Loading...
City Council Packet - 09/16/1997Revised 9/ 1 1 /97 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 6:3o PM TIGARD CITY HALL' 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: I%d Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and 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). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 1 I t' AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 3 6:30 p.m. [ 1. WORKSHOP MEETING l 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call C 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 p.m. 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER: COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION - FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION i` a. Staff Report: Community Development Department C b. Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 97- 6:45 p.m. 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM WORKSHOP • Introduction - Assistant to the City Manager • Reports/Discussion - CIT Facilitators, CIT Members, Staff Resource Team Members 7:45 p.m. 4. METRO UPDATE: TRAFFIC RELIEF OPTIONS • Metro Representative 8:00 P.M. 5. VISIONING UPDATE • Report - Assistant to the City Manager and Management Analyst/Risk 8:10 P.M. 6. SW NORTH DAKOTA TASK FORCE UPDATE • Councilor Rohlf and Assistant to the City Manager 8:20 P.M. 7. TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE • Community Development Director COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 2 U 9:00 P.M. 8. LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY ISSUES UPDATE • Introduction - Public Works Director • Report: Murray Smith 8i Associates (Consultant Representative) i 9:45 p.m. ! 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 P.M. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8i (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 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. 10:20 p.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT Badm\catby\cca\970916.doc r j 1 { I i I i 5 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item No. " I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of I u . lei ; ! j WORKSHOP MEETING I MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 i 1. WORKSHOP MEETING i 1.1 Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli. 1.2 Roll Call I Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. I Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Community a Development Director Jim Hendryx; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills (7:12 p.m.); Mike Mills, Engineering; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Vannie Nguyen, Engineering; Police Officer Doug Griesen; Planner Duane Roberts; Senior Planner; Nadine Smith; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley 2. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ORDER FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the final order on the Downing partition which affirmed the director's decision and added a condition requiring the retention of ~ trees and replacement of those lost to damage or disease. The condition would be present up until the property was purchased by the first homeowners. i Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-38. ~ i The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE ` I DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A) WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL EXHI ( BIT B) CONCERNING MLP 97-0010 FILED BY MR. MILES DOWNING TO PARTITION ONE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE I ! f 1 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM WORKSHOP Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced the CIT facilitators and Resource Team members. Sterling Marsh, Pamela Moyers, and Mark Mahon, were present. She reported on the status of the issues raised at the May CIT update. She said that they still needed more facilitators. She mentioned the twojoint CIT meetings they had focusing on city-wide issues, one in May regarding in the CIT program itself and one in the summer regarding greenspaces. Ms. Newton mentioned the discussion of the Erickson property at the South CIT meeting (70-80 people attended) where staff educated the citizens regarding the planning process. Sterling Marsh, South CIT, concurred that the discussion on the Erickson property went well. He said that a concern of the CIT was not seeing the items they discussed acted on very quickly. He stated that Will D'Andrea from the City did caution the citizens that the land use process was very slow. He asked that Mr. D'Andrea return, as he did a good job answering people's questions appropriately. Councilor Moore suggested handing out a time table of events for running a land use process in order to educate people on the time period involved. In response to Councilor Scheckla's questions regarding attendance, Mr. Marsh reported that 84 people attended the September meeting with 64 at the August meeting. He said that typically they had from 20 to 24 people with 12 regulars. He reviewed the meeting procedure, noting that while they allowed everyone an opportunity to speak, they did try to enforce the time limits in order to keep the meeting to two hours. Mark Mahon, East CIT, expressed his disappointment at the lack of attendance at their meetings. He said that attendance was issue-driven: at the August meeting two-thirds of the people were from SW 92°a Avenue. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that East CIT had the majority of the City's industrial land with fewer neighborhoods than the other CITs Mr. Mahon reported that at the August meeting, they did ask only those who attended regularly to vote on the SW 92"d issue. He said that in addition to voting to recommend that the Council call the matter up for review, the CIT voted that the neighbors, not the CIT, should present the appeal to Council. Pamela Moyers, West/Central CIT, said that they also had a problem with issue-oriented attendance. She asked that a "hot list" (providing feedback on Council or staff action regarding the items discussed at the meetings) be distributed at every meeting. Ms. Newton noted the staff's handling of the Woodward Park playground equipment issue to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. Councilor Scheckla suggested a monthly chart which presented the items discussed at previous CIT meetings and how the City addressed them. Ms. Newton said that they could redesign the Status Action Report to include items that a CIT discussed but did not act upon directly. Mayor Nicoli suggested including a similar brief recap in the Cityscape, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 2 I! I i r s t: r' L Y Mike Mills Public Works, mentioned that often when staff had prepared to answer a question raised at a previous meeting, they found at the next meeting that no one wanted to hear the answer because the person who asked the question was not in attendance. Mr. Mills raised the issue of the neighborhood traffic calming process. He pointed out that traffic calming was a major issue in every neighborhood. Staff told citizens to go through the process beginning at the CIT. He reported that citizens were asking how they could get a task force appointed by Council directly to address their concerns as did the SW North Dakota neighbors. He mentioned that while staff has received letters and petitions from neighborhoods regarding traffic concerns, he has seen nothing from the SW North Dakota neighbors. Mayor Nicoli said that every case was evaluated on its own merits. He pointed out that the North Dakota situation has been a problem for a long time. Ms. Newton explained that Council created the task force to reevaluate the temporary fix implemented on SW North Dakota in 1990/91, and to bring some closure to the issue. Councilor Scheckla reported his conversations with Ventura residents who were satisfied with their street the way it was. He asked if the City had liability if a speed hump caused an accident i during the winter. Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, said that the City had a chance of liability if it approved a hump's placement and there was something defective about the design. w `i Ms. Newton suggested that, as a follow up, Council consider sending the alternative traffic calming ideas developed by the North Dakota task force to the CITs, and including a neighborhood process. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought the City was obliged to give an audience to any neighborhood with a problem. He mentioned that he has asked the police chief and city engineer to discuss issues with a neighborhood. He told Mr. Mills to direct the neighborhoods who wanted an audience to the staff, and staff would make the necessary arrangements to work with them. Councilor Rohlf commented that when he told people who approached him about traffic problems to come to a City Council meeting, frequently no one came. He said that he doubted that there was a problem if the neighbors did not have the courage to come forward and stand their ground. Mr. Mills commented that telling citizens to come to the Council rather than to the I CITs sent a message that the CITs were ineffective. Councilor Rohlf stated that the Council was simply another forum for the neighborhoods to present their concerns. Mayor Nicoli explained that he put the SW North Dakota situation on the agenda because he had not liked the way previous Councils had handled the situation or the neighbors, and wanted to resolve the situation as much as possible. He pointed out that it was a unique situation in which Beaverton channeled a major collector into a Tigard subdivision that was not designed to handle the traffic. He said that this Council has addressed or directed staff to address any complaint presented at Council meetings. I I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 1 3 f 1 f Ms. Newton suggested that staff encourage citizens at the CIT meetings to cone to Council with e their concerns or to appoint a neighborhood representative to present their issues. Mr. Mahon cited the successful resolution of the SW 79th issue as an example of an East CIT neighborhood { presenting its problem to Council and getting a response. He concurred with a neighborhood representative presenting the problem to Council, stating that doing so was not the job of the facilitator. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that citizens could also call any City Councilor or senior staff member to present their concerns. He reiterated that the City did have a process to deal with neighborhood problems. Councilor Scheckla commented that he thought that Tigard added to the SW North Dakota problem by allowing commercial development along Scholls Ferry. I Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, noted that issues raised at a CIT sometimes represented only the view two or three people, not the view of the entire CIT. Councilor Moore commented that while the Council was open to the citizens, they could not - address 38,000 concerns individually. He agreed that Council was prepared to have staff address a problem raised by a neighborhood group and presented to Council through a neighborhood spokesperson Mr. Mills asked for direction on how to respond to citizens who asked why nothing has been j done on their streets while SW North Dakota was getting a second review. He noted a concern f ~ of other neighborhoods that the task force would shift the traffic from North Dakota to some . other street. Councilor Moore commented that the problem on SW North Dakota was not speed but volume. Ms. Newton noted the need to define processes that would address issues so that people would understand which process they should use to get their situation corrected. She commented that the solution that worked for North Dakota would not necessarily work for another street because the situations would be different. Mayor Nicoli concurred that the various forums available through the City for neighborhoods to get their problems addressed should be clearly delineated to the citizens. Ms. Newton suggested that staff conduct a land-use education session for i citizens. Councilor Scheckla cited other areas which would want treatments similar to North Dakota, including Watson Avenue and 1 I Oth and Gaarde. 4. METRO UPDATE: TRAFFIC RELIEF OPTIONS Carl Hosticka, Metro, gave a slide presentation to illustrate his remarks. He mentioned an estimate of $13.5 billion needed to build their way out of freeway traffic congestion in the Tigard area over the next 20 years. However, they only had $1 billion dollars available. He reviewed the alternative methods Metro has used to try to deal with the problem, including ; carpools, freeway meters, light rail, and transit. f i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 4 t I~ r; s Mr. Hosticka mentioned the concept of "peak period pricing," explaining how this market { concept of paying more during peak hours of usage applied to transportation. Using a toll road system, a jurisdiction would charge drivers for driving on the most congested roads at the 4 busiest times of the day. It would not be a blanket toll but would be adjusted to reflect the time of day and amount of congestion. It used a vehicle transponder read by a machine to deduct the toll from the amount electronically credited to the transponder at the time the owner paid the amount at an office. II 4 Mr. Hosticka cited examples in the United States, Europe, and Asia where peak period pricing has been shown to save time, to divert traffic from the congested areas to other times and places, and to reduce pollution and accidents. He described the public/private partnership for peak period pricing on State Route (SR) 91 in Orange County, California implemented in December 1995. He said that other US cities were currently studying peak period pricing. Mr. Hosticka reported on the Portland study of peak period pricing, underway for one and a half years. He said that their first goal was to decide whether or not this method made sense, and if so, should the Portland area try it. He mentioned that the revenues generated by this method would be used to finance improvements to the transportation system. He noted the public process used by the study task force to get citizen input from around the region. Mr. Hosticka reviewed the criteria for determining whether or not peak period pricing made - sense. These included could it be done in a way that was fair and equitable, what were the effects on neighborhoods and businesses, did it save time or was it simply a way to make j money, and was it feasible to construct a toll system in the existing transportation area. Mr. Hosticka reviewed how peak period pricing would be implemented in the nine areas settled on by the task force (out of 40 areas studied). These areas included Macadam/Highway 43 near l the Sellwood Bridge, I-5 from 1-405 to 99W, I-84 from SE 207 to Grand Avenue, Highway 26 from the tunnel to SW 185'h, and Highway 217 from Highway 26 to 1-5, McLoughlin Blvd., I-5 from Terwilliger to Wilsonville, I-5N across the bridge, and I-5 from I-405 to Delta Park. He explained the methods they might use to establish a toll system. These included turning an existing lane into a reversible express toll lane, new toll lanes, and tolls at bridges. Mayor Nicoli asked how the toll system would work on Highway 217 if people got on in between Highway 26 and I-5. Mr. Hosticka said that they thought that they would only be able to charge the through traffic. However SR 91 in California has demonstrated that doing so did help the local traffic. Also once in the toll lane, people had to go all the way through. Mr. Hosticka said that the idea of peak period pricing was giving people the option to get where they wanted to go faster, (i.e., trading money for time). He noted that they already paid for congestion in aggravation and lost time. He noted the brochure listing how to contact the task force to give input. He commented that another criteria was political feasibility, noting the "fear q of tolling" that existed in the community. I 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16.1997 - PAGE 5 i . i rr~ An audience member asked if the Westside Bypass was still in the conversation. Mr. Hosticka 1 said that a Tualatin-Sherwood toll road was still under discussion, although it was found that it would not relieve congestion on 99W because that was primarily local traffic. Councilor Rolilf said that he found this method discriminating to the poor. He held that the public already owned the roads and has paid for them several times over already. He stated that stealing a lane from an existing freeway would simply make the situation worse. He said that the public/private enterprise example from California was in a separate category, and the photo documenting the San Diego facility showed that most people were refusing to pay the toll. He said that he could not support this idea, especially without knowing how the money would be j spent or if it would go to support additional roads. Mr. Hosticka said that the main idea behind peak period pricing was giving people a choice. He said that they could give free or discounted transponders to those without the means to pay the toll. He said that they would not be stealing a lane from a facility, they would be readjusting how the system was used. He stated that he would not support this either if the money went for general government purposes rather than to increase the capacity of the system. r k i Mr. Hosticka held that those driving during the congested times were putting the load on the j system, and should pay for the improvements needed because of them, rather than the general public paying for problems they did not create. He commented that it was a matter of I philosophy on who paid - those who created the problem or everyone. An audience member spoke to taxing the advertising of the car industry as a means of generating revenue. He said that the government was not selling alternative methods of transportation hard enough to overcome the marketing efforts of the car industry. He cited the lack of congestion at the I-5N bridge as an example of a successful marketing effort to get people to change their behavior. Mayor Nicoli said that while he did not like the idea of a toll, it was something they needed to look at because the general public did not want to pay for the big projects. oppose the idea. Mayor Nicoli disagreed, stating that restaurants would appreciate less traffic on the road because it made it easier for people to get to their business. Councilor Scheckla commented that the businesses and restaurants along toll roads might 5. VISIONING UPDATE Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, invited the Council to the October 9 joint meeting of the Action Committees and the Vision Task Force to review the outcome of the visioning process, and the goals for the first three years of the 20 year process. She mentioned that half of the City Council goals were the same as many of the issues raised by citizens through the visioning process, indicating that the Council was in touch with the community's concerns. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 6 i i - t These issues included public transit improvements, developing long and short range space plans (with funding), updating the City's Park Master Plan, a neighborhood traffic management program, 99W improvements, long term water source, passenger rail service, special events, and town identity. Ms. Mills said that the staff, the citizens, the Chamber, the School District, the Fire District, and water providers, have committed to working together io achieving these goals. She spoke to communicating to the citizens that the action items and goals coming out of this process would be implemented, and not set on a shelf. Councilor Rohlf said that he sat in on meetings of the Growth Management and Community Character committees. He expressed his appreciation for the citizens' ability to work through a 3 matrix to develop action items and goals. 9 ;j 6. SW NORTH DAKOTA TASK FORCE UPDATE Councilor Rohlf reported that the Task Force has heard public input at its last two meetings, i including heavy representation from Summerlake. Summerlake was concerned that traffic would be redirected to their streets. 3 l Councilor Rohlf noted the letter from Gene McAdams questioning Councilor Rohlf's participation on the task force for reasons of conflict of interest. Councilor Rohlf said that he had offered to sit on the task force as a citizen but was encouraged to chair it as a Councilor to insure balanced representation and good public input. He disagreed that his neighborhood should go unrepresented simply because he lived there. He said that he has not yet decided whether or not he will vote on the final recommendation. Ms. Beery asked if the Council wanted her office to issue an opinion on this question of conflict of interest. Councilor Scheckla spoke to getting an opinion in order to exonerate Councilor Rohlf and establish a precedent for Councilor participation in these matters. Mayor Nicoli spoke against getting an opinion, advising he thought that it was a waste of taxpayers' money. He said that the individual with a concern could ask the state to investigate it but as far as he was concerned there was no conflict of interest. He mentioned that many people did not understand that "conflict of interest" legally referred to someone gaining financially from a situation. i Councilor Moore said he attended the Monday meeting out of curiosity. He commented that Councilor Rohlf had not influenced the meeting, and that he did not see a problem at this time. The Council agreed by consensus not to ask for an opinion from the City Attorney's office. Councilor Rohlf reported that the Engineering staff was currently reviewing the alternatives developed by the Task Force at their last meeting. The Task Force would meet one or two more times to discuss the alternatives. Ms. Newton reviewed the noticing staff did to inform people of the meetings. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 7 L. i .i i I I i a i c L 7. TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report, using a slide presentation and other graphics. He reviewed the background of the Triangle design standards from the Council's first direction to staff to develop them (following the adoption of the land use transportation standards) to the July 1997 design workshop at which the participants concluded that seven of the standards did preclude "big box" development. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the seven standards, explaining how each affected large scale retail development, and using slides to demonstrate how large buildings in the Portland Metro area implemented the standards. These standards included the requirement for streets at intervals of 660 feet, a similar requirement for pedestrian access every 330 feet, the zero to 10 foot setback, buildings to occupy 50% of the street frontage, the prohibition on parking occupying more than 50% of the front of the building, and 50% window coverage. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Triangle Task Force design principles. These included to create a safe, secure, and convenient pedestrian system within the Triangle that linked internal uses and connected to the city-wide system. to integrate within the new development the significant natural resources of the Triangle, to use streetscapes as a key element to create a high quality image of the Triangle and to establish people friendly spaces, to insure that the transition from the existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment occurred in a way that respected the livability of the residential areas, and to allow for the opportunity of the residential uses within compatible employment areas. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the guiding principles for land use and transportation followed in establishing the Triangle standards. These included to support the Triangle as a location for a variety of commercial, office, business park, and research uses, to recognize that accessibility was the key to a successful mixed use employment (MUE) area (with the automobile accommodating the vast majority of trips to an MUE area), to support transit and other modes of transportation in order to maximize their potential, to create a complementary land use pattern that allowed for a number of trips over a broad period of the day, and to add roadways and utilities to the existing infrastructure to accommodate the growth. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Triangle design standards for public street improvements, new developments, and renovation projects. Guiding principles behind these standards included to create a high quality MUE area, to provide a convenient bikeway and pedestrian system within the Triangle and to utilize the streetscape to create a high quality image of the area. He pointed out that these standards applied to all zones within the Triangle, both CG and MUE. 1 - Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council's goals as stated at previous meetings. These included provision for large scale development within the Triangle (110,000 square feet), provided it was well-designed, and quality design within the Triangle. He noted the question facing staff: how to create high quality standards to allow big retail uses while providing flexibility at the same CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 8 I a fI i time? Ile mentioned the support of several Councilors for a design review process to provide flexibility and quality design, and to meet the intent of the design standards that went through th and -al rocess i i e v~ston b p Mr. Hendryx presented a new design review procedure that would provide flexibility while meeting the intent of the design standards within the Triangle. He commented that if they threw out all the design standards, then they would not achieve the quality development the Council wanted for the Triangle. Mr. Hendryx explained that if an application did not meet one or more of the Triangle design standards, then it was subject to a design review process that included both a peer review and a public hearing before the Planning Commission. If an application met all the design standards, then it went through the normal administrative site development review process. He explained that the design review process proceeded the pre-application process and therefore was not a subject to the 120-day rule. The applicant paid all costs. The City would have to establish new procedures. Mr. Hendryx compared the existing process of site development review with the proposed alternate process of design review. He explained that an applicant not meeting one or more of the design standards would submit his application to a design evaluation team who would make recommendations as part of the application submitted to the City. The application was then reviewed by the Planning Commission. This process included flexibility, public involvement, and discretion at the Planning Commission level on whether or not the application met the intent of the standards. In addition, over time, the Planning Commission and the design evaluation team would develop guidelines to remove uncertainty from the process. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the Council had a choice between clear and objective standards that had no flexibility (except through the variance process), a subjective review that provided flexibility, or throwing out the standards and letting the market decide (not recommended by i staff). Mr. Hendryx said that he suggested this design review process rather an adjustment process i because he believed that an adjustment process could adjust the standards to meaninglessness. He recommended that Council proceed with creating a design review process and direct staff to return with the necessary amendments. He mentioned that they did need to contact other i interested regional and state agencies but he did not expect any objections to the process. Mr. Hendryx said that staff had not had sufficient time to get much public input. Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, indicated that they presented the idea to the Planning Commission at a training session, and that the Commission was receptive to the idea. Mr. Hendryx commented on the importance of staff keeping the Commission in the loop on the discussion of these standards. j i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 9 r_- i 1 . i Lloyd Lindley, consultant, concurred that this was a good foundation for Tigard to create a ,D 'G f i higher quality of development within the Criangle while allowing for more flexibility than the current design standards allowed. iE Councilor Scheckla mentioned that Tigard used to have a Design Review Board, and suggested using that experience as a guideline for this new board. Ms. Newton commented that the City 4 put the site design review at the staff level when it developed its new Development Code (thus eliminating the Board). Councilor Moore asked why staff recommended using the process for all zones within the Triangle. Mr. Hendryx explained that smaller users in the MUE area were having difficulty with some of the standards also. Staff felt that it was only fair to allow them the same opportunity as the large scale users. He confirmed that the process would only be for the Triangle, not city-wide. Michael Robinson, attorney representing Eagle Hardware, said that while this system was not his client's preference, it was far better than what was currently in place. He pointed out that this peer review process included attributes of the Portland system with which he has had experience. The first, that a developer could not even make application until he has gone through the process, proved so frustrating to one of his clients that the client simply walked away from the Portland process because he was no longer the one designing the project. He commented that this was a lengthy process even before application. I Mr. Robinson contended that it was possible to do good design without the seven standards. He cited the Sequoia Parkway development as a project in which the developers worked with the staff to achieve a design that everyone could live with. He argued that the seven guidelines have never been reflective of the development on the west side of the Triangle. It did not have an existing grid pattern, high density housing, a location on a light rail line, or excellent transit service. What was important was to have an attractive site with convenient parking and pedestrian access. Mr. Robinson said that he did not think that the choice was between flexibility (as embodied in the staff proposal) and clear and objective standards. He cited the letters he and Mark Weisman (Eagle Hardware representative) submitted with suggestions for achieving clear and objective standards to accomplish the Council's goals yet provide certainty to property owners. He held that the design review process would make it difficult to get to the point of submitting an application. Mr. Hendryx reiterated that an application only went through the design review process if it did not meet one or more of the standards. He said that he would interpret this to mean that the only l issue under review was the standard not met. This was not a general review of the entire project. Ms. Beery said that, given the 120 day rule, she thought that if the Planning Commission found that one or more standard was not being met, it would not remand the application but make its decision based on the application as it stood. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 10 i Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if an application did not meet any standard. Mr. Hendryx said that it would be evaluated through the process. He emphasized that the design evaluation team made a recommendation, not a decision. Ms. Beery said that staff assumed that an applicant would not go to the expense of a complete application package for preliminary meetings that might result in changes. They would not have the complete application before them that would trigger the 120 day rule. Mr. Robinson commented that a site could not be designed in isolation. An applicant would have to figure out how to make the site work within all the standards, and which guidelines he could or could not meet. Mayor Nicoli asked who would comprise the design evaluation team. Mr. Hendryx said that they were considering a three person team comprised of experts - a landscape architect, an architect, and an engineer. i i I i The Council discussed whether the team should be experts or lay people. Councilor Scheckla supported experts. Mayor Nicoli spoke against using experts on the team for fear that they would develop a new set of standards not reflective of the community's desires. He favored representatives from Council, the Planning Commission, and staff. Mr. Hendryx commented that lay people lacked the background to evaluate adequately site plans and to hold their own against a design professional who said that something "just would not work." Councilor Rohlf concurred with Mr. Flendryx. He said that it was easy to be swayed by the presentation style rather than the content. He stated that he thought that they would get a better quality decision from a group with semi-objective standards as opposed to a purely subjective evaluation. In addition, a panel of experts would know why they did not like something. Councilor Moore suggested adding one or two people to the team from staff or the Planning Commission or Council to add in the history and the community intent. Ms. Smith pointed out that they would get input from all concerned individuals within the total process. Mayor Nicoli asked if the team could meet informally with the property owners to discuss concerns and issues. Ms. Smith said that could be done during the pre-app. Mr. Hendryx recommended Lloyd Lindley and John Spencer as members of the team because they had the longest history with the Triangle. He said that staff did discuss how to make sure that the history and intent of the community was implemented, and concluded that design principles, guidelines, and interpretations that clearly set out the objectives were the appropriate method. i Steve Bell, Waremart, spoke to the issue of existing development. He pointed out that the design standards made the existing large scale developments non-conforming, which was an issue for them. He said that the seven standards were not traditionally applied to commercial C ] development, and came out of Metro's plans for residential and mixed use areas. He mentioned V CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE I I J { I f the previous decision by the Council and Metro to exempt the areas west of SW 72"d Avenue j zoned GC from the MUE requirements. Mr. Bell noted that the Council's concern was to have aesthetically pleasing development. He conceded that Cub Foods was not the best building possible but it met the standards at the time of its development. He reiterated Waremart's concern that their building would be non- conforming if these new standards were adopted. Mayor Nicoli said that the Council knew that the existing developments could be non- conforming with the design standards. It was one of the reasons behind wanting flexibility in the process. Mr. Hendryx reiterated that the design review process involved two options: meet the standards and proceed to Option A. don't meet the standards and proceed to Option B. A major remodel or reconstruction of a burned out building would go to Option B, if they could not meet the criteria. He mentioned that an addition would be judged on its own merits. Mr. Bell said that if there was a recognition in the process of the unique nature of the existing development, Waremart would be more comfortable with the staff proposal. Mark Weisman, Eagle Hardware, expressed concern that the proposed process penalized the user because of use type. He argued that large scale users did not really have a choice in this proposal because site constraints forced them to Option B, citing Eagle as an example. He said that the City was substituting an untested process for the predictable and rational process currently in place. He concurred with Mr. Bell that the seven standards were not normally found 1 in design review. Design review dealt with building design issues and aesthetics, not connectivity. Mr. Weisman referenced his letter suggesting modifications that would allow the retail user to meet the standards without diluting them. He mentioned that the design evaluation team had no - ' "teeth" to make a decision, they simply made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hendryx explained that if the design evaluation team made a decision, then the 120 day rule kicked in. Mayor Nicoli spoke to including a Planning Commissioner on the team to provide 1 input to the Commission on why the recommendation was made. Mr. Weisman expressed concern about the time involved in the design review process. He said that they needed to know what standards they had to meet before they designed their site. He suggested including this process within the 120 day rule. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that when developers started their process they did know what standards they had to meet - the design standards. The purpose of the review board was to make sure that whatever a developer came up with met the intent and general spirit of the design standards. This was not an arbitrary decision, and the developers were not starting with a blank slate. Mr. Robinson said that people needed to know what the City was trying to achieve with the j standards. He spoke for including a purpose or objective for the standards. Ms. Beery said that I t ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 12 f I~ 1 I staff has discussed writing purpose statement for the standards to describe the objective. i I However they had to be careful to clarify the standards, not create more criteria. Mr. Robinson asked for an appeal process to Council from the Planning Commission, rather than directly to LUBA. He said that a decision by a City Council was given deference by LUBA. He asked to sit down with staff and discuss this proposal prior to bringing in other agencies. E The Council discussed the request. Councilor Moore commented that they could end up changing the design standards for every applicant. He spoke for picking a balanced, fair, usable, and workable process or leaving the standards the way they were. Councilor Scheckla supported the staff proposal for a design review process. He concurred with Councilor Moore's comments. r!_ Councilor Rohlf supported the staff proposal also, especially in its application to both the GC and MUE zones. He said that he thought that the first big development in the Triangle would set the pace. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought Mr. Robinson's request to meet with staff was fair. Mr. Hendryx asked for clear direction from Council on what staff was to do. He said that he did not want to set up a side process where staff had to run things through Mr. Robinson, though he j was willing to share in public process. Mayor Nicoli directed Mr. Hendryx to return next week with a reasonable time frame for drafting this proposal. Joe Putnam spoke for having the same standards for CG as for MUE, contending that the zones were contiguous and should have the same design criteria.f A woman in the audience spoke in support of the design review process and standing by the design standards. She asked if traffic impact studies would be required for facilities larger than i the 110,000 square feet. Mayor Nicoli said yes. Mr. Hendryx explained that they did not fix a maximum number of cars based on their studies. He commented that 110,000 square foot was mentioned as the largest building size because the design standards did not work for larger buildings. Mr. Putnam mentioned a potential long range problem of who would pay the infrastructure costs to accommodate the increased traffic generated by the large developments. He said that there did not appear to be a plan to deal with the issue. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the entire city had increased traffic problems, and no money to solve them. He mentioned that the developers paid a hefty fee to get a building permit in anywhere in Washington County, including in Tigard. 1 Councilor Scheckla cited Washington Square during the holiday season as an example of a congested traffic situation which people did not complain about because it was where they wanted to go. If they did not like the congestion, they could go elsewhere. He said that the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 13 same was true of the developers. If they did not like the City's standards (which applied to everyone), then they could go elsewhere. lie said that if the traffic could not get into the 1 Triangle, then these developers would not be wanting to develop in the Triangle. 8. LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY ISSUES UPDATE: Discussion set over to 9/23/97. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION j The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:57 p.m.. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City Record or, City of Tigard ' Date: 01Ct`"cD12L 2 0?~ /l 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 14 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Le al E j g TT 8927 Notlce j P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 - BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED SEP 16 1997 - • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SI-1 Hall Blvd. CITY OF TIGARD 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • Tigard,Oregon • Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, )3 's I ' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 1 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT±q t -Tna 1 at i n Ti mes i 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 Cnnnci l l9nr1-sh Ci 1- _ y a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the I entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and j i consecutive in the following issues: 1 September 11 ,1997 I J , I Subscribed and sworn to a me this1lth day of September , 1997 {//y~~gggJJ~~rr / OFFICIAL SEAL l /L9UG7L ' ROOM A. BURGESS for Oregon Notary Pu NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON - - COMMISSION NO. 062071 I My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 i AFFIDAVIT i The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING 30 P M 1997 6 E. . . - : September 16, TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON , Workshop Meeting topics: L > Executive Session > Citizen Involvement Teams (CIT) Communications sl f > Update: Tigard Triangle Design Standards > Update: Visioning > Update: Community Development Code Rewrite TT8927 - Publish September 11, 1997. J I AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/16/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE City Council Consideration of Final Decision of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97- 0010 - 972nd Avenue Site j PREPARED BY: C.Wheatley " DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council review of proposed resolution rendering the Final Decision for MLP 97-0010. i i Approve the proposed resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION SUMMARY he City Council conducted a public hearing on September 9, 1997 on this matter. After hearing testimony, ceiving the staff report and conducting Council discussion, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Attached is a proposed resolution that was amended to reflect that the Council added a condition to the conditions contained in the Director's Decision. The attached Exhibit B will become part of the resolution. This exhibit was prepared by Legal Counsel Ramis to reflect the Council's direction for a tree plan and its implementation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - # Amend the Council condition if needed. FISCAL NOTES i#C4Y CA(*K4.S i7c Cr/S 'l~acG,~ disc SY c' J Lr ~Gc "U i_ i ✓l I RECEIVED 2Citv6.d- U-ir,) ltc cL~~ . C'L, SEP 15 1997 To Mr. William Monahan, City Administrator. Re: 6-24-1997 request to Council by Terry Smith and (MLP)97-0010 COMMUNITY DEVEIOr Dear Bill, Knowing that it is your job to investigate complaints and to manage the business- of the City, we decided to write to you to point out that the City may be putting itself in a costly position as well as opening the door for a overturned decision. This would be due to mistakes in procedure and violation of law, as residents we want to go on record as presenting you with this possibility. ti The Council maybe depriving us of our substantial rights by refusing to define or interpret the term and phrase which we requested in writing, this is because we cannot finish or apply our arguments to make a definitive case as to whether laws are being violated. These words are crucial and pivotal, and because this is the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Municipal Code, the City is the only appropriate authority to provide the requested information. If the City ignores our r, Iuest then we do not have a reasonable opportunity to show that the applicant has not complied with the local and state laws. The correct procedure is for the Council to base its decision on proof that the applicant fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the code. The answers we sought from the council were key as to whether this application was a partition or a subdivision, and whether or not the applicant would be required to prepare a tree mitigation plan. It was not unreasonable to make these request or to expect the Council to grant them. It may go to question later whether the City had some reason to withhold this information. Separate from this application and prior to its submission we requested the Council in writing and in person to find whether the trees on lots which are still developable all the way up and down the street are "large or unique" by simply examining and possibly adopting our findings. The Council has not addressed soecificall our request or our findings even while reviewing this application so that it could be established whether or not this is a "tree area" or whether or not the trees exist as "large or unique". This is a procedural error because is says "Where there exist large or unique", the city has made no attempt to first discover if the trees exist as meeting this criteria. According to the strategy the following is a mandatory procedure. 1. Find whether the trees exist as large or unique. 2. If they do exist, ensure by either the planned development process or the tree cutting code that the "CHARACTER of the vegetation AREAS" will not be substantially altered. At LUBA or any possible litigation settings regarding damages to our neighborhood, we will not have any problem demonstrating by the "substantial evidence" in the record that our findings were correct and that the City did not address the findings specific to the existence of these trees or make any efforts to make its own findings. The City will not be able to demonstrate the tree ordinance is reliable to define "large or unique" by its applicability because it does not require or question maximum lot size for minor partitions, also because there is no evaluation for uniqueness in the review for minor partitions and the tree ordinance does not discuss the "vegetation area", only the application . Therefore J F RECEIVED SEP 1 5 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the City has not followed either step in the strategy and as such is violating law and Vae not ensured that the character of this area will not be substantially altered. We will not have any trouble showing that the character was substantially altered with substantial supporting evidence. The position that this is not a tree area with large or unique trees is not supported by substantial evidence that a reasonable person could rely on. While the neighborhood is very thankful to the Council for calling this up for review and knows the Council has the right of opinion, it feels that regardless of whatever decision with conditions the council may render, that the lawful procedure has not been followed. We know that the staff has worked hard, we know that we are tired and we know that the applicant wants to get going. However as important as a speedy process is, the correct process is also important and required. The priority is not to hurry up so that the applicant can start his development or so that the City can be done with this application. The priority is that the decision be made in a lawful manner. The City has until Nov. 5th with this application. When this is all said and done the City should not get itself in a position whereby any party can show that the character of this area was substantially altered by development approved by the City, especially with no evidence in the record of the City ensuring against that. Keep in mind that the applicant in this case does not need to remove very many trees to prepare the actual development for builders as the houses drawn are fictitious, so he should not have to suffer that much in the way of mitigation. He is not planning on building the houses, however he is anxiously anticipating the harvest of the timber even though few trees need to be removed for the road. If the City does not want an appeal then they should find a legal way to discourage removal and to encourage protection as much as possible. Perhaps trying to save the one at the front and more along the accessway by allowing him the option to combine the accessways if in return he plans around some of those. The City should only allow removal of those trees necessary for the Lots to be developed and sold. Then let the builders attempt to design around the trees. We find it ironic that the City wants to buy greenspaces yet wont even review and address our findings. Please understand that the CIT has asked us to report on this review, we have not decided if we will also request to speak to the other CIT groups to inform them about these issues. For now we have refrained from writing letters to the editor or inviting local television neighborhood spots to cover this manner of review. These should not be viewed as threats but rather reasonable options open to citizens that the City should consider. Thank you for your time. The residents on SW 92nd Ave, Tigard OR I f ~ J 1 AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF 9/16/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Metro Update: Traffic Relief Options i Cpl - 1 PREPARED BY: C.Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1 City Council briefing by a Traffic Relief Options Study Task Force Representative prior to going out to the community with workshops and speakers. l 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION i i I n/a I INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton, under cover of his letter of August 18, 1997, asked for an opportunity for I , TRO Task Force Representative to speak to the City Council about Metro's efforts on the Traffic Relief Options. The purpose of the presentation is to brief the City Council on the specific options. The presenter will be Betty Atteberry, Director of the Sunset Corridor Association. Additional information is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a FISCAL NOTES 1 Report only at this time. i:\citywidOsumWetro. doc 1 r a L Fall/winter 1996-97 i Options 1;^I Regional task force studies peak period pricing to reduce traffic congestion l Peak period pricing is being considered throughout the United States as a way to manage traffic and reduce congestion. With today's technology, it could be applied in highly congested locations to save drivers substantial time while relieving the stress 0 of congestion. It is used in many aspects of our lives, such as air travel, long-distance { telephone calls and movie theater tickets. In some parts of the country, people pay lower utility rates if they run major appliances in the evening or on weekends. It is a proven market technique to manage the demand for service during times of high use The study of peak period pricing in the Portiarid area Today it is still relatively easy to get around the Portland metropolitan area. However, delays and bottlenecks are beginning to appear on major thoroughfares. With the certainty that population growth will continue, these already trying situations will worsen. To address the problem, strategic investments in roads have been identified and the use of mass transit, carpooling and employer-based commuting incentives have been encouraged. These measures alone are not likely to resolve the growing congestion problem. That is the challenge of a two-year Traffic Relief Options study commissioned by Metro, in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration. The study will evaluate the possibilities of using peak period pricing incentives to reduce traffic congestion in the region. How peak period pricing works When applied to transportation, peak period pricing is a way to spread the load of travelers over a longer period to increase access to and through congested areas, reduce the negative effects of congestion, such as time delays, road construction costs, accidents and pollution; and lessen the need to build more roads. Some people are likely to choose to drive at a different time, take other forms of transportation or take a different route. Those who choose to drive during peak periods will benefit from substantial time savings. Agenda Item No. Meeting of ~~lrDlg7 Study Task Force A 13 member task rorce of community and business leaders is providing an indepen- dent perspective on the 2J month study and will report its recommendations to the Metro Counc 1 and the Oregon Transportation Commission at the conclusion of the study. Task force meetings are held monthly and are open to the public. Chair Call Hosticka Associate Vice President. Statewide Education Services for the University o1 Diego,, former State Representative Karen Baird Director of Products. US West Ken Baker Attorney; Oregon State Senate, Steve Clark Publisher, Community Newspapers, Inc. Lawrencc Dark P,esrdenVCEO. The Urban League of Portland Jon Egge President, MP Plumbing Delna Jones Project Director, The Cap, I Center; former State Representative Matt Klein Senior Vice President, Ashforth Pacific. Inc. Tom Masher President, Mesher Supply Amtra Rasmussen Oregon State Representative Mike Salsgiver Government Affairs Manager, Intel Robert Scanlan President. Scanlan Kemper Bard Companies Ethan Seltzer Director. PSU Institute of Metropolitan Studies Ee-officio e Mike Burton Executive Office, Metro Henry Hewitt Chair, Oregon Transportation Commission araae the to pay fo a t. -:.Ir,y vanable -.jc.s are CI' !ra! or ,ors,,, ,q ucnng off-peak ;aria r„ore d:;ang ho',irs: tolls are a flat rate, co niatte' t..,. - o; the day. Peak penod pricing is used at specrf:c congested locations; tolls are not nece.ssanly ;;'.acCd on i•oa,;ly traveled facil~hes Tire Traffic Relief Options st'.iriy r.on;:ricr'rov, other alternatives, such as fle urn,, snuffles, roan.%ay expansion, transit improvements, eXpress lanes and car,-.ool;eg relate to various peak per od prlany aliorna- to-s Tne study will also examine options, such as red,!ced payments or vouches !or those :n-,a do rot hrr:e r, cl,o~ce of when or vnere tc aces or canrol o u +u pay 'j~ P a~ P iod pricing cor;ld <.,gn,f,camik, mprove no by reducing stop rind-go tra" c Itc; ePrcs on air (I a! and la^d use ;II be exa r in,d n-) more decal for en, , alternative proposed by the study li~r _u;dv cors;;lr,r a range of uses for the fees rrc,rv,~d In o;:-.r• o a.4 penod orcng s IS-1 to transit alterrrarves i6orig . ra -rt;nsportation Ir~rprovr-urrnt. Re Cic'... - , . c j P~. :1. ; . - C.. r_. J Non-stop toll collection r.:, r q, el! Ctror'ic s the most ~A ancpondor ~ EI r :n _ °r,arl Dut ri.... s . r. „cu .~ds. PB7 1 r p41[BS --_5" W. fdre ~va.._ I N~ 0 -'fow rS ,fiic reil@( options tiror_•Fne U G I I _ p F O - 1~ _ 1 m G _ to to cn N U `'orn.a i Different peak period pricing concepts "J Peak period pricing concepts can be broadly categorized by the geographical area and types of facility included. Each category has different characteristics that affect travel and traffic impacts, as well as revenue and cost implications. The five general catego ries being studied are: Category Description Effect Collection method Spot Pricing of a single point across Costs are small, works best with no Manual or electronic tolls ' all lanes, usually a bottle-neck alternatives nearby; revenues could be f such as a bridge or tunnel modest (depending on amount of traffic) Partial Pricing of express lane one -Drivers have choice of paying to drive on Manual or electronic tolls facility lane each direction of congested less congested lane or using existing section of roadway lane(s) free; revenues and costs likely to be moderate Whole Pricing of all lanes in a congested Significant reduction in congestion; Manual or electronic tolls facility section of a roadway works best with few parallel roads; revenues likely to exceed costs unless traffic moves to other routes Corridor Pricing of major highways and Significant reduction in congestion: Manual or electronic tolls all parallel roads along a route revenues and costs high Area Pricing of specific congested Many travelers affected; significant Special license, electronic major regional destination area reduction in auto trips possible, may cordon or parking pricing be perceived as a disincentive to program development if not properly imple- mented: minimal costs, revenues likely to be high Nl tr,r 600 NE (',i A% Pord;ind, 01'972 i3-?7 ie Where peak period pricing France is working Autoroute Al in north from Lille to Paris Six-lane toll road since 1992; variable toll introduced In Southern California, a privately financed, fully-- in 1995. automated variable toll facility (State Route 91) opened in December 1995. San Diego and Lee Fee: 25 to 50 percent higher than normal during County, Fla., plan to implement variable tolls in the peak periods and weekends near future. In Paris and Singapore, commuters are showing favor toward variable pricing systems that Results: Significant shift in traffic to times when give them express access to popular areas. tolls are less Orange County, Calif. Comments: Revenue neutral; spreads weekend State Route 91 traffic Converted median into four express lanes; auto- Singapore mated variable tolls Downtown area restricted to cars with permits; Fee: 25¢ to $2.50 various times of day, free to shifting soon to electronic tolls carpools of three or more Fee: $1.50 - $2.50/day Results: Guarantees 50 percent (20 minutes) time savings on tolled road, traffic on adjacent freeway Results: Reduced peak traffic 40 percent; 20 smoother; duration of peak period congestion percent shift to carpools and transit reduced by one hour Comments: Little or no impact on business; only Comments: Only U.S. example; public/private model of area licensing partnership (100 percent private financing) The two-year study ;s bung conducted by Metro and the Oregon Department of Transpor,ation through a grant from the Federal Highway Adm,rnstrat:on. Seven agencies have contributed match- mg funds and are helping wrth the study Cla6 a.nias, Muitnomah and Washington counties, city of Portland. Port of Portland, Oregon Department of Envaonmental Quality and Tn-.Met 7D[F~~ METRO i r Y J I Exhibit A Traffic Relief Options Recommended for Further Study The following options are recommended for further study in order to evaluate the concept of peak period pricing. At the end of the study, a determination will be made as to whether or not peak period pricing has merit for further consideration. At that time, if appropriate, one or more of these options may be recommended for implementation as a demonstration project in order to further test the concept. I 1 N performance of various ote: In addition to theyabove, a regional option will be defined based on preliminary findings as to the analyze the merits of peak period pricing andfwill no be proposed for implementation uasepart of his study • Reversible lanes = During peak- lane is Laken from non-peak direction and tolled. llic lane reverLC to its original direction rid is not lolled at other times. I Road and Option Name New Lanes Description 1 I-5 S Partial - Reversible * N Tolls one express lane on I-5 south of 1-405 (,without widening) by Lanes - I-405 to 99W taking a lane from the non-peak direction. 3 I-5 S Whole with part new Y Constructs a new southbound climbing lane from I-405 to climbing lane- Terwilliger to : Terwilliger exit; tolls all lanes of I-5 from Terwilliger to Wilsonville Wilsonville . 6 I-5 N Corridor- I-405 to Delta N Tolls all lanes of I-5 from Fremont Bridge to Delta Park exit plus Park , spots on Portland Road, Denver, Vancouver, and Martin Luther King 8 I-84 Partial with improvements Y at the Columbia Slough. Tolls one express lane on I-84 from Grand to 207th by taking a lane at I-205 - Reversible Lanes* - Grand to 20711' from the non-peak direction; includes construction of a third lane I1 US 26 (Sunset Hwy) Partial Y around I-205 entrances. Tolls one lane on US 26 from Vista tunnel to 185th; adds new lane with part new lane - Tunnel to between Sylvan & Hwy 217 and Murray & 185th 18511, , . 12b Hwy 217 Partial with new lanes Y Tolls one express lane on Highway 217 from US 26 to I-5; includes - US 26 to I-5 construction of new lanes 14 McLoughlin Partial with part Y . Tolls one express lane on 99E; includes construction of a new l new lane - Ross Island Bridge ane from the Ross Island Bridge to Tacoma. to Hwy 224 17 Hwy 43 Spot -near Selhvood N Tolls all lanes at a single point (or points) on Highway 43 in the Bridge 20 Beaverton Regional Center N vicinity of the Selhvood Bridge. Tolls roads that access or cross through the Beaverton R i l Area - Cedar Hills Blvd./H%vy 217; Center/5°i eg ona Center (west of Hwy 217, cast of Cedar Hills Blvd., north of 5th, and south of Center). ` Fi a u ° J Q) r b 4J u u' z F~ i I j l / 1 r~ S I _ h~ frrv,+f nrv . _ 0.111 dI;V,Y -wl i o J~ b wr' u 4i. a I i f i rie ti 0 c OJ 3 O~c ON f 10d IV iV S I 111 ~ ~ o„ (+7 rAl:+af15yM o j~~ y~IN.,YJiSJ NZJO~J ~ _ r ; C m m~ vU I ~ _ 0 Oo k9N ~ o' aQ " I Qy E oE> ;n C 0 u > Q ~ N m ~N Q B;dam°°cq3 t; `c mm-or ;.NS i~Q >mU JJ I I ~ ¢'m.~ ¢ ar=oZo 1 mO 3'nG i-~ L MU'! A i ~ ~x ~O~ LnL Otn=I "Discover the Choices" Transportation Workshops Fall 1997 DRAFT (please note - all locations and dates are tentative pending final approval) The workshops will provide an opportunity for public input on the Regional Transportation Plan update and Traffic Relief Options Study. West Portland Monday, November 3 5:30 p.m. Multnomah Arts Center 7688 SW Capitol Highway Portland bus line 5, parking WashingtoniClackamas County Wednesday, November 5 5:30 p.m. Tualatin High School 22300 SW Boones Ferry Road Tualatin bus line 97, parking East Multnomah County/Gresham Thursday, November 6 5:30 p.m. Gresham Senior Center 50 NE Eliot Gresham bus lines 80, 9, or 4 (8 blocks from MAX), parking Portland Saturday, November 8 9 a.m. Oregon Convention Center NE 777 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Portland bus line 6, MAX, parking Clackamas County Wednesday, November 12 5:30 p.m. Clackamas Meeting and Banquet Facilities 15815 SE 82nd Drive Clackamas bus lines 79, 29 or 31, parking Washington County Thursday, November 13 5:30 p.m. Hillsboro Senior Center 750 SE 8th (at Maple) Shute Park Hillsboro bus line 57, parking J i W Agenda Item No._y Meetingof CA I(p)Q MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO J Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton & Loreen Mills y r' 6~- DATE: September 9, 1997 U SUBJECT: Visioning Process Update The Visioning Process has been alive and well all summer! Six Action Committees have been meeting regularly to develop goals and action plans to achieve the results our citizens have said they want to see in our community. The Action Committees will be meeting with the Vision Task Force on Thursday, October 9th from 6:00 to 10:00 PM to conduct a final review of the results to date. We would like to encourage Council to attend this meeting and extend their thanks to the citizens for all their hard work. Dinner will be provided at this meeting. The Visioning Process has shown us that the citizens are concerned about life in the Tigard Community in a number of different areas: Public Safety; Urban & Public Services; Schools & Education; Growth & Growth Management; Transportation & Traffic; Community Character & Quality of Life. Many of the goals and action plans developed have addressed issues that Council has been working on through your goals. In fact, over half of the Council goals have been addressed in one way or another through the Visioning Process. Attached is a partial list of examples of how th e community-wide visioning has dove-tailed with the City Council's goals. It has been exciting to also see the cooperative efforts from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District, the Tigard/Tualatin School District, and the Chamber of Commerce as these plans to improve our community's future have evolved. As a reminder, the first annual Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Report will be published in late January. This will outline what has happened this year in visioning and what will be happening next year as we work together to make a difference. 1nvWdocs/v ision/91697cc.do ~l COUNCIL GOAL VISION STRATEGY/ACTION PLAN Goal #2 - Public Transit Improvements Transportation & Traffic Identify alternate transportation modes to improve traffic flow - work with Tri-Met to develop neighborhood service - create better educational campaign to increase awareness of alternative transportation available - encourage development of alternative modes of transit... Goal #5 - Develop long-range and short- Public Safety range space plans and evaluate funding Review existing public safety service funding alternatives mechanisms used nationwide - review funding options to address regional impacts on local police services... Urban & Public Services Seek alternatives to current tax base funding mechanism for Library services & needs - evaluate possibility of constructing library facility to meet both public and high school needs... Goal #6 - Update City Parks Master Plan to Urban & Public Services meet changing recreational needs of the Create a task force to develop a park & rec. community...Analyze needs, existing facilities, district including assessing community needs develop capital improvement/implementation and assessing existing facilities - address plan funding issues including bonds, private support, grants, and use of fees... Goal #10 - Conduct Visioning Process Citizens, City staff, and other interested organizations have been working on this "community-wide" effort for almost 1 year now. Goal #12 - A neighborhood traffic Transportation & Traffic management program Discourage through traffic on local streets - implement traffic calming program - speed enforcement activities - increased fines for speeding in neighborhoods - encourage through traffic to stay on major collectors and arterials - promote through routes - prohibit direct access onto minor collectors - accomplish better street connectivity for neighborhood traffic - identify, develop, & promote alternate transportation modes... i---] I 4 n COUNCIL GOAL (continued) VISION STRATEGY/ACTION PLAN (continued) Goal #14 - 99W Improvements Transportation & Traffic Promote use of through routes in Tigard - examine & implement ways to use existing lanes (i.e. reversible lanes, HOV lanes, etc.), accelerate removal of vehicles after minor accidents - identify, develop & promote alternate transportation modes - endorse increased gas tax and registration fees as funding sources - reduce two-way left turn lanes (boulevard concept with U-turns at designated locations)... Goal 921 - Secure long-term water supply Urban & Public Services Form a consortium of neighbor jurisdictions to develop a regional water plant for Willamette River water source - inform water users of progress - develop plans for surface water production & supply... Goal #24 - Support passenger rail service Transportation & Traffic planning through Tigard Explore hard rail commute options - appoint commuter rail task force to work on and promote issue... Goal #26 - Plant 2000 trees by the Year 2000 Urban & Public Services Develop community-wide partnership to understand need to protect and preserve wetlands and open spaces - reclaim what lands we already have - implement school educational program... Goal #27 - Improve image through volunteer Public Safety program Develop Business Crime Watch Program - expand Neighborhood Watch Program - develop a community-wide program to train citizens how to be self-sufficient (if necessary) for the first 72 hours after an emergency event... I nWdocs/vision/9I697cc.do ■ r AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF 9/16/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PREPARED BY: Jim H DEPT HEAD OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. f ~ Should the City Council direct staff to prepare amendments to the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to provide greater flexibility and meet the needs of large scale users. i STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend that staff prepare necessary code amendments to the adopted standards for the Tigard Triangle. The amendments would establish a design review process for all developments within the Triangle that wanted flexibility from adopted standards. Development proposing to meet all design standards would be subject to only the Site Design Review process. Developments proposing flexibility from the design standards within either the CG and MUE zones would be required to proceed through a newly created design review process - C)ivolving review and recommendation by a design review team. The recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning Commission who would make the final decision. i INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council requested that staff conduct a design workshop with key property owners and developers within the Triangle to test the adopted design standards. The workshop was held in July and the results were reported to Council in late August. The workshop concluded that specific standards precluded big box users (greater than 110,000 sq. ft) from locating within the Triangle. Council indicated that they did not intend to , prohibit such users from the Triangle, provided that resulting development was of high quality. Staff was directed to evaluate the standards, develop a flexible approach, and return to Council with a recommendation. Staff is proposing anew design review process for the Tigard Triangle. The proposal would establish a design review process for all developments within the Triangle that wanted flexibility from adopted standards. Developments proposing to meet all design standards would be subject to only the Site Design Review process. Developments proposing flexibility from the design standards within either the CG and MUE zones would be required to proceed through a newly created design review process involving review and recommendation by a design review team. Applicants requesting flexibility from the adopted design standards would have to demonstrate that their proposal meets the overall intent of the standards and that alternatives function as intended by the adopted standards. The design review teams recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning Commission who would make the final decision. L_ J V OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council has several choices that could be considered, including not modifying the standards as proposed, eliminating specific standards, or recommending alternatives. Consultant services have been used in the work leading up to this decision. Moneys were not budgeted for these services. Staff will have to prepare a budget adjustment for future consideration. fit SEP IE '97 12:44 FROt1:STOEL RIVES 5032202460 T-760 P.02/06 F-343 STOEL RIVES LLr A T T O R N E Y S' /r(7 - STANDARD U SURANCti CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVT.NL;E. SUITE POSM.ANU.ORMON 97'04.12M Pj-(307)ZZj-XW Fe (,'W3)22.21!0 TDD (W3)'27-0045 IN.mtc vwer.~l.wm September 16, 1997 i I MlctusL C. RonlNsoN Dlrecr DW (503) 2949194 email merobinson®smel.com VIA FACSIl41LE Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re' Tigard Triangle Design Workshop - Dear Mayor Nlco t: I am writing this letter because I may not be able to attend tonight's City Council meeting. As you know, this matter was originally scheduled for September 9, a night on which I would have been available. However, staff asked City Council to reschedule the meeting to tonight's City Council meeting. My client, Eagle Hardware and Garden, Inc., does not believe that the staff recommendation, as it appears to be taking shape, is responsive to the issues identified by the City Council at its August 22, 1997 meeting. F2gle and I would be happy to continue working with City staff to present a proposal to City Council that is acceptable to the business community, the property owners in the Tigard Triangle, the citizens of Tigard and the City Council and its staff. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the proposal that appears to be forthcoming from staff meets this criterion. I understand that staff may discuss a design review process whereby a three (3) person design review committee would evaluate a proposal for large retail development in the Tigard Triangle and determine whether the "intent" of the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines were satisfied and then would recommend appropriate modifications. My client has two concerns about this proposal- First, any property owner needs to know in advance the requirements that must be satisfied in order to develop. Unless the Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines are substantially SEP 16 '37 12:44 FROM:STOEL RIVES 5032202480 T-760 P.03/O6 F-343 U STOEL RIVES to _ Mayor Jim Nicoli September 16, 1997 Page 2 modified or a clear and objective adjustment process is established, it will not be possible using this process to know what is required in advance of a development submittal. Secondly, the City Council seemed most concerned about the appearance of development in the Triangle. The City Council minutes from August 22, 1997 state: I "Mayor Nicoli said that Sequoia Parkway development was a ! good example of big box development. He reiterated that his ! concern was with the appearance of the building, an issue that he did not feel the design standards addressed. He said that his ! ! only problem with the design standards was that they were too j rigid. Mayor Nicoli reiterated the need for flexibility for the large scale users." (Draft City Council meeting minutes at page 9.) I i . t In the same meeting, the minutes reflect: } "The City Council agreed by consensus that they fundamentally were not opposed to large scale retail development in the Triangle. They agreed that attractiveness of development for all buildings, regardless of size, was important. In addition, flexibility In the standards was a consideration." I( d.) Councilor Hunt stated that he "suggested working with staff to develop different standards that would meet the large retail users needs and goal of quality development. ° I i { (Draft City Council meeting minutes of August 22, 1997 at page 10.) Councilor Hunt j suggested "funding specific standards they could live with to replace these seven." (Id>~ i In conclusion, "the Council directed staff to return in two weeks with the recommendations on the specific issue of standards for big box development in the Triangle." While we appreciate the work that the Planning staff has done to date, the lack of clear and objective guidelines leaves my client in no better a position than it was in on August 22. Flexibility is important, but so are workable approval standards. The Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines are far too rigid and inflexible to address the J City Council's concern about good development. The best course of action would be for City Council to direct interested parties and staff to meet and come up with a proposal that all parties can live with. I believe that that proposal must include a modification of the PDX 1 A•93 576.1 2I D77.OW5 i SEP 16•'97 12:45 FR0i1:STOEL RIVES Mayor Jim Nicoli September 16, 1997 Page 3 5032202480 STOEL RIVES LLr T-760 P.04/06 F-343 Tigard Triangle Design Guidelines as they affect large retail development. An adjustment process works only if those administrating the process understand when an adjustment is appropriate. I have faxed this letter to Cathy Wheatley and asked her to sec that It is given to each City Council member. I have also included a copy of Mark Weisman's September 2, 1997 letter to Jim Hendryx describing the modifications that are necessary to the Tigard Triangle I Design Guidelines. i f MCR:Ixh enclosure cc(w/encl.): (w/encl.) (w/encl.) (w/encl.) (w/encl.) (w/encl.) i (w/encl.) (w/encl.) 1 (w/encl.) j (w/encl.) Very truly yours, Mic el C. Robinson Mr. Pete Gallina (via facsimile) Mr. Mark Weisman (via facsimile) Mr. Tom Sconzo (via facsimile) Mr. John Hallstrom (via facsimile) Mr. Scott Madsen (via facsimile) Mr. Rece Bly (via facsimile) Mr. Steve Hill (via facsimile) Mr. Jim Hendryx (via facsimile) Ms. Nadine Smith (via facsimile) Ms. Pamela J. Beery (via facsimile) ii SEP 16.'97 12:45 FROt1:STOEL RIVES 5032202480 T-760 P.05/06 F-343 I? r FZECEE IVE0 STOFd- RI S LLP DesigriQMP.. BY tandsrzpe ucNttKttue P np Soptt-tnber 2, 1997 Mr. James Hendtyx city orTignrd Planning Dcparunont 13125 SW Hall Blvd- Tigard. OR 97223 a Re: Proposed Modifications to the Design Guidelines for Tigard Triangle Dear Jan. ]ta r conversation at the last City Council meeting. Our design team d r ou This letter is a follow up to olr review an our existing seven Tigard Triangle standards is relation to any large retail user. Based upon We believe that h f view e t or ycmr I work to date, we proposethe following modifications to Uuc seven standardr' . s in the existing Design with these modifications no ndditional changes arc access cry Street Cenneelivily I]es o a. The development shall provrde veldwlar connections through the Dire utilizing public or private streets for conncctitms to the atrrntmding he Cit f d - y t t o or parking lot drive ays meeting the parking zindir eorntmurity. Proposed roues should Ix logical and orderly givert the building silo and location on U1e sire. b. 3ikL and pedestrian connections shall be provided to allow access across the site in reasonably direct acing is required but the pathways should s ifi p c connetzions to the s=ounding neighborhoods. No spec an routes. xistin and proposed pulcAn h g e e Titan logical cnnnoctiena to t 2. W~14wat COnneRton to Buildin~blllnn-ce-~ the surrounding stZCeL~- located so as to provide direct or indirect linlmges to h ll b e a Building entries s L•ntrics shall he provided on at (cast two hider of the lad Idinz. 3. RIA dir. PI°wtacn' Site design shall take the building location and orientation into account to provide strong edge4s to the ! r adjacent to the property line. then suitable l I ose o surrounding stress. If the building cannot be located c hall be developed along the street to reinforce the public's perception of the street landscape treatment s corridor. This should be further reinforced with sidewalk development in accordance with the Triangle Design Standards. 4. Parldne Lorntion hases adjacent to public street right-or ways must be located to the side or rear of i ngs or p Parking for build newly catlaruc" buildings, or screamed by signiricant planting to minimize the visual impact orthc shall be not less than the i ng parking lot on the suaounding area. The minimum depth of Uac screen lninilntnn depth required in the Design Standards. - S, a hi cclurul Troatment a. All strect facing elevations whether adjacent to the street or not, shall have sufficient architectural detail display purposes, ire cneoitraged for ~ and matte it to the ther such uses to city prove the z •1 uonship of f ggr or o ouses more intcrosting. i 2929 Ean Madsm Seattb.WuNnatm 9x112 t ~7M 322-1782 Y J SEP 16 '97 12:46 FROM:STOEL RIVES Mr. James Headtyx City of Tigard Planning Department 1 Proposed Modifications to Design Guidelines 6032202480 T-760 P.06/06 F-343 WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. Sep=ber 2, 1997 Page 2 b. The sides that fact the public street shell extend no more than 50' without providing at least one of the following features: 1. variation in btilding materials, 2. a building offset of at least t', such as an arcade or 3. a wall. area that is entirely separated from another wall by areas by projection 4. by another design feature that reflects the buildings structural system or is consistent with the style of the building. No building facade shall extend for more than 300' Without an architectural feature to breakup the scale of the building. 7. Roof and Roof Lines Except in the ease or a but7ding entrance feature, roof shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs arc not pemutted, but flat roofs enclosed by a parapet are allowed provided that they are architecturally integrated into the building system. If you have any questions or comments on any of the above, please feel free to call me. Mark Weistnan. ASLA WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC., P.S. MW/j- cc Mr. Pcte Gatlin, Eagle Hardware and Garden Mr. Lloyd Lindley. Lloyd Lindley ASLA Mr. Tom Scanzo. Sea= Hallstrom ® ;Wh61r P bb%.-,, Steel Riven V~ WJ 03 ct V 1 • TP~~ Q f c1d f v ~ I ` cn W i-+ C: = (n O O cu p - CD - •cn -0 O p N CU 4- ~ - ~ U) ° 'n a) • CU > cf) U) N -0 N _ O N CU N U -0 N = X y- cu a) L- N O 4-0 U a) Q C: ~ N ~ . 0 a) .6--, a) 0) . > 0 U O N N ~ (a -a a) N = - (6 0 N cr cn ~ a) CU CU C: C L N . O O C O N - C :3 ce 0 > o U o ~ m U U cn o ff -0 'a 0 CU a) a -W U) - a) -0 LM c: cn d7 75 ) O cn O --l CD U C!J T O O U) U C: ca - cu CO L- cu C cu O j c U -a U) O 'L D U) cu "O ~ If. 0 c p Cl) CD - U) • (u L- L- p X O 'a -C U O .+.r O s= Cif = O N v Cn L . o Cn U a. E co L U X ' (D O O • O -O a) > U .tm ~ ~ c ~ ~p M _a U ~U_ C: -0 C Q • N Q • ~ CU C V E N V O O If E Q E U O 0) ,I... (a ~ 0 U " ~ cu Q. Q CU CCU z/1 E 4-0 a) o O Cfl Co N O m co co cn U C N C: C) p co cu a) C6 - C O i a) M O cn C 4- 0,0, O p O 4-0 to 0 0) O C p v C a; a C 'C . C/) O 0 cu O C L- Q O C O) C .0 O C O C -0 4O N C .Q O p o C- C O N O) ~ L C C -C C ( C cr C O" C a- ~ O" >1 a) Q. O "CL N C'O C O 4 O 8-01 • L c L • • • • • • cu C ~ L co -in U C O Q. C a) C (0 fn v ~ CU 'L U C ~ N O & CU_ O co C C ccn O cu .O O N a cn cn CD cn = i-j co U c _N N ~ L ~ O N "O C O C (n a) a 4 co Co C ~ i U O C= cn O N N O co + O CL O .a C= N E N N X O a) a) cn Co ~ _ 4- a) to O ~ c O U :3 tf N A N ~ Q O Q ~ Co a) a) o f ~ O O 4-0 U) O p N ~ cu cn O O E Q Q 0 U Vl C3 ! ct o C ) . Ct ~ ct V ' t - L 40- _ C: - N z 0 0 O ~ U O co i o = Q Cn (a CB t!~ fA CU O ~ •L 4 1 (n O - O O 0 N -o L 0 C- N (n C: CU •CU V _ ca E cm C: O cn CU -cu U) > 0 w a) a) -0 CD E C-) ~ CU O . (u F-- O o a) v 4_ 0 E = O C N N E C) • C Q cu O U . Q Cu O V X (U U CD N C/) O O (u . co N U E C ~ L O 4.+ o (n a) O Q ~ Q • ~ - ~ U) ~ _ X 0 N 0 -O c (0 M ~ = U) L W L a) O cu > -a O C O -~--r a-- Q- y.. O > 4-- u) ~ E L >1 cu C: O a) -0 cu CU -0 - -6--f cu E ~ O o O Q N E Q . + ~ CO L O -0 ) U Q cu s l i TrQ` C 0 r=04 O CL N N O U) O V O E t a) a) a) O O •0 cn o 0-0 cm m 0i..i VJ o- 70 c- ay O cm C • i N c6 (Cf C: CU I- N ca t.9 0 _0 e cn O n I, U L ~ N -O N i Q N N L ~ L C: (n O 40- a) L cn O ( Q > -ice 0 -0 O ~ O ~ > CU cu Co 4-4 Q N ~ 0) co 0- co E (D N •U N Co (D 0 U) Q) 040- -0 fn Q 0 0- cn 0 a) E O 2) 42 a)' O +r 'cn c - y O O = O (a O L O a) ~ C O. cn X O C a) 76 v 0 L CL (n '0 0 : (u L- ) f a) C > O .a ca L cu c: (i) cn a) U m C ~ ~ L 0 4 - j Q O S- Q l 1- • a) i ® ~ cu U C: U) ca "0 , o\ W 'R V - vJ > cu vI O cu O .U f 0) . O V N o 0 " N CU I ~ . i N L N Q c 0 co -I-, a) (D > cn X Co N 0 N a) L C (U L 0 (D 4- L Cl) • 0 ~ 0 0 .O U E 0 c~ N N a-+ N "D C O O E O L ,0 U ~ O ~ O N -o . cn L C cr a _ Cl) • ai O N ~ L ~ L ?4 i i n 1 ~ co -0 C o • 4-j Cl) o c' CD N U X (L) p -0 O ' , ~ O -0 (B (U N N O O cA O +r W cu = (u N -E O vJ C/) CL C: 2) _ cu Co a) O 4-4 CU = o O • Cn N -r• N CU cn ~ 4- a) U N a) a) 0) 0 Co ~ 4- Lb t ' cu cu C/) a) a) O O ) U Q. C 4- ~ Q O Q . ~ O C • .C ca 0 0 Q U) a) a) w 4-j E 70 Co C/) cu cr -0 E ' a) .L O O U ~ E O a) "D cu a) O N a, N cl) E Z ~ ~ C E 55 5- 0 0 ~ ® • 0 i 1 { i O U O ~ (n C (0 - N 0 (n Cl) OU C/) U 5 (0 L O O Q U Q. O to O c N CU t6 u N I O U CD - 3 O O .6-0 > co CU -0 cn cu -0 O L C O Q O I N (u • F- C O) M C a. U L c O 0 O N o ~--I N O- O U > (1) O O O ) ~ cu ~ N • O U - U • E • U N Q 0--o O ca 0- ► 0 -0 Q CU O a a C CU a) 0 0 U) . 0 CL CL 0 Cl) ~ O O ~ N N N N N O O a_ Z 0 0 0 Z U on v U CL a. o O o cn cn r = cu •E E O 'cn C ) - 'co N N N , ~ O U - CD p 4-0 O C: -a L f • cn Q a. ca ~ co E E c 0 ( a) CU cz to •E O CD L• t m cn O cl N N ~ a : N •O O 3 ~ _ • > a ~ 0 i O > W L O CU L N _ •E r 8) - C 5) CU a) 2 a a 0 N 0 cn N . . ® 0 0 O l N L L p V .i.r Q K ® Q u • ~-~1 U cn N j Cld L c cl) (n U Q cn Co ~ ~ O Q N • V (n U ~ cn q cu U a) in co p c N F.7 `b t i !"1 U ~ U co - 0 cn EM O a a) O U a 'L ~ W L O _ N O U O cu CL m a) Q Q cn cu c6 Co CU (D U) >1 cz O E ~ U) cn U O 0 W U) 4-0 . O 0 L- n 0) • CL - R CD U 0 M > CD (D C a) N -0 4- ~ (D .U X ( ( • L N / U) • U C/) N •L a O cc 4- Co cQ (1) U C: O N a c > C) O - O O E i- N CU E p 'a (D N O O rt~ T E cn O U) m U C: N co U C!1 n cc L N > C: 0) •N a p , O N • a- tU • a- i Na) . O O U-o i 6- E O. Q Q. Q = O O c A • ® ® • E } D H V'1 e V r.) f ■ U C~ e rm-4 CCU -4~ U) O co CU co ~ cn O • L L O L • L ~ Q ti ~ CU O (D O CU a~ L U a cu N _ cu cu L "O N U) cn W U C O = N Cr 4- O CU CU (D > L o cu U U) N O cn c .1 L u) (D C: ~ ~ C N a a) N -O N CU N - cu a) cu V cm w a) ' a) 4-- cn ~ N N cu 0 a) cu /'l1 N , a V N } a) a) cu a) cu Cc 0) O a) C E O N N C 0) E cu cu U O U) 4-j N Q O ~ cm • V "O CD o ~ cn ~ E _ • tr- O O N O •0 O W ~ :2 E I- ca r® VJ ct ct CIS 4-4 r-qq ct d O L 0 > 0 a) - > U) a) 0 U) - ~a) 4-1 Q) c a) O L L cm A a) co E 0 U) -0 Q Q _0 • ~ 4-5 a) +r -C Q) O O a O O O O a) Q L1_ 4-a ~ •E . L L - -0 L^ + _ • -+-0 co 5 W -1- co a) U O a) cm c - U) E a) _0 cn a) L to 0 N a) > co O w a) C O :3 -5 Cl) L V ti a) O O _ C CD 0) 3: - cm o .0 a) CU 0 c: E ~O cn Co cc Q- O) L O (o o a) O U C: O a) o Q_ > M CU p OV p Co E U L 1 W z3 co z w = ® ® ® ® 0 i 1 i l a i i y O J 0 W 1V 0. CD CL a) VIA VJ A)) O Q. Z O ~o ~CU Eo Q. CD- 0c CU C: ca L N W "O C C f E N cu L ^V' i }I i a) y E C O f 4-/ O O 4-J O O O 0 o o C U) L (1) CU CU U) CU I1/ O .FJ LL vrr i i N -4-) O ~ L ~F+ L (D Q. O 4- O O tu C: ' (I N > lt` T- V 0 Y L C cu L E N O . O • 4 i p U .L ~ N cu L o > O C) TO = -0 L N N -O N O O O O - ~ ' N 4-0 (B d- N A L > O > O - - U cu O O EL :3 O a -1-0 W (n W ( E L > i V , 0 CL a) _0 C: a) c~ a) > D O E ) U) cu ( , -0 ( U) O W CU O CU x (1) L L u cu 0) E E -a J 0 I- J V ~ I 1 _N O) C L_ cu L cu U O O 0) O O U) O O c = _0 U 75 :2 O :3 O N~ O N RS E E 'O L ^ V J 0 L O Cr N E N Q. ~ N 0-0 C c: L N E5 E -i CL 0 O L N ~ N _0 O C CL ~p :3 75 cn ~I 0 cep 03 rz~ 03 y~ w.l -0!~ M 4-4 U N 0 0 C/) co W N -0 -0 N co O O O N W Cl) 0 co ' p cA a) O CU m co co c -a c E CU C: co a) C: U) 0 co E U E 1 s; L- 0- a) > 4 - L m a) ~ 0 _ ~ i M > U a? U) a) (a O O O E 4.5 a) cn C/) cn cc) ~ N tf- O 0 Q Co X N CM co cn N O LL- O R3 m ca C L 0- co CU a) 0) a) V cu O E O •Q 2) •U 3: L- O L Q O N Q L N L co Es O N cn c!1 O p Y O (n 2 3: N U U A U) co C m u O a) O cu Q i= u > t cu >11 ca (n C: . a) a) O ) (u E cn n ~ U ca O N 0) C CU n " 70 O z: N C (U cu " CU 5 U) -O E 'L Q- a) ~ a) .Q 0 Q U Q. (a -C +-r i= ~ ti 2 a a) Q C - 3: CD -0 C 0 ~ a) E Q N N L C LL CU CD ~ Ca) L a) O C L- -0 75 OU ) ~ ~ ~ O > a) .O Q CU -0 C C a) -0 a) E ~ Q) E - N Q (0 L- cu -0 a) N Ur U F- CD X L a) =3 C co = U) "O :3 a) E Q- Q - cu ° F ca . N ~ c . •3: • 0 0 0 • AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion by Murray. Smith and Associates regarding long-term water supply issues. PREPARED BY: Ed Wenner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A discussion by Murray, Smith and Associates regarding long-term water supply issues facing the Tigard Water Service Area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Murray, Smith and Associates will ask the Council for input into the direction we should proceed in securing long-term water sources for the Tigard Water Service Area. INFORMATION SUMMARY Murray, Smith and Associates completed a Water Supply Plan Update in 1994. Included in the study were various criteria and selected options for possible long-term water sources. Since that time, many options have been discussed or studied with other regional water providers. A discussion will be held outlining the pros and cons of these studies and how they would impact our water supply in the years 2005 to 2050. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Other alternatives have been explored in the past three years and this presentation will outline an update of these options. FISCAL NOTES Depending on the decision made by various agencies within the next few months, the costs could vary. We will keep the City Council and Intergovernmental Water Board regularly updated. s i 'v- a. h is F