ T. . ~ ' " ~ : ~ ~ , . , I I ~ - I - . , " : - I . M , " ~ , - - - - - _ - ° - - l r i - t, - -may .9-+ i4 - - - .y I ll[ k' a - m~ ; - f e - - R t _ -*f ?-_fy r t- - y-i-' zap, z'- rP-~. _ _ _ } +'y - t - - - .l t a i R Y.t t' Jr-R{ k „v a..,.ti. . 1I N", .+`L^aCw .M_uw. Y YI - a k N. { ✓ Y 2= l7 - !91 I { Fem.- h ,4 - R su Ck -t Via. A~ _ F ~ 4 their input on the annual CIP process. She explained that e Planning Commission had 1 r S a mandated role in the municipal code regarding general lathnd use and transportation { r , planning issues, so staff recommended that the Planning Commission take the lead on s i_' those issues and that the CITs comment to the Commission, Y k f S, Ms. Newton said that neither the CITs nor the Planning Commission have reviewed the e x ` s document. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to take the document to these groups for [heir : - comments. He said that he was comfortable with the recommendations. _ 1 ' 0 - } Councilor Moore said that he was also comfortable with the memo. He commented that rt; r d this was how he envisioned the process working when he was on the Planning - Commission. He noted that the Commission had not gotten CIT input at the hearings, E a43,=I although they always asked if a CIT representative was present. He said that this might encourage the CITs to send a representative to the hearings with CIT recommendations. }i f ~ s r i _ Mr. Hendryx pointed out that this would be beneficial to staff because it clarified issues sz ,_P,3~ { h and gave them written guidelines. §.B cam- r__ a' Ms. Newton commented on the importance of discussing how staff would involve _ F ,t citizens in the issues that didn't fit easily to either group. She confirmed that task force x h ~ 1 , members would be drawn from the CITs but noted that staff could still ask for - 2 . ~ - ' representatives from other areas in the community (e.g., downtown businesses). 'tiF r~x - .5~k 9. UPDATE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY -EMPLOYEE COMMUTE OPTION PROGRAM %4 F S z F~ 3 e _ v-sf-"'•"v n a,t,r i, 113 Mr. Hendryx distributed a memo discussing the DEQ program Employee Commute g 1.4 Option (ECO) currently undergoing public hearings. He explained that this was DEQ's ~ ' , response to the federal and state mandates to im rove air cualit the rtF ~ " P yin the Po...and Metro 1, K a r area; the goal was to reduce employee vehicle trips by 10% by setting up a series of . 4 incentives to encourage people to get out of their cars. He said that all employers with - - more than 50 employees had to comply with the rules. ~ t ~r,% Mr. Hendryx reviewed the specific requirements of the program, including a survey of ur employee driving habits to set a baseline for comparison (with annual followup surveys), - q - try; development of an incentive program to reduce employee trips, and annual reporting to x ~F demonstrate compliance. He reviewed the timeline for compliance, noting that they had ~ 1W a a projected deadline date of May 1, 1997. l 'R _ t; A-_ r w, Mr. Hendryx reviewed the alternatives; businesses could come up with their own plan, i ~ § ' they could pay a fee or they could request partial or full exemption from the process. ° - -,gr ,tea { Mr. Hendryx stated that staff has scheduled DEQ to present the program to the Council ~ ~ Y ` 1 on June 28. Mayor Nicoli said that since they intended to meet the requirements, he l saw no reason for DEQ to make a presentation on the program to the Council. I_ f I "I } Councilor Hunt asked if the City allowed an employee to take a car home the night t - ~ {4t a before he/she needed it in order to prevent traveling twice in the same direction. Mr. _ ' Monahan said yes, though they determined that on a case by case basis. ; ' n 'i ,I,~~;!~'.'~,-,~~-,I:Z~,' " 1~ ~ ~1 , " , "I'M t 3 - ('iTY !`l1r n.;CI,_, ,*,ia.,iTiivv iviiivu f TES - MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 18 i ~ ; fF j i" ~ - - * ' 3 't , -l t t i k I " ~ W [ , - - I - - , I - ~ - . ~ I - I ~ - I , . ~ - , , , I ~ x i, , I - I ~ - I I _4 - -,',,,5'*,41',, : - ,r,~-_ r .yr , F - S r F -r '`i z t - fl. - - - 3 3 R i 3 -s _ ' I({ fi l r- . :a .....-.L- f _ _ . _ _i .~s _ 4._ . _H ~7 _ . _ t_ . - _r., ,I _ - 1.. tL- } ~t = ' - - --K" - - -~-4 - - - : , ~ " ~ ; . , , " , ~ " - ~ ~ . . ~ , " E ,4~ , I - - , - - - - " ~ "'&e'~~'7:" ~t--~'~"i",,,~~--",-' {y``,gg€.''~~•.~`'f~,. `+""''1,-- rC S 't Yrt' __..._.,..._Y....v. _._.____.....__....,.r~w a _ _ ._..._.~.....,w.-.ozrx•.r.~~.,~... _ ``S .a's y. , ~s-.',V is 2 t e t s s 4 - f -.1.. ..dl`s 7"` - _ Yb°: 5 !~M : _ 'i _ y _--V~ z a ~ - s- - I 10" NON AGENDA ITEMS ~s - I3 _ ~ > Mr. Hendryx announced that ODOT was studying two sections of Highway 99 using t - - ~ ~ ` ~ru students from PSU and OSU to conduct a survey of driveway movements, etc. to get a , - ' r ' a a baseline comparison for the long term study on Highway 99. He said that the two and t110 four ~__-,~-s. -,-acs sections were the five lane section from 217 to I-5 _ ,u„c section west of - ~ w ; - Uaarde Street where the controlled access began. He said that he asked ODOT to ` r m contact the business owners to inform them of what was going on. ~ { 7 > Mr. Hendryx presented the revised letter to MPAC, stating that staff would deliver it to r s ~ ~ s Metro tomorrow. Councilor Rohlf raised a concern regarding the lack of representation i ~ -I zc n,, of local jurisdictions on MPAC. " ' ! - c > Councilor Hunt asked for an update on the Tigard Triangle. y.3 x , - 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at - x, x' 11:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor r ~ N relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 5 rMayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m. r , 3 ; r ' ' ` d > Mr. Monahan asked for direction for staff to meet with the CITs regarding the V~ 4 ; engineering fees. The Council directed staff to move forward. I a~*~ _ r t v+,xt' ~ q3, e I- I > Mr. Monahan asked for direction regarding the speed hump program. Councilor Rohlf ~ , , " # asked if the reason neighborhoods had to go through the radar program before they were x 'A fA _i kr~ L-J eligible for speed humps was to prove to them that everything that could be done hasf h~ been done. Mr. Monahan said yes. Councilor Rohlf suggested removing that :r - ~ y`-r g requirement, contending that if 50% of the neighborhood wanted a speed hump, they a procesalready as knew pea possible.blem. Councilor Moore concurred with keeping the x -L 5~S , ff, m _ x 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m. r, t -1 9~ ~e T e, . . I'll, I oay)--P~ k) - A~~"'~igk' M ~11 - ; w` Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder .r tS . r si Ma3erT City of Tigard s,P,.~ - - Cuu rtCit P[rs t z- Date: G S l`1 7~i t - I ' - r 3 d< # Z y a r~-~5 F '_r, a ` a r t * e" e, C.. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 2E,1996 - PAGE 19 ~ ~ - ° A _ - E f ';';_-'Vi';',k ~'-~~g"!P~-~-'~' - F 6 - - c+, j ~ 7 y t 5 y, s b i ~ 7 w F t I - E ' " ~ ~ . , "t . ~ : ~ )r , , " ' , : ' ' " , , , - - " ' ' I . " , ' , ~ . , , , ~ , - , . I ~ -A , _ _ ~ - I I " C I t. 1 J x $ to e'~ ~ J ~-y~ s - - - S Chr - f - - _ wf L• 4 3 "J 5 - - ,r 11 x M , '-:~~t~~ . ~ - ~ ~ - % _a` r 7, AM W- h3a.cF a3 1 s3s r > s z r 4't 's ktr,h- nsf~" +`€~''Lat 1-12 TIT Ij 5. 4 '5~rfa7n 'fir" ' ^s - 01, 4 COMMUNITY NEWSP ,~Y APERS, INC. y } e~x P.O. BOX 370 PHONE Legal { BEAVERTON, OREGON 970753, 684-036o Notice TT 8501 -ib4 ,YY'P' sA`n ks Legal Notice Advertising tkCL~V u~,~~~ r~~c •CitY of Tigard • EL` >ss 'Z ❑ Tearsheet Notice t, r r tt, a z ~y yak a 13125 SW Hall Blvd. zY Tyy" t f •Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 •~s a~ jt1~ Us - ❑ Duplicate Affidavit "1 v 3 , X51 r 0- b~ *Accounts P OF TIGgRO r Payable-Terry • i~,~a~ ~s . t~ a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION h STATE OF OREGON, G trY _ r COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as. h ---~a'~hV_~nvd[ r being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertisingrya w Director, or his principal clerk, of them card-mn- 1 n mlg~ ~ mes 3 x~ a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 c s + and 193.020; published at_Ticard tr Y aCitvId county $nd state; that the in the 3 y ~?N r' Y Council t~r ! s _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the pw ,"Cryi i _ u , - entire issue of said newspaper for nNF successive and - consecutive in the following issues: F Nth = -t Piay 23,1996 t { y 11ij 3a'w 3 ''§vCiF y~ f C - A, Subscribed and sworn to afore me this J7 r i, rd d-. - -e1,1996 is x31' r x r OFF!C!.AL 3EAL K*r~a x 7 r+;o no B!"! A, f?ORaESS <;vF s ? ~ 0k, v, NOW ORE na y _ Notary bliC for Oregon ~ ^Ollh~:' ; • ' 'J• 0245GON gr. 52 X, P f°t, My Commission Expires: f!YC('. '~^,IOdE,ri,RESMAY11997 5°n tj<' AFFIDAVITS 1 F 1 r i aFx~ W* AA-iM T-Ml t H=is t 7-7 % -F a``{ k 1-h b M Yn4C Q V, rte" G~* x ~t~~~ J^y - z k -'t ' r R e T A gA r t A~, gg_ tat M, V ? `fit-- b s _ _ *"4 rI . ,i is P. - - . o~ F I I , --~~,"',e-,f4j_ --~,~W-` - - I ry1 '3 3 a 't. a~'°``ev'~. cn~7rks ' ✓x 4'r? ,,r 4 ':.>r s _ _ , ' y ....Sa. t x.a.~..::.a. - _ - i'i'tC°FiY' 4 SRS Sw h t _ _ - Lt { , [.P -fi, t , L „aaa~•y. -.t'~.^-:-^+s°i..xs .w.~ - .v.......~.. u t k s t. i 'z1,:" F . 1.~~, Rw,'~,' iL-~`~ . " , t e - F'A - J i .cx llt'~ ~ , ~ ~1'1"~"_~I~d , f r Y54 r f s -.x. _ F - }_i t i 2. ft f Z -t S- - j - 9 , The following meeting highlights are published for your information. FuiT' r a agendas may be obtained from the City-Recorder. 13125 S W: Halt , VW_ Boulevard Tgard Oregon 97223, or by calling 639a4171. a~ F 'a. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING S - ~ - R."i I- MAY 28,1996 c sa z --,a •'TIGARDCITY HALL -TOWNHALL'.. - - 4 F' ~,~¢_a~~'.,F..~z~,~ 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON - . rj~~ j { ) ° Stud Meetug (Red Rock Creek Conference Room) (6:30 P.M) . _ 66 `l # t " a s + Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into x y v k I * t t Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), . q ' ~ r (e). &'(h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions', r !Z I k ; A current and pending litigation issues. € - - r f 11 , ` Agenda Review ~ a y ys > . Y - - - 4F M r~ Irk"`'- t r , Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P'-M4 g - - - Counclt Considemdon VISiUi1hlg Prolect _ - # 'earl t`+1 1' • Engineering Fees Increase ' - R- .Z,pti$ ~ CounctiUpdateJDtscusston xa~a~1z~ ` • Metro 2040 Mike Btuton' F g fl Public Hearings > , t' CfiAN[GE AN - I 'STREET ANNEXAIT NXATION (ZCA) 96-0003 WESTBERN - ,r r a ° Z_ 4 REQUEST The owners7equest annexation to the city of their • - "M properttes; which' total 9.24 acres, "and a changt'of the a M , ti comprehensive plan and zoning-from Washington County R•6 to € k -`k -City.of Tigard Medium Density ResidentiaUR-9: LOCATION: The i r' a~ J, M! A 4''~ ~ C ' western end of S.W. Fem Street immediately east of Ascension "t } ~ ,g , , Drive: - 11-1 "I t' . 00 V. 4 } I TT850i PubhshMay23 1996. I r ,4 4 } C 4Y S - _ 4= i Y'{, Fan ~•,(5.. . 3h k .j J 7' -i~ff? F I %'44 3 s- -a•s [ - s- y ti'r.a --t Z~ I. r L -1, 1 d- y 2 - - ' 3 a r - _ at' z- [ - -5K,1,-.,-k1--. c Y 4 y 5 21j~ ~,i " ~0 ,Fli~~,,J'l -1 , , - Z i'P,~-' ; _t, 12 ~:'..-,~,',,,-,~~.-',~L""L".,.-"~,,-:~,'~~~-.,~-,_-,"-,.,~, -.`,-~:l ~ , :;i : , I. _ _ .1 1- . " ~ , -'-.a r - # - ~ - --f $ X, - j - Y z gyp.., £ H - 1 - r}l }rf S y '-Y 4 - - - f t~ ,1 ~ , , 0 , g, 7 m ,try - t ,-rz. 2 d 4.. - x )Q - Y MiA XRN a'"'-'3 fats &af~''•2~` -c ,:1~;,'t~s«,',r,~,~. .ya.... - .ti='•" `r'Tc - - '1 t£ U.. fia re' x is -_v c,a y"•„kl _ 4 L AD # € Win. ~ ~`r• • ,,fir,. ,'~=i- ~ ..""'ceea+.' - E~^;t~~ "~;.'^4 's. CO UN Y NEWSPAPERS, INC. 4~~al -_s~", P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 IZ E C E Not(yb'TT 8490 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 \ MA , \a 2 U 1996 "'MnAg- N' Y ~d Legal Notice Advertising v~54T a ' CIIYF6F.TIGARD y 1 .City of Tigard • [3 Tearsheet Notice ti 13125 SW Hall Blvd. H v e wi k Fps a •Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit - c .Accounts Payable-Terry • rqh' T~-z ' - 4~ fir- 3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION £r r 3 STATE OF OREGON, r Y r~ 2 tX, ` COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Ps' Kaf-hy Snyder x being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 4I' _ c v z Ss t r. Director, or his principal clerk, of the'r, ~a rA_m„a 1 a+; n mimes E~. a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 an and 193.020; published ar m; gird in the x~ ap s~ id county and state; that the - Z(E16-0003 West Fern reet Annexation R a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in they r entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and t b consecutive in the following Issues: 4 May 16,1996 ' sr .c~J`X~:.~ 1 - 3 1, [ids. °iy° YSw'~ } s Subscribed and sworn t fore me l 11 6th da of rtav 199 OFF!C1.4L DEAL e~l k 3 R06'i A. t 4., .ESS s a } 9 r NOTA.' ' - -OREGON i * a Notary Iic for Oregon d. 024552 sa { s E.YC• 51 rl ..rNESMAY16,1997 a a~ t 3 } My Commission Expires: `gypp "S AFFIDAVITS q§ .-;fit t~ ,7rc x`§ - _ a-'i•.* ) R-5 s. r r x R~°# n 7 t M~P "L' -rv.'A'sr✓ ~..^t~ _ .Tf ~ ~ iut,~tat~>~tt,s ~TX r ~3c` ~'rr5 3 - +`U.'~'~'s.~ua. ,znsur=,,..° a.,.~,..s~»*~..~.•.„-m,,, .--........ap..«,.am.~,~ 77 -t' y d r r-+ M 1T,N ,Es2 4 ~YS C = 1 3 1 5- "'*c 3 1 'S i bR 4 b may. il 5 -f F' RS 'x ¢f7 'L '"~E.?r'"tr#St->d, ~ ,at Y ~r L 1- T - -k- } q ~ S Mr, M f2 v x ? r •s/ y - y - t tx l - + r t .a f VMOS 44",% ¢ a - t 5 ~e.*...r--'+-^a.-r rr.~c-t'^-+m--~+~s.•v~e^r^ l-.-r __^"-~x.''rv - A Z : - _ - - - - t .~..✓-'~,'-t~"-sT"d"~'siw.&a3-v :wa^.av-.x .,..:....s+~_.r .............«,.+,.,»....s..s_>«-ww.t.w...n.s..wy.>a.~..,...u.-...+i ,._v,.:..+..W.,......~-....... _ The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on May 2& ]296> at 7:30 jL. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 $.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is ' invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance f with the rules of Chapter18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules F and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or ? by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request of failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Farther information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (593) 639.4171. ~r PUBLIC HEARINGS rwt ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0003 & WEST FERN STREET ANNEXATION REQUEST: The owners request annexation to the city of the'r properties, which total 9.24 acres, and a change of the comprehensive plan and 1 zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium peitA Residential/R.7,.LOCATION: The western end of S.W. Fern Street. immediately east of Ascension Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive . i ' Plan policies 2.1.1: citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity, ` - 1 10.1.2; boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community j Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements, and 18.138, land classification of. annexed territory. ZONE; Presently, t Washington County. R-6. 3 t j-LU r~ { a x n L r-' z ',t t F i T } i ~ at . a Q k - F a t r k F tt "i tr'' - ;,may • ~ _ _ S 7i O 1 Via m MAP -A t- 7T8490 - Publish May 16. 1996. 1r - *~i tit - i t i, r -,r- - - - _ - - a , _a- 5as- - s r r - - - - - - r _ - - r , - ..s 'CZ~ ~Z s Rf t _ LL""W NaSis~?.v.«.:,....- h:evu_%✓ ..a....._.._...- -..~.-..v...~_.._.....-~._.. d' ^Pt''A`y`~ L ° _ .71 f F f 3 xx,L ''4 3 Z y,`; 3T Ys- L.t 5 ~ L- t!" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON * ` , Q ? m s T; AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING , ~K ' x ;A - ±~t' ti m sz - i. _ ~ 11 In the Matter of the Proposed - ; cy ~3 3L 111.11" I - # w Hwy rl ^xF, .-.~`r f - < t 4' ~ ` STATE OF OREGON ) ~`j4 ~ r ' ~ k ~ ' - County of Washington ) ss. a"_ w g-v Nz - fi City of Tigard ) N j q-jq- ' s +a - y g'am' x i " begin first duly sworn, on oath, ` - T a, ; depose an say: %fi~ 1-11 -1 ~ € i i That I po ed in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance ? Number (s)- ~ ` A s_ y,& ~ i i k t< " - ? which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 'M (V KA 9%, 1 ~ ~ copy(s) ~1 ' ~ ~ t } ~ R ; of said ordinance(s) berm ereto attached and by referencq made a part hereof, on the _ ~ 7 01 , , y day o , 19 q ~odr u t x ' - 'y'.rs~- - 51' 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ri I- ` I } ~,'~"i~'~. Y -s 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon P ~ n ~V' Y E 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon q, 7" , W' ~ _ L - ~ - Y 1 _ r $ # .-fix, in t- "i 3Y z Il~'T.-t I Subscribed and sworn to before me this -day of , 19 9 , ~ . r w x[ ' m~ } 6f r r i M v}~§ k - C'FFICIALSEAL ' aC` 3xa Notary Public f Oregon . M JO ANN HAYES ¢ i _ - NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 'F - s - F sz L-- k ~V e-,~ ~+r coMMISSION EXPIR SNMAV os 999 My Commission Expires: kne-, 5}(44 9 - ~T ' ~ I t w 1-{° V xa ~i ,3. ,521, t'a r z 5 a- L•ladmVotaffpxt.doc 7- 1 c- ~s% '..J a ~'V'~ ~j':f , `i'!~ ~ r~7 ] ii~,,~,,~,;,~~-,,~,,~,~~,,,,~iO~~-,"Z,'.~~:,^~',,~~ - ix is f't 5 '•d ~ 54,tSi * 'F_ t r"*. - .,n _ 'fit - 4 d t g~ K 1 S f d „F,' - d Y _ 1 y t fh y„ 1 ~l aF 3 _ I - x x M1 I, - r} rim' 111 L $ 4 _ is { n 3 fa € - c x x - t is '6t r.. r A - r' Yv R" r r q _ _ `T - y 4Vs t x L ro x ir'"2 M " , - - - - Y ~ - r+s~^ma--,_-rrrn> -?•.a~-a~-"~-•---t.v. ~,,,~a--~-' '-r`---r-r- r., ,--`T'^--r-_ yr~ --r-~" ~ . - - - - -7P; 4 F - t4 . I i - , 1 , ~ , - 1,10 EIN 'F T R z 'CkL-.evL _ _ E r~ -y 7 - }cjY' y _ -s r v 'tt r, R t d+-S..F-"+~..v ~ a s s r'' s fir eIr` r - x~, - - t k:~~ ~ 1~ I, ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a ` -r t x" 11 - - 3 f - ORDINANCE NO. 96 ~I At 3 mod'' ~ '1Vm'~) . _ -,r'~~~~ u AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND`. v n DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0003). a - y ' u V? a; - - n - t « ?I WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearino on May ?a 1496 to co „sides a zon'^~ z } r designation for four parcels of land located along SW Fern Street east of Ascension Drive; and y IN ~ r & ' { ` C^ f' --k'm' k'MJ WHEREAS, on February 13, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the F-.;° sg - t t proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and Of J 1 4 WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached r ~t-'; z, staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land ? * ,x use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium - s, Density Residential. - y z - THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: x s ,,r r " -at.~i~ - f ' v: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: k t1, 'e 'n- a a q Tax-Map, L Current Land F " ` $ a Lot Number Use New Land (Ise t W; 11 , _ _tµ-- t-1 iY;SJ al r3 - fir 2S1 46C; lots 800, 1600, Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential , i n 1700 and 2000 -ry I - Current Zoning New Zoninn°' x Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7- w t ~ ~3 a SECTION 2: h u4 f~ This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, °j signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. - 4 b , { PASSED: By unQfttnltvote of all Council members present after being read by number and title p qAy, this u'' nnday o 996.rt"` I f e _ Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde y~ x APPROVED: By Tigard City r Council this? tla o t Y 6. r , Jam coli, Mayor Y c kf ' A roved a to f , { _k Attorney / 1- = Fs " r Date s V--- > tom- E ~:J ivtplnYaylZCA96-03.ad. 5l15,'%4:7aPM -tac s-.'.uRy £ 1 j v „ ORDINANCE No.96-a-t - Page 1 f - Ni l s t 8"i" F C ~ iy I L ^L~ W vA - a Qt' } is 4 tF !Y~ Z _ _ s _k~{y ` - - , " ~ , - - ~ - - , ~r, , , , _ , f ,_.r ~ _,L_-,~ z~,,, , , , . {F l~r 5 J R S qy r''' ~i 'L{ ,2ty N~ N - - ( - S - - ref ' six tf - _ _ - _ - - F - .s: r - r- f a _ y 3 t y; t- t ; >nt 5'1 fr K 5 - (sr' r V 3,y-}f -l -x~ a j„ s, - t 4 - ,t t r K - } s - - N`r~ 1- t 29 r f Y - - - - L r -~i- - "-.rte` 1"f _r'_~_•w.2. - 'T"'.' _4£`~5~-_"r_ - I { YiF_ - ..L _ f - '4 *`Y, to - c„ _ 1~ I i - x - V~-~.,, ,F. " - , " , " , ~ - ~ . , ~ , ~ ~ . fl " .1 -1 Alz s x~?.~ s _ t t-' ~ it- Y,.' ~ v ;tr, y'~~NN=dam` , t rs,.tx _ k L _ - 3. A - _ - - e 'fi k_ , F t . -L~`' a~`va .Y;nlu ice. ~.~___~.-....~-_~••:+:%:c.+.. , . r....,.......< .,._.....r.._.. - q T i% AGERIl3 tTEl~f NO$ 2 - VISIT012'S AGENDAz DAT :t' MeY 28:'189 K h`3 ` z,, ~ x,' = (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) t j 'S'd P. Yty 7#^ ~di 1 4 P ~ - S ; Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear k + _ h'h' .11 - 5 from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your $ , , : concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the t ± meeting. Thank you. I , , rte ti. - A Y- a AD - - _ r s STAFF ' E`7 , NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED `02k x}`$ a =~w,tr 1.~ y /4c 0 S^ 6r vSV PQF( rk I Of 4 ~)•(1 I/r C ~1 t wrL 1 ~1~ i 4 r L' b _ , r t. S rr ` --'._x'==793. s k ` ' Av n -7 IV' I _11110 R. s. N--"F' ~ F, ~-_',F s t - r h R- . w ? flM , ~ ~qqpg_ t M't .11 , .11 i IN x Fa s c'~ } n s Nz.", . _1 11 t' s Y t~ C La rP ,irk fi ~hrs 11 - I 11 c am, 'r ' t , x F M z a x k Y µ ~i - Nt 3 - s .-P,r ~ ,s A k r , a ~ y > , ¢ # r c a t c E s V f:ladmljolvieitaht.dx r,-t - "'33~ 1 K „ F a s a s E.ac _ aW j 1 'F` J Y-q F - 11 ~l.,~~-";~~~~~-,~,,~!~',?~"~~"g", ~ i ` ,~7f.~_ " , ~ - 1, - , il -1 Y - i F \ z v. / r 3 ~ ,{c,. ' , , , E; , , - - . . r I . ~ - ' , ~ ~ .r 1 ' p. -S- r - r,' , ' fi'x c { kl% ! - a 5 , 'S 4t - J ( T '#.s Z e' Y T'n F S F V 3 C t ^6 y ^tr r, -r J f f ,k, rl,4~ ~~t ~ I - - . ~ ~ - - ~ - t~~'_ , 1,1'Zi ~ffl M --'i" r L X -1 r"`'"~:v`.3 ire 1'x 1 r j , 4-1 xd - ,''11 e "m .`i.P S~f~ c r , c~ - f - ''`dtC -$q 2a r _ ' t ss~r"i~:'r~.y,,i' M~ x -t`- t ` z Rfi Sk-o'',... "€3 ?3a'~~s i ' fb i f x 4 ' - { r- - 4~- 11 a -f §z ?fit.. ; A,a d' `aw?c~4' » Y H - - - - 4 a"t Tr r•, - , t Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of x i ` 'x = r ~ t< . time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may s 11 _ 5 -K> ~ I further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement s i t s - oral testimony. , ,r3 ~T~"r' -n'-sTi' - -x' p 3 i f . m I ~,F AGF.LmiDA.iTENi.NO« _ ~i?ATE.4LM~y;~8,,1996_0 ~b - f ~YF~ 4_ jy `f ''Fgtrp ' .r ,V r ' PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0003 WEST' a ~ i Vlt' c Y _ _ FERN STREET ANNEXATION f ` s ` F - fi REQUEST: The owners request annexation to the city of their properties, which total 9.24 acres, and a a , _ ~ ~ V- - change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium 3 -a r il , Density Residential/R-7. LOCATION: The western end of SW Fern Street, immediately M x east of;,;~r_ a ~ ~ ~ t" ° . r,$ ' - Ascension Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The re r ¢ levant review criteria in this case are ~ ~ x r--` ~ Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, a U , 3 boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, ~ , s _ rk 7 ~ Washington County R 6 requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, F ~ h - a °yIt~~ r #*~Yrr # > > ° r ` r Y - - 'Y 'S i Ri- F,°-~ ,"I PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS n p 11 ,7 `ALE { 'f r "r4ytE ads , 11W - r e fax. y,t .f t ~ ~ ro Ttn ti S _ y - i" 1 ..t -1i hI y , i ! A K 1 fl 'M1 33'd A {~lfi't"' Sg V - ,....s. fit` 1 4h F _ 4- !Y' ~H t ds-.-- - fly "",.4sff' k' s Y_ f r-rsY - J• x'' - der f rt - ~ i , > i~ p u s -r' -a o 9 - 1- l s ~ +k s.^ s~~ ' '4_ ``~X"+~ r 'f'° - 's`at 12s~~hh `ti, i f`- - ! y dEL ,F - - , 5 - C i 3 Ty E W , - , - - , - - , " ti sa-xr - - r _ r v 1 r+- - a t- 5 W ~ t~ P ' z s M 3~~ r 'M g yc,,,~t~.,+x 1,g R,'~~ 4 - t _ y i s " s5' the t` ,Piig~ a 11 - &x`- 7 I` _ "t om - I'll _ PLEASE PRINT C F ' ~ ~ ) " , +~;',r 7 Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) w 3, ~ " „i" t~'' N { - F' k {ed "ate } r ; Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Addre s and Phone No Cca 'crw'' _ I~S " - k c t-l E w+ t _ 'i ~ , - I V"C IYt C V~ - K,; nt C c r` i ~ T t sc t t atex (a z 3, m t, er - "au. c, A _ Name sddra and Phonn Nn, ~ s- xr,G, - t) n.y - ~ ~ ~ „y-~,y'-i y i...-y uuaw w......w.c No. , _ E`~`~'~T`~~a~ ' ya ! s x Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. t s ~ h- t Y ; t a- f - 41 -F, t': a Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. d s r £ - ,A_ . j ~Fte= i# WA ~A 3t i s~y~~'"K,~,~, ~5 C ¢ g Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. , r~s~ } 4 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.'s s 4 Y"> t , ` REF` z~ IM xF Yt 4 ' Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ~.4 ~ k t 1~ I ~ F , s Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. , _-tMA [4[ d I ~ Y Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j r _1 t; r t s°-,-~ > I c - 1 ')~~*""'~'41'~;t~?;~~' - f ~ $ - 1 7 -~9~ k/ n? wN y SZr { , f -"wt~' 1 Y { ~9~A. 3 l '4a1„ 7 { h f 4 e- {fr tv 'n'{~ v77a I 'T' R~?ra34 -f _ t -a-x~fi~e r5 a-,-fit '.{ii f t'tr r - ,r-,- ,2- zs r - .a is- - s s3 L k ! ~._.-0x % s r ,-r 1 d eez - l Y t~ Ate,- # 5 hi 5 f" S /rk k 33 x - a, s - I 1 q Y S -1 _ f 1 t E. 3 X-"~"11'11 ~ ~ t w. - m,-k t" - _ - - - - r4 i ti - `w- s w xh F c > - ti- `"vii I'll x z. - t - ' s C-ear 1 n-s'. 'h 4`r Y t - ~ . .rwi+ .p _..,,.t, - T +f - z;?q ~,tft 4 , a x r Jy: ' ~4z5 `j rv P-- F CITY /h S -i' h4 t4 rEl ~r'1I OF ~'V ® C mztA tzj < May 29.1996 OREGON s - s j' _ _ - ~_'r`:`` "'le1f.> - "yvu _ MPA Fh: t : t,$ Metro Regional Center LC.~ W • - , 600 NE Grand Avenue i 3 Portland, OR 97232-2736 r r, e- } act, ~.#ri°L- _ a Dear MPAC Members: < - ' ~ W 5 3 a On behalf of the Tigard City Council, I am forwarding the following comments and concerns regarding the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. --9 - - 3- ' cii t t sa s < The Tigard City Council recognizes the need for regional planning to deal with growth issues thata as ' affect the livability of the area for everyone. The Council recognizes that Metro's charter V- empowers Metro to lead the efforts to create his regional plan. For Metro to succeed, it isi ,,,j necessary that Metro engage local govemments. It is we who must balance the needs of the err - ti.. region with the needs and desires of our citizens. We recognize that success in handling regional - 4 issues can only occur if Metro and local jurisdictions forge an effective partnership. Metro may a, - fv cam,, develop a variety of plans, but it is the cities that will have to execute the plan. Accordingly, it is in » 4 .117 xi our interest to be heavily involved in creating the tune to which we all must march. Tigard intends to participate as a full partner in this process. r,v mss? ` - ,t N = y.. h } ~ We are very dissatisfied with the time that we have been given to address this important issue. ~ 0°' t a We consider our comments to be preliminary at this point, and expect to continue to respond to -f max' r -11 _ further drafts of the document. With the amount of time that we have had to review the document ~ ~ , and the document as it exists today, we cannot support approval of the Functional Plan. 111, O,~ r Our comments are in two parts- First, we wanted to provide the philosophical basis for the second n part of our comments which are specific requested changes to the Urban Growth Management -A " Y Functional Plan. ~k . ' i Public Process in Tigard ~ g s Since the draft of the Functional Plan has been available, the City Council has been briefed on a ~ r W monthly basis, with two work sessions on the content of the Plan. Additionally, the City hosted a { I- I forum for Washington County jurisdictions to discuss the Plan with Metro's executive officer. k,,- K , -`z4~ ; , + L 1 bb - { - 4 h its City staff has met with each of the C.I.T's (Citizen Involvement Teams) during the month of May to T 3 r f aX ` ` } j provide an overview of the Functional Plan. In addition, staff have developed an informational r d questionnaire (attached) to provide an avenue for written public comments. 3, , ,i - F With this letter, we intend to summarize the input that we have received on the Functional Plan to pI this point. Some Vf the Issues have been previously presented to NI-PAC and the ivietro Council, i- ~...1x.., r: f but bear repeating at this time. a% I f I .1 r f'_- , F ~-r , ".rrr 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1 . ,r r w r;sr J- tb- {li;y stay a t t k 1. 1 L" - v'v~^' A31R -M"tG^ mNH"'•"m" - 7-- l k .!C JJ# i n l 'a - 2- - it .y`-~r _ - - M1 1 - r' S -...1 #Y 1 - i,f .~i *.d t l ~ 1, _ , U ~ I ~ _ ' . : ~ _ ' - r~ ~ ~ " , I . , ' ' ' - - , ~ ' ~ . , v , - - ~ - ~ ~ ` 2i V , s YE { _ { k& Y f4 _ .1- 1 ~v E1 I ~f F F ["Iri I . , ~ y' z- , 6 _-ems. - .-1i . - .'t- - _ _ - r - _ F - si k '`*..ay'' :z~, G V= t qs' - r........,.w.u..,..a.x _ _.~..»w.~~. ii: ak ? >;,~.„€,t y k.'w E .......Kw.,.,rzx=amaa.~aw,..a.`_..-_~..-._ _ { r ~t IF } 'bt1 1 3 S ' l _ I R _h - I - k - •l t r , Issues with the Functional Plan a ° Z , k- - - - ' - Governance and Local Control` # y_" £a ,-;~~-,j~'~..,-,~s~~,~~,~~,'~~t".-, - - [1_ , . : X > The Functional Plan will require local jurisdictions to adopt many of its elements into their a ' , ' comprehensive plans. This moves decision making further away from citizens and property tj s , owners of a municipality - the very people who will be affected by these decisions regarding J s y - 2 land use and growth. Although Metro has provided the opportunity for public input in the form° x t of regional public open houses, and despite the local efforts to provide information regarding t b ~ 4 r - - - the Functional Plan, the reality may be that the majority of citizens in Tigard will first become { , _ aware of the changes associated wan the Plan when comprehensive pion arid' local ~ ' ordinances are amended to implement the Functional Plan. There is great concern that City t ; 'k F' - 4 r . . , Councils and local policy makers will be required to implement code and plan revisions over rE 1 r t ft- - which they have no control and have had little ability to impact. We have raised this concern Y,n; , t § 5 - ~ k ti consistently throughout the process. = sy Metro's current means for gathering input from municipalities is MPAC. This structure does E } Fr'~~ 3 - a not fully serve the needs of the City. Because its rote is primarily to advise rather than to - f , govern, MPAC does not allow cities to have a direct say in policies that will govern their future. z °xt ,r Not only does Tigard lack direct input to Metro, it also lacks direct input to MPAC. A structure a-4 k, - r ` having one representative serving several cities in Washington County implies that the ^ ar,''` . jurisdictions have no differing or conflicting interests. Metro must develop better ways for -rte k s cities to provide meaningful input so that each distinct community has a voice, r- ~ w , r k~ xi ~ d t ti ~'y f Life Style Opportunities e~-w j - fi - .l,ti The Functional Plan, by determining what particular design type and density is appropriate for F I the entire region, does not allow the lifestyle opportunities that Tigard has always had the ,z' ;x.<--T . ability to provide. That opportunity includes not only the ability to provide for a dense, urban ,.ji : l - rya 4 ` ; - - ; - r living environment, but also the ability and place to provide large lot, upscale developments, a , ,r variety of retail opportunities and convenient parking and access to customers and residents. a~ This expected life style also includes some historic agricultural uses that are a part of Tigard's ' - ` ~ x,`T F history. - , g~ _ a The City of Tigard's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance currently contain the ability to w , ~as~ i househo asked us t mmodate marketrreality howeverb is that we arelcu haseloping at abou~40 %of the a towable Q~"~.~4' s " - comprehensive plan and zoning density. This tells us that the new residents of Tigard are ` A r x coming here seeking a particular life style that includes a neighborhood of a particular density. i+- ~ We intend to continue to offer that opportunity. If, in five years, we find that we are continuing T _ ~4`W g i to build out at a lower density than allowed by our codes or assigned to us by Metro, we do t ° ` - not want to be faced with Metro enforcement procedures. Therefore, we object to limitations r't fi ~ ` f~ x ' o- , _ which would force us to not only ignore market conditions, but create densities which are ` W o- objectionable to our public. ' t r m - s - The proposal to limit retail uses in employment and industrial areas to 50,000 feet of gross ~ - 1 M leasible area also limits the life style choices in Tigard. The 'big box" industries provide a service of economically priced goods that are an important choice for Tigard residents. f r -T ' E C Additionally, current providers of commercial facilities often contain a variety of "retail uses" _ s.~..,..~-.~_ _„_,.:i 11 - _ _ under one roof which could conceivably be counted as separate retail users, thereby avoiding a T_7 ' " r, the limitation. Again, we cannot ignore the market. Why create limitations and rules that will , ? F cause imaginative property owners and retailers to create innovative ways to comply with F i } r - -k r A yi 2 w - -'as tt• - 3 - l 2-,- 3Dv-Z ~ t { 1 - - - --'1.` f'r r ~ € r ry t. f ' - ` ski Z K h 7 a 1 } t _ I '1_1 ' - ' : ,.t, r 1~1 I ~ ~ . I , ~ . . , , : 1. , - - M - % - , - - s = p - - - s=-a! k S k ~ s _ - - £ - - ~gJr fir' ' _ ,1 -k €«~`•.~"'st*r'X ,,...v...,.,_ ..t .......L~. .e..~.._.,+.`.....,. r f i;t-s -4.,kr",$€' i- ,1-" rye F 1 f+'._h' ` ~ ~ tY w artificial limits while "getting around them.° Also, the 50,000 square foot limit may work fora i tf ~ g~ a 9 jS> developed Portland, but not for a thriving retail based suburb. p a t s 4 x r, - ~ Transportation Issues ' s q . S~- a~'~ v tut~''~;' - _ As a growth concept that relies heavily on the availability of transit, the Functional Plan's , ~ 8 ~ i Y 3 _ p is- ? - - = limitations on parking and requirements for regional accessibility and density assume that y g',~ - - ` transit is a readily available resource to the citizens of Tigard. While this may be true in other t , r t< ` 0t);K'7 t z jurisdictions in the Metro region where substantial investments have or are being made in light t- `T s - Rs 1- ° rail, this is not true in Tigard. With limited ability to access public transportation, the City t f,-,,`; ; : "u',"'," ` s a should not be required to assume the same regional share of population as other jurisdictions. s mac' d ~ p street design concepts lsthat Metro othatthereois a (common design gforState transportation facilities that rI: r are a part of Tigard's transportation network. With input from the City, a common vision for k;M, .qf - 'o " ` i t€a , ' the appearance, transportation capabilities and funding strategy for State facilities must be 5 ~ , provided. The locations and cost for providing the "Boulevard Design' as envisioned in the - , 3 ' j Functional Plan must be resolved. ~ { 11-1 _ A,,, :.`cL. - = jj ..4y4 r)c1-ay.'<' o.j- get . IN' ? k , , • Clarity of Regulations Understanding that the Functional Plan in its current form continues to be a draft that will a. change after the public input in May and June, holes still exist in the regulations that make F_V n~ ~°y~ 11 x comment difficult. For instance, the Title relating to Water Quality and Flood Management ~ g 2 a r~ s < 'I i includes an option to adopt the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management model ordinance. N ~ .t, 4, } This ordinance has not yet been developed. In the Definitions section, definitions such as t P 11 "economic infeasibility" and "prior commitments" which figure into the determination of the s . pp City's compliance have not been developed. Opportunity must be provided for careful review ' a e and comment on those sections of the draft which have not to date been available to us. ~ _ r r . - - • Unfunded Mandates a . _ ` A 1 ` Obviously, the work associated with amending comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances - - [ f' ! to comply with the requirements of the Functional Plan will place a heavy burden on the staff . , ± -a of the City. The financial assistance of Metro on provision of staffing to accomplish this work , , 31. s is necessary. We estimate that at least $250,000 will be necessary to complete the work , - a n , required by the Functional Plan. We have no resources to fund this work. , ~ IV, 4 six Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue. The decisions t Fxr o t that are made will greatly impact the current and future residents of Tigard and we intend to stay sr f t a 4 € - -j v very involved in the process. ~ E'~ ~ ' Tom, r i ~ # 1 - i Sincerely, c . ~ 2 i b ¢ JY E b - 'ry i. R 4 - r r x x. , rr r ~ y Jim Nicoll, ~ ~ i .1 - a Mayor , , ,ynx - rr 1 y' _ 3 c L, s ° r c { € L k - j 4 , ~,~r- - , x r Attachments r, y+..r '-a., r't E 0, ~ -e r r - - - g +r ice„ x»7, - 1 3 ? 5 a s, r f , a;'t-0?' ar s - ' f{ £ dr f a , - ~ : , , , N , 1,,~, ` f 1 k - `T-y Y 's ,4+r -fn'x „ ~ fir q i a- t } _ "2' rt~ } ; y Y, ' t f. 1 L t -.J J Q V -I rs"r'K6- r r+ + r 5 ' r t ~ 11 , 111111111111111111111111110 { E_ _ - - r_ 7 . _ . - - ±i - - - -1 - - _ . w ..w - 4 ~ ~ - ta { l -:;fiua *.z''°3r-k h. 'aa - 1 rs 'k - - - r x ` x~ r y'""`~ 1 ! a e x~ a^ to k g -fix g~'^.1t ,,.4§"''cx } x r y 's F S` i - _ s i r^3 F sr F 5? 'A L ~ ~ks~ta, - „ _ { K'.~n" - , t , a Fwt S A - --t '0~ , { > MEMORANDUM t . a r ~ -t r"- - ` a ,any ~ ! - - x CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON xk ' adz t _ ~IICJ1'~ t a ~ Iu°'v J ' t Agenda Item No. t*= z ' TO: Bill Monahan F.. ,7~ Meeting of 5 ID S ht, 1 xr ° V FROM: Greg Bevy Y kF t z"., r s z e~, I -k DATE: May 20, 1996 r ry " h ; - Y 7 4 r ~ J, ~ _ I rr - SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Engineering Fees for Private Development l , ~ g ,q e _ y € ;2 4 - 7 Discussion: f ' c am` _ ~s~ fr P 11 ' Er Over the past two years, the Engineering Department has reviewed the fees charged to developers fors V ,'„,v j reviewing plans, inspection of construction, and other efforts required for city acceptance of privately hkrt ¢ p° --*N ==i'' ± `„':'`i construction public improvements. Currentl developers charged of ° ~"='µ'4 ~Z~$,q - y, are a fee 4/o of the estimated cost 1"•A , ti s - - ; 11, of the public improvements. Preliminary studies have revealed that the current fee is insufficient to t v; f ' cover current cost. .,,'~zyV r 10 The proposed fee is based upon the expected cost of $356,556 for providing this service during FY ~ys'f~r 11 .1 I 96/97 as shown on the attached table of cost provided by the Finance Department. The general fund , r revenue anticipated from the current 4% fee is $300,000 as shown on the attached portion of the FY Ir i 4 _ 96/97 proposed budget. Increasing the fee to 5 would increase the anticipated revenue to $375,000; - I sufficient to cover expected expenses. This fee appears to be in line with other jurisdiction as I&Z-re I. summarized on the attached table. a ` x~ e; i N Procedure fro- ta'i~,.,~- t Unlike the recently revised Community Development fees, the Engineering public improvement fee is 1 - ,1 r, set out in the Community Development Code. Consequently, any revision to this fee is a legislative z '4 change that must comply with Chapter 18.30, Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative. ' Sr I- 1j, 7~ ' k - The revised fee could be placed with other similar fees in the TMC at Chapter 3.32, City Fees and u- ~ i I 11 w P a Charges. The fee increase proposed here complies with the method of determining fees set out in this !'M - 1:11. Z11 chapter. ' e -xxg k E - F' s - , y a s vi ~ 2".-k' The next proposed step is to request public comment from interested persons and submit summary of4 ri p , the comments to Council. R ti ' ; - 11 ,i . d t - e r r Request 'r J{.5 r S. - I", s ° That staff be directed to request comments from interested persons. Additionally, direction is requested I FS` N ~ as to whether the revised fee should remain in the CDC or be transferred to Chapter 3.32 of the TMC. = 1" r. x)>t a i ' ,S With this direction, staff will also prepare a schedule for adoption of the proposed 5% fee. f - t, 1 l --y .~i,- a as s S ~yy3 f.1 ,4 P ' t5 S rv 3-]11 t - .yo- d _ Y.. - t _ - } . - y i'_ - t . 'w ~~;;-,'~4~ L . , I " - ~ - , . J.- . `1-1- . , " . ~ . -1 b r(y 2-' _ i.yT a f ssazk t a ' c ' - ii' f r . ' X 4 ''tk* J - t Y ! T ~i 11- -11 - - t.c. _ :s .s :...c. "~..1 ~Z- I- ~ 1, - - - - I I- -1 . ~g1. xt h. t j +t. y h - ..,~.~a - ~`t .r a r' ' .t# 'b 3G,},, s" ' -+y k 1 ' -S ° 's r x z~ ~ - ~ a 't' 'U - ss' - a ~ I F r h ti r tr' £ t, a- 7 F~ 4A4 i,- r-.,#;. E i at, _ t t - ' ~.r ~.'etie .r y '~rE a'• 'h_ 1 - :3 " u r,s^ t ~ - c.,,_t.~ 3 J ' t '°r~"t, 'tea t + ..T , , J Il'k' .In a 74 1 GFREV P 'M 4K #r y.g 1996/97 Proposed Budget W-A :p',t° , City of Tigard, Oregon - ~ -sue } q N I., General Fund #10 `s 'c ~t _It L - s , #c ; Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Approved Adopted xs„ z ~ ~`'G r r - r Aeet# Description 1993194 1994195 1995/96 1996/97 1996197 1996197 "-r " k9 .=00 Current taxes 3,773,257 4,095,978 4,255,200 6,304,200 -+y2R - s. t- . - t t 11 1 . . a 401000 Prior year taxes 175.451 129.152 135.000 135.000 ' k~ ,„4 }a s?7 '*sx x, - ra E ..ras.xiMa ~W-t`.Y+ ' 't - Totes Property Taxes 3.948.708 4.225.130 4,390.200 6.439,X0 Mir - her ' ~E' a~T1 a ya"41 1- 404000 Federal grants 35,000 35,000 m?t .4 , d mg ~ t - 410000 Cigarette tax 93,272 95,560 92,000 92,400 z, 't . A~_" . ~~z+,y . Y~ f " ^+y.: ri 477000 Uquor tax 229,218 240,870 254,000 244,650 s r `c 2` a ~ k 412000 State revenue sharing 198,631 204,142 196,600 200,000 "Q `-4- r.g' `"I r `,~'4 o' % I -1 ` j"•i: ash 1, y, ~ - 414000 State grants 91152 15,350 24,170 3,500 ~ z ,ti -11 ~i.. , i * cy _ 3 414010 Metro Greenspaces Grant z t' ` - W r ~F 111. 11 % --f 414020 State LCDC grant 6,250 - - ~ - F y 4~,t ft _ 415000 971 Emergency tax 64,797 95,793 89.000 92,400 -t > ; - t 420000 HoteVmotel tax 284.493 372,384 355,000 395,000 - - V 1 J' M MIN k, _ £ 421000 County - USA 5,000 - - r a I- " s; &r, 3 422000 County - WCCLS 655.476 730.791 743.000 937.000 +.$s. 3 ' -4 V`i {1'u' x - Total Other Agencies 1.541.289 1,699,890 1.788.770 1.999.950.'* K x } rR - - 11 1-1 -j.~~y,~ ~ tn! V - 430000 Business tax 168,872 172,741 165,000 175,000 k a' u~'" >z --a 431000 MechanicaVPlumbingpennlts 142,361 139,939 126,000 # 't, °t"' on+rrgC r ` 432000 Building permits 445,698 352,718 327,290 y,,,p - i z *r ~ TT - t. _ Q 433000 Building plan check fee 278,221 230,012 104,970 a. ~ ~ t 1 ..y~- ~ y"<,, - 433010 Fire life safety plan check fee 532 10,006 46.230 - 3 - I 11 -44r' tom w - - ~''x 433020 Plumbing plan check fee 5,762 40,001 10,830 .-zi! =.a? ~-y tern" a n+ .^;g u' - J 433030 Mechanical plan Check fee 8,4603>,•rr,.,y. -r r t _ 433050 Erosion control plan check fee 9,350 . ' t - sx >h" ~s.r - - 434000 Alarm Permit 5,145 26,077 15,000 15,000 r t 1v,~rs -t r v , 435000 Liquor permit fees 3,175 3,250 3,000 3,000 - - ` 436000 Engr. public improvements 246.319 140,681 200,000 300,000- 11 - e _ 4 437000 Sign permit fees 4,840 3,873 3,600 3,000 t~,.c, E - 438000 Land use application fee 32,029 39,486 36,000 150,000 -a x?. _ ~ t- * _ 439000 Research applip6on fee 200 4~, ' . ~ _ J 1- Q 440000 Uen search fees 40,485 26,132 36,000 30,000 .1 .1 lie 'f t7 - _ vx,-t1. < ,y*- - 447000 Recreation tuition 18,402 2,634 ~'k'~ F -Ak , 'M 441000 Sewer inspection fee 14,045 12.350 ~Rt ~ 1, - tv, 'f 451000 Misc. fees & charges 17,755 41,428 25,000 25.000 '1 i r - a 452000 Park reservations 15,569 19,174 72.000 12.000 FF'- r + '4' r Total Fees & Charges 1.425.165 1.262,407 1.221.080 713,000 EbRlr y am. s E i _ -..c.:- s it ga^, - ~ ~ia '1 rsY. 'r t~ f F-r p:~~ &ZAR `L sc z X f ! `.I r r x r., Lim r *~„Si . f rx4° I _11 ] 11 a fi~ t K 0} v t ' t r s 57 Y4~t$ X53 - rv y, '1' `+,...,y, t O try -e" 0 t, . _ -4,412, ~'^u,,-- 1~'r"'S J 43 / y G 'mow- o-.'4 It '~r - s "z2tr ~ - i. -z2~»- R ,a.- .w sa- 2-~m"'"°"..~",~`_, s"b.,.' F - T.r~y. ,{~.i 'xiYy` sax -,a ,ry •G. kl e t~- Or F - ---+.`°'ro+-~.,,~-w + a ~r' K '!";1..''3{dY-,~~' is x •'s ~',"~t~~'§-_ -s~, ~r t a s *f " 't -t " ' !"~3--~',,xf #'y i f' -u~ z. „W~, ,y.L t',~'`vi, ~,N - f > t } z '4„ ~"`7"' 4a, - 11 jr~ s i ~~,x s r /y" arses a ! n"" Lek 3 ,tic -r- s a°s' f 1ly J't .ht I - ~4 ,Arg,^`t fir _ t -ti { t - i t ~p T k"-.z : 't, # r _ r ~p ~*~r" 11 r t 'i AS - ~ 't `'ar, _ Y. - - r c- r S 7 ,tom' rl~ Yom.` 1 - § ~-"k .Y3. t v 'ka~ w g d - •J _ t F t r"x I,tr4 r , w Q '4 , ' - - 11 , x .rs°-u it d^: ."°+r 1 t°V,^ ,:y •yu^,% °afx eE'C .,arm = w^ : 'x , `,,c yea ~'syr, e.Y ~L _ 6.~ •~2i C" ~u d. :'S •e$ , S. F' t t ttgg- °r<x { u{«" n,yF- :,.It, art. .iF.:..4ry•• f- ~-»Y"f ta, L Y.. ial: f"n: - " ta+'^a+'n .1 ~:Lrw ,rF.t 1 d v-1.w f` ~u 4. viii .'d. ~ • :y . f,, I •ri. e. FPa t w'•a r, a,€ ,yde S 4, "1 'ai . W Y € a 7 ~ -w "Lr f V ~ "t1F iMw ~ 'Ar y'- rr , t a x'. •'Jt t. f- 1 i rr• , '~f °iI1 t 4~ L ( z,r - t~• r. '.I' _ d L.. eras rvd r .aF it- •'1_' to ,t =rn a & _ 4l A=.. R ~jn A• i 6 " 'r _ 3 _ 'S i i cYP;+ u' & , f~'£`,u~dt~ i;h. •'f._r ,a,aa,., 1?r Y 9 Y)^. Lrrw v _ : ; ~ a: I, • is . - _ _ '`f' ;;f '~'xa'-+t` +t: k 01F t. ..Y+. .',r, ~a ..+..+'..w rc - %5,,.. ,{rip'F;::.. •sE', .ad'T f,f°;~ F d , Sheetl "XI 17, 4 Engineering Private Development Analysis of Costs projected 1996/97 4/19196 r 3 t r ' Portion 1996/97 Estmate 1 S f Direct Costs Chargable Wage/Ben c Staff`'- J Brian Rager _ Dev Review Engineer 100% 61,784 61,7841 i John Hagman _ (Tech III 100% 58,854 _ 58,854 Letha Thomas _ Tech 11 100% 43,755 43,755: } Paul liatt { ~Tech II 100% 47,062 47,062{ ` Vacant City Engineer 5% 91,334 4,567 z Diane Jelderks Admin S 5% 42,677 2,134 t Proposed New Tech II 100% 44,934 44,934 V f 4; Vacant Tech I 759/6 46,281 34,711 , "1 Greg Berry Project Engineer 30% 67,248 20,174 ; John Hadley Tech III 20% 52,663 10,533 1' t f Total Direct Wages & Benefits 328,507! Materials & Services 611000(Rep_&_Maint Vehicles 3600 612000 eP & Maint Equip[ - - - , I 3960 f , 1 620000 Office Supplies 4250 i 623000 Dues & Subs 1260 624000 Travel _ 1950 625000 Education 5750 t 626000 Fuel 1850 631000 Utilities 2530 ` Total Materials 25150 11,013' ? Total Direct Costs 339,5201 Overhead to include HIR, Computer support, Admin I t Accounting, attorney, utilities, maint etc. @ 5% 17,036: { a i i Total Estimated Costs of Private development a 9ieities 356,556 { k' -1 _ 1 f~t YF ~~Sr ` 5 k ~ t' i > S'IF ' 'q y, ~ . a # b t` ~ s `aG air z Y _ i$°, _ _ ";`.sa~r~"",Y:~c ••n^•,`t:v^,. +...."c. s. C,^• z tm ..:5 4tr' Yrr"'~ "k ~ '','w yy sF`h V xt'.d ,^'31~, r'M' f. r~ k _ ,'g" S~ ye,,,. -`IY' IN I 'a:-'t`v' , ~ .,r.- G' . Art: t., to os,, at.-r Ef" ai G>-^? titn,S''4~~a 1,'v", i' •.F'' r4: . l.., to : M a `k J f'R t tie" S~, g . r~; ~+y 4 e t, 0. S1-; - dt"r nGlr. .Y ~Sy is .1Y v. ,.'Y`.' „f~ Til.' S °A Z, g '"mom. ,•t' s r.. r. - +a^ x , a fay tr ,.1~ ".a: 5±. t~'~F- -.a'a"~;.• .t Wx~^~~ •a..,,. r°ia°et ~',w`''k•4 - 's•"' '=art f o' .>x :5•^ . M=`a a•y i'r,,r "rFy~'=M.•, aY N^ 'w ~ ^5 0~>2 ,;k,^,- M"e. t7:,},' v.., - F U• r , ^li ~ _ t~ Wit' rw.'~+.•,, s,. ,:.N'„~ . :~t ~:.,.t :^`s„~+k9 ':"r':4~, at.r r" ar _--z°.,. °2~•- ,r~~ ~ ..'fir" :v.^. K'r`.e. # tkYa'~y x'kl p"`e',4"yaL~, ^d" y <ex t' tla t+ ~ x '."g >L f. e..C»'~',bi':ol•.4. ,d,.:, ``Ys'.j .^x,.- ~ .;~F ~ , ~ zr ..t- _•:s'~'k 'b"~ .rxf.' _ (;'y,l:v k '~x" `5 '£ix 1,vs 1."4'•.e,' p~~" >tly9~ s, ;:s" -•n a-r-Y,,. '`"'.ies':a "'u,;?i'"~"i , ~ ..,4 afa k w -ta hr"'-':,S•+ J ~1 7 - .vl t~'. ~ M '*~r . l: 3-.,I T; a{ . i{ .,rek -ice }^'v'• .9`` `i'h. ."rS~`''.: ...•r.-':'v" !:S-1< k,S?' 3. 2"rt G,Aih~.?§ • 1 ,S Ltti~ t . '4 v , I. `:J#+bn J ,t.. ,Y {u .,zi'~,,,.t~ x~:~.. ..ti~.a^za ^~xa?;`:: yr, .h .rf,i;,4 ,r-g,.'t. mh, cayr,.?., ;YO:r Ftrr,kz.•i='r ^{3 fi z+..~,r„r_-~.H' ""k 3•eky,' "L• J "CI Y .ea•. rm%Y`_. ..^I.^ --'.,.~...q.---':F~ - .F If I i h r sa .r t .5 h:- r a t 1:~1't3 11 e ` ~f ) . f{; f' f t `i ;t ~ 4' f ,.c I rI. ;'ter .a ~9 d {ft~` p 'i.~ a 1-.-{1 a ~1 ~ I~ @~q~, !'P ® kI 7v ~ •^r.`i- , ..G±. , l z_ - ?1 3i i ' $ C - aa4 '.1 I ~ " , " :~!'4 ;t~ ~ 1-M r - " g t s '2 is ~r ''3 K{ - - A -,y ki y,,, _R bra eti. - 0 } # rah .rr 8 t >t - ~ < a Fy.S - - - 4 3 ? - a .4 C' n a ..H-7. wx a - t x s r ,sa- -,4r-•~ e }z - ?i '~3 ® a~ FW ~ 1' _ t,~', a M :q FEE CO xs 3i+_+a - k i CITY PLAN CHECK FEF rt~cacCrlONa - EE EROSION CONTROL EROSION CONTROL r' I,- s~°a, PLAN CHECK FEE INSPECTION FEE f ~ ' ~ r ~ -I N b f . 11 X86 'M&' 1-111- ' - l-? 3-,fir ia #,#aP Nk~3-r+. u 4% of Construction Cost * , 4~x s. TIGARD 1x s... g c 3' ' - paid when permit is issued x ~ # s' -"s 41, t _ „ 5 % of estimated Cost or $300.00 ' _ . " ~ 4,"~ x~ ,y a ' ; k LAKE OSWEGO Whichever is greater $75.00 per lot V''" } r ' ter y ± w Q w r This amount is a deposit. Final Cost " t - based on total time spent on project 's ~c k11 - `a s N r{ --i ` a with bldg.. Permit w/o bldg. permit - ? ! , _ % ~ 1% of pub. Imp., site 5% of first $500,000 & 65% of 0 - 25,000 $25.00 0-1 ac. $100 00 ` * yy . BEAVERTON grading, & paving 2.5% of amount over inspect. 25 -50,000 $35.00 over 1 acre - 0 X R cost or $250.00 500,000. fee 50 - 100,000 $50.00 $100 + $25.00 ; u " s ai whichever is greater > 100,000. $50.00 each acre/% M^ ` s' 'sf„t.;~^x,3 z t 32.00 each K Or %I H> *v~"teG'~~t t';3 ~ -i ,~'a ~ ~o- 4% of Estimated Cost or $300.00 0 - 1 acres $80 00 XT 4, 'M 3 r as y t r ;l .N' n '.S l'~ - S °r a V` { * a TUALATIN whichever is greater 1 acre & up $80.00 + N#"V 7-1-1 - t Final cost based on total time spent on project $20.00 per acre or - r I- r - o a r fraction thereof~ ! - Less than 10,000 7.5% SF - $40.00 + $24.00 for each additional 1 ,2 I~ e ' HILLSBORO 10,001 to 50,000 5.0% $100,000 value or fraction thereof, .1 tt s *tt 50,001 to 250,000 4.0% x: «F 9 4 q over 250,000 3.5% Other - 65% of Plan Fee a~ ' -A 1 W Final cost based on total time spent on project 4g q ` E Ranges starting at under 1,000 3,~ ' i ~`A WEST LINN 5% (but not less than $15.00) to * ~ }K-w,~n g i 1.75% for project over 500,000 O , r - - 3 x S - .kw yk ~y ;g, Final cost based on total time spent on project x, } - 5% of construction cost W 2 ¢ y~ 's Y, v 5 ptE j 'E OREGON CITY include with plan check/inspection fee y r l W$r- , ` ? I MILWAUKIE 5% of construction cost $50.00 permit fee g ~ 'f r ; {`t~ .,x ;a f- : 0-25.000 $ 500 4% _ k 3 aYaa~~w ~t -100.000 $1,000 4% ~ ~ g's ,fa ,000 $1 „500 4% ~ -4 ' F~ 4 ~ f GRESHAM -500 s , £ :1,000,000 $1,500 3.5% g a -i'r"-Iz ~i~z .ra.s ...e - 4✓ I ,.i nnn nnn $o inn 3oi T-? ~ ~ 'i n, Charged for actual time s~ r ~ r~ 3 based on rate schedule r -5 - t `x 3 e x r , j 4 F „ -r x , [ -,E~~,~~~"'',-"--.."",-,,~~:"~ , , , . L, - ~ ~ - , ,a - -4 X - - rk ak +r- k*x{ £ £ r a i k -}cbt 4.t ts - - r i n rt tx s I gz -`"i k afi - - - S F _ .S "wp -~-y_ a a„a+ i xF`7 -iy _e Ki i _ - _ -t ~ r & r - - .11 I °Y..~ '=z { 'r . . t i c 8 - s - - _ c } r f• - k g 'fir 's. f a fi ! § ~'k a t~, t'~'}3,,, a, _ y r r .-E "s5*_ a. d s Fi- ~2 ~.'%`(Ta + . v 2 ,a ..,mays-CS°,TtSa r T' 't. r,r - r- _ - - - ~.,i r t r e ,n r y s - LA e t `A 'te ,ni tV Vr .f a - r a .x y t' ff- - 9,.~;'y t9~, ~,t'~. , X11 k5.4v. ,,.,•,v f ..r..' t - F - fs .St,.r t~`R,~'. T "Y' ~ s ' _ "ww°'.- _I All A I'll y-s - ALy sr r r t 3aa, F~ DRIVEWAY P - ~ OP/ROW PERMIT PERMIOTAFEE EARTHIWORK PERMIT BLDG. PRE-APP FEE RESEARCH a,-'y - _ . a=te. s i -.~.s - f - 3 ~s V, a 4% of estimate cost Same as SOP4 Y i F a ~ ~7 plus bond. 9 ~ ` - (New) $35.00 min. SF $25.00 Development iiiii $100.00 Driveway Permit all others $100.00 Review -$113.00 $27.00'f`_ fi+ - - plus bond ($.07/sq. ft.) per acre all other apps per hour Y.11 , ~t ~ 7 Sidewalk Permit. fee a 10/a of app. i Ks4 .A j ins ($.05/sq.ft.) EC - DEQ - $300. I ' f wi Ff :K3 a $53.00 With bldg. Permit Normally don't $27.00 $86.00 $53.00 4 r y +y per permit Bldg. Dept. Handles allow this until per permit per hour a' _ o = ~ $34.00 re-inspect is Otherwise $53.00 permit is issued. ex at inspector { ^t discretion ? 4 _ 01 : s t' a same as Handfed through a ' ' ~-,V ~ it plan check/inspection Bldg. Dept. sg ~ l l a At fee - , x a _ _ x` : x _4 ~ Handled through ` , - , No Charge Bldg. Dept. jF - - - >.,x .h i v~„dat. ' - t aY q,' v u s t L = $20.00 permit fee ~ Fj , 3"k x' - * $300.00 deposit ' - { vs r ; $25.00 Handled through Use Chapter 70s ,ft , ? y - r wio Land Use Action Bldg. Dept, of UBC for fees 7 t[,~,,,~--.~'L , ~ -11 -IT - - ' XR i s ( - L ~r u ~ T >r -,.T.", ~ $75.00 same as SOP same as yes planning fee $15.00 hr. - 41, 1- ita 7' w inspection fee erosion control no additional fee Jeanne 786-7655 Min 2 hr. chg. r -t~ x§ f~ e m TS when over 500 sq tt. 0sy ¢ , `l li ar ' 1, ON, r " 3 $20.00 for g" E 4? " $50.00 0 - 500 sq. Ft. $150.00 $25.00 per hr. k ~ `f_R1 ~ ~ , ~ v 2 cents per sq. Ft. r = Over 500 T"IN°-e~ r , 1771, ' . s s ,~,e ti s 1.1761 T - .y y,,a ,~.x+~e `s `ac, ; t , _L ; M~ , ~~jf~ y,..,f Y - '3. ..,1 2a- s^4/y.^„Acne*:P.fiY i`v`,°'r:a'S' '-3`*':'" -;i ~,k„",-s, . Y6F9rz .t ` ~i~ * 1 aR^"'ET,x z"sPta+s'.as .a sue'' .a ,.,5. F7- r'e'f `I 'sx yr `t., z- - r -x--7`a'",Jb ,r' - ~s' f tM-N- t v t , C,. o .rvJ4 1 7 '`P N r 'Y T x~ , r 7 - x- 'S. %:---t, 1 4r ' t L -1 +i . rys t { 4 ,v'~2, .y~„~,.~.?-€' - a" - - f -y r g,r ~Z f v Ott". I . a ux a x sr r j , j 2' `u. "F „rt '£1 3 "4 of _ 4, ? o- * a s 1F xr~3r^'.u"*v,'wF' 4 r s s - s- _ c _ { t t o r"' y~z ~ k s a> ~ m r$ ,x `S st L a - c s - - - ~I.C5 tw`~--""'4 5~'3 } s t } r, 1, - 11 - t.. 1 - - - .,rT _ _ rvrh f - F-e«.i .t j^ t - - ay - - h ~..L. t.~st.,e_mAL3 _ t - - i R.s f` `k- p r".: sa _..~,.a.,..,~ 11,-a.,a.,...,...~_..>a....._._. ._t_ . w_.,,_.<., g....r...._..,. .._.,.,_,.-.-......s..W. S "'t'. 1,'t sF- . Bitty : - , ~i#,~;Ia i ti , , _ S. s r ri _ AGENDAITEM# SS;D/1 i,-',~a x ' For Agenda of. ri 3E IQU r' , ` a, s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 y'S3l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ' - 3 t s "x X9 4 ' ` a ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _Wetland Policy E, _ ; . , 1 a PREPARED BY: Dick B DEPT HEAD OK~ TY ADMIN OK2 1 i $t t ~ ~ y ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCI : ~ 5 - ~ $4 b . ~ Should the City Council adopt the attached policy relating to the use of City property for wetlands? , ` ` ' -4l ; , t "T f t ' ' ~ yv,, gi 3 d ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION - ~ ~ It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached policy. Direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption. `;a ; ~~A- - k is .1 I r e Y j x?-s t3. r y INFORMATION SUMMARY rt i_ ~ , .c ...r' . F As a result of a request to use City-owned wetland area for mitigation for a private development adjacent to SW a = r ¢ 3, , I - _11 - 135th Avenue (Bowen), it became apparent that the City had no policy guidance with which to judge similar Y .;:,r,_.. ,s i requests. The Bowen request was approved in isolation as a one time circumstance because the previous owners r had dedicated the wetlands to the City to facilitate development of their property. t u q t t a~ i The Council requested that policy language be drafted to facilitate the future review of any similar requests. A s~ rF draft policy was included with the Bowen consideration. The Council requested the opportunity to review the draft u~' , t r s ; t at a study session r k~ vy , - The draft policy attempts to provide simple, straightforward guidance while giving the Council the flexibility to " , .V 4 } h ~I'i~ ' 11 , ~ z' consider individual circumstances. It recognizes that there may be instances where the enhancement of City E'-~~k it owned wetland would be beneficial to the City. Duane Roberts estimates that there is approximately 78 acres of , _N n- s .N, t medium quality and 11 acres of low quality wetland that would be candidates for restoration or enhancement. 7 K ' While not having a definitive number, Duane indicates that a good portion of those wetlands are owned by the v g LME r City. Any requests for use of City property for private wetlands mitigation would have to demonstrate to the s, 4 * f , r Council that there was a benefit to the City of Tigard and the general public. The Council would judge the benefit. _#11 3 ~ ~ There would also have to be documented physical enhancement of the wetland. The draft policy suggests that no r 1 r _0 I new wetland should be created. The Council could choose to eliminate that part of the provision and allow new F l - wetland creation. Over the years, new wetland creation has not been overly successful but advances in skill and xf = knowledge may make wetland creation more successful. The draft requires compensation. The form and amount ~ - ` 1; '`,A~' of compensation would be up to the Council. The draft requires a demonstration of no cost of maintenance to the fix, - City. The draft also requires that mitigation, if allowed, would pertain to land development within Tigard's Urban , , ~ 4 Growth Boundary. The idea here would be that use of City wetlands should not be used up for development not 5 !3 e benefiting Tigard. Finally, the policy suggests that there should be no use of City property for wetland mitigation h v ,t t if there is potential for mitigation on the property being developed. s'"` rr p 1 3' Any or all of the policy provisions could be altered or changed. The draft reflects the review of public works as ~ " ` r F} well as current and long range planning staff. t f ^dJ, r t 2' V YS l ,j. F.t T. - , , Iy' Saz } 1J M f k,,- 'z,: fis °a~ + v+a`•as"', ,.r~ vr,a+r, . ~.f _ fi ? .i _ d f, T r~' 1 ti " y k P P-- J A K{ 1 - - - ff as E ':;I ' JS - - I i S f 3 Tf ry 1 4 t _ _ J _ i _1 < i "f { 1 t r -xi „V - C f - - - _ _ _ EE 4..`.__....__a~I a.i,sr.,kr x-g'''- d = -N'~. - fy~..m sl aC sx * 3O!, ~ s srv 4Tlw y' 1, fTT 24 a { z Pz°i %'g ~*.-f-.,,;a" Pa :.ms ..c yarst >wa''t-rte' ° 3ras - ~.t, r ,1,5.~: ; ~ - OTHF AI TFRNATIVES CONSIDERED $ F°~~ 1. Alter the draft language. 2. Adopt a policy to not allow City property for mitigation. -r2br'sNrrN £k5 7m' _T } i E FISCAL. NOTES 8 iK qt,`r r Independent estimates by the City and the Unified Sewerage District both indicated that wetlands can be valued at t $10,000 per acre. Compensation for the use of such property would have to be determined. :P ` -Y wg- ~~l 15 `W t kd.>s ii2' Mt6 s"'~. s t atrs:nosrzmvs s as PM 3z( x ~ ~t h MW*Rr ry' E >t 're`v V L ,vF3x 7 7i - sc- f F try S kLa'Y~4~ 7 v"a"`€+, gnrzrn Y'g, s x.tc*t'wx~ ~W y-rte i t~4"A !f LIFVY`z2'..za'Lk-^~a - - f - @ - y 's,t y5[[ } rata i''~sr ✓ * a 1 { - w .S, ' aO x f t al } ,fie o yr Aj'j 4 w~-+n~py 1' i^' 4~~Y1AR' ni2, 44 WV" WE, r ""`qfl` rRM - t G* 4 ~.F~..3g r fit' 4s #{~g~$ ~ "~•iif `,s' :~~,a, A"' ~'r.* k - «.c_° _ + y r k;r. ~ - ' v~~-,.. a a a xn~ar_~ - - u?a nom. «_rnz c~ 82, ,qw 'vGj~' S SP ~3 F'E_ - 4'402- 0- 3 EF - POLICY - USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR WETLANDS MITIGATION j _ It is the policy of the City of Tigard that City owned property will be used for private wetlands mitigation only if the t a following can be demonstrated: ~ ° r r~"q x r s 1. It must be conclusively demonstrated that there is benefit to the Ciry of Tigard and the general public. 2. The mitigation must Provide a documented physical enhancement of existing wetland. No new wetland area H"~' «=r s"3 ^ shall be created. 4~!. 's~ a it ar 3. The City must be compensated for the use of the area either through rent, lump sum payment or as agreed to by f t I the City Council. t¢' 4. The wetland mitigation should demonstrate no additional costs to the City for maintenance or other factors. 5. The mitigation must relate directly to land development within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 6. There is no potential for on-site mitigation. + s j is\curpln\dick\wetland.pol AXE " ~ , _ _ KN_ 07 3 U 4N 74 u r-a xi gram ' AWN Y 1 YM1f'Y L _e J 9S(' - A't ~f t tk _ r ~x .>~-5'` x r s~ _ •'er ti ; --fir kV i'g a , -W1 1g a& ~ k t tx 4 'y F - s t - - r Jy wr e' l _ 4.t'6M7i 4L"}R 4+,~ of t' - I 4 _ - _ - .S 'i E t 1t YbZ R, _Ia V~Vi w- `ir°?`~4, 4ysFw e. < $ - Rft.9tYt'S'- . TK" Y - - - 1 i. - - - - - ( 1 E - - ~'~Y'V-" - 4 r - - _ - P `S _ - 177- tk k ig0 1 , ~ ~ F~ , s z T'8; ° .y'~3.- a"st' - z, - z pi's-~ .r' r' - 'j o , a£ i°'a e- z z ? r r_ t, -c _ r - ---.d - ,fP . 112 {.rt~+"n v'-i SS's- - _ } '1`L w. - 'rsz. r EM- 2+-x` - r - Y - a - 'w -3 rW} 27 '96 12 28AREGI~N ~1 HWY DIV RECEIV~1(1)p(ANNIiV~iY' ~~~zS -a 's Zav Y 11's + k' hfAY2& 1996 > The On m De a,anent of Transportation p- M % ' +y 'i Y 'C r i?2 E ms; } S yr - - - VJ V L% NJ [.1 e§V mN1 \J J_ ' c A~ XZ-, r{~A ~ J .1. W. ~ .1 - 77[r fW C }4 , X"" 7 a - . ~ ; r~' [ , For more information call: E ` ° Kent Lall (PSLJ) 1~ , : *a ,ro 725-1245 i 't , y r : May 27.1996 96-801 t 'r g y r t 11 PSU, OSU TO CONDUCT STUDY OF HWY 99W s _ ' " ~ . ` Portland State University and Oregon State University are jointly.-figfi 3 f t t t_ 4 , participating in a study of the Oregon 99W corridor this week in an effort to fl ~i , a understand the relationship between land use, access management and traffic ! 3y~ { j ' 17 operations.i- s 1?r'C s' st On May 30 and June 1, students from the two universities will be conducting 4 b x on-site surveys to obtain traffic counts, traffic flow and turning movements at r ,rk - ~ 4 s various driveways along a four-mile section of Highway 99W in Tigard. , z ~ As part of the two day study, students will com are five-lane sections of z x , , - wiz' P . ~ ' - roadway featuring continuous turning opportunities to four-lane sections with a >~r f ~ ` r , - center median and determine the impact of each on traffic congestion, delays, safety 33' w "Y a' ' and property values. The study is expected to provide a framework for long-term my{J , ~ ~ t - planning and development within the corridor. t`='I~ 7 ,'1-" - t s` ##ODOTn "_N..z'. - ~a~~~ 11, J j # 1- -1 ~ s '4 Is it { c5, ,r t } t - b. t, .r- w {.u'~ r - P Kam. `S^ nF f -s rm y 4 P a~ u y ._.....~,,..n.. t 1 f' $ - i ,alp - _ rz 'J 'L ~_~""_~f-"4~j~'4L'l ~ L'~" - ~ I " , -1 - I s 4 - Si : „ yr "`v' -j- - 'k -yz , - i- c t ~r a - - -a y m~3-~ x - r' _~,'7 L '11)2A"; 4* T, , ~A ~ %7"~-X-1 ;-~t " ":'y' r~~' 1 * t ~ , _ , , ' ' ' 7' - ~Z~' I ' - - I .Z I , , ~ , ~ k - SF Gtl ?.alt Y ~L'-' 4S - e'1 I _ - f h ? . - - - 4 - - - j 'E - ^t - - a~- y y - - .x....W~.. „sue ,g. T `r a k-..4 _ £ 4 ¢ -Y s N~ - r 5 WV~i r r ~ 3~ a _ s sm - aa.'Ns» a s - - 1 - f x x '.7,V`~ S' C 'z, a..y="cw,:,.u,.~.~~~:,'<2M 11 k r.a.. ..i....._,c..._...r4..u..1..~.. +1v.~W W 3v.:. Y.~i.'~~`•s`.,f.; z y t't 'zi `'rah? ~ AGENDA ITEM # 3, / ~ - . 4 . t,}s I r Q For Agenda of 5/28/26 $ X k r ' _ r _ t ' ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 5 _ : , - I 1. s COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY H ' ' , _ g, 5 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE CDBG Opt Out Notice / a r 1 y PREPARED BY: f r C~ p A r fi J D. Rob rts DEPT HEAD OK lC/!%~ / CITY ADMIN OK~/!may ~v 1 t, ~ ~ - ISSUE BFFORF THE COT INC TT F A.- ' ° I Should the City continue to participate with the county in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ~ ,-V r Pm ~ program or "opt out". - s STAFF RECOMMENDATION ` - ; R * F Y ' ; A 1111 The City should continue our partnership with the County. . : ~~M- .,J` INFORMATION S MMARY ,c `i- a ~ ~ ~ ~ v`a's'"' , Tigard has been notified b the County (see letter attached) of the opportunity to withdraw from our partnership in 4 . _ , y T [~~,`11 the CDBG program. HUD administrative rules require such a notice be provided whenever any changes, no ;r { , M t xh matter how insignificant, are proposed to intergovernmental Cooperation Agreements. 7~ ~ - - E".. - ~ .Wlrwlfti [-,i,- County, state, and federal CDBG officials have been contacted and all confirm that there would be no advantage to ' ` i the City in choosing to withdraw from its partnership with the County. Asa city of less than 50,000, Tigard is `~t1, _ M - ~ -V eligible to receive CDBG funds only by participating with the county or state. However, because current State , - iN?l . f administrative rules preclude allocations to jurisdictions located within so-called entitlement areas (of which ~ { IN '1 1-11 ,mi Washington County is one), by separating from the County, the City would lose its eligibility to receive CDBG - 3 ~ i dollars. ' ' r - : * , No action is needed if the City chooses not to withdraw from its artnershiP with the Coun tY• °.F t P . r OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED t3 "C ' z1 -,X--,t- ' d 1 Elect to opt out of the agreement. a x r , i Y { FISCAL NOT~ ? , ",n ' z 'gam'` € ~ 4 F By choosing to continue Tigard's partnership with the County, the City will retain its eligibility to receive CDBG , ' jaw np"` . Y funds. During the 1994-96 funding cycle, Tigard was awarded grant funds for constructing a sidewalk along Grant Fri " S , ~ ti Avenue ($60,000), improvements to the Tigard Youth Service Center ($58,000) (which the city ultimately decided - ' - not to accept), and for exterior improvements to the senior center ($18,00C* } , , r' , r i e a se a is\citywidelstun\optout t t a w,', i . - r F - j 1 I u- t 't --I -,~'-A p b I 1 4 _ y # 'Tm' F t4 `tF fi` a Lz,fi b - t'. 3* v" - s "'i., - gad r ;'~l - s. - t• a - _ 'S - _ _ R ? } f , t " Y _ } - - ~a ~'~,~,-,I--,~-'-',,',,Y""~,, , U - - " -1 - - 'L~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I M. - _ - t ^m - r7 ? } h1 , l k 'if „ z- ty x,-t~ ti> - - - t 4 - z c r - ?T t _ _ F 111 y,L ti l - - - - Y-- j _ . - { ITT "a- t'r'j", vy, - - x * -.r. t v'.,ekt .a ~4~ R - 9 r r F r j x e € -atis S a,~~*+ `1ai -141 - s Y°'x ^~c h-£, r t - t a t 3e;,! - - r7't„'.., r13 4 r -fir ~'.''Ss.'~-i _ r r r - ti. T - 1. - fi-~ ' ,r'1 -E'';r.,-i a ' - 4 I mss ; t t. _ r 'fir i p +3 .a s i ~ r , ` . 4 IV I `~x 4~ Rr a T-1 a ,5f~ 'T5 , , {x Z. c, ' -1- f # R r k - r _Y' !T 4. W { ~ 5- s " d#~~rs ~ ` i s3 -4X _ _ - "a 1 n- z 1;1~P 11 "F 3 Yt 11 t ® xa b" a T - , ~ z x ti _ ,{t`rr-• 4, S.~s r fi r. `t ' r r sue,,, ,ctk 'x 4 { t _ t T c } „ - cs?A~ i _ .,.vvut w e.~z ; jt a ~r Y ` " - N'~r~....rr r 5av fly ~z`-E S. +•-s ,`:z~-- - ~ . "I'll, I ~ "§-pg ~ `-11 I~ WASHINGTON v `Tm ~ .rte t r x m y ; COUNTY, 1,- ~ z~~ . I t C , nuFrr)N { En J ~ r Yt May 2, 1996 r. ~es~ _b ¢ 3=- Mayor Jim Nicoll MAY 0 6 1990 _.,.,a y 1z, k City of Tigard f i t- I ~,y ~k~ 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard UL7L - " i-J YM1 11 t 11 I-, w ai`; ~ F , t Tigard, OR 97223 8199 - _ x 4 a +r ~ 3 ' 4 Attn: Bill Monahan, City Administrator n raw x , 1 ~rt r r ~ wmJ3 Li , Dear Mayor & Council Members: =,R , - r ~ ; roximatel three ears a o our Cit entered into a three ear Inter overnmental APP Y Y 9 Y Y Y 9 Sz" Cooperation Agreement with Washington County to continue our partnership in the s;''~'.... ~ a Community Develop ment Block Grant (CDBG) program. 3 ~.L tFx ~ The current agree ment contains an automatic renewal clause, but as you were advised 4.41 3 R Z+ Q recently, there are some amendments that need to be incorporated related to the r s composition of the Policy Advisory Board. Consequently, following the "opt out" 5 ~ ,7 , suspense date, listed below, a formal amendment requiring council approval, will be . i _ES 4 - - ' sent to those jurisdictions which desire to continue participating in the CDBG program. "`~'"4 _ { S~f The purpose of this letter is to provide cities with notice that they have an opportunity to 0 ° ~ ° ~ i choose not to participate with the County during the FY 1997-1999 qualification period, ~ . , or to "opt out." As You know, that really means the program years that run from July 1, _ * ; - 1997 to June 30, 2000. An election for exclusion will be binding for the entire three (3) , £ F - < r r year period. Cities that elect not to "opt out" do not need to make any notice. 11 pmt Sn ky u G 1t A . i tk V x, If your jurisdiction chooses to "opt out" of the CDBG program, it must notify the County r~ E fi . ent . AND the Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) local office, in writing, - ? 5 . x~" nor to MaY 31, 1996, that it elects not to continue artici atin with the Count .For r a i, P P P 9 Y fie r t Zx b those wishing to "opt out" the address for the local HUD Office is: 1,z~~ b, ; r~. w rs 9r x rid- e ~ U.S. Department of Housing & urban Development M Community Planning Department ~a~' x Attn: Mr. John Bonham , c r ' LL'µ i, 4v v.'.r~v. S'n.h rA.~,°vn::a°, Suet- 700 3. 'gi t~~'-~ - Portland, OR 97204-1632 r ¢ F4,, $ t x' n f y f k . s t i - - ? r n ° ~~4 e*!, 114g t}:-, 4r~"a'xs `c r i 11 4 g€'' , L x 'Y _ e . 'p~` ` aft ii 3 - r~ - a tvg 4 - Office of Community Development r- 'g,. c ' Phone: (503) 648-8814 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 170, MS 7, Hillsboro, OR 97724 fax: (603) 687.2882 -~t.r Fk.* ` - III, A - } .ar c~" i,..5- .t.,v°,..e: 'sw:,"-,res «g i'T,r--'»y ' t^... --rY yj k3" i M4 1. P 7•, b alig, -Pc _;*T,. .a~'~*-" +n3''+ y-: a'±a?wrfii'~N;:w .,~,e ~.t.''- :tP _ t .-r _ - .'>ti.'w,..,,,,.za.'w'.:, w.«. I'z"~a w-~r,f ~t"•~t'_ r t j : 1 - - - ice" s s n,'~-;$a`4`77, " ii ,i,p '2,}t."_pVd F' Lk F,f {t - A - F3~t i`;C-~.'rt`s "Y'y' I -ASRR }u> -i",,,,~t° `?,,t S _ 11 , I'll '~+taa)`r a r^'a 9w to -3 t'? t _ (i' an "'~tt tS.(`13.sc;~ .1 f 't-a. O,..'y ~r t yx _ `'ma~cc' . - f :i P r 's~,3,n e g . 11 e r pr rN; y"y4 7''- tY _ j , a 1 i r` e - '"E c e`- " N_ 1-1I I r _ j S n, -,"'-,dk':?.a};v_ -fr~r 0b~' zS r _ x .t -j t',*; a1fs-r rr^;i - - r -t - "5 - - -,"trY:;•` o' t k Q- 'a - S 1 4 L[F< _ y z t-_ a rrr I 1-1 - -`1 1,111i -s:. t r', - t -r -'ft - 1 S. 1 - _ r•,_ -A-1 a'- s' y4} k_" ~i' _a x'} 5 V-00 sd Y .x a,t<vt a _r• x a :'t, 4 y s y gyw 2 g, Fem ISBN- -rr.g r :ici4at:= y' ?a } ;n a~x:CNa °~y'„~a%< ed.q' N ~*t• ryk `.ti`~"•, ~w* _ - s Es `a..' - ''.sA.s. `«^t` ~,'~'rf..•ca< r X45 ',+3~~.°~:a ~ r( e~ `kR- a - c a s "-e,, 't 4 .~z' s- i F s{ - ~xrs~-~.'`'.• ~ 1a $~T Page Two (OptLtr) 7` M ED May 2, 1996 HUD has established a set of timelines which must be r-viet 1 ordor for the Count- and >~fiALL it's City partners to retain this highly effective program. Please make your election prior to the suspense date of May 31, 1996.Y ` K If you have any questions about the re-qualification process please don't hesitate to~ ~r contact the Office of Community Development at 648-8814.E a Sincerely, tt~~}~y~.,w~ 35 ~rtj fiY F ~a~-4. k ~.wY~.i kIT 'T- Y - 6 •l F f H.J. (Hank) March 7•p Program Manager ' } Office of Community Development RM ; r s -e. ,.{"s~ r' ~f - fir. yy~, y~ '1a y rm cc: G. McDowell, Asst. County Counsel s rr l', ow YY- C'E3~ Kam' ,ni~5 TI ~-~»•x:,m~`~y5^Ta 1:opt0N2.doC •~i{{T2~,},< _ IM 7-77 QR tpg; i U 'K r rr A~" iNg 01 t~e tr " ~~;s" v`~'°''^#~" .:r _ 2``RS°3.`7''u'#"r'~.r'4Td'%~'"+sx aaz ,~....•«o+".,.---` -r~. s1" MI _ r NO, c}R7' ^~.~..,s,,~,",~ < 7 - t + _ v, r 'hr -%..a ''"s• - ~ `3 E ~s- ''t~.~.4{ ,g- r~ $ s m t _ ti a a - ' r es } - - .,t. r - t~,F'~~•' 7 wasir zgg 1XE r ?=,rd-sr` .yt--* ,-ra - r a" t _ f _ # f'``-- x T "~r•'~.rj "a,<•Y F ~,cy,,,~g~j~~:? a n, - i - r. - ray - # t`_~ »f` cq•`t'.s""u r E ' i t`~' 52' 1 L ' ( d z - )y. t ~i'.r~;.1=,tE - YSk`u k1. F"ti f !T 4'~y / „j~/" - h4 k eti.. J A, ,.f~ - t f i d a~"•E°' ~q.'y `SM F J r o at- ✓hra', _ s•s -x F a ,r,; t+- ` t - r h ck ti. s2 •i .w°s'ua`°' +`"ra`f rrt'd 4xft~'"''t;-i.~*tt-~..c ~ t zS t t ,.t~ t~"~f' ~`'~"•as hew ~ a a r r - } _ .r r. c ur'. n:- } ~t,* ,cues,. b " r k _ r fa , ak ~i -11 5 , ~ ~ a--Wis...... - } .6 3- y s ? Go , t ' fir' ~s - _ i t a G et 4 > .r flI y 5 11 ~ ~~"+zt`MA •~.'-ry, vv~",'a-`€' 3 a ~ ~ - i $ ~ { ~ - ~,~.r- ~ 'j t,- -""si__ "mot,- cz h ? t z - i t t - ""-a R s i L n t s~ h w ff A _ <"'4 k w q (D ' ~seY's z3 } a7 ` k F !g',,,_ r MEMORANDUM , ~ , o Y ` z O v ~~V CITY OF TIGARD '~~K~ A',1,~ 5; - Z, R~ s r 4 r TO: Jim Hendryx, Duane Roberts ~~Z , 4- ~ ~ x x €,6 FROM: Bill Monahan _11 k ,.~•t Y- K11111 i DATE: May 10, 1996 xd SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Program kip - ' A=c ; "I I 1 Attached is a letter which I received from Hank March, advising that the City has an - R. 'K it opportunity to "opt out" from the CDBG program for the period July 1, 1997 to June 30, ` ; -I k , tL 2000. If we choose to opt out, we must provide notice to the County and HUD prior to r J Y ' r May 31, 1996. Would you please consider the benefits and drawbacks of our x7 ; ~}p~rt fl continuing as a participant in the County program, and make a recommendation to City ? Lr Council. I would like Council to be able to make an informed decision at the meeting of k; 4 1' ` ` May 28. Perhaps a memo to Council attaching this letter, with a recommendation on ~Lg rs ~11_ k the Consent Agenda of May 28 is the appropriate way to go. ~ - ~ n `z - t, - " , . rte. n ~ -11 -11 i t ff Thank you for our assistance in this matter. r' t , 4' ~ 1 ~ WAM1 h attachment , x _ a ss c:ij(iy Wtiea$ey =lease reserve space on the May 28 Council meeting Consent 1 tF x t. Agenda for this matter.` { 'Sly '`t+ .i.s r..! tsE w°"ha'fi„3„. 'F i:1admlbi1R050996-3.dcc t; ` 'e3.^ - T µs wcV~f = ~ a 5 ~ ~ mob, K, F-I-, ~ r . i ~ 1. , ; I ~ , -11 n~ t krcy 'r jN-h,}• _ ' a 4 -a k x i,, s*,s `'fit ` s 815 a _ xi I I Ml~ ~ ~ ; , ~ - :'r I. ~ . , , " " I ~ ji~ : ~ ~ -11 - "~A €'p - •k'~- r - r - ? - syv` X12 a~v.>a'"'. ^b ~''-.sy 4 s + - a- - x; t fin. v ' T ar"r~ is' "`t u -,x - r _ - :x r a -r rs ' 1, v 1 r} r- 44 §t a a ,K t _ _ - v_ - ..u ~.u 0. 5> ? - - - . I t I 0 ~ , r d-- _ - - - s - "I a s + - 'rte- r ~v , € ' - zx * r 3'- , r - I . } Y "g , WASHINGTON N,, -T, m '~R- ~ ~ :A1 j~7- , " - - 1111-1 1-11R~,,~ " , ~--11 ~ f w COUNTY. , F E h~€ M n u F - OREGON _ 64 - E ~ >rt tp~ ® x May 2, 1996 iS, 1~'C~ y ii} J"ti wit e t 3 ~nj I + 11 .!.•+1 1 f - ~1' .fi Y5#f $ - 4, } j'rM - _ J ,ti - t ~~s 4 'ate;. Mayor Jim Nicoll ( a z ' City of Tigard MAY 6 296 }A ~ ° r K 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard i 1 f. h r~ uLii_ __t..J 3 Tigard, OR 97223-8199 ` a . € - 11 ? Attn: Bill Monahan, City Administrator ss } - r , - is 's : x r --'`.v`im' •e, oe ~r Dear Mayor & Council Members: " • } } !,-''#,i ~ -7r --r 3 .awl K,t { Approximately three years ago your City entered into a three year Intergovernmental ~xx " ' r Cooperation Agreement with Washington County to continue our partnership in the i-IsR'Vrx i~e-~ ~ iC Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. s'.g~fir'y?-,.* f. ,~r , The current agreement contains an automatic renewal clause, but as you were advised ' ~ I _ s r recent)Y, there are some amendments that need to be incorporated related to the 4 ~gM + composition of the Policy Advisory Board. Consequently, following the "opt out" ~F"'-f s',P-- w E t - 11 g suspense date, listed below, a formal amendment re uirin council approval q g , will ber sent to those jurisdictions which desire to continue participating in the CDBG program. -r r z r? The purpose of this fetter is to provide cities with notice that they have an opportunity to t g z d -6- 1 , - choose not to participate with the County during the FY 1997-1999 qualification period, . ~~1- E Z , or to "opt out." As you know, that really means the program years that run from July 1, - u - . ' 1997 to June 30, 2000. An election for exclusion will be binding for the entire three (3) ; r, , year period. Cities that elect not to "opt out" do not need to make any notice. , b -r- I ~r s ' F: I if your jurisdiction chooses to "opt out" of the CDBG it must noti the Count ~ " - . - program, fY Y f I s AND the Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) local office, in writing, prior to May 31, 1996, that it elects not to continue participating with the County. For a ` , t I I r r those wishing to "opt out" the address for the local HUD Office is: E F. - a t fry" ? ,i ~.r'~'. r U.S. Department of Housing & urban Development E Li 4 ~t Ya Community Planning Department - . 4 z Attn: Mr. John Bonham t F s e - 400 S.W.Sixth Avenue- Sl1itf 7-- y~ ~ f: ~i Portland - ~ 3 . , OR 97204-1632 h ,wr . t - -r - t ,e b 1, x - - rs 3N40, t ~ r a2r r r`- Office of Community Development c- , - r,~ ~ q ¢ 3 Fnor.e-(SC3r'_s8.36u t55 P1 - _ rse ~'•e^~e. Su,[z 171 •.1S'. H~I'eCC•- ,F...12a tin S r t° e Ln _ t x t .i - t a° } '~,r,," `ark" : - k -D 1t Y - ~3- r- - - 1 - - - - - A?Y~ ill a N'l j!T NW, TZ_ T' NX -9 ya Y Tg~ 572 ggv 31 ,?qu'g•Gg 'if i2i, Ht t tr Page Two (OptLtr);~ x < May 2, 1996 N I r-'r`r 1 x a- f kgg _Tfi HUD has established a set of timelines which must be met in order for the County and', p _ it's City partners to retain this highly effective program. Please make your election prior; to the suspense date of May 31, 1996. <ta If you have any questions about the re-qualification process please don't hesitate to fs contact the Office of Community Development at 648-8814. Sincerely, ,m`g t>'g~ "`r r' cz r - a i Q ..r< H.J. (Hank) Marc hx s Program Manager s Office of Community Development s- t f~ S~~r 1 } h 3 2 Y• yRY` 2; 4'yicy~, ` P im-n 7 z CC: G. McDowell, Asst. County Counsel, c a gs i. m1 .Y,sx~"SS f k gj 0 t i:optouQ.doc vor % liar w r t - 7- iP~a 7 s 7 { \'?sF#'•i < Y C - _ f i -4 ~ qj-C - 'ss(~i'[«~¢ 7 _ ^'eL.3-j 5't4 d' t ; - f^p 2 di. a•.a,`~.IZer ~2 ,z7' j, 17'~r~r TT~ .KSRI ~~'~k,-. ~ sri- J l" - - y - TY - d Y b ~j•4--~ ~~1 . i w x. ~,P a.ta { t " - _ - - _ - t Yc y 1''F^"}~"`"Y-~ WY~' '%"',1c7 _ti nsa......:::,......,_~..~+.--_.~,.~_~,: ~.u...._..__,......«.,..._.~ -e.,.~..•,-.s,vu~ - _,.,.a...._. '°-'.u.> "F`£^_t,..~, 'S a ~s z ?z vsz - Qz k ? _ - 25 ON, ~f* bars r 4kFr - AGENDAITEM# -ark 3 K"r F - F - - For Agenda of May 28 1996 V i }kV CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a mss' ' - ; ! 3 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY d g iSSUE/AGENllA TITLE Prof cci nal Engineering Services f Murrav Smith & Associates _ »x x PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK -CITY ADMIN O jn, 4M wxcz x>hY' Z } - .l i ~@v"ef"v 'R,a? is A'+S~ti~ i S z ISSUE B FO E THE COUNCIL. i rr~' x~t WW ' That the LCRB approve a contract with Murray Smith & Associates to perform engineering services for the ' i Menlor Reservoir project. d i STAFF RFCOMM ND TION The Public Works staff and City Administrator recommend approval of the contract. The City Attorney and two ri a professional engineers with water reservoir experience also have reviewed the contract and recommend its ~s s approval. a f INFORMATION SUMMARY Murray Smith and Associates will be providing engineering services to the City for the Menlor Reservoir, a 3.5 z z , ~s ati k' million gallon water storage reservoir, to be located on the northwest slope of Bull Mountain. The professionals services to be provided by Murray Smith and Associates consist of preparation of the final design plans and XWJ specifications, assistance during project bidding, engineering services during construction, and other specialized services for the project including assistance with permitting, property acquisition, public meetings and r presentations, surveys, and geotechnical engineering investigations. A copy of the contract and detailed scope of s' ffZ'T x - i service is on file with the City Recorder. } OTHER AT.T . NATIV CONSIDFRF.~ F n ~F FY s Could request RFP from other consulting engineer firms.Tw s N -mss 4', a r 1 F £ ss n r~ k The engineering is worth $336,475; this contract contains both fixed fees and maximum not to exceed figures 675 r r depending upon tasks as outlined in the contract. The proposed total Menlor Reservoir project is estimated at $3r r 7 million. The source of funding is water SDC funds and reservoir capital project. iAdtywidc\sum\mursm=.doc t r x~ ii -tom' ref h h."- S -s' 3"a . r t 'tb" y r S-' > t 2- Y '.:X13 rt~s'q 4"' 4- S - X 2 p s-+", y.r~, Xr~a s 7777 f t °7 -"r - -tz -A r&.' k •y ,3 'F ' «J €i, "'.x" ey` r-z a J c~ l( (f a F. n, Cst, t F NO x4 .ia~' - - 3' + _ x:.rr a k t ;a+, ° ;_,,:,.•at,,;~; n r w °r gig W. 2k U.5 j "s-c~i"A:.``':a°~- °z.'% x- 1-+ - -~•a - ac, aa- n z F_ w- Ts° * t- i'*r.„. , v's Y fAr,~ ~i' "~.a~-•~'~°j >,'z~.~'..'~d5s,,k ,t'-„ ~y-'`;a` - _ a ~'3,'~`~-; =~^h w `s ..r kg ' xy.~;a MnITd,~'M &~,1SOfLi(PS+bc. - EIg1I1fCfS~P~2MPf5 I?I S4' 1~Imnn 9utr IO~Q . polv~i,fllWM 07194 . PIIQ\F illt))i 8110 a iaY i0Lt2i!101? _ 11tAn I 1* May 20, 1996 1r % top, V ul» _ Mr. Ed Wegner Maintenance Services Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. " t Tigard, OR 97223 z a ` s' sT ; 4~ { Re: Agreement for Engineering Services for Menlor Reservoir Dear Ed: We are forwarding to you two signed copies of the agreement for engineering services for the f Menlor Reservoir project. We have modified the draft agreement to reflect your comments to Chris Uber on May 16. { i+ ~0~ £ g 3 h If we can answer any questions or if you need any further information, Please do not hesitate to call me or Chris. Sincerely, MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 16, Philip H. Smith, P.E. z"'rr p ty,' President b NW! ¢ PHS:phs ~fQ Enclosures - }i,F r '4 f e 7~- sd e3c- _ - rac,~ y> ; §,aeg'T _ <1 SL:~rn lei 3 ~.~33f~ ~~5;»-Y~ Fe- ~•L -k -rY fG S R _ ,~u:ra``nfl .9~~-a,+}`°`' :t,Cs,d.° ,m #n r r -x k--.4 "~53 - E'-z. ."e 1#'' t>~~£~s., > ^~fi L a§ "-wr ~ v`=* ;,'t:"z';: " _ z y i 7- a "iap 'aJy',5ai.,N K. • ~r:.s - 1 :rte - t _ ~ s _ ~ r+ ~ - - a~.:Cr'c's'~ " ' yu I ! Lys+~~~.~~2*r.»{yv,!':s ~F'i H t _ _ _ _ r - - ~e - rs•6r~*`p~x"'ta '2 Uve-~i; y TM,. yc.. n `+"'y3' x~` - s y r Ft : Yq _ t L,y3- 1 + S 'i " .k ; 5 ~ tl '^~ys,, ,y 1"~i~~*'""' _~°3-r" a,_'i~ r~ _ i' _ - ~ t-' - A, - J --,s T - lt_-~` ~n+~l.y +~-.A~rii*~•fl'*mn»-'r ~S dq~ro-,~' t) ..4.-w K-7-A 04, 7i r'~^~',~ g m,+ V~A AX x:rr •:A r r k r ram,,:.„. g'r r+ p' sP s r. fi3 '„=^"'.:3,3'={%z c'+"`~#' °,x, " - i 6 r +,,n =p • r t_,.'. s ".r~2.,~;;^o 'z-~l r:>:f i. ';'a - r x, r" -c- z.-i,~ r.2°e 'l;1'i"`*zi`+v 'f"s yz~ x -f `f k 6__ T -,F v l ice' 11---111-111 M4x Y fix` . - - - - - t._.-- - z ~ - - P - w'.'~; r' r sr' # { t - r t L a - t o - x- i"t +~',s .zr , 9, t,:: - rmt 1 i,r M-4, ..y,- - - .a 'a t , 3yTrt r 3 - 4ks- ,a - 3- -'S`-`' x-~. "r,; . x ri c x _ s ~j - - - 11 -11 -11 az --c - ~a' s's a=~'t s d .+.t ` -er` ~-„"t. ,~-.s w.,.. ° 2 ,mot" ,t`t. v x2 ^;.T°'~ f 'S"° ' "'°s f Si x a a - s 119 , I Z761, 'T''"' - W ~Sz-1h - ,fi'~ ,drt':,i i x*`- k- AGREEMENT t ,igg ` ',-fi - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 'cam 1- N §yp~' S.~ T° , FOR ` x~ kr' ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 10" , F 2;, emu"#~„ s.35 .'~.,Q ,a~' y3.. , t6, I g~i~r- h a - THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT, made and entered into at Tigard, Oregon, this ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ V 1. I ii: - n i , ~ - -,xY - - ' a day Of y, - - g -11 r~'a4`3 0-1 Y Yri, _~L' 996. by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, State of $ , } Mc t € Oregon, hereinafter called the "Client", and MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., a firm i't I ' rt - t of engineers duly authorized to perform engineering services in the State of Oregon, hereinafter ~t - ' called the "Engineer":5 xR'~ ~ -t F , ' z 9 WTINFSSETH THAT: '-,r. r, t t r ~r z ~ WHEREAS, the Client desires to retain an engineer to provide consultin en meerin ' _ V '1', _ a ' r , $ $ $ fn'' j s services for the Mentor Reservoir and `rr t t . J k~ - r~ N 2 i, s - F WHEREAS, the Engineer does offer to provide said engineering se , j = } ~z s NOW, THEREFORE IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS Ai , C ,--v - ' FOLLOWS: rz £ F 4 ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONSp ester r Whenever the term "Client" or "Owner" is used herein, it is understood to mean the City of , - ; , 1 _ ' S'- g -3 Y'f j - Tigard, Oregon or its authorized officer and the tern "Engineer" means the authorized { A - ~E`Sf-~J l F Ir, t,' Vi Y/ S V r t representative of Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. ~l ff s `S.ti a _ `tS i c - .rte -43. r l x y x k 41 - f r a- Y t Y-` S ' , x Agreement - Page 1 of 12 t F Cr - e l .vrw,s i v~~qs y E 3 1 7 s ¢ r~,~ d, dt, r ~ YT b'v J R - 't f .J 7 ,fib- ds $10 , , " LE , ,t , ~ . , 21 ~ ~ r s s s l .sue 5 sz f' `M k - - 7 _ - -i z d i 7 - - - - ~^'l ;Y M 3 - = Ta If - t w ce r7- x _ _ 1 _ t r 01, - --sue f 4,. itk 4~ iTr x C .a r, y , 61, I 1. ^r.'..rr r .fxxs- t 1 -k. r ra ~Wl i x , fr- * ; yj - °m-e,t~ - - &j:<..-,-, - ' g - 3 'x L - F OK ` i-''"`' =.x.53 -'..X.;: , e to $t-, , ARTICLE II -OBLIGATION OF THE ENGINEER. Ili ~71 E - - 1. Basic Engineering en7 s The work to be performed under this Agreement is the ~ s`~ 1 a s u y - i providing of professional engineering services to the City for the Mentor Reservoir, a 3.5, r< 7' -d_ to s" k 'aa ^T r r ` x million gallon(mg) water storage reservoir, to be f located on the northwest slope of Bull s _ 7 Mountain. The professional services to be provided by the Engineer consist of re aration P P - 40 , =t`=::; of the final design and `Mq~ _ = , plans and bidding, 17w specifications, assistance during project + s" I'll P- £ - engineering services during construction and other specialized services for the project ' r # - ~ I including assistance with Permitting, property acquisition, public meetings and $ * `l y { y s r u a I- , oi~^ f r-1 t Presentations, design and construction surveys, property surveys, an d geotechnical ' - : , engineering investigations. The detailed scope of work for the project is more fully ~m t # s - • . f 4 z t r t -e„-i ~Y"?~ t .T2 a described in Exhibit A attached hereto. _ x'• F nh x 1 r Q 2. Additional Engineerinlz It maybe necessary to provide additional engineering 5 y y i x , - m~~~' ~z ` A services which cannot be described at this time. These additional services may include A '4' 4 ; v --V -v 4=r, special engineering work or additional services beyond the basic services described herein. ~ ' ~ _ i 7 i 3 ' Y 4 f - 3. 11 R1 S,£R ~-11, ~ t 1 f If requested by the Client, the Engineer agrees to perform the additional services in , w ` c accordance with Article III, paragraph 1. , ~ - s1- 3. Time Schedule- The En ' eer shall be' work u a ' ~ y 4 - gin gut upon execution of this Agreement and will io N r t, r~ r ` continue the services on an areed schedule. A preliminary ro{4 `s 8 Pry Project schedule indicating the 4 T mxk t -.r'-'',L ' estimated times to accomplish the major tasks on the project through design and r 7 t r~ "s~ 9,' r~ s'z e F3 L construction is shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. , - 3. _ q~ ~ c ~ + !PR-,g t , - - C-- ~ 1S X- ,,.g - ,,Z ' - Agreement -Page 2 of 12 1, 'v-, 11 , Z, fir- sr~ . z.-_ r. a4 1 t is - --°a" '!-1V w *r ^i,.r 1 - - { d a - k . o~ ~~,,--,-,.~~.1t",~,~,-,-r,,,'I~;',~':,,',~,~,;-"~~~ , t 4' - , - - - , - ~ , , ~ , - ~ " -1, - 2 -,r~ -','1'.,", -."r'.' - - " . ,`-,-~J 'i -U ,i,-~;,~ r'- ; -,-,4 ` ~ - . - I , , " ~ - .1 - ~ --~i~~- -~,,,~l --~TV11;1~~-~ ` - - a a c ? --',k yf Y 135 ~1'u - ! ~i ~ y f t °`x ..F 'fly S + x L i~t L x - - t~ 'xp s F l r` d t ~ = , ` . - _ - - - - ,V77-WF I - `1 11,-', , 11 _,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - y r 1 - a s yam,-"` r - - < z } Y_ - s, - . t o j h "Y 1 ,Tg tE _ r 3 + hr t 41 -1 - r -Mr --H g _W 3 ' 'fi~, , v J„ '*r,-, .e...,..,.,.Kw.+~.w.a.urs " ' s`d x„- 3 1' 7¢ s_- a .1 , 020) I I a Nip " IN -i I'NWA 11 x rx Y 4. Insuranne- The Fnain- ab.+.m.,- to maintain throughout the duration of the agreement " j, ~s rxtt. „P= a_.__. It- - 3 3 { s ' period, (1) statutory wort ers' compensation insurance coverage, (2) comprehensive ts r i' i yy } - ~ s general liability insurance coves a and automobile liabili ry " - rat' g insurance coverage in the sum t ' {fi'' ak - r of not less than one million dollars 01,000,000) and (3) professional liability (errors andkz ' - & a omissions) insurance in the sum of not less than five hundred thousand dollars (5500,000) i ~ -N y, * ry annual aggregate, on a claims-made basis, as long as it is reasonably available under rG ~ ; ~ _ 4 K standard policies at rates comparable to those currently in effect The '3 -7 g,.; - insurance policies 'Z shall provide that the insurance shall not terminate or be canceled without (30) da R, L thirty days 5, ,v 7 ~ x z? z prior written notice. Certificates verifying that the insurance is in force throughout the r n Rt ~ M. " ` 11 il :a t term of this agreement shall be submitted to the City. N "M P ~ a c-~,,~ , - - I 11 - - Ft ° ~ a - -Ay k t ARTICLE III - OBLIGATION OF THE CLIENT ~ - « 7 tk 4. I " 1. Payment to the Engineer for --e For services rendered tinder Article II, paragraphs x~ f ' ~ : 1 and 2, the Client shall pay the Engineer on a time and expenses basis in accordance with the _ p _ hourly rates and other charges and provisions included in the Schedule of Charges (10/95) trt= 1 111-1. , al x attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Engineer's standard Schedule of Charges shall be reviewed y " r Fe~~' ~ annually commencing January 1, 1997, and shall be adjusted, if necessary, by the Engineer and .sue 3 -1 upon approval by the Client to compensate for variations of costs for each calendar year. Wit; * n z - ~!F Estimated budget amounts for engineering services for each task are shown in Exhibit D. The ~,I k a total amount of all tasks will not be exceeded without written prior authorization of the Client f 13 t `r~' a',r`M1 Gk's fc h t Agreement -Page 3 of 12 ~y n r~ ` - , 1 5k-Na 'r , x ~ z`( ' 4<r-~t. id r - . > ""t'ti`~£2' n a E' tit ' t i B s el -,-F - _ z _ L C .;~~A~~,5.', ,T."', r, , , - , I , OW . VF - , r ~ i,---- U L, - - 1 ; , 1. L ' _I ~L 1_ Ir' " , ~ - - , ; ~ "Ill, -~,'~;j_ , _~'j"tZ,",-,'L~', , - 1. - ~ t - -1 _ -,:,_1_ 1. . ~ . ~ I , _ ~~'r ~ - t4 I Mk,y, i ri 5zt; - 3 Y i~ - t 4 y,J lY w - ~,,i~ , , 1 ~ , ~ ~ . ~ tL I ',L - ~ ~K ~ ~ . - ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ?sr an r s rx - r t - ' - r , -tea a e t - , - I , ~ ~ - - , , ,7 . _ _ 0, ~j - ~ , r , . , , , - :r ~ 1' - , 1% ~ I - ~~I,~ .r I ' L I u 1 r r r s { i { r ~ ~ v_-a - ~ - , ~ ~ - ~ - 77'777-~' 1 M4 h YYZ.a.1'xk''dr tr h - - - d _ r _ k , - ~ , , A l x re= jy r c t # k 5- a, I ,~~'.'--,11-1%' ,~"!2 " `~11 , , -11, ~ - - i --'i , -7 g-x, c ^ .r ``nk, I'll 2 3 - ~ '+7' - ' "L.v-tra_ ti„ r vT - 3- r x~` z F ° na vl W , N1, 'W"Y ~ y~ WK e ~'1.kxw r'~ - J t - - 2 -y f. tea' i - A- ~'"`~-a-~+y~`~1~ti°~ +tie.` } - - r.z.._....- w_....~.WW .....e,.._~r r ~'`kYT'G - -YS - 11 f~r`~~~- a # is rv tM".,,-W} M - .4 >-11 .~7 1, P,-; ar , r 7s 2. Statements for Services. Statements for services of the Engineer shall be submitted xt fi Z kx web, z, 11 s -7" - F'r] _ P. s r" 's Y ir, , 2A, ~ ' F, monthly and payment by the Client shall be made within 30 days of the date the invoice is i - sr 1' , , ' f. - n t received Statements will include a breakdown by task of charges for individuals and - K ' - j`~ ® 3~ x ¢ r r other project expenses. Interest will be payable on the unpaid balance after 30 days from [f ~ '4~ ~ " > 3 - the date of the invoice at the rate of 1.5 percent per month. 141 v . - ~e s , ° ARTICLE IV - PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT , * -T ' 4 05 ',~WRA,k t!~ t L Assigr~lent of Contract Neither the Owner nor the Engineer shall assign its interest in ,u E - x this Agreement without the written consent of the other. p 31 2. Information Provided by Owner In order to facilitate the work to be performed by the k? ff F , ti II t Engineer, the Owner shall fiunish to the Engineer all information available to the Owner t ~ t , - g t ti > - having a bearing on the work It may be necessary during the work of the Engineer to ~ -,9N , z~f - locate and expose underground utilities and/or structures. The Owner shall cause such i~ } J excavation and incidental work connected therewith to be done at no cost to the Engineer. * j- The Owner shall provide to the Engineer water systems operations services including all ~ - - s labor, equipment and materials to assist in accomplishing water systems operations if so , Y ? } r " required for the project. The Engineer shall give the Owner at least two days notice of eN§~ ~ E t ~s e t sk - 3"ya.'`ay..fy'Ftc'~ L - 5 any work required.' y1-"r3° _ ,fir t + te, r S- r~ri Ik 3. Oa*+er to Provide pgal Acres The Owner shall provide to the Engineer or the ; t , I - . b Engineer's representatives legal access to the properties which are necessary in lrr# - - -4 -,T s 1~ i~ F5~ f~ - t _ performance of the work. Owner shall provide access for the Engineer to these properties k , } Y r t Y T f_ F fF `m~~4-x F1 _ _i R} Pia j~ z k - 4 ,.T.~ r. f s !'p 7 J f j 11 ,4 4'4,7 k Wa -"f #',a r -2 1 T',, S ill- f --z< s " n F r-'`x s,vw, is ,x - ti"J # - ^.a Fxw x r rM,4 w :i S - - .yam. n--_A i,. - z 4 rr 1 P M- P r - - k' -a titwx ir x c g'- j, r ~ ! r s ~e a' kl s a ry x , ~ , - - I ~ . , U -1~ $ 1 ` J - S~ t 11 - - - x , ' - s.°s-x_'e`'a'r , ,r tics }z= _ 4i 'u -r} t -x { - - ° ,a .i~ - zt- r - t _ _ - _ ~ L~ { 5 L i 1 r LY F - P I'll R _ isY e f4 y - r ~ 4 S ~~t - x. - ns~ i xl - for the making of measurements and obtaining details for work to be performed by the i - s y "M 11 lyiKt' Engineer. a y?, -k 4. Qpnnion of Construction Cons Any opinion of construction costs prepared by the ' } h - e ! =p - x - Engineer represents judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general, + guidance of the Owner. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor and { g . N` i q materials, or over the competitive bidding or market conditions, the Engineer does not % ~ kz t +ik y{ 1.1 ~f - guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to 3 i the Owner., 3 1-0 , i 5. Miscellaneous Project Related FeeC The Owner shall pay the costs of plan checking and ; - r ~ ~ ~l inspection fees, zoning and annexation application fees, assessment fees, soils engineering ~ a ~ -1' 5, 4~ x m ~ _ _ fees, soils testing fees, aerial topography fees, and all other fees, permits, bond premiums, f - ~ title company charges, blueprints and reproductions, and all other charges not specifically l~ , % L . r x 4r , covered by the teens of this Agreement £t ~ ~ ~ ` r F 6. Standard of Practice, . i j . In the performance of professional services, the Engineer will use ~ a 11, . that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by 'table. - - s ' members of the engineering profession practicing in the same or similar locations and no _,z x; F _ c e err E K] 11 'F , , b pt W, other warzanties, expressed or implied, are made intended in any of the Engineer's ix v ; proposals, contracts, or reports. 4 _p f . 7, < 6 7. Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials may exist at a site where there is no reason to it -s "'r ` ` ` - ~ `)r - r g a 'r, believe they could or should be present. The Owner and the Engineer agree that the z 3~ T ' " - discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition which + fF z z, . - iRrexs . 5 .r. 1 a ~t ,y rs *,,,st,~?.,S` fix. r,, Agreement -Page 5 of 12 h -V,' F . s = x, } ,1V ~ ¢3. f J -''.ash 's, { r $k t r }'r r- E i -$C?f ~..~r any x -t - ro i~,fi`~ e a a _ 'z v x'x 4c !p: b ; 't- 9 d - 'i'u' J k dt -~4r'r,~s,~-s a g -s s ~ s F`i, , i.~t - 1 set z,_~, c F f~'-"-W~"~- , t-'i- L , - : , I ;~'S" I ' , ' ~ye Q EVS-1,511IF-I '~~:7~-:~~-',~ - - - r " - 11 11 - - - 1. i, , ' - ' I I , I I--. , I I ~ - - r , -1 4~..- 1 1 ~~I~ _ , " ,r "W e 5 1 . ~ - ~ . I I .1 . . ' - - " ' ' " - - - - r~ - - r ~ 10, I-, _ k - - - r r „ - - - - Y.., .?.sit - - M,--. -.rT'` a v; K - L, +r r:-2 - ; :.fir. ~,„,x may-. I_ " - - - y..,. - a' wmj x P ; to r - t ,SjY ^,t a .e+ S t i s d a< 1, " ON t _ Y y~ - s r? Ms } *+t"R3' 2 'G-~- h l T _ v.i y e, .S +5a.- ','.'Z f 1 t 4 f i 1 5 3 „ gr:a° 4 'r Yt' h' Y+~11 I --5 Y \N 7 ,s'R "Y r dam:. -.1. '46 J,s- 11 17 1, se} . 7..r fit,.,' S z" 'cam h ' r,*y 5-,LC s' t^ 4 4 k "r%{`e-y'' d ja r could necessitate a renegotiation of the scope of work or termination of services. The A f, ~ R o X ~ ~ `k a Owner agrees to compensate the Engineer for the additional cost of working to protect { ~ $ ~''4~f z. u employees' and the public's health and safety as might be associatedwith such hazard ous * , ~ , .V is , ti conditions. In addition, the Owner waives any claim against the Engineer, and agrees, to °-F s ' r the extent permitted by law, to defend, indemnify and save the Engineer harmless from any t x - ,3 T~ [ ~34 7 'ah;! r 4 n ~,i , , l{ , - - _ claim of liability for injury or loss arising from the Engineer s discovery of unanticipated E ` A , t K ~ 3` t ` E hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials. The Owner also agrees to - . r ~ compensate the Engineer for any time spent and reasonable expenses incurred by the r z $ Engineer in defense of any such claim. G , ,,z r w 8. Cn_ges to Plans and Sprifications by Others, In the event that any changes are made in , I , ' t ar plans and specifications by the Owner or persons other than the Engineer which affects the 1 ~ s rt ~ - 71 t- Stu, t° , ~ar:, r { y - Engineer s work and such changes are not acknowledged by the Engineer, any and all -2 >w, 4, - V t~h~ T -W I liability arising out of such changes is waived as against the Engineer, and the Owner , 4 t. assumes full responsibility for such changes unless the Owner has given the Engineer prior ~ ~ e-h .z notice and has received from the Engineer written consent for such changes. ~ r - ~u_I n 9. Delays. All agreements on the Engineer's part are contingent upon, and the Engineer shall r ` 1- ~-l not be responsible for damages or be in default or be deemed to be in default by reason of ~ .MK, r ~ ` F _ delays in performance by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, acts of God and other z s _ ri - N pp ~ »~Y, - -t F •y z delays unavoidable or beyond the Engineer's reasonable control, or due to shortages or fi ' I z yrt 4 °k F y' ~x unavailability of labor at established area wage rate or delays caused by failure of the ' 1 Owner or Owner's agents to furnish information or to approve or disapprove the n j r ~°W I, h { n.,! T P T L, y [ 1~ Agreement - Page 6 of 12 y y + C~ , F ,.a-''•'uz',--, r r -,vii -4"~'xr x r 4.~ a"x. -1 } - d11- s r r F t 4 t - rI' d 4,~ - c. ~ ` .a a' r i Cs 7 .J`..~ r k' P i r r f f I t r 5 t n 'i'1,. C -~y r ~'i S a r _ t s f ~7 i s iceoE1,,✓~ y - s 7,-, Y s -rx ` , ' - T: - ~ ' - , - - , , ~ , W . ~ ~L~' -1 I - - ~ I - .~~.,'~,,f'~~,~~---,-,--,,~~,~~--~, r 3 _ 1 . .x ~ . L 11 - .1 . I . ~ I I 0 . I , I ~ i,~ I , , ~ f S, - _ - - 11 '.e I. r:'~ i s , - • i. e • : _ - . f- _ _ _ - _ ~4 . 'M - -1 11-11i - --t _ _ EKHT~~ ~ - 11 I ~ s" rt@ cis F a F _ r> a 4tE3y^.~hi9 y "'^a tC` 5✓ 'G - F _ u ` .S..r'~ Y` ` z it ¢r' x- 0 { •T,+T I 4r• ' , Y - L - - < - Y t~ T V, f ? M l,} - -,a. _ M11-9-115-41M : 11 N-, " ~ 1~f- - i4 ~ N r Engineers work promptly, or due to late, slow, or faulty performance by the Owner, other , } r3 ~e p ry x# r } si ;~z " ~ h t S t `yN - { 11 Y 1 t x„ contractors or governmental agencies, the performance of whose work is precedent to or s ~ j I i - fi concurrent with the performance of the Engineer's work In the case of the happening of S _ 3K+ t4 - op I ` T, k $ "'fit it f 's3 v~.tq M. i t- - C S :K r-I 1 ,t r of delay, the time of completion shall be extended accordingly. f • 4< any such cause $ s W ra r - -x{ r 5 N-G 'fig ~ - s ~`R 10. Unauthorized Reuse of Documents. All reports, plans, specifications, field data, field fa~sa i- tg~ x notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates and other documents prepared by the - , , a~,~ t - F `tr.4k~i, i Engineer shall become the property of the Owner. Reuse of any drawings, specifications 'r1 % 5^kx S J r k. and other work product of the Engineer by the Owner on extensions of this project or any ~ -1~ a t other project shall be at the Owner's risk and the Owner agrees to defend. indemnify and %c'3.,~ ~ r h hold harmless the Engineer from all claims, damages and expenses arising out of such - vx~ z~ sr4.~ YE- 1'f T; 4 a~~N reuse by the Owner. ~~Y { £ 4 11. T2ermination of A- eement. The Owner may terminate this Agreement by giving the i~ }t~ t4~ -1 Y s -7 ~ ir- - -„`k~",„,~'r to a ~ Engineer written notice of the abandonment or indefinite postponement of the project If °~y~~ v »fty , any portion of the authorized work covered by this Agreement and begun by the Engineer ~ ~ • i ; S ~ V, I P 11 ~ shall be abandoned, unreasonably delayed or indefinitely postponed, the Engineer may y " I- 7 x , ..X t - ' terminate this Agreement. Whether or not terminated, the Owner shall pay the Engineer k ~ E N:" ~ ~ E t 5- - [{[F forth e services rendered in connection therewith prior to written notice of such ~ s abandonment, delay, or postponement, payment to be based insofar as possible on the s~ 4, xr amounts specifically established in this Agreement, or, where the Agreement cannot be sir ; y `r c .H F4 "ice" ,~2 p . r' N k applied, on the basis of the Engineer's current hourly billing rates plus expenses. `"i4 xe - t - A a r,~ .p E - - I3 -11 - - S '~r.'.'y L JC a --y ~LJ rF 'qF S , 1 "I - _ - e{ LLL : Agreement - Page 7 of 12 v 1l1 i't- f r , - t7~ r - rTM a rt-t§ e ,kt~ 4z f i s~' .sew { i~ - 1 ,moo,. r~~~n.,+~ _ _ ' , . x f _ a. r F _ _ n' tit r f ~1 , ~ , 12 " ~ - t - - , - - c-1 I , - 11.1-11-1 11 1k., , ~ is YY , -.s G 3- ~'S~t.rab 41 t;~- - l_ 5 TF - 7 t . 14 dy j 4 - - - '>F x E i { . e.~,. •_v 4 11 r.;c,?~v re r ':l- .;,';1,, ..t~ znm+ :wtir a✓. 11t y. ;e rr+ - n `,3 fire - ; ? w y 4 - - _ _ i #c r v q, ms's ' 1 a - c - Y c: S3X'73"k ~,r°F. ue r t } ~J. r, - L t - i}- _ 4 x t,- F3YR` ' J 4 Ya ~'v - - fi w k _ -ra a, x -F ~,7 --S _ - -Y' J - L- e117 . . Z ,~,kA"r-,', } - w hi t red !-?-c `i , 12. Contractor's Responsibility forProiect and Safety. The Owner agrees that in accordance ~ a - ~4 2 ; , with generally accepted construction practices, the construction contractor will be 3 " . 11 ~ t , 7 4 hk» ~ f ' required to assume sole and complete responsibility for projects, including safety of all t } ~ ~ t; o aka 5 ,k _ Nom" v - persons and property and that this requirement shall be made to apply continuously and ~ ` W~ x not be limited to normal working hours. _o * - t r _ r ' 13. Insurance Provide iby Construction Contractor. Construction specifications prepared by a~ ~ - , w ` yk x a , t 1$ ! "M' f the Engineer may include standard provisions for insurance coverages to be provided to k w,5 s s the Owner by the construction contractor. Since the Engineer is not qualified to advise on £x t a„ 11 ~t - r - t insurance matters, the Owner agrees to review those provisions prior to the bidding ra~~, }~'11~ M -4 q i ,~,assx._:, - - - r,=.r.~:s,¢;^ 'rv~t„ _ - _ process with ltS insurance advisor and to notify the Engineer of changes to be made, ]f # ; ,ra, • y r { any, to these provisions. The construction specifications will include provision for ~Vz ;.t~ c submittal to the Owner of insurance certificates. , , t k " s 14. Services During Construction. The Engineer will provide general observation of the ~ i ;-y y,,~ . , contractor's work on behalf of the Owner by conducting periodic visits to the site of the Y 1 project to observe the progress and quality of the work and to determine, in general, if the me ~ ,a ~t work is proceeding in accordance with the intent of the contract documents. Periodic y , a *17 - visits mean at least two visits per week when there is construction activity at the project kl . ; a 1~5~ . " _ site. At least one of the above described twice-weekly visits shall be performed by one of - #'1 ' ' V'. k k - z• ri t the following named principal representatives of the firm, Philip H. Smith, David W. 11 1 ,r 3 - x r x,~ ' , I eibbrandt or Chris H. Uber. On the basis of these visits, the Engineer will keep the " , ~ f ~ , } 1 E 5 t x &t Owner informed of the progress of the work, will endeavor to guard the Owner against 4ti fig ',3 e 1° z. k t Agreement - Page 8 of 12 ~ W -77 v VI . .f'" ..i _ , y*~2.^k °t 1^!9.: d a y_r-- zq' x' w t r r b 5 _ 1 Y - ~7 - f 3 p e`, _ - k -2T ~',,`J~~,~~,"~?,,~'-i; - - -l- '"'I'l , . - _ , : , , I 1, , , . , - - . - - , ~A - -1 I r ~ k r'f k - + fi 2 ~"t yet :i a - - _ ?r d & -a Jn i x'C f-'j - :I z''t t~ - ' 2F 4 k - x4 S 7~cr 't~,, , t f - - Y -f ~-L Z - t 1F _ { 1 L s x s,. - - x sz i 4 - - Y - - - J _!w ,t_,_~_ _,y 5 . ~ f~ , I , . , , , , ~ , - R - 1~ M - .y yt t g 4. K } . r F • t t i r ' f - v3, X-, 1 i.st GS. ^ S - - k 4p U,,gk~ ' 31i4 fL h n'"r.~ _ 1 ~'CE 4 3q -'4 W~~r I _ } t I, I q, m- s~~-'1"- F *,..s~.s:_ _ -:.~...~...r. ,Fro't- 4 b mss{- 's 1 5d , - defects and deficiencies in the work of con*ra_ctor(s) and may advise the Owner to ' ~ ~ , I -1 sLvf Ski'' s ~f t - ,1 ' reject work or materials that fail to conform to contract requirements. Visits to the ,n -l r r construction site and observations made by the Engineer shall not relieve the contractor of 1 r~~ ^ its obligation to conduct comprehensive inspections of the work sufficient to ensure a z 2 conformance with the intent of the contract documents, and shall not relieve the ~ ' ~ ~ 6" F' ax t -le Ns - 5 ~ - , 3~ construction contractor of its full responsibility for all construction means, methods, , gr iR h t - L--' 4 -E~"'t T i A techniques, sequences and procedures necessary for coordinating and completing all ti~4 - L v portions of the work under the construction contract and for all safety precautions 4 t ~ i s R s- 1r. incidental thereto. , M # ftf-T 15. Construction Observation. The Engines will furnish the services of ar on-site , + 04Z 1. - t i'&--, 7- , I i - TrY Y construction representative(s) to provide observation of the wort: of the contractor during ah r ~r ~ s r - x- the period of construction The construction representative will make out weekly reports ~ ` r a ' h c a mot v of construction progress and will prepare monthly estimates as the basis for payments to , J' - - , ~ - _ . & j contractor as construction proceeds. The weekly reports and monthly estimates will be - ~ a x Provided to the Owner and will be reviewed by the Engineer's project manager and other , -.z ' - s^ Project staff. The construction representative will endeavor to guard the Owner against ~ii x 71 ` e y~ ~ 1 a defects and deficiencies in the work of the contractor and help determine if the provisions 1 - ~ 5 7~~ of the contract documents are being fulfilled On-site construction observation will not, t , , t- ' however, cause the Engineer to be responsible for those duties and responsibilities which ~ x - , s t ~ ~ r belong to the contractor and which include, but are not limited to, full responsibility for a, is - " the techniques and sequences of construction and the safety precautions incidental thereto, ','r ~ - r p`N - 4,-P , - 'k ~ F 4 - ...tiX "tkt y s "dtn W1 2 -3 - J- rt.r`~B- ta'i` q~ J, :l",;1 € p A~ `Agreement - Page 9 of 12 ~ " t - FN r, _ M a ~ k, . n" h a , -hid ,i ' ? 1°~ - f ' ' : ,gi g' - "s - rhf e ` q 1 i f`t CP - YY [ F- , ,ai tea. - 1 !k Mkt C{ ~ r - F - r' # a, -y , l ~ - , , ,~'t:,,-':,-- , - 1-0 2 I - --~~7 -7 " -~,~]%-r , - 1, _ . , , , - , - --If - - , , "t -4,~'.', I r 4 r'' t' - _ r 'S9 L ds as - _ t * , _ fi 4 r t £ aY 3 ; ha .3y4. F; lr i i~ , , - , - , ; , , , ~ - - ~ da 'i 12- , I - . , , I I ~ - . _ . , "r Y . 1~ - ~ - _ , - ; .-I,.,7, , - t -1 , ~ - - R z 's -_'-s 11 u M, * g .ra.~'4 x Y "`.T-z? i F - f r s 1 q' R - ~?~trt a, ® ® t ''f :01"_- ~ , 7_,r-_, - - , " - , ~ . ~ , - ~ 'M ~ ~ _ , k - ' - - F f,}1, h-- Y .gyp ' f4 -~1 L x"fttg ,`4 and for perforating the construction work in accordance with the contract documents. ask gF t -t''; t - . - 4 The Engineer will report to the Owner observed deviations from the requirements of the _ , t " S^ t r ~ - g F - 1 contract documents. The l rtgineer v.-,11 faciLt~tP a final inspection of the constructed z q sit F ®r - -III "I x +r ; project and will make recommendation to the Owner regarding substantial completion and Y i x i~i 11 36 ' final project acceptance. - - ! ~ , - , 16. Drawine and Submittal Review The Engineer will perform Shop drawing and , k submittal review. The Client and the Engineer agree that effective re~7ew of shop i~z t' , a R ~r 4 a r _~~...f ' i drawings and submittals is important, and the Client encourages the Engineer to develop a ` Y 1 - i,~ h procedure that is properly funded to promote effective im lementation. The Client agrees t - 3 , rM,P i _ _ ~ ,57 amp a that the Engineer shall review shop drawings and other submittals solely for their 3~s~~e~ " r 5.€ Y ,tom x' s d conformance with the Engineer's design intent and conformance with the requirements of - W t " A } i the construction documents. The Engineer shall not be responsible for any aspects of a - t s 11 N, - # t C n ~ + shop drawing or other submittal that affect or are affected by the means, methods. s ~ techniques, sequences and operations of construction, safety precautions and programs ~ Z ,e ~i?~~ ~ incidental thereto, all of which are the contractor's responsibility. The Client wan-ants that ~ as ' the contractor shall be made aware of his or her responsibilities to review shop drawings ' . r ' w , , IN and other submittals in these respects before submitting them to the Engineer, and that the R.R & 11 , ' . 11 I contractor will further be advised of the need to adhere to the shop drawing r, and other ' - _ 1~ 11 a ~ s a a submittal schedule furnished to it by the Engineer or otherwise agreed to by the Engineer, u, -111.1 * M ~ r r , ~a „tee ' T _ 4s- F y the need to call any variations to the Engineers attention, and such other requirements and, zT i ~ „ responsibilities as may be identified in construction documents prepared by the Engineer. N , - , i f'p f - i - - "t , -Fr ` ~ k L_S _ t Agreement -Page 10 of 12 Sate, k F Y.C NF4-3 - jII a a - r.- ' x, i i - k' a2r'"3in 7 13 r~#r~ f e -r - _ J, i- AT' A m 4-- a j - 4 - - ,yr o- z9 - - ax 1, is - l s t vk r ~ a v _ f _ t { r 1, a. £ ~ x" P I 11 O _ - M1y ! _ b q-s~ 1. 1 ,f ; tM , - - , , , , , - , , , , ~ - _ _ I I' -0 - - - a - - - { - Y{q 'i r r ' i f t - i' ,r - 3 i s - t i - - z s - _ t -3r f s v t - 4 Y `i a sv ~ m t=-.,;ate. - - x , 11 , 11 "yLS a - - a i ^l- s k t - 4' & 1a" _-a ,gyp, - zt_ itbvT 5 h + i_ c, a .g :~Y` " g ':,y'ew r t - h ~ 'ate 17. Record Drawings. Upon substantial completion of the work, the Engineer shall provide d ~ k k the Owner a set of record drawings, which may be partially or completely based on. s ^ h ; ' ; r h"r - r wti r ~a r s f - information provided by the contractor, which illustrate the reported location of work and ' ' y ~ `k A . reported materials and equipment installed. The Engineer will endeavor to and make ; M' ~ x , _ _ fir` ry t is,".d p a - reasonable efforts to obtain accurate information from others with which to prepare such ~ _ ~ ; c x 'z` , 'A . record drawings. In that record drawings may be partially or completely based on e " "M 3 k information provided by others, the Engineer cannot and does not warrant their accurac y''' ` 3 e Mg -.7 v v ;~r. p 18. Di=te Resolution All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to ' _4 ff - wr'La 5, ~~g a x the interpretati on, application or enforcement of this Agreement shall be decided through 'rt t p - r. ` z r j mediation as adopted and described by the American Arbitration Association. The parties Y = gWk s F further agree that the Owner will require, as a condition for participation in the project and `rr? = tE " i M OR < 2, s their agreement to perform labor or services, that all contractors, subcontractors, and y, material persons and their insurers and sureties shall agree to this procedure. W ' 19. Services Exclusively for Owner. Services provided within this Agreement are for the r exclusive use of the Owner. - z_ r - n 20. Severability. The Client and the Engineer have entered into this Agreement of their own 't".1 i = 'M' -1 I rk ~ ~ free will to communicate to one another mutual understandings and responsibilities. Any, t element of this Agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, ; ~r ~p s s - and all remaining provisions shall continue in force. However, the Client and the Engineer rt{ 'L F$rt -LE', r k a t' y r' will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or unenforceable provision with one that is z - A t " " t. ' - ~ 17 ` a' Agreement -Page 11 of 12 ~r" ~J r 11 k i~ ~ J E -a ~f N} -1 i 4 w i; ~A R'ys E kk - - - F -F.c t 1 t -I ` y' S f k W s3 3w 4 x - * - - - ,,4 t , : - , ' 0 _ , ~ I ~ - . . E s v y, a s . r ra_ Y - 1 E J 1,T ry U a $ _ 7 i{ F: x z r n -Z-"'~' L'Moi~o -"'-~V , " , . - . - - -'w'~~- - ~ . - - . r 3< . I ~ . ;4 ~ I 11 i_ ' - M , [n" --l-, - S l ~ 4l 11 , I . M: ~ ~ I r _ .x T.__-.w~-'~ _ a._•."'w.~-,...n. r, . . - n~-++'._-TVt~ 1 r . 1...' ..c_.n-. _ -_s..{- __L Y _,_.w .[.-.-ui... 'Wry r. _.._._rr v..._.._~ _..~J _ ' - t 4. a'"*+ r n: - I s _ 1 .,x r -t _ e. v,1.--"I' .I i t T 1 S x,' -tom. "I"~' t'''ti~~' n S _ 7' y L - rya 4~. .3v . -.,;3 - x,'S'..':„ '.~3~xc, _ _ - a L s $ _ ~ _5 is s"igLr s ~ ..,'r - I Sfi rv - ~e..a.. -..._,.....r `1N: l.AE23'fVY3+."n~ - £ f. ^+ss~ 3,'34. €x e~ew'- 111 ~ ' f xRol 12WJ~'~ mg %t "n . I lf.- ~ 1 valid and enforceable, and which comes as close as possible to expressing or achieving the t' ~~;t<=; G,' :°i intent of the original provision :ku gg~ ~ "5 } 21. Survival. All obli ations arisin or to the termination of this Agreement and all , { ski x~a' g gPn " }"y w provisions of this Agreement allocating responsibility or liability between the Client and g t J sa ° -14 `w ; ' ~ s , 3 the Engineer shall survive the completion of the services hereunder and the termination of .k'- _ , t ' . 4M - 'Z ~ this Agreement. , ~ t} ~6,~ ' ' ° 22. a-tent of Agreement. There are no understandings or agreements except as herein , -e h~~h ~ ~ 4 g's} , 1:1 - expressly stated. g~'.fi.m n E .t-~ z ~ " ~~~T IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed ;a , x y { 433 ~ ' ` } M. ~ . - j x ' in duplicate by their respective authorized officers or representatives. ~ zs 4 # ~ 5 j t` , i { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - i mo pl~ a 'z'r~ i ,',~~',',4'-',',';~i.~7,11~',~,-~4',;~- '1~ '~01""-f' / .~d - i" Jim Nicoli, Mayor - C {t . Ara j',S y X~ ' ~ r MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. I,.t ~ ~ ~ t r°ro k'dtf t 1! f 4 Ttie.;g '~srYr, j w fi ¢ as - - , By: watt ex,k, -t i t , _ i sP f ti Philip H. Smith, President s , ~ . , , , . - ~ " -6~111r-l r [ of t r zr L x I, ~ F 1 `F ~ w2,, s `t z Mf5 c t h 'x,-3 _0i k~ Agreement - Page 12 of 12 s t' x r~ r 4 r r z * s _ 6 7 4rE ~,aS ' 4 { '~^4, -Xt ~''L ~wc..Ts~,--!!! rw ww+.+m±.~.r-,- ..-:.wwro-ax~M.r 'A°t1M'4 ilKmwwww }rrmtc`snx+-t.~' ~-,,'rr't, . fT`7 y"S~y F''. T , I ~11;-o E ~ - " " ~ , - T: ."'f.'2 7`.','~- s tr " 5-oYM Yy4.h ft i _ 1 RE h ,L ~,i , A fib""#' f 1 v s i c vt - 4 - may. - -r, 0 ±MR,z~~`"^ g t k- r , e _ i~ xry' a r - r 2 a _ _ us; Aft d' st - f f k 6 w,. { s" -1 Y 4 9r 1 Z 00 Xg a3c LOW, MN! _0 OUM ,v - MR 54, OrN EXHIBITS „M , Ex ' it Description Ix pp3 $4 s ? Win- * A Scope of Work Y _Oo B Project Schedule C Schedule of Charges f r ~r e Fee Budget and Spreadsheet -~1 E E Preliminary Design Report Lk, r~ ` Geotechnical Engineering Proposal Lk > a sr§ F fr4~i pj~ }3 s ~ " Y r M1ti wis xi -f„tv -3K~ ix, p+.N x"8l1 fy ~~{u °-k~ ,.u5g; s - 'Yy ~Mp~ ~Yxx4 g~~ -fit''{ €}Y ~~g•,s t„e x t r PIN 'M MR -7 '17 ND. -Al NI. , =ts tw t"`3s~ixc e-d f i t '7 t _ - f xi~ 3 {y eE9u~',x"a,'`gt~,~ ^ IMJ a } L ; ~~'o-„~ra~ x, c5T5 r>< _ +s y `n; -r+ +'r4dy33 ,a. ~ ~c L % .t s`E o-k~ a3 ?P - 1 a F -his r.h s+ r w` 'm~xG- kyrp ms'ss a x ,i a a w.a.L "s"y.,°tb w I h " x S nt d P 6t' 14'J - i 4 -1 Z >s a s-_k A Ng 7}fti , 4 ' Z- a a axf~r~- f~ 'zN r s ref -t A s',y3 C a x icy hl } 3`t - -10 ;zk s EXHIBIT A t SCOPE OF WORK MENLOR RESERVOIR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON g: iPt? Y. L W Project Description " t f The Mentor Reservoir project consists of a 3.5 million gallon(mg) water storage reservoir t which is to be located on a City-owned parcel of land on the northwest slope of Bull h Mountain in Washington County, Oregon. The project is more fully described in the letter } report document entitled "Mentor Reservoir Preliminary Design" as prepared by Murray, Smith & #y r t , Associates, Inc. and dated November 17, 1995. This document is attached hereto and is entitled x Z' Exhibit E. This scope of work is based upon the project as described and outlined in Exhibit Ey Y' r and as further clarified as follows:" 1. Electrical power will be provided to the reservoir for purposes of lighting, power for a - maintenance activities, and power suPP1Y for instrumentation, control and telemetry systems The Engineer will design a three phase, 480-volt underground power supply to the reservoir site xr~k~ 3 y~z $ in accordance with PGE requirements. The source of power will be PGE's underground primary power system located in SW 154th in the vicinity of SW Firtree Drive north of the entrance to 4~~ ((F[nr -':'t'ift"a s.-,yF-• yb'~ T'T L,. the site. A primary voltage conduit will be designed from the source to the reservoir site terminating at a transformer pad. A secondary power distribution panel as well as a panel to x j r z _ ryt house the instrumentation, control and telemetry equipment furnished and installed by others will 121-0 be designed PGE will install the primary cable, transformer, and secondary cables to the meter.] s t r 9 -j F 1y 't"1G' y# 4 E 2, The Engineer will design an underground telephone conduit for installation of a telephone ` A~J service to the reservoir site for connection to the telemetry system by others. z t 3. Design and coordination of the installation of any instrumentation, control and telemetry Z f kk G u systems necessary for the reservoir will be performed by the City or its representatives. The ` 'r Engineer will coordinate the reservoir design to accommodate these systems and will provide x ' conduits as directed by the City. s k u+' "Fp A-1 a r' t+ G RN" - r - - ?a a- t l Kok +.M1f,- - - !-r^~" Y ~ 1 ~ ~I F C u a t M!W 1, _ - k r, . frr Y - _ ~ - - M y.- k Z 4t_. _ 0 - I 4 7~ -0 ~ ,IIIQ`,V-~ , ~ ~ , ~ z~`,-_. L'I - : " I - , - , ; x,ss,'=s.'- car - t r t r ; {fir M. I I 1~~ - ~ . --.7 ~ i .3a£ _ t 0 4 s}x a ryM B , -it" L g e~ Lt F i' 4. Landscaping design will be included only to the extent necessary to provide for restoration of ~ - z, ir x W ~ zY ; ` r - the project site that is disturbed by the project construction for that portion of the project located i~~ k ..3 ,I 1 - -7 f - - kg- Y-V _ on the City-owned Menlor site. Security fencing will be provided as will an entrance gate to the ~ ' ~ jam', 4' - I ~h6-Fr'x ~I _f 5. The on-site storm drainage System. w-;ll lt:..re impervious surface storm drainage flows as well ~r s c as providing for flows from reservoir overflow and reservoir drainage, all in accortiartce County j W r - 4 2 t..~~ r 4+ .ti5 requirements. Provisions for dechlorination of overflows or drainage flows from the reservoir will s, r ? x r 7T consist a small retention tank with provisions for City-owned portable chemical feeding r' E f z equipment No chemical feeding facilities will be included in the project design It is assumed y- , s that storm drainage from the site will be discharged to the Unified Sewerage Agency's system 'gam i r a a t~'''N,~, .-1 * _ - - 11 _ The assumed point of connection is at the intersection of SW 154th Avenue and SW Firtree - '.J _ V , -F L I f ' Drive. It is assumed that the system is adequate to accept flow from the reservoir site and that no i 17% - 7 k~ iS I 1-1 - downstream upgrading of the system is required ~ t F =t ' t n 6. Two low pressure 16-inch diameter mains (reservoir inlet and outlet) connecting the water y distribution system to the new reservoir will be designed The off-site portion of the main will be r r - f rti Q I- I" routed on SW 154th Avenue between the site entrance and SW Scholls Ferry Road. rS , . _11111 7. A high pressure main connecti ng the water distribution system to the new reservoir site will be ~~-,few i 4 designed Provisions to allow flow from the high pressure main into the reservoir will be ` - k rt a 3 , k designed ; : h - ~ml ~ml ` 8. Construction and permanent access to the new reservoir is assumed to be the Round Tree - _ .~n Estates (SW 154th Avenue) alternative. A . J ~ ~ r ~ i ,I, 9. Acquisition by the City of a portion of a privately owned land parcel located between the x b'~ .r x tr < proposed north entrance to the reservoir site and southerly end of SW 154th Avenue may be rq~* r~ z~_,t ,i 11 lca red. The Engineer will coordinate with the private owners and their engineer to provide ~~I ' ~t s j ° k for a route for the access road and pipelines and other utilities across this property. This route xI ~ ~ , j s may be a dedicated public road in a proposed development on this property or a dedicated #4ItiK 111, , ,7 i right-of-way for use by the City only for the reservoir project. If the road is a public right-of- ~ ` > s r t t way, it is assumed that the road will be designed by others, If the mad is for use only by the ' E °r fs City as an access road, it is assumed that it will be designed by the Engineer.,'! k 1 'Y ,y' S 2 t- l?r,- ' V L B f A-2 ' . F [ ~ t f£ .r t d t 4 !7 N itea i "i . { - . V - n„.....~-,.a..m Y ; S d. ' ~ V _ ?S K ! t „s - r t ^]I Ns4 F r r ,r ~ _ L ~ !,S1 i 1 - ! Yj t. {-Y t ~~-sr 5 of 1. 'r,£5S t - - 4- >w 3 r- f x 3 !f i..._-.. _..i - f_ l.c y...-, - i.. ..__C 2 etc ?r 3.Ls a - - 7 _ v t .i - s3'- 4 - a _~~.,L~'y., ;•'.~.,.-mss - - --v,-.. +:'.-i h ,"--}tom x~b iaz -a r 1 r -F _=F+. -,'s~~'-'-t t - fy'„ ! § Y'-y'4k 'ti`p fi 'az~- a'P r'i` - r a t r t - f - r z < r4 - a;,, ,h y , 3 _:f ~k - - - is _ a z.s : > E~,c:."s r11 7 ,.I - .__...__,.6:st4t .a:,~ ....4. ..a R n f"__; „c-y i - pit - ~'i~.y~# ~ ~ 'A 40V S zrr yy f 1- 3 P"'}s.i fi'x' - N x ~ - " 10. The reservoir structure will be of the prestressed concrete type. , y 1"V X ~tXJ O ~ h 11. The valuing associated with the reservoir will consist of isolation valuing, a one-way flow § r u -f altitude valve to prevent reservoir overflow during filling, and a check valve to provide for ~ ' 01 I ~ - - f 4 3 "'2` outflow from the reservoir. No other automated valving is assumed to be required for the ~ ~k tO 110i 1, i z 1 _ pnpjeCt,Y - is #r° - it- - + ~ T; c -r "U t,P dPC a; nti; bid and constructed under a single contract document set § -V ,Y_ 4r 1G. Ya mow. ~.--_O_ h I' .ri p ~C "'Jr' n and assuming a single general construction contract for the enure project. y "i 4 i ' z , Scone of Work _.;M,,'° n~ 7 a 14 r r The following is a description of the scope of work for the project. The major tasks are as follows: ~ S 1,1 s r , Task 1 - Conditional Use Permit Application Assistance a _ ' Task 2 - Geotechnical Investigation u I Task 3 - Public Meetings and Presentations "-*A 5i t d t Task 4 - Final Design Servicesrr~~ t r ` rz Task 5 -Permits. Approvals and Property Acquisition , ,R " ? Task 6 -Assistance During Project Bidding v I ` " _ n t k f E Task 7 - Engineering Services During Construction 4 , f { Y i Task 8 - Design and Construction Surveys t ' ' 11 , rs'. s The detailed task descriptions are as follows: ; _ , r r 4 { x Task I - Conditional Use Permit Application Assistance ~ k f Under this task, assistance with obtaining a conditional use permit for the project from , ~;s , i T Washington County will be provided. The Engineer will represent and assist the City with the -.~`N r " preparation and submittal of a conditional use permit application and supporting ylti£A~~~ t - i documentation such as renderings, maps and other such documents. This application will be 1,t 1-1- 4 s . - 3 4 r a quasi judicial Type Ill application to the Washington County Department of Land Use and _ T y , , Transportation. This application will require a public hearing process. The Engineer will - - ~ rfi- mot' a+ _ f"":, . t~ ,a ~`'~V. y j ~ A z assist the City in conducting a public information and input process to meet County x a „ ' Yfi~ ~~r, ,.1 Y 4 S - i 1 ~Jg~;S"~"~'~"Nt;V."-' ~%'q~!~~-9t In , - * " , " , . - ~ - I'll' ~-'_''t~" ~ "I " 'io~' Q f _,a z r, it Ye - d y'` { t 't ' I 1111 1" 7 a+vh'}74r'-1-1 s~' t _ 1 _1 ir,-4 5 - - ? f°,c,7 # rats { l.., d c -Y 1 Mli , -a' , ~ ~ - - '_:'_`1_ - ~ , ~ ~ v P- z Vi, h: L L r yC^r y-_-,, t2 f - - t5 a . I S , , ~ _ , . z S ,,s , r - ' a~. _ a a Cy x may} - ~ k ...y` to - 1 - f - x 7 's =fix' _ J f .„a D,'T'3'-.,",4 yn-;Xi =,KHf ::~.`-~y,•s?t:£;fi=v ftnIg- yg. e- . 4 _ rd iY a$ s 211 ~v~ sir ` requirements. The Engineer will assist the City during the application processing and assist N, 6" ~Mj t ti `t' ' k`i. It. At' " v with presentations to County staff, County Planning Commission and County Commissioners ~ ~}t I J, t . x i4 > x 2 Y if necessary. The Engineer will coordinate its work with the City staff and City legal counsel. a R ,W4-1 , ~f : It is assumed that this process will not be a contested one. ' t z , S,' I ~ ' a Task 2 - Geotechnical Investigation ' I ' ft . Under this task a eotechnical investigation of the project site will be conducted. The scope g y 5 1 ?f . A, -11 of the work is as described in Exhibit F attached hereto. y -x--~1 3 I r Task 3 - Public Meetings and Presentations r r 1 i t r.z' E s 1 r _ t ¢Y {~'trz.~ .7 J r f Under this task, assistance with conducting a public information and input process and y fi ~ , " making presentations will be provided by the Engineer. This work is supplemental to that ` ~~~,111 ~f 7 w.f v m a" r j5 provided for in Task 1 which is intended only to meet County requirements. The Engineer 5 ~ ? , k~ r ,xe'g -hr s ~a - will prepare graphics for use in making presentations about the project and will provide a 34 , { , ft~f7 x. - representative to discuss the project and answers questions. When appropriate, meeting 1" a - * r n a t summaries will be prepared to document the comments and input received from the public. - r~ n -w tg'v om- I -,11 k` 11 c ~*t Wig,,, 'a~"'i~x ` z az 3 ` The subtasks are as follows: t~f i- < 3.1 Predesign Phase - Prior to commencement of design, prepare for and attend up to a total 'rte M~" of five meetings with the neighborhood, the Intergovernmental Water Board and the City - ~ - _ • ~ r 3.2 Design Phase - During design, prepare for and attend up to a total of five meetings with t 7 R ~ the neighborhood, the Intergovernmental Water Board and the City Council. tk s I . ¢ Fes- ` ` 3.3 Construction Phase - During construction, prepare for and attend up to a total of three t meetings with the neighborhood. Meetings with the Intergovernmental Water Board and the , -,r t t ~f _ City Council during construction are provided for under Task 7. { r -z r i Task 4 - flrral Design Services l' . aY+ " - Under this task, the final design of the project as above described will be completed. The x , - V_ , subtasks are as follows: _ s _ Q-3 `4-" - + aim - r A-4 -i~.. m. 3- 2 ` W 11 Y 1' - ~}L m, y f l~ P9et'• K `-fi r _ - 4 t 5e p 5y, _'r" ` "y " $ x 4 , r E -_.1_'_1';__1' , ,1~ ~ - i V, , 777 1 1 "ii , - , " - , - ~ - " ~ - M A »w % Y ;'4 t i ty - k Ii Yk .fir - y- tt ~ rr tt t "t,. Y i -i rr 's - d h ,its ~7 t, 1 ',x a"~ L < } y 4 d S~ y`am` Y t _ x _ # - ' ry, C ~ "t - - , , ' - ' * - h l 0 ,~z . - - - - _ r IS'`.•~ - of----!#•v--~~r.- - ~:....+~`IT•e~.~'~~~~^!L . 3~.F'trTT'.^.'^ T.-' T` 1-11 ~_1111_ - -11 . _th _ - - - - - - - - rs ,t_ - - e # ~ t , a~ i "LL - ~ - K ~ , , A ;sk{' Y:.Y'd,-YSw.iy `;r>3,:p$'". z "~_V X 11 4, ^2 'a .fir ~~ng' -q$ 2 t - r _ M y iy r ! S- < t T~ -1 MP~ .FE rv ~ ,Aa , 41" , !1e1,-p-',~'~,',N1`w,--- , - t ,a Y, 11 i t t s" ~"N j% ` x 4.1 Conduct periodic consultation and coordination meetings with the City regarding they y~ ter- V ',F r ' - project design throughout the design process1 , 4,-i c "that G m_ 3 4~ fi"a'«-4,- - -11 4.2 Prepare and submit to the City an opinion of pro bable construction cost for the pro ject at w t 1, ~ ~ t approximately the 35% level of design completion. ' 4 ~ ;k 4.3 Prepare the final plans and technical specifications for the project. E ti,, ~h , [.L ~ _ 4.4 Prepare and submit to the City for review at approximately the 5070 level of desi r n ~ f ' ~ completion a draft of the portion of the contract documents consisting of the advertisement for x , r bids, instructions to bidders, bid forms, agreement forts, bond forms, general and r r , t ti supplementary conditions and any other standard documents that may be included aside from 3 1 jf - 1 - _ x g *t- - k-~' - the plans and technical specifications. These documents will be the Engineer's standard k . N ' I r documents. Incorporate any comments in the final contract documents. - , wt,, 'l t ~ ' t h ' - , k 4.5 At approximately the 50010 and 95°Jo level of design completion, submit up to five s a ms i &t s ' 1 complete set of contract documents to the City for review. Meet with the City to discuss any t mod`- ' f3~ comments to be incorporated in the final con tract documents. Print and bind additional $ ` W I - I I, s- contract document sets as necessary for permits and approvals. ~ -S . ? t, 1. a s 4.6 Upon receipt of review comments from the City and others, prepare final contract I a.~r. F, documents as necessary to be proceed with bidding. gel 11 ~ - ~~g ' t . 4.7 Prepare a final engineer's opinion of probable construction costs and submit to the City. I r L ~ I ~ r x I;' j Task 5 - Permits, Approvals and Property Acquisition ~ s 1, ~ g , " ; 3 Under this task, assistance with obtaining permits and approvals and acquiring property for - R, ` ~ f the project will be provided. The subtasks are as follows: s~z,+ av r ' i s v - ~}.t , " ' % 5.1 The Engineer will represent and assist the City with preparation and submittal of k i E616 t~1A3 i s applications for the following permits and approvals that are anticipated to be regained: 1) 4 , ¢ Z - - approval of the design by the Oregon State Health Division, 2) building, site development, at , I a s i street opening and other construction permits and approvals from the Washington County zz Zx , ~ r~ ' f Department of Land Use & Transportation, and 3) permits and approvals from the Unified } { ; u -Sewerage A en of Washington g c3 County associated with the drainage system. All permit and , 1 - 4' -qt-~-~,~~ - ~ ` ~ , f -1 , " , ' - " approval fees will be paid by the City. a a L . - A-5 a s it 14 3 -t 5 F - .w..,..... , i 5, 'Y kd I - i'/ 3y - k - ! 1 ~~-t 4 ,F X i - } yy V}i q-f J. k 1 - t a S S c~ [a _ , - " ~ , _ r Ll -401 k { ; - ' T-t ,f V'.` /C C i ,t y f j ~ , ~'~11~',~~i'-' , --'t~~`,,, -.t Jf;~, , - ~ , ~ ~ , , ! : : ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ _ r 1 _ ~ - ~ , ~ 7: - ~ ~ - _ ~ _ ~ , " , t - S - rt, .4 - Z Y - f 4 - } , - " L ' '1~ _ ,*,'~~'L: 1, _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - J 'S - - - - - - at- - ' ~ l f 1 - "r k 3 Y 4 V' J Y - . s - jig . - s _ - _ , - - , - fir?' Ti`f z - w - - - - 'a E 7, 1 - + - - _ -3-~ X1,4 _ t r v 1 s a_ x iw , tea" F x A y, i 1 - ! - x - - C X1,4 dS f iz Y - 'w'~,FCC~ c__.~.._, -....x~, y -r s.F`°' g; _ 12 rye {~A~", - , ~ ~t ~ a-arc{ ' s ~ a r d car k x -y q 1, 'y I K' CT h ,s~3'Z~E 'N - "t rs.? z f t ~ ""L= n 5.2 The Engineer will assist the City with engineering services for any property acquisition C s I- 1~ - ~ ON I'll 11. t } ~J required for the project. These services may include preparation of property descriptions, r i 'gin 4.c- - :t h = g s g=; - `r -E'ffi r' - . 11 - - consultations with property owners or their representatives regarding the City's needs, and fix:: sa;..s t Z:: ; ~ -1 11 x-o-~ ~ s ' { } property surveys and map preparation. c 1 _ ]s P 5, r , f Task 6 -Assistance During Project Bidding N w x Under this task, assistance will be provided to the City during the project bidding process. Ji r a~ ~j. ~ ~r t Y , The subtasks are as follows:"' ~ 1-1 : r ~rv } 6.1 Print and bind up to 50 sets of contract documents for the project. r Ms11 r ~R 6.2 Prepare an advertisement and arrange for publication in the appropriate media. I 3 . d S k a." ! t t kx -t s4 1 Advertisement costs will be paid by the City. t~~",~p - 6.3 Distribute the contract documents to the appropriate plan centers. a - ~ , ,,'A_ : 6A Distribute the contract documents to prospective bidders, subcontractors, equipment _ 2 x ~ r suppliers and other vendors upon request. A deposit or non-refundable fee may be charged. , m , xxs~~ ~t 6 rb Any non-refundable fees collected by the Engineer will be credited to the City's account. > , t ' t 6A Maintain a list of planholders. I , 3 " y . 6.5 Respond to questions of bidders, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors -F' x' z regarding the project and the plans and specifications. Maintain a written record of any Y T 3 communications regarding any questions. E - ~r i - r z 6.6 Review and act upon any submittals received as required by any pre bid submittal c 11 x x t~ ~11 1: a: ~ MI process. m" , ~ t 6.7 Prepare and issue any addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents. ~ E 3@" ~ 1 , 11 E 6.8 Prepare an agenda for a pre-bid conference and consult with the City regarding the PL 9~ ` t conference details. s ' 6.9 Conduct a prebid conference, prepare a conference summary, and distribute the summary to all planholders and conference attendees. F'x~ t 6.10 Attend the bid opening. Assist the City with the evaluation of the bids and prepare a " A'I, , T written bid summary document. Provide a written recommendation of award for the i7 construction contract. y - d A ,~~-4 ; ,~p~p~,.-~-*- r'~ - , L - - ~ , - ~ 1 ~ ~ " - 1'1*1 ~~,1`14Z 11 . 11 . - ~ , , , - > rH- - _ .--.-pmow -t a'xe i a F - k t --j - S - _s' - r { S . v E Y - 4 r - a-F - - - - , , i - F i 5Y d d {S - SST ~ y "t~ ] A Y. ice r-'fi t N t - y y } p b,W'Y~ E § h fit J S _ _ _ X t -t Ep a , ~ ~ ~;r , ,W - ' , , -i . " , 0 r , , - `a 'te _ - - r - ~t.:.. ....."ter _1..,.~t.. I ~._i_I.L "r_._ { _ _ _ 5 11 s , z sr, s- , ~s aa.wn-nkYU uas.,ca•,..,•...._ - ~,t d~tt `fs~,~ _ A 3 f' m r V r# _ Task 7 - Engineering Services During Constructi on r r_ xk y ~ ` Under this task, engineering services will be provided to the City during construction of the g a -t~" 7 project These services will be provided for up to a 13 month constructi on period this period )s , { s.LL -t` 3 g s 1~ ~$sx, , , i rX . being from notice of award of a construction contract to the final acceptance of the project yt~; The subtasks are as follows: 'I F C S f` 3# t`~ 3 "4 7.1 Prepare an agenda and invitation list for a preconstruction conference and consult with 4 F ~ z fi the City regarding the conference details. j` - s 7.2 Conduct a preconsttvction conference, prepare a conference summary and distribute the 'W : 1 ~ summary to all conference attendees. n 'r , 5~ -f t 7.3 Receive and review shop drawings and other technical submittals such as equipment,, materials of construction. performance data and certifications, laboratory test results, and .e , °'V - ii . ~Kx~ F technical manuals submitted by the contractor which are required by the contract documents. s ~q',', ~ F (Also see Paragraph 16 of the Agreement). Maintain a submittal log and file. Submit two * ~ , ~ > t _ Et„n~j 4rY"jSp r{?#.r.,f~y~ complete submittal files to the City upon completion of the project Consider and evaluate t£t . Y,a , ~ kl_- ~ any alternatives or substitutions proposed by the contractor. - rte, ~ F 7.4 Receive and review other submittals of the contractor including construction schedules, _ ' ~ ty f7"- } t t~ ryf shop drawing/submittal schedules, lump sum price breakdowns, and other submittals required L by the contract documents. r > ii, V"~ r 7.5 Review the contractor's monthly requests for progress payments and recommend the V :g i Sr '.'..k 7 appropriate amount to the City for payment to the contractor. Payment recommendations will ro S'- r, r F.- xO r xn' a a be based upon the approved breakdown of the contractor's lump sum contract amount. s ~ ,O, p L ~ R~ } tx 7.6 Provide clarification of the contract documents to the contractor based upon the , ~ u r n~ i s l~ 4f , _ contractor's written requests for clarifications, verbal requests or as the need otherwise arises.r is ; _ Prepare written responses and drawings or sketches as necessary to the contractor to clarify , ' - ` , the contract documents. A r; r 4y` t ~ 7.7 Provide services related to change orders. These include preparation of change order ' ~,3' 1 ; r , £ N Y 4 1 proposal description and justification documentation, assistance with negotiation of then ~ a > u ~ °s{ y {W 99 P t s~. , r .i'- 7t.v Y -'r-r'~ '1 M y r r~ F l 4 t Y F y _k dad - 1 li fit I f s £ ' fi, F4 _ K - -..A 1. _ Y C r W y'L - -e.. .d t E s: ',,t,','t' k F J ) 1 f 5 lr Y -2 . , ,~;~;*_f~ I_ - . , , 4 ~ : I ~ - , , - . - IL i b 1 - - - -1 ~ 4._+."n:: '--x^--^--- rr ..~._..a •n... _.r _ ~".'_~~t~_.. :...~t u.. ..W_.._. ~5t. t- ~ _ n s.. a. ~ s .s -`__~.~_.~i ~ x - ~M ~~a ~ s , #a ~11 I fi~9 s ,c'r , i .,~ta.]:CaA"csh.j,"A,;-;; - y .g S't - s ,e )S 'f 3 Y 3~ I- - M1 a m y- , ?5jy`k4 1. P=- kII -JN- t~a'1-' - ' 'kr change with the contractor, making recommendations to the City regarding any change orders, ' - r -T- C.-.. P -'4.1. Y 1- ' w1' and processing the fomtal change order documents. t 1 , 7.8 Prepare for and conduct periodic meetings on the job site with the contractor. Generally, V -'s . the meetings will be weekly or biweekly when significant construction work is underway. ~ s ~ x , 11 - Fem. ~ y r The purpose of these meetings is to identify field problems and other issues regarding the, " ~ `t 4 ~ yr - 1 project as well as reviewing the project progress versus the project schedule. b r x 4T 3~-r'-Y 4t 7.9J and submit a monthly project status report to the City which includes weekly 1-N , t'%1 1 F~ ~f,"-M s constriction progress reports to be required of the contractor. Each monthly report by they f " " \ ~n ~ ~ 1 Engineer will include schedule status, progress payment and budget status, project photos, s f ' - . - , t K a change order status and potential problems or claims descriptions. The report will be " - - presented by the Engineer to the Intergovernmental Water Board and the City Council =a g monthly if desired. UP to 15 copies of the report will be submitted. ~ * ' ~ , - 7 1- I "I i Y z-~ ft Y 7,10 Notify the City of any potential or actual claims or protests of the contractor. Coordinate i by r - - - with the City staff and legal counsel as necessary regarding these matters. 5M f} ~ r c Q 7.11 Conduct site visits by the Engineer's project manager when significant construction is ~ ~~~t ` r occurring. (Also see Paragraph 14 of the Agreement). These visits may be weekly or r biweekly as circumstances dictate The purpose of these visits is to answer questions I 3A1;I t - 3 z regarding the contract documents, assist with resolving project difficulties, review the T s~ progress of the work, and review the construction work to confirm that it is proceeding in 3' r _ } rsL 11 1~--~, 11 z accordance with the requirements of the contract documents.' _ st n r.~ - '~r ~ 7.12 Prepare for and conduct a final inspection of the project with representatives of the Ci ) d t, v x t Prepare a "punch list" of items of work remaining to achieve final completion of the projecty ' ,.i 1, ` ¢ ax: and to prepare for City acceptance, Recommend procedures and timing of acceptance of the ' r r project Advise the City and the contractor of the dates for anwarranri' r ' s ~ ~ S tY lte ads as r ' 4 ~ Y ,pS established in the contract documents. € i ' , 7.13 Prepare record drawings of the project based upon the construction records of the i t. 3 _ if ' ' contractor and the Engineer's on-site representative. Submit mylar record drawings to City. r a i-tea 3 7.14 Provide on-site construction observation services (Also see Paragraph 15 of the "x , k ri- t Lk jL y 11 I z 1 ;1 Agreement). The on-site representative assigned b the En ineer y i , , ~ ' by g will provide daily ...uxh 1 A ~ S - d..t 'mom. = q^^..".T 'i A-8 . U ,y t ~ ✓ ~f' g,` -s -4 s r~x' s _N t a 4 A R~ - _ k R 7 e' 'i d ~~R~2i`~~U,,~~l .i 11-~ 1~~ , % 1, I , j ~ I I I I , . , ~1, , " , . , ~J-,--, , klT - _ 4-rya f .Fr 1 Fo i. - - - '4P~IfirYAz s- "kk } tt i ! ry, A } i S I i ro 1 ti -s _ ~~r _ .__._.__...:c,.i~. i.--. _ e.._. - ,f. ,_..t _~._y~_ - s_ t..o.: ~._4. ~."_rlt _ ~_z_ „mot .K s : re " ~ 1. " , , , , . , - , , , , - . , , ~ ~ , -1 " ~ -11, I r ~ ~ I ; P, -~Ir-i , -~,~,I' I - - , - - ~ - , , - - i* M r ZN Wiz', s= 5W - r _ - 1'r", 2y L-I i s,". ~ ,,y IIIOItit(1t'ina of the I ...._+n,cuon work The representative kill prepare periodic written reports R , - t + on the construction activities at the site, maintain a diary of his or her activities, decisions, $ 3 t h 0 =u i . ;i ; _ _ i tR +„~f f discussions with the contractor and other observations, conduct the periodic on-site meetings { a J- -r ',y ' #i " k 3 a ,`'T ' „j with the contractor, document the preconsttuction conditions and construction work by { "fix _ Y rr _ 5Y - k. e- F. f s t ~y photograph and/or video tapes, coordinate the delivery of any materials or equipment to be , ~ - 4 " ° } delivered to the City, witness any factory or off-site testing as may be necessary, and other ~ : Y '~-!g a wort: as assigned by the Engineer. Up to 1,000 hours of on-site construction observation will E t a - _ t - - s .t ~ ~~,-L c~ _ yN be provided. P ` u3~ - 11 - 7.15 Maintain files and document tracking system throughout the entire project. ~ i , 7.16 Provide the services of specialized subconsultants, specifically geotechnical engineers to~ - Y confirm that the actual site conditions encountered are consistent with those anticipated, and HI, w others as may be aired. A ualicontrol f " , _;s _ Y required. q ty program will be required of the contractor to $ ~~'`g# , ~ i provide soils testing for earth compaction, concrete and aggregate testing, and other testing i c { ~ ~ I 3 procedures as reTaired in the contract documents. - n t -N 7.17 Coordinate with the contractor and the City for final testing and startup of the facilities. µ ' 7.18 Provide technical training of the City staff on the operation of the facilities. 7.19 Compile one copy of all operation and maintenance manuals on the project facilities and 3 M!` Q k~ y r S {GQ F . transmit to the City. , R V x M P _ i_ Task 8 -Design and Construction Surveys -r , s- Under this task, design surveys will be conducted to provide the topographic and other t I t a { information necessary to complete the project design. These surveys will add to the work ~t F ` r already completed on the City's site. Most of the additional surveying will be that required r v- ~ "O ~I r Z _ for the off-site facilities. Construction surveys will be completed only to the extent necessary rk", ' ~ , .i to set an elevation reference point and base line for the contractor. The contractor will then be t , r - } s responsible for the detailed surveys necessary to complete the construction work t f , { r ? - s - y - x~ f.»i ~'r , d'~ i3 - i . _ 3 f -r s - 0~-,~, 11. [ x ywo€ r A-9 ° V ! tti - ci -r + r - tt~5 ,N, ,L - .^w^ _ g 6 --jr xp F k jI f im < ) } i' r-, ,t T 1 I i ? . , ~ IL " , ~ . , , - _ , ~ I , , " __,~~!-'.~~g~ -x42 * F- H t„ IL t # r' { -t '^a r'e:3S - fI as ai n 3 - x~~` f A a 4 9 -4, - F i. 3 .~rY _ - - ate -1 - - - - - - - i - ask ~.+:£fi'$`u.;;r L, Y 44 + ir 0 f , "V ~ - . 7~ :i tic'.. ,u'`✓ ~t7 - - fi -,s_ xv*,-t.,s I S. i- ,t F , S F c - ~ f : _ '~~,~'i ,y ,r~{{A~ ~tti _...._.,_Y.. - - - . ............t-._._.__ ..,_..._i.m:. g -q 0, ,f. t o i- i A r '+~S Q 'f C - .Y ay.J 4 V ill M Task 9 -Project Partnering r - - i R ` ' Under this task, the Engineer will in art nerin with the ro ect team -the * t~ u,~,z participate project P g P j z - City, the Engineer ,the construction contractor and other project stakeholders. This process f ~ r e W 0 _ _ I %I will consist of an initial partnering session of up to four hours with the project team and a 'i I {,ti F t 4 ` t M , ~ . ' x F ' partnering facilitator. The results of this process will be a project charter with mission s r m ` 3~ ry statement and project objectives. One follow-up partnering session of up to 2 hours in length r: # ~ . , p t~A 0- r t x will be conducted by the facilitator to evaluate the project charter and the team's adhere nce to ~ , s 3 it. The construction contract documents will include provisions requiring the contractor to ~ ~ ` A r` < i $ ~ X ijn x - participate in project partnering. The Engineer will perform the following: f , } 9.1 Coordinate the partnering process by arranging for a facilitator and facilities including a ? t kr t :1 meeting room and food for both partnering sessions. All expenses for a facilitator, facilities ~r and refreshments shall be paid by the City. - ~ 92 Provide for up to two members of the Engineer's staff to attend and participate in both F3~ , f f' sessions. 1~1 E '~✓Y d 9.3 With the assistance of the facilitator, prepare a brief report on the project partnering . 1 ti ~ a t t~rr } process and evaluate its effectiveness at the completion of the project construction r~ _ `Tr h' ~ to T f Phased Notices to Proceed ~M, ` 1 a The Engineer will not proceed with any work under this agreement without receipt of a , V- 19- {f written notice to proceed from the City. The City may issue notices to proceed with only M t portions of the work so that -:t-suquent costs aren't incurred on the project until the City has ' 1 4 "I'll" ' -r t -t ~a confirmed that certain permits, approvals and property acquisition activities will be successful. t k ' It is anticipated that the first notice to proceed will be for Tasl~s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. It is ![cF ` ~ fi M t r a , ` - anticipated that the second notice to proceed will be for Tasks 4, 6 and 7 -F nal Design e ; w-~~ ` Bidding and Services During Construction.u e;t t ."a , --"3,'~'-',~'~-',-,~,',---,i.'~,'~,'~',~,'-..~~-, `,--ZL-,~~ Z.-. 11 7 ~ , Preliminary Drawing List , R - 8" To further define the scope of the project, a preliminary list of design drawings follows: ? rs a _ - } ` Y A-10 ~ - ~ ,f; T u +z - 'fir a U - s s rT~, z Y a j t r - - T t ! P - - lt~ I` - 1, 'I'L'. -'Z~!~ , r ~ .1 I - - aI yar z - 1 y- t C - t' C ' x ' -A F r' t 't zr r e k A £ t-)y 1 _ F - - i mg t- * } K _ ' - - - r : & K , 's3 ~ so r ,rte,., r'.~4. n"`.' _ - - a., ,s. s Y `y. _,xr . 5 z s - - _ z -~y r~ $ { ..,mss 3 -'erR y T ) F--_ 4 ; y ' x< $ '",:sr ✓~S` i T .5 f - • x k .Eltem m r_.__„ 7 a - m - . ~ r ~y t t 4 - ~ ,'s { CITY OF TIGARD '~x~ , - MENLOR RESERVOIR PROJECT r ffl 015, , Z. 4i ~:';:'`p PRELIMINARY DRAWING LIST r v'. jr a , `y o- n ' . A~ v SHT. DWG. s ur e ' z , z NO. NO. TITLE ~ lM - m el~ ,l t GENERAL ' - , . 0t$~J 7 t- jj yP i~ -a4, al Y^ f"+~ x- 1 G-1 TITLE SHEET > , _ - _711 L S kl -,Y"!, - 5? T'7 FiF - J;-g t s 2 G-2 VICINITY & LOCATION MAPS & LIST OF DRAWINGS ~ ~q ¢ r t 3 G-3 SYMBOLS a ,4 I 4 G-4 ABBREVIATIONS 4$_ i $ - .a y, - yr - p ~g~ ~Y j- CIVIL { t - K °K , 5 C-1 SITE & ACCESS ROAD PLAN R t~ t ~ . a 1 1"`~ , ~ yz 6 C-2 ACCESS ROAD PROFILE m $ £ , , s a.,,- , ' ' 7 C-3 GRADING SECTIONS i~l s - 8 C-4 GRADING SECTIONS & DETAILS " I ; r' Y s 9 C-5 PLAN & PROFILE - 16" WATER` . - r ~ x t ; 10 C-6 PLAN & PROFILE -12" WATER ~`X' - 1,t - r 11 .1 . 11 C-7 PLAN & PROFILE -STORM SEWER t 12 C-8 PIPELINE DETAILS n~' ;1 ' ' 13 C-9 STORM SEWER SYSTEM DETAILS . ' _ ~ r~ F 14 C-10 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 1- - V ~ 15 C-11 ENTRANCE GATE & MISCELLANEOUS SITE DETAILS : ` t ~ 16 C-12 VALVE VAULT PLAN, SECTION & SCHEDULE - - K t~ L_ -1 4 * 17 C-13 VAULTDETAIIS r , , -ti STRUCTURAL ~ I I" 11 5 ~_,~~--*~,--~w -P5, q , k,g, "'m-.4-, [I hr 1 18 S-1 RESERVOIR -FOUNDATION PLAN, ROOF PLAN & TYPICAL fi ~ r g SECTION }1'11 ` ~ _ 19 S-2 RESERVOIR -SECTIONS & DETAILS F~ - i ~ Y , i r ' 20 S-3 RESERVOIR - SECTIONS & DETAILS ~ , § ~ f 'x 21 S-4 RESERVOIR -SECTIONS & ELEVATIONS OF WALL & FOOTING l~ 22 S-5 RESERVOIR - DETAILS A s - tr , , ' 23 S-6 RESERVOIR - ROOF REINFORCING PLAN, SECTIONS & DETAILS ~ { , 3 r 24 S-7 RESERVOIR - COLUMN FOOTING & WALL FOOTING DETAILS I 25 S-8 VALVE VAULT -PLAN & SECTIONS . '~°t ~-4 5 i Ott t aryFav,-.. - J xa I-n 26 S 9 VALVE VAULT - SECTIONS & DETAILS a a y r'.:' a J.czrc air( rf.- X 3 .f W re xl K r x. w 7 k r - R. r - i ' , .-F-t- ' r"'~ra y, IS f L .i ti 'i'F."e - a sty t - - ;t s- F2,,I --F - r ~j~,'Y~g , ~ L ~i~~ . ..~',,~~-.""~.,~,~---,,,.L--,.,-I.r,,.,~".-.-.-~1-:~r,~,- s } { P f a rs F X _ -k ' 'S J dt x F - f - U,S~q, k ty -x r d y M. ~ i . I . , . , 11 ~ I _ , , ~'7* , 777" S2 A Y , Y 1 - - - ii 1 1, W a+r~bw,r1 , .zr r 'z i F j Y y 7 Py 3~ - = ,..ra.`-t..K'i - y S - - t+`t _ hark' d , triMac. , _ e a t a - g - x 1,--' ED- 'Wf a r ts,a rrz.C'r i - j -r p _'4 ~,~y, kx.rf t s :,gnu 3 - s t- rc " 'Ya, ~Pt , v`~ L. Y 3 - it - r a .3. Y '"s ems'' - ~ -"c ` c -E5 ~ M t x t`om' - r -,y n t r z ~-a fi'r`- - -11 " t .u' th ; -x s> in, L , ids BNOM. ~'L~ P, e jd'" p rte; ¢ t' - ' r~ _ EXHIBIT C i' , , s MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. ; -%,n.~._LN c? X `r4 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES x# j~''F4y9m.i.• y ?P,, 3 t t'f-✓'g,zt y , N""NrA .L.' d r ,.ixl ~rt Personnel Charges V s Senior Principal $100.00 r` 6; ~ i - S, ~4 ' L. }i 3~1x Ate'"` "t^ raze? Principal 95.00ax Associate 85.00 r ~ ~ Senior Engineer 80.00 r, s ~ ~ -1 ` t ¢ Engineer III 70.00 s. `~,1 r ,s Engineer 11 62.00 r s Engineer I 55.00 v ~a a r y r 1 Senior Technician 60.00 ' w --r.t.,.t''-,,5-. ' ~-k, t - Technician 48.00 >r'1 -~it '.xz.-,' ~ . _ w h,.' - Drafts rson 40.00 W rite 1 , . Administrative 45.00 ' z f~ Clerical 36.00 airx~ ,t` - ,J ~ ~ ~ _N I . 4, c1 ~ I ~t~ x- r ~ The above hourly rates cover salaries, social security and other salary overhead, insurance, za - , general and administrative overhead, and profit. - - z_ j ~ . ; Y Expenses incurred in-house which are directly attributable to the project will be invoiced at _r ~ actual cost. These expenses include the following: ' -11111 ' e k f ~ Computer Aided Design and t A*~~~ s_ y - ,,~av syL."^` $ts;2°'°r.~'~ 1. Drafting System $10.00/hr s E* 11 - F, Mileage 0.35/mile = -4 ,1 ; t r Long Distance Telephone At Cost ~ - , ' .t/ r 5 j F l• - Lodging and Subsistence At Cost - .Fa ^`R, , a N i, _L~ 71 a Postage At Cost f 11 t' Printing and Reproduction At e ~ ~ ' '`ti„-rye t ' ~ - - r Outside Services `s _ ; - K a Outside technical, professional and other services will be invoiced at actual cost plus 10 s," j $ , ,n ? !r percent to cover administration and overhead. E • ¢"ry ,z ,tom`. s_.~ { fi t .e s r iVIIJRRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. r , s - , *sg 10,95 r 3 r, FnBineers/Pla~utecs4 h -;q 44-44i4ll? [ a s ~ F i t", * - _ F naI. Y.ov« _ .,.yam. - '~-'2 ~ l_~'~t„ _ a YsTy F 1 _ Z r 5 tern 4 g rr 2 i 4 li, - I - L , - 11~ -r , , , - - - , - ;.r,,,,,, _s:.. _ _ ~ ~ " - . - -~4" ~ a JA~~;- ,---,I- 'c3 E'er c3 t 1 > tf - r ` L Y yr je ' i - - ~'.t- - orbT `~Q L 4•c~r 5i ~,i, ~r f 4 7f _ rYr.lr-rte - ti r',f, ~ t fi.'~ , - ,~a } r 1 snt 3 .s '1 xf ~xd li- f, LL j - - • " ~ - x ~ y _r '-i- -y " 11 y -•f E _ - 3 f - v r is f ~ T , t X".x ~ - - s I 9 V aw a - -.._.e.._.. - ._...._.._d _z - r r' 4 'r.. ,-.1 I I 1-1 ;al - M s ' ' A '11 ' t r l y s s k in, ir~F 2~ tom- S- ~.u - a ~iF ft T# r a x S a a R t+ ~ k 4 A, EXHIBITD V 4At AR" ~k IN- 4 x fi" x - g k FEE BUDGET (a- " t .t - _ - A , - 'A .sett %i s ~3 ' The following are fee budgets for the project tasks. The combined budgeted amount of all c w tasks will not be exceeded without prior authorization of the City. The Engineer agrees that } ~ ' ~ es; ~ 11,~ - _ R - ithe r1V_ l _ m1 a.,,,,-sk 2 - =d+,onhn .......cirri iral Tnvac~.-ptivatinnL _ - budgets Tac_L_ d _ Fin-al DP~ _ Tack F _ }.~s - i5 Y pa ,y - vu.,,~ , s Assistance During Project Bidding, Task 7 - Services During Construction and Task 8 - - gy `I 5 } k x Design and Construction Surveys, are maximum not-to-exceed amounts which can be 4tom; -g , s ~ y t established since the scope of the work under these tasks is well defined. These amounts will ' ` - r'~ s not be exceeded unless there is a change in the scope of the work. The budgets for Tasks 1,3 > ` . - t . d 4 and 5 are for work whose scope cannot be accurately estimated at this time. The Engineer {'j' will endeavor to complete the work within the budgeted amounts for these tasks. The w A j { Engineer will notify the City immediate) if the work under these re £TY t 3' rnaining tasks may require = b - - x 1 ii's-,i,' Ca •,'r'R 'fi'r"€. "k+~ a budget adjustment. A spreadsheet showing the breakdown of the fee budget follows on the "0'4M ~ -mss ~ 5 1-- - 11 - a next page. s 2 x~~ z° i ~s - 4 t , srr § ¢ -w J r Task and Description Fee Budget -1 4'- Task 1 - Conditional Use Permit Application Assistance $ 7,582 f ~ ~ ~ I - j - Task 2 - Geotechnical Investigation . ' ` r $ 22,420 r Task 3 - Public Meetings and Presentations ,474 $ 25 Task 4 - Final Design $ 149,110 x.- ` ' ti ry.. a r Task 5 -Permits, u - rt ` I Approvals and Property Acquisition $ 7,510 t Y r f Task 6 -Assistance During Project Bidding $ 6,704 -r t * , - , V Task 7 - Services During Construction # $ 133,948 r ~f', N 1 '7 , I " ~ ' ~ , 11 * Task 8 -Design and Construction Surveys $ 4,800 t-&' 5 - F,L -11 , 3, _ v- ~t Task 9 -Project Partnering $ 1,927 y , z~~ ~g - a f { - - i i, `1~ F` Pfr~f' I s w- t-t r h L a t , Z F ~d . - ff -t4 t °~wc -&*c. (c. ' .a 1.^ - ,v°tq h. M 1 _ m £ C ~ 4 J _ f'x Y .xt ff } ~E a _ Y T" it"A'r~' S ANA a t r , ~ - . " , , ' ~ - , ~ , ~ , - , ~ - , ;1" W'.'L'~.i ~ ~ , - ~z-'. - - - - - : i. - , 1. . A ~ - " 1-11&-~ - - ~ - " ~ --~a ~ - i-~ " . , - - - e N y- -i t - a i ~i, Z v M. ~ f f J ~ Y i 4f - yr F - i +r y M ' - . " ; i^"`._-"~--.~ ^'h'C1.'^.^~~-.-•-.~-iu--...__._..~~~~-IZ ~-.mss...-., _ .,.-.~.--..-.-.~_,r - f r• - . . _ in JxZ?? r`- - ? - - - - a-r - 'fi K 5 T 1} - - , 'MM f, wrb ~ S 3 r.~ a..%' - a .r '•s _-mss. z Lx, x + i-I M- *A- °~•-e,-4, 9 n-, x' 1 sC r ,i'i£ 1 b s i t z-u< - ,Y Y"+Y a~. ,,,g e irk-e#g - 3, t r i s r$' x` -ix k3 { - ,W - y - a¢ t-, t,+. ,mot ,,.y 01 I .11, 1-1 .rte.. -»z' f ~,p~r .b t5+ t - ff A-^sp '+rL" i # I-A € x --W ~ y~ - r , 5 EXHIBIT E r , 3., - g 3'3s., ,a, ..~n_ _ _ _ «^y.*.°^-'- ?t`v-Ertl';»:r::;*,`.;: = ',:'avan_t t~xi'._' n .y -~r vim.- " 'r -t- t.L. ,'o'!","', # 'r C .C i. f~ llU[rt} SWIb~ &55003It5elfiC, a v } ` f T ~z~ 7 ~K 1 " Fnom-Aan m rK _777 a~ xs" 1?ISt.ti on,Sua^I@Q Pon§ndlhegor9%?6i PNO\E i0}??i4alt FlCi6.'.,r9Pn t--` , { Sn - u # + ) r y ~r N- Fes'- 4 ` I- , 1 444 x '-r - .a- - - y' zF' Qc~. •~n.. ro ,sue; ,,g • _ 94-0310.105 - A- r-~k r- , November 17, 1995 Via: - ~ ~~Z~ i M , ~ ~ Mr. Bill Monahan ~ r 1 City Administrators M~~ - -f y v , 1i City of Tigard, City Hall ~ 1 - ¢ z 13125 SW Hall Blvd. f b - i - 2,. b v Tigazd OR 97223 7: r ; '11, t , Re: Mentor Reservoir Preliminary Design 1 rr h - n Dear Bill: ~a .r : Y9 s r ~ , Introduction and Purpose , f A t , 1 _ ~ 3 C~ - In accordance with your authorization we have completed preliminary design efforts rte, for a proposed water storage reservoir at the City's Mentor property. The purpose of , z rv this letter is to present the findings and recommendations resulting from this work. a , r , , ~t Tk t Background 1r r i 11 - kc f s 1 i s ` cF J~2- a<r Y o-' c _ ;k 1 The City of Tigard's existing water distribution system contains two major pressure ~ - Sl 1, ~k ~ .F zones served by gravity from storage reservoirs. These zones are the 713-foot and the n" µ _ - . r * s 410-foot pressure zones. The 410-foot pressure zone includes eight existing water ~ ' I .11 t storage reservoirs. In September of 1986 a report titled "Water Supply Plan for the ;t"-~W ~ , , . rr : Bull Mountain Area" was prepared for the Tigard Water District by Gilbert R. Meigs, a r R, { - h Consulting Engineer. This plan recommended the construction of two additional ~e~e...,.Y iC uei:'c 'ua~ 411 •`~-i""t press` m zone. s..... jm~uc plari _ ',-a'.s..;,.."" 4s 4,3" °~rnr^~ra* c : 't'} a . ~~~„Y-- , _ f ,ZF k • recommended that one of ' 1 ~S~ 1 d r these reservoirs have a capacity of 2.5 million gallons (mg) and be constructed at the Mentor site. A vicinity map showing the location of the Mentor site is attached as 4 , a u r+ ',r~ t ~ t a.3 k1 d ,,,N ' r r H z a~ ter r 1 q _ zx 1 b - _ r " ? It _ z-- is fi-,, "70 - C~ sp a ° t~ t - _ ; - s ~T, 4 a '.e,{t it d - f f U i,' r-~9s,se{~r, -v-~.. - - Y a ''gam -""'Y", 'f~r ' .A d r N-4.11, - $r d - . - , ~ - - , _ , ~ ~'v2~:~~Ij~111~~ -,-I' -,;---fl-~ z, ys, `~.Y:aJ` .1 F d s + >Ix i ` p 2 { .t iY CY my ( Lf. 'y- C J f F 1 'tom a ~*-ir 1-~' C! w} mqgll- - , - , ~ F {k t ~f a s t -s --'k5 - a' { Y g -saw - _ L w•~-- ' S ''4 j v k g ; _ _ 4 g k- t -dam e~i~ 1 I {Y , * f Mr. Bill Monahan ~ _ ~r~ ^ t Y;:. e'} ,i.. November 17. 1995 ~ ~ RR _ Page 2 g F s -utk f h - Y ] w ~~`a - T ! - S- k" - - , ~ > ~ IM Figure A. The plan recommended that a second reservoir, with a capacity of 1.0 mg V , -r9 e ` - U, and an overflow elevation of approximately 470-feet be constructed at the Menlor site x~ j~ i as well. The Tigard Water District completed elements of the conditional use permit e f t` A I < application for the construction of these reservoirs at the Menlor site in 1989. # d -I_ ice' w { f r' The 1986 plan also recommended the construction of additional reservoirs on the uf south side of Bull Mountain. These proposed reservoirs include a 2.5 mg reservoir, ; w`` _ with a overflow elevation of approximately 410 feet, recommended for construction on ,F t SW 150th Avenue and a 2.5 mg reservoir with an overflow elevation of approximately y 550 feet recommended for construction near SW 144th Avenue, north of SW Beef F, ~ R t 1 Bend Road. z I, s'; e% --I' 1 { 4. •§4 F S S .tg-.Y' K `kw' y Fi T i Water System Planning Review w T ~ j' As part of this preliminary design effort, elements of the City's current water system ~ F~ ~ _ F - , r * " tea` S } i - i.i 1 plans were reviewed. This review included confirming planned reservoir volumes, ~ r 4 ' . - overflow elevations, reservoir depth and diameter requirements and other relevant k - , -g, -,v,---, water system planning data cv t - - ~~c't i r 3a~ y The planning data review included an evaluation of proposed reservoirs and pressure h~ zones recommended in the 1986 Plan. As previously stated, this plan recommended , ~x a ~k , that two reservoirs be constructed at the Menlor property. E~ a , Findings " - - i° - ,`x: ~f ~s Pressure Zone Layout r Fr n y A~ ,y g a - r The water system planning review found that the proposed pressure zones and stora e3s " reservoir overflow elevations recommended for the south side of Bull Mountain 111. , , 3}~k 4- w s differed from those proposed on the north side of the mountain. Specifically, ground , ~ . elevations on the south side of Bull Mountain between approximately 300 an d 450 feet g t X ~ , F: ; a are proposed to be served from a future storage facility with an approximate overflow Q s :u: - elevation of 550 feet. Areas with these ground elevations near the proposed Menlor , i k ; k { Reservoir site, on the northwesterly side of Bull Mountain, are proposed to be served t ,g - L f_ 4 x through pressure reducing facilities from the City's 713-foot pressure zone and by K ,i x gravity from the proposed L0 mg reservoir at the Menlor site with an approximates r 11, , 4 r.--,overflow elevation of 470 feet. , rx . - _ 111- -1111-7, 7f r _ _ 777 Y ' Based on the planning data review it appears that constructing a reservoir with an ,j ' ;r t approximate overflow elevation of 550 feet on the north side of Bull Mountain, r sY a $ u "`f' - hb Jai - a s rp a y 'I-- r , , ~ " I q I -11, - ~ , , - - , - . ~ _ , , ' j ~ " ~ s 4. r r - - J -.ate r.- z , - , , - - E ~ _ ~ Z ~ , _ _ , , , r,, , . LI ~ L - , - ~ 1~ I . I ~ ~ - , , , _ ~ ~ ~.I~ , _ I - xt - - F., i_-r r J _ ~ {,as{ r t "s 1 k - - _ „ Y t3 U r - _ - - ti : : , , 17" ~ , 1~ - ~ !---_I , ~ . Fyn _ e e - .Lq gam"' Nd9''iv 2~ ~"7y _ - f ; - - , - ~ ~ , N ,Yu", "`"sue. {3---+c+J - _ _ , . a V 14-, ,'rT-a t - -t ~t _ - - f 4,t ;t. _ 4 - _ x vat - - t #x; t» r ` t 7 YD } 'N - -I'S . ~ . , r iq L inrssi~ ~r Mr. Bill Monahan k `1t' ry i a _ November 17, 1995 f ,Z ,w } ~ Page 3 a y preferably near the Mentor site, will provide the City a more efficient pressure zone i ; L S , layout than that provided in the 1986 Plan. Construction of this reservoir would ~ , f.. x I - ~ eliminate the need for the construction of the 1.0 mg reservoir originally planned at the t `60 , f l" zn. - - s T - r Mentor site with an overflow elevation of approximately 470-feet. With the y . , construction of a 550 foot overflow elevation reservoir, the pressure zone service - , ¢;h s . v - - _ limits for the north side of Bull Mountain will correspond to that proposed for the ~rE"'V ,,.!P,!. - E south side of the mountain in the 1986 Plan. 4x,-;~ +-S-,=v:, em [_C~~` A preliminary review of areas adjacent to the Mentor property indicates that there may be a suitable site for a new reservoir, with an overflow elevation of approximately 550 ' t ~ 11.27 I ,7 3 feet, immediate) to the east of the Menlor ro ertCit staff are resent) reviewin 4 # " , ' Y P P Y Y P Y g x€ Irk the availability of this property for potential acquisition by the City for the construction a of a new reservoir. _ rv. { y ~ ~ 'J i v R The City has acquired property for the proposed reservoir on SW 150th Avenue but, has not yet acquired the land needed for the proposed reservoir on SW 144th Avenue. ~ - - I ~ ~I x The need for other storage reservoirs and pump stations at the Mentor site depends on ' i the outcome of land acquisition and siting issues related to the proposed 550-foot ffi ~ i I overflow elevation reservoir(s). ~ `-t l 9 -rs s L _iI`Ir'--.--',`,',', . , ~_Ij a Proposed Reservoir Capacity S 5T - ' , I I , ~ _ I I As resented above, previous planning for Menlor site proposed a 2.5 m reservoir ~ "~A~i~~ x . x serving the 410-foot pressure zone. Discussions with City staff indicate that an older, ~s W. # i x- existing, 0.8 mg reservoir serving the 410-foot pressure zone and located ' . ~ ~ ~ approximately one mile east of the Mentor site is scheduled to be removed from * * service in the near future. This loss of storage capacity in this pressure zone can be ~ 4 a replaced through the addition of approximately 0.8 mg to the proposed 410-foot t g~_ , r -.1 *y v Menlor Reservoir. This results in a proposed reservoir capacity of approximately 3.3 - mg. The recommended capacity of the proposed reservoir has been rounded to;~ approximately 3.5 mg.~ " ` Preliminary Site Layout ' P f~ r _ ~ -4ya' ' - -r 1- A preliminary proposed development plan was developed for the Menlor site to z l k ~ L v fi accommodate the proposed 3.5 mg reservoir. This site plan is attached as Figure B. Y The plan illustrates the proposed reservoir, access road, existing and proposed water s,pi mains, valve vaults, drainage and overflow piping, fencing and landscaping and - ` -N, x$ ~ { general site layout. Final slopes, grades and cut and fill requirements will depend on r 4_ - the rog,lic of fnhgn ePntarhniral invactieatinnc - i') - o---- -.0-11-1- tea-' " 11 k a r T 4L' i 5 h Y, 4 ',F Yy, s - - fn r? J ' -'*f'r E ~ , 1~ 2 ~ 1, I,., r ~ , , ~ I 11,, % -I__ I Yp q h' , - - _ q - 4 t Y F Y may- - - o 'r. ~ w r~ Y M ~ - , -,,,,,.,,~"..""-.-,,,"~,.r,~,11,,,,""r,~.,",:,~-- ~ 'r , _ ~ " _ ~ , ~ ~ . i-,-,-` ~ , ~ , , - , . ~ , , " t, " , _ . _ - :z ~3' c F_. - ~,..~:•rc.._. - _ r `s'ue n 191- K t;~y- 'x f, - ~ ~ , , a' - MIS ' eta=,r ' ~ I ' - ';I-, - - - z - tl-~ " ~ , ~ ~ ~ - . , 7 ~ MI-1 I W v 's "+s,'~4"#` r"x `ter ' - r s - ~r x r x ' r~ karo f p+ F , ° e+ E. t #m- h a4 Mr. Bill Monahan -4 4 November 17, 1995 Page 4 ' ~ 5 a f t , ~ I [,,,~t',_~~`-~,~`,_, ~`NI`MOR,,~ ' ` ~ ` ` ' The layout of facilities on the proposed site plan accommodates future cons ction of i .3 w _ tru s - y, -N - t 4 - i pumping and piping facilities South of the proposed reservoir that may be required YS _ should other water storage or pumping facilities ultimately be constructed on or near i 1 this site. The proposed site layout would also provide opportunities for alternate uses or sale of the remaining property should no additional facilities be constructed at the s. t s site. Y . 3 T ~ ti Site Access . - , - :I ? ~,rt fi 3 3 Three site access ati~ • cots onto the ~,er~loe property were evaluated. These access points are illustrated on Figure B as the Tract "G" access, the Sunrise Lane access, and z;-4 4 } the Round Tree Estates access. -The Tract "G" access provides entrance from SW Scholls Ferry Road to the siteX µ through an existing subdivision, called Bull Mountain Meadows, located northwesterly ~ a E of the Menlor property. Use of this access would require that construction traffic be r ~;g k * routed through this subdivision. Development of this access would however,xt , minimize the amount of the site developed as an access roadway. The access onto the r, ~ Q , Mentor ro P Pent from this subdivision is between two existing homes through a utility o~ x ' corridor owned b y the City. { - , r,R { z s. t~> t4 s The Sunrise Lane access provides access to the site from the southeast. DPvelo ment s - R of this access would P' require that construction traffic be routed onto Sunrise Lane, a' paved two lane road maintained by Washington County. Discussions with City staff 4 indicate that the County may have objections to the use of this roadway for heavy construction traffic. Use of this access would also require that additional access i~ easements and/or land be acquired along an existing utility corridor that connects the r _ , ~ I ~s - Mentor site to Sunrise Lane from the southeast Development of this access may also fi , ifl , , ~ ultimately reduce the amount of the site available for water facilities or for future x ~ ~r S~ ~x property partition and/or sale since the access roadway would cross a major k the unused property, Portion of t A , . - ,a,- ' The preferred site access alignment, identified as the Round Tree Estates access, provides access from the north and is the most direct connection of the Mentor . p xw'z~~' property to SW Scholls Ferry Road. This access requires the extension of SW 154th s'6 a£ through an undeveloped property. This property may be subject to future ` k ` a development. City staff are presently engaged in discussions with this property owner ° concerning utility easements. These discussions should continue and be expanded to ,a . include consideration of the future reservoir access. Development of this access would also mWW^:Zc the 17`x^ * the amount of the site developed as an access roadway. t y , E '1' a L 4 , fl -P e L. q Y 'R - t X xwT - A, F cv f tit - V4 xJr S t k Z ~ES _ S Y ; - _ _ _ _ - Ft' S-1 . I . , , - 1; , , , " J. a - _ ! f -s~' sY r , _ g t i' A M LL ; - K 1 s _ r' y _fr - F +w - t - k 1 r - a _t 5 I p~. ~ J . J J _ - ~ - - ` - - r - 5 _ §i Eck zaaW w_..a. r- , - a, sy s _ di zafi3a - F - c-y Nkh C*n,t ,t . . ? 7°7. had - J 11 i 4 - - e - - - - _ _ - , f s ~ 1 - F e u.aa r~.csa: -w-a r. - _...a..,_.,.-. e 'X , j, 7 7 r° y fi ~ Mr. Bill Monahan 1 _ November 17, 1995 { t xR ` a I 4a€ - - Page 5 ],a 11 - _ - --37'.- Xj'. r, , = ' Connection Piping r y , , - ~ ' fi r « -'_1 - , Connecting piping to the proposed reservoir and between existing piping is illustrated n F~ ~ ,4 T m on the site plan. It is recommended that the proposed reservoir be connected with a x - 16-inch diameter main to an existing 16 inch diameter transmission main in SW z - u,_4 - sk_„T ?^,LLy Scholls Ferry Road. This existing transmission main serves the 410-foot pressure x. <,r P=F - W4 a; zone. Also illustrated on the plan is connecting piping between existing 470-foot - - + - x , pressure zone piping. Connection of this piping through the project site improves t t~~ K z water circulation wit hin L;is Pressure zone. Confirmation of pipe size assumptions I Y~ ~r,, k 3 , } f should be completed prior to final design efforts. k R ~ .1 ~t , . : _ x $y~F~ I 4 Transmission System Hydraulic Capacity ~ ME MYk - M, "S' ~ c - Discussions were held with City staff to review existing water system operations, ' § r 0111 r,- v - - specifically fill and draw operations of the existing storage irs that serve the 'u'' 1"- a i. ::.kh reservoirs 7` a:=.?:` F ° - 410-foot pressure zone. =w >,:v.s' p Through these discussions and through a review of existing* } t d)i-i t City water system telemetry data it was found that the existing transmission system ;x° i ` may not have adequate hydraulic capacity, under certain demand conditions, to fill the &,"'J -a , ~ proposed Mentor Reservoir. c ~ p ~ MO 27 ~ 1 Fs~ 3 " " _~x Recommendations = f °w u , f - It is recommend that the City take the following actions: ~ ,,1,2, 'I . 11 - 1. Proceed with the conditional use petrnit application process for a proposed 3.5 mg ; k i ~ ; reservoir with an approximate overflow elevation of 410 feet at the Mentor site. , 2. Confirm that the Round Tree Estates access can ultimately be developed to the 2 V,, ~ , - J satisfaction of the impacted property owner(s). K - ,12 5 j!_ °"4 i:. - 3. Following the issuance of a conditional use Permit for the construction of they' " ""Iproposed reservoir it is recommended that fins design efforts begin. Vii, 1, - mss t,- 4. Concurrent with the beginning of the conditional use application process it is k t," 4" E r recommended that a hydraulic analysis be completed of the 410-foot pressure ` zone's transmission system to detetmine those improvements required to allow the - , 1- 1 -V , 1y - transmission system to adequately supply water to the proposed reservoir. This ry , j 3t r - modeling effort should also confirm the connecting pipe size assumptions for the q "'zt ; r ` } mf, - l'~... tr proposed reservoir. ~ Y r- 1~ °3 \..Y - ate. 4...~~ e r s ~J h-~" k r -ter 4}-F 4J' 3ry' . L, # 'T du° -5LL x .S.n - n"«:.ww - ~ - 3' u # nl r L'~ -`~uuh J i ' x 4Y{ - S y ~d$. 5' ;.Ij - - w ,k. 2 q g 1 J - T{,) - t N. V, -Wi f ,14 fit` 1 - } ah~,~~ U, , ~o,,,S. ~ , , ,Z , , i , ~ ~ ~ ~ I e, 'lt.' 7- ; t J a . r t k _ 1 e,, - k Y - 11% , ~ ~ - , ~ 1 - ~ s -Rm -t ~ Mr. Bill Monahan a K & ~ November 17, 1995s , r- . r t , Page b V. 1, r ~ iz tJ y, ~y- ; 5. It is recommended that the City immediately begin a site selection and acquisition . p k,rtk . process for the proposed SW 144th Avenue Reservoir and for a 550-foot overflow i, F `17 t51~, tr elevation reservoir near the site of the proposed Mentor Reservoir. Following the . - - t ~r i~l resolution of property availability and acquisition issues related to these future I * r ;I ' y reservoirs, it is recommended that the need for other water facilities at the Mentor I'm £ , j site be re-evaluated. 7fsr 3s , " -rl M Project Cost Estimates r , 3 - A ~V, . . A project cost estimate was developed for the proposed 3.5 mg reservoir. The n ~ VIA - x t estimated project cost for this reservoir is approximately $2,960,000. A break down of F ; W ~z, O.- I vi - } this estimate is provided as Exhibit "C". This project cost estimate is an opinion of x r Z $ t M- gg, probable costs. Actual costs will depend on geotechnical findings, final project scope k - gyp, I -111 1-1 - 3 and design, construction market conditions and other factors. This project cost - `jam - estimate is based on construction of a prestressed partially buried, concrete reservoir I t by private contractors. - -_-_-Ir - r fit' 1 p, ?'~,>MX"A. Schedule r "j14 W- r 4 ; , ~a { , 'N i Recommendations numbered 1 and 4 should be undertaken immediately and s~x h kfm,l~- MO concurrently with the understanding that transmission improvements developed r k 1. I c 2 ti i 3 - through the hydraulic analysis should be completed before the proposed Menlor - Reservoir is brought into service. Final design efforts may begin prior to the issuance s r; ~ - - , .1 L @ of the conditional use permit once the certainty of obtaining the permit is known. ~ ' ~"R f We appreciate this opportunity to assist the City. Please do not hesitate to call if you t , f t' 3 a s 2 _ have any questions concerning our review, findings or recommendations. , ~ T - ~ ' `r ~>r < i 4'r ~-t 9P ?E k -I Sincerely` " -fig ~R,„~~g~~ x _ v MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. p~ ~ ss F s . s G r N i ' F § n VS~titi15039e`x ` J Y +i. a Chris H. Uber, P.E. ORE V $ k * _ * Associate ~ ~vt X90 i s x - ,,y CHU:chu /~TOPHER ~ y k r u l /IJ6 71 / < , }a T k t - - 7 F N 'r;. E - ) - t 3r# rs " z - " -z~--'~N-N,4:~ LL ~ ~ ~ t ~ I u x r^ 1 aL. - - 1 y t L W 1 1 r r :a ' , S y x s 1 h _ - _ - r a e ' r' s 'tom s, - M r ! q, F3,77-7q - _ _ - eel `fin t~-a.1.^ t i• ' k t _ _ _ _ _ S_ r- ~ ~ +i' .rte.:, r lAt!". ; i I U LOR SITE h I ~ z - I I -yt3 2' SY3° Es - s ro- " - "Y. r 1 + s.= k. vii +e,_ r + a ICJkx A r} 6, k k a~' z Utz # 3 ' rye ^F ~ Ta&,ryy ~ , - f V t I i~ - M r 4F" 1 5 % Figure A F - = MENLOR RESERVOIR tt + 1 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN e 4 5 `sue p VICINITY MAP X i November 17, 1995 I 1 City of Tigard ~ u I ti 1 - I I ~ x t CITY OF TIGARD F OREGON SCl4LE: 1000' 1 ME t r r GI-0310.105 t i t ~ + y Ft t t } } j - i rc 77 ~r,.'" s. _3;. S ay !i-_ rf13+ -...a'n r ,s, _ j _ y >r r E s x e :'i . _ »'°F-." . S < rte" - - - - t 4 .rk - r g"• 4!~ ~ € - - k 9 ,z ~ U r r -r _ _ ; i, 1S t' - X ~ # e g, ,x k'' a r - tf i,,,,-eye lr,-~~"I'TY~s., -L„ - _ °r t"~.t' *.w `iF ``.A S. r -'t t Y4 - w r E- s- a d >y _ _ '.4 'Z ".Y,-,;:a'd. .U$' .s.-,:-- _g, - - _ - . _ t }i a x,.,,, va` ,fig w`." t"-t'w'.~?i -na a Wi=t"" ,:t"i,% T es"*:, wit-. ` t d - . r `t N. s' 6: `xz:i' . ) °,-"Y.'-`, Tfa& ieL w e" 'Fr j n` t - - `t,_or„}a 7 ~"-1 "tV, && q, - a sx. 4 r'zr""3~- G X S tea, - f ,b w a , Ft t~ j e t 3 4 , 4 W y.~,~ Awy ~ ~iT Cv-y$ i+llltbft {t/~)I L ,J kt- „F2`r, - , r s ~ PROPOSED 3.5 MILLION GALLON MENLOR RESERVOIR U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY, ' F } a y k s~~ - 1 Cr '*ya;'z oaN }j ? si r y,,''.",'~¢,tF .,,3 < i +y t ai ,}+Sr~ F -H2 Fe•f~ +Y'~s4a"-""~s"-'t - : -,L!& 5&~ ;.r 5s'~-+~! fi` t` _ The estimated reservoir costs are based on the following assumptions: r~ " _ y aL _ No rock excavation included. t ._-0 4-~ 4 , R _ No telemetry system costs included. t - ~ ~ _ Reservoir is assumed to be a prestressed concrete reservoir. 3 l j= c , _ A 35% contingency, administration and engineering allowance included. ° r} ~ s - - _ Construction by private contractors. Y d Tj n _ An Engineering (ENR) construction cost index of 5506 (8/95). x;y . f w ; rx. i ,r ae$ f fl 1. Site Work $183.000 r c rz x1a § ra rv-x 2. Reservoir Structure - r'" e~sag' a G `a $1.700.000, a ~ y r T' %,l F ~ ~3 rr 3. System Connection and Yazd Pining 259,000 'f T F 1 ~ ~ 4. Landscaping and Fencing 50.000'~~ f i Estimated Construction Cost $ 2.192,000 $ - - z~ , 1 11 ~ 35% Contingency, Administration & Engineering 767.200 $ " + r ~ Total ~ ~ f $Z2 22Q0 ,'%1x SAY $2.26~QQ4 e z, ~t "i ~ a ~g ^'a ~r a } ~ & - x4 INK- } i fib i- . ,L $ _ z s Fu zt Pmseoted aR oph ons of ontt based oo the ass m pions atauul and devekped hom inforttut on ava0abk a: the t me of ~r , {i N . a i - - ~s~ - prgects will depend m aea+al frill oadidow, oo usual material and labor cotta. fuW + 't,A , sr ~,trr x,'-j s - MY= impkmmtation ud other vambks. Rol~aroP0. r ~,tt .~5 ,YT,t y K ,d ; -4I yFF +,P`+ - ~v'- iv. ill ''y ~I I ~ n g „i i' ,'L ,t - -.r - y - -fit k j k ,~"r Z x r r rr -~e.s x d i t s t~ t - - k''' a t t r wa .r - Y - - i > - 45'`5• ' r_,ry . j-,& d,r3a_ r. 5 sY~. - y t~..+'9/~--ew _ h r G- _ s ~ s s S 'fi`g v+:. .c J - - _ 3 a } 1. r * r ) - Ti ^s''~' t3 { Y a 4 e4'i ? -A 4 - '~p..~ H[^n` ''v`'~;~ - e s,h rr f F ; r { f x~, r a3 ''a.~+'`.y"r 4 - - t a 1 ~.~~__?s~...__.~_r___ _r... _z. ~...~.~...r_. s... _.__'y~~._~.i-~~s~_~ .s.V:_..~,..~_. _ _.-~.~..++~.-~m.:iy./'___.~v S 3 - `i J - J -1 - - - _ - - a etc, r K ~*x } _'.rt - - - - c' -en~ h c _ - f ' e 1, , v - 11 .dyt S*,j - t ` . -.Y.S= .w e..,. .3arwe.+.. ..e - ,arn, aa. - 5 ✓'F'¢ _ f EXHIBIT F F:, j , Geotechnical Resources Incorporated i= } _ E ~ v. Y f i Z r--tt s - - Consulting Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Scientists t< r 5 ' t .t x - - - r'~ij =.~"r - - ga^°.U-; , -`mss April 4, 1996 0 [ PNg74rAR,PRO ` - I 6 W- x 0 Murry , Smith & Associates, Inc. O ti , APR - 8 1990 _ 121 SW Salmon, Suite 1020 % _ Portland OR 97204 f;' r MURRAY, SMITH 3 ASSOCIATES, INC 1, - - _ n ~r # Attention: Phil Smith i ~ 4 _ # - i , } r SUBJECT PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHPIICAL INVESTIGATION, MENI.oR J F N t RESERVOIR, TTGARD, OREGON k Y a r 'g A ` - Geotechnical Resources, Inc. (GRn is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct a g~technical -1 P r } _km ~ < _ _ investigation for the proposed Menlor Reservoir. The investigation will consist of subsurface explorations, ~ ,N ( laboratory testis en u `f g engineering analyses and preparation of a report. The report will summarize s'~, g y x, r _ J findings and present our recommendations for design and construction of a new reservoir and access road. our , h,- , . r, ~ 1. According to the amended Oregon Structural Specialty Code, the reservoir is considered an essential ! yd - i facility. Therefore, our scope of work includes a site-specific seismic hazards study, which the code 4 _ ~ z,F requires for an essential facility. i ~ e, , , "16 w} ? r i PROJECT DESCRIPTION }ty - z ~ ~v~ h r 7 z , The 3.5-MG reservoir will be 141 ft in diameter and about 32 ft high A cut about 40 R high will be A ~ ,rte ~ - y; i-n 0 necessary on the uphill (east) side of the reservoir, and the excavation will essentially daylight on the { , - » .5 ~6 ~ ' ' downhill (west) side of the reservoir. The reservoir will be of prestressed concrete construction A400 ,g z { ~ ft-long access road will extend from the reservoir to the en at the north # Mr3 6~ entry prop ant line. A 12- and 16-in.- x ; ~ r , gq~g diameter water line will be placed beneath the access road. 0 1 F % - - ~J F4 STT'EDESCRIPTION ' E j Surface Conditions k a z The proposed reservoir site is located about 1,000 ft south of SW Scholls F erry Road and near the south ; tee' ~a~ I s ~ N, # end of SW Mentor Lane. The site is located on the west slope of a low hill. The site slopes from about ,i I,K',t~ - " ~ , elevation 480 ft at the southeast property comer to about elevation 320 ft at the northwest property ; i s M comer. The ground surface slopes at about 3H 1V to 4H:1 V across the planned reservoir footprint ` A ` t "ti't x' rf ~ Geology $ - , v 3 ~ Based on our review of the available literature and our L , , r > {r geologic experience with other nearby projects, we anticipate the reservoir site is mantled by silt soils that are underlain at variable depths by basalt rock. The v t - a surface of the basalt is typically characterized by a layer of weathered rock that can be comparable to stiff ' clayey and silty soils. On the north side of SW Scholls Ferry Road, the basalt is mined for aggregate and ~ crushed rock Basalt may be encountered in the excavation for the planned reservoir. t $ ri i x = '~-k tr 7 t t - _ =i.5 SW Be-enon-mil,dwe-Hw, r ^r= Suite 740 _ b tx .y f - i x +tM1 " } Y F Beaverton, Oregon 970053366 _ --E~ FC - Phone (503) 641-347S FAX (503) 644-8034 '1 t a a ,14 -ail griCtelepori.eom i r i - - - Fl wH t - , ~ I ~ j - I , N # ? t f 7 LZ r Rg L- - ~fl1 F t r' * t f - _ d 't F G'~ 1 p - 1 ' - _ , _ - , . , " 4 L_- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ . - - ~ 1 i _ - - FL - -.11 t . , f~ - ~ ' ' " " - ' - - ` i* 1: 11 - - I ~ ~ , ~ , ,~r... , ~ . ~ , L : ~ r, - ~ ' ' - , ~ : , ~ . ~ ~ , ~ ~ _ , , ~ , -,",r, , 't , , ,E,'~, ~ - ) , ~1~ I ' r- _ , 1~ , 1_: ~ , , - " r,, ,~~'r } k A^ 777'- 7- -~.v_.a..~.-,L v~`-_, x~~ .v.. a . - L...- l-c..Yr.~ _ . - ` - - . = d ~i ' k 4 I i+- , ; , F mot,- _ } - - F 1 €x , x , x~ .,I. _ .a - - - - . - _ - 'a. d _ t- 5 - a•4rv'+~+r, r.. • ..cwlsx'rup...r-ev.~.._ _....^.r ':+YnaS+ks.3^w+•-- _ y. .y i " - ~YS Fo 1 1 -FiU - } h rt h ; f , ri °S , ..t 5 F' Groundwater x ' j; ' s ~ ' t < We anticipate the regional groundwater table occurs at depth in the basalt. However, shallow perched , e_~ 1-t } groundwater conditions occur during the wet winter and spring months. Seeps and springs are common t $ tl 5. , in the area and often emerge at the ground surface at the interface between the overburden silt soil and the t~ tr , 5a:;=:,=' underlying weathered basalt, and where interflow zones in the basalt intercept the ground surface. ' ' -"g', ` x . _ APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK - M fi i" c r Our proposal is based on our understanding of geologic conditions at the site; our discussions s _ ' ~ t? ' with you; our site visit on April 2, 1996; and the information you provided. The proposed r geotechnical investigation will include the following items of work: k t J - y _ _ 'n k Y R- .tit _ 1) Two borings will be drilled to depths of about 40 and 70 ft at the proposed - z • " z reservoir site. The boring depths may be less if basalt occurs at or above the _ 3 - 11 bottom of reservoir level elevation 380 ft The total estimated drilling footage Y~ r"`-'' 4 r a- s `k~ St will be on the order of 110 ft. L ~ _ 11 , > a. 1 wok y The borings will be made by a track-mounted drill rig using mud-rotary drilling ` { techniques. Disturbed split-spoon samples and undisturbed Shelby tube samples - i n s y u of the overburden soil will be obtained from the borings at about 2.5-ft intervals of ,a 1 - {r y T - 1 t " depth in the upper 10 ft and at 5-ft intervals below this depth The Standard :4i} , ~r e . : , . , Penetration Test will be conducted while the disturbed split-spoon samples are w . being taken. If hard rock is encountered, the rock will be continuously cored. f& r 4-p The borings will be subcontracted to a drilling contractor experienced in drilling and sampling soil and rock for engineering purposes. The drilling and sampling will be accomplished under the direction of an experienced geotechnical engineer TI I X, 4 or engineering geologist from our firm who will locate the borings and maintain a "j de ailed log of tha materials. ^.d conditions uncovered drying the course of the r ~i ' work Due to the sloping•site conditions, dense tree and brush cover, and wet d", a r 1 F_ surface soils, we have assumed that a dozer will be necessary to provide access for 1 the drill rig to the boring locations. c'; t 5 J`"- ~ ` x' 4 2) An observation standpipe will be placed in each borehole to permit measurements ; . } t-~ ' to be made of the depth to the groundwater table. Each standpipe will consist of a l7' ; 4 1.0-in.-LD. plastic riser pipe attached to a slotted pipe segment. t 4 2 4, b S 3) Laboratory tests will be conducted to provide data on the important physical 3, " ' , i characteristics of the subsoils, essential for engineering studies and analyses. The " z , x 3 k laboratory tests will include standard classification tests, such as natural water F 1:. ~..=.-.f _ _nnf-t -A ,-4 _AM't ,1et~n;_t-m ac - I as ,st- h and mnwTAafinn „ a i. 11 11-111 ~ . yy-l-"' - i ,..t....a_ ruv,,sa,'sr:»',^rmi:,.•'«a•."':.:.:_'.': "-Rri; - - °i:-^:r.:,....~.r.~,. .T-y. 7' ---5 xN 222 S E - f - - - - ;4 ? itt Y-J h 6- d ' E ' Ir 1 _ - - , , 1 4 j 1 - r a 4 Y. qa - ' .-4, 1 1 1 ~ ' ' - _ 2 1 , r , , ' : _ _",,,rM , ~ r~' , t ' J ut _ i t._ Iff ~ ' ~ 1 . : , ~ . , . . C " ; , , 7 ~ , , -1 , , - - - - - - - ' - - - - 'F . I~ P r- - - _ - Y 7J1 ~ ~~F ~ A ~ ~ •K6G`A»6Yd+««~.b56.`yam.s..w-.w+a,.~_..,« ...._....:...u.ne'•scY.Z^.~:a.U.a°aet.:sawiauiue....o~_._~.... .u~ ....w ~.......,~v..-.........•s. ' T ~ ~v~-o. YZ~ 1 -Xi 5 S s~ S tf^ A F +J~ f 3' testing. The latter will provide the quantitative data necessary for the various r ¢ ` r foundation design studies, such as foundation types and estimated settlements. ~ k 4) GRI will complete a site-specific seismic hazard study for the proposed reservoir w - w site. This work will include a review of the potential seismicity of the site, the r ti < t s k 1F : t_ development of the ground response for the site during the appropriate design ; , = Firx earthquake, and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. In this regard, it is j anticipated that the reservoir will be founded entirely in cut, and the foundation ) :s - will likely - at•`l :~3.`,«.tp - 3 ' be rock or rocklike materials. We anticipate that our work will consist of the following tasks: a) Conduct a detailed review of the literature, including published papers; maps; open-file reports; seismic histories and catalogs; works in progress; ~zk{ and other sources of information regarding the tectonic setting, regional r - and local geology, and historical seismic activity that might have a - - + significant effect on the site. s i. ! 4 - S IN f S e43 b b) Conduct an in-depth examination and evaluation of existing subsurfice~ s data for the site and vicinity, with particular emphasis on the potential for x~ •J amplification of incoming seismic energy. g}W - C) Office studies and analyses will be accomplished that will lead to the NN M" preparation of conclusions and recommendations concerning: (1) seismic rl' events that might have a significant effect on the site, including they 2t pro)dmity and potential seismicity of known faults; (2) the potential for 5 ~z site-specific seismic energy amplification at the site; (3) the ground response analysis for a design earthquake which will include estimates of 7 rfl - the peak horizontal ground acceleration at the base of the reservoir, and (4) our conclusions regarding seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, ground rupture, and ground shaking 1 F 5) Engineering studies and analyses will be accomplished that will lead to the t F r preparation of conclusions and recommendations concerning (1) slope stability, ' j (2) methods of excavation, shoring, and groundwater control; (3) foundation ~a L rt r f support for the reservoir, (4) seisrnic design considerations; (5) lateral earth ha pressure design criteria for embedded walls; (5) permanent cut and fill slopes; I - (6) access road construction; and army other design or construction considerations that may arise during the course of the study. t { r, { rc ' , rit'^.dvt r•.S; aYS r p . - ""'''F'r^' -f , I ,'t'1✓~Y 1 J C I % l JK ; i `Qp ~ F t r. F~ MIN . k4' - k J - - - - - - t t a- ,gn "'#NT"• k~~ , ? , air v$ '~r E, 7t x ' - 7 4 Shp r.+a"', e' ..t__. .,.5430'(_ _ _ .....a.... «.w..,....~.=,t.. .k' .-a ~a ;~`ti,.$ -,-..c. - SAY S- eta ..e.,v. TTk'aa,~i`s`~.... t - ;tbmr^N.4-at,t`4 -,~I~ -,9 NSA '£4r e Y ;,f - fiJ - ~ s, 2-'~~ ON,V S 4 , i4 z - - , A report will be prepared that will discuss the work accomplished and present the , t ,a ` k ~ - kZ11 results of the various tests and office studies. A draft report will be provided for ~ - . , _ c ~$r j `k your review and comment. Five copies of the final report will be provided for te , 11-4 - - your use and distnbution £ ~F + nF f i{'` J3v.+ ` Y--L.---, SCHEDULE , ~ , ~ - ~ ~ r} - We are in a position to begin field ` explorations within 1 week following your authorization to proceed, ,z£ * ` ft - K , r j depending somewhat on the availability of a drill rig. It is anticipated that the final report on the z ~ 1 , 11 u investigation can be submitted to you within 3 to 4 weeks after the completion of all field work Of n r t ' - course, information can be submitted to you informally as soon as it becomes available from the studies. ~ ~ h i ~t r n~,! FEE g t $.J , The fee for the above work and the terms under which the services will be provided will be in accordance , ,F~ . : , xt the Proposal. : ' with the attached General Conditions of The estimated total costs are srunnrarized below3:;11 _v:a _ Fat -3k -e ".r sr - L _ ~F " " r Field Investigation Y" x, GRI $ 2,000 , ~ i t as Drilling Subcontractor L, t 4,100 4~ tai F ` r , Dozer 1,000 ~{MI i V s £ Laboratory Testing._ $ 700 f i , Ni 1; r L; sue, s Engineering and Report preparation 6-4 00 E ~ e `Z Estimated Cost for Geotechnical Investigation: $ 14,200 4- f - ? S' t - "2 ,yes`' Site-Specific Seismic Hazards Study 5000 , ,2 r a M, , ~ Estimated Total Cost: s 19,E ' , a4 ~ r Sincerely, ' , -11 q ' s tE GEOTECHIVICAL RESOURCES, INC ; F ~S T, , e v M 4 _ '.r '3 z t~ 3E d s ' J - - ,O M trn 'w l „ a ] ` - t 'w sk f ugh .P .E. A , ' ~ Principal p ~z i' g~} S, Enclosed: Genera( Conditions of the Proposal (2) ~ k T Fee Schedule t . a .mss I .1 li,6~ .,.5- .G6 fib-. _ 'F k -N M1i ~ 1 k ,,a . i t I x ri. v q tX `T Y~ } y s 's t # ii - E r t ~ t k r- r e nom ' k~ j#r~ Xi fix' f q - - -Y 3--4 k it -k 1r - - 4^ M 4y y - J'z $F- x - _ S3 - a - f= Z,-MR y1s r 4t 1"A „'~k *SC 'v 'rr r""` - r - a - sr H qg sp-s.a .y~ X } YESt's`_..y f - t h~ -'r 1. F z d+' 4S } "q~[~•,% ~-.e~`,44 i ~ t.-_~..•.~r.s.z+' ~'+3~<?.k a'q!'' €~3 -~yt- ~ a ~ -a Ir ~t, T rrhl 4s .4,,, _-+~xt~~kr Pixr"u.-k- f Pf btu 4, A 4- _ ~{y AM SOK GEOTECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC. r W- i ~~2€C'" s4 x~ 'fix a a - a x" a Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Scientists , ~ . ~ ~s~ k "®r- i Beaverton, Oregon ~ 41 ca~~e'4C 4 1996 FEE S~riEuva..c 2^r ri ~ zr PERSONNEL RATE/HOUR Principal $110 Senior Engineer/Geologist $ 85 Tai Project Engineer/Geologist $ 78 € 7 _ Staff Engineer/Geologist $ 60 r rpv 2i Engineering Assistant S 45 ' is r s- rr~ - r r'.: m --i b Droller $ 48 Secretarial Services $ 45 3 xr it. f i v, 21 I N OTHER CHARGES ° Vehicle: Vehicles will be charged at $0.30 per mile or $4.00 per hour T (maximum of 8 hours per day), whichever is greater. Fill Control Nuclear Density Gage rental will be billed at $5.00 per hour, with Equipment: maximum charge of $25 per day or S 125 per week P1 F' Reproduction: In-house reproduction, $0.10 per sheetw y 6-1,11 L - w Field ~,r $ Instrumentation Due to varied conditions, equipment requirements, location and use, rates r' ka and Monitoring for vibration monitoring equipment, inclinometer, and other specialized` t x IX fi t Equipment: equipment will be provided as required N. j t, ' _ Subcontractor ~w 1 Services: Charges for subcontractor services will be computed at cost plus 10%. ¢ l}4 f r§~ • „k- r n Travel and All charges related to travel and subsistence will be computed at cost ~z Subsistence: plus 10%. § tu?r-- '-N Mi x,- d ~ t -I- 7~'C 'Nf,,p +kh j 1 - - 2 },l myb~e R~x~ycK3. 11 Saar#{rPo" -T ~ b t 7- 7,:177 3"a n MT' 'lam 3 n- - - Y "Y' - "r S•$ h zt- b ","'M f.F Rte -~GU A 4, ~ ~4.: - W f•~ 7 °-'Z ,S _ f - "i'.vi ~ 7 v*T" rr~' 1rvt ' } _ .-.-.-ter - _ - -.r:•~r'~, J,C"„~-_r+'r.-_._.r'ri~ ~..~.c+~.•.,~•~ ,.....-,---..^-.c1•-• p" R r 1 Y aOn, ~d~ ~'4 31~ .4t - 4 ~C - I 1 f 7 'u IN.,~#-r c Set- _ Z` - , - $a'~ 4 - ,11 - k'~ ~'S na -r, w„ •zL{ ~L} '1- - - L - i - 74.fG"]` - ' -~R r-~~ it e 1 ~ g arm ° ,r "4' 1.~ l t 111111- , °v ya' .~r1n 'v, ti ' dd®: ~.a,.«..r: zt,.:.:z `'...t~.. ;a.: :d :r "u 3s,M a 2.i~3; t.,.:,"~°`si''a s'La.•aa auk,:A '4 y'} { k - Y.rCr^ 5 Ferri; 0 & - i~1~11,i~ll -R---,' _7 ,N;V~~";~.`j,-Z~- w~ 'fi 4 5 _ [ 4-e I n s^ -1,1 lll -N - n i 7"# r "fig s r - } 4; ~ v , SY- . k # ` AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 ` ' ` i t k ' - - Xl~ G , -110-1 For Agenda of 5/28/96 f , .k r 4~ ' ~t-Zt F 2K, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . _t 11 . s - _ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ~ I~ E~ ti - - `.a rt' - ' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution in Sunoort of Partneripprith ivieiro and i ommiiiing Park D Fun' s -m r - PREPARED BY: D. Roberts DEPT HEAD OK hi" CITY ADMW OK ~A ' - ill 62--l I" - ~11 I- ~j x' ISS J . AFFOR • TH f n JN it t -'mot _ -Should the City commit future Park SDC funds for the acquisition of greenway within two Fanno Creek target s '4 a ,t t E areas for the purpose of partnering with Metro? , - - - -t EJ v,~' 3-dkt - STAFF RF[ nMMFNtIATI Z r h y.,, rM ~ ~ f ' k hr t 11 M~, ,,17 iy`y - ` Z i' -h - £3 A • Adopt the resolution committing future park SDC funds. - 3 , -a INFORMATION SIiMMARY n , ~ } J At its April 23rd meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a resolution expressing the City's intention to commit: rte' 4 ti 111- I- by _ i "future park SDC funds for the acquisition of streamfront land within two target areas designated b Metro for the . ' Q afi ' areas -1,:;=ts f - 11-1 1, i w re V 1' -R expenditure of Regional Trail Greenspace bond measure funds. Metro acquisitions in these and other target xv _mgr. ~ fsy`+ V are based on criteria that include the potential to coordinate Metro participation with investments and actions of 1, - other governments. As a general guideline, every local dollar committed by Tigard toward target-area greenway yf acquisitions is expected to leverage one to two regional dollars. The City funding level specified in the resolution ~w "3 r r is identical to the level lined out in the present seven-year CIP plan for trail corridor acquisition and construction 1, 4 1 ' for fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98. By re-directing the use of this money to land acquisition within a broader a area, the City has the potential to double or triple its funding for trails. _ - ._I, _i j a - j i _ r l,'~ r a 1 i•- Zvi z, p t OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED a° . 11 11 M. r" Do not adopt the resolution. ' ~ 3 s FISCAL NOTE , ' , # ` 2, a~ `g~~'" 'f 5 The resolution earmarks $200,000 City park SDCs for greenway acquisition in each of the fiscal years 1996-97 5-, ` 2 4 I. - and 1997-98 as a match toward leveraging $400,000 to $800,000 in regional funds. r " ~ [ S ; S {'t 7'{y~^ ' i:\citywideisum.cip.rcs x :r-w t &f- f Z 7 dr15-16.9612:00 -f _ -q - a,fi i >f M #f r T 3 11 it 3 § l i.j , _ 9 h fir - g -i ` v P, yl:~ P 7V,-!~Ult, '-U,,:~,Ij',ji`~"'%, ~ R_~,`,,! _;~ie Via' It. Z,5 t a :';s us. ;vast»~uz.,aa,^;x.,': •aa a c.,.w>~• ~».srr,.ct.r,s= w,.,w,•+.K,.~-~~....,.....or.,--.-•.,~.,_.,~-...,- -n_.... ,.,5 } +A t i a - a-c t o f ,.,r a E f- - - s t ; FC 1 k L J i 4 .r ''cCa 4 `F 3 k 1 { „ /y - _ a. r' ?,tom -514 a~` t - r . t .1 I z f,r t rx t r , +,3 a Y w t 4, 4 Ee ?,.nn t ' 'r our - ~f ' ~ - 1- - , ~ W , " " - , r. , z"~, - "t-t . . . ~ , - , _i, ~ , I x x ~ U - - :il, , 'I I I _ , , e - , Z - _i . , 11, t`,~,,- - ~ .~S-'~ , . ~ ~ 7-,'~ , " , - , , , ~ ~ , , . , _ ~ ~ j r - - _ r.; ' N _ ~ f , , c^ 7Y .y k ?r'te' , 3` - - - f q - C ~ - 11 ~ , - , 1~: ~ ~ , ri¢ `r'x`^,s'.«~r } t -tr d,~- { ?S s +-r7- t r 4 ~3, r ` w - &Y Y.~4 e;m`t'•~~ i` - 4 , _ - - x3.,g --i - t'~v.zryj - h RI ' - W - '4 S°' F " 11.1 - ~ .t "',t, BED - r a c -q'~ Y *1~ ° wKa . ~ A _ sti ' ~ = 4 - - a J, ) _ i o- '~j , mo'w ' ~ - y"i~~at,.r' 1 r i - q } v. A"` Tq } - ;y"rc - gg-.y ,_a qr~a". ~s.~ r ,N '11.1,41P r ~ k en, Agenda Ite1T1 No. J } 3 x s G a Meeting of~~45g 40 - s1-,.vim h 'a {Sr-S , - ~ 9~4 1-1 tf > - Yt J # i' ,Y..7a *s MEMORANDUM - ,-N- zW a 4x ~ r e n Ci T OF T iGARD e s`. _ z ; r« sY, -i x v ka$ - TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council 9 mim 2 ' FROM: Bill Monahan '~'"t ' Z~ ; * , , 3t DATE: May 21, 1996 " 't SUBJECT: V ISIGn Ing ft,.,ry, a"'a t $ ,;~~Zlf , - . Z I " r~-~~!:-,-_----.~ 5 The proposed Visioning Program has been revised several times in an attempt to a'~ z y reduce the cost of the program. In addition, staff has adjusted the elements of the, y ; t program to involve more citizens and groups. a I I - " ~ ~ V" As Council moves toward a decision on whether or not to proceed with the effort, I + f x . ` , k _ thought that it would be useful for me to share a list of the reasons that I believe the ~ r Visioning process will be valuable to the community both now (m defining the Vision) ~ ~ . ' r I . n ; RO- ' t I'm and in the coming years (carrying out the Vision): h, NOW s - r~ - the Visioning Process can serve as an outreach program to ~k 1 I t i h - d , + r X t F 1. Get more citizens involved in our program including new e' t citizens, students, those who have to date had no contact ' y I- ; t With the City. , f,r 11., r^~` ~ i ~ 2. Get input on the positive and negative perceptions that € x Y ""h, . , 0 citizens have of the programs that the City operates. r 1Q4 ~ 1 ' k 3. Identify shifting community issues which require attention. c X ? k, 4 } - 4. Help define how Tigard should grow in the future. Ir k 1 ' ~ 2 1 ' I - the Visioning process can be a step in introducing the elements 1 ' V, r t} A } f k a p of the Metro 2040 plan to our citizens in the context of defining our kiyh I community's path into the 21st Century µ I a 1-,,s - - through the process, we can refine and evaluate our CIT program ' r = , G a j to determine if it is the effective ,;,eons of grass roots involvement X , ~ # t t~°-^-~ that we desire it to be y "tx R i~ I r. - :a gat 'i , . F- tL1s , -9 r 'yz F 11 ~s I ~ ~Stam A is st k ~ rf - i 3 , `F' E%' ' Yi`` C r3 °i; - as r' f' , x 5+. - - 4 ~ 5.~ "ga 11,`` ,tea t F x~ S x _ S -$C ;'s - 3 w 9,F - -t - - F - 1 --t:-..5 1,q. -3 Y S e n o- r I I, i ,-~,,-1,'--,4,c, ~,,_~,~i~-,_~~,,- L-11 " ~ , - 21 I-. ' y ry t y ' -Eta 5 } r $ r k r - ri.J N 4 F E s r k R. c t 4 F Y U- ~ , _ I t: , ~ I , - - , . , , , - - , " ~ - . , - , - ~ . , ~ r ,x t °t t - i 1 y r „ x - . - " , , . I a: , r_ ~ , . - W - , , , ~ I __-y - 11 I n y~ yrn- r+ .rt i^ tirj' x r --fin a. -,,sq r F 4 _ .t~ , '+r 2,~ . 4 - x 't ~ 'a'te' a ,4p 4: - a e - - 11, r4. s°py^'-3s f- i7 - f _ 1 _ - f k P _ $ of yya-',r y Y J -s r - Mid ~ci z, ?z•, F~',,z'3',"4 S ~M 4r ffin % ff (st g i 5`i Q kf "E ~,yqi N4 . - e' 0 , C Future t- se , }Sq r.: i f ' <s - the Vision that we and the community create can serve as the '4 c ~n z3y,C aS s a c t~` - iwxA, Ea u City's plan for growth, community involvement, and programs and F "'M UT. ~r - services -x } 3 ~ " , `aERi Er g ~h q = - the Vision can be used to check consistency when reviewing ~ r - budget requests, service demands, comprehensive plan amend- ~ F ° j' x ' Ft_ . z~ - ments and other proposals ' `I ~ 0, gg@@q f s - the process can help us identify citizens who have an interest in ~~F 1- the community and understand our direction, potential and limita- M` I MI , s ~.1,~, ` tions. Thep participants could become a pool of individuals who, in =;t £fs y ; ~ the future, could be drawn from for board, committee, and task ~ ~ force membership. n ~ T 1~" x, - , `F Personally, I am intrigued that the Visioning process has been successful in other - " 41 S` communities, both in the actual process itself and also as a guideline for future action. I >~?_,r ' - r' °cu.,.' .~'st- feel that involving more citizens, particularly those with whom we have had little or no aE. r~ . , prior contact, creates a unique opportunity for us at a critical stage of Tigard's evolution "I'll ~ , = as a City. Demands for new and improved services, coupled with the obligations ` _ tom - expected from the Metro 2040 plan, will require staff and Council to rethink the direction r r 3 b I~ > in which we are headed. I think that the Visioning process will give us a vehicle in which to examine our successes, analyze our needs and develop a course of action =h : { I ~ with citizen involvement in an open and non-confrontive setting. That is, we can 3~~ discuss and work on the elements of the Vision in advance of case-by-case decision- 't ` making as issues rise to the point of requiring immediate attention. x { t -rtZ p'~g§ I hope that these thoughts help you to analyze the program prepared by staff. { ~f v 4 c- - L r 1 A., t - Note: Attached is a letter from Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Executive Director of Community £,3 ' 11, > ' i Partners for Affordable Housing in expressing support for the Visioning process. z'' ' k t'~~ _ x s z i:ladmWIXvision.doc s?. a-- 4 -y F f 9... y a .s y ' a w _ - _,v ,ys > N L a # {Y i t 3 y vz`', y 5 d y g , : { l ^ti .^s ~A , z r x " CY + - l' _5 L§ .7V',";MR4!,~,,2 %r~~Y i~~.' - _ '--&?n~ , , - A 3 C § - ~tx ft - ~p tir ~,~h c t a ny a t w dry: `~Xcs "x F - t x - y' & z --art F a F ! Win, 4 i. -r r r t k i K ~ .~,K~,~~!,, _ [2 . ~ , - - _ - 4W4r -K z 1'."",, ro y# q -T t k [ 1 c a 7~3*..Y 4°4- - 1 I _ rot 11 im'S_ + E " t '4 ~ y E - a f} f 4 T-, F Y- - e - IAfJAn _ _ _ _ _ - Y r . i .~t LE R1=P=1 Via. . .'F4 3 - _ _ _ - --^~r ~'3`k ?a.$e >•z~ r.e"va?,-`,. '•rs' has- _z - - f - z ,r 47' r -tX w~gr Z T { - - r a , - - a- - -sr'vy} - ,y • ,y a s i yr r a r r c _ k h-' i°a:a r~avct --v-,:.~,-".,' n,,c C-y s y _ x r f f- t c,°''ss r S- -•-xf ",~t-c '?a~g"~'+,r ~ f' '`i-z. r s~4 `~"-,~`f'i,~'ra~ a c y- ya - J,>2! ~ - R s r - a - Y c~~ E 3r~.s~ s ~i.,~r`'.,'~.,~t'sa.,`,a ~.3'~ J ON -0 1 Y, -,S w*(+yY~'p..0~lf. =3.,, P riz -~j..g. May 15, 1996 MAY Y 1,? 1936 N Q -4 --5 ~~f~ x Ltz Newton - E f;52 City of Tigard 1 -ri- 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd. . ,s ff z z . sz f Tigard, OR 97223 a>re a Dear Liz: yM 8 y p rf- - Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH), a Tigard-Tualatin based 3" H` Sri .~`..E#Yl fi t community development corporation is extremely supportive of the "visioning" process jy,4 r being discussed by the City of Tigard. Rapid growth in our area has meant rapid change.. ' y y ~fL It is important that we not only react to the changes associated with growth, but take a $ u > proactive role in shaping our future. What kind of community do we want Tigard to be in u - the coming decades? While it will not be an easy task to involve a broad base of `ig community residents and businesses to help anser this question, it is an important one. ~ r } Ft, CPAH is committed to participating in such a process in whatever ways you might find - helpful. Our primary interest is in the area of affordable housing, but we are also concerned with broader issues of community and economic development. We applaud your efforts to undertake such a process. Please call if there is anything we can do to x~ z support such an effort? Y ~4 - Ul- " x r 3~Sincerely, y r" 9,67,& h f Y } f y Sheila Greenlaw-Fink; ' 5 Executive Director - 1 s~~ ommunity ~~xhm%1 t t s. ~.F M far r' artners for 3~~ U ffo rd a b l e 1s,3, w q~ ig Iy,~ Ss➢^:b Air7't, -z'~s t - O U s l n g, I n C. P.O. Box 23206 ~ Tigard, OR 97281-3206 ~ 503/968-CPAH (2724) ~a ~ `CJs m K T.a=,~.e a x z 4~va ~ x~ E ~g 4-, Is- r"Ef»''A -x'f a r - 4 sr' 1# a,'"-r- K ` ~Awg 4tV ~S:~~'...-ty. % -X I ,2 s ~y `.sg- s•°~ st $'yN r,- - f - - e - t > 1 r s, x j a 57 p Is -VOMM xN k§a G i 1~r sag R _ „F`k~, k~ Y~1.,+i-"' h Rfi 21 ILI g2a tlr s T } restt ~Xt ~,r~' fi M ~3# - Fm.i rsz,.: - r,y .err. ?ah rz ry. ~+o _s,. t _'a~ „ R++ Y a T~ _ r ~:,r., xr .ctt .y._ - 0-1 - - Lk 'a h _.f 3 _ f hS'iak'I. l. -..,,@a - l ^r i P't 15.e.T. --E`c~x yz;,s 2 xt x - - t'_ x s - - s - G*,c`t - 't g ^nz, 'k k --j' to .axs' J F €iy 3 Ott "t _ t 4 '!'su kY• 'X ~ "*h"*°` - _ _ i ti fg qt' 4 'I LM[,, t%~ e - s' 2 45^"'"§s-L`+i/ - 4 `*i' t j e - p - § , ,rp P ,ya<¢ Eesayti .r t 4,t' -rrb.# i z f 1 .°sN~rdi: t...w...,....x...a.. -a,...».....,....=x..h,.°..y....~.......-.. ......r...... .._z.~«.. w...:..u... ~.a,, c..FSkf:3.~+ax '.,Y, ''.a..b icx^^-3.. ' , " ]'h.{ k - 'tea 4, t-,-_ P- r t-14 r y i Fa''S pb'c - ..s x 1 W4 P r f, `g tX. }i AGENDA ITEM # F an e' ? " N~ f g3 ' For Agenda of May 28. 1996 i ~ ~ G1- crI x Z r ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON F ; COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY a d x a~ why j 4 ~ ' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 96-0003 g r k _ if vY 6 REM mbvr_z , ' PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK.~ CITY ADMIN OK Lvf - _ , `'~r - - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL -i Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary - Commission a request to initiate annexation of four parcels consisting of 9.24 acres located at the -1 -1 p a 110 . ~ h t rv h western end of SW Fern Street east of Ascension Drive? " SAY { '.t'i' ~a .i'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary r , x~A~ _ ~ ' 3 ~ 3 Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformance .a,,~. •'~~v~~,x,,.M,;~ ~ , u < with the city comprehensive plan. a , INFORMATION SUMMARY - # a ~ - The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of four parcels of land, totaling 9.24 acres, 1 ;pss ? f iiJill Ch i5 contiguous to the Vitt' G. iyaIV. The applicants request annexation in order to receive sanitary - - _ sewer service and/or partition their property. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an `tom -q fin -I M~ T t . Tigard Medium Density Residential, R'7e plan and zone designations from Washington County R-6 to g`§€ti P. - OTHERALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . ,5-~ ~ ~h E e rs y ' Deny the request. ° l,t.'' w - ; ~;P € r - s oo=cc.-cooccc.cvoo..o.oocov.ccc=cccoooo..ooc..ooo____=====coocao__==cocooooo= 'ays' k-s"{+.. '73-J _ FISCAL NOTES x N - I "yr s n', , ' `t - Since the territory is not within the city's active planning area, the applicants are responsible for the 4 w Boundary Commission application fee of $895. " XZ > i° i t N+~' g' '3, 1'ttr g "n~,b aka r+ a F -i x f , I:llryM~raylZCAe&03 wm, 5!15/96 5.00 PM _ zfk - t Y3 r 'i- r rt ~ tl iry.~ J. F t J 4 i x C'~, ms-s -••:i r o- f ,v 34 I-MM n-'.rr^*;.. .a, - ~"K,=.7:ee, a «:.✓xcr_.:. r r s. ;..~,t r° Lv; ,"s 'f C - ~i x t 7 f t- _ e k h e„ - r `s. - - ~ ,s" zt?' - - r' r a7 - - - - - - F4 r t° y k r f i s r i - c si y; _ u z N 3~=' C a 4 -'ai k e r F t y~ a'A+<V _ 1 n, . k Z l~+aw~ a, Y ~3 u+n7~ r--r.1 ~^h~ . r^F L!1 ^}"tG;« •}fA L. a~".;"Ir ..~,.N rr~;V 3i zri'+3rnt•-,~,;. ~p...n. jS =17 wr py,~v ry;. ~ _s - . : .i - . -..L ..k., - - p Hw IN k, a x a a I~t Y it N 7 ; , - Lb ' k 4 7u v - ~ : s`n- I zs`~ , t x. ~ .....a,...:...J..:...,.'`'~.,.,•..-...,.. w ...S _._._....,....a~..c+, .t`:u a a : . ;!'v...t ,,,...a....,~, a a "4,. -L - 5 c 3 l ; P y# - 3trj :4 "sn_ci~.~.~'."`r;z>t, _ f'Vyi:S "3:h'-''~~,'-t-°'^i;`t'-L~';.=`' j # AGENDA ITEM # / kk ~ i ~..5 r haH 4 - 4 r' ~D For Agenda of 5/281 # ;a I 4- 4 , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON # M =k t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ' r - 4 I. 1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Greens an ce Acquisition Priorities : s'r~5 r - r W g _ PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK/~~~~~CITY ADMIN OK - I t - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL , I , _ It'~ M r In what order should the City pursue the list of Greenspace acquisitions approved by Council in April? - j lv- a - g~ $ Gk STAFF RECOMMENDATION £ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - :ZA t s v ax- e i+ - The City begin negotiations with the owner of site F-2, the parcel above Cook Park, as its next priority. _"mOt f F z Jr+ .11 1. INFORMATION SUMMARY 11 On April 12, 1996, Council approved a list of acquisitions for the use of Tigard's share of local Greenspaces funds # t~ " e_% sa' x r ' (see attached). Council decided to leave to a subsequent meeting a determination of acquisition priorities among t g L Fa ',.v...y tk~ 4 H the various properties. Information pertinent to the setting of these priorities is given below. The priorities lined - out by Council will provide an implementation work plan for acquisition efforts. , r Fern Street parcel (F- 4): As authorized by Council, this parcel has been purchased by the City. , hag- - Parcel above Cook Park (F-2): Without revealing the terms, the owner of this site indicates that he has received I ` - It 4 two recent offers on the property. The development of a site plan for the parcel is included in the work scope for ~ , ~ ~I t t the Cook Park Expansion study. Early movement on this property may be needed to prevent its loss to ' - - development. -7 ` . ` Bond Street property (F- 5): Council's designation of this parcel was contingent on a fund raising contribution , j~ Y of $32,000. According to the Wetlands Conservancy, which coordinated an effort to purchase the site, some of ~ , r j ' the pledges that make up this amount are more than two years old and, therefore, may be difficult to collect. A'l ~ ~x t Additional fund raising efforts may be needed to compensate for any uncollectable pledges. City movement on t 3 , K " € T - this property is not timely until the $32,000 match is available. z a Bull Mountain Road parcel (F-3): Purchase of this property was identified as a partnership opportunity with the `°a County. The County's present timeline for picking Greenspaces sites calls for final Commission action sometime J , ; as k a in July. Movement on this property is not timely until the County Commission completes its local share process. 'z' F - JA - _ Fanno Creek Greenway acquisitions: Council identified these acquisitions as a City-Metro partnership { opportunity. On May 16th, the Metro Council approved the designation of two large Fanno Creek Regional k x t Target Areas inside Tigard. City and Metro discussions on the details of how this partnership will work will begin -,~~"-,~,,~,-.,,~.f ~.;~.-""~,-~l,,~.~L'I 1~ G~ , f ~m'j soon. Movement on areenwav acquisitions is not timely until a formal agreement with Metro is concluded. ~ x T 1 u 5 - 3 i -f 3 t _J y r i f £t3 - 2 -j 3 f r 3 r- - y -S~' - i - r- - YY Y - .r' ks . I t s 1 s } r ' }~tqq~- r .r, - n _ i~A T t` r-',nr.K- T'rac - a~,. 'f % - C ; r f bs - - - i I ! r I g ; 1 I - !}tF hhh... i - _ 3 b - - - 11~..~.-. ! J .cy - - C - I - Y Ti, 1 - L -1~ - 1 x -f r-? - - - h c3 1 t i T t { r 4 f i , irF'' ,..i_~zc.t ....~`...LS...9-Rte'.-c'~. i i . - . - - - 'tee _ _ - - - 1 I I- ~ 4 u } t + _ i, 4` t! x'~ e 1xx'r tc ..,,3h _ Ki>S+&"ra~' g' ~Y a - „ -fits ,'s~. 3+ s, .3 f'S'c ; t - t 4 - 1 - 4+^ 1 4 ,xs µ~'i - '*-ar{ G r G j y3~C Sur-z+~°"`~ fk } _ t 6 .s',G 'F ,a-t41 a - h r,a¢ a ~ k.' r d-`s-i`.',e4'-'._'~" G^~`' ~TM + -1} x - } T - x z- ^c S`4 xa - T L~ S {E,' ~ , ,~A - a t sv'`.~. ~mr''a~ .J." 3~e. '4 ` _ s YJ - r 1 1 ~ +W Z s *1 a;s 5, x:~ - aax--x 11 f - L ` i WE ~ } ~ OTHER ALTFRNATIVFS CONSIDERED ~ x BIA . t4 t fi r None. - < ..r t - r FISCAL NOTES e w'" x m i. I 5- ~x pF ~r PEW ` F' {K v Tigard is A^t fled to tcC@i'v8 W5a,000 in Metro Cireens aces ass through bond measure funds. According to the e P P g t , f { T7 a terms of the inter-governmental agreement Tigard has until May, 1998, to spend this money. Partnering with the x_ x~ _ wWa R County and Metro has the potential for leveraging a significant amount of additional funds. f, _4 m, h'rr. t~ - 9 a r " iAdtywidcls=\g=n.Pr r 4- _t 'i Ss4 ~ -ter dt\5-17A6\IO:OOPM `"'""y ~ ' t ^s ' 'r x s r-y :'gr~ x y r£ x y a d z .a.~2a S ` - - - M ~ P r'4 1 y s W, { _ - Y , 1 y t -t 7. - •~~.r~ yr. 4q~ 6sA at 4 ~ ' i F E f -s'f,a r,f a - t - ~ Me" }s'°~ rK - - I a E~ fir,' a.y'4, z x.Y - ,7 ; 1 f ems"- Y '7 n, n' ss~ P , I .:t ~ I ~ . r 1tNr k Fv \fi U x 's> E ~ - r - ` 'i,'a '7tX'vi' ,,fix"'' is 1U I r d r4 T (wee. - ~ , r - ✓:,w.. a'N-^`s. F ~-ti'~'S*z. ,~,4T' .U 1Y # r"€r'~~:a.,~.`-s-,5 r. 4 -H-s^" a s y w sk L`-z,3' k N t -f t L - F n a 3 $ j '7' x. zf'tff} r-y ° t t - r- b - 'a x e , I t mYA?x #.y ! w -'F~et s+2 - s i . €p3,.n A , { ,dv5 -%rP 7 s{'" ,?'a r r { - 41 ,e5 , L- r 't - \xSr.J"r t gqge d'f -fin F hf _ 5 - M1 ' z CR - - 11 """'~Ii:, ~ I ~ I - , , ~ " . - I , L , " . " L. I - I - w . I I ' _.a : . . f = , .~..i.~ _ ha xv~ c tea. T, c Hx ~r iii a-tc•+. -.-r+ k _ ~r~h _Z~ ♦+zroa.~ " ' `L - 3r~ - - 7 M "123111, - - - L as?ar { - v F - mil- y ys° - > ~kf- y17° v'im` F _ - F # t r, - - * „E~'cY C~ s-.~' w ~i F,y417 e 4 .S P 7 ,?L~ 1 7 a 'r"4 ir-r y r I s Agenda Item Nods i v' Meeting of_ ~?7a! - + -'A.- ; MEMORANDUM /~t_ 9'c f c x r _ P r,~7' /7'1 S''e~~ r"{.fo r yr is ` 'W,,5~~ ' Xa t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON * 1. z: rF,Px .s r~ g TO: Mayor and Council', +'t zE FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator * r x , J s y N a Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director , 3 4~ Sx DATE: May 14, 1996.4,,' r xe R a SUBJECT: Role of the CITs and the Planning Commission s ,4 & r - s - U~ - ~r 11, I $ ISSUE: How Should the role of the CITs and the Planning QSI .7 ' ' Commission be delineated and clarified? h 'd - ' BACKGROUND: There has been some confusion recently regarding thet 4 'e~ t'- role of the CITs and the Planning Commission and their membersc € involvement in issues facing the City. The City Council asked 10 a,~ a staff to discuss the issue with the Planning Commission and CIT" aj Facilitators. The CIT Facilitators met on Monday March li. A~tss copy of their notes is attached. The Planning Commission and City s--- ` Council discussed the issue at their March 19 joint work session. ~i ~ ~ x Q A copy of those minutes is also attached. At the March 19 joint work session, Council directed staff to -N µ ; prepare a recommendation outlining a process for defining the role 11 g--, of the Planning Commission and the CITs. ~ ~ r: f r- I ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the comments made by the CIT ' -1i I, y _ Facilitators, the Planning Commission, and the Council. In c; ~ - addition, the pros and cons of the process used for Metro Green f x I -11 Spaces funding was discussed. Staff also considered the purpose 4,,~ ~ .w of the CITs and the Planning Commission. " } dbF t I 1. ? Specifically, the Citizen Involvement Team Agreement approved by , # 11 r k Council states that the CITs were created to 11 ..serve as broad i, ~i%~~,--~,'~~-,~' 1~----' ~ - V [----1"1 , : 7. ~ . I 4 based organized forums for the identification of the public's x1 I , r' ' concerns and values." Section 2.08.010 sates "The purpose of the 4 ;F r ii. 1; Z9 ; 4 1 Planning Commission is to advise the city council on general land ~y r use and transportation planning issues; long range capital s t improvement programs; and to act as a hearings body for qr applications of permits, land use applications and land use rs -i e~,- 3 I 11 - ~ I -1 ~ - ~ ,.s -,.J appeals or other matters as directed by the City Council." -Y-z d ;gLt _ jd 9 f X, - - yip,,} - 41* - $ { I - ty 1t C, J -V - 4 5 * r s Y }5 ra t t4 nE,- - xs x r { E ~ , ,,.~~"--~--~"e,+--','~~~,,,~---.'~+-, I - - - -,`i- , , - - . I - - ;1 , . - i L _ rii -`y.sy r fs-,a iS t a.. r r rR? 'i ° Pry' } m t p F f Y Y A Kti S t k I- { ' \ E t"44- 5 a v i Jt - s` S a _ * 1 a~ri"+t w qT 5c,a•Fr ro.-a rvr 2 °m - _ 'a s - hr v_ r _ f ~ .,rte, . . - d 1 - 'IF L - ~i - - , - , , ~ , - - - '8~%!~ - E_~rPy ova s Nx ° it L ` 30 ti~;-ep e r 11 'u` r'^ t 'k 'k x - y ' h 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: £ x-~tea.iiss , The CITs ";;x.11 v,-Ve t-i, o_,_; ry to _,4e,..., all all Siuf:.... ~ 1 i F ~ » _ ..pp_,._..__ y- - vv- 1 t3 r z s „ amendments to the Comprehensive Plan andDevelopment Code text a 't'. s- i or map. However, the review shall be conducted at the next = j,N ` c~ regularly scheduled CIT meeting unless the applicant agrees to " A f 1 4 a a delay. Any comments will be forwarded to the Planning -4-,,, D4~ ' Commission and the Commission shall respond to CIT comments ."t - its recommendation to Council. z,, - " No „ r i~ , - • The CITs shall have the opportunity to review all quasi : _ kr judicial comprehensive - fl g" ~ plan and/or zoning map amendments that} ci apply to several unrelated parcels. However, the review shall - r ~31~ c_, , be conducted at the next regularly scheduled CIT meeting unless m, the applicant agrees to a delay. There shall be no expectation. 11 1 \ NT * that the applicant be present at the CIT meeting where the q_ proposal is reviewed, a planning department staff member shall s Y s , a attend to address the proposal. Any comments will be forwarded t R directly to the Planning Commission and the Commission shall `a 3 6} W 11.11 a.f.s. respond to CIT comments in its recommendation to Council. r. 4, aV<<. Proposals for comprehensive plan and/or zoning map amendments { to single and/or related parcels shall continue to be reviewed f'a' x 5 v S through the neighborhood meeting process. Fs_ J- • The CITs shall provide comments directly to City Council on the fe ~a annual Capital Improvement Program Budget. - I'll • The CITs shall make recommendations to the Planning Commission ate- rl' on the seven year capital improvement program update. The x ; s' ' 1 _11 j Commission shall address the CIT recommendation in the .,'j , i Commission's recommendation to the Council. r - } j ! • The CITs shall provide input to the Planning Commission on ip x =.u v parks planning issues that involve comprehensive plan policies ~ ~ ~ " or changes to the comprehensive plan or zoning maps. rk x • The CITs shall provide comments directly to council on parks facility development or expansion that conform to existing " l - , Comprehensive Plan polices and map and zoning designations. t ~ • The CITs shall have the opportunity to provide input to the ~ysx . - Plannin Commission on le p p park s 3 z ~ k g vy or bond ro osals that involve or transportation improvements. The Commission shall respond E to the CITs comments in their recommendation to Council. ti, " • As part of any special studies or consultant services are n_~ a s a approved by Council that involve the use of land, or fees or , charges paid by the public, staff will define the role of the , £ ,z" V` - 41 CITs and/or Planning Commission if any. If the CITs and , Planning Commission will not have a role in the process, staff - ' 'J'A will identify other methods of citizen involvement or identify t b,~ 'i z why citizen involvement is not necessary. 4 r ° t" IT 3 • Recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or Council from r §s x rt 1r' the CITs should be in the form of consensus of members present ° t-, ; at the CZT meeting where the issue was discussed. The CITs are " i_ ft ~ } , discouraged from conducting votes on issues to encourage a , ~ r _fim~l ~ , ~ - 1, i _ .f2 „ T , sr ~ rS F h r F.. ~r j i p t f. .y T._ 1 _ _ - f~~- (eY Y J Y{ l f 1 I 1 - - 1' -E * - # x s a a - r k r i j~~s+x', _g*_, I f 7 it, 5 L " , - , ~ , , - . 2 ,4 ~ - 3 SS A Y ~F. - t3 ` i 1' 4 J } y ¢ aT f f i C JJJJJJJJ 4 jri 1 I i - " . , y . e __t ® - ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ € ! tTr~:~~~ ~ txu~~, ~I ~ w~k ~ _ y f ~ ,a S , v I k~.' - ~ '~a, ~`r-. °*.-s«'.-.r •,~d-,•,so a ~r t;;an 3'. ".3 a; 4 ,5,.€~,~ •'k3'f., ,.,4„,7f.~ •~R '.x't.; r' . uy :g..yyrr y.._ e,+ >f,4 a: ; a' .i,:. T ft. ' s`w: ,.ra ig: ~.z.t xe e ~ - .>'d kI::u~ ¢,r.' . d't ~ ,:^st-~"'€" ..s t r ~ - ,ry r~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ - - mafy.,, . ,~•C ' s~~sdyy, ~,s:tvs? ' ~4^,.(.:a-r~r • •~',„~.,z;`~`~~~;~?.'x'i 9 K';~T'+.,,MI'. ,uj^.".•c' "f Y'y* t~:'rr '^k'~. f y .~k t; ~r°'y~,° ,.,ra ,R}} "4:~=` 4' tVr Pr `3 ,,,*#i•,, i'°m:,, 1 F3 tt ~.'P: Yt~:,"~`• r ~ ~ ka'uf"',~-ta, ~ ~ ,a• ~q.~ t , n .R ~ d~":< 'sy' rx 9 ~ ~ ~':3~<~ & a..*,aa °~',`~i,.e . W-°r ~ ~ :#L~' + *w" :4,k^ w,'v i Y. -~;r , ,sr,,;;:=fir r, `fit.„.,' t rc -.n.. '`srI'~ "-,.'..r,rssz a. •'',f., t _ {yy~~9i.~ 5~. ~ r4, ~•n `rS' of [s 3 ,y`~S',. ~ ''"t,^~~ '""y-„u w' 't, ?'Y P~ tin f 2 • s, d ;,,d .r'~'~Zi" ;ytr • y,,,,,,,. 'r a ~ ..1- " wS' Jr,"q ,~}~,p.'un, / V.a?;"- ',R•j ,s:~':~< a i°~,' u ' Y"' v':~ ` 1~~{{ r,, '7 ,1`v ~y~ F ``e. ~ r { { .'N;1R,'~. a' k,, ~?g,, ' a t iW ~:i"f'4` .?'q s ,9 a'K ig^, , :.g i ~ e 3~^-`7 . } , P"3t3kc?Y" s* v`4AR .%€.ad" e,?.. r s:~s de~., ~d~ •'2_ c. } {~5;• '~~4a 7: qg~y-+ ,a a -sv, v,,,~- <s •'~~:t„~`d, 9~.i i" ~}5`iz. • s'{.~ *YY >,.f` ry-7 r~i. •Sp'`sk ,iF ,F. 4w~p, .x3% ,'~,4 p,<. ':"Sk' 4..a 4} .u` .s. 'fs d'v'W~rv...- Y'4.t•w,- . •y.,~ b, . J.. 7„ , . x+,,:' ~ ~n ~ _ 3.. ~ ~ x ~e' ,,x~ ~.t m,o , r •#ra ;~:0. p Fp{"n 65 . ~,s t.~-'N'{,:' ` a . , .i ~a. n•; c~k".: x;°ii, ,:p,,, 5~ € nP., ~ i k;r t'd 't„ '~7!s' ~~F'y '2`v,^~ ~ ~ sa ;k 'f•4',~,i, 7r u-t~., ,s, ed .u ~'+•.^~'.x'•^.:a,.: c .,,r ~,,,.4 . cx, a:,.zaFrr,. ~,e~f s,~ J., x.C a x •,"^5' ~ air` ~ " ..,i~° 1 .+.wx~r-, q pp~,`•i~,a, '<n. vd «,t ra ,rl, ' .u :4 ~ r k „a s •"na;,•a~-r. h. "ti:, .'ue' r #°.;S:r > ,st,'i-:%a` . n „a~':+~•-"=:;".E'ti.,eF~.n.,`p: « ~,,,;<.p.., i, 3 e~ f:tiik. It: %'¢5 i ~~<a, "'-z,-. Sd 4c" s ? rf.~• ~ f as-C »k.. . t , wd ,.*kr • x ~ fi P. . ~,an y" .,,.z w.,.,= xp`'° ..it„~z ".a av. , GN2~ @ s x ~ 2e, te,u.@ : , N, '~`^~e, w<....a<_, Ft 'Y~ `.rfr vv „rn a~• .v, a ~3 x'us`^'•~" .ta- „-~^'....°.~..`:=-i' . t. ~'t . a: Kra, , +k:..5:' • .~I , , 'r , fl - a •:r.. , .xY.- . ~:...W. , r_ ~`'.r fir'.. c,R.„~ x. . . 3 ,>.~,,'X~'.s i ~ ~J,',+ sf: w,.CP r ra r ~ _'ai" ~ a K .alyitr , t , kt>; ~ . ~ ~,x°f,-' _ 1~ „ 'V","'rn. 'd" i 3m * § ~ a • „~,~-°~;,.a ~,^40« ms's „ iz x: »,t, .,t„ a'k~7;sr.:-t;.".~ s,' - ..y ..t :dC n~~~° .ti?' - ,x, 2r[_.'~+n.S ,~~a^"r.•~F. r,Y°;~ tt ,ss?,-,. ,•~c*"t:^^:,5.. ~F,,.,c-. - ,s ~..F,r1, a -s:' • x . . fem. ,rxx> 1. „c',, "•,~1::.x- ' , awY', g.F'.,5@, ,g S W°. :9~'c• , , ~r k „N@:ar' ...tom as . c'^,, `,..5 ~+f. ;..~„o ,4'J.,,v.-,rt ct`,~;ro i:',~>.~ '::j ai1»A• - f,R2« ~ 7C• ~rty", .'r+srfiRVS .x,,°3, ,"n'v,",5?: a5 f , 'iv. :.7 "r,? r ~t -ate' , ,5 • r ~ ,g~,°~ a- `t'om .w~' rr , d _ aYr ,.,ak':asr, ,,,-s' `d b lA pp `:a6 nuU'a:'~"h .'h . •I k ' - 4 , r~.., k, J.. .~u .~r . t• 1 d, ~ '~r:. .fit r ,;,.{k n,~,h:,"'ir-yi M~ `3 d .+.A: Y1. f~'~ e,r.w. e y'.); -"4 -,kV3rz'';'•,n.`.°- ,•tt: a:"r>+'y"-^ ,ta s ' .~zA-. sn. " _„y 1,(, ~,YZ, ~ 1, k- s~.a,.,t... ,~^s r'*,4; `+'r+F. .:ben„ ..,y,.,r,-~"iF t -S$`,~..-~w~i~ Jt.~;,,^- t:. m"',vs _S ~ >i.,.;P,..d,~., ,.:'Y°1,. .;rx: as`r r a~m+am~„r , s*'•ni......as:~.o§'r.+;r,::,;ratw,-s~,e-' ~ ~,',7a e x 3'r ;~•,:;~i:2'~p ' ";'":vs~ "'r -5,-p kyH•,S' ",a' .*L„as rky,a~d~y - a~ iE4ts "'''t " 'a t T;k-`• '~s ~t r k` 4 j tt4 Sl ~4s~f,!~1 i Ftt 7 2 ~t f rc i ' t r s. ta~~ } is ftb~~`2 F"v. k1 +Y'-- ib vs, f I^t ht M1 2 22"i 'lrs r JS 'r k; r r d - - 3k l kJ r rli _ t e R~ ~ t ~ iC ~ vfi 'i far 1''r ``a A s't mot! i L ~;'Pl a 3dlt 1 ~ 4 F, a c :wF rt t t 72 3 -t , f ~A -N r d~2 ~ A ,1 " t ' 5p ~r,' r 8' 1 f 3 i t 4 t t " r} i 'S t r~t' I t~ S# F 3 d) ) t - 4.1 I F+ s r I of 4 EII P f A a3 ~,I1 tI,, 'S _3t + v 4 ~ } tJ) f 2~ CL { rd m 3 r y ~I s o i.i - 4e 3 [F t r t ~Y r rF d a N ' r f' 03 y " ; j: nr3 r G •~t e .n 7 nt+o U 94 t a b ~ ~•,#r' ~~R ara iat ~~i-k , ~ s ~ ~ h ct } 1 S+. - x a rS 1 i Mx .4 }i t s trr't ~"+S„apw z l_ ,'k~ rn~~St e1° s.7:~Y' r lk j tr t ! d is f r r - of R3nk ' , . z'^z-;°^'+ •-.,€x.... •+;a,. _ ,a,•?Mrn,r-,.q;r•,.r,,~,,«-••",- ; -w raz•>,•„~,•s; ; ,r.rk `Z• ,gf ,r~€'a~ `i «3;, 1~"5 t 5 ~}d,~ f L.: a z i It e ~ c ~s r s r 4s e : re. _ sk' "Y"' €:t-; ~i:~ rah' „ p+{m x rd r ~ b 2 •af r4 f,'n "`t" n,^... r tits.'-a4 ^kr - t! ,,2 ^ u.: , v 2R .tt- ~-"J•• ,-s?` `r _ J a,a k:M"' „r' =sv < i a t ' eF t a k k'Yt :}4.. 3r,, : S' 4-'d. r• 2.- ':i. - :4r c r 5.'ar.' • c^ . .,'.2 ' ti •t a ; ^k , •,d : i.,,,rw e s x:., ...y3,m'ai', 3 r_ > e, ° 7r .'~'w3, . +J wsE3 i !.r•.: r E -t .,-z srM1S>. t4 ~ :x y ~ r „<.-Ft , : a ~,:.f•"• , a , F .'s,.., o r r a . , ray 4: s,.;4%-`=x. y 7. 'b, `mot, :»s< € s~• "I f fi" , - 1 ' ~ : x.-•13 x, t WMI; s • •'r , i i r „t,_ ,y„=,- a, nom,- .rT~, . *ar-• at• '.;'ytr sYw,. ~ ,.W •tt~' .v ~ .,s. z ..4 ,g a'2 t.,. Av ~ ~1?, 7m.'~rra:~ r., :`"n~: - k~ r7s's Ra i:r<'° ppa~ ,,,ppyy,~~~pp ;r:w+ 'e": ;k^'"•° e1 " ~ e, I+' ..,v. 5-,~ r @ . P ~ .-.,rr7; a,. {,,.1' . P ' , i r 3F 6@' ,t `aDf .,f .'ef r '.'+t-'i'^" ^.t ,,1 '•r:3:r"~:~:' .-,.r_ 'e, -~!'rr n" ,ssr 4•'.s,,. r,• xhW s" .s, .Irv'`.'-,•,,,~,»>~i'I,• >^v:; ".rr,:r,,=,t § k',.~„ ..•~t°,f` L„,~5~5'. -.sa,~-r,., 1 - t. 4.r u'-'G f+a"•r ~ b"..r, ~,3k:`,.7 .n, „ro'v `"+a,7`➢ .~A"r~r @.a- - !t.' 4' L t,•,... .y~ "u'<..y ,y~°a,a~. r'"~4. .fl. ',~:M~~",+.- ':Y-'l,. -v#w'~ ,,yy .a'1' 3'. j4:'+'i. ~'Y athv;- .N n ~s;,?'s,'1' ^^x'L., J. 2"r~ ~'"'i: „a, •"+,4,,".n'4s t~ .1 °d. ,«ra aye". x .,s, s. ~ s .z, . y0a•`,`ga> y -„5'-d;' ~ T ~,t , Ri a 1'tr . ,4..u .?rr `1~e: k an,1,~ t,t. . ~N a ¢rG:.,'-..b. rv 'r' t,l ,4 .,,it' ',kn~F:i f „ "7•~0 ..l .lT' x>.~ ,.'i, '1r ~j{ 4F . R .33't~°~°' a ,r< ~,wr» .ts,,, ~ r"'° ff, ,'.`"i •121 ~.1,~ 5 tY*" +-zk .e s,-, h :}'~,i..a .r,. :.I; > , Tt,:wrt . } R:.~v"ap u irr;c~,w,, F~• f t,.t , ,.~,•..t~.e 4'-. o~y o- ,r, .,1 '-e~.,r t„n b1 ^`W '=•."pV" r~'• „•i~ :C.,i•~s .a'J .>„h.--, .rc~ 5 d ~f J ar'?» w. {-:5°r :a"• r', a„ si %~'k 'n:-. {@ .rw ~5." u.;," .e., .e.k z.{ 1,- "^a,E - u. .+C.' x,. "'I'•w~ C~:S, x.ii:r e:'>Y` M .•rtv M- `t`' ; . ~ ,:~'rr . <s". - ,G i?' R .,V T.. a a:~', .•.d 3 r~", 3 n: ~ "41 .R Jq M.52,,,tr ,kt >1a,w .y w;}.k. i=at'9n .!a 4a.: A *q'~•~ -.s r:,„ f ;n.^%+t.°5y`;1ye -'s: t;.,. - .~-w,~ k r~. ~w' dt ,.:Rrz {~,tt,, :<..x•1 ~p..q. d. .R,.S :`J':'. 'ram',n hW zi,+t n ,~x..M• w•4'is, . . r~`~i"'T.-v •?e~+` , k ""'y F•v, .C. ~Yi"``' n(X 1w q, nkfi if:v`k, .d i,r ~:.y'~. ,`yn [u~, r•;;k: rrra,- ,:'1.31 .rY -0"x.'~t.. t'-. ,k.., ,*a ~i ,',t•.S ,.,.a. i°e •wr ;+•a. ,tizru :.u ~•'v «rt. ,,,FS~"rr. a.•, #,4~'':~. ',s _F~~, ~~j' e~F-1-t- vy ....'An•C +-i~••,c -rF ,.a •t '<~i'y"`•` ..3"w F.f.: a$r; ,.b .jt. •G, .:`l°a,.., 'e `a, y ,~~,,u a'z, "?i Jt: "0b: f, r .i`.°,tY'": y`'M4,w, f .-.i. _wer, J 15"' 'i,. .J ob+.; :aknn .d iFl 4° ,s, eY„ Y! « ~.`k. t-., § ,vS .U,,, fk •23 ~k a ti'r, ;a -,k 7 At.tii,o P1w- k wt M r.`^k''' a. r"h8 ~ n`~2€^' .,n j5 i - ~ 1 a„c V: , al :.d.: ~ <'r ,u;g,., °,#':,'*.x.; ,4- , k'• r ~y7«.~, + '~`r•eu, i EE ~"'s, . ,mot",; ;rx . # z . °r°~, aC ,r"Ats 3 , M'. y4k "t:a'#u`•~"'~I , -.7 ^'''s-." ,~,,n.:.. n J ' + F .a,y.,:, IS a'#<:sr ...a, s, ^•,PEfYa.r. ~ .w t, ,4 t" r;4e~ a. t.. „..'ro . „aYd d ' 3'«vt ,'t , :~:k"- . ,k.s•t'Y a k -:,-°s &•'r s. ' ,;",k,~ ` €',:i K =Fk ,ft:°•x,~':-s -=d•.', ,a.a': .y pia a, v''k a... ~t ~a'k~:''.~ sr ra ' .r°-- `ru^ r.,,:,.,Y,, ua,:' .3+3„ , an+- „u,.,.~ , : »,xE< ,-r...a*-, 5',i §.m a,.s . , a x g . •ra , ;r° aS€+~ • .r,4i* •f?„ v-.v'r,' , 'azx. Ma a'. o~.,ii, s, s:>~°~','~w t,:g,, t. 'x .,.,,pv .a, »a ,a •as?~§„u.r~'4?;, ? '~p''° -r'~t,r, "wee i!~. t. t F - fir ,•°~k,~" . '"t «,;1 ,rya. ~ . - - ; f~; . , r~, i,rc~.. .,,t'F•€,:~. r, a£,;<, .x~ s, ?"^"b"*i' r,.=~r•.:,^'; k:S .r'ay .r*r'8.,,, .r•i. a,. ,r 'ks, + "k~K ~3'-'~c~ au'rT,''..i. 'F~".^Y~3 ,.4 , ,aa~* 1 ~~snq' 4• , K.. e`r°~" 'b[.ZE'- 'S+-p 6 , , '?w .n"{t t- k ~ ,lam?`d0.{,av" 'gym .3 St R1'•, ',8•.,. ,A, Ya ..y.'e iv1µ, ,,:}n 9°, a~ t r C.4, :'4'^°,•. .~aeM1 "'E->~. ~,.t . k';, c ~ 2•~"'- .A ~ rI`: S 'w~ ..d''k'l~. war"tsi➢;P-. °r', fir r:'tf,'v p 3~,• ~ S 9-- ! I,~af, 3 l _ rk f, . S , :,n ~'4" •3 C 2`. 'S .~'i'= x~ .•1 a, t•'7t,r ,!><-?,a t°^ :'rwa >r "tw~`^•., 'cam .r Yyv . , - .~atv.ti7 =c-I ~ .-s. ,.nr , -r n yz,,ty. t-** 71~x Yn fl-; - r1 w:; rv s , j-M_ ~ I ~ " va: , , ~i - 'i ~ " - 1, - ,~!-z--i;','~-'~`~~'-_-`a '7;- ~ , I s,-s~..a } - 7''' _ r -4s _ .z ^f t ; a-F~ ~V 91, , ` WE - 1:. Y ,;r~. - r!Y s}r e y~ - s h y 3~._ ~a rte` -r<s _ } - , ,.a a k, - i it% `L; r' - .t i F t 4 - , S r";ray„ fi - o S Y-; z 'r x ws,a .rna c7SdS,.',;y....' s ~ ~-gy} 2q' Ir - -ix r~'}' 4,M Yy¢-'mss, t Yj'LP ~ 2 W, G'# S'.. ' C~+j~C¢ d- n Y? ryt7,q'7.p';iN ~ IN 11 :,3Ea zs.,:,sy,',yk'e:,s. -AT M- . - MEMORANDUM y ^ , ' ~c i i.I ~ , a x # ~ y A , `-k CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - ' s s x c a -,2 v~ trh , 11 r - TO: Mayor and Council 'L sws v'F -al, t I / s r~ Ip~_A I" A 3 1 FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator (/1 xis r _P~~-} 0 a I~ DATE: March 19, 1996 s ~ ~x ~ € ~t °s t c 4r" r l ? lilz { - SUBJECT: ole of the CITs and Planning Commission ~ , 5 - a , Seven CIT Facilitators met on Monday, arch 11, Ig96 to discuss the role of the C[T and the role a ~ y I ~ , of the Planning Commission. I facilitated the meeting. A2- ,Al ' The group agreed that the City Council should hear input from the CITs and the Planning ~r % aye Rk ~ a Commission directly on any issue that goes from the CITs through the Planning Commission to the i A~ k 11 x Council. The group wondered how input from the CITs impacts decisions. ,1 S S Y xrx j x t° r t - { It would be helpful if staff presented issues to the CITs in a way to solicit useful input. In other Y#" - ~ y 1, ~ words, ask the questions that need to be answered and raise the issues that need to be addressed. It ~ j r } " - is frustrating for the CITs to revisit issues several times. The CIT members need to finish issues. ~ w_" . x . ' 3 11 , Staff should, as much as possible, structure issues so that input can be gathered in one night. Issues u, r r- I W, W , _ r ° should not be revisited unless newand /or important information is raised. ~ ~ ~ ~ Y` - t t { w 14 K _ r r A copy of CIT memos and/or notes that go to Council should go to the Planning Commission. h ~ . k x In terms of which issues should go to the Planning Commission and which should go to the CITs. ° Z' - j , „ w there was not a strong preference. It was suggested that money issues like the CIP and green space ° 11 t r - i- 3 4 funding go to the CITs and then to the Council, and that changes to the Comprehensive Plan and . l - r sK~ ~c Zoning Code go to the Planning Commission. - 1 _ ` 'l s y - aT,p °ri~tS.„a u In general. consensus of the group was that, as issues come up, the City Council should determine "R I ~t the process and CIT role ahead of time. When the CIT is in the lead. the Planning Commissions ° f y , may serve as a resource. The Council needs to increase its' input back to the CITs as well. W r V k~ y A sussestion was also made that the Planning Commission have a visitors agenda at the beginning ' ~ ~ ~ a - , - 11, 1 ` of their meetings like the Council to allow citizens and/or CIT members to ask questions or get - , 6 { a { _ i b clarification on Planning Commission actions. - I s aN 1 11` r There was also a concern raised about setting adequate notice to the public on special issues in a ~ ` specific area (like the Triangle). I explained to the group that there are funds in the budget to cover 6 , ;x mailing special flyers the CITs might feel are necessary to provide adequate notice on an issue. i r ,rn^' T < n ATM `xJ`hrq r_ ~ in t} >4 . 4 p ,vj_ - d X tea x"' ~ "7z a'E 4~-..,r sl - w3 # - J"- yr' r k 4 T - - 4 5 j _ 4.l - Y k. ' '6 .+i `Tf '4 J 6h x-7-4- S - % r k-' y 4 r- x zJ FC 5' A r ~k.K - 3 - - .e " i - , tin - - Zr 3 _ sy 52mS d -,v ~ ~ j , 11. - L 17~1 'N'Mt 7 -ws s `zap r ~L, rt t` ,,,T"~~..,- Y' - - _ - k v !sF- T V r ~a °sr 4a r" tat h - n md,, h`• s„3'# f 3 k 4 F st ~n s- - ' r s a r ! - , . ~ r - p 1 t L11 ~ _ - . 10 - - - ~~i 7 ':T: f 4,'. t r 4L- 4_ 'h `!PS ~~f£!'` L!;'. - ?':l',:P}...K- _ .<b1 J _Y.^t Y ?i _ _ - ~l - h r - y I --l s sr - S'I"j _ a txl, K- 5- r f s t x~ t e"" - a ' - - h - ° wfy [ ; r S _ t G ~r i S h_ e- F - - $ .....+...~a +.....r..v .,F ~._.w:.:L:~'S'>...v- ms-,•..ww,~.r.~xw~a+w.w.a.....,~.~..-_ ..~~a...- 'T- f k i 1 k3 1 - E _ C V-.( Y z 4 - absorb?) Mr. Griffith commented that he also wondered how realistic some of ~ ''3f F , " Metro's requests were. _ , ' £ Mr. Hendryx reiterated that the standards were in flux; he did not know when or if . - E.,, 'a r x- - - -t they would change but they have been told that their input would be taken into ' ' S ` consideration in the next draft. However they haven't seen a new draft yet. 5 - e' h - e 1t Roles: Planning Commission/Citizen Involvement Teams Mr. Hendryx noted discussions regarding the roles of the Planning Commission in , r,-- k } y® ~Y - 1 dealing with parks and open space planning and transportation planning at both the , 1i F -11 Planning Commission and the CITs, especially in regards to the greenspaces project. ' s~ n t Ms. Newton stated that the Council appointed members to the Planning Commission fV with transportation or parks backgrounds to provide the Commission with some A ? r ~ , y ;1 needed expertise. She said that they never intended that all transportation or park 4t ~ ,ham , ,~,~`7sm € decisions go through the Commission; rather the Commission would do long range L -t- T4. ~ planning. She explained that with the change on the Council, the thinking also ; -_~3 2- + I { changed. They decided that CITs should look at certain issues that had acity-wideyr ; perspective, and form task forces with representatives from each CIT to look at ~ ' ~`~~K i certain issues. -L F M~ 1 Ms. Newton noted that the tannin staff was used to ~ ' p g going to the Planning , , t $ Commission when dealing with land use issues. Staff hadn't gotten together to ~ r _ 1 x develop a process to deal with issues like greenspaces; the planning staff simply took it , ti 6 a to the CITs for input and then to the Planning Commission. She said that CIT,,W,~ t facilitators emphasized at their last meeting that the City needed to decide up front on `r a~ what process they were going to use for issues like greensPaces, t g ` ~ Ms. Newton said that the facilitators weren't as concerned about what the process was - I FE s as long as it was decided on at the beginning and carried through; neither were they ~ - a 11~ concerned about having a position of authority. She said that the facilitators thought l: 1 1 ~ b p[ L- i 4 Z , y, _ that the technical issues dealing with the Comprehensive Plan or zoning ordinance ' ; ' i x L ] should go to the Planning Commission whereas the issues dealing with money ~t y } r # s t allocation were of more interest to the CITs. The facilitators thought that input , a , s , E, coming directly to the Council from the CITs rather than filtered through the i,. 4 n Planning Commission would have a greater grass roots value.+ ' ' x Mr. Mahon commented that the problem the CITs had with the greenspaces issue was kFU , - that the process had changed in midstream. He said that if they knew what the i X1111 ~-1 'r process was prior to considering an issue, they could then tailor their answers to that - process. He reiterated that they wanted to know what the process was up front so ff ` ? everyone knew what to expect all through the process without it changing in _ midstream. ' r J , 1 , Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 22 1 Es." x~', = - xr s' F MT3 I d - 1 r t /FF l J 7, T 1 h r - ' - - - 4 f - ! f - _ F -,q Y ti e { S A, 4~ - - r t t _ -`1 , . a