Loading...
City Council Packet - 06/10/1997 11 11GAR® CIT ®~G0N OPM 1 1 CITY COUNCIL ONG i JUNE t iL oNG Vyl a t ~s . J tub" ~.dor -Q171 TDD (`503) 684 2772 C503) 639 Tigard. OR 97223 . d ,i SW Hai161v 13125 i i i I i i CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING' JUNE 10, 1997 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda ' items can be heard in any order after 7.30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and i should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is ! important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).. s SEE ATTACHED AGENDA t t COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 1 r' ~ Y i 1 L~ i AGENDA 6:30 p.m. ♦ STUDY SESSION I > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to i discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Discussion: City Facilities, Space Needs r; 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call j 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance J 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items a 7:35 p.m. ~w 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) , 7:45 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - May 13 and 20,1997 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda ' 3.3 Authorize City Manager to Appoint a City Representative to the Tigard j Chamber of Commerce Board as an Ex-Officio Member - Resolution No. 97 3.4 Approve Waiver of Sign Permit Fee for Friends of the Tigard Library 4i4 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any f items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted 4 on those items which do not need discussion. i COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 2 F. w ~:50 P.M. { COOK PARK MASTER PLAN - RECOMMENDATION BY THE COOK PARK TASK FORCE j Staff Report: Community Development Department Public Comment Council Consideration: Motion Approving the Master Plan for the Expansion of Cook Park 5.30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ZOA 97-001) WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT - A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to i protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the f requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. The new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District." c a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges j c. Staff Report: Community Development Department iI d. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents) e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-OL-/ t ( . 9:00 P.M. 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: PLEDGE $9,900 MATCHING FUNDS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT TO COMPLETE SENIOR CENTER EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Questions C. Council Deliberation: Motion to approve the needed matching funds in the amount of $9,900 to complete the Senior Center exterior improvements project. "5 p.m. ( 77 PUBLIC HEARING - LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - Opportunity for public comment on the proposed use of the funds fo. law enforcement equipment, enhancing school security and enhancing community safety. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents) d. Council Questions e. Close Public Hearing I f. Council Deliberation: Motion Authorizing Expenditures on the Proposed Use of Grant Funds COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 109 1997 PAGE 3 i E 9:30 p.m. !'1 8. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING LANGUAGE CONCERNING "ABANDONED VEHICLES a. Staff Report: Police Department b. Council Questions C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 9:40 p.m. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:50 p.m 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive f Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may bo disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:00 P.M. 11. ADJOURNMENT • i:\adm\cadry\cca\970610.doc j !i . V w r COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 4 Agenda Item No. 3,1 Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; i Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Public i Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real 1 property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 1 > Executive Session adjourned at 6:40 p.m. > Discussion: City Facilities, Space Needs i - ' Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, mentioned that the Council direction previously had been for staff to look at Option 1, siting the library offsite and completing the police expansion. She referenced the minutes from the March 19, 1997 and November 25, 1996 meetings as well as her memo to Council. She said that staff did discuss expanding the use of the water building for public works. Ms. Newton reviewed the changes that have occurred since the March 19 meeting. The County Library Advisory Board has decided to table the discussion of the WCCLS levy until September and make a decision in October as to whether or not they will go out for an election. Tri-Met was looking more seriously at providing improved service to suburban areas through their j Choices for Livability program which could impact parking. Also the Employee Commuter Options (ECO) rule mandated a reduction of 30% in employee vehicle trips (3% a year over 10 years). She pointed out that if they increased the demand for the services at City Hall while reducing employee parking, they in effect did not reduce the need for parking. Ms. Newton noted that if they put a second floor over the police department, that would accommodate the police space needs to the 20 year horizon. She said that Scenario B of the two - - - staffing protection scenarios, the one that included additional personnel for the urban services, was the projection staff was using. She reported that the Amber Foods property has been leased to another tenant, as the City could not make a commitment until the outcome of Measure 47 was known. Mr. Monahan explained that the new tenant lease was for five years. However the property owner was building an new office building to house the bus company offices which he would not do unless he were interested in a long term lease arrangement with the bus company. He said they could discuss this further in Executive Session if the Council so desired. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 1 f j -J1 1 Ms. Newton reported that staff has approached the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) to get permission to use more of the building. The Tigard Water District indicated a preference to house Public Works in the building over other departments. Ms. Newton mentioned that at the March 19 meeting, Police Chief Goodpaster indicted that he y would prefer to wait on the police expansion until the Measure 47 issues were clarified. She reported that Mrs. Schramnm has not yet decided to lease her building to a tenant but neither did she want to sell it. i Ms. Newton reviewed the options before the Council. She said that staff still recommended Option 1. She commented that she has discussed the parking needs for the library with Kathy Davis, City Librarian, and they concluded that this site would have parking problems if it continued to hold the library, the police, and all the other city facilities. If they moved the k library to a different site, it provided flexibility for the police expansion and eliminated the parking crunch. o Ms. Newton asked if it was still the Council consensus to proceed with Option 1 as the basic plan to work from. If so, staff would develop several alternatives under this option to complete the police expansion and relocate the library to a different site. Councilor Hunt asked about moving the library to the public works site near Interfaith. Ms. Newton said that staff investigated that option, and concluded that that property plus an adjacent property not presently owned by the City would provide sufficient room to house the library. Mr. Monahan pointed out that more analysis of the site would need to be done in order to design building and parking placements in compliance with current codes. - Ms. Newton reviewed the alternatives for relocation of other departments, if they went with ' Option 1. With renovation, either the Community Development and Engineering Departments } could move into the library space or the police department. Another possibility was building a second story over the police department and moving the courts up there. There was adequate room to put Public Works in the Water Building. The Niche was also a factor in relocation f discussions. I Councilor Hunt spoke to moving quickly with Option 1. He pointed out that an opportune time j to go out with another bond was at the time when the other bonds were expiring (which was happening fairly soon). Mayor Nicoli suggested exploring keeping the library on site (as part of Option 1) if they could i i get additional parking. Once they have looked at the options for both moving the library offsite and keeping it onsite, then they should get public input. Councilor Hunt su gested involving the - - - Library Board in the discussion. Councilor Moore commented that they needed to find out whether or not they could afford the library bond. Ms. Newton said that the WCCLS levy was going to be $36.8 million with Tigard's share at $4.569 million. This would have been a county wide 30 cents per $1000 levy for five years, 15 cents per $1000 for 10 years. Tigard's share would be the same. t~ The Council discussed how much space the library would need over the 20 year planning horizon. Ms. Newton said that the WCCLS levy would have provided a 38,800 square foot iff CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 2 I i `l I i building, an increase of 26,000 square feet over the present library space of 12,780 square feet. Mayor Nicoli commented that they would probably need an acre and a half to accommodate both the building and parking. He suggested looking at the public works yard. Ms. Newton said that the cost for a plan to renovate the library into office space would cost between $2500 to $5000. Councilor Hunt requested a staff recommendation on which was the most cost effective way to i go. Mayor Nicoli suggested picking the election date that they wanted to go out with a bond for, and then working the schedule backwards to develop their timeline and options. He spoke for a November general election. Councilor Hunt pointed out that they should go with the 1998 general election, or else they would have to get a 50% voter turnout. Councilor Moore commented that getting a bond measure on a ballot in one and a half years was an aggressive program. . r 1 Mr. Monahan suggested that a staff committee work with the City Librarian and the Library Board. Staff would let them know that the Council was interested in funding a consultant to assist with exploring the options of a library either on or offsite. He pointed out that bringing i the Library Board into the discussion up front would aid in the election campaign later on. Councilor Hunt concurred but requested police participation also, including the Police Advisory Board. Mayor Nicoli requested committee discussion within the context of the 20 year planning horizon. Councilor Moore pointed out that this library bond might compete with the proposed second road bond. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think the voters weighed the two together. He _ spoke to starting the process for a bond now. Mr. Monahan asked if Council wanted to fold the present police renovation into this option or, j after the committee discussion on Option 1, free up the police project to move ahead. The Council discussed the question. Councilor Hunt suggested getting the opinion of the committee. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the alternatives of doing the police expansion now and seeing how long that met the space needs or waiting and building a bigger facility later. Councilor Moore expressed concern that doing the expansion now would only put them where they should be with no future growth. Ms. Newton said that Chief Goodpaster has indicated that both the expansion and the remodel should hold them for 10 to 12 years. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan noted the non-Agenda item of the Community Development Block Grant for the 9151 Avenue sidewalk improvements. The City was offering $400 in cash and $22,800 of in kind services to receive $116,870. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported the first application for a limited land use decision that the City has received in the two years since they established the expedited review process mandated by state statute. He explained that the director's decision could be appealed only to the Hearings Referee; the Council could not call it up. Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, reviewed the four criteria for a limited land use decision, noting that they were very straightforward, and that the applicant was entitled to very quick processing from the City She pointed out that hearings were actually prohibited unless there was an appeal. u I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 3 i i i I 1 She said that reasons why applicants did not go with this process more often included the high fee (recovery of true costs) and the limitation of the appeals to LUBA. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the Council could prompt someone with standing to appeal a limited land use decision to the Hearings Referee. j Ms. Newton mentioned the surprise at the South CIT meeting that they did not receive the typical notice. However when staff explained that they were following established procedure, the CIT accepted it but asked for more information on the expedited review process. Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Farmer's Market. Ms. Newton said that she would put an update in the newsletter after her meeting with the Chamber Board. ' Mr. Monahan mentioned Consent Agenda Item 3.3, in which the Chamber requested that the City staff member who sat on the Board change from a voting member to an ex officio member. This was a result of reworking their charter. Ms. Newton commented that sometimes it has been u I awkward voting on the Board as a City representative. The resolution delegated the authority to appoint the staff member to the City Manager. i Mr. Monahan noted the new library sign put up by the Friends of the Library two weeks ago. Councilor Hunt asked to take the Tigard Water District name off the Water Building sign. Mr. Monahan said that he would discuss this with the IWB. > Study Session adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan noted the addition of the Community Development Block Grant Agreement 49142, the Tigard/9152 Avenue sidewalk improvements. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, spoke against either the City or ARD indemnifying themselves in the draft agreement currently under negotiation. He asked if - - i indemnification mean* that the insurance CGiiipalty was file only one W110 paid a Cl$IIII and that - the City and ARD were not responsible. He asked if the City would purchase the Lamb-Gray property whether or not ARD was signatory to the agreement. j Mr. Monahan said that the draft agreement was scheduled for a future agenda once staff has reviewed the insurance coverage. He explained that Council directed staff to proceed with the purchase of the Lamb-Gray property regardless of whether ARD came in as a partner on the project. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 4 i I ~ E Terry Smith, 114810 SW 92"d Ave., asked the Council to consider calling up MLP 97-0002 (Downing-Shaw partition) for review once it was through the Planning Commission hearing process. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") j i 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: May 13 and 20, 1997 t 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar ; b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Authorize City Manager to Appoint a City Representative to the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board as an Ex-Offico Member - Resolution No. 97-24 3.4 Approve Waiver of Sign Permit Fee for Friends of the Tigard Library 4. COOK PARK MASTER PLAN - RECOMMENDATION BY THE COOK PARK TASK FORCE • Staff Report i j Councilor Hunt presented the report of the Cook Park Task Force. He noted anonymous flyers jl recently distributed in the City that contained discrepancies between the facts and what the i flyers said. He stated that it was the Task Force, not the Mayor, who decided what direction the community would go in regards to the expansion of Cook Park. He said that while the , Mayor's brother did sit on the Task Force as the Soccer Club representative, he did not own any of the sports clubs and did not stand to gain financially from the expansion of the park. f i Neither did the Mayor, any staff member or any Task Force member. Councilor Hunt stated his opinion that the flyers were a cheap and underhanded tactic. Councilor Hunt reviewed the location of the properties on the map, including the park, the j Lamb-Gray property, and the dairy farm owned partly by USA. He explained that Mr. Gray had paid for a study to lay out baseball fields on his property, and had received state environmental approval to mitigate the wetlands, which he did. Councilor Hunt reviewed the history of the Cook Park Task Force. He approached the Council two years ago to suggest purchasing the Gray property to increase the parking in Cook Park, since it would only get worse. The Mayor appointed a Task Force, with Council approval, consisting of himself and Councilor Hunt as City representatives, Dave Nicoli and Gary Stevens as sports representatives, and John Cook as Member-at Large. Later Brian Wegner and Mark Vossler came on as environmental representatives. The Council authorized hiring a consultant to work with the Task Force to design the use of the property, and the City hired Murase & Associates (who had a long history working with Tigard and Cook Park). U CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 5 1 I I i' Councilor Hunt said that the Task Force meetings with the consultant ran from June 1996 to May 1997. They included input from the CITs and other interested parties. He stated that $ while they did not followed all the suggestions given, the Task Force did listen to everyone prior to making their decisions. ! Councilor Hunt said that around May 1996 USA purchased the dairy process and informed the City that they were interested in selling the City part of the property. While the sports leagues eagerly anticipated putting in many ballfields on that property, the Task Force discovered that the environmental restrictions precluded putting in ballfields in order to preserve the wetlands. However the City was now negotiating with USA to buy a different portion of the property for development as passive recreation, not organized sports recreation. This property could include a wetlands interpretative center, trails, playgrounds, and a picnic shelter. Councilor Hunt stated that the Task Force agreed to install a fence between the wetlands and 1 the active play fields to prevent accidental incursions into the wetlands. They established a 25 h: foot minimum buffer between the wetlands and the fence. He mentioned criticism received by the Task Force that the 25 foot buffer was insufficient protection for the wetlands. Councilor Hunt pointed out that presently there was a drainage ditch into the Tualatin River dug in between the City property and the dairy property. Bill Park from the Division of State Lands toured the property and has agreed that the City was adequately protecting the wetlands. Moreover the drainage ditch was man-made and not a natural wetlands . On the advice of the consultants, the Task Force recommended filling the ditch in and providing drainage to l improve the water flow into the wetlands. t ( Councilor Hunt expressed his appreciation for the interest shown by the public in this project. He asked that tonight's discussion focus on the facts of the situation, not on misrepresentations, i i and to keep personalities out of it. He thanked the Task Force for all their work and willingness to compromise to reach the best solution for the most people. He noted that Brian Wegner continued to have a concern that the 25 foot wetland buffer was insufficient, even after the Task Force reached consensus on that issue. He said that he made no apologies for the Task Force's work. The recommendations protected the environment, increased the facilities for youth, doubled the parking area, and provided a bandstand. Councilor Hunt mentioned that there had been considerable discussion on where the money would come from to do this expansion and to buy the Lamb-Gray property. He said that one source was the Parks system development charges (SDCs). The City had a large SDC reserve dedicated to parks development. In addition they might be able to use Metro Greenspace i money in combination with City money for trail development and interpretive areas. . l nav ~ Discussions were ongoing with the spots leagues, and they would prob ..,.,ably for the - ballfields and other facilities related directly to their use. Mr. Hendryx noted concerns raised by citizens. These included ` • Phasing in the interpretative centers earlier than currently recommended; ! The City could not build on the USA property until they acquired it, and USA could not sell it until the long term lease with the dairy farmer was over. • Integrating this plan in with the City's overall Parks Master Plan; The City was developing a Parks Master Plan process to demonstrate how parks SDC would be expended (in accordance with SDC regulations). The staff has taken the j - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 6 1 " 14 I overall concept for the public involvement process to the CITs, and next month would hire a consultant to work the process. 1 Mr. Hendryx introduced the primary consultants, Bob Murase and Steve Cook of Murase & Associates. Mr. Murase reviewed the work his firm has done for the City in the past, including the original master plan for Cook Park in 1989. He noted that the recommendations before the Council were the consensus of the Task Force. Mr. Cook listed the secondary consultants used on the project. These included Kittleson & Associates (transportation), Kempe & Associated (civil engineers), Fishman Environmental f . Services (wetlands), and D.A. Hogan & Associates (sports fields). Mr. Cook said that he would focus on the 27 acre expansion area added on to the current 52 acres of Cook Park. Issues and suggested improvements included: • New and improved signage and a monument to mark the entrance to the park with additional signage on Durham Road; • A gate to control access during the off season, flooding, or evening hours as needed- • Expansion of the currently scheduled pedestrian and bikeway improvements on 92" I Avenue, keeping in mind the wetlands on either side of 92"d • No alterations to the existing parking of 184 spaces; • Additional restrooms, allowance for storage and a concession stand near the existing control gate; • Additional restrooms to serve the active playfields and the interpretative trails; • Extension of the existing paved pathway to go along the river and the wetlands edge for a multi-modal pathway as part of the regional trail system; • All other paths would be gravel or woodchip, meandering through the area; t • A interpretative center gazebo overlooking the wetlands; • Interpretative plaques along the trails; t • Additional picnic shelters near the wetlands and near the knoll by the boat ramp; t i • A small bandstand for intimate evening concerts in the Mary Woodward maple grove; • 287 additional parking spaces to address the neighborhood parking concerns; • The lot adjacent to 92"d would be paved but the other two would be gravel to mitigate the environmental impact by allowing infiltration of storm water; • The sports fields will have underdrainage of a sand base with turf on top but with water captured by the bioswales to separate it from the water draining to the wetlands; • Additional parking near the existing baseball diamonds. V • Public Comment Mayor Nicoli reviewed the public comment procedures for the evening. OPPONENTS > Mary Driscoll, 16235 SW Copper Creek Drive, stated that she has regularly attended the South CIT and the Task Force meetings for one and a half years. She expressed concern that the wetlands buffer should be at least 50 feet, preferably 100 feet. She suggested adding only 100 new parking spaces instead of the proposed 354. Other concerns included the probability i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 7 L~ Mood i . i of increased crime in the area and the lack of planning for an additional police presence in the area, traffic, noise, and pollution. She asked that the trail improvements be built during Phase 1 of the construction. She pointed out that this area flooded regularly, and funding would be needed for repairs. Mayor Nicoli asked the Task Force members who wished to comment to do so at this time. > Brian Wegner, Tualatin Riverkeepers and South CIT representative, expressed his appreciation that the Thomas dairy property owned by USA was still wetlands. He noted the opportunities available for comment when USA considered what to do with that property. He mentioned that Metro was interested in a greenspace area close to the river, and the possibility j of a connecting trail to Durham Park. > Gary Stevens, Tigard Little League representative, expressed his concern with the I comments made concerning Mayor Nicoli and his brother. He said that two years ago, Mayor + - Nicoli came to the Little League to ask what the City could do for the youth of Tigard. That was the first time in the 22 years he has lived in Tigard that a Mayor asked what the City could do for them. He said that he and Dave Nicoli, who happened to the Soccer Club president at the time, have had a dream of finding additional space for playing fields for youth. He commented that he did not think that Tigard had the same problems with youth that other communities did, primarily due to the strong support of the community, the Council, the City staff, and the strong youth organizations in Tigard. i Mr. Stevens noted that the youth organizations could not afford land that sold for $140,000 an acre, as the Sattler property had done. He mentioned the conversations the Nicolis had with Mr. Gray regarding his plans for ballfields on his property. He emphasized that Mr. Gray mitigated the original wetland - the pond - and developed the wetlands existing today. These wetlands did not exist 10 years ago. They discussed developing the property as an expansion of Cook Park to benefit both the youth and the community of Tigard. ;r.. Mr. Stevens commented that Councilor Hunt stated up front that this plan would not progress i i if it was strictly for the youth or recreation groups within Tigard. It needed to benefit the whole community. He said that both he and Mr. Nicoli had hoped for more usable space for ballfields but the environmental concerns raised by Brian and Mark reduced it to less than half i of what they had wanted to get. He pointed out that the USA property could benefit the entire community through a passive recreation area and an elevated wetlands viewing area. He commended all the Task Force members for their diligent efforts. > nave Nirnli, ARD President, Soccer Club representative, said that it took some doing to get him to realize that they could not get all the ballfields they wanted because of the wetlands. However now he supported the plan, including the wetlands, as the best use of the property for j youth and adults. He noted that the Soccer Club has grown from 1100 kids to 1800 kinds in the past six years. Their need for additional space prompted this planning effort. He mentioned that this was the last open area in Tigard for community events, such as fireworks on the Fourth of July and the Balloon Festival > Mark Vossler, environmental representative, commented that this plan was the result of hours of work and heated debates and information gathering to get it to this point. He said that they worked hard to balance the variety of interests. He said that he had begun with the idea j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 8 i j I4 j that there had to be places in Tigard more suited to ballfields than this natural area but upon investigation realized that affordable open space in Tigard was in short supply. This was a compromise to get the maximal use for the whole community out of this park land. This was not anyone's dream park but it was a workable compromise in the interests of the entire i community. j The public testimony of the opponents continued. > Don Manghelli, 16415 SW 93`x, applauded the work of the Task Force in juxtaposing the various interests so well. He expressed concern about the lack of certainty in the plan, and some of the discrepancies that he saw on the map. He asked where the signs were to go. He said that while he liked the general concept, he would like more than a 25 foot buffer on parts i of the wetlands where possible. He expressed concern that the ball clubs were spearheading } this effort yet did not have clearly defined ballfields to know where the buffer could be greater ; than 25 feet. > Rob Forrest, 16672 SW 891h Place, spoke to the issue of sufficient setbacks for the wetlands on the Lamb-Gray property. He contended that the 25 foot setback was grossly inadequate and environmentally irresponsible. He noted that the newly formed sports organization would have to inject money into this project yet he has not seen any defined maintenance agreement i or information relative to that agreement. He held that this money would come primarily from tournaments which would have a significant impact on traffic because of the number of people who would come. He expressed hope that this issue could be worked on, as it was not addressed at all in the Master Plan. r Mr. Forrest contended that the proposed number of parking spaces was oversized. He asked j for consideration in protecting the wildlife habitat and to send back the Master Plan for { repairs. He said that he was not against having soccer fields in the park but wanted a balance 1 between wildlife, people, cars, and sports fields. > Chris Counts, 9600 Rivenvood Lane, said that he moved from Hamlet Street because of the traffic and noise. He lived in Rivenvood because he valued peace, quiet, and parks. He recommended that the Council delay adoption of the Cook Park Master Plan until completion of a new city wide parks plan. He noted the 1987 park plan map showing park deficient neighborhoods in Tigard. He questioned moving ahead with the expansion of Cook Park without addressing the neighborhood needs identified in 1987. He said that a balanced park system community wide was a principle of parks planning, and a fundamental flaw in the ' Cook Park Master Plan. Mr. Counts expressed concern that there were more environmental concerns present than were being addressed. He commended the Task Force for on their excellent job in resolving controversies but spoke for a minimum 50 foot wetland buffer. He said that the hydrology of the area has not been adequately discussed, including the impact of impervious surfaces and bioswales during a flood event. He noted the loss of wildlife to noise and parking. He stated that the best balance was to address the needs of the neighborhoods without parks. > Deborah DeWit Marchant, 10080 SW Pick's Court, mentioned that she and her family have enjoyed Cook Park for 1 I years. She said that she did not disagree with the bulk of the ` Master Plan - it needed to serve many people in the community. She expressed sympathy for i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 9 the sports people in having such a poor place to put their fields. It had the wetland restrictions, it flooded regularly, and it had no expansion room. She expressed concern for the wildlife habitat and spoke for a larger buffer than 25 feet. > Robert Melvin, 10395 Bonanza Way, expressed concern about the wildlife and its habitat. He said that most wild animals and birds had a flight distance greater than 25 feet. Loose balls from the playfields would alarm them. He asked for the 100 foot buffer to protect the wildlife habitat as recommended by several South CIT members. He asked that path construction (only 3% of the expansion budget) be moved up from Phase 2 Priority 3 to Phase 1 Priority 1. He pointed out that many people used those trails year round, including when the ballfields could not be used because of flooding. He contended that it made economic and environmental sense to build the trails at the same time as the equipment was on site to build Phase 1 of the three sports fields. ? r > Mary Ann Melvin, 10395 Bonanza Way, said that her family also enjoyed walking in Cook Park. She expressed concern that the park would be transformed from a local community park into a regional park with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits to the citizens of Tigard who would be paying for it. She asked that the proposed Master Plan be reexamined and scaled back to reflect the realities of a local community park. > Mark Lennars, 16675 SW 891h Place, said that he supported the improvements to Cook Park and appreciated the work done to date. He held that a 25 foot buffer was insufficient, citing the condition of the wetlands adjacent to the soccer fields on the west side of the park to the i condition of the wetlands on the east side of the park. He asked that the buffer be extended to 1 - a minimum of 50 feet. He said that he had been concerned about the involvement of the Mayor's brother and was glad that issue had been addressed tonight. Mr. Lennars said that he saw the expansion, not as an expansion of the park, but as the building of a sports complex with probably a park. He mentioned that six months ago a City employee told a group of school children at the park that their new soccer fields would be located here but when confronted said that it was just a possibility. He asked the Council to work to make the expansion a true expansion of the park and not a sports complex. He said that he would support a reasonable plan. > Sue Kasson, 16570 SW 93"', said that she was a member of the Citizen Visioning Committee !j trying to set a vision for Tigard in twenty years. She spoke to the importance of balance. She asked that the Council not vote tonight until the issues raised this evening have been discussed i further and balanced more. > Mirhagl f'Irghorn, 9360 S .Iulia Place, expressed his concern that the decision has already j been made. He said that there were too many probabilities in the plan, and that he would like _ to see something definite before a vote was taken. He said that the number of parking spaces encouraged a regional park rather than a community park. He spoke to preserving the wetlands with a 100 foot setback. He asked who would pay for the damage restoration needed after flooding. He said that he saw two problems: the process that this has gone through was separate from the planning of the park, and a number of citizens were alienated. > Sue Marshall, 15941 SW Inverrie, spoke on behalf of the Tualatin Riverkeepers. She commented that Cook Park was important to the Riverkeepers as the most widely used public ; CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 10 G iG i access to the Tualatin. They were mostly pleased with the outcome of the planning process, supporting in particular the commitment not to fill in the wetlands, the interconnecting trails, and the interpretative stations. She expressed their concern that the 25 foot buffers were inadequate, and suggested a 50 foot minimum. She pointed out that the Safe Harbor ordinance called for a 75 foot setback for wetlands associated with the Tualatin River, which these were. Ms. Marshall mentioned two species on the Sensitive Species list that lived in the park: the pilliated woodpecker and the bufflehead. She asked that paving be kept to a minimum as this was a flood plain. Impervious surfaces reduced the capacity for flood storage and surface water filtering. She said that the plan should encourage park & walk and bike riding to enter i . the park with upland parking alternatives. She expressed concern at the potential impinging of the wetlands on either side of 92nd if it were expanded to three lanes with curbs and sidewalks. Ms. Marshall said that the proposed Master Plan was a good attempt at addressing the varied uses of the community park. She said that they believed that the constituency supported the w value of conserving wildlife habitat, the opportunity for passive recreation in a natural setting, and opportunities for kids to play sports without displacing wildlife. She said that the Riverkeepers supported amending the proposed Cook Park Master plan to allow at least a 50 foot wetland buffer and a reduction in the number of parking spaces. > Barb Forrest, 16672 SW 89`h Place, spoke to the Cook Park expansion as ideally suited for a nature study park and not suitable as playing fields. She asked why they wanted to take a coveted natural area and alter it. She said that she has followed this process from the i beginning, and seen new faces at meetings appalled at the thought of using the area for ballfields and parking lots. She held that the overwhelming majority of those attending the j _ CIT meetings objected to the plan and its revisions. She commented that she wrote the $ Council and did not receive a reply. She asked for putting in ballfields in a responsible fashion, saving the bushes and trees and including adequate buffers. j > Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King Cite, expressed concern about the ! traffic, auto pollution, and security at the park. He said that he asked Chief Goodpaster if the I Council had requested in writing assigning a police officer to the park during the day but Chief j Goodpaster had not received such a request. He asked for another public hearing. j PROPONETS John Anderson, 14468 SW Scarlett Place, Secretary of ARD and the Tigard-Tualatin- Sherwood United Soccer Club, and co-chair of the Tigard Tualatin School District fields Advisory Council, spoke to another impact beyond the wetlands, animals, and environment - I the impact on the children. He said that this expansion was designed to provide adequate outdoor facilities for the children of the community. The future loss to the community was incalculable. He spoke to acting in the best interests of the community and voting for the Cook Park expansion. > Amanda Asher, 15795 SW Serena Court, soccer and softball player, spoke to the need for more ballfields for the kids to play on. She noted that cities smaller than Tigard managed to build more fields than Tigard has. She commented on the need for additional parking also. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 11 _ I I I i ' I i I > Frannie Lucas, 12335 SW Mary Street, soccer and softball player, concurred with the need for more fields. She said that their goals and dreams of life started on those fields, and that they need to build more fields. > Craig Dirksen, 9131 SW Hill Street, said that his family also has enjoyed Cook Park. He pointed out that park space in Tigard has expanded at a much lower level than the population. i He mentioned his volunteer and civic activities as evidence of his love for the City. He contended that the City needed this expansion, and that the vast majority of citizens in Tigard favored it. > Pat Wolf, 8910 SW Reilly, mentioned his participation on youth sports organization boards. He said that this plan began to correct some of the deficiencies mentioned by Mr. Dirksen. He pointed out that recreation development and activities in communities surrounding Tigard, { including the Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, and ( . Canby. He doubted that the sports fields would be visible from the river paths, and therefore l E the buffers were adequate. He commended the Task Force for all the work they did in putting together a plan that was reasonable for everyone. > Jeff Devey, 14500 SW Hall, Little League Vice President, said that Tigard was out of space for kids to play sports on. They have done everything they can to renovate existing or abandoned fields but they had more kids than space. He said that during the season every field in the community was in play. This expansion would help serve the kids in a better manner. He said, with regards to traffic and noise issues, that he believed that the sports people have been good neighbors, moving in and out of games with as little trouble as possible. He said that the last time Cook Park flooded, the leagues rebuilt the baseball fields with donations and volunteer labor. The leagues did all the maintenance and repair work on the fields made available to them. > Tim Duncan, 10830 SW Kingsbury Lane, suggested taking into consideration who would do the actual construction and their reputation as builders. He mentioned that sometimes construction workers did not follow the rules as closely as they should. He pointed out that the wetlands did not follow the boundaries set by man. While they could use nature to help set f the boundaries, berms implied the boundaries. He said that 25 feet was not enough. > Valerie Westlund,14800 SW Drive, noted that the Task Force included representatives from both sides of the issue. The Task Force members apparently felt that this was a good compromise to get all the groups to work together. She mentioned that the environmental representative on the Task Force felt that the 25 foot buffer was a good compromise. She pointed out that this natural area was not "natural" at all but created by Mr. Gray within the recent past. She mentioned the rumors that the schools were taking away the fields from soccer and baseball which meant that they would have to turn away more and more children. She asked for adoption of the plan as presented. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Hendryx said that all letters received by staff were forwarded to the Council and the Task Force. Staff did not reply to the individual letters but incorporated them into the process. j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINLJTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 12 1 1 p L~ J i4 I Mr. Cook said that as part of the plan they proposed enhancement of the buffers for the existing wetlands north of the soccer fields and improvements to the natural flow of the wetlands. He said that the number of additional parking spaces was 287. These parking spaces would accommodate not only the sports fields but the interpretive areas and the picnic areas. He mentioned that additional picnic shelter, 35 additional picnic tables, and other amenities. He said that he hoped the benefit to the community at large was not lost in the focus on the sports fields. Mayor Nicoli noted that the plan prepared by the consultants was a master plan, not a detailed construction plan. Mr. Cook concurred. He explained that a master plan was a guiding tool that put forth the general conditions and features for parks and other planning projects. It did not include details of specific design. Those would be developed in the next phase of design development. The two other phases were construction documents and project construction. r 1 Mr. Murase commended the City for developing a city wide Parks Master Plan. He explained j that a neighborhood park was normally five acres or smaller in size and did not include ' ballfields or parking lots. Neighborhood parks were for tot lots, and a multi purpose open field for neighborhood use, not community use. Cook Park had a different situation and programmatic use. Mayor Nicoli thanked the consultants for their work, mentioning the appreciation of the Task Force for Mr. Cook's dedication and composure. J • Council Consideration: Motion Approving the Master Plan for the Expansion of Cook _ { Park In response to questions from Councilor Moore, Mr. Hendryx said that the USA water quality standards used a 25 foot buffer. Staff was double checking what the DSL buffer imposed on developments was. He pointed out that the 25 foot buffer was the minimum distance recommended by the Task Force. The Task Force also recommended enlarging the buffer were possible. It was possible that the buffers would increase once the ballfields were laid out. He mentioned that there would be a subsequent review process. R Councilor Rohlf asked why the Task Force chose a 25 foot buffer instead of the 50 foot buffer as a compromise point, given the strong feelings expressed tonight. Mayor Nicoli said that it was a balancing act. The environmental consultants actually recommended removing some poor quality wetlands on the Lamb-Gray property and enhancing some lands with better potential on the dairy property. Those areas would have 100 to 300 foot buffers, and in some ! cases no public access at all. j Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of a 50 foot buffer would be on the fields. Mayor Nicoli said that they did not know yet as the leagues have not done the final field layout. The Task Force realized that the buffer would vary from in depth around the fields from 25 feet to 100 feet. Councilor Rohlf asked what would have happened to this property had the City not bought it. Mr. Hendryx said that without looking at the Development Code, his best guess was that only a limited series of uses would have been allowed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 13 j 1 f ~ I n Councilor Rohlf asked why they needed paved parking. Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force did discuss not paving the entire area but decided to pave the high traffic driveways and parking used on a daily basis. Much of the proposed parking was intended as overflow parking only and would be left as gravel. Councilor Hunt asked if gravel parking lots had any ADA implications. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, said no, that the park had sufficient hard surface parking now to accommodate the ADA accessibility requirements, although they might have to put in some concrete sidewalks and ramps to access the fields. He concurred that they had ample parking in the off season. Councilor Rohlf asked if the fields would be destroyed every year because of flooding. Mayor " j Nicoli said that there was a risk in building in the flood plain but it was minimal. He i confirmed that the baseball league rebuilt their fields after the 1996 flood. The City may have done some work on the soccer fields. 1 Councilor Hunt suggested looking into designing the gazebo and bandstand to float during flooding. Councilor Rohlf said that he sensed frustration from people at not having a voice on the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force did include representatives from the neighborhood who also brought the environmental position to the table. He said that they had a public meeting, and reviewed all comments collected, many of which were reiterated j tonight. He said that they did make some changes based on those comments, and that he was ! comfortable with the comments made this evening. Councilor Hunt said that he was also comfortable with the input heard tonight. He concurred that Brian Wegner, Tualatin Rrverkeepers President, did have input into the plan. He said that he thought that the reason that some people felt that they were not heard was because the Task Force chose to do something different than they wanted done. That did not mean that they were not heard. Councilor Rohlf reiterated his concern with setting the buffer to a 25 foot minimum instead of a 50 foot minimum. He asked if doing so would destroy the ability to lay out the fields as desire. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that this was the Master Plan. They had not wanted to get into the exact layout of the fields without an exact plan for the parking areas. Once they knew I where the parking areas would be, then they could layout the fields and determine the buffer widths. Dictating a 50 foot minimum buffer could significantly reduce the number of fields. The Task Force decided to require a minimum 25 foot buffer only when needed to preserve a field and to work towards a larger boundary. i Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought the point about later tonight adopting a set of standards requiring a 75 foot buffer was valid. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that ordinance was directed towards other considerations. He pointed out that while the wetlands did not have straight line boundaries, the fields did. One field corner might have a 25 foot buffer and another a 100 foot buffer. That issue would be determined during the layout. The Task Force took the minimum required by law and understood that most of the boundaries would be more than 25 feet. U CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 14 1 I i 1 ~ Councilor Rohlf said that he could understand the citizens' concerns with the minimum. Mayor Nicoli suggested stating that the Council would like to see an average of 50 feet but would allow for a specific field to go inside that boundary. He said that he was comfortable knowing that the average width would be more than the 25 feet. 25 feet was the exception, not the rule. Councilor Scheckla asked if the citizens would agree to the rest of the project if they put in a 50 foot minimum buffer. Several audience members said no. Councilor Scheckla said that he saw the problem as a desire on the part of the neighbors to treat this park as their own neighborhood park and to keep it for their personal use. He noted the many housing developments built in Tigard during his lifetime. Be said that there was no park in this area when he grew up; they had to go to Oregon City or Portland to play ball. i People moved here because they liked the community and the conveniences but now that they ( were here, they did not want to share their park. He spoke for creating places for young ! ' people to play and stay out of trouble. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the Task Force recommended a fence at the edge of the 25 foot buffer, something not required by law. From a practical standpoint, ballfields did not go tight along the fences. Therefore effectively there would be more than a 25 foot buffer. Mayor Nicoli commented that in the beginning of this process the leagues had hoped to have twice as much space since there was plenty of room in the uplands. However in response to the concerns of the environmentalists, the sports people cut their expectations in half and tripled the requests of the environmentalists. The majority of the dairy property and the f / Lamb-Gray property would be passive recreation use and prohibited public access. He contended that the Task Force was very fair in its concern for the environment with the master plan landing heavily on the side of the environmentalists. Mayor Nicoli commented that as a resident of Tigard he stood to gain with fields or wetlands. He reiterated that the Task Force did listen to people and responded to them. He said that he was comfortable with the 25 foot minimum and review of the issue during the construction documents phase. He recommended that the Council adopt the document without changes. Councilor Moore said that he heard from both sides of this issue, since two Task Force members lived across the street from him. He said that he based his decision on the mission statement of the Master Plan: "to improve the park to serve the greatest number of citizens with the least impact in the inherent nature, character, and resources of the existing park and adjacent expansion areas." He said that the question was what was the best service to the 37,000 people living in Tigard. He expressed concern about the buffer but said that he was willing to wait for the field layout. C Councilor Moore said that he thought that the Task Force developed a well balanced document. He mentioned that the Council has looked into purchasing land for additional parks in the City but found that no parcels big enough were left. He mentioned that space has j been a problem for the sports clubs for at least 10 years and this was their answer. He 1 expressed his support of the Master Plan while waiting for the detailed plans prior to making a decision about the fields. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 15 i , 4 d i Councilor Rohlf commented that Councilor Hunt has been a supporter of parks and pedestrian friendly areas throughout the City since he has known him. He said that the Mayor came with an interesting concept of leveraging their park dollars to have more parks in the City. They did so in the purchase of the Cook Park expansion property . Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the sports clubs came to the table offering dollars towards this project in order to acquire land for more fields. The environmentalists came with no additional money at all, something that had concerned him at the time. However both the Mayor and Councilor Hunt supported adding the environmental representatives to the Task i Force. He expressed his surprise that more land went for wetlands than for the kids who needed more fields. He concurred that all fields were in play during the season. Tigard's growth would not stop, and they needed places for the children to play. i I Councilor Rohlf said that he thought sports deterred crime and gave the kids something useful and constructive to do. He said that he wished they could find a better place to put the fields f e . but there weren't any other places so the leagues would have to settle for second best. He commented that while this might make a better wetlands park, there was no other place for the children to play. This plan met both needs. Councilor Rohlf expressed his concern about the buffer. He said that while he would like to put in language regarding the buffer and gravel parking lots, he thought those details would work out during the process. Councilor Rohlf expressed his dismay at the personal attacks by the public on the Mayor and I his brother. He said that he thought Mayor Nicoli was the best Mayor Tigard has seen. He l~ knew personally that the Mayor took much time away from his business to volunteer for the j City. While he did not know the Mayor's brother, he respected his dedication to the youth of the City. He noted the deliberate work by the City to develop programs to help keep kids out of trouble. This park plan was in step with that work. Councilor Rohlf said that all sides were listened to during the process. He expressed his anger that those who disagreed with the position taken by the Task Force resorted to personal attacks on the Mayor and his brother. He said that while he did not support the plan as fully as Councilor Moore - he felt it needed some tweaking - he would vote for it. f Councilor Hunt concurred that viscous personal attacks were inappropriate behavior. If { anything was to be attacked, it should be what the Task Force did and why they did it. He } mentioned that one of his goals as a Councilor has been to work with youth. He noted his efforts to get more officers in the schools, to get more picnic facilities and areas for children in ,r 1 Cook Park, and to get the stoplight at Durham avid 7. for Qm for a oafr crossing for the _ children. i _ en. - I Councilor Hunt said that he fully supported the Master Plan. He commented that it preserved the ballfields for the children while also keeping interpretative areas and pathways. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to receive and approve the master plan for the extension of Cook Park developed by the Mayor and the Task Force. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 16 { j - i .j i i > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:1 1 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:23 p.m. > The Council considered Agenda Items No. 7 and 8 at this time. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ZOA 97-001) WATER RESROUCES OVERLAY DISTRICT - A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. 1 The new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District." ' j a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None i c. Staff Report Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the Council's decision to comply with Goal 5 through the "Safe Harbor" method. This involved the City adopting state established protection standards, significant wetlands definitions, and stream classifications system. He mentioned Mark Roberts and Greg Winterowd of Winterowd & Associates, the consultants hired to develop the Safe Harbor ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance and unanimously recommended approval. At the request of the CITs, staff I notified all potential interest groups and the 560 potentially affected property owners. Mr. Roberts commented that this was the first Safe Harbor ordinance in the state close to completion. Staff had some minor revisions to the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. He mentioned a suggestion he had received to hold this over to July 8. He said that there was no legal reason why they could not do so but adopting it tonight would give staff the necessary timeframe to complete a grant application by June 30. He said that he did not think a week's delay was significant for the grant application but he has not been able to reach anyone at the state. Mr, Roberts noted that the state has never done the field verification of the wetlands inventory that the City turned into them two years ago. He asked to change the ordinance adoption date to 45 days from this evening because of this problem with the state not having adopted their 1 inventory. j The Council discussed whether or not to continue the hearing. Mayor Nicoli noted that some people could not stay this late and it would be a courtesy to listen to those here tonight and to hold it over to allow additional testimony. d. Public Testimony > Joe Kasten, 9885 SW Ventura Court, stated that in his particular case, the regulation f' requiring a 50 foot setback from Ash Creek would take away one third of the property he CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 17 i 1 i J J . I C 1 acquired 13 years ago. He mentioned the takings and compensation issue, stating that in his opinion this regulation diminished the property value because it restricted what he could do with his property. He pointed out that it was interesting that the Council set a 25 foot setback for public property but a 50 to 75 foot setback for private property. I > Dan Dolan, 4524 NE Davis, Portland, noted the desire to protect wetlands and streams but questioned whether another layer of government was necessary to do so. He concurred that property value would be diminished by a 50 to 75 foot setback. He contended that once this ordinance made a property unbuildable, the property owner would be at the mercy of the City. He questioned the meaning of "reasonable conditions" (page 5, draft). He said that there was no provision to pay property owners for the reduction in value and loss of utility of their land. " He cited the Fifth Amendment's provision regarding compensation for takings. He argued that Goal 5 was an unfunded mandate. He stated that if it was the City's intention to create greenway, then property owners were due compensation. He stated that he did not believe the ordinance went far enough in protecting the rights of the individual. ! t > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72°d Avenue, stated for the record that he was a proponent for protecting streams and rivers because that was in the best interests of the City, both now and in the future. He said that he did not think that the 560 landowners affected by this ordinance should bear the brunt of it financially. He spoke for compensation to property owners forced to protect streams abutting their properties. He said that the tree ordinance was a similar { situation, in which private property owners bore the financial cost of protecting trees. I Mr. Martin asked if his property was included under the ordinance. He mentioned that he has spent $100,000 for an engineer's report to justify to the Division of State Lands his request to move the stream running through the middle of his property and to mitigate the wetlands. Mr. Roberts explained that the stream on Mr. Martin's property was a drainage way and not 1 considered a significant stream corridor. i > Greg Winterowd, Winterowd Planning Services, emphasized that they built as much flexibility into this ordinance as they possibly could. He noted the mandated standard of a 25 foot buffer from fishbearing streams (in addition to the USA buffer of 25 feet) and a 75 foot buffer from the Tualatin River. He reviewed the levels of adjustment allowed under this standard. The first level was the exemption of every developed subdivision in the city. This was spelled out in the ordinance to avoid affecting people's backyards. The second level was that the standards of the underlying zone could be adjusted administratively with notice. Mr. Winterowd mentioned the flexibility built into the administrative rule. The third level was the allowance of a reduction of up to 50% of the required riparian setback for areas that have been disturbed, and were no longer pristine natural areas. The fourth level was a hardship variance under the administrative rule. The fifth level was density transfers. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that Tigard had greenway park all along the Tualatin River so the 75 foot standard really did not affect anyone. However these adjustments would come into play for the 50 foot setback from Fanno Creek. i Mr. Winterowd pointed out that an application had to go up through the levels in order to get the adjustments. He said that this ordinance did not require the dedication of land, and CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 18 d € a 9 therefore did not take any land, though it require the protection of the streams and wetlands, much as the Development Code required building setbacks. Mr. Winterowd explained that in addition the City or a property owner could take a stream or j wetland out of the Safe Harbor category and do a separate ESEE analysis on it. If the Council decided on full preservation of the natural resource, they would have to do a plan amendment. He noted that while there was a city wide inventory of stream corridors and wetland, the City chose to go with the Safe Harbor ordinance in order to avoid the expensive and time- consuming ESEE analysis for all the properties. He stated that he believed that even if they had done the ESEE analysis, the City would have ended up with an ordinance very similar to the one before the Council tonight. I~ Mr. Winterowd said that this proposal included leaving the 25 foot water quality setback j required by USA as a separate lot, rather than making it a conservation easement, if the i property owner preserved the full setback. This meant that the minimum lot depth of the buildable lot would be reduced. This avoided the administrative hassle of enforcing conservation easements. Councilor Hunt asked if the City would have the same problems and challenges if it had not done the Safe Harbor option. Mr. Winterowd said that the tradeoff of the Safe Harbor option had been giving up the flexibility to custom design the ordinance. He said that he suspected I that if the City had gone with the ESEE analysis, they would have more people here arguing for stronger standards and for lesser standards. He reiterated that this ordinance would probably not have been much different under that option. He held that the Safe Harbor was a j s good compromise. 9 F'~ sY Councilor Hunt asked if someone could go through the ESEE analysis to get around the ordinance. Mr. Winterowd said yes, they could. However it was an expensive and difficult process, and onerous on individual property owners. Councilor Hunt expressed concern about taking away the value of property that someone had owned for years, like Mr. Karsten. Ms. Beery pointed out that existing subdivisions were already grandfathered in. Property owners with approved applications might also be grandfathered in because by law they could not apply new standards to approved applications. Councilor Hunt asked if it was difficult to define who would be affected by this ordinance, and if the City might get into trouble because they did not notify someone whose property later turned out to be affected. Mr. Roberts said that legally they did not have to notify anybody. They knew that they missed some people because they used the County tax assessment rolls. Ho'wcvcr this notification was a voluntary action on the City's partL because staff thought it was a good idea to do so. Councilor Rohlf explained that this ordinance was in response to a state mandate. He said that any concerns about adding another layer of government needed to be addressed at the state level, not the city level. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to j July 22, 1997. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 19 I 1 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: PLEDGE $9,900 MATCHING FUNDS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT TO COMPLETE SENIOR CENTER EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx referenced the background given in the staff report. He noted that the project was to do the raised gardens. This money would leverage funds 50/50 with the block grant jJ program. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern with this request not going through the normal budget I process, and with a social agency asking for another $10,000. Mr. Roberts explained that staff e'.. had not known how much money they would need until the bids came in. They went through the bid process four times on the various portions of this project. The first bid was outrageously high, they received no bids for the next two requests, and then solicited two bids the fourth time. Mr. Monahan said that an option was to not fund the request and to look at scaling back the work or using volunteer labor. He noted that this project had been in last year's budget. Councilor Moore commented that $20,000 was a great deal of money to spend on raised I _ gardens. Mr. Roberts said that these were the handicapped accessible gardens, and strongly supported by the Senior Center. Councilor Hunt commented that the bids were not out of line with what landscapers would charge. Mayor Nicoli supported building the gardens. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Mayor Nicoli, to approve the matching funds. Councilor Moore reiterated his concern with the amount of money to be spent on this project. He spoke to using volunteer labor and donations to build the gardens. He said that he would vote against the motion, although he was not against building the gardens. Councilor Hunt I I said that they already had raised planters donated from the King City Plaza owners. Councilor Moore said he would look into the issue. Councilor Scheckla asked if they were setting a precedent for other people to come back before the Council to ask for additional funding. Mr. Monahan said that several other groups have already come back before the Council requesting additional funding. 1 Mr. Monahan said that staff would put this on next week's agenda. Mayor Nicoli asked to see the plan drawings. Councilor Hunt withdrew his motion, and Mayor Nicoli his second. b. Council Questions j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 20 j s f f L~ I c. Council Deliberation: Motion to approve the needed matching funds in the amount of $9,900 to complete the Senior Center exterior improvements project. > The Council considered Agenda Item No. 9 at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - Opportunity for public comment on the proposed use of the fund for law enforcement equipment, enhancing school security and enhancing community safety. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, reported that the Citizens Committee required by this block grant has identified the eight different areas and four to five subcategories that they could spend this money in. He noted the list of items proposed for purchase with the grant money. d. Public Testimony > Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Court, asked if the "radar trail" listed in the Cook Park Master Plan could be eliminated and a policeman assigned instead. Chief Goodpaster said that was not a possibility. He explained that they have formed a Cook Park Citizen Patrol that would begin patrolling the park the week after the Balloon Festival. He mentioned the signage issues as the citizens group wanting better signage stating the rules, regulations, and closing hours of the park as well as advertising the Citizens Patrol project. ' e. Council Questions i £ Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. i g. Council Deliberation: Motion authorizing Expenditures on the Proposed Use of Grant Funds "i Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to authorize expenditures on the proposed use of grant fends. - Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING LANGUAGE CONCERNING "ABANDONED VEHICLES" a. Staff Report CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 21 ! i fl n Chief Goodpaster noted that the amendment contained one substantive change and several housekeeping changes suggested by the City Attorney to bring the ordinance up to date. He mentioned that currently the police department spent a great deal of time tracking abandoned vehicles as they were moved from place to place in response to notifications. This amendment allowed the police to tow a car automatically on the third violation (if it met the criteria) with notice. b. Council Questions c. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-04 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 97- is 04. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 97-04, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDING CHAPTER 760 ABANDONED VEHICLE. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > The Council considered Agenda Items No. 5 and 6 at this time. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 1.2 I Mr. Monahan noted the request from the County to return a signed contract for the Community Development Block Grant program 49142, the 91" Ave. sidewalk improvements, E by June 18. The City would contribute $400 in cash and $22,800 in in kind services in € exchange for $166,800 for a $190,000 project that would benefit Villa La Paz, an affordable housing project. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to authorize the mayor to sign the CDBG agreement. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors I Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION n , A 1 o~. t. 1 1. ALJV Vic l~LVtG(\ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder City of Tigard pw: i:\ad my\ccm\970610.doc CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1997 - PAGE 22 _ r. J MIN 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 8 4 4 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 - Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SVI Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' i I, Kathy Snyder _ being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising I Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tiaa d-m ia1 at i n 7 imes a newspaper of general circulatiort as d@fined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the C~tv C`rninr•j-1 R,iai npsa P4eet ng a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the I entire issue of said newspaper for nVE successive and consecutive in the following issues: 1 June 5,1997 Subscribed and sworn to foe me this5th day of June 1997 i. OFFICIAL SEAL Notary bile for Oregon ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall BoauJlevzrd Tigard Oregon 97223, nr by nailing 639-4171.' CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING i TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON ` JUNE 10, 1997 f Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) It • Executive Session • City Facilities- Space Needs Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) Report from the Cook Park Task Force • Public Hearing - ZOA 97-0001, Wetlands; Goal 5 Safe Harbor 1 Overlay I Opportunity for Public Comment: Community Development Block J Grant'-Police Department • Consider Abandoned Vehicle Ordinance M844 - Publish June 5, 1997. I k~ ' COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8830 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) i COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the_Tiaarc77TUaltin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the 7(1A97-n0n1 lgater RacntirrPa a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the , entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 29 1997 I~ 4. v- n I JUN 05 1997 u L~DaTn2ff Subscribed and sworn to b re me this 29th day of Mav, 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL 1,11, 0. Al Notary P c for Oregon ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT - The followog'will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, June 10 149.7.E at 7:30 EK, at the Tigard Civic Center -Town Hall, 131 iiatl'Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in a WaaM wiua uu. aua,.~ a"Paa.a 1 u a.. a,~aaV i~auaaa..aP"a WVa. - and rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. Failure to raise pn issue in person.or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to af- ford the decisienmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the i close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be ob- tained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS { ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT fJ A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, whichI meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe bar-' provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. The new section will be I tided the "Water Resources Overlay District." E T78830- Publish May 29, 1997. E t I _ 3 AGENDA ITEM NO. -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: June 10. 1997 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) I i Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear 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 meeting. Thank you. - i n~N STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED r c4 97. ( DP4r r y+tf iv-fN ~rtck q r~lle+f"(o(ledlar- 1t4~1, ~~~7~•M)~ a n S'- L~I J k7Ri1 PtCb 'C F-IY t~7 and '10 I v~ -1-9 Y I l i . 1:lad.go%As1tshtd= 3 Depending on the number of person wishing to testi, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of fy b each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - t minutes. The Chair may fur er limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement noral testimony. I AGENDA T1F11i NO. 4 DATE: ~u ne % O, 1G4 9 I I, i. 4. COOK PARK MASTER PLAN - RECOMMENDATION BY THE COOK PARK TASK FORCE Staff Report: Community Development Department Public Comment j c. Council Consideration: Motion Approving the Master Plan for the Expansion of Cook Park PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I I i { ! i _ I I j i r y 44 n~ ~~ainst) / Y OPP°nent - tSpea~;" Fl- vor) ~~~n" t Ming In Fa ~rT'T- inxt' " ~tf"G`tL~ pe t S -(S Pro4on 't ~I I~{~l ~,ii 1`, ✓ e ~CAw?y. t ``t (t 1 X ~~ES ; C, -7 tttt , o. F~. ~>r era ~ 1~ a ~ sl G~t~ -10- Na~~~ t V a ly bCYA~n J` S Or ciq .ma Xv -3 t-1l 2 ell, z2~ Cj~~G~ --i you 7 t i 4 _ 1 _ ~ls+ ~ PLEASE P l.~ ! I v R F Proponent - (Speaking an Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) - •a a Add~ MW l G e 'C <~G . amt. A refs m a• a . A r aee - C-e i OK 70 f • amt A ten . 0. .me. • M . Name, Add~ - . amt -d Fh~ N.. I N®q Add~ and Pba • a • amt Add~ amd PAme No. t~ • amt Add~ -d • a . amt j 1 Name. A Pbm . Name. Add~ and i • amt A a • Name. Add~ and e • 0. 1 _ _J - 1 I 3 depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of }ne each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement ; oral testimony. i AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: June 10, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ZOA 97-001) j WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT - A request to amend the Tigard Community K Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. The new section will! be titled the "Water Resources Overlay District." PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I, . f j I G , f i ! . F Ask- I -AGENDA ITEM NO. _5 ' PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. q`r (~~,<< i~, Name, Address and Phone No. .~fic~ ~a~Ml{S - r : cj Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone G~~~ n ~fTa3 ~1 a f~ +0 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 16h72 ~'~f n~ j T i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address an Pone No. Name, Address and Phone No. acne, Address and Phone Nq CSSw -7Z cc~ /RUC i i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. - ' S w G-Ci2 (70 1,--' Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I ~ O~o2) S. c~.7 l~-0.tv~n2Y- I,JA.. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. , k Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. S, ~J 1 ® 1 Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may fi~'~er limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement ord. testimony. ' AGENDA TTEm NO. DATE: dung 10) I61q17 t 7. PUBLIC HEARING - LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - Opportunity for public comment on r: the proposed use of the funds for law enforcement equipment, enhancing school security and enhancing community safety. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents) d. Council Questions e. Close Public Hearing I f. Council Deliberation: Motion Authorizing Expenditures on the Proposed Use of Grant Funds PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS 1 i E~ -j" - ;l ~ - e I Ir- • '~,9enda L~~ -7 Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) i tpe - f N& r -.~k~~ Pr[,r~t .Sf L(/~`f•« I~-04tiS ~sf J-qtr-5'u~ • •mf. ~a. i I (t~c~s.w-~u~~ vlt~►„-ram- . ~j~,~9 c.~r / • e . Add[ m f . o. -N-MK Addfoe to t No. ' . emr. t . . •mf. Add~ Add~ . eme. =d Fb~ 11110. eex. ' t . w • " ?din 1 Nm @6 Addrm i0d ~OOf . t®e. Add~ •CA rbme Vt. f ' Nam-. Add~ . f0f. V0. . emr. Add~ end t . I . eme, m f.0. . ame, . " • i goy ~ ~tu.~ SQSSi~m MEMORANDUM I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: June 6, 1997 SUBJECT: City Facilities Space Needs ' - I Introduction On March 19, 1996 staff presented options to the City Council for addressing long term space needs. A copy of the March 19, 1936 Council meeting minutes is attached along t with the memo that details the options. Direction of the Council at that time was to take Option 1 as a basic plan and develop it further. March 19. 1996 Council discussion I i - 1 The WCCLS levy was discussed on March 19, but no decision was made by Council on whether to support the levy or not. On June 4, 1997 the CLAB met and discussed the j levy. Consensus of the group was to discuss the issue again in September and make a decision in October. Kathy Davis attended and represented Tigard. Several cities - expressed concern about the implementation of Ballot Measure 50 and how cities would be impacted. Parking was also discussed. Staff made an assumption that Tri-Met service would not improve because the ridership wasn't there. However, the Tri-Met Transit Choices for Livability Committee is investigating ways to improve service to the suburbs. Ty--rd ;l request resources or services equal to the taxes Tigard businesses pay to Tri-Met. Parking is also impacted by the ECO (Employee Commute Options) Rule that is now in effect. Within 60 days the City must file a plan with DEQ that details a 3% reduction in vehicle trips each year for 10 years. Compliance with the ECO rule will reduce the City's need for employee parking. Customer parking needs will vary at different sites depending on the use at a given site. For example, moving the Library from the current City Hall site will reduce customer parking demands. i . I Space needs were projected for 20 years with the exception of the Police Department. j The proposed expansion and remodel will accommodate police for 10 - 12 years. A ( second floor above the existing and expanded department would accommodate Police beyond the 20-year horizon. The staffing projections in Scenario B (the last page of my memo) reflect the addition of the Urban Services personnel and are the best estimates for planning purposes. The Amber Foods property was discussed. The City Manager agreed to talk to the seller about an option on the property. The City was unable to make a commitment prior to the outcome of the Measure 47 election so the property was !eased to another tenant. A concern was raised about the use of the Water Building. The City approached the IWB and was given permission to use more of the building with prior approval of the IWB. The Tigard Water District would prefer the Water Building house Public Works._ Police Expansion At the November 26, 1996 Council meeting, Measure 47 and its impacts on the City were discussed. A portion of those minutes are attached. The Police Department expansion was revised. Chief Goodpaster confirmed that more space was needed, but recommended waiting to do the expansion until the impacts of Measure 47 are more clear. Schramm Property Over the summer of 1996, staff had several conversations with Mrs. Schramm about securing an option on her property. Over the fall and winter, Mrs. Schramm had the damage to the building repaired. She is not interested in selling at this time and the space is for lease. Options The options considered by staff are outlined in the memo attached. Briefly, they are: a Option 1 - Police expansion, relocate and build Library, renovate Library for offices. 1 Option 2 - Second floor on City Hall Police addition, expand Library on site. Option 3 - Short term renovations, add second story to City Hall, expand Library on site. Option 4 - Move Niche to Ash Street, construct Police building on Niche site, expand Library on site. 1 Option 5 - Construct new Library off site, renovate Library for Police, renovate police for officers Option 6 - Move Court to Water Building, add second floor to City Hall and Police, expand Library on site. Staff still supports Option 1 primarily because of the parking needs for the Library. In addition, locating the Library at a different site provides more flexibility for expansion and renovation on the existing site. Question j Is Council consensus still to proceed with Option 1 as a basic plan to work from? That is, relocating the Library off site. If so, staff will develop some alternatives under that direction. x J ' MEMORANDUM y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance DATE: June 6, 1997 SUBJECT: Financing Options for facilities r I have reviewed the various financing options related to a bond issue for facilities. The-City has two General Obligation Debt issues currently outstanding. These include debt related to the Civic Center construction and debt related to Road Improvements. The Civic center bonds reach their final maturity on June 30, 2003. The Road bonds reach their final maturity on June 30,1999. As a result, taxpayers will see a decline in their debt service tax rate in 1999/00 of an estimated S.35 per $ thousand. This would be an opportune time to have another debt service levy take effect if it were approved by voters prior to the beginning of the 1999/00 fiscal year. i The Council has several alternative election dates for a bond measure. March 24, 1998, May 19, . 1998, September 15, 1998, November 3, 1998, March 23, 1999 and May 18, 1999 are all valid 1 election dates. Bond proceeds from measures approved at any of these elections could be available for expenditure by July 1, 1999. The first levy for debt service could be levied in 1999/00. Only the November 1998 election would require a simple majority of voters voting in the election. All other elections would require at least 50% voter turnout and then a simple majority. The rate of the expiring levy for the road bonds of $35 per thousand in 1998/99 would raise sufficient debt service over ten years to support a bond issue of nearly S 10 million. i If you need any further information, please let me know. I J I Mr. Holland said that while he agreed with Mr. Padgett's statement, it would be helpful if they knew when certain issues came before the Council so that they could have an opportunity to testify before the City. The Councl and Commission made several suggestions for getting information from the Commission to the Council and vice versa. These included sending the Council agenda to the Commission and making the Commission discussion on a particular hearing available to the Council if the minutes weren't available. Mr. Hendryx i noted that the City did not provide transcripts of the Commission meetings to the Council, only minutes. Councilor Scheckla said that Imowing how the vote went at the Commission would be helpful. r Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Holland for his input on the changes that have occurred in the past five years. Mr.. Holland said that the minuses were communication; the Commission was missing out on important information that used to come to them but now went directly to the Council. He said that the pluses were that communications were quite a bit better between the Council and the Commission than they used to be, though he spoke for more joint meetings to get to know where people stood on issues and what their backgrounds were. He said that the Council has done a good job at appointing a diversity of people with different opinions and backgrounds. o Communications - , . - Clarification of Council Expectations - Council Feedback if Disagree with Planning Commission Recommendation 6. DISCUSSION: CTTY FACILITIES - SPACE I i Assistant to the City Administrator - Councilor Hunt commented that all the options presented by staff presumed that the City would go with the WCCLS levy. He stated that they had agreed to discuss the issue further before making a decision. Mr. Monahan said staff included that assumption in the options solely for purposes of discussion; it did not obligate Council to go with the levy. He noted that the cost to the Tigard taxpayer was the same either way. Nlr- vionaban updated the Council on the stags of the WCCLS library levy. He said that the Board still did ^o: c= h(;%-; UCh muue) to go for: $30 million or some other figure. He said that Beaverton wanted to go for it while King City and Durham have declined participation in it; Beaverton would get S8 million wl:+ile Tigard would get S3.8 million. Mr. Monahan noted that each jurisdiction would have to sell the levy locally for it to pass. Each would have to state specifically what they intended to use the money Mee__ng Noes - March 1996 - ?ace 14 - =now 4 for. He said that Sherwood has expressed concern that if they got the money for a facility, they might not be able to pay for staffing the facility. He explained thaf---,, unless everyone participated county wide, the levy wouldn't happen. He pointed out that if the levy passed and Sherwood opted out, then their part of the money would be reallocated elsewhere. Mr. Monahan said that the Board deferred making a decision until their May meeting (the deadline for the decision). He said that staff intended to present all the possible options to Council in April for Council direction. He reported that the Library operating levy passed last week. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Councilor Hunt stated that while he supported increasing the library building, he was concerned at someone telling the City what to build and where to build it. He said that he was also concerned that eliminating the library from a Tigard bond measure would reduce the chances of passing that bond measure. i Councilor Scheckla noted that it was possible the voters would turn down a Tigard bond measure for police and library needs. Councilor Hunt agreed, but noted that historically Tigard voters supported the police and library. W. Monahan concurred that was a concern but pointed. out that of the $3.8 million Tigard would get from the WCCLS levy, they only needed $2.6 million to build on this site. That left the rest of the money to use to acquire another site where they could build a library to meet the full-size needs of the library. He said that the present library budding could be renovated for office space. . The Council discussed going out with their own levy as opposed to participating in the WCCLS levy. Ms. Davis commented that going with the WCCLS levy would give them more money than they needed to build a building because they received a set amount based on Tigard's servicearea, not based on what they would build. She said that it was an opportunity to acquire another site and to deal with some of the space and parking issues at the current site. She pointed out that if they went out for this levy opportunity and it didn't pass, they could always come back to the voters with a City Ino<- Councilor Schecldla expressed concern that the voters would get upset voting twice on the same levy. The Council discussed his mneern. Mayor Mceli ,mmmented t^~t if the levy failed, the County might put it out again at a lower amount of money after hearing citizens' concerns and it could pass. Mayor ricoli spoke for going with the WCCLS levy, saying that Tigard could go out with their own levy should it fail. He noted the issue of people who lived outside Tigard's city limits who used the library without paying for any of the capital costs. ueez_ ?votes - Marc'- 19, =990 - Pace _5 He agreed with Councilor Hunt that they did contribute towards the operating costs through the operating levy. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that Tigard citizens probably used other libraries. Mayor Nicoli commented that a substantial number of people in Washington County lived outside any city limits. After stating that the Tigard service area included 12,000 to 14,000 people living outside the city limits, Ms. Davis said that she could provide statistical information on how many Tigard citizens used other libraries. Councilor Scheckla asked for that information. f' I Councilor Moore commented that he agreed with the Mayor that the levy had a better chance passing county wide; if it did not, then they could try it on their own. Councilor Rohlf said that though be did not like the process used to reach this levy - F the amount of money requested and bow it would be used was unclear - he would support the levy as long as the dollar amount was reasonable and was accompanied by a reasonable plan to use the money. He said that he thought it made sense to take two shots rather than one. Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote against participating in the WCCLS levy because he thought it preferred one set of employees over another set- ; Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's direction, stating that he - thought they should try for everything at one time. Discussion on space options continued. i-Mr. Monahan clarified that any plan put forth by staff would include more than simply the library; they wanted to look at i this as an overview to address both short-term and long-term solutions. Ms. Newton noted that staff had considered what other funding mechanisms were available to fund other options, should this levy fund the library. W. Newton commented that they did assume some givens in developing these options. She emphasized that a representative from each department participated on the committee that developed these options; they wanted to bring a uniform recommendation to Council that was supported by all City departments. Ms. Newton reviewed her ==.a tcc, ~ ~aucu :.i'au packet materials]), beginning with the assumptions. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, she said that they assumed that Tri-.Nlet service would not improve during the 20-year period because the ridership simply .vam't there. This primarily ianpacted -ark-mg. GIs. Newton reviewed different means of addressing the parking issue such as ~ carpooling, telecommuting, tlemble hours, double shifting, and contracting out appropriate city services. Meet: - Nctes - Marx i9, _995 - ?age 15 I • Councilor Hunt asked why the projections for building space needs for the police force were for a shorter time period than everyone else. N s. Newton explained that they used the figures already developed by the police department in their research into expanding their facility over the neat 10 to 12 years. She noted that the police staffing projections were 20 years out. NIs. Newton reviewed the existing space, noting that they limited the discussion to facilities in this area, thus excluding the maintenance service facilities on Ash Street. She said that they considered the Canterbury and TCYS buildings as sites to temporarily house employees during construction. Ms. Newton reviewed the existing parking available at the City Hall complex and immediate area. She explained that though they technically had more than enough parking spaces 2vai12ble according to the Code, they actually had a problem now on Wednesday afternoons because of too few parking spaces to accommodate the municipal court docket, library programs, and the changing of the police shift. Nis. Newton reviewed possible options to improve the parking situation, including moving the court to the water building and changing the court docketing procedures. Ms. Newton reviewed the staffing projections, co mmenting that there were too many unknowns farther out than five years for staff to feel comfortable with projections any further out than that. She noted Scenarios A and B. She stated that they were _ careful to place staff in locations that made sense from 'a customer service and . function standpoint. For example, they kept Community Development and Engineering together while considering moving the library and police department oflsite. . ?4s. Newton reviewed in detail Option 1 "Police First, Relocate and Build Library", using map graphics to illustrate placement of the different departments in the current or proposed facilities. She pointed out the actions planned for each year - under the different scenarios. She noted that in this option the engineering modular was removed to open up the space for parking. This option did include temporary relocation of some staff during construction. In response to Council questions, she stated that the funding would come from the Facilities Fund, and that some inflationary growth was allowed for in the estimates, } thouO the price for a new library site would probably go up in two to three years. Councilor Hunt asked about the Amber Feed prCner«.• Mr. 1R=h= the current asking price was $1.38 million. The site had five acres of wetlands that would be useable for another purpose. He said that the lease on the barn would run out in three years. `Is. Nekton reviewed the financing under Option 1, pointing out that except for the funding of the library through the WCCLS levy, all monies would come out of the ~f Meet_ _ ,ices - March 19, _996 - ?ace 17 l~ Facilities Fund. She noted that even if the WCCLS levy failed, the needed police improvements could still be made. However that would remove the police from a n City police library levy, should the WCCLS levy fail. Ms. Newton reviewed the timing, parking and voter impacts of this option. Mr. Monahan explained that if they took responsibility for the Bull Mountain area and the Walnut Island area, the County would give them funds to hire more staff to serve that area rather than send their own employees over for housing, Councilor Hunt asked if the Facilities Fund would have enough in it to pay for these improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that even with adding $100,000 a year they would still be about $30,000 short in 1997198 but they could put more into the fund that year. Ms. Newton reviewed Option 2 "Second Floor on City Hall Levy". -She said that adding a second floor would cost approximately $1 million dollars. She pointed out the actions planned for different years under this option. She noted that this option kept most city services at the City Hall site and did not require temporary relocation of employees during construction. i Councilor Rohlf asked why they were looking at a new roof for City Hall if they l were considering a second story. Mayor hicoli commented that they would not do the study if they decided to build a second story. - NIs. Newton reviewed the financing for this option: a bond or levy to fund the second floor, purchase of. the Ash Street site through-the Facilities Fund, and j expansion of the library through the WCCLS funds.' 4 Councilor Hunt noted that the committee has recommended Option 1 and requested f more discussion of that option. The Council agreed by consensus to do so. 1n response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Newton said that the bottom line dollar amounts for all the options were similar but some didn't include all the possible pieces, such as moving the Niche or removing the engineering modular. Councilor Hunt commented that they were not using the water building enough, and requested discussion on exnandinQ the old library bidding to ..s aC~ouuuuua[e the engineering staff. He said that it bothered him that the projections for the police were only for 10 years while everyone else was at 20 years out. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. Newton confirmed that the police department wing was designed to accommodate a second floor. Councilor Moore suggested letting the police department use the engineering modular for space rather than removing it for a mere 10 parking spaces. Meec_ _ daces - Mach 1995 - Pace 19 ~ - 1 I Ms. Newton noted that the police chief had not looked at e.,epanding his facility for 20 year projections but only for 10 to 15 years out. She said that the police chief said that adding the second story would give him more space than he needs. She commented that they might want to look at other options if the police stayed in this location. i Mr. Hendryx commented that Community Development and Engineering could put a loft in the library wing. Ms. Newton said that was not in the dollar figures but that it was a possibility. Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of stacked parking. Mr. Monahan said that the cost of a parking structure per space was $7500. Councilor Hunt asked if taking an option on the Amber Food property would fit within the parameters of the dollars projected here. Mr. Monahan said that it could, if they picked it up for $1.5 million (Option 1). He stated that a problem was that they needed to get an option to purchase before knowing the results of the _ WCCLS levy. He commented that they wouldn't get their WCCIS levy funds until the year 1999. Ms. Newton confirmed that once the levy passed, they could borrow against it. Councilor Hunt suggested using the water building for the court as a way to solve parking problems at City Hall. Mayor Nicoll commented that the wing at the water _ building currently used for auto repair could have a second story placed on it; the - _J auto repair shop could be moved to less valuable land somewhere else with the entire wing converted to office space in the nett 20 years. Councilor Hunt suggested using j the Canterbury building for auto repair. Councilor Hunt asked when the levy would be voted on. Ms. Newton said it was j slated for March 1997 and that the drop dead date was May 1996. Councilor Hunt asked if they could get an option on the Amber Foods property. - j Mr. Monahan said they . might be able to; the realtor kept them informed of potential buyers.. Ms. Newton stated that the staff recommendation was to pursue Option 1. If the Council wanted them to do anything different, such as purchasing the Ash street i pr--per::, and mo-whaD t1he N"Icne, Council needed to iet them know. vlayor ricoli commented that it would be a good move to purchase the Ash Street property when it became available to set more sp2ce for street m2inteviance offices. i Councilor Moore pointed out that the foundation of Option 1 was a go, though they might tweak it over the nett several years. He said that he lilted the idea of moving the library across the street to keep the city services together in a city center complex. Mee::_ _ `ictes - Ma=ch 19, 1996 - Pace PT- e i S _ Nir. Monahan reviewed a proposal regarding the Amber Foods property that he received from Arthur James, an engineer who offered to do a structural analysis and feasibility study on converting the structure to a library (at a cost of $6700). He reported that his. Davis toured the building with Mr. James and did think it was possible to convert it to a library for a reasonable price. He asked if the Council 1 wanted staff to pursue talking with bir. James. Nfavor Nicoll declared a conflict of interest in this discussion because he had a client who has discussed the Amber Foods property in meetings with him. He said that c j he would not share those discussions with the Council. i Mayor kricoli commented that there were other possibilities to acquire an interest in that land, depending on the interests of the other potential buyers. He said that I some buyers might want the land only for two to three years before dumping it or they might want a joint use of the entire site or use of only one of the buildings. He suggested asking the realtor if there was an opportunity to link up with other prospective buyers to pursue other options than outright purchase of the entire site. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Nir. Monahan said he thought that they would retain the bus faclity in the short term with expectations of razing it for parking in the long term. He agreed that they could use if for records storage in the short term, and pointed out the five acres of wetlands in the back. He said that the value of the land might actually lie more in the wetlands as a greenspace. Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Moore's suggestion to take Option 1 as a basic plan and work on developing it from there. Mayor Nicoli noted that the nett step was convincing the other members of the Budget Committee that this was the direction to go in. Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to the seller about getting an option on the Amber Foods property and look into a joint purchase of the site. He pointed out that if someone else wanted to use the bus facility, that could pose a problem in the long term. 7. DISCUSSION: VISIONLNG (Discussion continued from the 2/26/96 Council meeting.) • Assistant to the City Administrator and Senior Management Analyst/Risk Mayor Nicoll requested that this be set over to the next workshop meeting but placed first on the agenda. The Council agreed by consensus. 3. NON-AGENDA Mr. Monahan presented the Sprint request to put a 130 foot tall monopole up on a 40 foot by 40 foot plot of ground either on water district property in back: of the fire station or on l Mee__ _ Nc~es - Mar.... ?ac_ Ze 4 J 1- Councilor Scheckla noted that August was vacation time. bis. Newton said that they could leave it open as to which months a meeting was postponed or not held. Councilor Hunt commented that joint meetings could be held on more issues than just the CIP. , Mr. Monahan referenced Mr. Lowry's memo in which he outlined the available budget this year for the social services and arts. He noted the need for Council discussion and direction to staff about social service contributions and how the policy for contributions may be affected with implementation of Measure 47. Mr. Lowry reviewed the process of notifying social service applicants of the available funding. Mayor Nicoli said that staff should put everyone on notice that Measure 47 "has.struck" and the City would be reviewing potential budget cuts. The Council briefly discussed the social service funding policy and decided to postpone further consideration until the x Budget Committee process. Councilor Hunt raised the issue of the impact of Interfaith Outreach Services (IOS) on the budget. He commented that by allowing IOS to use a building last year in lieu of giving them S10,000, the City had $10,000 more to give to the other applicants. He said that if they gave 510,000 to Interfaith nest year instead of the use of the building, they would increase the overall total budget for social services and arts. Mr. Lowry pointed out that the total budget would still be less than the amount allowed by policy. In addition applicants usually requested more funding than they received. Mr. Monahan referenced Paul deBruyn's memo on the reduction in computer purchases i for the library. He recommended continuing with computer purchases as budgeted because doing so was part of an overall cycle of replacement of computers for a uniform system. Next year they would adjust computer replacement strategy according to what they could afford. He pointed out that the expense of the last couple of years was due to upgrading an outdated computer system. After discussion, the Council requested staff return to a meeting in the near future to clarify some of the proposed computer purchases. Mr. Monahan presented a request from Greg Berry to purchase anew survey van for r 520,000 to replace the 24 year old van currently being used. ~~j Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of the police station addition. Mr. Monahan reported that the contractor was willing to hold the price until December 4 but could not guarantee that _ the subcontractors would do so. Councilor Hunt expressed support for continuing with the addition. Councilor Moore concurred, commenting that the City has been setting funds aside for two years for this purpose. Mr. Lowry mentioned the latest issue arising out of Measure 47: Mr. Sizemore stated that he wrote Measure 47 to prohibit jurisdictions from going out for operating levies. He said that, if that held true, then there were serious implications for future general fund programs. He stated that he would not like to see the City spend S500,000 on a project, Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 6 i I mom mom%, only to find that they couldn't use taxes to fund the five-year plan i Mayor Nicoli concurred that it was good policy not to use general fund revenue dollars for capital projects but supported going ahead with the police addition. Mr. Lowry pointed out that using operating money for a one-time capital expense was foregoing paying someone's salary in the future if revenue became stagnant. He said that the facility fund was made up primarily of general fund operating money; the other piece was the sale to the Chamber which could be considered capital revenue. He said that given the uncertainty of how the issue would be interpreted, he recommended holding off until next year to see what happened. Councilor Hunt commented that even if they did not do the project now, costs for this project would increase in the future. Mr. Lowry said that he could earn enough interest with the money to offset inflation. Mayor Nicoli suggested scaling back the expansion and doing the improvements in two phases to reduce the amount they would take out of the general fund yet give the police department needed space. Chief Ron Goodoaster confirmed that the department needed the space but expressed great concern over the impacts of Measure 47; He recommended waiting to do the addition until the impact to revenues was known. i Mayor Nicoli commented that even if the City did not hire an additional staff person, two departments still had serious space needs. He said that he considered the cramped working conditions unacceptable for city employees, and that the employees should not have to pay the price of Measure 47. He spoke for providing the best working. . environment they could for their employees. He said that he was not opposed to holding off or to moving forward. y Mayor Nicoli suggested setting this aside for another three or four months to wait on news of the probable lawsuits. Mr. Monahan reviewed several ways that staff could alleviate the space crisis. He noted that the building currently used by Interfaith could be used for storage or possibly some staff, once Interfaith moved into their new building. He said that the Water District did not object to the City using more of the Water Building, as long as the Water District was included in the planning. " Councilor Hunt asked how this tied into the continuing negotiations on the Schramm building. Mr. Monahan said that at this point the property owner did no appear to want to sell, but Ms. Newton will be finding out more information in the near future. 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None i 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 15. ADJOURNIMIENT: 9:37 p.m. j y i Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 7 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 3 i TO Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator DATE: March 18, 1996 SUBJECT- Space Committee Recommendations Over the last several weeks, a staff committee comprised of representatives from each department has been meeting to develop options and a recommendation regarding how the City should-address space needs over the next 20 years. The Space Committee reviewed existing space available, developed staffing projections, and considered possible options. Options considered by the Space Committee were based on certain assumptions. First, the committee assumed that the City will continue to grow through development and annexation. Second, City departments will, exist as they are now structured. Third; the City will not provide services in satellite locations. Fourth, Tri-Met service to City Hall will not improve significantly in the 1-1) 20 year period. The Space Committee also made some 'assumptions for purposes of f estimating staffing projections and future space needs. The i assumptions are that the City will participate in the WCCLS levy. ! The WCCLS levy will be approved in March of 1997 making funds !`r available for Library construction. The City will take over more responsibility for providing services to unincorporated areas of Washington County. City Attcrney services will be provided in- house at some point in the next 20 years. Parking standards will reduce the number of spaces allowed for vehicles; alternative modes of transportation will be encouraged. Some departments will go -to some degree of double shifts to facilitate shared work space. Telecommuting w''-ll be intrcduced for some positions. Same . Z :v * ..es will be cc- ratted cut. The City Will bec•= a - oviding more p recrams ard~ services such as recreation and some sccial zrccrams. ISTING SPACM AND PARK LNG The review of existing space included a determination o= square coz:ace and avaaable aa_k_nc at City hall, the Water ?u'_ldine, N_ch.a, and the Enc_neezing ,,,cd::lar. The exiszina scuar _ ectace^=c_ cure faci_i- es is as follows: - i j 1 { j i City Hall 8,650 sq. ft. (11,070) a water Building 6,600 sq. ft. (8,424) Niche 2,700 sq. ft. (3,100) j Engineering Modular 1,400 sq. ft. (1,440) Police 8,600 sq. ft. (91000) TCYS 1,600 sq. ft. (1,700) Library 12,780 sq. ft. (12,900) TOTAL, 42,330 sq. ft. (47,634) The Maintenance Services Facilities on Ash Street were not considered for purposes of this discussion. The analysis was limited to facilities at the corner of Burnham and Hall although options considered include possible use of the Canterbury site and w' the TOYS building on the corner of Ash and Burnham on an interim basis. Obviously, Maintenance Services needs should be considered before a final decision is made on City-wide facility expansion and improvements over the next 20 years. I Parking facilities are a major concern in any plan for facilities. The number of existing and required parking spaces by location is as follows: existing/required by _ Code City Hall 132/32 spaces Water Building 64/24 spaces Niche 28/ 9." spaces Library 34/32 spaces j Police 29/28 spaces ! ! Engineering (behind City Hall) 10/ 4 spaces TOTAL 297/129 Under the zoning code requirements for parking, there would appear to be adequate parking in each location. In reality however, y parking at City Hall is already inadequate. . I j _-era are 28 emplovees on the lar_est s*-. ft tae Police Department, 29 Police cars and 3 motorcvcles t -at may be parked in a of at anv time. Even t*-ouah all of the Police vehicles are net necessarily in the lot at one time, a space needs to be ~ reserved for each ve_^.ic le to ccc=edate any comb nation of i - °_hiCt°S Or CL't C= the lot. A mz_^._mum of 60 SDdCES 1S needed j , 7 to accommodate Police sta=z ve^icles and reserved spots for Police j { vea_c_es. There are 29 spaces currently designated for Police i use, leaving a deficit of 31 spaces. Thare 3 23 emolovees and =5 volunteers staffing t'r_e Librarv at i ~ _r cn_ t--me. As many as 70 : atrons use the Library in an ^cur and j{ 40 c._ldren regularly attend Story Time (our most pooular j 2 i I L L program). Summer Library programs regularly attract 200 - 300 people. 108 spaces are needed to accommodate peak Library use (38 employees and volunteers and 70 patrons equals 108.) There are 34 spaces available in front of the Library, 74 short of the { number needed for peak use. Currently there are 49 employees working daily in City Hall and the Engineering modular. On an afternoon when Court is in session there is an average of 80 people scheduled to appear at one time. In addition, there are 13 staff vehicles assigned to inspectors and others for City business. on an afternoon when Court is in session and there is a special program at the Library, the existing parking does not meet the demand. Even with Police, inspectors, and staff out on duty, the impact of the many functions is use of almost all space in some circumstances. There are 142 spaces available at City Hall not specifically designated to the Library or Police. If all employees are parked in the lot, all City vehicles are in, and all of those scheduled to appear in Court show, all of the 142 spaces available would_ be needed, leaving no spaces for the excess demand in Library and Police. (49 employees plus 13 staff cars plus 80 parking spaces for Court equals 142.) STAFFING PROJECTIONS ! - Staffing projections for five years out are probably fairly accurate. There is less certainty in projections beyond five years. Changes in technology and programs offered by the City } could have a dramatic effect on actual staffing numbers. In addition, additional shifts and telecommuting could come into , play, The projections for ten years and beyond are estimates based on estimates. Two staffing projections were developed. Scenario A was based on a continuation of existing service level standards with few additional programs. Scenario 3 was based on.the addition of Washington County staff to serve the area of interest and a slightly more enhanced level of service for new and existing programs. The tables cut_ining the staffing projections by - 4ecartmen: u'_-^_t_- the Veal 20_2 are attac'- As s'rcwn on the attached tables, t e net square footage needed by tie year 2015 under Scenario A staffing projections is 23,625 square feet and 28,525 scuar_ feet under Scenario B. During the review of future options, the Soace Committee considered not only ava'i'lable square footage by facility, but also which departments should be in close proximity to provide the best ser'.ice to cur ci_zens. Throuchcut t-^_is analysis, customer service was the ..cuter 1 =rs'_derati_n. 3 i ~J 1 r OPTIONS k ! The Space Committee developed six options for consideration. A brief description, timing, estimated costs and funding sources are I listed below. In addition, each option.is evaluated against six criteria: the impact on customer service, square footage,: financing, timing, parking, and impact on the voters. E. r.. Option 1. Police First, Relocate and Build Library r. r n.ar nPCCri y+ 4L ~4~5 F undi na 96-97 Add 2,844 sq. $ 300,000 Facility Fund ft. to Police Dept. € 97-98 Remodel 130,000 Facility Fund existing interior of Police 96-97 Purchase 1,500,000 WCCLS Levy another site for Library 99-00 Construct 2,300,000 WCCLS Levy Library 2000 Renovate 260,000 Facility Fund Library for office space 1 2000 Remove 10,000 Facility Fund Eneineer. E Modular No changes to - +e- - :i_cr._ cr Water Euilding Customer Service ^h is coticr_ mai_^_ta:_ns C_ty deparzments in close _ rox'-m_tv to each ! r in t_ lcrc x is _ -rcrtan= _^.c cv-cd i .:s=core= service. _s a _ cssty t at some Sta== ma ne _CC8__... tammoraz- SeaCe t-t '.:av =cc Le a= t--- C_t f a__ Si = _ i __nst_.:ct-_ bu= '_verv ceulc . ;:ade keey ^ s=afe =-a= interact with the cubl'_c *cst i convenient locaticr_s 9 Z Square Footage This option meets the needs for all departments except police for - the 20 year period. Police needs would be met for 10 - 12 years. Financing Funds for the addition to and remodel of Police could come from the Facilities Fund set aside through 1998. Funds to purchase a site and construct the Library would come from the WCCLs levy if ! approved by the voters in 1997. Renovation of the existing . Library and removal of the Engineering modular could be funded with Facilities fund money after 1998. Should the WCCLS levy fail in 1997, the City would have an option to go out to the voters after March 1997 for a Library levy. Needed improvements to police could be made regardless. Timing This option addresses the police needs immediately. The delay in renovating the existing Library space for offices until after 2000 impacts Engineering and Community Development in particular i because no additional space would be available to accommodate growth in those departments until 2000. Should additional space be needed before 2000, staff may be temporarily relocated. ~II Parking Moving the Library off site would alleviate much of the parking problem. The 205 spaces on the city hall site would be adequate to serve current demand. More spaces may be created with the renovation of the police and library facilities and the removal of the Engineering modular. j i - Voter !-act Under this option, the voters would be asked to consider the Library expansion as part of the WCCLS levy in 1997. The voters would not be asked to approve a levy for other improvements. The City would need to consider acing to the voters for the Library expansion, if the TACCLS levy fails in March 1997. ~t • Option 2. Second Floor on City Hall Levy I OR t, rpsc -i r ' on e Funding 97-98 Add second $1,000,000 Bond floor to City Hall 97-98 Add 2,844 300,000 Bond sq.ft. to Police Dept. _ 97-98 Remodel 130,000 Bond existing interior of Police: 97-98 Purchase Ash 80,000 Facility Fund St. site for Niche 97-98 Move Niche to 40,000 Facility Fund improve site. access 97-98 Remove 10,000 Facility Fund 1 Engineer. Modular for parking ~ f 97 or 95 Expand and 285,000 Facility Fund j. ~ remodel II Water i. Building { 2000 Expand 3,800,000 WCCLS Lew Library Customer Service lh_s eption keeps all City services at the present city hall and water build=ng which is convenient 'er serving the public. There ' may be dish ption durinc construction, but stnwould not need to be relocated while construction is ur_derdav. 6 i `1 A. 9 Square Footage Like Cation 1, this option would meet the long term needs of all departments for the 20 year period except for police. This option i considers expansion and renovation of the Water Building when and i if needed to provide additional square footage to accommodate growth. It is estimated that this option would serve police for 10 - 12 years. Financing i This option would require voter approval of a bond or levy to fund i, the addition of a second floor and the addition to and remodel of ! the Police Department. The purchase of the Ash Street site, moving the Niche, and Engineering modular and expanding and remodel of the Water Building could be funded with the Facilities Fund. Expansion of the Library would be funded with WCCLS bond if .k. approved by the voters in March 1997. Timing In order to add on to the City Hall and expand the Police facilities in 97-98, a request would have to go to the voters in the next year. Since the WCCLS levy is scheduled for March 1997, it may be preferable to take the City Hall expansion to the voters this November. If the request fails in November, the next available election date is March 1997. Since the request for improvements to the Library would go to the voters in March 1997, if the City Hall/Police levy passed this November but the Library levy failed next March, the City would have to decide how to fund the Library expansion. Parking This option may not alleviate the potential parking shortage. F Although moving the Niche Building to improve access may provide j land for additional parking, an expanded Library on the site would { create an increased demand for parking that most likely would not be met. Vota- =mpact - - i i This QcCiC^_ reCL:ireS t_ at the CitV go t0_ the voters =or a=vrcval of the expansion of City Ha_l and Police. _n addition, the voters will ccnsider the Library 2r ansion as part of the county-wide NCCLS levy. i j f i 7 I Option 3. Renovate and Add Now Delaying a Levy until 1999 j 123L- DP,s? A on Cost F ,nd; nq 1997 Expand and re- 285,000 Facility Funding model water Bldg. 1997 Add 2,844 sq. 300,000 Facility ft.to Police Funding 1998 Remodel 130,000 Facility existing Funding interior of - I Police 2000 Add second 1,000,000 Bond story to City Hall 2000 Expand Library 3,800,000 WCCLS Levy on existing site 2000 Purchase Ash 80,000 Bond St. site for Niche - 2000 Move Niche for 40,000 Bond site access and parking 2000 Remove 10,000 Bond Engineer. modular for r parking Customer Service _ Cr_der this cption, departments would be grouped in locations to _acil?tate the best customer service. For example, an expanded .later Suildi nc could house Community Development and E.^_cineeri_n_c. ' clic° Library, ar_~ cth__ admi.? strative services could all 'e 1acaze-4 at a - _ese nz C'_tv a site. 1 8 . Square Footage 3 If Community Development and Engineering are located at the Water Building, it is unclear whether this option would serve the needs of these departments over the 20 year period. In addition, this i option meets Police needs for 10 12 years. All other _ departments can probably be served for 20 years . Financing i in order to delay a request to the voters for an addition to City Hall, Facilities funds would be needed to pay for the expansion o£ the Water Building and the expansion and remodel of Police. i . However, there would not be enough to fund those improvements if the City continued to set aside $100,000 per year as in the past two years. The purchase of the Ash Street site, moving the Niche, and removing the Engineering modular could be funded either through the levy for City Hall expansion or through the Facilities Fund. The Library improvements would be funded through the WCCLS levy if approved by the voters in March 1997, or, if the WCCLS levy is not approved, the Library improvements could be added to the request for expanding City Hall. Timing The second floor would not be needed on City Hall until 2000 so a _ request from the voters for funds could be delayed until 1999. This assumes however, that Facilities funds would pay for the expansion and remodel of the Water Building and the expansion and remodel of Police. The Library WCCLS levy would be considered in March 1997 before the City's request to add on to City Hall. 'f Parking If Community Development and Engineering are located at the Water _ Building, some pressure on parking would be relieved. However, expanding the Library on the cu=ent site would place more demands on parking than could probably be met by moving the Niche and removing the Engineering modular. Voter impact i _.'s czticn requires voter approval of a levy to fund expansicn of Cit :all if fac-__t_es funds could pav for t e e..cpansicn and remodel of the Water, Building, and expansion and remodel of 2olice. =f a levy is delayed until 1999 and the WCCLS levy is considered in 1947 and doesn't =ass, the Library improvements could 'e _ncor:orated into the City's levy request. i I Option 4. Public Safety Building Bond j nar° Drip ion c'~ct Fund±na 1997 Purchase Ash Street $ 80,000 Facilities Fund fi property for Niche 11 1997 Move Niche to ash Street 40,000 Facilities Fund 1 1997 Remodel Water Building for 75,000 Facilities Fund office space 97-98 Construct Police Bldg. on 1,875,000 Bond Niche site i 97-98 Remodel existing Police 430,000 Bond Dept. as office 1998 Remove Engineering modular 10,000 Facilities Fund 2000 Expand Library on existing 3,800,000 WCCLS Levy site w Customer Service This option keeps City services in close proximity and allows departments to be grouped to provide the best customer service to citizens. Square Footage This action may not provide for the long term needs of all _ departments. For example, there may not be a facility large enough to accommodate Engineering and. Community Development in one location. This option would provide for Police Department needs for 20 - 30 years and would provide for the long term needs of the Library. i. , Financing Funds for the purchase of the Ash Street site, moving the Niche, and remcdeling the :?ate= Building to provide ruGra offiC~- snare } could come from Facilities funds available now. Voter approval wowed be needed for bonds to fund a new Police facility and the remodel of the existing Police facility for offices. Removal of the 3ngineer2.ng modular could be paid for with Facilities funds. 7'-e Library e_ransicn woul d be raced through the WCCLS leo-v. Timing The purchase of the Ash Street site, moving the Niche, and r_mcceling the water Suildinc could be accomplished now. in order to construct a new Police 'acility in 97-98, the voters would have _o consider a bond in the next year. A decision would need to be r..a:_ reaardiac Wh_t 2r the reCtest should co be' -fore, a`ter, or at same t_r..a as t.__ :rCC_S '_e,-v. Cptic ns include November _39', }r3r 1997'(:u_t-- t.__ WCCLS l_.^r) or May 1997. C-oina to the Jot__- U November al_cws time to have the matter go a second time should io X_ t it fail, but there is likely to be a number of other issues on the November ballot. Going in March 1997 puts the Police facility in possible competition with the WCCLS levy. Waiting to go to the voters in May of 1997 would allow an opportunity to combine the Library and Police requests should the WCCLS levy fail, but should the City's request fail in May, the next available election date I is September 1997 which would delay construction. Parking I The possible parking problems may be relieved some by moving Police to the Niche site but, again, expanding the Library on the current site puts demands on parking that may not be accommodated. I Voter Impact (I This option requires voter consideration of a bond to fund a new x' Police facility either before, after, or at the same time as the WCCLS levy. Option S. Library Reloction, Re-Use of Present Library i - r);q t, P Pesc--4p inn rnot F undi ra 1997 Remodel Water Building for $ 75,000 Facility.Fund office space 2000 Construct Library on' 3,800,000 WCCLS - different site _J 2000 Renovate existing Library 500,000 Bond for Police 2000 Renovate existing Police 260,000 Bond for offices Customer Service This cation retains services to citizens in convenient locations. i The on_v serr_c_ moved is the Library. Square Footage This option would serve the Library for the 20 year period. .CU se^,_d 1 0 - 12 years. - ccssibl= that, de_ ending or. - owt t. would not re a facility lar=e " er_ouch to house Ccmmuni_y Development and Engineering in one building but it is possib_e that those departments could both be located or_ the same sit_. Financing Mcne_f from the Fac_1___es Fund could =a-,,r for the re:-,,cdel of the :6at__ .g .^_ew. The :vCCLS _evy wculd nay f.._ the corst=-ucticr. .icf t e -ibrar:. Fac_I_=_es _ ._.cs would be _nacecuate to nav for tr_e __ncva=ion of the : racy and _cl-ce space by 2000 _f only I I { I $100,000 a year is set aside, so a bond is probably a better option. j Timing j The remodel of the Water Building could occur now. The Library facility would be constructed in 2000. The renovation of the Library and Police building for offices would be delayed until after the new Library facility is completed. Parking Moving the Library to another site is the best option for addressing the potential parking problem at the current City Ball site. In addition, remodeling the Water Building to accommodate more staff would probably also ease the parking situation at City Hall. Voter Impact This option would probably necessitate going to the voters in 1999 enovation to the Police and Library facilities. This for the renovation- would be after the WCCLS levy is considered in March 1997. Should the WCCLS levy fail in !997, the City could include the Library project in the request to the voters in 1999. _ Option 6. Move Court and Expand Police and City Hall Together n;; ^ -s=zl7ti~n Cost F'nt 1997 Renovate 'Rater Building $ 15,000 Facilities t + to add Court Funding II I ^ 4 f 97-98 add second floor to 1,200,000 acrid t Police .7-9a Add second floor to City 1,000,000 Bond i Hall 2000 E.epazid Library on 3,800,000 WC LS Levv existing site Customer se-vice rider _is cptic_^_, COLT= would move to Water building. AU The eter City services would retain in teir current locations. close __oxicnity Of C'_tv services is pone==--_- or ?rovidinc cood c_stor,.er service. Square Footage '.":is option xCL_c proba ? y sari= al'_ c=na=t..en=s reeds for t.._ 20 year oericd. _2 s. Financing l 3 The existing Facilities Fund is adequate to renovate the Water { Building to accommodate Court. A bond measure would be necessary j to fund the additions to City Hall and Police. The Library expansion would be funded through the WCCLS levy. Timing The renovation to the water Building to accommodate Court could occur now. In order to complete the additions to City Hall and Police in 97-98, a request would need to go to the voters within j the next year. Again, a decision would have to be made about the timing of the City's request in relation to the WCCLS request going to the voters in March 1997. If the City's request goes before the WCCLS levy and the WCCLS levy fails, the opportunity is M.. lost to include the Library expansion with the City's request. j Parking This option moves Court to another site, relieving the demand on parking that occurs when Court is in session. Under this option the Library stays on the existing site and moving Court may not i free up enough spaces to meet the demand of an expanded Library. in addition, there is currently not enough spaces on the water site to accommodate parking for Court. I ~ Voter Impact 4 - To fund this option in the time frame suggested, a request for i bonds to add on to Citv Hall and the Police department would need 3 to go to the voters in the next year. As with all of the options, it is anticipated the Library expansion would be funded with WCCLS 1 levy funds if approved in March 1997. f RECODS=ATION The Space Committee recommends that council direct staff to pursue l >•rv _na _ . .._-ut.....2._r >c on-, v one WCC_S iav The other improvements ca-1 be addressed over tine with Faclli=ies funds. The parking situation is also addressed by - moving te Library off s_t°_. This option also addresses the 10 - - vea: reeds of the Police Department immediately. Council should also provide direction on the curc'r_ase of the Ash _t___= _ _ perty and the _-'_ccatic n of z:e Niche which, alt :ouc:. nc= .__-essa=y under Cpt__n may provi__ some future j 13 j j "E 3/1596 City of Tigard, Oregon Space Committee Square Footage Projections I I I I I I I I I I I Scenario A I ! I I I I 1996 2000 1 2005 1 2010 2015 SO FT per emoloveel 2501 1 1 1 1 I 1 I FTE I So Ft FTE Ft I FTE ISQ Ft I FTE Ft FTE I S Ft Engineering ! i 13.001 3,2501 15.001 3,7501 18.001 4,5001 20.001 5,0001 22001 5,500 i i I I I i I I i t I I I t ~ ~ ~ Commun Cevelo~ment 124.00 6,0001 28.001 7 0001 29.00 7,2501 29.00 7,250 30.001 7,500 1 I I I l I i Administrative Services 9.00! 2.250 10.001 2.5001 11.001 2,7501 11.001 2,7501 11.001 2,750 ' ! ~ ( I ! I I I t ! 4 ! { I I I I i i Finance/Accountin I i 9.50i 2,375i 11.001 27501 11.001 2,7501 13.001 3,2501 13.00i 3,250 V I I I i I ' I ! ! I I I I I 1 - } FUR & Risk 1 1 4.501 1,125i 4.50; 1,1251 4.50 1,1251 5.501 1,3751 5.501 1,375 i i I I I I I I I yf' i I mputerS' rv e---s 1 1 2.001 5001 2001 5001 3.001 7501 3.001 750 4.00 1,000 l i 1 I 1 I I ! i I I I I I I I I I City Administration ! i 4.001 1,0001 5.00i 1,2501 5.001 1,250 5.001 1,2501 5.001 1,250 ! I i i i I I I i ~ i I I I I I ; { C' Attorney i 0.001 01 0.00i 01 3.001 7501 4.001 1;099! 4.001 1,0001 1 1 l t I 1 ' i + ! ' I I i i i Total Staft/Sq Footage t 66.00; 16.5001 75.50 18.8751 84,501 21,1251 90.501 22,6251 94.501 23.625 ~ ! I ! I I i I I I ~ i I I ; I ! Lbrarv 23.50, 28.2001 25.75: 30,855128.00! 33,510! 30.00: 36,165; 32.50' 38,820 i ~ Police 60.50 8,600. 73.50' 12.000: 88.501 12,000; 103.50:16,0001118.50. 16,000 ' f I Page 1 l~ 1 yt5,cg City of Tigard, Oregon Space Committee Square Footage Projections ! ~ 1 ! I I I I I 1 I Scenario B i I ! I 4 I I 1996 2000 2005 I 2010 2015 SO FT per emolo eei 2501 ! ! I I I I I I -Wi I i ; FTE ! Ft I FTE Ft I FTE 1 S Ft i FTE i S Ft ; FTE Ft En ineerin :13.00 1 3,250118.001 4,500122001 515001 23.001 5,750! 25.001 6,250 ~ i ! I ~ I I 1 I i ! Community Develo ment i 24.001 6,0001 29.001 7,250133.001 8.2501 37.001 9,2501 41.001 10,250 1 1 ! I I I I I 1 I 1 I ! I I I I Administrative Services 9.001 2,250! 10.00 2,500! 11.001 2,7501 11.001 2,7501 11.001 2,750 I ~ I I I I I l l I ! I 1 I I { I I ~ Finance/Accountin 9.501 2,375; 11.001 2,7501 11.001 2,7501 13.00' 3,2501 13.001 3.250 j i I + I ! I i I t I 1 , H!R 8, Risk 4.501 1,1251 4.501 1,125! 4.501 1,1251 5.501 1375; 5.50, 1,375 - I I ~ I I 1 I I I I ' ! I I I I I 1 i 1 1 . C Com uter Services 2.00! 5001 3.001 7501 4.001 1,0001 5.001 1,2501 6.001 1500 I i I I I I ! I j ~ 1 1 ~ ! f I I I I I I ' ! City Administration 4.001 1,0001 8.00i 2,0001 8.001 2,OOOI 8.001 24001 8.001 2,000 j C. Attpme 0.001 01 0.001 01 3.00! 7501 4.001 1,000! 5.00! 1,250 1 1 t 1 t_ 1 l + I I l 1 i 1 I Tctal S1att/Sq Footage .66.00:16,5001 83.501 20.8751 96.50124.125; 106.50; 26,6251 114.501 28,629 I i ! 1 , Libra 23.50; 28,200, 25.75; 30,855+ 28.00' 33.510 30.00 36,165, g?.50• 'tRt sin Pclice 60.501 8.600 73.50! 12,000 88.50 12,CC0 103.517 16,000 118.50 16,000 J - Page 1 L~ Council Agenda Item For Agenda of ' I J j ~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator DATE: June 3, 1997 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, June through August 1997 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. - i June *10 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 13-15 Fri-Sun Tigard Festival of Balloons I *17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) i Study Session Business Meeting ~ July 4 Fri 4th of July Holiday - City Offices Closed * 8 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) °22 Toes Council Muciing - (6:33 p.m.) i" Study Session ! Business Meeting Angus * 112 Toes Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting- (6:30 p.m.) *26 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session . Business Meeting f 1 t~ 1:\9dm%calhylcounci1\ccca1.doc i I Pam Tigard CouncQ'tative Agenda C 6/17/97 Workshop 612424/1997-Busillessf, 7/8/1997-Businesss 7/15/97-Workshop 7/2211997-Businesss Stud Session Study Session Study Session Y Presentations presentations Presentations n n n ' u Visioning Update Metro 2040 Update Business Meeting Business Meeting Workshop Topics Business Meeting Workshop Topics Visionin U date Community Housing Code Budget Hearings & Related lirg. Wirelesss Comm. SWETF -Report E P Code Amend. Ins. Update - R. Graybeal Report: S'At No. Dakota Capital Improve. PF Update on falati Agremt Big: Natn'l Mtg. CPC Joint Meeting him. Restaurant Council Goals Pass. Ral - BRW POptions - Triangle Design Farhaven Sewer Rm ca m -Final Resolution 3 Q. to w o m Interurban Rail Report Council Goal Council Goal 3 Z Council Goal Council Goal council Goal Goal Update ~ Page I l.~ i J AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS AN EX-OFFICIO MEMBER. PREPARED BY: Liz Newton I,/t y DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK buF4 - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Appointment of a representative of the city to the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board as an ex-officio member. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to appoint a staff member to serve as an i ex-officio member of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. i INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 On May 14, 1997, the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors adopted revised bylaws. The new by- laws change the make-up of the Board of Directors to add two new ex-officio members; one representing the city, and one representing the Tigard-Tualatin School District. The bylaws state that the City Council and i I School Board should appoint their respective representative. The attached resolution, if adopted, would delegate the authority of the appointment of the city's representative to the City Manager. r F OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i i The City Council retains the authority for the appointment. i ' FISCAL NOTES The cost of Board meeting lunches (around $85.00) is included in the FY `97-'98 budget. ~~JJ _ 9 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF June 10, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Permit fee waiver. PREPARED BY: Kathy Davis DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council waive the $50 sign permit fee paid by the Friends of the Tigard Library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Waive fee. i INFORMATIONSUMMARY Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070 provides for the waiver of fees for non-profit organizations when the "community benefit for the proposed activity outweighs the financial burden to the City." In this case, the j Oriends of the Library are paying -Wr boih the purchase and installation of a sign on the Hall Street end of the library building. The sign reads: "Library" in plain block letters. They have requested that the $50 paid as a permit fee be refunded. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CON ID Fly i ~ Deny request. FISCAL NOTES No cost to City beyond time to process permit. h:ldocskonnieVibmisolwaivntr.dae i lJ" r r - FRIENDS OF THE TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 I May 16, 1997 Tigard City Council City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Request for fee waiver for sign permit and refund of $50 fee paid l City Council: On April 18, 1997, the Friends organization paid $50.00 for a sign permit to the City of Tigard. This is a permit for the sign we are purchasing to have installed on the outside of the library. On behalf of the Friends of the Library, I respectfully request a fee waiver and refund based upon Tigard Municipal Code 3.32.070. This sign clearly benefits the community, and the Friends of the Library is a nonprofit organization. E " ! have attached a copy of the first page of our IRS letter of determination notifying us of our acceptance as a 501(c)(3) organization. ( J Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Susan M. Mueller Treasurer 777 - ~ I I Internal Revenue Service artment of the.Treasury District Director EP/EO-II(M) Date: JAN 3 0 19$5 Employer Identification Number. 93-0853889 Accounting Period Ending: May 31 Form 990 Required: ba Yes E] No P Friends of the City of Tigard Library Person to contact: c/o Tigard Public Library F11en Oliver 12568 Southwest Main Street Contact Telephone Number. Tigard, OR 97223 (206) 442-5106 Dear Applicant: Based on information supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemPtion we have determined you are exempt - from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We have further determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code, because you are an organization described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(bi). . If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. Also, you should inform us of all changes in r 3 your name or address. i As of January 1, 1984, ) you are liable for taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act(social security taxes) on remuneration of $100 or more you pay to each of your employees during a calendar year. You are not liable for the tax I imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), y { Since you are not a private foundation, you are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other Federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other Federal taxes, please let us know. E Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. j Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. i The box checked in the heading of this letter shows whether you must file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. If Yes is checked, you are required to file Form 990 only if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $25,000. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to a maximum of $5,,00, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. lover) ' P.O. Box 23A, Seattle, WA 98111 Letter 947(00) (Rev. 10-83) I j i X111--- , a leveed, 61 7, 5/A0 } r 3 ~ l TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE services, ff. a nonprofit organization requests such 3.32.060 Failure to pay fees and charges. a _waiver in writing and the council determines that. communi benefit from theroposed (a) All persons submitting activity outweighs the financial burden on the applications or otherwise utilizing services or city. The waiver or exemption shall not excuse the facilities of the city shall pay the appropriate fee nonprofit organization from compliance with or charge imposed pursuant to this chapter. other requirements of this code. (Ord. 82-72 §7, 1982). (b) If the fee or charge for an application is governed by the provisions of this 3.32.080 Ratification. chapter, failure to pay the same in full shall prevent the submission of such application. If The council determines that fees such application is accepted through mistake or previously set by resolutions of the council were inadvertance, the city finance director shall give a set to recover cost and are hereby ratified notice of the balance due of such fee or charge, pursuant to the ordinance codified in this chapter 4 which balance shall be paid within ten days of the and shall remain in effect until superseded giving of such notice. The finance director may pursuant to the ordinance codified in this chapter. waive the penalty ff the failure to pay the full fee (Ord. 82-72 §8,1982).W or charge was not the fault of the applicant. An aggrieved applicant may appeal the penalty decision of the director to the council. If the fee or charge is unpaid after the ten-day period has I expired, the application shall be considered withdrawn. Where action or work for which any permit is required under city code is started or 1 1~, r1 proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the rJ fees specified shall be doubled. L - 1~ ~n I C 6~ ~(Gl 1 t/~ (c) For all other fees and charges N, n PA subject to this ordinance and not involving an application, the city finance director shall give 1 notice of delinquency in writing, if a fee or charge R I ~rC is unpaid. Such fee or charge shall be paid within C da, Q I ' f W& ten days of the sending of such notice and, in addition, a delinquency fee in an amount to be , n esiahed by tl,e tuw,Cii by resolution and o r0 N-, 51 an sufficient to cover the cost of administration of ~V f such fee shall also be imposed. If the fee or charge is unpaid at the end of the ten-day notification ~G✓ L I . period, the initial amount of the fee shall be doubled and the difference shall be deemed a ✓b, Se -ID (A/ir i tt~, penalty. (Ord. 82-72 §G, 1982). t 3.32.070 Exemptions. j,t~ I` 1 The city council is authorized to waive or exempt the fee or charge imposed upon an I t t) { ~L~'E`~ application or for the use of city facilities and the r e~ fi~ C~~~ ~-2 3-32-2 Reformatted 1994 ~-o ; Kwl, E T I of rHe ria~uvo PIIAVLX uAa~uar. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 57223 May 12, 1997 i Kathy Davis Library Director Tigard Public Library I: 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. I j Tigard, Oregon 97223 j E f Dear Kathy: ~ I. On April 18, 1997, the Friends organization paid $50.00 for a sign permit to the City of Tigard. This is a permit for the sign that we are paying to , have installed on the library. Is it possible that there is an exemption from j payment of this permit fee for nonprofit organizations? Would you please I f:. look into this for us? I have attached a copy of the first page of our IRS letter of determination ~vwyniy us vi our acceptance as a 50i (c)(3) organization. Thanks. i. _ Very truly yours, ^ cJu-oez- Susan M. Mueller j f t ~ .11 Internal Revenue Service artment of. the.. Treasury District Director Date: JAN 3 0 1955 a oye=i en eeation Number. 93-0853889 Accounting Period Ending: ay 31 990 Required: 50 Yes No P Friends of the City of Tigard Library Person to contact: c/o Tigard Public Library Ellen Oliver 12568 Southwest Main Street Contact Telephone Number. Tigard, OR 97223 (206) 442-5106 Dear Applicant: Based on information supplied, and assuming Your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We have further determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code, because you are an organization described in 1 section 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1) (A) (%ri). If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation l change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your ~ exempt status and foundation status. Also, you should inform us of all changes in j your name or address. As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (social security taxes) on remuneration of $100 or more you pay to each of your employees during a calendar year. You are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). - Since you are not a private foundation, you are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other Federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other Federal taxes, please let us know. Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. The box checked in the heading of this letter shows whether you must file Form - 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. If Yes is checked, you are required to file Form 990 only if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $25,000. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to a maximum of $5,600, when a return is filed late, unless there his reasonable cause for the delay. (aver) P.O. Box, Seattle, WA 9811 1 Letter 947(00) (Rev. 10-83) i j f AGENDA ITEM # LI FOR AGENDA OF 61101R7 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Cook Park Master Plan PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK &U' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL f Receive and approve the master plan for the expansion of Cook Park developed by the Mayor's Cook Park Task I k Force. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the plan as written or with changes. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Cook Park Task Force was established by the Mayor in mid-1995. After initial meetings focusing on the 1 present and future recreational needs of the community, the task force recommended the development of a -Master plan for the expansion of Cook Park. Task force members included the Mayor, Council President, `,-presentatives of youth sports leagues, and three citizen members. A final report containing the task force's ; recommendations to the Mayor for site and facility improvements is attached. These recommendations are j intended to benefit all recreational interests and cover improvements to the park's existing 52 acres plus additional land located along the northern and eastern edges of the park. Attached also are letters commenting on the plan and a compilation of the written comments received at the park plan open house held in April. 3 I~ The next step in the planning process is the development of an action and funding plan to parry out the proposed improvement projects. Following this, Conditional Use approval for the recreational uses and structures to be undertaken within a one-and-a-half year period will be required. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approve the plan with changes. _ Approve portions of the plan. Do not approve the plan. FISCAL NOTES Exclusive of land acquisition and 92nd Avenue improvement costs, the price tag for implementing the plan is estimated at $2.4 million. The youth baseball and soccer leagues have agreed to share in the cost of acquiring and developing the Gray property. - -`ntywidcbooksum i I _ _ t COOK PARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN Final Report , 77, Prepared for: City of Tigard Planning Division 1 June 10, 1997 44 i Aj1d K~+yF i x . f j I Prepared by: Murase Associates, Inc. D.A. Hogan & Associates Kittleson & Associates, Inc. Kampe Associates Fishman Environmental Services J ~ 9 WF' ra , TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction: Cook Park Expansion 1 F . Planning Process 1 Cook Park Stud Area Ma . Cook Park Task Force 2 f _ Design Team 2 Planning Workshop Mission Statement Issues and Opportunities 3 ..JAS - c1:' .t7":. Public Open House 4 Park Master Plan 5 Master Plan Map 5a } ~J Park Features Description s;;: ckR£ ' ^y r Picnic Shelters 6 Picnic Areas 6 Multi-Use Shelter / Gazebo "w 6 Restrooms ................................................6 tt"' Tot-Lot f,y: •inr c;' ; Parking 7 a Bio Swales i:.- 7 az: e, Wetland Resource Protection and Enhancement 7 w Wetland Creation / Enhancement 7 Wetland, Nature and Cultural Interpretation 8 ' Trail Improvements and Regional Connections 8 Trail Creation " .'y 1 -~L.`,, ~.i~... r~.~`•,1:,, /""rte''.: ~ Active Sports Fields 9 Master Plan Features Comparison Chart Recommend _ ed Project Phasing 10 Conclusion APPENDIX: Preliminary Cost 1 Estimate 12-13 ~'E.' [t[t _t ' _ _ X5,4, bpi ' -i rvja ~ t. •x - wl; COOK PARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN planning effort for this property, known In 1990, a master plan for Cook Park as the Gray Property. To the east, the _ was prepared for the City of Tigard by Thomas Dairy Property was also identi- Murase Associates, landscape architects Pied as a potential addition to the park. and planners. Seven years later, and after the implementation of man;, of the planned amenities, the City of Tigard asked Murase Associates to revisit - Cook Park and update the plan to re- r~ Elect the evolving landscape and the changing nccds of the community.; Due to the explosive population in- crease within the City of Tigard in re- A cent years, there was an increasing def- icit of open space for passive and ac- r - tive recreation. ~5- Local sports leagues and organizations approached the City of Tigard to re- ~e. 1 r~ solve their concerns. The City and the °f _J `J sports leagues quickly realized that the recreational needs of the community j had changed since the completion of 0 TM PING PROCESS the previous master plan. The increased interest in soccer, adult physical fitness As part of the City's planning process, and the growing number of youth the Cook Park Task Force was formed _ leagues created new recreation demands as an advisory group to elicit communi- ry support and input. that needed to be addressed. The City of Tigard began investigating options for the expansion of existing facilities. Murase Associates was asked to guide f - The potential for the expansion of the planning process and complete a G Cook Park previously identified was new master plan for the park that fo- reinvestigated. With the cooperation of cused on the expansion areas to the north and east. The Task Force con- - the surrounding land owners, the City initiated negotiations for the purchase twined representatives of three interest of an adjacent, 21- acre property. The groups: the City of Tigard local sports City's vision for expanding the park has leagues, and the adjacent neighbor- since come viable, spurring the new hoods. Various environmental groups also gave input to the Task Force throughout the process. 1 ! J I r- ~a t.7 . Y 42•j'}R} tF n a. .,,.M /`f } Y.e1r • : k . , , tF •a`~r=~~-.,•,6~e t ~ .a11fr ! ~ r rr:.' r F :fir°~~ s^ ' .fw!' Frh ~'=r.• ~1'•' !mil "'1. [~i .-n{ •I ` ,VYk. p I "It /'w * ~ may. h t~ k ~ "r t f - ; ' K ten, @!°. ~ f ,y4` _ ~ i I I I y i~(~ ! y l 11~I111 { I i I- 1 ~ II 1 I I III • Y3.k h c II I j I Il{ I I $l~dy; Irv Ql~I II 1 f ~ I If i J i 'Jy~F]'. ~t.~' _ ~ Itll) f Il.:ll l I{ 1111 y}I '1 (I' I { 1 11 t 1 I(~ It Pj!/ _ ;.lt x [ - , ' ' - +l..• c'. r, jllll rlll,ill Illlfllj i~ I .1 .i { II i I ~i i I III I u u~ 13S~Six *..r, : ~ II Itl Il 1I IIUl 1I xt ~~1r* r ~i~... Illln.lll~r II qulllrl pl ' i. n4,} f*. "'•9~ ,f L fces j ~I,~'':i + I Ijl I~ri r I • ~ ~5.;- "-tom,. I f { u. II I Ijl ntr nf. n y;r ~ . ~r 11 t l ll~lt l l: 1 a+~ .t v ' tit I .•~i r _ ~y~~~•'`- tit ° F,.i I. ;LM i I r t=:1 ❑ COOK PARK TASK FORCE ❑ THE PLANNING WORKSHOP City of Tigard The Cook Park Task Force defined and j Jim Nicoli, Mayor formally recognized a guiding mission Paul Hunt, City Council President statement at the initial planning work Commeaury and Spores Leagues session, led under the auspices of John Cook, Cook Park namesake Murase Associates. Additional pro- Mark Vossler gram features were also designated. Brian Wegener The event included an "awareness tour" of the entire existing park area and the Sports Leagues adjacent potential expansion area. The - Dave Nicoll tour was carefully orchestrated to bring Gary Stephens - the Task Force and the design and planning consultants into physical and City Staff Support an James Flendryx, Community visual contact with important park pl- j. - Development ning issues as they explored the area by Duane Roberts, Planning Ed Wegner, Public works foot. At the completion of the three J hour tour, members had gained a com- munal understanding of the site and de- veloped a common language to help them communicate more effectively at the following work sessions. Together the Task Force not only inventoried the existing features of the park, but also, discovered new places and character- E a istics of the park that they had not pre- ` viously recognized. Ideas and opportu- nities not initially apparent to the Task i Force gave new life to the entire plan- ning effort. _ ❑ DESIGN TEAM After the "awareness tour" the Task - Murase Associates, Inc., Landscape Architec- Force gathered at a picnic shelter and cure, Urban Design & Pla ming began discussing what they had discov- ered and experienced on the tour. Fishman Fmironnendl Services, Murase Associates guided the dialogue Ecological Resource Management to define potential park program ele- ments and D.A Hogan & Associates, Civil Engineer and new park activities. The work session included several planning - Sports Field Expert exercises that helped the group identify Kampe Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers and prioritize desired program features. These were recorded, summarized, and ICttl son & Associates, hr- Transportation later refined at subsequent Task Force Planning/Traffic Engineers meetings. - ~i 2 l^- ❑ MISSION STATEMENT j The following Cook Park Task Force ■ Integration of Uses J mission statement grew out of the con- Duplication of uses within Tigard sensual prioritization of park features: Large parks vs. small parks ■ Additional Sports Fields To improve the paver to serve the great- Site capacity est ntonber of citizens with the least ■ Linkages impact to the itdrerent natutrd chavnrter Tigard - Durham - Tualatin anal resources of the existing pnrk avid ■ Funding _ the adjacent erpwsion aura Land acquisition and park features Non-profit Perhaps most important was the recog- Private j nition that Cook Park was a very im- Public portant natural park and recreational re- source for the local community, and any improvements implemented must J take this into consideration. It was felt A+r.• j that the park improvements needed to be well planned, high quality, and dura- ble in design and construction, while i being cost effective. i J The Task Force continued to meet and ❑ OPPORTUNITIES discuss the issues involved in imple- menting the common desires of the ■ Improve Access and Parking group. Workshop notes were used Increase parking to mitigate im- throughout the planning process. pact on neighborhood Better park identification and t ❑ ISSUES signage Improved multi-modal access, r ■ Parking/Access local and regional access Impacts to neighborhood ■ Protect and Enhance r~ Intersection at Durham Road Natural Areas/Wetlands ■ Impacts to Natural Areas/Wetlands Enhance existing buffers y , Buffers Protect the flood plair Flood Plain Natural systems Fragmentation ■ Enhancement of Neighborhood ■ Impacts to Neighborhood Improved and controlled access Noise Visually pleasing design solutions Views Plan for compatible uses { Access ■ Additional recreation opportunities Security ■ Opportunities for a variety of funding Compatibility methods i { J 3 J ' { i i t~ 0 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE In addition there was concern that the As part of the planning process a pub- wetland areas receive maximum protec- t lic open house meeting was conducted. tion from intrusion, especially in areas This meeting provided an opportunity near sports fields. These concerns are for community residents to comment on also addressed in the master plan with J the preliminary master plan before provision for wetland buffers, fencing, completion. signage and wetland fringe enhance- ment. Safety and security were primary con- cems. It was hoped that pedestrian- These issues and refinement of park safe multi-modal access along 92nd features will be studied in greater detail Avenue would be included in the park in the next phase of the park master plan. This would include the introduc- plan. tion of sidewalks separated from auto- mobile and bicycle traffic. <A, Security gates for the park at the top of the hill near the entry to Waverly Es- tates were also suggested to control J after hours park access. The park mas- ter plan proposes these gates and addi- tional gates throughout the park to con- trol access during different use seasons and events.' Traffic speed reduction devices and J 'Y~a road width were also important issues presented. The master plan proposes J entry monuments, directional and park _ t i rules signage to signal the visitor that they have arrived and extra safety awareness is required. n - The proposed addition of more park trails and regional trail connections prompted a lot of comment concerning provisions for the monitoring of trails j during closed hours. This issue will require closer attention and coordina- tion as the regional trail system that is not part of the Cook Park Expansion project continues to develop. 4 1 _ J ❑ THE PARK MASTER PLAN all the needs of the Task Force and The physical layout and planning of the integrate park program features. The park program features were guided by resulting master plan successfully the Cook Park Task Force and pro- achieves the Task Forces mission state- duced by Murase Associates and the ment and the evolving program require- Design Team. The plan evolved over a ments ten month period of Task Force meet- ings. Wetland issues became para- ■ Community Amenities mount in the planning effort. The Task Picnic Shelters _ Force directed the City to retain Picnic Areas Fishman Environmental Services to Restrooms report on the extent, character, and Tot-Lot _ quality of the surrounding wetlands. Parking Together with Fishman Environmental, Murase Associates produced a study of ■ Wetland, Natural and preliminary park plan alternatives that Cultural Resources clearly identified the implications of Resource Protection i encroaching on wetland areas. The Creation and Enhancement - Task Force used this information in an Wetland, Nature and Cultural J informal dialogue with the Oregon Di- Interpretation vision of State Lands, Department of Trail Improvements and Regional Fish and Wildlife and other regulatory Connections i agencies. Adjacent land owners and Trail Creation ' other potential funding partners, such i . as Metro and Unified Sewage Agency ■ Recreational Amenities (USA), were contacted to contribute Active Sports Fields their input regarding the potential ex- Restrooms 4 pansion area. These discussions Concession Facility J helped the Task Force understand the Parking y;:s importance of the wetlands, potential i ecological impacts, and ways to im- prove and enhance the wetland areas. ' With this information, the Task Force re-directed and re-prioritized its park 1 program criteria and requirements. The 3 resolution of wetland issues provided 'm - opportunities to enhance the natural character of the park, as well as provid- ing the impetus to introduce nature and cultural interpretation. Murase Associ- ates continued their efforts to balance 5 . , ,:I . '•I i .M o~~ ~ -x O) r ~a~ d~ p ~ .j`. 1 iii ~j5' ~ , ~a I ; . 11~ O ~ p EMBY E1Miu MS \ O EMRY iGwLE LJ O ~~...6o ODOO ixAiKntYwEBiiis ~ IG /~Ef! ~ ~ ° 000 0 / I~~--r~ I r I_T,-T_r_1-T-I'~" ~ ~--~~v~~LL..~~---- A ~ WAVERIY ESiALES ~ OO ~ ~ ~ ~j ' i v~ of Iolo IQ~p~ olq,d,~,Q ~ . O ~ J~I ~_II 1..1 0 ~o C ~ . ~yr I _ ` USA PROPERTY pI . ,0,0, ; Iql~~ .I o YIAiSMOBAt vAYN 4i; ~ ~uoauaouuoo `yo^ . ..M~ µ ocgiuLCMxECIpN s. t' '-'~.~r \\\~~\..JJI~~, d eevii11 0 cnEE[rMrt coxxl r _ E OI Bx~ i .I t. / / I. a d O -cs op it vA no11 ~ ~mmlaw~ ~ ~ ` ~ , v lye, , j ~ .,x Iwro owrEn vuxi xcs J rEOearni.w II ~j~~✓'1 F~l _ c 7~ / \ oor oaocE11,, I ~l~'~ r_, t ~Y"~ 1 xOgEtxxIALNYTlNa1 Mal I. 1I n~ ~~iyJ~ P~u~i~x02 ~ ~ ~M~! ; ~~~~~IJ 1 ~ iE000UI~+tN - ~ fl'+e~y-'-~Yi• :Y~ 6PBnfE FiFl02 ~ svOxlSNElBS 11111,ESix000 ~I ~~I:~i I'~ ~ \ PM~itY GGnE~nEY IP RAlrorCglCESSgx P; ,/^P4`P iaorPUYlAnouiq, 'rOy i-~ ii v' IQ-- . I~ - I Exn JExItxP i a \ a STCiW WATEB OVUIrY Bx)Sw -J 1uRFEA9YUN p J. a-wE II I ' ~ ~iVli' ~ ~ S / PiCNiCESxELIER-tea x11 Ili i mnu. xu c.EEao ~ ~ ~-WEILNLIN Po .GZEBO oowAnB wnEBnovE / E cnx;Anu / - ~ ~~~~^i eASEauEmElm " i I ! 1 p n ~ 1 }q~l;:~ /1 O ~ ~ I T- wEiuxo Iswro iAr _ _ G iP.NLBVxBVENENi2 ~ R~Il lir M5WiE1Wx;E Bl00 / ~ •xxYWiEIxiEBPBE1Atpx II '1 61 •y' 1~~~ 11~~ u.ut.rw✓ av ^wiww iiiuBBA rArwx II I f ~ ~r ;I( !!G ~ EnEBiBx,Ein,n II 'v p ~ .ocninin.ucoxxmnax ~ C. 1~1..a, IBC / I Z ~ I'll I.y ~ I~ i ; PKIgC 6x0.TER ~ I I` K / USA PROPERTY i~ t d ~ fl. I : ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i,,. ~ III t}Ili f7r~ ~ t ~ q ,.s'~.... Y' III A I I r, 1 / 1, ~I I ~ rA ~ 1 1 y. ~ v c %nt I~ t w~.1P.un. I L PARAO+➢1RE51LE ~ d ~ ~ {J mYU.n ~ u ~ .m uiY u ~ ~ ::S N... j Mc1xo•movoscow.xsu. ~ ; C dq=, ~ 1 r ~ r ~',~....r. rnxw~YT+e.n FIBSIYlOPANBIp IM ~ P.Pwrxwp. ~ 1 ~ - aBE(In1ME PAPI(Wa 151 W .,..~.,,A...w.~" 1 PREPAREDFOR THE CITYOF TIGARD COOK PARK EXPANSION MASTER PLAN PROJECT CONSULTANTS: MURASE ASS°CIATES. INC. ' OA. NOOAN ABBOCIATEE I"`. PROPOSED FEATURES FISNMAN ENNRONMENTAI'SERNCES, INC. r gTTELSON d ASSOCIATES, INC. 1t}MPE ASSOCIATES, INC. , I © EAxoscAV[ AncxRECiuBE ~ . 0' i00 ~ ~ VaaAN BLSIGN IIAMNING -E__-~ looxw.x.~N.PS~~..~ MURASE IenLM.0a9111N dsSO<la ltf 111 i1)~111t a f I V 0 PARK FEATURES ■ Picnic Shelters Additional picnic shelters were identi- fied as a high priority park feature. ' The existing picnic shelters are often i over-scheduled from early spring through the summer. City staff and the maintenance crew have found that the - existing type of shelter being used is durable and easily maintained, and rec- ommended that additional shelters of a ( similar type be used in the expansion f area. I Two additional picnic shelters are ■ MWti-Use Shelter/ Gazebo planned in the new master plan. One A multi-use gazebo is planned for an is located on the grassy knoll near the area near the Mary Woodward Maple I - river. This location will provide a cov- Grove. This facility is intended to sup- ered picnic area that has a great view ply the park with a small stage for inti- of the river and offers easy access to mate summer concerts in the shade of I the floating dock. The second shelter the trees, or as shelter for children's is planned for the northeast comer of theater, craft activities or similar, com- the existing woodland adjacent to the munity focused events. { Thomas Dairy expansion area Here the shelter can serve families and ■ Restrooncs 1 groups exploring the wetland interpreta- Restrooms are a necessity for any pub- tion area, the meadow, or the cultural lic area, especially one as popular as interpretive sites planned for the Thom- Cook Park. Two new restrooms are as Dairy area. It will also be cone- planned. As previously mentioned, one nient to groups gathered to watch sport will be located near the new soccer events on the Gray Property expansion fields in the expansion area, making it _ area to the north. New restrooms near accessible to sports field users, specta- the sports fields will also be convenient tors, trail users, and wetland and nature for picnic shelter users. enthusiasts. The second location is near the current park road gate on 92nd ■ ricnlc AMM Avenue. This building will also incor- Cook Park currently boasts an inven- pomte a concession stand and storage i tory of 75 picnic tables, all of which for local, non-profit sports leagues. receive heavy use in the summer Operated by the league's association, months. The new plan calls for an ad- the profits of the concession stand will ditional 35 tables to meet growing de- go toward the upkeep of the sports fa- mand. cilities in the park. 6 1 i i j J ■ Tot Lot water allowing suspended sediments to A small Tot-Lot will be developed near settle out. The plantings also use the the sports field spectator area and nutrients in the nunoff to promote restrooms. This location will allow healthy plant growth. Bio-swale areas parents to conveniently monitor their become rich with an ecology of their younger children while watching the own. older kids participate in team sports _ nearby. ■ Wedand Resource Protection and Enhancement ■ Paddng The surrounding wetlands play an im- With the increase in picnic facilities portant role in the local riparian and and sports fields, as well as the rising wildlife ecology. Although much of popularity of annual Cook Park events, the wetland area has been used in the additional parking will need to be pro- past for agriculture or grazing, its sig- - vided. Currently, the park has a capac- nificance as a winter waterfowl habitat ity for 184 cars. In the height of sum- has not been overlooked. The Cook - mer picnic and sports season, this ca- Park master plan pays special attention pacity is often exceeded, leading to un- to retaining the wetland's valuable eco- - safe and illegal parking on the shoulder logical contribution. Wetlands and wa- of 92nd Avenue, in adjacent neighbor- terfowl habitat will be protected by a J hoods, and in areas that could impede minimum 25 foot buffer which will be emergencv vehicles. With a phased ad- planted with native trees and shrubs. 1 dition of the planned parking areas, the The woody buffer will provide separa- ~j park will have an increased future ca- tion between park activities and wild- pacity of 546 cars, ample enough to life use. It will also provide food and serve the increased amenities of the cover for wildlife. Where feasible, the park. buffer area will be increased to provide additional protection. Paths and ■ Bio-swales signage will border the buffer area in s To help mitigate the adverse impact of some locations, discouraging access , increased impervious surfaces in the into the wetland area and providing park, the majority of the seasonally- environmental interpretation opportuni- used parking areas will be gravel. ties. Perimeter fencing will also help Gravel construction allows partial infil- control access and allow the buffer tration of storm water. The storm wa- plantings to mature and become more ter runoff from large storms will be effective buffer and wildlife habitat. directed from the parking areas and natural wetlands toward the bio-swales. ■ Wetland Creation / Enhancement Bio-swales filter the sediment, nutrients In some areas, new wetlands will be and pollutants from the storm water, created to mitigate impacts to the naturally cleansing it before it seeps wetlands that already exist in the area. j back into the soil. Each bio-swale is Wetland experts attest to the value of planted with a diversity of native plant wetlands in flood plain areas which 1 species which slow the velocity of the are often more productive and more 7 i I 77 ~gg 1 important wildlife resources than those nections to surrounding communities. ti in upland locations. The created This supports the City's mandate to en- i wetlands will be constructed following courage alternate modes of transporta- State and Federal regulations for tion and reduce parking needs while of- wetland mitigation and will be closely fering a much needed recreational re- monitored for a minimum of five years source. Durham, Tualatin, Tigard and after construction to ensure their suc- Beaverton will be networked to provide cess. common access to shared regional rec- reational facilities. ■ Wetland, Nature and Cultural Interpretation To address the increasing interest and awareness of the cultural history of the r~rt " ,y r i F area, and to educate the community on t° the benefits of the wetland area, Nature' - and Cultural interpretation plaques will y%' 4 be located throughout the expansion `,t 4 j area. This will aid everyone's under- standing, awareness and reverence for these important ecological resources. `r ■ TIWI Improvements and y* t 2 y i Regional Connections N 1 Existing park trails will be improved to `'r-~= make them more accessible and to dis- courage deviation into sensitive natural ! woodland areas. Soft wood chip paths j will meander throughout the expansion area and lead to regional connection l paths. Regional paths will have an as- phalt surface convenient for wheel- chair;, bicycles, baby strollers and the _ infirm, enabling the whole community to use the park. ■ 'hail Creation New trails will be created within the limits of Cook Park. The trails will link new areas with the existing trail system and help control circulation in sensitive areas. The existing regional trail system will be expanded to complete projected con- 8 J i i I J I I ■ Active Sports Fields j The addition of the adjacent Gray Prop erty will provide the growing local f ? ` community with more active sports fields. "These new fields will be de- j signed and constructed for maximum i ^ high quality performance and durabili- ty. Recycled wastewater will be used to irrigate the new grass play surface. N A special buried drainage system will _ direct sediment and nutrient loaded rain and irrigation water away from the en- hanced wetland area into special bio- swales that cleanse the water prior to h . infiltration back into the soil. The drainage system minimizes the ponding of rain water on play surfaces that is usually encountered after a period of rain, thus affording more efficient use of the park resource. I ~ ~ t l Ask- City of Tigard - ~j COOK PARK PROPOSED MASTER PLAN y~ Existing Proposed Total Park Features Features Additions Total Area 52 acres 27acres 79 acres Entry Monuments and Signage 0 2 2 _ Picnic Shelters 2 2 4 r Picnic Tables 75 35 110 2F7 Wetland View Point Gazebo 0 1 1 Children's Tot-Lot 0 1 1 k - Children's Playground 1 0 1 Restrooms 2 2 4 i Concessions Facility 0 1 1 u Multi-Use Shelter 0 1 1 Drinking Fountains 4 3 7 Parking 184 287 471 with future expansion 67 538 Sports Fields Baseball / Softball 2 3* 5 Soccer 3 3* 6 Basketball 1 0 1 Volleyball 1 0 1 { f Trails Within park boundaries .8 miles* .7 miles* 1.5 miles` Interpretation Stations I Nature 0 3 3 Wetland 0 3 3 Cultural 0 3 3 Floating Dock 1 0 1 Maintenance / Storage Building 1 1 2 •esdma[e 9a April 10, 1997 ❑ RECOMWENDED PRO , PR4,SING ~J The strategic phased implementation of park features prioritized within each imple- mentation phase. Some features are pre- J park improvements will help the city requisites to providing other improvements. save money by giving logic to its im- plementation process. To illustrate, 1 the chart below provides an example of - PARK FEATURE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 t. - Picnic Tables 2 2 ti Picnic Areas 2 1 1 1 - - Multi-Use Shelter 2 Resuooms 1 Tot-Lot 2 ® Parking 1 - Bio-Swales I Wetland Resource Protection & Enhancement 1 Wetland Creation 1 i Wetland, Nature & Cultural Interpretation 2 Trail Improvements & Regional Connections 2 t Trail Creation 3 J Active Sports Fields 1 s ~ 1 =high priority 2 =medium priority 3 =low priority i i I _ + J I i I 10 _i I ^ 1 J I % LL 7777:77 7,77 11 CONCLUSION `.D Led by Murase Associates, the City of ment phase. At that time, costs and Tigard, the Cook Park Task Force and funding opportunities can be analyzed the design team integrated the evolved more closely and design refinements I passive and active recreational and out- will he made accordingly. As the pro- door needs of the community in the jected needs arise and funding for con- new Cook Park Expansion Master Plan. struction becomes available, new park F features will be constructed. c> - The Master Plan is meant to function as a general guide for the implementa- Together, the community has come to- tion of additional park features in gether to plan their environment in an planned phases. The design of indi- ecological and human way for the 1 vidual features of the plan will occur greatest benefit to all. i during the subsequent design develop- ~ r 1 T, as F. } }y ,FYk, 4 F V "~S' _7 7" 1 11 - J 1 S i r h j k t S ~I. i APPE4DIX Piellmirary Cost Estimate h 1R l J l J h. 12 - 7 7' - 7 _ 7 _ .,r 77 f F Lj ❑ Preliminary Cost Estimate Summary Park Entry and Signage $27,000.00 Interpretive Signage $18,000.00 Parking $577,000.00 t Baseball Lot $104,000.00 Lot 1 $137,000.00 Lot 2 $82,500.00 • Lot 3 . . . $148,500.00 ~ v - Lot 4 Future $105,000.00 Trail and Path Construction $86,400.00 " Wetland Viewpoint and Wetland Access Control $226,300.00 Park Landscape $200,000.00 J Structures $270,000.00 Restroom No.I........ $50,000.00 e Restroom No.2 $25,000.00 Maintenance Bldg...... $60,000.00 1 Picnic Shelters $90,000.001 J Multi-Use Gazebo $45,000.00 = z Utilities $64,000.00 ~v Sports Field Construction $525,000.00 ' c. Park Irrigation $5,500.00i~ Sub Total $1,999,200.00 t 20% Contingency $399,840.00 - PRE11M NARY 'DI'AL $2,399,040.00 i r. 13 TTT L.A i t4 i J Cook Park Open House 4/2/97 Questionnaire Results After participating in the open house, which statement most closely reflects your overall opinion about the preliminary expansion plan? i _ I think it's a great. I highly support the plan: 4 I somewhat support the plan. 5 I somewhat do not support the plan. 1 j I think it's a bad plan. I do not support the plan. 2 r No response. 3 ` w' { Written Comments: ' John Williams, 11305 SW 121st Ave., Tigard -Add traffic calming devices to existing entrance. -Look into more police patrol to curtail the undesirable gang and crime element. { -enhance the wetland buffer zone up to 50 feet. { -improve bike path along the main entrance. -supply proper drainage for enhanced field quality and to improve wetland. -Thanks for the input. f , Lee Engvall, 15461 SW 82nd Pl. Tigard Will the bike/hike trail go around the whole park? It should. i I would like to see the improvement in the park to include a climbing rock. Much like the one I located in King County, Merymur Regional Park in Washington. It is a series of intersecting upright walls. It stands 45 feet tall and 40 feet wide at the base. It would provide an opportunity to learn climbing techniques close to home. (1 have a picture.) I i. John Butruille, 9800 SW Riverwood Lane, Tigard -do we need to triple the parking - traffic numbers on Durham and in neighborhood will be excessive. -do we need these additions for soccer and ball fields; are we fully utilizing existing facilities? -park security/patrol is a problem today - plans to improve? L1 .v S ! -use existing play fields before building new. spread use to school areas - save wetlands. 1 -road access is a problem - mix of traffic and speed is a problem. -parking lots seem excessive. why concentrate use a Cook Park; spread fields throughout Tigard. -I don't believe this plan provides protection for existing wetlands. p -25 foot setback on wetlands is not enough - it should be at least 100 feet. -what alternatives considered -who owns lands (wetlands) to east? - - ' Pat Ogle 9620 SW Riverwood Lane. Tigard - c: I would like another entrance to park if possible. 25 foot setback is adequate!! Re-define land to east of park - lines or color. i I am sick of the negative "B.S." that came from this meeting, et al. These people moved here from (Cal. Mass., Mn.) and now they want it their way. I've been here 27 years and these new people don't know what compromise means. The children are more important than the raccoons, coyotes. The river supports these things. I love Cook Park!!! And the activities!!! Anonymous There is not enough buffer for the wetlands. Should be 75-100 feet. Too much parking. Too much paving. Keep the trees and shrubs that are there now!!! } Increase wetland buffers. i Add bike lanes. Decrease parking - if you decrease the parking some - then you can move the fields down into the parking areas. Move everything down (diagram). i I do not think there have been any "compromises" made - the wetlands have been left wetlands only because you had to. Anonymous - What about var inv buffer zones according to the land profile? -i.e., minimum 25 feet up to 75 feet or 100 feet if possible. I i. i 1) speed humps - as deterrent in selected areas of roadway 2) use of fencing to separate different usage areas 1 - Helen Mason, 9790 SW Riverwood Lane, Tigard I Concerns: traffic to area parking lot area asphalt and drainage environmental concerns r Would like setbacks (buffers) as wide as possible (50-100 feet) i Don Manghell, 16415 SW 93rd, Tigard I understand difficulty in another entrance, however, I think it would be inviting trouble to not change the traffic flow, e.g., use speed bumps; enforce parking (no parking) on 92nd at bottom and top of hill. Also, I think we should use Eugene criteria for a buffer to the wetland of 100 feet to ensure the birds, etc. are safe. f I commend the time and mix of viewpoints addressed in the plan. It is a good option given the multiple demands for space in the metro area. i Yvonne Arthur, 15455 SW Alderbrook Dr Please be concerned about drainage from the parking. Please - no speed bumps. i Dan Mitchell, 16585 SW 92nd, Tigard The wetland buffer on the west side has been so poorly done that I have great concern over the buffer on the proposed new wetlands. Add a fence to keep people, soccer balls, and dogs out of wetlands and or increase buffer zone. 1) improve pedestrian access up the hill along 92nd 2) add gate at top of hill and close it at night Charles Gorder, 15630 SW Baker Lane, Tigard Keep the wetland setback at 25 feet. Put the sidewalks along 92nd. Put a gate at the north end of park where 92nd enters the park. Anonymous -put in a bike path; get commitment from USA to extend bike path -increase buffer along wetlands to north and east It would be nice if the city and mayor appeared genuine in asking for our advice and using it. Sue Marshall 15941 SW Inverurie Road, Lake Oswego Protection of existing wetlands and buffer areas for those wetlands. 1 Fifty foot buffers to comply with Metro 2040 model ordinance. Limit Paved parking and not fill of wetlands. Love the inter-connecting trails with Durham and Tualatin and potential for a larger greenspace - good for wildlife and our communities. Good job. This will be a great park that will accommodate organized sports and nature lovers and students. Marv Driscoll 16235 SW Conner Creek Drive, Tigard r 1. These areas are in a floodplain; they flooded in Feb 1996 and again in December 1996. Since an acknowledged 20 year wet cycle has started, these areas will probably flood many times again, damaging structures. 2. With more development in all areas, run-off will be worse. 3. The sports clubs say there are no plans for lights now, but once the plan goes ahead how are they held to current promises. 1. Get Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands verification of wetland delineation. 2. If plan goes ahead, increase buffer to 50 feet. Narrow 25 foot buffers around wetlands do not comply with Metro model ordinance and Tigard's proposed "Safe Harbor" wetland protection ordinance. - If plan goes ahead, need fence to keep people and pets out of wetlands. - Future expansion of parking lot on SE corner of Gray property is encroaching on wetlands. * Many of us feel that this plan is being pushed on us against our wishes. Since the people making these decision are in elected positions, they need to be listening to the voters, not just to groups that have an agenda. 1 Mark Lennartz, no address listed Having seen other wildlife disruptions in Cook Park, We would like to see the wetland setback anywhere from 75 to 100 feet. This would mitigate the intrusions by proposed land use. Would also suggest another look at parking situations near wetlands. Must there be so many. Would like to see a gate placed at park entrance to cut down on late night activities (illegal) at park. LIrpo/dr/cook/res _ - - _ - .14 E i P. i t i f TUALA'..__N RIVERKEEPERS 16295 S.V. 85th Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224-5569 RECEIVED PLANNING 503-624-0855 t riverk/a? teleportcom r iq 2 2 1997 CITY OF TIM May 21, 1997 Mr. Jim Hendrix City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I 1. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Hendrix, The Tualatin Riverkeepers offer the following comments for your consideration in development of the Cook Park Master Plan. We enthusiastically support the reduction in the number of sports fields from what was originally envisioned, the inclusion of trails linking Durham and Tualatin Parks to Cook Park and the enhancement of existing wetlands: Lingering concerns include an inadequate buffer zone for wetlands. We recommend a 50 foot buffer zone to comply with Metro's proposed model ordinance and to protect a sensitive wildlife habitat. f The Riverkeepers commend the City of Tigard for your commitment not to fill wetlands and for your commitment to citizen involvement in this planning process. Sincerely, f Sue Marshall. `I Tualatin Riverkeepers cc Friends of Cook Park l LL 1 I 1 i Cook Park Task Force c/o 1). Roberts j 13125 S. V. Mall Blvd. < 'rigard, OR 97223 1 i t April 11th, 1997 j ~ - Dear Mr. Roberts, Please foregive the lateness of this letter, I am a little behind in my correspondence. I attended the open house meeting oil April 2nd, 1997 and wish to give you my i comments of the meeting and Cook Park master plan. First of all it was a pure pleasure to finally meet and discuss the ideas and thoughts of the designers and most everyone connected to the project. The huge task of updating j and modernizing the park just in scope must have been daunting. Not to mention the fact of working with all the different goverment agencies that must be involved boggles the mind. Be it pure luck or a stroke of brillance the person who put together the task force and designers could not have found anyone more professional and F sensitive to the environment and neighborhoods. With all the rumors and misinformation that has surrounded this project, I for one was glad for this opportunity to see the master plan. I only wish that more of my neighbors would have taken part. Hopefully, another open house can be schedule on i a weekend date. As tier the master plan, I simply love what the Task Force has come tip with. I think the designers were sensitive to the environment (i.e. wet lands) and the surrounding i . neighborhood. 'I'iuv idea of more trails, playgrounds and expanded athletic fields was handled with the utmost thought and care. I think its a great plan. I am glad to see that a music theater and concerts were not going to he included in i this development. 1 was also delighted to see that the environmental buffer that encumpases our neighborhood would not be moved. I am also thankful to see an end I of all the rumors and misinformation about this developennent finally put to rest. i As fur the detactors and voices of concern that I heard from the meeting. They mostly centered around blur points. I I i E i 1 One, being -e environment issue. Which, I thought as ahcady mention, was ! handled with great care ami st•nsitivil% i timu'!ht aiot of those voices were bcin;; overly "picky" and were nut. taking in the overall picture of how the park will look like and how it functions in the big picture. ']'lie question I would most like to ask the detactors is "if not this plan, then what" Leave it as it is?" I think not, already you can see polution creeping in, its only. it natter of time before it becomes some kind of f) illegal waste dump. Its needs to be updated and most importantly managed. I q Second, security issues were raised including traffic, parking and a gate. The idea of } more (rails leadin.g into and away from the park does have some concerns. However, 1 again leaving it alone and doing nothing is not the answer. We would only see more ! of what were already have: crime. As for traffic, we will have to look into ways of ! slowing people down on 92nd Avenue and parking in the Waverly Estates neighborhood. But again, those problems already exist and would be handled even if the park was not be develop. As Fora gate, I think the Fire and Police Departments would have the best opinions to where it should he positioned. A; "Third, lights in and around the athletic Ileitis for night gaines and or uses. i for one S was glad to see that game lights were out part of the plan. "Though, like some of lily ! neighbors would have like to see some assurances that, the athletic clubs and or city would never allow lights on those Fields but life doesn't give yon !guarentees. Fourth, the development of the park will most likely see the end of the major events such as the Balloon Festival and Fourth of July fireworiis. With all the money being ~ invested in ball fields, drainage systems, lire hazr.ards as well as the impact on the @k " environment that the designers tried so hard to protect. I don't think these events, as { f much as I like them, will or should evisl much longer. flowever, it is a trade off for a i year round pleasure that this park will bring. Rly only complaint about the meeting and plan was that I TSA (United Sewage) did . not speak about their plans and development of their property. As a Waverly Estate property owner it would have been uice to hear from them about their plans for the future. it might have help ease some of the security and enviromental issues with some of my neighbors. I would have also like to here more about costs and budgets for the park. As well as the management and care of the wet lands ( one quick question, when did we stop calling it a swanin and it became a wet Iantl?), 'ring erect orti- a-`gnnn,nnt n,11%; covered but the cost of maintaining and budget For the park %%as never fully detailed. Are user fees in the future to offset some of the higher nrainfance fur an expanded park? } 4 • E In closing (linallyl+.), I would like to sa% :main, i like the plan. I think everyone j inv4dved did wonderful wowk and should he cunt;r:dulated on a jnb well done. You 93 have my full support and I will pass alum! to as ntstn)' neighbnrs that will listen that t i this is a great plan. Sincereh', t f IA'ljdlj~-7 Id- Michael A. Williams 9037 SA V. Wavcrly i)r. Tigard, OR 97224 i03-620-7847 I I-' r I 1 1 _ ter... R3.ldi97 11 :00 =303 dal 8725 TRU.U hiiRRiS Q002/002 1 lei City ofTigard May 611997 13123 S.W., Hall blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard,Oregon 972M I' Dear City of Ttgard Council Members ff I am writing this tat= to voice my concerns about the Cook park Public meetias °w 10Pr I the reomtly held at Tigud High School 6t April l &st he--= would ould liko w inlay that I am i . e not against spate Selds being developcd on the Gray property if it is done responsibly. My caicems as as follows: ' - _ I. The project in Its current design compromises one of the few remaining wild lira jewels in j the City of Tigard. I am not against the piaeemmt of rwids in this area but I am atimately opposed to the Intended 25 foot setback from the wetland daliaaation line. It is guesly 1nadoqu2W This distance will destroy the current habitat and should be Increased to between 75 and 100 feat. Please f do not be swayed by this eaeroaehement as 25 feet Is just not enough Proteetioa for the birds currently resting in this area. 2. The parking lot proposed Is significantly oversized for the proposed cases. The additioe of three soccer fields at ffieeen players and two coaches per team per field would yleid a total requirement of 102 spaces. The proposed &a hundred spaces Is signiLraatly oversized, 3. The proposal does not adequately deal with the pedestrian movement up and down the bill. The proposal shows no sidewalk or street improvement along the 92 ad ave right of way to reduce the serious hazard to pedestrians and eycGsts trying to sutra the park. The proposal should have to loot after curbing and sides alks just as all new developments are required to do. Someone is going to be seriously hurt in its current and proposed state. ~ I I hope you will give serious otsideration to the above concerns before making your deli an k -berad on the psvyosai soon to be before you. You will undoubtedly hear of how this proposal is such a food _ compromise between sports needs and the eavironment but please see thtoas,}t this because once this habitat is Zwe it is tone for Zood. Thankyou for your concern. Yoats truly Rob Forrest 16672 99 th Place T m d,Or. 9=4 I S i i may :t 1. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD Rob Forrest 16672 SW 39th Place OREGON Tigard, OR 97224 Dear Mfr. Forrest: This responds to the concerns about the Cook Park expansion plan expressed in your recent letter to City Council. j It is a coal of the Cook Park Task Fame to preserve the sensitive wetland and habitat areas j $ of the former Gray and Thomas Dairy properties. Indicative of this concern is that the original expansion plan was scaled down from six to three sports fields in order to avoid the I potential for wetland encroachaunc The 25-foot buffer discussed at the April meeting is i intended as a minimum setback distance from wetlands areas. The tack force's view is that 1 the buffer width will vary depending on the layout of the sports fields proposed for the expansion area, but at no point will be less than 25 fees. Since the sports fields have not I been configured as yet, the proposed buffers are not shown on the master plan map. a However, because the boundaries of the wetlands are irregular in shape, and the task force's a goal is to expand the buffer where feasible, there should be many areas where the buffer is wider than the 25-foot standard. j Additionally, the master plan calls for the enhancement of the buffer with native planting. t At present, except for pasture gasses, the area adjacent to the wetlands is barren of vegetation. The proposed minimum 25-foot buffer with re-vegetation will provide equal or greater protection than a wider buffer devoid of vegetation. As a further protection measure, the proposed expansion plan calls for the installation of a six-foot high fence along the edge of the buffer area in phase with the development of the sports fields. The new parking lot is designed to serve the parking needs for major events, such as the balloon festival and 4th of July Celebration. It is not sized solely to meet the needs of f t soccer field users. Even with the addition of the new spaces, the parking demands generated by the biggest events will continue to exceed the supply of spaces. Although, as now, overspill parking suii -viii be aceded during these events, the new area will lessen the need for off-site parking and assist in keeping park-miated parking off nearby neighborhood streets. Although not shown on the site map, the master plan report will include recommendations for upgrading 92nd Avenue. The recommended improvements include widening 92nd to three lanes and installing curbs and sidewalks. These improvements are needed to provide safer access to the park. The funding for these improvements is proposed to come from street-:elated funding accounts and not from park accounts. Because of the difference in funding sources, the proposed improvements are not shown on the parks master plan map. 13125 SW Hcll Blvd., Tigcrd, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 _J I However, it is recognized that the park and road improvement projects will need to be coordinated The need for improvements to 92nd Avenue became particularly apparent to the Cook Park Task Force after its original idea of providing an additional access road. consisting of the southerly extension of SW 85th avenue into Cook Park and connecting over to 92nd Avenue, was abandoned because of neighborhood impact and environmental reasons. Please note that your letter and this response will be submitted to Council for consideration when the park master plan comes before Council on June 10, 1997. Sincerely, f- _ i Jim Hendryx Community Development Director vir*ddCook-fo i r i ,P. , _ I J 1 1 .1011 '/til :ti,1N (L j 18 I10 lti~enIt.lo"uIJ 'It1:11.1.E l.:mc Tigard. UK 97121 . i e - , /toy - ! 4 _ ! 5O Ice> - Jury 0 rss~ ~ -1 j... JLN-09-1997 2058 PAUL HLWT 620 2969 P.02 i n PLEASE HELP SAVE COOK PARK ~ I Tuesday, June 10 7:30 p.m. j Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. (next to Library) The mayor of Tigard is planning to expand Cook Park into natural wetlands and turn it Into a large regional sports facility. ne mayors brother owns one of the Spores Ciubs involved in this plan. Many people have expressed strong opposition to this plan. The mayor, and the Tigard City Council, have only made very minor concessions to these concerns. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO GET THEM TO IMPROVE THIS PLAN. 1 PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING TO EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDED CHANGES. BRING YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS and/or NEIGHBORS. - THE PLANNED CHANGES WILL HAVE LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THIS AREA. c~ I CONCERNS: . . ! 1. CRIME: Increased crime, gang activity, drug activity, J vandalism, graffiti. 2. POLL'U'TION: Traffic, noise, litter. 3. PARKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS for overflow traffic. 4. FLOODING: These areas are in a flood plain and have flooded the last two winters. The large paved parking lots will prevent rain absorption into the ground and create more run-off to the Tualatin diver, and add to flooding problems. S. EXPENSE: Our tax dollars will be spent. The sports clubs will only be paying a portion of this. We need an agreement that the dubs will pay to maintain this area, and repair flood damage. 6. ENVIRONMENT: This is a high quality wetland. The plan will significantly reduce areas available for local and migrating wildlife. i i i 3 SLN-09-1997 20:59 PAUL HUNT 620 2969 P.03 !j I Dear Neighbor, Thank you so much for distributing these flyers to your neighbors, hopefully they are as concerned as we are and are willing to make their views known. Plase write your phone number at the bottom of the flyer in j the event there are questions your neighbors may have. Granted we do not have all the answers. Hopefully they will attend the city council meeting but dialogue about what is happening in our wonderful park Is vital to the cause of preservation of our wetlands and surrounding beauty. Hope to see a packed city council meeting, see you there! i ~ b0'd.'ki101 3 Please Help Save Cook Park!! Wednesday evening (June 4) there was a south CIT meeting held at Tigard High School. Approximately 10 people from our neighborhood attended and re- ceived a copy of the Master Plan for Cook Park. The consensus of those neighbors attending was that there are some things in the Master Plan that we would like changed. We will be bringing up the fol- lowing concerns to the City Council on Tuesday 4. evening June 10 at 7PM. We ask you to attend and back up our recommendations at that time.- Please go by City Hall and pick up a copy of the Master Plan and see if there are changes you would like to have. If so please write a letter or present them at the City Council meeting on Tuesday evening. We want: i F E 1. the trail improvements, cultural interpe- 1 tation,and regional connections be built { in phase one of new construction. i 1 2. better wetlands protection with 100 ft. buffer instead of 25 ft as stated in Master Plan. 3. only 100 new parking spaces instead J. UI l e x.11 Uposeof ..+.c +4. 4. all parking areas to be covered with gravel. S. the City Council to address the respon- sibility of grounds, facilities and adjacent properties to park should flooding occur due to new construction. D0 d 6962 OZ9 I" Y1Hd 6S:0?- 2.661-60-Nnr- " t~ J . 1 TUALATIN RIVERKEEPERS t± 16295 S.W. 85th Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224-5569 Wt b [C19 r .503-624-0855 triverknteleport.corn June 10, 1997 Tigard City Council Cook Park Master Plan Public Hearing Testimony from Tualatin Riverkeepers i Presented by Sue Marshall Mayor Nicoli, Members of the City Council, my name is Sue Marshall. 1 am a board member of the Tualatin Riverkeepers and I am hereto present testimony on behalf of the Tualatin Riverkeepers. The Riverkeepers are a citizen based organization working to protect and restore ( the Tualatin River system. We have over 425 members including 50 Tigard residents. y As the most widely used public access point to the Tualatin River, Cook Park is j 1 very important to us. It is the put in site of this year's Tualatin River Discovery Day. Providing experiential opportunities; we believe is often the catalyst for a f i lifelong commitment to stewardship of the river. ' We love Cook Park and have been, for the most part, pleased with the outcome r, of the planning process. In particular, we support the commitment not to fill existing wetlands, the interconnecting trails, and interpretive stations. Conserving and enhancing this wetland resource provides recreational opportunities foi iiie community, educational opportunities for nearby schools, and preserves an important wetland habitat. 1 There remain a few significant areas of concern that we hope can be resolved: 50 foot buffer zones rather than the proposed 25 foot buffer zones would { afford more protection, habitat, and nutrient storage for wildlife. Tigard's proposed safe harbor approach calls for 75' buffers for wetlands associated with the Tualatin River. These wetlands are linked to the Tualatin by hydrology and habitat. Paving should be kept to a minimum. The entire site is within the flood plane. As the flood plane, the natural spongy fringe of the river, is covered with impervious surface its capacity for flood storage is reduced and so is its capacity to filter surface water. The plan should encourage park-and-walk and bike riding to enter the park. S f L~ - would I t Expansion.of 92nd Avenue to three lanes with curbs and sidewalks is. also a concern. The potential to negatively impact existing wetlands both sides of the road is high. The proposed Cook Park Master Plan is a good attempt at addressing the varied uses of this community park. We believe the constituency for Cook Park supports the value of conserving wildlife habitat, the opportunity for passive recreation in a natural setting as well as opportunities for kids to play sports without displacing wildlife. The Tualatin Riverkeepers support amending the proposed Cook park master Plan to allow 50 foot wetland buffer zones and reduction in the number of parking k spaces. + f r, Thank you for your consideratiori. attachments; Birds of the Lower Tualatin River r . . Tualatin River Discovery Day. Flyer r- Creepers (Family cenhiidae) ❑ Yellow-Lumped Warbler W the Stafford Road Bridge on Shadow Wood ❑ Brown Creeper Y ❑ Common Yellowthroat Su Drive. Please respect private property. ❑ Chipping Sparrow Su Birds of Nuthatches (Familysinidae) Savannah Sparrow Su This List is Growing ❑ Red-breasted Nuthatch C Lincoln's Sparrow Sp, F This list was compiled from the the Lower ❑ White-breasted Nuthatch Y ❑ Swamp Sparrow W observations of Tom Love, Dan & Canch ❑ Song Sparrow Su Mitchell, Paul Adamus, Steve Engel, Wrens (Family Tmglodytidae) ❑ Fox Sparrow W Carole Hallet, Rob Forrest and Brian • ❑ Bewick's Wren Y ❑ Golden-crowned Sparrow W Wegener. Birds of Oregon, 1994, Jeff Tualatin O Winter Wren Y O White-Crowned Sparrow Y Gilligan et.al. editors was used as a • O House Wren Su ❑ Black-headed Grosbeak Su reference. Aver ❑ Marsh Wren Y ❑ Dark-eyed Junco Y ❑ Spotted Towhee Y As habitats are restored and public access Trashes (Family Muuicapidae) ❑ Red-winged Blackbird Y is granted at Brown's Ferry Park, Thomas A checklist of ❑ American Robin Y ❑ Brewer's Blackbird Y Dairy, The Tualatin River National , ❑ Varied Thrush W ❑ Brown-hided Cowbird Su Wildlife Refuge and METRO Greenspaces birds found Cook Park, ❑ Hermit Thrush F, Sp ❑ Bullock's Oriole Su along the river, we expect this list to be ❑ Swainson's Thrush Su ❑ Western Tanager Su growing. In particular we expect to see Durham Park, ❑ Ruby-crowned Kinglet W shorebirds that are commonly found at Thomas Dairy, ❑ Golden-crowned Kinglet Y Weavers (Family Pa-ridae) Jackson Bottom and Femhill Wetlands: Tualatin Park, ❑ House Sparrow Y Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary, Apache Bluff Wetlands, PipitS (Family Motacillidae) Western, and Least Sandpipers, Dunlin, ❑ American Pipit F, Sp Finches (Family Fringillidae) and Long-billed Dowitchers. If you see Tualatin Country Club, ❑ House Finch Y any of these birds in this area or have any and surrounding areas. Waxwings (Family Prilogonatidae) ❑ Cassin's Finch W other additions to this list, please contact ❑ Cedar Waxwing Su ❑ Purple Finch Y the Tualatin Riverkeepers at (503)624-0855 ❑ American Goldfinch Y or by e-mail at triverk®teleport.com. Starlings (Family Stumidae) ❑ Pine Siskin W ❑ European Starling Y F3 Evening Grosbeak Sp TUALATIN RIVERKEEPERS ( The Tualatin Riverkeepers are a citizen Vireos (Family Vireonidae) Birding by float - River Access based organization working to restore and ❑ Solitary Vireo Su Some of the best viewing of birds on the protect Oregon's Tualatin River system. ❑ Hutton's Vireo Y Tualatin is available by canoe or kayak. The Tualatin Riverkeepers promotes ❑ Warbling Vireo Su The Tualatin Riverkeepers have guided watershed stewardship through public ❑ Red-eyed Vireo Su canoe trips from March through October. education, public access, citizen We are building a fleet of canoes so you involvement and advocacy. Warblers, Sparrows & Relatives can join us even if you don't have a boat (Family Emberizidae) of your own. Developed public access The Tualatin Riverkeepers are looking for ❑ Orange-crowned Warbler Su sites are available at Cook Park, Tualatin people who are interested in the Tualatin ❑ Yellow Warbler Su Park and Brown's Ferry Park. Additional River. If you would like to join us or ❑ Black-throated Gray Warbler Su informal access points in this area are learn more about the Tualatin River and 77te Tualatin Riverkeepers ❑ Townsend's Warbler Sp, F under the Shamberg Bridge on Elsner the Tualatin Riverkeepers, please give us a March 1997 ❑ Hermit Warbler Su Road (Sherwood), under the 99W bridge call at (503)624-0855 or check out our ❑ Mac Gillivray's Warbler Su on Hazelbrook Road (Tualatin) and near website at www.teleport.com/-triverk ❑ Wilson's Warbler Su l~ 1 1 When Most Likely to be Seen Plovers (Family Charaddidne) Swifts (Family Apodidae) C1 Sm Su=Summer, F=Fall, W=Winter, ❑ Killdeer Y ❑ Vaux's Swift Su a w o c Sp=Spring, Y=Year-Round y. y $ 3 o Sandpipers (Family Scolopacidae) flummingbirds (family7r chilidae) & e 3 q _0 - ¢ 'gibes (Family Podieipedidae) ❑ Spotted Sandpiper Rufous Hummingbird Sp, Su Pie-billed Grebe Y ❑ Common Snipe W ❑ Anna's Hummingbird Y na C F o .@ r co $ S $ °o v Cffroffant8 (Family Phalaermoncidae) Gulls (Family L.ridae) Kingfishers (Family Alcedinidae) 3 R z o~ w h ¢ ❑ Double-Crested Cormorant W ❑ Mew Gull W ❑ Belted-Kingfisher Y v' 8 El El 1:1 El El El El ❑ California Gull Sp, F Herons (Fartdly Ardcidae) ❑ Ring-billed Gull W Woodpeckers (Family Picidae) ❑ Great Blue Heron Y ❑ Glaucous-winged Gull W ❑ Pileated Woodpecker Y ❑ Great Egret F ❑ Downy Woodpecker Y ❑ Green Heron Su Vultures (Family Carthidae) ❑ Red-breasted Sapsucker Y ❑ Turkey Vulture Su ❑ Northern Flicker Y m 3 Cranes (Family Gruidae) ❑ Sandhill Crane (overhead) F,Sp Hawks & Eagles (Family Accipiuidae) Flycatchers (Family Tyrannidac) ❑ Bald Eagle W ❑ Olive-sidod Flycatcher Su o Swans, Ducks, and Geese (Family Anatidae) El Northern Hamer Y ❑ Western Wood Pewee Su c I ❑ Tundra Swan W ❑ Cooper's Hawk Y ❑ Willow Flycatcher Su p ❑ Canada Goose Y ❑ Sharp-shinned Hawk Y ❑ Hammond's Flycatcher Su ° ❑ Common Merganser . W ❑ Red-tailed Hawk . Y ❑ Pacific Slope Flycatcher Su ~ v 3 c a = ❑ Hooded Merganser W ❑ Osprey Su ❑ Ring-nuked Duck . . . . . W Larks (Family Alaudidae) o o 0 0O E m g U U o C3 Lesser Scaup W Falcons (Family Falconidae) C1 Homed Lark Y o N ❑ Northern Shoveler W ❑ American Kestrel Y .5 F ❑ Common Goldeneye W Swallows (Family Hirundinidae) 3 g ❑ Bufflehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W Quail & Phea&Lnts (Family Pasianidae) El Violet-Green Swallow Sp, Su j p ¢ m a' t7 I ao ❑ Northern Pintail W ❑ California Quail Y ❑ Bam Swallow Su c s°~ 3•'- ' American Wigeon W ❑ Ring-necked Pheasant ) Cliff Swallow Su `aw ` .9 .J Eurasian Wigeon W Northern Rough-winged Swallow Su 4 - ❑ Green-winged Teal W Pigeons & Doves (Family Columbidae) ❑ Tree Swallow Su x " F ❑ Blue-winged Teal Sp, F ❑ Mourning Dove Y > s ❑ Cinnamon Teal Su ❑ Band-tailed Pigeon Su Crows & Jays (Family Corvidae) Y 3 3 ❑ Gadwall W ❑ Rock Dove Y ❑ American Crow Y z o ❑ Wood Duck Y ❑ Scrub Jay Y C E a a ❑ Mallard Y Owls (Families Tytonidae & Strigidae) ❑ Steller's Jay Y e e a o ❑ Bam Owl Y F G = °o Rails and Coots (Family Rallidae) ❑ Northern Saw-whet Owl Y Chickadees (Family Paridae) c X E E; ❑ Virginia Rail Su ❑ Great Homed Owl Y ❑ Black-capped Chickadee Y u O = ❑ Sora Su ❑ Chestnut-backed Chickadee Y o g u n u= p x ❑ American Coot Y Nightjars (Family Caprimulgidae) 11 E T E m t ❑ Common Nighthawk (Occurred Bushtits (Family Aegithalidae) 3❑ Z C U a tit n F historically, locally eairpared) ❑ Bushtit Y I 3 ~I THE 8TH ANNUAL A V_- I A 3 IM, 1 VALHI 1N K7VCK VIjo %.VV GI♦11 dr►I Eiz oy paddling on a seldom seen portion of the Tualatin River! DATE: Saturday, June 28th Put-in from 9:00 am to 12 Noon at Cook Park (Tigard) RESERVATIONS: Call 624-0855 and snake a reservation for a put-in tune. The trip starts in a rural setting and ends in shaded forest. We'll have a good chance to see wildlife and birds such as Kingfishers, herons, hawks and possibly signs of beaver! EQUIPMENT: You'll need to bring your canoe or kayak, paddles, personal flotation device for each person (mandatory), drinking water " (no alcohol), and a light snack. If you don't have a canoe or kayak, you may call 624-0855 for a list of area rental outlets. Shuttle from parking to put-in (Tigard High to Cook Park) and from tike-out (Stafford Road area in West Linn) provided. Cost is $5 per canoe for non-members. _ ENVIRONMENTAL After your trip on the river, you can visit our FAIR. tent for shade, refreshments, and have lunch. Food catered by Cocina del Sol, 111` l ~,i f proceeds to benefit Tualatin Riverkeepers Information booths will be presented by !'li'~I ( 111 the Tualatin Riverkeepers and other groups Ill! I ~Ii1 active in the Tualatin River watershed. ~~3~ 161`Ild 4`,IJ~(ry I ;y~;~~;~l!;16' i!~lllLlmniriliVU+o° I t i I - - ~'7hf'IJI!Pd!!Ip"II I P iltl l ,,~r"IUi!It!Id lf f~ „ r •;Ir DISCOVERY DAY 1997 211111 Sponsored by is supported by: I Tualatin Riverkeepersl REI, Inc. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream Call to reserve or volunteer I 62&-0855 P.t Cocina del Sol Restaurant j I Allied Inrertrade triverk c telc ort.eont 114 a'Gl 0 Kendal Morris/US Fish 6 Wildlife Service c r AGENDA ITEM # _ J FOR AGENDA OF 6/10/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment ZOA 97-001 Water Resources Overlay District PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK i f ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL jl Should the City Council approve amendments to the Community Development Code pertaining to the f 1 protection of riparian and wetland resource areas. j F STAFF RECOMMENDATION - j Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Community Development Code. i j I INFORMATION SUMMARY Wetland and stream corridor protection is the city's last remaining work program item for periodic review. In I tt _ pril 1997, Council reviewed a draft "safe harbor" wetland/stream protection ordinance and directed staff to proceed with public review and adoption. As discussed in previous work sessions, safe harbor is a recently- established "short cut" or "cook book" approach to meeting state Goal 5 requirements that simply protects significant streams and wetlands and establishes standard setbacks. The proposed city ordinance creates code, language based on this new state option. It establishes a reasonable balance between resource protection and development. t ~r Flexibility provisions in the ordinance include: (1) a reduction in the standard setback by up to 50% for restoring or enhancing a degraded buffer, (2) a hardship variance where a parcel is rendered not buildable by the application of the new regulations, (3) adjustments to the underlying zoning regulations, such as setback, height, or lot area and (4) a comprehensive plan amendment process for projects that can show, through an analysis of benefits and liabilities, that it is more important to allow development than to protect a water resource. i Y . Attached is a staff report including Fm dings as well as the ordinance amendini; the DeveloPmerit Code. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. A copy of the commission minutes is attached. In addition to a large number of agencies and organizations, ranging from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce to the Tualatin Riverkeepers, all 560 owners of property potentially affected by the regulations have been notified of the ordinance and hearing schedule. r 1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify particular provisions of the ordinance or exempt particular geographical areas. FISCAL NOTES The safe harbor ordinance is designed to reduce the cost and time for local governments to complete Goal 5. 06,ywldcbumsn I.- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMNIU1,47Y DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION (18.85.00) TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and P WHEREAS, the Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires local jurisdictions to develop programs to protect riparian and wetland resources; and i WHEREAS, the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23) include t criteria that define a course of action for meeting the requirements of Goal 5; and t WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for adding the above Code l Section at a public hearing on May 19, 1997; and 3 1 WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code section as shown in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 10, 1997, to consider the proposed amendments. 's q NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: g SECTION 1: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1; 3.2.4; 3.4.1.a; 3.4.2a; and 3.4.2d; and Community f Development Code Section 18.30. j j The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement . Team structure and public hearings as listed below. The City's Citizen Involvement ` Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings, which follows Community Development Code Procedure. ORDINANCE No. 97-- Page 1 i c FF 1 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide j Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources is met because the provisions of the overlay district are consistent with the "safe harbor" guidelines for riparian corridors and significant wetlands set forth in the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The proposed measures implement the provisions of the Goal 5 "safe harbor" program for resolving conflicts between development and protection of these resources. This program calls for the protection of fish bearing streams and significant wetlands and the establishment of mandatory setbacks. j The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies I.i.l.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent administrative rule 1 changes. r ,I a 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. z ~ 3. Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because this policy calls for development control of 1 j wetlands and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent administrative rules to protect these resources. t 4. Policy 3.2.4 is satisfied because the overlay prohibits development within areas designated as significant wetlands and establishes 50 to 75 feet setbacks from the edges of designated wetland areas. 1 5. Policy 3.4. La is satisfied because the proposal designates significant wetlands according to the criteria and procedures for the identification of significant wetlands established in the "Final Approved Administrative Rules for Identifying Significant Wetlands" adopted by the Division of State Lands. 6. Policy 3.4.2.a, which calls for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat along f stream corridors, is satisfied because the proposal establishes mandatory setbacks from the top of banks and the edges of wetlands associated with stream corridors y and by requiring that the areas within these setbacks remain undisturbed or enhanced with native vegetation. ~J y I ORDINANCE No. 97-- Page 2 1 L.~ l 7. Policy 3.4.2.d is satisfied because the proposal addresses Goal 5 rule requirements pertaining to the preservation of wetlands, includes a determination of which are ecologically and scientifically significant, and includes citizen participation. f ~ 8. Community Development Code Section 18.30, which establishes procedures for legislative code changes, is satisfied according to the above findings. i a.u.a, 30 uuyo after . its passage u tuc Council , JIb11aiUIC by . the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1997• Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder j APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1997. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date 4.' i:kitywid6ordi=c.sr i r - ORD I 1NANCE No. 97-_ • Page 3 f { _ I I , Discussion followed regarding how the tree ordinance applies to private property and where the pole of the flag lot would be located if one of the lots created would be partitioned again. Consensus of the Commissioners present was to allow Terry Smith to submit the additional Intormation, for staff to review that information and submit the information with staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission on June Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded to allow the appealent seven days to submit the additional information to staff, to allow staff seven days to review that information and to bring the information back to the Planning Commission on June 2nd to make its decision. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. i } 1 , ! 5.2 APPEAL OF TRI-COUNTY CENTER DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION i APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT. On March 25, } 1997, the Director declined to accept a Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, and Sensitive Lands applications. The Director did not " accept these applications because a required neighborhood meeting concerning I these requests had not taken place. LOCATION: 11985 to 12235 SW 72nd 1 ~ Avenue; WCTM 2S101BA, Tax Lots 00100, 00101, 00300, 00400, 00401 and 00402. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code i Chapter 18.32. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.2. ZONE: General Commercial f (C-G); with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The C-G zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, special and administrative services, financial, insurance and real-estate services, business support services, and eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. j The PD Overlay provides a means for creating planned environments through I the application of flexible standards. f Planning Manger Richard Bewersdorffi announced that the applicant requested the Planning Commission set this item over to the June 16"' Planning Commission Hearing. i Commissioner Neff moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded to set agenda item 5.2 over to the June 16, 1997, Planning Commission hearing. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0001 WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - May 19, 1997 - Pace 3 l i i i A request to amend the Tigard Community Development Code to add a new section to protect significant wetlands and riparian corridors, which meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. This new section will be titled the "Water Resources Overlay uistncr. i STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented an overview of the ordinance being proposed to address Statewide Planning Goal 5. He introduced the Consultant Gregory Vnterowd and Mark Roberts of Winterowd Planning Services who applied the "safe harbor" provisions in preparing the ordinance. . Gregory Wnterowd, 310 SW Fourth Ave. Suite 1000, Portland, OR 97204, explained why they chose to use "safe harbor" and what "safe harbor" mean to the city. i Mario Roberts, 310 SW Fourth Ave. Suite 1000, Portland, OR 97204, explained j what types of comments had been received and how they had responded to those i comments. Discussion followed with Commissioners regarding the difference between the existing and the proposed ordinance and the major changes that were being t. proposed. Discussion continued regarding indirect taking of property, impacts to f private property owners versus industrial property owners, exemption of existing ; subdivision from the buffering requirement, and density transfers. Discussion followed between staff and the Commissioners on how handle request for changes to the proposed ordinance prior to the City Council hearing. 1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Scholar seconded to forward a recommendation of approval for Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 97-0001 to i City Council. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. I j~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEEr1NG MINUTES - May 19, 1997 - Page 4 1 ~ i t s 18.85.00 FIFTH DRAFT WATER RESOURCES MR) OVERLAY DISTRICT 18.85.010 Purpose 1 1 18.85.020 Definitions 2 18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping 3 Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers 4 18.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential Subdivision Lots 5 18.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 5 _ Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List 6 S 1 18.85.060 Application Requirements 7 18.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions 9 18.85.080 Development Standards 10 18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions 13 t 18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards 14 18.85.110 Density Transfer 14 18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards 15 18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option 15 y 18.85.090 f'urpoz-3 t i A. General. The Water Resources MR) overlay district implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian j corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and § objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. B. Safe Harbor. The WR overlay district also meets the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of ) the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. t FijtJt Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IVPS - 5(19(97 - Page I gg l~ Mond e 18.85.020 Definitions I i i The definitions of OAR 660-23-090(1) are incorporated herein by reference. A. The "riparian corridor" includes a river or a major stream, associated wetlands, and the "riparian setback" area. B. The "riparian setback area" is measured horizontally from and parallel to major stream or Tualatin River top-of-banks, ur the edge of an associated wetland (see definition under K.2.), whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23-090(1)(d). 1. The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. + 2. The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. 3. Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have 1 no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required 1 by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). i 8 C. "Disturbed areas" are identified portions of the riparian setback area that are devoid of vegetation or which are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant species, such as English ivy or Himalayan blackberry. In contrast, identified portions 5 of the riparian setback area that are dominated by native plant species are not disturbed. ) f D. "Mitigation plan" means a detailed plan to compensate for identified adverse impacts on water resources, riparian setback areas or water quality buffers that result from alteration, development, excavation or vegetation removal within the WR overlay i district. A mitigation plan must be prepared by recognized experts in fish and wildlife i biology, native plants, and hydrological engineering, and (usually) re-planting with j native plant species. i E. The Tualatin River is mapped as a fish bearing stream by the Oregon ! Department of Forestry and has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. { F. "Major streams" are mapped as "fish-bearing streams" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet j per second (cfs) f 1. Major streams in Tigard include Fanno Creek, Ash Creek (except the north fork and other tributary creeks) and Ball Creek. j 2. In contrast, the Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. G. "Minor streams" are not "fish-bearing streams" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. I Fijt/r Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IVPS - 5119197 - Page 2 t I 4 I i I T1 H. "Native plant species" are those listed on the Portland Plant List, which is incorporated by reference into this chapter. i. "Top-oi-bank" usuaiiy means a deariy recognizable sharp break in the stream bank. It has the same meaning as "bankfull stage" as defined in OAR 141-85- 010(2): It is the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams and begins to inundate the upland. In the absence of physical evidence, the two-year recurrence interval flood elevation may be used to approximate the bankfull stage. J. The "Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map" identifies all "significant" I water resources within the Tigard Planning Area, including the Tualatin River t corridor, all major stream corridors, minor streams and isolated wetlands. This generalized, composite map is based on the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory A (LWI) prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, 1994, hereby adopted by reference. All water resources identified on the Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map meet the Division or State Lands (DSL) definition of a "Locally ` j Significant Wetland." K. A "Wetland" is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for - life in saturated soil conditions. { 1. A "Significant Wetland" is a wetland, or a significant but non-fish- bearing stream, which appears on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map. 2. An "Associated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all or part of which is f (a) within 75 feet of the Tualatin River top-of-bank, or (b) within 50 feet } of any major stream top-of-bank. i 3. An "Isolated Wetland" is a significant wetland, all of which is located outside of the riparian setback. I i 4. A "Non-Significant Wetland" is a wetland that does not meet the Division i of State Lands definition of a Locally Significant Wetland and which, therefore, does not appear on the City of Tigard Wetlands and Riparian Corridors Map. Non-significant wetlands are not regulated by this chapter, but do require DSL notification under ORS 227.350. r _ ! 18.85.030 Applicability and Generalized Mapping j A. WR Overlay District Application. The WR overlay district applies to all j significant wetlands and streams, and applicable riparian setback and water quality buffer areas, that appear on the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. The standards and procedures of this chapter: 1. apply to all development proposed on property located within, or partially within, the WR overlay district; i Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IVPS- 5/19/97 - Page 3 1 , L~ a i r+o 2. are in addition to the standards of the underlying zone; and 1 ' 1 3. in cases of conflict, supersede the standards of the underlying zone. 4 B. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map identifies, generally, the tops- of bank v"Ct!and ..'A..".. _i.....:an setbacks and L..~[.. wi the i..ll.....'.... _ - significant water resources: 1. The Tualatin River riparian corridor; 2. Major stream riparian corridors; 3. Minor streams; and 4. Isolated wetlands. C. Standard Riparian Setbacks and USA Water Quality Buffers. The applicant shall be responsible for surveying and mapping the precise location of the top-of- bank, wetland edge, riparian setback and/or USA water quality buffer at the time of application submittal. Table 18.85(1) summaries standard riparian setbacks and water quality buffers that apply to significant water resources within the WR overlay zone. i Table 18.85(1) Riparian Setbacks and Water Quality Buffers ) WR STANDARD USA STANDARD ' RIPARIAN WATER QUALITY SIGNIFICANT WATER RESOURCE TYPE SETBACKI BUFFER 2 ! Tualatin River & associated wetlands 75 feet 25 feet Major streams & associated wetlands 50 feet 25 feet Developed subdivision lot exception 25 feet 25 feet f j (major streams & associated wetlands) Minor streams & adjacent/isolated wetlands Not applicable 25 feet Measured in feet from the top-of-bank or the associated wetland edge, whichever is greater. t 7 Z Measured in feet from the miner-stream tap-of-bank or the wetland edge, whichever is greater. i 1 D. Division of State Lands Notification Required. In addition to the restrictions - T i and requirements of this Section, all proposed development activities within any wetland are also subject to Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) standards and approval. Where there is a difference, the more restrictive regulation shall apply. I The applicant shall be responsible for notifying DSL whenever any portion of any wetland is proposed for development, in accordance with ORS 227.350. No ~ application for develop,men*, will be accepted as complete until documentation of such notification is provided. E. United-Unified Sewerage Agency Standards Applicable. All development activities proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream are subject to USA ! standards and approval. i Fiolt Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IYP.S - 5/19/97 - Page 4 i a :l 3 98.85.040 Exception for Developed Single-Family Residential ~f Subdivision Lots Tigard has many approved residential subdivisions, where the side or rear yards - I have been cleared of riparian vegetation, and developed or planted in lawns. 1 A. Method of Identifying Developed Subdivision Lots. Developed subdivision lots were identified based on a comprehensive analysis of aerial photographs. B. 25-Foot Riparian Setback Applicable. The Tigard Wetlands & Stream Corridors Map shows a 25-foot riparian setback for developed subdivision lots, i because: T. Water resource values have already been substantially degraded, and maintenance of the 50-foot riparian setback would not serve the purposes I of this chapter; and ii 2. Equal protection of the identified major stream resource is ensured by retaining a 25-foot riparian setback and reliance on USA's maximum f _ . water quality buffer. C. Type I Review Procedure. The location of structures on identified developed j l subdivision lots shall be approved under Type I procedure, provided that such structures are located at least 25 feet from the top-of-bank or the associated j wetland edge. 98.85.050 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses 1 i A. DSL Approval Required. Development proposed within any wetland or stream, in addition to meeting the standards of this chapter, shall also be approved J by DSL. B. USA Buffer Standards Applicable. Development proposed within 25 feet of any wetland or stream shall also be approved by the City of Tigard Engineering i Division, which administers USA standards. Compliance with USA is necessary but { nor sufficient for compliance with this chapter. i i C. City of Tigard Exemption. When performed under the direction of the -Csity, and in compliance with the provisions of the City of Tiqard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management, on file in the Engineering Division, the {I following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: i 1. Public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public facilities; i 2. stream restoration and enhancement programs; 3. non-native vegetation removal; 1 4. planting of native plant species; and 5. routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects. D. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 18.85.050(D) below summarizes permitted, conditional and prohibited uses within the WR district. A "Yes" indicates Fifth Draft- City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District UTS - 5119199 - Page 5 t j c L.~ d r i i ~ that the use is permitted in the case of Type I uses, is allowed under prescribed conditions in the case of Type II uses, or may be approved subject to discretionary criteria under Type III standards (for descriptions of Type I, 11 and III see 18.85.060)• A "No" indicates that the use is not permitted. A use that is not permitted may not be applUVeu uuUUgn uhc vanai n,c Table 18.85.050(D): Water Resources Overlay District Use List Regulated Activity & Procedure Type 1. Type I Permitted Uses with Mitigation Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Determination of Water Resource and Yes Yes No 4 Riparian Setback boundaries 4 b) Low impact, passive, or water related recreation facilities and trails including, Yes No No i but not limited to, viewing shelters, j u picnic tables, nature trails and !i 3 interpretive signs c) Irrigation pumps Yes Yes No d) Replacement of existing structures with j new structures that do not disturb any Yes Yes No additional riparian surface area 1 e) Removal of non-native vegetation and j replacement with native plant species, Yes Yes Yes no closer than 10' from the top-of-bank f. or edge of wetland f) Removal of vegetation necessary for hazard prevention (dangerous trees) Yes Yes No 3 g) Perimeter mowing of existing cultivated Yes Yes No lawns h) Canoe and non-motorized boat launches Yes No No less than 10' in width i) Repair and maintenance of existing Yes Yes No facilities 2. Type 11 Permitted Uses with Mitigation Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan where no reasonable alternative exists Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Adjustments to numeric standards of the Yes Yes Yes underlyingh zone necessary to reduce impacts on wetlands and streams b) Reduction in Riparian Setback boundary Yes Not applicable Yes c) Public facilities that appear on the City's Yes Yes Yes I Public Facilities Plan ! d) Local streets and driveways serving ! residences and public facilities Yes Yes Yes e) Underground drainage facilities Yes No Yes f) Utility crossings Yes Yes Yes g) Underground utilities Yes Yes h) In-stream and streambank enhancement, including vegetation removal and Yes Yes Yes replacement within 10 feet of the top-of- bank or edge of wetland i) Bridges and boardwalks Yes Yes Yes i Fifth Draft- City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District E { OT S - 5/19/97 - Page 6 1 3 3. Type III Conditional Uses Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan i Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Hardship Variances, subject to variance Yes Yes Yes provisions of Chapter 18.120 _ { u) 'vvaier-reiated and water-oependent uses Yes No Yes not listed above, subject to conditional use provisions of Chapter 18.130 4. Prohibited Uses - unless specifically Riparian Minor Streams Mitigation Plan authorized above Setback Area Isolated Wetlands Required? a) Removal of native plant species No No Not applicable b) Placement of structures or impervious No No Not applicable surfaces c) Grading and piacement of fill No No Not applicable d) Application of herbicides No No Not applicable e) Dumping of garbage or lawn debris or No No Not applicable j other unauthorized materials f f) Creation of a parcel that would be Not applicable wholly within the WR district or resulting No No i in an unbuildable parcel, as determined by the director. i 98,85.060 Application Requirements _ j All development applications on lots within, or partially with, the WR overlay district 9 shall submit the following information, in addition to other information requirements a required by this code. i A. Type 1 Uses. The applicant shall prepare a plan that demonstrates that the f use will be constructed and located so as to minimize grading, and native vegetation removal, and the area necessary for the use. The director may require additional I information where necessary to determine WR district boundaries or to mitigate identified impacts from a proposed development, including but not limited to: 1. a site survey as prescribed in Section 18.85.060.13; 2. one or more of the reports described in Section 18.85.060.D. B. Type 11 and III Uses: Site Specific Survey Required. If any Type II or III use or I activity is proposed within a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer ' area, the applicant shall be responsible for preparing a survey of the entire site that precisely maps and delineates the following: 1. The name, location and dimensions of significant minor streams (including adjacent wetlands), major streams or rivers (including associated wetlands), and the tops of their respective streambanks or wetland edges. 2. Isolated wetlands. 3. The area enclosed by the riparian setback. 4. The area enclosed by the USA water quality buffer. 5. Steeply sloped areas where the slope of the land is 20% or greater. v 6. Existing public rights-of-way, structures, roads and utilities. Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District )f'PS- 5/19/97 - Page 7 I 4 C~ l_ wood 1 Y S i 7. Vegetation, including trees or tree clusters and understory. 3 ^ 8. Existing and proposed contours at 2-foot intervals. i C. Site Specific Water Resource and Riparian Setback Determinations. The required survey of identified water resources and their respective riparian setbacks j and water quality buffers, required by Section 18.85.060.6, shall serve as the basis for refining the Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map. 1 . The determination of the location of water resources, riparian setbacks and water quality buffers shall be made under Type I procedure. 2. If excavation, vegetation removal or development is proposed completely outside of a water resource, riparian setback or water quality buffer, no further WR overlay zone requirements apply. 3. Permitted and conditional uses within surveyed riparian setback areas are f limited to those described in Section 18.85.050 and subject to the development standards of this chapter. i t D. Type 11 and III Uses: Required Studies and Mitigation Reports. Each of the i i following studies shall be required whenever any Type 11 or III use is proposed within the WR overlay district. Each required report must consider the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory (Fishman Environmental Services, 1994), shall be in addition to the submission of information required for specific types of development, and shall be prepared by professionals in their respective fields. The Planning Director may exempt I permit applications from one or more of these studies, based on specific findings as to why the study is unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter. This determination must be made, in writing, at or immediately following the required i pre-application conference and prior to application submittal. 1. Hydrology and Soils Report. This report shall include information on the hydrological activities of the site, the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, and any hydrological or erosion hazards. This report shall also include soils characteristics of the site, their suitability for development, and erosion or slumping characteristics that might present a ' hazard to life and property, or adversely affect the use or stability of a public facility or utility. Finally, this report shall include information on the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, the adequacy of the site for development purposes, and an assessment of grading procedures required to impose the minimum disturbance to the natural state. The report shall include recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon. 2. Grading Plan. The grading plan shall be specific to a proposed physical structure or use and shall include information on terrain (two-foot intervals of property), drainage, direction of drainage flow, location of proposed structures and existing structures which may be affected by the proposed grading operations, water quality facilities, finished contours or elevations, including all i cut and fill slopes and proposed drainage channels. Project designs including but not limited to locations of surface and subsurface devices, walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices shall form part of the submission. The grading plan shall also include a construction phased erosion control plan consistent with the provisions of this code and a U i rijrG Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District ! fVPS- 5/19/97 - Page 8 ' I I J 7 schedule of operations and shall be prepared by a professional engineer 1 registered in Oregon. 3. Vegetation Report. This report shall consist of a survey of existing vegetative cover, whether it is native or introduced, and how it will be altered by the proposed development. The report shall specifically identify disturbed arnac ii.e., areas devoid of vegetation or areas that are dominated by non-native or invasive species) and the percentage of crown cover. Where a reduction in the riparian setback is proposed, measures for re-vegetation and enhancement with native plant species will be clearly stated. The vegetation report shall include recommendations to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect, landscape designer, botanist or arborist with specific knowledge of native plant species, planting and maintenance methods, survival rates, and their ability to enhance fish and } ! wildlife habitat and to control erosion and sedimentation. j 4. Streambank Conditions Report. This report is only necessary if a reduction in j the riparian setback area is proposed. The Streambank conditions report shall } consist of a survey of existing streambank conditions, including types of vegetative cover, the extent to which the streambank has been eroded, and f the extent to which mitigation measures would be successful in maximizing i fish and wildlife habitat values while serving the stream's urban hydrological functionFeStOF ^.~,y-e3t eem to its pre distaff. Measures for „ improving fish and wildlife habitat and improving water quality will be clearly stated, as well as methods for immediate and long-term streambank stabilization. The streambank conditions report shall include recommendations k to assure compliance with each applicable provision of this code, and shall be " prepared by a wildlife-biologist in concert with ao hydrelegisal engineer registered in Oregon both of whom must have experience in stream bank j restoration. The report shall specify long-term maintenance measures i necessary to carry out the proposed mitigation plan. - 98.85.070 Decision Options and Conditions l - I i .I A. Decision Options. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on the provisions of this chapter. The i Approval Authority may require conditions necessary to comply with the intent and provisions of this chapter. i t B. Conditions. The required reports shall include design standards and recommendations necessary for engineer and y I biologistla^dseap Q~~p„°~~p~t to certify that i the standards of this section can be met with appropriate mitigation measures. These i measures, along with staff recommendations, shall be incorporated as conditions into the final decision approving the proposed development. t j C. Assurances and Penalties. Assurances and penalties for failure to comply with mitigation, engineering, erosion and water quality plans required under this section shall be as stated in Chapter 18.24. 1 j Fij(6 Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IVP.S- 5/19/97 - Page 9 4 s J 1 98.85.080 Development Standards l The following shall apply to all development, including native vegetation removal and excavation, within the WR overlay district. No application for a use identified in Section 18.85.050 shall be deemed complete until the applicant has addressed each of these standards in writing. A. Alternatives Considered. Except for stream corridor enhancement, most ' Type II and III uses are expected to develop outside of water resource and riparian setback areas. Therefore, Type II and III development applications must carefully examine upland alternatives for the proposed use, and explain the reasons why the proposed development cannot reasonably occur outside of the water resource or riparian setback area. ' R B. Minimize Siting Impacts. The proposed use shall be designed, located and ! constructed to minimize excavation, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and adverse j hydrological impacts on water resources. 1. For Type II and III uses, the civil engineer with experience in vat r g ~~lit water quality eRgineeF must certify that water quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the development proposal. 2. For all uses, the development shall be located as far from the water resource, and use as little of the water resource or riparian setback area, as ossible• recoonizino the operational needs of the proposed developmmentpFaotiGable. C. Construction Materials and Methods. Where d v loom nt within the ri area is unavoidable. PJe construction materials or methods may be used within the ! j riparian setback area that would unneGessaFil shall minimize damage i IQ-water quality j or-and native vegetation. ~ J D. Minimize Flood Damage. Above-ground residential structures shall not be permitted within the WR overlay district, where such land is also within the 100-year floodplain. On-site flood storage capacity shall not decrease as a result of development. The cumulative effects of any proposed development shall not reduce flood storage capacity or raise base flood elevations on- or off-site. Any new commercial or industrial land development proposed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed damage, consistent with Chapter 18.84. Sensitive Lan E. Avoid Steep Slopes. Within 50 feet of any water resource, excavation and vegetation removal shall be avoided on slopes of 25 percent or greater and in areas with high erosion potential (as shown on SCS maps), except where necessary to ! construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. F. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation. The following standards shall apply when construction activity is proposed in areas where vegetation is to be preserved. 1. Temporary measures used for initial erosion control shall not be left in place permanently. U Fijdt Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District 1VA; - 5/19/97 - Page 10 i 2. Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to ~ reduce potential damage to trees and vegetation. i 3. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. I 4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be olaced outside the work area. 5. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees and brush shall be taken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place. 6. Stockpiling of soil, or soil mixed with vegetation, shall not be permitted on a permanent basis. G. Vegetation Mitigation Plan. If a Type 11 or III use is proposed within a water l resource site or riparian setback area, or mitigation is proposed as a method to reduce the riparian setback in accordance with Section 18.85.090, a mitigation plan shall be t ! prepared and implemented. j 1. The applicant shall be responsible for re-vegetating areas temporarily I j disturbed by excavation on a 1:1 basis. 2. Where approval is granted to reduce the riparian setback area, the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating for the reduced setback by replacing non- native vegetation with the remaining, protected riparian setback area on a 1.5:1 basis. That is, for each 100 square feet of riparian setback that is lost to development, at least 150 square feet of existing disturbed area within the riparian setback or wetland shall be re-planted with native plant 3 species. 1,r 3. The re-vegetation plan shall provide for the replanting and maintenance of l native plant species designed to achieve pre-disturbance conditions. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any native plant species that do not survive the first two years after planting, and for ensuring the survival I of any replacement plants for an additional two years after their replacement. 3 H. Water and Sewer Infiltration and Discharge. Water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid infiltration of floodwaters into the system, and to avoid discharges from such facilities to streams and wetlands. i - i I. On-Site Systems. On-site septic systems and private wells shall be prohibited within the WR overlay district. i J. Erosion Control Plan. If a Type II or III use is proposed within a water resource _ site or riparian setback area, the following erosion control standards shall apply within { the WR overlay district: 1. Specific methods of soil erosion and sediment control shall be used during construction to minimize visible and measurable erosion. 2. The land area to be grubbed, stripped, used for temporary placement of soil, or to otherwise expose soil shall be confined to the immediate construction site only. 3. Construction activity will take place during the dry season (June- October), whenever feasible, and the duration of exposure of soils shall be kept to a minimum during construction. Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IFPS- 5/19/97 - Page I I i ri i 3 4. Exposed soils shall be covered by mulch, sheeting, temporary seeding or ► other suitable material following grading or construction, until soils are stabilized. During the rainy season (November through May), soils shall not j be exposed for more than 7 calendar days. All disturbed land areas which ww rermmii UIIWUIRCU for 21, days or more ........y construction, ..o.. mulched and seeded. 5. During construction, runoff from the site shall be controlled, and increased runoff and sediment resulting from soil disturbance shall be retained on-site. Temporary diversions, sediment basins, barriers, check dams, or other methods shall be provided as necessary to hold sediment and runoff. 6. A stabilized pad of gravel shall be constructed at all entrances and exits to i the construction site. The stabilized gravel pad shall be the only allowable entrance or exit to the site. 1 j 7. Topsoil removal for development shall be stockpiled and reused on-site to the degree necessary to restore disturbed areas to their original or E i enhanced condition, or to assure sufficient stable topsoil for re-vegetation. i Additional soil shall be provided if necessary to support re-vegetation. 8. The removal of all sediments which are carried into the streets, water j resources or on to adjacent property, are the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for cleaning up and repairing streets, catch basins, water resource areas and adjacent properties, where such { properties are affected by sediments or mud. In no case shall sediments be washed into storm drains, ditches or drainageways. 9. Any other relevant provision of the Erosion Prevention and Sediment - Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook (City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. Revised February 19941 , required by the Planning Director. K. Plan Implementation. A schedule of planned erosion control and re-vegetation measures shall be provided, which sets forth the progress of construction activities, a and mitigating erosion control measures. An approved Erosion Control or Re- vegetation Plan shall be implemented and maintained as follows: I 1. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stripping or excavation work. 2. The applicant shall implement the measures and construct facilities contained in the approved Erosion Control Plan in a timely manner. During active construction, the applicant shall inspect erosion control measures j daily, and maintain, adjust, repair or replace erosion control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly. 3. Eroded sediment shall be removed immediately from pavement surfaces, off-site areas, and from the surface water management system, including storm drainage inlets, ditches and culverts. 4. Water containing sediment shall not be flushed into the surface water management system, wetlands or streams without first passing through an approved sediment filtering facility or device. 5. In addition, the applicant shall call for City inspection, prior to the foundation inspection for any building, to certify that erosion control measures are installed in accordance with the erosion control plan. i i Filth Draft - City of'figard Water Resources overlay District IIPS- 5/19/97 -Page 12 ~ 4 .1 L. Type III Conditional Uses. The procedural and substantive provisions of Chapter 18.130, Conditional Uses, in addition to Section 18.85.080(L)(1-2) below and 18.85.080(A-K) above, shall apply to determine whether a Type III use listed The applicant foi cuiidiiiunai use a rovai shall: may be 1. Demonstrate that there will not be any net loss in the values of the resource area; and 2. Submit a detailed mitigation plan to show that any loss of riparian values will be fully compensated through the enhancement program. 18.85.090 Riparian Setback Reductions ) r I The Director may approve a site-specific reduction of the Tualatin River or any major stream riparian setback by as much as 50 percent to allow the placement of + structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through ill! streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved 1 portions of the riparian setback area. 1 , A. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be eligible for a riparian t setback reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination - must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.C that ! demonstrates al( of the following: 4 j 1. Native plant species currently cover less than 80 percent of the on-site riparian corridor area; ! 2. The tree canopy currently covers less than 50 percent of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on- site riparian setback area for the last five years; 3. That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species; 4. That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and 5. The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20 percent. C. Determination of Extent of Riparian Setback Reduction. Provided that the standards of 18.85.080.8 are met, as much as 50 percent of riparian area may be developed, based on a vegetation enhancement and streambank mitigation plan, and subject to the following standards: f 1. The minimum remaining riparian setback for the Tualatin River shall not lI be less than 37.5 feet, and the minimum remaining major stream riparian setback shall not be less than 25 feet. 2. Based on the recommendations of the required vegetation report, up to a 33 percent reduction in the riparian setback area may be approved, provided that the applicant enhances disturbed portions of the remaining riparian setback area on a 4-6-1.51 basis. The vegetation report identifies disturbed areas (non-vegetated areas and areas that are overgrown with non-native or invasive plant species such as English ivy or Himalayan Fifth Drajr- City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District ) IVPS- 5/19/97 - Page 13 t ~ l~ 1 I I blackberry) and areas dominated by native plant species. Thus, for every 1 P 100 square feet of riparian setback area that is developed, at least 150 square feet of the disturbed portion of the remaining riparian setback area must be re-planted with native plant species. In this manner, up to a one- third riparian setback reduction may bo apprOJcu. 3. Up to an additional 17 percent reduction of the riparian setback area may be approved, based on an approved streambank mitigation plan prepared by a biologist and aII h0Fele9iea4-engineer, both of whom must have experience in stream bank restoration. The plan must eeFt+fy demonstrate that the streambank mitigation measures will maximize fish and wildlife habitat values and water quality. i 18.85.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Setback Standards {F~ 4 4 I , In contrast to variances to the standards of the WR overlay district, adjustments to f dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district may be approved by the Planning Director when necessary to further the intent of this overlay district. A. Adjustment Option. The Planning Director may approve up to a 50 percent adjustment to any dimensional standard (e.g., setback, height or lot area) of the underlying zoning district to allow development consistent with the purposes of the i WR overlay district. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the j~ potential for slope or flood hazards. j B. Adjustment Criteria. A special WR overlay district adjustment may be requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent to the WR overlay district. In order for the director to approve a dimensional adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following criteria are fully satisfied: i 1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at t the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback 1 area or water quality buffer. 2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover, minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on unbuildable land. 3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development, including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence j close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native i I landscaping materials, minimizing parking area and garage space. 4. In no case shall the impervious surface area of a single-family residence (including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of riparian setback or water quality buffer area. 5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach further on land under the same ownership within the WR overlay district. - i Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Wa!er Resources Overlay District IVA5- 5/19/97 -Page 14 It l L~ p o~ The Planning Director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate 1 t 7 identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land. I 1 1 - 18.85.110 Density Transfer Density may be transferred from water resource and riparian setback areas as provided in Section 18.92. 020-030. 18.85.120 Variances to Chapter 18.85 Standards Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.85.050 are not permitted. Variances t j from measurable (dimensional) provisions of this chapter shall be discouraged and may i be considered only as a last resort. 3 = A. Type 111 Variance Option. The Hearings Officer shall hear and decide variances from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.134 of the zoning ordinance. B. Additional Criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in j Chapter 18.134, all of the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance i to any dimensional provision of this chapter: 1. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant, and which was not created after the effective date of this chapter. 2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the f , loss of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying zoning district, and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application. 3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve the hardship. 4. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, the f variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. 5. Based on review of all required studies described in Section 18.85.060, no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will result from approval of this hardship variance, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. 6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be replaced on-site, on a 1-to-1 basis, by native vegetation. 18.85.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the WR district may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would i i Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District IVPS- 5/19/97 - Page 15, l L.~ - ~J 1 be to remove WR overlay district from the property. The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: A. ESEE Analysis. The applicant may prepare an Environmental, Social, Ea,vnvm.~c and EiicryY I------------- ulluly- prcparOU 111 CUUUIUO11l,C VVILII OAR 660-23-040. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use fully, consider both impacts on the specific resource site in comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be y j located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use. I 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis. f 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the I Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map shall be amended to remove the v { site from the inventory. 1 B. Determination of "Insignificance." In this case, the applicant must demonstrate that the water resource site(s) no longer meet(s) the applicable significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other a i comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area. 1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of this chapter. 2. In considering this claim, the Council shall determine that the decline in identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or f any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code. i_ Fifth Draft - City of Tigard Water Resources Overlay District JVPS- 5/19/97 - Page 16 1 Affil- I i 1-iUregon June 10, 1997 I DEPARTMENT OF City of Tigard (U (C ~ ie:.aNsYORTATION Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Ramon ! Att: Duane Roberts FIL= CODE: Re: ZOA 97-0001: Safe Harbor Provisions ~+i Thank you for p.cying COOT the opportunity to comment on the proposed { amendment to the Community Development Code. We have reviewed the fifth draft for 1 the Water ReVur a= Overlay District (18.85) and have the following comments: j ODOT road projects already must meet strict Federal environmental standards 1 (NPOES) and therefore should be except from the following requirements: Section 18.85.060 B. 5.7.8 (COOT shows existing and proposed contours in metric) and D.1. ODOT does not supply a Geotechnical analysis of each roadside slope. Most highway slopes are built at 25-33% from good structural fill. It should be clarified that the required studies and mitigation reports apply to natural slopes of 12%. not previously or currently constructed roadside slopes. We recommend that additional language be added to Section 18.85.080 B.1. 'For Type 11 and III uses, the civil engineer with experience in water quality must certify 1 that water quality in the affected water resource will not be diminished as a result of the development proposal (to the maximum extent practicable for transportation projects).' COOT recommends that the words in parentheses be added. Section 18.85.080 G. 3: it Will be difficult for ODOT to enforce the 2 year survival I requirement for vegetation since much of the planting is contracted out. it is recommended that COOT facilities be except from this requirement. Section 18.85.080 J.4. ODOT road projects already must meet strict Federal environmental standards, it is not realistic that large scale transportation projects could meet a 7 day bare soil exposure limit. Therefore, a provision should be made for an exception for transportation projects on COOT facilities. Please contact Jeff Moore, COOT Region 1 Geologist, at 731-8289 for questions regard" the above co n . Forward a copy of the Decision for this case. Mara an on, a Development Review c Jeff Moore, Martin Jensvold, Sonya Kazen, ODOT Region 1 Jane Estes, Bob Schmidt, ODOT District ZA / Portland, 9720%4M-7 (sm) 731.8200 ~xm n.-:aso nirv+) FAX (5W) 731-8259 I L.~ ITEM # { FOR ADGENDA OF 6/10/97 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Senior Center Improvements Budget Shortfall PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK 1A] CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL { Should the Council pledge $9,900 toward a request for an equal amount of CDBG (Community Development ( Block Grant) funds for the completion of the Senior Center Exterior Improvements project? j STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council approve the needed matching funds. INFORMATION SUMMARY f a As detailed in the attached memo, the Senior Center project includes paving the rear parking lot and creating an ~cessible or waist-high garden. Major funding for the project was provided by a CDBG grant. The paving work has been completed. This work has exhausted the available funding. The lower of two bids to complete f the garden portion of the project is $19,800. Staff proposes to request additional CDBG funds to assist the project. In order to leverage these funds, staff recommends the city commit to providing half the cost t ` of the budget shortfall, or $9,900. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Rely entirely on volunteer labor and donations to complete the garden. 2. Abandon the project. - ~ i FISCAL NOTES I i_ A commitment of $9,900 in city park SDC funds as a match for $9,900 in county CDBG funds is requested. j Formal budget authority will be requested after the CDBG office acts on the city's request for contingency funds. As of April 1997 the balance in the park SDC account was $1,150,000. adb i _ i t t 5 - J .Now MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: June 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Tigard Senior Center Improvements Budget Shortfall s As discussed in previous memos, the Tigard Senior Center Exterior Improvements project now underway includes paving of the rear parking lot and creation of an accessible garden. The paving h work was completed last month. The purpose of the garden is to provide a healthy, outdoor activity for senior citizens confined to wheelchairs or walkers and others unable to perform the bending and crouching required to plant and take care of a traditional ground-level flower or vegetable garden. Until now, the establishment of this garden has been delayed because of a lack of interested bidders. j Major funding for the project was provided by a CDBG grant. We had anticipated a major funding shortfall in late summer of 1996 when the combined bid for the paving and the garden came in at j $65,000. The total funding available at that time was $22,500. To encourage more competition, _ 1 we separated the two portions and bid them out as separate packages. The paving package was I extremely competitive with a low bid slightly less than $20,000. There were no bidders for the accessible garden. The expenses for bid advertisements, printing of project documents, and the paving contract have exhausted the available funding. After completing four bid processes and price quote solicitations and re-designing the project, the I city at last has received acceptable bids for the accessible garden. The lower of two current bids is f $19,800. This figure is within $1,000 of the engineer's estimate. Staff proposes to request CDBG contingency funds to assist the project. As part of this request, I recommend the city commit to providing half the cost of the shortfall, or $9,900. Although this amount is a higher than the original percentage contribution of 21%, it is reasonable because the project as a whole is some 90% over budget. Please note that the total cost for both packages at $40,000 is still much less than the $65,000 originally bid for the combined project. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the overrun in percentage terms and other program needs, it will be difficult to obtain more than half of what we need to fund the accessible garden from the CDBG program. This determination is based on city experience with the CDBG program and on discussions with the CDBG director. The city match can be taken from the park SDC account. Use of this fund is justified because the Senior Center is located within the boundaries of the Fanno Creek Park and landscape improvements are identified in the list of project proposals (#3-12) for the park. Recent increases in SDC revenues will more than cover the needed amount. U I t i L L 1 . - I In conclusion, I request Council approval to pledge $9,900 toward a request for an equal amount of CDBG contingency funds for the completion of the Senior Center project. Jlrpn/dr/cdbg.con - . I i E i 1 i - a x 1 AGENDA ITEM # 1 FOR AGENDA OF dune 10. 1997 . CITY O TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Law Enforcement Community Development Block Grant PREPARED BY:_ Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK i i ISSUF, BEFORE THE COUNCIL. The Tigard Police Department was recently awarded a Law Enforcement Block Grant from the Department of - Justice totaling $17,904. The issue before the Council is to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed use of the funds and also to authorize the expenditures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff :ocommeads the Council hold the public hearing and also authorize the expenditure of the fiends. INFORMATION SUMMARY '''`'JJhe Tigard Police Department was recently awarded a Law Enforcement Block Grant from the Department of E `justice totaling $17,904 that requires a $1,989 hard match from the City, total $19,893. The dollar amount for 1 the federal grant was based on a population formula distribution. Before the finds can be spent, an advisory ! committee needed to be established for the purpose of making recommendations on the use of the funds. The I j committee was required to have representatives from: the local police department, prosecutor's office, court ~t ' system, public school system, and crime prevention. This group met and recommended the attached list of i items be purchased using the funds. The items purchased needed to fit into one of 7 purchasing categories, ! which these items do. The funds also cannot be used to transplant any existing funds or pending purchases. I The City is also required to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed use of the funds, which is the purpose for the agenda item this evening. OTHER AI TFRNATI v FS CONSID -RFD Not to approve. FISCAL NOTES The 1,989 funds will come from the existing police budget and will not affect the existing personnel or programs. . . -!c,ry,eulcwm.dot i i i Community Development Law Enforcement Block Grant Award Federal Government Award $17,904 City Required Match 1,989 i , TOTAL FUNDS $19,893 LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT 3 Radar Trailer $10,669 4 Computer Work Station replacements 6,415 Peer Court Awards/Recognition & Supplies 600 Printer/Supplies for Municipal Court 600 $18,284 ENHANCING SCHOOL SECURITY i Computer Learning Software for At-Risk Students 310 4 Campus Security Jackets 160 Tigard High School Recreational Books/Alternative Ed 200 + Student Recognition and Awards 300 Narcotic Identification Packets 239 $1,209 ENHANCING COMMUNITY SAFETY Cook Park Signage 400 TOTAL $19,893 - j - 1 J r 1 ( AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITVFTR-- OREGON O~r v aaVAI COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adopt ordinance to amend lan~itage cnn~eming "Abandoned Vehicles" PREPARED BY: Jim WolffPaul Elsner DEPT. HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To amend the "abandoned vehicle" ordinance to keep pace with the changes and simplify the provisions of the ordinance. In addition, there have been demands to maintain control over the problem of repeated offenders who t abandon vehicles within the City of Tigard. The changes address this need as well. j STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed ordinance removes superfluous language to keep the ordinance simple and effective in eliminating abandoned vehicles from the public right of way. 7.60.010 (A) includes language to reflect that "Code Enforcement Officers" be allowed to enforce the Abandoned Vehicle Code. 3 Presently the "Abandoned Vehicle" ordinance does not provide any tools to "remove" the vehicle if the i nuisance continues after the prescribed warnings are issued. Although the vehicle may be moved to another 1 location as required by the current ordinance, it may present itself as a nuisance and "violation" in the same general vicinity repeatedly.. It is at these times when the violator purposely attempts to skirt the ordinance in efforts to continually "store" a vehicle on a public right of way. This problem frustrates area residents who are affected by the nuisance. Specifically, 7.60.015 (3) reflects this new change. The change would authorize immediate removal and impound of the abandoned vehicle if it continues to be stored on a public right of way. i The section identifies the specific criteria which need be met before the vehicle may be towed and impounded, OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Police Department educates citizens about regulations adopted to maintain order and improved livability throughout the community. There are, however, situations where a violator continues to cause problems. Because of the way the current ordinance is written, the City has been unsuccessful in abating problems caused by repeat offenders. i t ( ~d J I FISCAL. NOTES Repeated visits occupy time which can be spent performing other more essential tasks. Closure to the problem of repeated abandoned vehicle nuisances can be achieved with the proposed amendments. Oc i tywide\sum\abvehldo i i - f MP- WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON June 4, 1997 { 1 - - Duane Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 j SUBJECT: Agreement for CDBG #9142, Tigard, 91st Ave. Sidewalk Improvements Dear Duane, Attached are'three copies of the agreement for the above project. Please check it over and an appropriate sigriabz-egn page 2. This is our standard boilerplate, with the exhibits specifically for your project Please return for processing as soon as possible. We will need to have these by-U IA-ji 'gave I I them on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners on July 1, 1997. Be sure to f call if you have any questions. Sincerely., _ - f i Shana G. Aucsmith I" j Senior Community Development Specialist j - , j:contradMx9257.doe 01See of commmmitY Development 155 N F -st Avenue. Suite 170. MS 7. HiUsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone (503) 648-8814 • fax (503) 681-2882 E } J Projec- No. 9142 PLVje,et Year 199 mm= amIARY c-^„2.^tCj Develcpmenc Block Grant P=jeCt Title Tigard. 9laC avenue Leal Name of Entity CII:V a= Tiaarr3 Address 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - City Tigard State CR Zip 9 I. =Z!r L um =IS 1. No. at 3_ Total C~ I 4. P=ticn ~reable LMIOMes 2- Jcb t usitY Develcg- t cck t 1 Planner 3.800 0 l Project Engineer 1 Engineering Inspect- 1 1 I Subtztm 3.800 0 _ i i 8 • %X71AL Pf ItSCHN , C CSTS 3 , 800 0 Fbrticn Cw zgeable tj 1 late--ials f Coam=i Devel i B. r~xs ~ sfazvx~s: ces) al ~t °pm't _ Liz a ce Q=Iies 10o } i o lo. es 11. 0-mmic3ticns 1 1Z- T•-aVnl a.+d ~.1JIL~i 1 ' 13. LPCa1 Pk blic Notices 300 1 0 14. Professicnal -&--r-vices 19,000 ` 0 15. ~'S~-+•r-;cn ant-.,C-s 1141,600 k41I6C0 16. Ctt±er- Sreci °v 1 17. TC7T?.L ir.e Sr S=,VICZS 161. CCO 41, ECO PM 2/88 rev, p.l) l 30 attae-amenc C f TL i (Z'd 'nag 88/Z 'E-T t=ER3 Coo) - eu5TS 67 ' tom, , :4u TanaC, 1C~Ttamno 3o as =io Awx CO uv4arFtrs-eM A4 P e P= P T~+a2t aC z alrg2L,i:s pazuo cn ~ :~aCo.a X03 tg PazTl ► 83 I -,~,~'"lam=yyN s z1f NoLlyzrda a0acadd-xv=; 26 1 000'06T 008'991 Y tuTszto}~ - p , 006 ZZ 006 006'99T 000'06T en ~ I B btsTs ; TE3gI, '2Z Mal •T2 I t OOZ' SZ OOZ' SZ Avum llvxaayD T,= • of i ~ 1 i I OOZ' SL OOZ' SZ I i k 1 I 3 3 Y~ q a .3 ~1I 0r3 vTgEa&oj8Setla tr~ t.=T mj33Qg Od T aI :AeT~ MTd4 '81 aj ~ '0 1 I ~ I 1 I WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON -r% 001T. mil ,yv T1~P L ~ June 4, 1997 G 1-0 !W C J{" 1/`~~cZ Duane Roberts City of Tigard b~ a 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 SUBJECT: Agreement for CDBG #9142, Tigard, 91st Ave. Sidewalk Improvements Dear Duane, j Attached are three copies of the agreement for the above project. Please check it over and an appropriate sjgrtatCi~egn page 2. This is our standard boilerplate, with the exhibits specifically for your project. Please return for processing as soon as possible. We will need to have these b7MOF ;pave them on the agenda for the Board of Commissioners on July 1, 1997. Be sure to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, !_o_ Shana G. Aucsmith i Senior Community Development Specialist j:contraavx9257.doc Office of Commmiity Development 155 N First Avenue, Suite 170. MS 7. Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone (503) 648-8814 • fax (503) 681-2882 1 Ida- I ~f n AGREEMENT between WASHINGTON COUNTY aria CITY OF TIGARD This Agreement, entered into this _ day of 199_1 between Washington County, a municipality of the State of Oregon (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), and the City of Tigard, (hereinafter referred to as the "City"): RECITALS e A. She County is an urban county applicant for Block Grant funds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act), 42 USC 301 et seq as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, and will receive Block Grant funds for the purpose of carrying out eligible community development and housing activities under the Acts and under regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at 24 CFR Part 570; B. The County and various cities within the County, including the City, have agreed to cooperate in the undertaking of essential community development and housing activities; C. The County desires to have certain services performed by the City as described within this Agreement for the purpose of implementing eligible activities under the Act and HUD regulations; D. It is appropriate and mutually desirable that the City be designated by the County to undertake the aforementioned eligible activities, so long as the requirements of the Act, HUD regulations, state law and local law are adhered to, as provided for herein; i - , t E. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the cooperation between the County and the City, as the parties in this Agreement, in implementing such eligible activities in the manner described above; F. The parties are authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement by ORS 190.010 et sey., by the Constitution of the State of Oregon; and G. Therefore, in consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned and to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties mutually covenant and agree as provided for in this Agreement. CCW3196-9142 Page 1 of 27 i ~J au..... v_:r - - I I f n CITY WASHINGTON COUNTY ature CZ (j o Chairman, Board of County T' d (1 Commissioners Signature -Ci -1, 0 Recording Secretary Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Attorney for the Washington County Office of Community Development I. =fnrag6.9142 Page 2 of 27 - - _ . - - - INDEX TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Scope of Agreement and Applicability to Terms and Conditions of this Agreement 2. Scope of Services 3. Commencement and Termination of Projects 4. Administration 5. Operating Budget 6. Compensation and Method of Payment j 7. Interest in Property i' 8. Funding Alternatives and Future Support 9. Amendments I ~ k 10. Assignment and Subcontracting 11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification 12. Conflict of Interest 13. Default and Suspension 14. Enforcement i 15. Appeal s j 16. Termination 17. Prohibition on the Use of Debarred Contractors . 18. Attorney Fees and Costs 19. Extensions J ccfnr3t96-9142 - Page 3 of 27 i [k4i _ I PART II. FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 1. Procurement Standards 2. Environmental Review 3. Nondiscrimination 4. Property Management 5. Labor Standards 6. Acquisition and Relocation 7. Architecturai Barriers 8. Nonparticipation in Political Activities 9. Nonsubstitution for Local Funding 10. Public Information 11. Applicability of Laws Under This Agreement 12. Certification Regarding Lobbying I. 13. Certification Regarding Use of Excessive Force 14. Certification Regarding A Drug-frae Workplace Part III. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING 4 . 1. Evaluation Ir 2 As 0ifc anri Incn.r innc 3. Records 4. Retention of Records PART IV.SPECIAL CONDITIONS ecrnf3196-9142 Page 4 of 27 i. I. 1 % PART V. EXHIBITS A. Project Description, Scope of Activities and Anticipated Accomplishments B. Authorized Signature Card I C. Budget Summary i J ccfnf3,96-9142 Page 5 of 27 i - f AWE PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABILITY TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT A. This Agreement shall consist of the signature page, the general and special conditions; the federal, state and local program requirements; the evaluation and record keeping requirements; each and every project exhibit incorporated in the Agreement; all matters and laws incorporated by reference herein; and any written amendments made according to the general conditions. This Agreement supersedes any and all former agreements applicable to projects attached as exhibits to this Agreement. B. Depending upon the specific nature of the project, services or purposes for . which Block Grant funds are being provided pursuant to this Agreement, certain terms and conditions contained herein may be made inapplicable by their express citation in Part IV, Special Conditions. Except as so expressly excluded, all terms and conditions contained herein have full application, force and effect. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES I A. The City shall perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner the services set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto which specifies work to be performed. The Agreement may be amended from time to time in accordance with the general conditions for the purpose of amending the scope of work or for any other lawful purpose. I B. Any conflict or dispute that may arise with regard to any aspect of CDBG activities for the project shall be resolved by the County's interpretation of the specifications contained in the original project proposal, the current Program Policies, and the County's Office of Community Development CDBG Procedures Manual. Any such determination made by the County shall be final. 3. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF PROJECTS A. Upon release of project-related funds by HUD pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.70, the County shall furnish the City with written notice to proceed. No work on the proiect shall occur prior to the receipt of written notice to proceed from the County. B. All project funds shall be obligated and expended within the project year unless the County and the City agree to an amendment extending project ccfn(31969142 - Page 6 of 27 T _ I II activities beyond the Project Year. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Project Year" shall mean the period from , 199_ through 199 - C. Any property acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall be used to meet one of the national objectives set forth in 24 CFR 570.208 for a period of twenty (20) years or until June 30, 2016 unless otherwise modified in writing by the parties to this contract. 4. ADMINISTRATION A The City shall appoint a liaison person who shall be responsible for overall administration of Block Grant funded project(s) and coordination with the County's Office of Community Development. The name of the liaison person ' shall be specified in writing and submitted to the County's Office of Community Development. The City shall also designate one or more representatives who shall be authorized by the City to sign the Voucher Request and any other forms which may be required. The names of these representatives shall be specified in Exhibit B. i i B. This Agreement is subject to and supplemental to the Agreement of Intergovernmental Cooperation entered into between the County and participating municipalities. 5. OPERATING BUDGET 1 r ! A The City shall expend the funds received from the County under this i Agreement in accordance with the budget summary submitted by the City to, and approved by, the County. Such budget summary is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. No line item expense in the approved budget shall be changed without a budget revision approved by the County's Office of i Community Development. The budget revision shall specifically state the reasons for the requested increase and a justification for the corresponding decrease in another line item. Budget revision(s) must be approved by OCD before any costs are incurred by the City. B. The difference between the approved budget amount on a budget line item and a lower bid or quote, in any line item, shall be reported to the County as surplus. The City may submit a budget revision requesting the use of any such surplus. ~..J ecft.319&9142 Page 7 of 27 l~ _~I C. Matching funds identified in Exhibit C shall mean all funds from non-CDBG sources, including in-kind contributions of staff and materials, other grant sources, charitable contributions, volunteer labor, donated materials and " sa, ices, and similar itemiij o value to ale projeci. iviaidning funtis shaii be - used for project purposes, and shall be included within the scope of Audits and Inspections conducted under Part III, Section 2 of this Agreement. 0. No later than 90 days from the date the County approves the proposed list of activities, which includes this project, the City shall submit to the County's Office of Community Development written evidence that substantiates the matching funds pledged by the City are available. The availability of pledged funds means all approvals, guarantees, or third party commitments from subrecipients or cosponsors, have been received and will enable the City to officially obligate those matching funds. In the event the City fails to submit such evidence or the evidence is deemed by the County to be unacceptable, the County may exercise its termination options under Part I Section 14 of this agreement. 6. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT i i X Subject to the availability of funds from HUD, the County shall reimburse the j City for the services specified in Exhibit A. Reimbursement shall be requested by - the City by submitting a Community Development Voucher Request (OCD Form 2) i and a Program Accomplishments reporting form (OCD Form 3); the forms are to be j signed by the City's authorized representatives in a manner prescribed by the County. . B. The County will make payment to the City within two (2) weeks or as soon as i practicable after said invoice is received and approved by the Washington County I Office of Community Development. 7. INTEREST IN PROPERTY A. Real Property - In accordance with HUD Regulation 24 CFR, 570.503(b)(8), upon expiration of this agreement the City shall transfer to the County any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Real property under the City's control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part in excess of $25,000 will be used to (1) meet its original national objective for the time period specified in Part I Section 3.C of this agreement; or (2) disposed of in a manner that results in reimbursement to the County in the amount equal to the current fair market value less any portions attributable to expenditure of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. ocfn63196.9142 Page 8 of 27 i i B. Personal Property - Any personal property on hand at the time of the expiration of the project year of this Agreement shall be disposed of in accordance with 24 CFR 85.32. C. Program Income (1) The City shall record the receipt and expenditure of program income as defined in 24 CFR 570.500(a) of the financial transactions of the project(s) funded under this Agreement. Program income shall be reported with each voucher request and substantially disbursed for the benefit of the project(s) funded by this Agreement in accordance with the principles of 24 CFR 570.504 (b)(2)(i) and (ii). Program income which is not used to continue or benefit such project(s) shall revert back to the Block Grant Fund for reallocation by the County. (2) The City may retain program income provided it is used in accordance with regulations in 24 CFR 570.504, and pursuant to adopted local CDBG program policies. The County shall determine whether income is being t used to continue or benefit a project or projects authorized by this j Agreement. (3) Program income on hand when the Agreement expires and received after the Agreement's expiration must be used by the subrecipient to meet its original national objective for the time period specified in Part I Section 3.C. of this Agreement. The County may transfer the program income to the City, upon its termination of urban county participation provided the City has become an entitlement grantee and agrees to use the program income in its own CDBG entitlement program. D. Appraisals Promissory Note and Trust Deed ~ . i (1) For any real property acquired, constructed or rehabilitated with CDBG i funds, the City shall provide the County with an appraisal of the property. The appraisal shall be conducted by a certified appraiser whose services shall be paid for by the City. The purpose of such an appraisal is to: (a) conoriI1 to any federGl real property acquisition rcquira,mcntS, aidivr (b) tv - „ establish a baseline figure for the purpose of entering into a promissory note and trust deed as specified below. The appraisal shall be conducted within 45 days of notification to do so by the County. (2) City shall execute a Promissory Note and Trust Deed for any facility constructed, acquired or rehabilitated with Community Development Block Grant funds. The Promissory Note and Trust deed shall be executed at such time as required by the County. J ccftuA 969142 Page 9 of 27 ' i (3) City agrees to comply with all agreements, covenants and restrictions contained in the Promissory Note and Trust Deed, and all applicable federal, state and local regulations during the terms of the Promissory Note and Trust Deed. 8. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND FUTURE SUPPORT A. The County makes no commitment to future support and assumes no obligation for future support of the activities contracted for herein, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. B. Should anticipated sources of revenue not become available to the County for use in the Community Development Program, the County shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the County will be released from all contracted liability for that portion of the Agreement covered by funds not received by the County. 9. AMENDMENTS This Agreement shall be modified by the parties only upon written amendment 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING A. The City shall not enter into any contracts under this Agreement without the written approval of the County. Such consent shall be requested 15 days i prior to the date of proposed assignment. B. The County shall assume no liability for acts and omissions of contractors or subcontractors employed by the City. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION The City agrees to defend, save, hold harmless and indemnify the County, its commissioners, employees and agents for any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from its own negligencc .-o........nce of c_•l..__ 1__m y~iy.,~w.., pcwn~lal wG 1 or Ia11UIC to pellUllll the , obligations of any agreement resulting from this Agreement. ccfnr3f9G9142 - Page 10 of 27 i 1 _ l -f 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. Interest of Officers Employees, or Agents - No officer, employee, or agent of the County or City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection WIIn UIC planning and carrying out ui the ulwn Grant rivyran., or any other person who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement and the City shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. B. Interest of Subcontractor and Their Employees - The City agrees that it will incorporate into every subcontract required to be in writing and made pursuant to this Agreement the following provision: Y. The Contractor covenants that no person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Block Grant Program, has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in j this Contract. The Contractor further covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, ; . which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Contract no person having any conflicting interest shall be employed. Any interest on the part of the Contractor or his employees must be disclosed to the City or the County. 13. DEFAULT AND SUSPENSION ' A. Each of the following events shall constitute a default on the part of the I I City: i (1) Material noncompliance with the terms of this contract, the Award, any and all applicable state or federal laws and regulations; (2) Mismanagement or improper use of Award funds; (3) Failure to obligate required funds or to provide work or services expressed by this Agreement; (4) Failure to submit reports, supplying incomplete or inaccurate reports required by Part III herein. B. Each of the following events shall constitute a default on the part of the County: ccfnr3t9Ge142 . Page 11 of 27 (1) Material noncompliance with the terms of this contract, the Award, i any and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations; as required by this (2) Failure to provide funding for ser ices rendered contract and law. 14. ENFORCEMENT A. In the event the City is found in default under the terms of this agreement the County may: ' (1) Withhold any or all of any pending or future payments until the default is cured; (2) Suspend all or part of this Contract or Award herein; (3) Prohibit the City from incurring additional obligations of funds until the County notifies the City in writing that the default is cured; ! (4) Disallow or deny both the use of funds and matching credit of the activity or action not in compliance; (5) Take any and all other legal or equitable remedies available. B. Any costs attributed to the program which were lawfully incurrad prior to any suspension or termination will be considered property incurred. Any costs attributed to the program during or after any suspension or termination are specifically not allowed without express written consent by the County. 15. APPEAL i In the event the County takes an action to enforce the terms of this Contract, the Award or to enforce compliance with applicable state and federal law, the City may appeal such action in the manner provided in this section as follows: ® (1) The County shall provide the City with written notice of the default and the right to cure, if any; (2) The City may pursue an informal appeal by contacting the Manager of the Office of Community Development. afraV96-9142 - Page 12 of 27 j j Now (3) The City may appeal the informal decision of the Manager by submitting a written objection of the enforcement action directly to the Community 1 . . t Pc!;--,,, Adwicnrv Rnarri (PAR) (a) The PAB may consider oral argument, written testimony and any other such evidence it considers relevant to a determination. (b) The PAB shall consider all information and reach a determination based upon the record submitted and prepare a written finding. (c) The City shall have the opportunity to provide oral testimony if a hearing is conducted. If a formal hearing is not held the City shall have the opportunity to submit written objections, arguments and other material relevant to its position. r (d) The findings of the PAB are final and no further appeal is allowed. - i 16. TERMINATION A. This contract shall terminate upon any of the following events: (1) Termination following default as defined previously; (2) The failure by the County to provide funding for services rendered as required by this Agreement; (3) The unavailability of Block Grant funds from either the federal government or through the County. i B. This Agreement will terminate upon thirty days written notice by the County in the event funding is no longer available. C. Upon termination of this Agreement, any unexpended balance of Agreement funds shall remain with the County. The regulations relating to reimbursement of Block Grant funds shall be applicable to the City for expended funds. D. The City shall reimburse the County for any and all funds expended in violation of the terms of this Agreement, state or federal law. ccfrd3rr-9142 Page 13 of 27 i PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF DEBARRED CONTRACTORS CDBG funds shall not be used directly or indirectly to employ, award contracts to, or _ ntherwise AnnaaP the servir-.ec of nr funrl any contractor or s brecipicnt during any period of debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 24. The City shall not make any award at any tier to any party which is debarred, suspended or excluded from participation in federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, "Debarment and Suspension." 18. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon and federal law. Any action or suit commenced in connection with this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of Washington County. The prevailing party, either in Circuit Court or on appeal, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs and disbursements as awarded by the Court. 19. EXTENSIONS } If in the determination of the Office of Community Development (OCD) a time extension is necessary or appropriate, an extension of the term of agreement for an additional period may be granted to the City by the County's Office of Community Development provided the City requests such an extension, in writing, at least two (2) weeks prior to a~ the last expiration date contained in this Agreement. Additional extension(s) may be granted by the OCD Program Manager in case of extenuating circumstances. } i i i i }fff L, , i ccfir3l96-9142 Page 14 of 27 i } j I PART II. FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 1. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS A. In awarding contracts pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall comply with all applicable requirements of local and state law for awarding contracts, including but not limited to procedures for competitive bidding, contractor's bonds, and retained percentages. In addition, the City small comply with the requirements of the 24 CFR Part 85.36 and Part 85.37, relating to bonding, insurance and procurement standards; and with Executive Order 11246 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (41 CFR Chapter 60) regarding nondiscrimination bid conditions for projects over $25,000. B. The City agrees to submit copies of all contracts, agreements, plans, specifications and change orders related to the project to the County's Office of Community Development in a timely manner. No plan specification or change order shall be used or implemented if it increases the total project cost without approval from the Office of Community Development. C. The City shall make available to each contractor bidding on any activity under this Agreement a listing of minority business enterprises (MBEs). 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I X The County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as i implemented by HUD Environmental Review Procedures (24 CFR Part 58). The County shall require the City to furnish data, information and assistance for the County's review and assessment in fulfillment of the County's responsibilities under 24 CFR, Part 58. B. The City shall not proceed with the acquisition of real property or any ! f construction activities under this Agreement until satisfaction of all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. j F C. Other Environmental Compliance Requirerrrenis: ; - - _ .J ocfn(3/96-9142 - Page 15 of 27 { I (1) Historic Preservation. The City shall meet the historic preservation requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-9g1) and Fve~~~tiye Or±er - 11593, including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. Activities affecting property listed in or found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be subject to requirements set forth in HUD Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58. (2) National Flood Insurance. The City shall not receive Community Development Block Grant funding for acquisition or construction for use in any area that has been identified as having special flood r hazards and is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, as provided by Section 3(a) and 202 (a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 USC 400(a) and 4106) and the regulations thereunder (44 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B, and 24 i CFR, Section 570.605. i. (3) Air and Water Pollution. The City shall comply with the provisions of I ' the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC Section [1857] 7401 et seg.) _ and the regulations issued thereunder (40 CFR Part 15) and the Water Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq. (4) Lead-Based Paint Poisoning. Pursuant to 24 CFR, 570.608 the City shall comply with the HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR Part 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 USC Sections 4831 et seg.) requiring prohibition of i the use of lead-based paint whenever funds under this Agreement are 7 used directly or indirectly for acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, or modernization; elimination of immediate lead-based paint hazards in f residential structures; and notification of the hazards in residential j structures; and notification of the hazards of lead-based paint poisoning to purchasers and tenants of residential structures constructed prior to 19-173. _ i 3. NONDISCRIMINATION A General. The City shall comply with all federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, sex, familial status, race, creed, color, national origin, or disability. These requirements are specified in Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 "as amended"; Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI (42 USC 2000d et seq.); Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII (42 ccfnr3W-9142 Page 16 of 27 i i F 1 t FF 1 j r USC 3601 et seq.); Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259; Executive Order 11246 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (41 CFR Chapter 60); Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 I (17 U SC- 1701u); and Sect; n FnA of the Rehabilitation Act of 1073, 1019.. 110,1 -ye Al- . Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12101); and the Age Discrimination I Act of 1975 (42 USC 6101 et seq.). Specifically, the City is prohibited from taking any discriminatory actions defined in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 570.602(b)(1)-(3) and shall take such affirmative and corrective actions as required by the regulations at CFR 570.602(b)(4). These requirements are summarized in the following paragraphs: (1) Program Benefit. The City shall not discriminate against any resident of the project service area by denying benefit from or participation in any Block Grant funded activity on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, age, and familial status. (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title Vlll; Section 109, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; Age Discrimination Act 1975; Americans With j Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12101); Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973.) j (2) Fair Housing. The City shall take necessary and appropriate actions to prevent discrimination in federally assisted housing and lending practices j related to loans insured or guaranteed by the Federal Government. (Civil JJ Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII, as amended; Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259.) (3) Employment. ~i j (a) In all solicitations under this Agreement the City shall state that all i qualified applicants will be considered for employment. The words, "Equal Opportunity Employer" in all advertisements shall constitute compliance with this Section. (b) The City shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment in connection with the Agreement because of age, sex, farri ilial status, disability, race, creed, color or national origin, except when there is a bona fide occupational limitation. The City shall not refuse to hire, employ or promote, or bar, discharge, dismiss, reduce in compensation, suspend, demote, or discriminate in work activities, terms or conditions because an individual has a physical or mental disability in any employment in connection with this Agreement unless it can be shown that the particular disability prevents the performance of the work involved. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, J ccfnr3l9rr9142 Page 17 of 27 f i E E I J sue. - recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training. (Executive Order 11246 as amended; and Section 504 of the °ehabilitati~n Act of 1973" Ainefluans Wiih Disabiiities Act (ADA) (42 USC 12101); and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.) (c) This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 USC 1701u), as amended, the HUD regulations issued pursuant thereto at 24 CFR Part 135, and any applicable rules and orders of HUD issued thereunder prior to the HUD authorization of the funding approval. (4) Persons With Disabilities. As required by 24 CFR, Part 8.51 the City shah w conduct a self-evaluation and take corrective action to ensure reasonable accommodation in programs and services to persons with disabilities. The City shall provide County with a completed self- evaluation checklist, in the form set forth in County's CDBG Procedures Manual. j I (5) Contractors and Suppliers (a) No contractor, subcontractor, union or vendor engaged in any activity under this Agreement shall discriminate in the sale of materials, - equipment or labor on the basis of age, sex, familial status, race, I J creed, color, or national origin. No *contractor, subcontractor, union or I vendor engaged in any activity under this Agreement shall refuse to hire, employ or promote, or bar, discharge, dismiss, reduce in j compensation, suspend, demote or discriminate in work activities, terms or conditions because an individual has a physical or mental disability in any employment in connection with this Agreement unless it can be shown that the particular disability prevents the perfon-nance I of the work involved. Such practices include upgrading, demotion, C recruiting, transfer, layoff, termination, pay rate, and advertisement for employment. (Executive Order 11246 as amended; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.) (b) To the greatest extent feasible, the City shall purchase supplies and services for activities under this Agreement from vendors and contractors whose businesses are located in the area served by the Block Grant funded activities or owned in substantial part by project area residents. (Section 3, Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, as amended.) ccfn(3196.9142 Page 18 of 27 B. In the event of noncompliance by the City with any nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the County shall have the right in whole or in part to cancel this Agreement in accordance with Part I, Section 14. 4. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT The City, as a subgrantee, agrees that any property, equipment, or supplies purchased wholly or in part with program funds shall be managed under the same guidelines applicable to the County, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 85. 5. LABOR STANDARDS A. The City shall require that project construction and subcontractors pay their laborers and mechanics at wage rates in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as t' amended (40 USC sections 276(a)-276(a)(5), and that they comply with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276(c) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) as further prescribed at 29 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7; provided that this section shall not apply to ' rehabilitation of residential property designed for residential use by less than eight f units, or to rehabilitation of rental property consisting of less than twelve units. I~ i B. A copy of the current Davis-Bacon wages must be included in all construction bid _ specifications and/or contracts over $2,000. 6. ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION j A. Any acquisition of real property by a unit of government for any activity assisted under this Agreement shall comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 amended as Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq.) and the E Regulations at 24 CFR Part 42 as amended effective April 2, 1987. ` B. Any displacement of persons, business, nonprofit organizations or farms as a result I, of acquisition of real property assisted under this Agreement shall comply with Title - - 11 of the I Inifoml Act and the regulations a'1.I r•co Part nn rt,.. City shall comply „ • l G-T VI I\ rI l ML. I I IC %,lly JI IaII 1.0111 pl ' with the regulations pertaining to costs of relocation at 24 CFR Section 570.606 and the Washington County CDBG Program Policies. 7. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS M Any facility constructed or altered pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with design requirements of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). ~J WM3196 e142 Page 19 of 27 ;I L.~ ~1 (r 1~ 8--, NONPARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES The City shall comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 USC Chapter 15). y, NUNSUbb T 1 I U I IUN FUK LUUAL FUNDING The Block Grant funding made available under this Agreement shall not be utilized by the City to reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the availability of funds under this Agreement. 10. PUBLIC INFORMATION A. All written materials (reports, brochures, promotional or informational items), news releases, and other public notices produced by or for the City shall acknowledge the source of funding as being derived from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and provided through the Washington County Community Development Block Grant Program. B. For all construction projects exceeding $50,000, the City shall erect a durable and adequately visible sign at the construction site, identifying the source of funds. Any signage placed on a sponsored sight shall conform to the specifications detailed in the County's Office of Community Development Procedures Manual. j fl 11. APPLICABILITY OF LAWS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT To the extent applicable to the City's acceptance and use of funds under this Agreement, 4 the City shall comply with the policies, guidelines and Uniform Administrative I j Requirements of OMB Circulars A-87, A-128, (implemented at 24 CFR, Part 44), and 24 CFR, Part 85 (implemented at 24 CFR, Part 570.502). j 12. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The City certifies, by affixing its authorized signature(s) to this agreement that, to the best of the City's knowledge and belief: A. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the City, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the entering into this cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of this cooperative agreement. Page 20 of 27 i j B. If any funds other than Federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of rnnnress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this _ cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (Available through the Office of Community Development.) C. The City shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 13. CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE k The City in accordance with Section 519 of Public Law 101-144, 1990 HUD Appropriations Act, certifies by affixing its authorized signature(s) to this agreement that the City will not use excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations. is 14. CERTIFICATION REGARDING A DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ~ f. A. The City certifies, by affixing its authorized signature(s) to this agreement that, as a condition of receiving Community Development Block Grant funding, the City i will provide a drug free workplace for its employees and ensure: a (1) The City shall establish or have in effect policies and procedures that prohibit the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a { controlled substance in the workplace, and specify what actions will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibitions. (2) Policies and procedures established by the City shall provide for the establishment of a drug-free awareness program, and require that each of the City's employees be given a copy of the City's policy regarding the drug-free workplace. (3) The City shall also require its employees, as a condition of employment, to abide by the terms of the City's policy, and that the employees will notify the City of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation no later than I five (5) days after such conviction, and that the City will notify the County's Office of Community Development within ten (10) days after receiving notice, or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. i ccfnr3/ 6-9142 , 1 Page 21 of 27 { (4) The City agrees that it will take appropriate personnel actions, within thirty i (30) days of receiving notice with respect to any employee who is convicted, up to and including termination; or requiring employee(s) to narfininafo in 'j- -g -,t+...... .-,~.-.~.:r•-.:__ v,canaVii --V - fdlT. ,,vuu " B. Failure to make a good faith effort to maintain a drug free workplace through the implementation of this section shall constitute a breach to this agreement and will result in termination of this agreement in accordance with Part I, Section 16. I t ) 'v ocfrv3?969142 _ Page 22 of 27 L. 7 1 I PART 111. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING 1. EVALUATION TL cua ww i I ic ~.n . /~:a.y . agrees 'to participate ~ m.lut. the /~~..w1.y• in any ..n..in...l, ~n1ir\w. w..wpvaiw. n1 or u vvw u.......~ ~ t+ performance report, as designed by the County or the appropriate federal agency, and to make available all information required by any such evaluation process. 2. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS A. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the County, federal or state officials so authorized by law during the performance of f this Agreement and during the period of records retention specified in this Part III at paragraph 4. B. The City shall be responsible for meeting the audit requirements established in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128 and 24 I CFR, Part 44. A copy of the project or program audit shall be made available to IIII the County's Office of Community Development for review and acknowledgment no later than 60 days after completion of the audit. 3. RECORDS In the event the City sponsors multiple projects, each project shall be maintained under a separate file system and kept in a manner recommended by the County. AS rc uircd b HUD regulations the Cifv shall compile and maintain r_.COfdS as - q ; , indicated: 1 A. Financial Management - Such records shall identify adequately the source and application of funds for activities within this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 85.20. These records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income. B. Citizen Participation - Narrative and other documentation describing the process used to inform citizens concerning the amount of funds available, the ranges of project activities undertaken, and opportunities to participate in funded Block Grant projects. i OCW3196-9142 Page 23 of 27 s - I n C. Relocation - City recordkeeping must comply with the Uniform Act implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42. Indication of the overall status of the relocation workload and separate relocation record for each person, business, organization, and farm operation die-Placed ar in the r c!ccaticn woi kioaa must be kept. D. Real Property Acquisition - If the City acquires real property by exercising its power of eminent domain, City acquisition files must contain the following records: (1) Identification of property and property owners. (2) Official Determination to Acquire - A citation of the action that constitutes e the official determination to acquire, the date of the action, and the applicable CDBG project number. O 3 Notice of Intent to Acquire the Property - A copy of the notice (including i ' owner's rights), citation of the date of transmittal to owner, and evidence of receipt by the owner. If tenants are involved, then a general notice must also be issued to all affected tenants. j (4) Preliminary Acquisition Notice - A citation of the date of transmittal to the i - owner and evidence of receipt by owner. I. (5) Invitation to Accompany Appraiser - Evidence that owner was invited to accompany each appraiser on his inspection of the property. (6) Appraisal Reports - A copy of each appraisal report, including reviewer's report, on which determination of just compensation was based. (7) Determination of Just Compensation - A copy of the resolution, certification, motion or other document constituting the determination of just I compensation. (8) Purchase Offer - A copy of written purchase offer of just compensation, including all, basic ter n-is and conditions of such offer, and a citation of the date of delivery to the owner. This date is the initiation of negotiations and triggers the relocation requirement of making a "Notice of Displacement". (9) Statement of the Basis for the Determination of Just Compensation - A copy of the statement and an indication that it was delivered to the owner I with written purchase offer. f «frW319s9142 'j Page 24 of 27 - 1 ~ - L~ .1 (10) Purchase Agreement, copy of recorded Deed, Declaration of Taking, Title Report, Title exceptions - A copy of each such document and any similar or related document utilized in conveyance. (11) Settlement Cost Reporting Statement - A signed copy of the statement. (12) Purchase of Price Receipt - Evidence of owner receipt of purchase price payment. (13) Copy of any appeal or complaint and City response. E. Equal Opportunity - The City will maintain racial, ethnic, and gender data showing the extent to which these categories of persons have participated in, or benefitted from, the activities carried out under this Agreement. The City shall also maintain j r data which records its affirmative action in equal opportunity employment, and its good faith efforts to identify, train, and/or hire lower-income residents of-the project area and to utilize business concerns which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. F. Labor Standards - Records shall be maintained, regarding compliance of all contractors performing construction work under this Agreement with the labor standards made applicable by 24 CFR Part 570.605. G. Miscellaneous Records - The City shall maintain such other records as may be required by the County and/or HUD. 4. RE iI ENT ION OF RECORDS j As required in 24 CFR 85.42, required records shall be retained for a period of three (3) years following the date of the submission of the final grantee performance report in which the activity is covered, except as follows: A. Records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for three years or until such audit findings have been resolved, whichever is later. . ' B. Records fUr Real Property and Cy'iliplilcilt shall be retained Icy wl 'three years aftcl - its final disposition. The retention period starts from the date of disposition, replacement, or transfer at the direction of the County. Equipment is defined in 24 I CFR Part 85.32 and real property is defined in 24 CFR Part 570.505. If C. Records for any displaced person shall be retained for three years after such fj person has received final payment. Ii - ecfnf3 %-9142 Page 25 of 27 j i R~T IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS - 1. The City shall execute this agreement no later than 30 days following the date of _ the Countv's letter of transmittal 2. Fifteen days prior to soliciting bids the City shall make available to the County's Office of Community Development, in writing, a schedule of proposed activities to include at least: the date of bid solicitation; date of bid opening or final date of " phone solicitations, as applicable; anticipated award date; and date of anticipated construction. In addition, the City will provide a construction cost estimate. 3. In accordance with Part I, Paragraph 1.6., the following covenants are deemed not applicable and are expressly deleted: % f i.. i i- 3 ; i cctri(3/9&9142 Page 26 of 27 1 F 1 :i . FF _ _ - _ _ ~ T V. EXHIBITS J e-~~~~~ n~~~•;Ytip• c~n~o of Arlfvitiac anti An.ticioated AccomolishmPnts B. Authorized Signature Card C. Budget Summary _ ,41 J oclnl3lW9142 Page 27 or 27 7-7 J j { PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES AND ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1. Project Number and Title: CDBG Project #9142, Tigard, 91st Avenue Sidewalk Improvement IL Descri tip: Project, Activities, Anticipated Accomplishments, Low and Moderate E or Other Target Group Beneficiaries. A. Nature and Pumose of the Project: Improve the roadway along 91stAvenue, between Lincoln Street and Greenburg Road, to alleviate safety concerns. B. Proposed Location or Impact Area(s)- 91st Avenue, Tigard, between Lincoln Street and Greenburg Road. C. Duration/Timing of the Project: July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 D. Number of Low and Moderate Income or Target Group Beneficiaries: 184 income qualified residents. ! E. Component Activities (nCDBG vs. Others): i r CDBG = $166,800 Other = $23,200 F. Quantitative Projections for CDBG Component Activities, Construct 1,440 lineal feet of 5 ft. sidewalk and curh; widen pavement by - 800 feet; install 4 wheelchair ramps; 16 driveway aprons; 200 lineal feet of 12 inch storm pipe; 4 catch basins; and 2 street lights. Acquire 7,200 feet of right-of-way and temporary construction easements. - imontract/scopel9142tig.doc Attachment A MAY 2 1gQ~ U Project No. 9142 Project Year (funded) 1997 -11.1-NATT= CARD Project Name 91st Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Applicant's Name City of Tigard i Address 13125 aJ Hall Blvd. City, State, Zip Tigard, OR 97223 j Telephone Number (503) 639-4171 . SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS: Any TWO signatures required to sign any financial document NAME (Typed) SIGNATURE c Wayne Lowry i00 James N.P. Hendryx Agustin P. Duenas i William A. Monahan Duane Roberts I certify that the signatures above are of the i ividuals authorized to execute financial documents. ~ Z7 F ~ Date ignature of Authori Official Cnmm„n;ry Development Director Title of Authorized Official OCD I-C, 3/35 (rev.) 30 Attachment B ' Project No. 9142 Project Year (Raided) 199 EiJDGEP SE211ARY cr=3unity Development Block Grant Project Title Tigard, 91st Avenue 1a=1 Name of ETIti t„ ritty Address of Ti-A l _ Address f 13125 SW Hally51vd. city _ Tigard State OR Zip 97223 I f I. E~roc,E•r L~ 1~'Eas A. PgL. SFSIVICES: I 1. No, of 4. Portion chargeable 3. Total to Conmunity Develop- Job t t B1 Grant 1 Planner 3.800 p 1 Project Engineer 1 Engineering Inspect. , 5. Subtota 3.800 p _ e Ire 7. tincLe Benefit--s U Portion Chargeable to Cccmxxnity Developnent B. MA'IE2IAIS 6 SERVICES: Materials Block Servi Grant 9. O ice k=11 es 10 0 p 10. Pexat -Kz ies i 11. Ctsrmmications 12. TmvAl a-1-- T,-a; 13. L°cal Public tics 300 I p 14. Prafessio -1 Services 19,000 p 15, ct'o contracts 141,600 41,600 16. Other- S17ecifv 17. TMAL KaERIALS & SERVICE 161 000 41,600 (OM Form 1-A, 2/88 rev. p.l) 30 Attachment C i { . jl II F71 i C. Portion aYi eable to 18. Capital Outlay: Total C;cmmuiity Development Quantity Canital Out a oc Grant 19, Peal Property s Ac=lsition: 25,200 25,200 20. 701AL CAPITAL OUT2AY 25,200 25,200 21. Total 22. Total Housing & Emlect CCIst Cc- ve t Award 190,000 166,800 IT. SCRM= O -1. Federal $ State 3. Tx=1 Cash 400 ` 4. CoLmtv 5. InnKind Service 22,800 6. Other de 11 7 Subtota 1 8. HcUsiM 6 . Dev. 166,800 190,000 M. AUTHORIZATION *rized Qir..,- I far T.- -4- te Signature or 'Proj - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reviewed and approved by Washington CoTty Office of rz-,nity Development 19,17 All Signa (OCD Form 1-A, 2/88 rev, p.2) 1 31