City Council Packet - 11/18/1997SPECIAL EMERGE..NGY MEETING
NOVEMBER `18.1997 1:08 PM
TIGARb CITY HALL RED ROCK
CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
13125 SW HALL BLVD..
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to discuss 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 anv_ information discussed f
during this session.
3. ADJOURNMENT I
i I
Oad m\cathy%=k971118es. d oc
I
i
COUNCIL AGENDA - - PAGE 1 -
i
- i
i
t
1
i
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION
In the matter of the proposed November 18, 1997 Special Emergency Council Meeting
STATE OF OREGON)
County of Washington) ss
City of Tigard )
I, Catherine Wheatley, being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say:
That I notified the following persons by phone or personal contact of the Notice of Special Meeting for the
Council Meeting of November 18. 1997 a copy of said written notice being hereto attached and by
reference made a part hereof on the 18th day of November, 1997.
CONTACT METHOD:
The attached notice was posted in the City Hall Lobby at approximately 11 a.m. on November 18,
1997. -
• Tigard Times Reporter at 684-0360
Name: Kari Hastings-Arquedas Facsimile notice and verification attached. Telephone call
was also placed to Reporter at approximately 10:45 a.m.; City Recorder spoke personally to
Reporter Hastings-Arguedas
I~
• Oregonian Reporter
Name: Joseph Fitzgibbon Facsimile notice and verification attached. Telephone call
was also placed to Reporter at approximately 10:47 a.m.; City Recorder left message on
answering machine.
Catherine Wheatley
Subscribed and sworn to before me this I day of Yla~)S. t ` 19 9 7
OFFICIAL SEAL `
~ fv
M JO ANN HAYES Y-4 ~
j NoiAHV N 09,[ IC OPECO" Notary P lic for CCMhjISSICxuIO 0.1214e Oregon
MV COMMISSION F:%?IPF S MAV ~5.'999
J My Commission Expires: r l 9 5
II:Iadm\catnytartnot dm
NOTICE OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING
November 18, 1997 - 1 p.m.
Tigard City Hall - Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
i
Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will hold a Special Emergency
Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 1 p.m., at the Tigard City Hall in the Red
Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The
purpose of the meeting is to go into executive session under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (h) to discuss current and pending litigation issues.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639-
4171, Extension 309 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
!i
Cc~(/rcL.tr (lJ~ 'Cle
City Recorder
cc: Kari Hastings Arguedas Tigard Times -
Joseph Fitzgibbon at the Oregonian - Fax No. 223-0789
Post: City Hall Lobby
Date of Notice: November 18, 1997
i s \ad m\caihy\cca\no,icc. doc
L _ 11/18/97 11:03 $503 684 7297 CITY OP TIGARD 4x1001
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRANS51ISSION OK
TX/RX N0. 6433
CONVECTION TEL 620 3
CONVECTION ID TIGARD TUIES
START TIME 11/18 11:02
USAGE T131E 00'43
PAGES 1
RESULT OK
1
3
7
2
,
I
i
NOTICE OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING i
November 18, 1997 - 1 p.m.
Tigard City Hall - Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
i
Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will hold a Special Emergency
Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 1 p.m., at the Tigard City Hall in the Red
Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The
purpose of the meeting is to go into executive session under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (h) to discuss current and pending litigation issues.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639-
4171, Extension 309 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
U
- ;Ciry Recorder
NOTICE OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING
November 18, 1997 - 1 p.m.
Tigard City Hall - Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
i
Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will hold a Special Emergency
Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 1 p.m., at the Tigard City Hall in the Red
Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The
purpose of the meeting is to go into executive session under the provisions of ORS -
192.660 (1) (h) to discuss current and pending litigation issues.
! For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639-
4171, Extension 309 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
1
City Recorder
cc: ✓ari Hastings Arguedas Tigard Times -
Joseph Fitzgibbon at the Oregonian - Fax No. 223-0789
Post: City Hall Lobby
i
Date of Notice: November 18, 1997
i Aadm\cathy\cca\notice.doc
11/18/97
"7 7~
11:05 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARU Cdinni:
xxxxxzxxxxxxxx•as:xcxxxxzxxxx
xa:x ACTIVITY REPORT xxx
z:xxxx...,.,...,., xxx. yxa:x>:cxxaxxx
TRANSMISSION OR
T1/R\ NO. 6435
CONNECTION TEL 2236052
CONN17CTION ID
START TIME 11/18 11:04
USAGE TIME 00'46
PAGES I
RESULT Oh
1
,
9
9
y
1
i
f
1
NOTICE OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING
November 18, 1997 - 1 p.m.
Tigard City Hall - Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will hold a Special Emergency
f Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 1 p.m., at the Tigard City Hall in the Red
Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The
j purpose of the meeting is to go into executive session under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (h) to discuss current and pending litigation issues.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639-
4171, Extension 309 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
City Recorder
Lb--~
J
Ivy
NOTICE OF SPECIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL MEETING
November 18, 1997 - 1 p.m.
Tigard City Hall - Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
0
\ew
Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council will hold a Special Emergency
Meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997 at 1 p.m., at the Tigard City Hall in the Red
Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The
purpose of the meeting is to go into executive session under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (h) to discuss current and pending litigation issues.
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling 639-
4171, Extension 309 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
C ChC-titu ~I E
City Recorder
cc: Kari Hastings Arguedas Tigard Times -
Joseph Fitzgibbon at the Oregonian - Fax No. 223-0789
Post: City Hall Lobby
Date of Notice: No,6cmber 18, 1997
i s \ad mkathykc a\notic e.dnc
1
E
a
i
k
i
Sho~ (Act~~~.l
F
I~
i
T IGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORKSHOP MEETING
OV1=MBEF2 )8,1997 6:?^ PM
TIGARD CITY HALL
13126 SW BAL.
L BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
CITY OF TIGARD
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 Administrator.
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
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 - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 1
J
AGENDA
November 18,1997
6:30 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
j 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. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
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 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.
7:05 p.m.
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) REPORTS
• Representatives from the CITs
7:15 P.M.
4.
UPDATE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECURITY OF CITY BUILDINGS
• City Manager
7:45 p.m.
5. PREVIEW: QUASI-JUDICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
• Community Development Director
8:15 p.m.
6. REVIEW: TITLE 3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND METRO'S MODEL
ORDINANCE
• Community Development Director
8:45 p.m.
7. STATUS REPORT: GREENSPACES PROPERTY ACQUISITION
• Community Development Director
9:00 P.M.
8. UPDATE: SENATE BILL 122 CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY
• Community Development Director
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 2
9:15 P.M.
9. UPDATE: CITY FACILITIES SPACE PLANNING
• Assistant to the City Manager
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), & (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.
10:15 p.m.
..v .
11. ADJOURNMENT
I
i:Wdm\cathylcca\971118.doc -
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 3
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -NOVEMBER 18, 1997
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
i
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
I
Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Hunt.
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Council President Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
Scheckla. Mayor Jim Nicoli arrived later.
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; Community
Development ThrArtnr T;.,, U-1- lwri.,ed 7.04 n m Asst to the City
Manager Liz Newton; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Property Manager John
Roy; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine
Wheatley j
j 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
Councilor Hunt reported on a film presented at the Water Board meeting showing how a
company cleaned the water tanks through the use of a diver in a sterilized wetsuit, who
vacuumed up dirt and located cracks for repair. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director,
said that three of Tigard's water tanks were cleaned in this manner which worked well.
r
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Bill Monahan, City Manager, announced the holiday tree lighting on Friday,
December 5, at 6 p.m. He mentioned that there were no agenda items for the December 23
meeting. The Council directed him to try to avoid that meeting date. Mr. Monahan
announced that the November 25 and December 9 meetings would be televised.
Councilor Hunt requested a non-agenda item on the water billing.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (Convened later in the meeting; see Page 9).
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) REPORTS: (None)
4. UPDATE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECURITY OF CITY BUILDINGS
Mr. Monahan introduced this item, referencing the staff committee that developed the
recommendations. He explained that the proposal created a cardlock security system which I
incorporated the cardkey with the employee identification badge to restrict access to certain
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE I,
portions of city facilities to city employees only. He mentioned concerns with employee safety
in the workplace, property theft, and vandalism. He reviewed the present difficulties with
insuring that all exterior doors were locked at all appropriate times in City Hall, given the
amount of use of the building by the public. He said that John Roy, Property Manager, met
with the individual departments to detennine needs, and then developed cost estimates to meet
those needs. He mentioned the Public Works request for a security gate at the Public Works
yard.
Mr. Roy said that concerns for employee safety at the relatively isolated Public Works yard on
Ash Street prompted the request for a security gate to close off easy public access to the site. He
mentioned the nearby transient camps in Fanno Creek Park. He said that the request included
minor remodeling at the Niche to restrict public access to appropriate areas.
Mr. Roy explained that certain infrequently used doors would remain on a keylock system. The
department heads have identified which frequently used doors needed to be converted to a
cardlock system. He reviewed several special features of the system, including long range card
readers, a user access tracking system, user-expansion capabilities, and removing cards and
access codes from the system for lost, stolen or terminated cards. He mentioned the ability to
reuse the hardware for different doors, including the security gate.
In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Roy said that in the event that the power
went off, the doors and gate automatically unlocked for manual opening. He said that the cost
estimaie fur int: bueurity gate operating -.y-.t-.m and i..st-a!!atio.. Ivas qu ted at .$13,500.
Councilor Scheckla commented that he understood that most of the transients were not violent,
rather they were homeless people looking for a meal. Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, reviewed
the transient situation, noting two different types: those looking for a place to sleep and those
involved in drugs, alcohol, and vandalism. He commented that almost all transients scavenged
for materials.
Mr. Wegner confirmed that there were no documented incidents of trouble with transients but
mentioned the uneasiness of employees with regard to transients. He pointed out that,
depending on work schedules, individual employees could be working alone in the building
after 4 p.m. He said that even though the yard was well lit, the neighbors were not close enough
to hear a call for help from someone walking to his/her car. Mr. Roy mentioned that statistically
the greatest perpetrators of workplace violence were boyfriends, husbands or ex-husbands.
Councilor Hunt asked about security at the Water Building. Mr. Roy said that field personnel
locked the gate from the front when they left for the day. Mr. Wegner said that the officer
workers left through the fire department exit to avoid the gate.
Councilor Hunt asked if reducing the expense was the reason for leaving some doors on keylock
rather than converting everything to a cardlock system. Mr. Roy said that he did not think that
every door had to be on the cardlock system. However those doors left on keylock should have
door detectors to alert staff if the door was opened unexpectedly. The computer monitor would
be located in Police Dispatch. He explained that the system could be programmed to
automatically lock and unlock doors at a specified time.
Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Roy had researched systems used by other cities. Mr. Roy said
j that he has not done so.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 2
l
f-
l ~ .
i
i
0
1
The Council asked several questions regarding exceptions for using the system. Mr. Monahan
said that if an employee forgot his/her card, s/he could phone in from the lobby for someone to
open the door for him/her. Mr. Roy said that while this system did not include a keypad at the
door, they could look into that feature. He commented that they could customize the system to
include anything they wanted. He mentioned that the employees had preferred a unified
cardlock/id badge system. He said that the system included a buzzer to open the door from the
front desk.
Councilor Rohlf asked if these measures were preventative rather than corrective. Mr. Monahan
said yes, they have not yet had a situation with physical violence against employees. He
concurred with Mr. Roy that a few abusive situations at the DST desk have occurred, noting that
it was one of the most sensitive areas in the building. Chief Goodpaster reported that
unfortunately the presence of a police department was becoming less and less of a deterrent to
violent behavior. He concurred that the DST area was an area of great concern because of its
sensitivity.
Councilor Hunt expressed his support for the cardlock system but asked if staff had consulted
people with practical experience and expertise in cardlock systems. Councilor Moore
mentioned that this cardlock system was nearly identical to the system PGE installed at its
WilcnnvillP farilit~.
Councilor Rohlf asked if staff considered the public perception of tighter security at city
facilities. Mr. Monahan said that they discussed that in relation to the DST desk in particular
because they elected not to make that opening totally secure. Staff felt that a cardlock system
was less visible. Mr. Monahan stated that Kelley Jennings, a former police officer with expert
knowledge in this area, had served on the staff committee reviewing facility security. Mr. Roy
mentioned that, since the Oregonian article ran, he has received calls from numerous security
firms offering advice. He said that he believed that between the police and himself, they had
sufficient knowledge and expertise in-house to develop a bid proposal and to evaluate the bids
for a good recommendation.
At Councilor Hunt's request, Mr. Roy reviewed the cost estimate breakdown of the $80,000 -
$13,500 for the security gate, $2600 for remodeling the Niche, and $64,200 for all other
facilities. The price included the complete package, and the building inspector modular
building. At Mr. Monahan's request Mr. Roy reviewed the cost to setup the system in the
library/city hall buildings. He said that the software platform would cost $1600.
Mr. Roy asked the Council for authorization for staff to proceed with going out to bid. He
explained that he believed that the cost estimate would be reduced through the bid process. He
commented that they were asking for less money for a security system to protect city property
than the value of the property itself. He pointed out the financial liability to the city if an
employee was injured in the workplace. He contended that this money was cheap insurance
against employees on the job being injured.
Mr. Monahan reiterated the concerns with providing a safe working environment for employees
and for the public and with building security. Presently the police had no way of knowing if a
door was open or unlocked. He expressed concern about vandalism.
The Council discussed installing the system in phases. Councilor Moore commented that lie
thought it would be cheaper in the long run to install the system all at once. Mr. Wegner
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 3
I'
-1
C ~
reported that the staff committee could not decide on which buildings to convert first so they
decided to figure out what the bare minimum was for each department and building. He said
that it was easier to break this down by door than by building.
Mayor Nicoli suggested including motion detectors in buildings and cameras in park restrooms.
Mr. Roy said that it would be better to install detached video cameras to monitor the park
restrooms than to try to hook up with this system, as the system was not conducive to including
distant components and it would be too costly.
Councilor Rohlf asked why this request could not be part of next year's budget cycle rather than
making this special request. Mr. Monahan said that it could be in next year's budget but
explained that staff preferred installation prior to July 1, 1998, because of some heightened
sensitivity concerns about former employees. He pointed out that staff did implement the low
cost recommendations of the Workplace Violence Committee, including increased lighting and
supervisory training. This was the last recommendation to be implemented.
The Council discussed various ways to monitor an alarm system in the building. Mayor Nicoli
suggested adding in smoke detectors that would notify staff prior to the sprinkler system going
off. He commented that having an alarm system and a security system protected the employees
during the day and the property at night. Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought vandalism
and fire were a more likely danger than workplace violence. Chief Goodpaster mentioned the
insurance discounts available with a fire and alarm system.
i
The Council discussed extensively when the proposal should go to bid. Councilor Scheckla
concurred with Councilor Rohlf that this matter should be dealt with at budget time. He spoke
j for price documentation and finalization of the system components prior to the bid process.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that staff prepare everything necessary to go to bid but wait until the
1 request went through the budget cycle before actually going to bid. Councilors Moore and Hunt
spoke for going to bid now as opposed to waiting a year. Mr. Wegner suggested bidding
Councilor Moore's suggestion of a two phase project as a base package with a cardlock system
and add-ons for the motion and smoke detectors, the cameras, and the alarm system.
Mr. Roy confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that the $80,000 would cover the cardlock system at a
minimum. He said that he thought it likely that they could pick up some of the add-ons also for
that. Councilor Rohlf said that he would support this if they did the whole job. The Council
agreed by majority consensus to give staff the budget authority to bid a base package with add-
ons but to back off if it got out of control.
The Council considered Item 9 at this time.
i
5. PREVIEW: QUASI-JUDICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reviewed the Council direction to staff to
re-evaluate the Code standards for changing the Comprehensive Plan.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER I8, 1997 - PAGE 4
I
i
J
i
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on amending the
Comprehensive Plan. She said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
staff proposal with minor changes as noted in the packet.
Councilor Rohlf noted the earlier discussion on Council that the Comprehensive Plan language
did not protect the neighborhoods on quality of life issues. Rather the language was pro-
development, making it difficult for the Council to protect the neighborhoods. He asked if this
change in language further removed protections for citizens who argued for quality of life
issues.
Ms. Nicholson said that she did not know. She explained that the concern raised with the
Schrader Plan had been the difficulty of interpreting what a physical change was. She said that
she tried to discuss what kinds of changes merited a change to the Comprehensive Plan. She
mentioned the Planning Commission's concern with keeping flexibility in the language. She
pointed out the added language that the proposed plan amendment could not have a significant
negative impact on public infrastructure. Councilor Rolilf asked what the definition of
infrastructure was. He said that to him it was sewer, water, etc., not the characteristics of the
neighborhood.
Councilor Scheckla contended that this language would allow those who did not meet the
Comprehensive Plan now to change the Plan so that they could do what they wanted to do in thr
first place. He said that with this the neighbors would have no recourse or say except at the
Council level. He held that this was a greater hardship on the residents.
Mr. Hendryx said that the Council had not liked the standards that existed in the Comprehensive
Plan now. This was staffs attempt to develop standards that gave more flexibility but were also
j
more precise. He discussed the difficulties with interpreting what a physical change was. He
said that if the Council chose to leave the standards as they were, the City would see little or no
plan amendments. He pointed out the need for flexibility in light of implementing Metro 2040.
He commented that the issue of compatibility or livability was subjective and difficult to write
into the Code.
Councilor Rohlf contended that certain issues were arising consistently as quality of life issues
,
such as trees and traffic impact. He asked that staff address the issue of whether or not this
language change would hurt the neighboring residents who might oppose it. Did the language
give the Council less ability to protect the neighbors' interests or more ability or was it neutral?
He spoke to changes that helped the Council protect the quality of life for the residents. He
noted that they have made it easy for developers to develop but not for neighbors to protect their
neighborhoods.
i
Councilor Rohlf left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
6. REVIEW: TITLE 3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND METRO'S MODEL
ORDINANCE
Mr. Hendryx introduced this item. He explained that Title 3 was the part of the Metro
Functional Plan that affected stream corridors, wetlands, and flood plain regulations. He
mentioned the Safe Harbor ordinance recently adopted by the City that regulated these same
~i
issues.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 5
1
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reported that the model ordinance protecting water quality
in flood plain areas was still in process. The latest date for adoption was April 1998 with public
involvement occurring in January. He explained that the 50 foot buffer for all stream corridors
established by the model ordinance impacted Tigard significantly. Presently the Safe Harbor
ordinance provided 50 foot buffers for Fanno Creek and two tributaries. This new ordinance
applied to all streams and creeks in Tigard. He noted the impact of the steep slope buffers also.
Councilor Scheckla asked how this would impact County lands. Mr. Roberts said that the
model ordinance applied to all areas within the urban growth boundary. This meant that the
County could end up with two sets of regulations. He mentioned criticism that this ordinance
would make it more difficult to develop and potentially cause expansion of the urban growth
boundary because it reclassified buildable land as unbuildable land.
Mr. Roberts explained that the 50 foot buffer included all wetlands, both isolated ones and those
associated with a stream corridor. Presently the Tigard ordinance required a 50 foot buffer for
wetlands associated with streams but only the 25 foot USA buffer for isolated wetlands.
Mayor Nicoli spoke for the Council opposing the ordinance. Councilor Moore commented that
Metro sent a mixed signal in requiring increased density to avoid expanding the UGB while at
the same time taking away buildable land. Mr. Roberts said that the ordinance allowed for
200% density transfer compared to Tigard's 1250/n demity trn-f-
Councilor Moore asked if the state regulations took precedence over regional regulations. Mr.
Roberts said that Metro had the authority to adopt regulations under their present charter and
that there was no legal conflict. He mentioned that the Ordinance Development Committee did
not consider state standards, USA standards or the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan.
Mayor Nicoli commented that this ordinance was appropriate for those communities who had
not yet developed a Goal 5 plan. He argued that those cities, like Tigard, that have gone through
that process and developed a plan should not be required to go through it again. He spoke to
dealing with these issues locally. He commented that he did not think that Metro would give a
good opportunity for landowners to comment on this ordinance. He spoke for sending Metro a
strong message that Tigard has already decided what they wanted in their community.
Mr. Monahan pointed out that it was difficult enough to get 125% density because of the
significant impact on existing residential areas. He said that it would send a bad message to the
public if the City accepted this ordinance with no discussion.
Mayor Nicoli commented that through the Safe Harbor ordinance, the City had worked to avoid
putting hardship on existing property owners living near creeks. Safe Harbor gave them the
flexibility they had wanted. He asked if this ordinance addressed these issues and provided
flexibility. Mr. Roberts said that the ordinance was more rigid.
Mayor Nicoli spoke for sending a letter to Metro detailing the City's position on this issue, and
emphasizing that the City has found a plan that it considered to be in the best interests of its
people. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the various methods by which the Council could communicate
to Metro. Mr. Roberts advised working through Metro committees other than the one that
developed the ordinance. Cities and development interests were underrepresented on that
committee which was comprised mainly of resource agency staff and private non-profits who
j supported more protection.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 6
1
i
J
1
The Council directed staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature.
7. STATUS REPORT: GREENSPACES PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Mr. Roberts referenced his November 16, 1997, Property Transaction Status Report (see
attached), in which he summarized the status of the greenspaces property acquisitions authorized
by Council. The properties discussed included the Cash property, the two acres of creekside
Beacon Homes property off North Dakota, the Country Club tracts on the Tualatin River, the
USA seven acres of the former Thomas Dairy property adjacent to Cook Park, the Hickox
property, the Lowery property, the Fanno Creek Trail Corridor, and the Bull Mountain Forest
area.
The Council decided to accept the Cash property on the consent agenda at a public meeting. Mr.
Hendryx reported that staff has received the state wetland permit to mitigate the fill-in on the
Menlor reservoir site by making wetlands improvements at Cook Park. This would be ( F
incorporated into the capital improvements program next year.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the Lowrey property status in detail. He mentioned that while the Metro
property manager supported low intensity uses of this site, there was apparently an internal
debate at Metro on how this property should be used. Mr. Hendryx explained that their fallback
position was the City's original proposal that Metro buy the 50 to 100 feet adjacent to the creek
an.'• ' .e City buy everything eise. Mr. Roberts stated that staff would work with Metro and the
neighbors to resolve the issue of appropriate park use for this site.
Mr. Roberts pointed out the cooperativeness of all the owners along the Fanno Creek Trail
Corridor. He stated that staff needed engineering help to define more clearly the trail alignment
because of situations that have arisen since the original trail alignment was done. He mentioned f
{ concerns with ADA requirements also. Mr. Hendryx explained that city funded projects €
followed the city's criteria for ADA while state funded projects followed the state's. Mr.
j Roberts mentioned that the park consultant was an ADA specialist who has advised the city in
the past on ADA standards.
Mr. Roberts noted that the owner of the six-acre trailhead parcel in the Bull Mountain Forest
area would conduct the survey of the property while the City would pay for the appraisal.
Councilor Hunt asked about the railroad abandonment. Mayor Nicoli said that they were trying
to set up a meeting with the appropriate party.
Mr. Monahan reported an inquiry staff received from Ron Willoughby of Tualatin Hills Parks &
Recreation District (THPRD). The owner of a ravine by Fern Street wanted to dedicate the land
to THPRD. However the property was located on Tigard's side of Scholls Ferry, outside the
THPRD boundaries. Mr. Willoughby had called to see if the City had an interest in acquiring
the property. Mr. Monahan said that staff investigated the property and conciuded that they did
not want the property because it did not connect to any other land owned by the City and
because they did not want to maintain it. In addition, staff decided that they did not want to
allow the encroachment of THPRD at this point.
Mayor Nicoli discussed a problem between THRPD and Tigard citizens whose children went to
Beaverton schools. These children wanted to join the THRPD athletic programs to play with 1
B
1 k
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 7
1
1 _
i
i
their friends but THRPD restricted them from signing up on an equal basis with District
residents. Consequently the kids were bumped, even though their parents were willing to pay
out-of-district fees. He said that the parents have asked him to find a way to get THRPD to
allow equal sign-up status for their kids.
Mayor Nicoli suggested that the City consider this issue. He mentioned the options of changing
the city limits or the school district boundaries, neither of which was very likely, or of letting
THRPD cross over Scholls Ferry Road in exchange for equal sign-up status for Beaverton
School District kids.
Mr. Monahan suggested talking to THPRD about various options, expressing concern that the
City not create an impediment within its own boundaries to a Tigard recreation district. Mayor
Nicoli stated that THPRD would not be providing services to Tigard residents, just giving
Beaverton School District kids residing in Tigard an equal opportunity. He favored negotiating
with THPRD on these issues.
Mr. Hendryx reported that Metro was working with specific property owners on the Field and
Brown properties. Councilor Hunt asked what easements did the City have over those
properties. Mr. Monahan said that the Stevens Marina property had a condition of approval on
it that required them to dedicate an easement when the City asked to them to. Mr. Roberts
confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the City had an easement across the Stash Tea property. Mr.
Monahan said that staff would work with the City A to«,ey's ufucc to put i1;e cur propcrties
together.
Councilor Scheckla referred to the Lowrey property abutting Woodward Park. He held that the _
neighbors wanted protections for Woodward Park as a neighborhood park instead of treating it
J as the city park that it actually was. He stated that he opposed the three conditions listed by the f
petitioners. He commented that if the neighbors wanted a neighborhood park then they should !
contribute money towards it. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the park planning process staff would use
to discuss these issues.
8. UPDATE: SENATE BILL 122 CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY
i
Mr. Hendryx informed the Council that Washington County has completed the model service
agreements to implement the coordination and notification requirements mandated by Senate
Bill 122. He explained that Tigard already notified and coordinated with other local
jurisdictions regarding City actions that might affect the other jurisdictions. The service
agreements simply confirmed Tigard's existing process. Mr. Monahan expressed staff's
appreciation for the County taking the lead on developing this model agreement, pointing out
that it saved a lot of staff time in meeting individually with each jurisdiction.
i
9. UPDATE: CITY FACILITIES SPACE PLANNING
Liz Newton, Asst to the City Manager, reviewed her November 14, 1997, memo
(contained in the Council packet meeting material) summarizing staff suggestions for potential
use of the Schramm property. She explained that the building contained 650 square feet of
decent office space and 10,000 square feet of warehouse space (with offices needing significant
improvement). Staff proposed relocating the Risk function (2 staff) from the Niche to the
Schramm office space. The warehouse space would be divided between several departments:
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 8 i
r
i3
Records (2,000 square feet for centralized records storage), Property (3,000 square feet for
centralized surplus storage), Engineering (150 square feet storage), Library (400 square feet for
storage of books and program materials), and Police ( 2,000 square feet storage).
Ms. Newton mentioned that Network Services could relocate from the Niche to the office
portion of the warehouse (2,000 square feet) which did need improvement to house them. She
said that the remaining personnel in the Niche - Human Resources - could relocate to the IOS
building.
Mayor Nicoli suggested transferring some library programs and functions to the Schramm
building to relieve the overcrowding of staff there. Mr. Monahan said that his suggestion that
certain library functions be transferred to other locations has been vetoed by both the former
Library Director and the Acting Library Director. They insisted that the library functioned as a
cohesive unit and they needed to stay together. He said that he would ask the new Library
Director to revisit the issue. Councilor Hunt questioned this expenditure, pointing out that they
did have all these items stored at various locations now, and they would not need to relocate
people at the Niche for another couple of years.
EXEC ,TI E SES511011. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:55 p.m..
under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (e) to discuss real property transactions
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the regular session at 8:25 p.m. The Council considered Agenda Item No.
5 at this time.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Councilor Hunt reported that at the last Water Board meeting there was discussion on changing
the water bill to clarify that it included sewer as well as water. He noted the many complaints
received regarding high bills by those who failed to remember that the bill was for two months
and included both sewer and water. He contended that if the public perceived their water bills as
too high now, the City would have difficulty passing a bond for a water system. He said that he
would prefer to see separate water and sewer bills, even though that increased processing and
mailing costs.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that a combined sewer and water bill had solved USA's collection
problem by using water shut off to force payment of the bill. He mentioned the good
relationship between USA and Tigard but questioned maintaining it at the cost of not passing a
water bond issue. He suggested that staff study the alternatives and present their report before
the Water Board decided to do something. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, stated that staff
had planned to study monthly billing. Councilor Hunt requested that they look also at separate
billing for sewer and water.
Mayor Nicoli commented that Tigard was the lead agency in the new water consortium. He
spoke to looking at their financial responsibilities over the next 10 years, includipS how they
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER I8, 1997 - PAGE 9
E
I
1
E
i
c
I
1
p
i
1
would raise the necessary capital. He pointed out that at some point they would probably have
to go to the people and it was best to start setting themselves up now for that vote. He spoke to
preliminary financial planning internally to set up a long term approach. Mr. Monahan said that
he, Mr. Lowry, and Mr. Wegner would discuss this matter.
Mr. Lowry reported on his conversation with Bond Counsel Harvey Rogers. He said that
revenue bonds, unlike general obligation bonds, did not require a vote of the people. Revenue
bonds required a resolution declaring intent and impact passed by the facilitative body. Voters
had 60 days to circulate a petition to get the 5% of registered voters necessary to refer it to a
ballot. He explained that because of the unusual arrangement Tigard had with the other
jurisdictions they would have to amend their agreement with each of them.
Mayor Nicoli commented that while he was not concerned about including Durham, he was
concerned about including King City. He pointed out that the strength of the revenue bonds was
based on the city backing them. Mr. Lowry stated that Tigard had a good reputation in the bond
market. He commented that the City would increase the water rates, not increase the utility bill
across the board. Mayor Nicoli reiterated the importance of planning in building a water system
for the long term. Mr. Monahan reiterated that senior staff would discuss what they needed in
order to make a recommendation to Council.
Jack Polans asked the Mayor why he did not want to include King City. Mayor Nicoli said that
he chose not to answer at this time.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
i
192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:19 p.m.
Attest:
yor, City of Tigard
Date:
i Aadm\cathy\ccm\971118.doc
~J
7
'Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 10
_ i
I
i
i
1
i
i
j
i
it
1
i
F
'
f
■
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6840360 R E "qt" FEET 8970
~I BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
1
Legal Notice Advertising NOV 18 1997
• City of Tigard
13125 S19 Hall Blvd,
• Tigard,Or.egon 97223
.Accounts Payable
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )'S-
1, Kathy Sneer_------
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
j Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti Cjsr r3 m„a 1 at i n mimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti card _ _in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
City Council 17orlaho~ Ileetinq
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
satire issue ui said newspaper for ONE
successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
November 13,1997
i
AOA
Subscribed and sworn t be ore me thisl.3th day of TJovPm OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
No Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 062071
My Commission Expires: M" COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16.2001
AFFIDAVIT
3
1
1
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
November 18, 1997 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
1 Workshop Meeting topics:
j > Discuss City Facility Security Options
> Update on Greenspaces Property Acquisition
> Update on Title 3 of the Metro Functional Plan
> Executive Session
TT8970 - Publish November 13, 1997.
\J
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY OF Tlroo^
• ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
L
l
i
I
i
!
r
November 17, 1997
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Liz Newton
City of Tigard - 639-4171 ext. 308
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON /
The City of Tigard and the Dolan family have settled out of court in the matter of Dolan vs. City
of Tigard. The terms of the settlement include $1.5 million to the Dolan's, building permits for
Phase I and II in conformance with agreed upon standards, and the dedication of easements to the
city for a bikepath and flood control purposes. The complaint filed by the Dolans in December
1994 was for inverse condemnation, due process, civil rights, and lost business profits.
In settling the lawsuit, the city wants to end the litigation and move on to direct the city's
resources to other matters.
"The city wants to put this issue behind us" commented City Manager William Monahan.
"Resolving the suit removes any impediment, real or perceived, for the Dolans to move forward
with their building plans. In addition, the city receives an easement to maintain the floodplain
and add to the bikepath system"
The dispute stemmed from the Dolans filing for land use approval in 1991 to expand their
plumbing supply store on Main Street along Fanno Creek in Tigard. The Dolans appealed
conditions placed by the city that would require the Dolans to dedicate land for flood control
purposes and for a bikepath as a taking of property without just compensation. The city's
conditions, a common practice required by the city's adopted comprehensive plan, were upheld
by LUBA, the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court.
In June 1994, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5 -4 decision that the city had demonstrated a
legitimate public interest in requiring the conditions; a taking had not occurred. However, the
city had not demonstrated the required degree of connection between the conditions and the
impacts on the community by the proposed Dolan development. The Supreme Court remanded
the application to the city to demonstrate the required connection between the conditions and the
development.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the city issued a decision with revised conditions in
November 1995. The lawsuit filed by the Dolans proceeded even though the Dolans did not
appeal the Tigard land use decision. A summary judgment ruling made by the court in October
1996 established that at least a temporary taking had taken place in 1991 thus the case would
proceed to establish the level of damages.
The settlement concludes all claims made by the Dolans
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
L ~
AGENDA ITEM # L~
FOR AGENDA OF 11/18/97
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update: Recommendations for security of City Buildings
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss the recommendations of City Staff and the Workplace Violence Task Force for proposed improvements
to City facilities to improve security for City Buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of proposed improvements and that Council direct staff to bring back a budget
adinstment for Council Consideration on December 9, 1997. _
INFORMATION SUMMARY
/his item was discussed briefly on October 28, 1997. At that time Council indicated they would like to have
more time for discussion and to review each of the recommendations. Representatives from the Police
Department and Public Works Department will be available at the meeting to answer questions. Specifically,
we will present information on the benefits of a key-pad locking system and a security gate at the Public Works
Facility.
Attached are the Agenda Summary Sheets from the October 28, 1997, meeting for additional information.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Modify staffs proposal. For example, reduce the number of doors controlled by the security system.
FISCAL NOTES
Estimated cost: $80,800 from FY 1997-98 contingency funds.
LLl
Set over for
discussion to
11/18/97 from 10/28/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS ON SECURITY OF CITY FACILITIES
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK f CITY MGR OK L✓
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the Council authorize improvements to City facilities at a cost of up to $80,800 to implement
recommendations of Administration, City Departments, and the City's Workplace Violence Task Force to
improve building security throughout City buildings?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve appropriation of un to $80;800 to complelf. CP.veral mPnC11rPC to imrn vP_
building and facility security at the Civic Center, Niche, Water Building, and Public Works Facility. Upon'
Council approval, staff will return with a resolution to appropriate funds from contingency.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Over the past year, City staff members have identified ways to improve facility security. This project was part
of an effort to identify ways to protect against workplace violence. The recommendations of a staff committee
! included:
i
j 1. Use of identification badges to be worn by all City employees and visitors to City buildings.
2. Installation of an electronic security gate at the Public Works Facility.
3. Install keypad locking system for exterior doors and certain interior spaces to restrict access to
j those with proper authorization and identification.
i
Once the recommendations were forwarded to the City Manager, the costs were refined and individual
department preferences assessed. Improvements were identified to make the Niche more secure once access to
the building is gained. Unlike other City buildings, the Niche does not have a lobby; direct access is gained by
entering the main entrance. Additional interior doors are needed to control security.
Staff seeks approval from Council of a package of improvements to better secure City buildings and facilities.
If Public Works moves from its present location, the electronic gate can be moved and made use of at a new
location. Units of the exterior card-lock system is also moveable should expansion of facilities occur.
i
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Staff has evaluated several means of improving building and facility security. The cost of installing card
readers could be reduced by decreasing the number of doors controlled by the system. It should be noted that
the number of doors controlled by the system was based on department preference. The number of locks would
i be increased if the new building inspection modular and Senior Center were added to the system.
FISCAL NOTES
I'
The source of funds would be from contingency funds set aside in the FY 1997-98 City budget. The estimated
cost is $80,800. I
iAadmtcathytcounciRSecure.doc
Set over for
discussion to
11/18/97 from 10/28/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Budget Adjustment #9 for Building Security.
PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK lt v
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve a budget adjustment for improvements to
building security for City Facilities?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Improvements to City Facilities to enhance security were not anticipated in
the 1997/98 adopted budget. The full package of improvements recommended by
staff amount to $80,800. In order to provide for these improvemcnts, the
budget must be adjusted. The adjustment is included in the attached
resolution.
-
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
FISCAL NOTES
Increases budget for general capital improvements by $80,800 and decreases
general fund contingency by $80,800.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
j
A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #9 FOR BUILDING SECUdTY
'
IMPROVEMENTS.
1
WHEREAS, The City Council desires to improve security at City facilities and such improvements were not
j
included in the 1997/98 adopted budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: Appropriations in the general capital improvements budget unit are increased by $80,800
and general fund contingency is reduced by $80,800.
1
PASSED: This day of 1997.
t
;Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
r
City Recorder - City of Tigard
f
I
i:Wrywi<k~luufof
I
RESOLUTION NO.97-_
Page I _
{
1
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF Nov. 18. 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Quasi judicial comprehensive lap n man amendment review criteria
PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Staff initiated request to amend the adopted comprehensive plan text and zoning ordinance criteria for quasi-
judicial plan map amendments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this agenda item is to preview this issue before it is formally considered before City Council on
Decc bcr 9, 1997. 7. Planning Commission has already recommended approval of the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment. Council does not have to decide on this agenda item at this time. A public hearing regarding
this item will be conducted on December 9 and, at that time, staff will present a recommendation to the City
Council to make a formal decision.
FORMAT
I On Feb. 18, 1997, Gary Coe of Speed's Towing formally requested that the City revise Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Policy 1. 1.2 or delete reference to "mistake or change" in the plan (please refer to exhibit A). Mr. Coe was
involved with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for property located on SW Scholls Ferry Road and
SW 135th. Council heard this land use request on Feb. 11, 1997 and denied the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment. During Council's deliberations, there was discussion among Council members about what
constituted a mistake or physical change. City Council, following Coe's request, asked that staff review: the
current criteria for quasi-judicial plan amendments (please refer to exhibit B). Staff agrees that the present
language is vague and can be difficult to interpret.
The proposed Shrader plan amendment, for example, demonstrated the issue with the present Tigard
Comprehensive Plan language. The proposed comprehensive plan map amendment was denied by Council
because it was interpreted that a change in policy does not represent a physical change.
The new language (please refer to exhibit C) will clarify what types of proposed changes merit a change to the
comprehensive plan map.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
,This item is informational.
G
i'here are no fiscal impacts to consider.
FISCAL NOTES
' Portland
• Salem
• Gladstone
resham
` Vancouver
• Beaverton
• Lake Oswego
February 18, 1997
i
0WIM
~664,Z"7 P.01
236-6211
Nationwide
1-800-338-&211
Accounting
503.233-3571
FAX 503-238-3388 t
120 S. E Clay g
Portland, OR 972'14
EXHIBY -P.-
t
E
City of Tigard
City Council
Mayor Jim Nicoll, President Paul Hunt, Councilmen Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, Keri Scheckla
Fax: 6847297
Greetings:
® ! w- JA lika to si;88esi a legislative amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1.1.2 that incorporates the word 'mistake or change' should be deleted or
modified in a way that makes changes of land use designations possible. The
current City Council should have the flexibility to change land use designations,
instead of being bound by past City Council decisions.
I was a resident of Tigard since annexation in about 1983 until September 1995. I
still own a home at 11115 S.W. 135th near Scholls Ferry Rd., and was part of the
Shrader application for a Plan Amendment to Community Commercial.
The•huge volumes of traffic and related noise on three sides make the land of little
desire for a residence or for multifamily. The site is best suited for commercial use.
Even with Tigard Planning Staffs recommendation and the Planning Cammission's
recommendation, City Council's hands were tied, since it is nearly impossible to
prove a "mistake or change.'
I respectfully request that the City Council members review Policy 1. 1.2 and revise
it to a more flexible and useful tool.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
j
l
i
G Coe
President
GC:sm
G
i
t
i
MEMORANDUM
CD
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Jim Hendryx ,
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: February 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Request of Gary Coe
Attached is a letter from Gary Coe of Speed's Towing, proposing that Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Policy 1.1.2 be reviewed. I suggested that we undertake this review in a recent follow-
up memo from the February 11 Council meeting.
Please review this proposal with your staff and identify the timeframe in which a review can
be undertaken. Please advise me and also draft a letter to Mr. Coe, with a copy to Mayor
Nicoli, indicating the timeframe for a review. If we need to wait for a window of opportunity
because of our Code, let's do so with an explanation provided to Mr. Coe for the delay.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
WAM\jh
attachment
i:6idm\bd1\022497• l .doc
l
Exhibit C: Proposed Tigard comprehensive plan text
Language additions will be underliD and deletions will appear with stfikeouts.
2. The Community Development Code (C.D.C) shall provide quasi-judicial changes
to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affected parties a
as they are submitted and approved if the City Council finds:
a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies;
b. A change of physical circumstance;
use or transportation lanai policy a o
tr n portation planning policy has occurred
proposed chang°' can meet a community n
c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation; and
iL The proposed change will have no sigoifirant negative impacts on planned or
.,iroc4n irlnro
~
c=istl114 pu
.i
C
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Title
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts
This is an information item updating
conservation of wetlands and stream
i
Review the ordinance and direct staff
period.
^Jletro has developed a model ordina
have two years following adoption to
provisions of the city's recently ado
inconsistent these standards. Public
December-January. The adoption pro
A memo overviewing the draft ordin
a copy of the ordinance text. A copy
18th Council meeting.
OT
t
The adoption of the ordinance as writ
i.kity~.ick'~s,unUitlc3.sum
i
{
,
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 11/18/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
OUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Perfonnance a ire an el i a
DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE, BEFORE THE COUNCIL
I .
Council on the development of a proposed Metro model ordinance for the
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
to prepare comments for Metro's consideration during the comment
INFORMATION SUMMARY
ce for the protection of streams and wetlands. Local governments will
comply with the model ordinance performance standards. Many
ted ordinance for water resources protection based on state guidelines are
eview of the Metro ordinance is scheduled to occur during the period
cess is set for January-February.
nce and how it compares with the model ordinance is attached along with
of the wall-sized model ordinance map will be available at the November
HERALTERNATIVF CONSIDERED
i
FISCAL NOTES
ten will require the city to build bridges instead of less expensive culverts.
s
f
n
p
r
a
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Developneent
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD j
TO: Jim Hendryx
FROM: Duane Roberts
DATE: 11/5/97
I
SUBJECT: Title 3 Performance Measures and Model Ordinance
This memo overviews the key features and implications for Tigard of the most recent version of the t
proposed Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Area Model Ordinance. The stated
purpose of this model ordinance is to implement the provisions of Title 3, Section 6 of Metro's
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. This title addresses the "protection of water quality
and floodplain areas". The model ordinance was developed by a Metro technical advisory
committee consisting primarily of regulatory agency and private non-profit organization
representatives. Public review and Metro Council adoption is scheduled for early 1998. Local
governments will have two years following adoption to comply with the model ordinance'
performance standards.
~I
Main Provision
The most controversial feature of the model ordinance is the width and inclusiveness of the buffers
or "water quality resource area" it prescribes. The ordinance imposes a system-wide 50-foot
vegetated buffer for all streams, creeks, and wetlands in areas of less than 25% slope. For
creeks, wetlands, and springs in areas of 25% or greater slope, the setback widens to 200 feet.
Small streams and seeps carrying year round or intermittent flow in areas of less than 25% slope
are subject to 15-foot buffers. The prescribed setback is 50 feet for intermittent streams or seeps
in areas of greater than 25% slope. These setbacks extend horizontally from the top of the stream
bank or wetland outer boundary.
Metro has put together 1:700 scale maps depicting the proposed protected areas. Within Tigard,
the 50-foot buffer applies to the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Summer Creek, both forks of Ash
Creek, Ball Creek, Pinebrook Creek, and short segments of certain unnamed Fanno Creek
tributaries. The 200 foot buffer applies to portions of three Bull Mountain ravines.
i
I
I
The model ordinance encourages local governments to require as a condition of partition or
subdivision approval the placement of the setback or water resource area in a separate tract.
Purchase or donation of this tract to public agencies or private non-profits is encouraged.
'1.To offset the effects of development restrictions, 100% of the floor area or residential density
accruing to the land within the setback area can be transferred to the buildable portion of the site.
The maximum floor area or number of units allowed on the buildable portion is two times the
underlying zone. Adjustment of the buffer also is allowed, with the maximum allowable
encroachment set at 15 feet, provided the area of encroachment is offset by the expansion of the
buffer elsewhere on the site.
The uses and activities allowed within the setback area, subject to specific restrictions, include:
roads providing access to streams or wetlands, utility construction, bike paths, stormwater pre-
treatment facilities, and widening of existing roads adjacent to the setback area. Non-conforming
uses located within water resource areas are not permitted to expand. However, provided they
result in no net loss of the buffer area, replacement, additions, or alterations of the existing use are
allowed.
Comparison with Existing City Regulations
}
The City recently has adopted developed regulations based on the state Goal 5 safeharbor
j
-nrnnr•h to water ragniirrra prntartinn_ ('P.nprg11v cnaakinn tha Matrn mode! ordinance is mnrc
complex and sets larger setbacks that the new city regulations. For instance, the city imposes 50-
foot buffers on Fanno, Ball and the east fork of Ash Creek. In contrast, the model ordinance
establishes 50-foot buffers on Fanno and on all of its major and minor tributaries. It also imposes
a new 15-foot buffer on all intermittent streams and drainageways.
The city safeharbor ordinance does not create a setback from isolated wetlands or wetlands not
associated with streams. The USA 25-foot buffer applies to isolated wetlands. The model
ordinance expands this setback distance to 50 feet.
Under the city ordinance, the standard 50-foot setback distance may be reduced up to 25 feet in
exchange for restoring or enhancing a degraded buffer. Under the model ordinance, specific
requirements are established for the revegetation of pre-existing disturbed and bare areas and for
the removal of nuisance vegetation, without allowing as a tradeoff any narrowing of the buffer
area.
f
The city currently allows paved trails to be located up to 10 feet from the edge of a wetland or the
top a stream bank. The model ordinance also allows paved pathways to be placed within 10 feet
of these areas, but stipulates that, "where possible", only 10% of the trail on average may be
within 30 feet of a water feature. It also requires the buffer area to be increased by the width of
the path.
Except for density transfer, the city ordinance provides greater flexibility than its model ordinance
counterpart. In addition to the 50% reduction in buffer width, the city ordinance provides for a
50% adjustment of the underlying zone height and setback standards. The final layer of city
flexibility is the option of an ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy) analysis as a
,sway of resolving conflicts between conservation and development.
~ J
Current city regulations are more stringent than the model ordinance in two ways. The city
ordinance sets a 75-foot setback from the Tualatin River verses the model ordinance's 50-foot.
The city's current regulations allow a density transfer of up to 125% of the underlying zone. As
mentioned, the model ordinance allows a density transfer of up to 200% onto the buildable portion
'-~,of a site.
Flood lain Regulations
As noted, the model ordinance also contains regulations pertaining to floodplain protection and
erosion control. The floodplain regulations impose new excavation and fill design standards, but
continue to allow balanced cut and fill.
Of special interest are regulations related to parking. These allow short term parking in the
floodplain at an elevation of no more than one foot below the ten-year floodplain. Long term
parking is allowed at an elevation of no more than one foot below the 100-year floodplain. It is not
possible to determine the ten year floodplain of streams within Tigard because Corps of Engineers
floodplain maps do not denote this boundary. A flood elevation study would be required to
establish the boundary on a specific site. One implication for Tigard is that the ten year
requirement may affect the plans for providing new parking areas in Cook Park. With regard to
the 100-year standard, It appears Fought Steel, Puget, and other city-based businesses do not
comply.
I
' The erosion control standards are sirniiar to the USA standards currently applied by the city, but
contain one important new provision. This provision requires bridges be built instead of culverts.
This potentially is a very expensive requirement, since the cost of a bridge is several times the
cost of a culvert.
Conclusion
The Metro model ordinance was developed without reference to the Goal 5 safeharbor approach
adopted by the city. The model ordinance is more restrictive than current city standards and adds
another layer of regulation to water resource protection.
UUpn/duaneRitlelmem
a
I
REVISED DRAFT 9/4/97 - THE GOAL OF THIS FIRST REVISED DRAFT OF THE
( 2
MODEL ORDINANCE IS TO PROVIDE AN ORDINANCE FORMAT THAT IS
3
EASY TO USE AND THAT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIMARY ZONES
4
TO WHICH THE WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT OVERLAY
5
ZONE WILL APPLY.
6
7
DRAFT
8
9
Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Area Model Ordinance
I 10
i 11
12
Introduction
13
Attached is the model ordinance required by Title 3, Section 6 of Metro's Urban Growth
14
Management Functional Plan.
I 15
16
The purpose of this model ordinance is to provide a specific example of provisions
17
approved by the Metro Council that can be used by a city or county to comply with the
18
performance standards for Title 3: Rater Quality and Flood Management Conservation
i '
19
described in the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Title 3 describes
20
specific performance standards and practices for floodplain and water quality protection.
21
It also requires that Metro adopt a Water Quality and Flood Management Model
I
22
Ordinance and map for use by local jurisdictions to comply with Title 3. This model
23
ordinance fulfills this Title 3 requirement. It is also consistent with Metro's policies in
24
the 1995 Future Vision Report, in the 1995 Regional Urban Growth Goals and
1 25
Objectives (RUGGOs) and the 1992 Greenspaces Master Plan.
26
i 27
The purpose of Title 3 is to protect water quality and floodpWn areas. Floodplains protect
28
the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards and
29
pollution of the region's waterways. This purpose is addressed by this Model Ordinance
30
and Map. Another purpose of Title 3 is to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Statewide
31
land use Goal 5 measures which include fish and wildlife habitat protection will be
f[
32
addressed in the study Metro will conduct within the next 18 months. As additional issues
33
are addressed, further regulations may be imposed on areas contained within or outside
j 34
of the Water Quality and Floodplain Management Overlay Zone addressed in this Model
j 1
35
Ordinance.
36
i
37
The Metro Future Vision, Greenspaces Master Plan and Regional Urban Growth Goals
38
and Objectives (RUGGOs) identify water quality protection, floodplain management,
39
fish and wildlife habitat protection, development of recreational trails, acquisition of
40
open space and maintenance of biodiversity as critical elements of maintaining healthy,
I 41
livable communities.
42
43
This Model Ordinance, however, only provides specific examples of local ordinance
i _ 44
provisions for a portion of the issues identified in Title 3: protection of the region's
45
floodplains, water quality and reduction of flood hazards and the implementation of
1 9/4/97
t
{
46 erosion control practices throughout the Portland metropolitan region. Other issues
47 including fish and wildlife habitat, watershed-wide stormwater management, steep
48 slopes, landslide hazards and biodiversity will be addressed by December 1997 in the
49 Metro Regional Framework Plan.
50
51 The approach in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Title 3 is to implement Oregon Statewide Goal 6
52 and Goal 7. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality and Goal 7: Areas
53 Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards are addressed by protecting streams, rivers,
54 wetlands, and areas with adjacent to streams and floodplains within the Water Quality
55 Resource Area and Flood Management Area.
56
57 Cities and counties are required to amend theirplans and implementing ordinances, if
58 necessary, to ensure that they comply with Title 3 in one of the following ways:
59
60 A. Either adopt the applicable provisions of the Metro Water Quality Resource Area and
61 Flood Management Area model ordinance and map entitled Metro Water Quality
62 Resource Area and Flood Management Area Map; or
63
64 B. Adopt plans and implementing ordinances and maps which substantially comply with
65 the performance standards of Title 3.
66
67 C. Any combination of A and B above that substantially complies with all
68 performance standards in Title 3, Section 4 ( see Title 3, Section 3).
69
70 The purpose of the map adopted by Metro is to provide the performance standard for the
71 location of Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas. Therefore the
72 map is the basis for evaluation of substantial compliance of local maps for those
73 jurisdictions who choose to develop their own map of Water Quality Resource Areas and
74 Flood Management Areas. "Substantial compliance" means that the ordinances and
75 regulations, on the whole, conform with the purposes of the performance standards in
76 the functional plan and any failure to meet individual performance standard requirements
77 is technical or minor in nature (see ORS 197.747).
78
79 Local jurisdictions have two options with regard to their adoption of code language and a
80 map (either the Metro Water Quality Resource Area and Flood Management Area Map or
81 a local map which substantially complies with the Metro map):
82
83 1) the code language which describes the affected area prevails and the map is a
84 reference; or
85 2) the map prevails and the descriptive code language is used to correct map errors when
86 they are discovered and for delineating and marking the overlay zone boundary in the
87 field.
88
89 The advantage of the latter approach is that the final boundary is determined at the time
90 of the development application, based on a detailed survey of the site. If a large scale,
2
9/4/97
91 precise boundary can be mapped, the official map should prevail. This method allows for
92 a more efficient permit process, and more certainty for the property owner. In this case,
93 the language is used to correct mapping errors when they are discovered. A map, f
94 however, should only be used if it has a level of detail and clarity equal to or better than
j
95 1" = 300 feet, and has been field-checked for accuracy.
97 Water Quality and Flood Management Area Model Ordinance
98
99 The (City Council or Board of Commissioners of (jurisdiction) find that:
100
i
i 101 Section 1. Intent
102
1
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
III
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
A. To protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of Protected
Water Features, Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood Management Areas by
limiting or mitigating the impacts on these areas from development activities.
B. To protect existing and establish new Water Quality Resource Areas
which provide the following functions:
1. To act as a physical buffer separating development and human
activities which damage Protected Water Features;
2. To protect the water quality of the Protected Water Features;
3. To protect the natural water purification function of the Water
Quality Resource Area;
4. To provide filtering and infiltration of local stormwater runoff
before it enters the Protected Water Features.
C. To protect Flood Management Areas which provide the following
functions:
1. Protect life and property from dangers associated with flooding.
2. Flood storage, reduction of flood velocities, reduction of flood
peak flows and reduction of wind and wave impacts.
3. Maintain water quality by reducing and sorting sediment loads,
processing chemical and organic wastes and reducing nutrients.
4. Recharge, store and discharge groundwater.
5. Provide plant and animal habitat, and support riparian ecosystems.
D. To establish an overlay zone for Water Quality Resource Areas and Flood
Management Areas which operates contemporaneously with the base zone and
implements the performance standards of Title 3 of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan.
z
t
i
141 Section 2. Applicability
142
143 A. This ordinance applies to new development and redevelopment in the
144 Water Quality and Flood Plain Management Overlay Zone. The overlay zone
145 restricts the primary uses that are allowed in the base zone by right, with
146 limitations, or as conditional uses.
147
148 B. This ordinance applies to all development and redevelopment both inside
149 and outside the overlay zone which requires an Erosion and Sediment Control
150 Permit.
151
152 C. This ordinance does not apply to emergency procedures necessary to
153 protect existing development including emergency maintenance, repair, and
154 replacement of existing structures, exterior improvements, roads and utilities.
155
156 D. This ordinance does not apply to development applications already
157 deemed complete as of the effective date of thk nrdinanr_.P_ fWntp: ni, rss;et
158 existing Oregon law, see ORS 227.178(3) and 215.428(3)). .
159
160 E. Failure to comply with Sections 3-6 of this ordinance will result in a
% F)161 denial of the development application.
162
163 Section 3. Water Quality Resource Areas
164
165 A. This section applies to Water Quality Resource Areas which are part of the
166 Water Quality and Flood Plain Management Area Overlay Zone as delineated on
167 the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas Map attached and incorporated
168 by reference as part of this ordinance.
169
170 B. The purpose of this section is to protect and enhance the beneficial water
171 uses and functions and values of Protected Water Features by maintaining and
172 restoring Water Quality Resource Areas.
173
174 (Note: If it has been determined during local public review that the code language
175 is to prevail, adoption of these standards as written is appropriate. I fa map is to
176 prevail, this section should be used for map correction and interpretation, and the
177 _ definition of areas should be by adopting an official map by reference)
178
179
180 C. Water Quality Resource Areas are areas adjacent to either Primary
181 Protected Water Features or Secondary Protected Water Features.
182
183 D. The Water Quality Resource Areas shown on the Water Quality and Flood
184 Management Areas Map are based on the following standards:
185
5
9/4/97
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
"207
`208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
1. Primary Protected Water Features:
(a) For rivers and streams in areas of less than 25 percent
slope, 50 feet horizontally on either side of the top of bank.
(b) For rivers and streams in areas of 25 percent or greater
slope, 200 feet horizontally on either side of the top of bank.
(c) For wetlands and springs in areas of less than 25 percent
slope, 50 feet horizontally measured from the delineated boundary
of the water quality resource area.
(d) For wetlands and springs in areas of 25 percent or greater
slope, 200 feet horizontally measured from the delineated
boundary of the water quality resource area.
2. Secondary Protected Water Features:
(a) For all Secondary Protected "water Features in areas of less
than 25 percent slope, 15 feet horizontally on either side from top
of bank, or 30 feet wide, centered on the stream meander
centerline, but in no case less than 10 feet from the top of bank.
(b) For all Secondary Protected Water Features in areas of 25
percent or greater slope; 50 feet wide horizontally on either side
form top of bank.
3. Slope, as used in this ordinance, is the vertical change in elevation
divided by the horizontal distance of the vertical change. Slope is
measured along lines extending two hundred (200) feet perpendicular to
the centerline of the stream at least every 100 feet, or more frequently as
required, for the length of the parcel proposed for development. These
measurements should be taken at intervals that include unusual features
within the Water Quality Resource Area. At least three slope
measurements shall be made for each site, regardless of size.
(Note: For the purposes of substantial compliance, a jurisdiction can
meet the performance standards in Title 3 by applying the following
method to the water quality resource area: for areas with zero slope (as
measured parallel to the ground) the buffer will be 50 feet from top of
waterway bank, but for every one percent slope after that point, add
six (6) feet.)
6 9/4/97
M
^229
E. No structures, new development, construction activities, gardens
lawns
--230
,
,
dumping of any materials of any kind, or activities other than those listed in
231
Subsection G are allowed in the Water Quality Resource Area.
232
233
F. Water Quality Resource Areas shall be protected, maintained, enhanced
1 234
and restored on new development sites which contain Water Quality Resource
235
Areas.
I 236
237
1. Applicants for development permits on property which is fully or
238
partially subject to the Water Quality and Flood Management Area
239
Overlay Zone must provide the following information:
1 240
241
(a) To the extent that the application criteria for the base zone do
242
~
not require it, a site plan which includes the following information:
( 243
(
i 244
(1) Project name.
245
246
(2) Vicinity map.
I
247
i 248
!
(3) Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch
249
equals fifty (50) feet or larger).
a 250
i
y j251
(4) North arrow.
252
253
(5) Date.
j 254
I 255
(6) Street names and locations of all existing
j 256
and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the
I 257
proposed development.
258
259
(7) Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
-
260
261
(8) Location and use of all proposed and
262
existing buildings, fences and structures within the
(
263
i
proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to i
: .
a 264
remain and which are to be removed.
.
265
,
-
f
! 266
(9) Location and size of all public utility
267
facilities affected by the proposed development.
268
1 269
(10) Location of drainage ways or public utility
270
easements in and adjacent to the proposed development.
271
272
---'273
(11) A topographic map of the site at a contour
interval of five (5) feet or less.
7 0 cn /o'7
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
'"',295
J296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
l
(12) Location of all parking areas and spaces,
ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation.
(13) Locations of all existing natural features
including, but not limited to, all trees of a caliper greater
than six (6) inches DBH, natural drainages on the site,
springs, seeps and outcroppings of rocks, or boulders.
Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural
features.
(14) Building envelopes for all existing and
proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area.
(15) Location of all existing wells on the subject
property.
(16) Inventory and location of existing debris and
noxious materials.
(b) In addition to the information required on the site plan, the
following information:
(1) A delineation of the Water Quality Resource Area.
Identify the Protected Water Features and Water Quality
Resource Areas located on the subject property that are
both: 1) included in the City/County map, and 2) meet
the definition of Protected Water Feature and Water Quality
Resource Areas which are not included on the map;
(2) The location of trees within the Water Quality
Resource Area showing, approximate heights, types, and
diameter at breast height (DBH).
(3) Location of wetlands. Where potential wetlands are
identified, the applicant shall follow the Division of State
Lands recommended wetlands assessment process.
Descriptions and assessments required in this section shall
be prepared by a party trained in wetland/riparian area
delineation, and are subject to City/County approval;
(4) Lot configuration which shows the following:
(i) For any partition or subdivision, the Water
Quality Resource Area shall be contained in a
8
9/4/97
I~
319
320
separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel
321
to be used for the construction of a dwel'.ing unit.
The City/County may seek a dedication to the
322
City/County, or with approval, a dedication to other
323
324
governmental units, or an easement conveying
325
storm and surface water management rights to the
326
City/County and preventing the owner of the tract
from activities and uses inconsistent with the
327
328
purpose of this ordinance; or
329
330
(ii) For multi-Family, commercial, or industrial
331
developments, the Water Quality Resource Area
332
shall be contained in a separate tract, and the city or
333
county may seek a dedication, easement or any
334
combination of the two of the Water Quality
335
Resource Area to the city or county or other
336
governmental unit;
337
338
(iii) Where a separate parcel is dedicated
339
containing the Water Quality Resource Area,
0
development shall be subject to a maximum 3 foot
341
setback from the Water Quality Resource Area.
342
i 343
(c) An assessment of the existing condition of the Water
Quality Resource Area in accordance with Table 1
344
t
.
345
346
(d) An inventory of vegetation by type, including percentage
1 347
ground and canopy coverage.
348
349
(e) A development plan which demonstrates:
350
351
(1) The Water Quality Resource Area will be restored
i 352
and maintained in accordance with the specifications in
1 353
Table 1.
354
3
55
(2) To the extent practicable, existing vegetation will be
1
356
protected and left in place. Work areas will be carefully
I 357
located and marked to reduce potential damage to the
3
58
Water Quality Resource Area. Trees in the Water Quality
359
Resource Area shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing
360
construction equipment.
361
362
(3) Where existing vegetation has been removed, or the
363
original land contours disturbed, the site shall be
revegetated, and the vegetation shall be established as soon
as practicable. Nuisance plants, as identified in the Metro
Native Plant List attached as may be removed at any
time. Interim erosion control measures such as mulching
should be used to avoid erosion on bare areas. Nuisance
plants shall be replaced with non-nuisance plants by the
next growing season.
(4) Prior to construction, the Water Quality Resource
Area will be flagged, fenced or otherwise marked and will
remain undisturbed except as allowed in Subsection E and
F. Such markings will be maintained until construction is
complete.
2. If an application for proposed improvements does not meet the
definition of development or redevelopment in Section 10, or does not
require any other planning action, the Director shall approve the
application after receiving the information required in Subsection F I (a)
and F I (b)(1) and finding the application complete. .
G. The following uses and activities are allowed in the Water Quality
Resource Area subject to the Mitigation Standards of Subsection H.
I • Roads to provide access to Protected Water Features or necessary
ingress and egress across Water Quality Resource Areas;
2. Public or private utility construction;
3. Walkways and bike paths not exceeding 10 feet in width subject to
the following restrictions:
(a) A gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed
closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the Protected Water
Feature, unless approved by the city or county. Walkways and
bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to
existing vegetation. Where practicable, a maximum of 10% of the
trail may be within 30 feet of the Protected Water Feature.
(b) A paved walkway or bike path may not be constructed
closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the Protected Water
Feature, unless approved by the city or county For any paved
walkway or bike path, the width of the Water Quality Resource
Area must be increased by a distance equal to the width of the
path. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to
minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. Where practicable, a
.408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
ss~428
':,,$J429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
maximum of 10% of the trail may be within 30 feet of the
Protected Water Feature.
4. Measures to remove or abate nuisances, or any other violation of I
state statute, administrative agency rule or city or county ordinance.
i
5. New stormwater pre-treatment facilities subject to the following
restrictions:
(a) The stormwater pre-treatment facility may only encroach a
maximum of 25 feet into the Water Quality Resource Area from its
outside boundary;
(b) The city or county must approve the site design;
i
(c) The area of encroachment must be replaced with an equal
area within the Water Quality Resource Area on the subject
property. r
6. Widening an existing road adjacent to or running parallel to a
Water Quality Resource Area. -
7. Stream, wetland, riparian and upland enhancement or restoration
projects.
8. Replacement, additions or alterations to existing structures that are
reasonably necessary to continue the use and do not result in a net loss of
the Water Quality Resource Area.
H. A Water Quality Resource Area Mitigation Plan is required for all
development listed in Subsection G. Mitigation may be allowed only when there `
is no practicable method of avoiding modification of the Water Quality Resource
Area.
1. Water Quality Resource Area mitigation projects shall be located
as follows: -
(a) As close to the development as is practicable above the
confluence of the next downstream tributary, or if this is not
practicable;
(b) Within the watershed where the development will take
place or as otherwise specified by the city or county in an approved
Wetland Mitigation Bank.
J
453
2. A Water Quality Resource Area Mitigation Plan application shall
454
contain the following information:
455
i
456
(a) A description of adverse impacts that will be caused as a
457
result of development;
i
458
459
(b) A description of at least two mitigation alternatives;
460
461
(c) An explanation of the rationale behind choosing the
462
463
alternative selected, including how adverse impacts to resource
E
areas will be avoided and/or minimized;
y
464
!
465
(d) A list of all responsible parties including, but not limited to
}j
r'
466
the owner, applicant, contractor or other persons responsible for
i
467
work on the development site;
[
468
3
469
(e) A Water Quality Resource Area Mitigation Plan which
;
~
470
includes the following:
471
"
472
O 1
A map showing where the specific mitigation
473
activities will occur;
474
-,1475
476
(2) An implementation schedule, including timeline for
477
construction, mitigation, mitigation maintenance, t
478
monitoring, reporting and a contingency plan. All instream
479
work in fish-bearing streams shall be done in accordance
480
with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife instream
timing schedule.
481
482
(3) Proof that a deed restriction has been placed on the
1
483
484
property where the mitigation is to occur which ensures that
J
485
the mitigation area will be protected in perpetuity.
486
487
1
"
488
i
12 9/4/97
'-489
490
491
492
493
WATER QUAL
T2ble 1
ITY RESOURCE AREA REQUIR
EMENTS
j
EXISTING CONDITION OF
REQUIREMENTS IF WATER
REQUIREMENTS IF WATER
WATER QUALITY
QUALITY RESOURCE AREA
QUALITY RESOURCE AREA
RESOURCE AREA
REMAINS UNDISTURBED
IS DISTURBED DURING
DURING CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
Good Existine Corridor.
Combination of trees, shrubs and
Provide certification by registered
Prior to construction, a biologist
groundcover are 80% present,
professional engineer, landscape
or landscape architect shall
and there is more than 50 percent
architect, or biologist or other
prepare and submit an inventory
tree canopy coverage in the
person trained or certified in
of vegetation in areas proposed to
4
vegetated corridor or existing
riparian or wetland delineation
be disturbed and a plan for
native wetland system.
that vegetated corridor meets the
mitigating water quality impacts
standards of this ordinance.
related to:
Inventory and remove debris and
• development (e.g. sediments,
temperature and nutrients),
noxious materials.
• . sediment control
• temperature control
• or addressing any other
condition that may have
j -
caused the Protected Water
j
Feature to be listed on DEQ's
303 (d) list.
Inventory and remove debris and
I~I
noxious materials.
f : .
~.J
Corridor.
Combination of trees, shrubs and
groundcover are 80% present,
and 25-50 percent canopy
coverage in the vegetated
corridor.
Provide certification by registered
professional engineer, landscape
architect, or biologist or other
person trained or certified in
riparian or wetland delineation
that vegetated corridor meets the
standards of this ordinance.
Inventory and remove debris and
noxious materials.
14
Vegetate disturbed and bare areas
with, non-nuisance plantings
from Native Plants List.
Inventory and remove debris and
noxious materials.
Revegetate with native species
using a City/County approved
plan developed to represent the
vegetative composition which
would naturally occur on the site.
Seeding may be required prior to
establishing plants for site
stabilization.
Revegetation must occur during
the next planting season
following site disturbance.
Annual replacement of plants
which do not survive is required
until vegetation representative of
natural conditions is established
on the site.
Restore and mitigate according to
approved plan using
non-nuisance plantings from
Native Plants List.
Inventory and remove debris and
noxious materials.
9/4/97
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Veeetated
Decraded Existing
Corridor:
Vegetate bare areas with
Vegetate disturbed and bare areas
Less vegetation and canopy
plantings from approved Native
with appropriate plants from
coverage than Marginal
Plant List.
Native Plants List.
Vegetated Corridors, and/or
greater than 10 percent surface
Remove non-native species and
Remove non-native species and
coverage of any non-native
revegetate with plantings from
revegetate with non-nuisance
species.
approved Native Plants List.
plantings from Native Plants List.
Inventory and remove debris and
Plant and seed to provide 100
noxious materials.
percent surface coverage.
Restore and mitigate according to
approved plan using non-
nuisance plantings from Native
Plants List.
Inventory and remove.debris and
noxious materials.
15
+94
495
496
Section 4. Flood Management
497
498
(Note: The City or County's existing Flood Plain Ordinances should be included in this
499
section. Careful redrafting should be employed to insure that there are no conflicts, and
500
that the stricter language prevails. Some cities will want to exclude some flood plains
I 501
from the stricter requirements of this ordinance, for example, where the downtown area
502
encompasses a flood plain. Minimum Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
503
standards allow unrestricted fill and development as long as the area is elevated or
504
floodproofed. In some limited cases, the more lax FEMA standards should apply to those
505
areas that are in the flood plain, but where development and fill will be unrestricted.
506
Depending on the type of ordinance existing, some of these sections may be redundant.
507
Local jurisdictions should use FEMA floodway standards or adopt them into their code if
508
it is not currently being used.)
509
510
511
A. This Section applies to Flood Management Areas which are part of the
512
Water Quality and Flood Management Area Overlay Zone as delineated on the
513
Water Quality and Flood Management Area Map attached and incorporated by
} 514
reference as a part of this ordinance. This Section applies in addition to the rules
' 515
regulating the Water Quality Resource Areas in Section 3.
'J516
517
B. The purpose of these standards is to reduce the risk of flooding, prevent or
518
property, and maintain the functions and values of
reduce risk to human life and
519
floodplains such as allowing for the storage and conveyance of stream flows
520
through their natural systems.
521
522
C. The Floodplain Management Areas regulated by this ordinance are:
I 523
524
1. All land contained within the 100 year Floodplain as shown on the
525
official Federal Emergency Management Agency maps;
526
527
2. All land within the area shown as Flood Area on the official
528
Federal Emergency Management Agency maps;
529
530
3. All lands which have physical or documented evidence of flooding
531
within recorded history. Jurisdictions shall use the most recent and
532
technically accurate information available to determine the historical flood
533
area such as the aerial photographs of the 1996 flooding and digitized
534
flood elevation maps; and
535
536
4. All lands in the floodway as shown on the official Federal
--537
Emergency Management Agency maps.
538
16 9/4/97
l
-1
U
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
,-,559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
-,581
582
D. All development, excavation and fill in the Floodplain shall conform to the
following balanced cut and fill standards:
1. No net fill in any floodplain is allowed. All fill placed in a
floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of soil material
removal;
2. Excavation areas shall not exceed fill areas by more than 50
percent of the square footage;
3. Any excavation below bankful stage, shall not count toward
compensating for fill since these areas would be full of water in the winter
and not available to hold stormwater,
4. Excavation to balance a fill shall be located on the same parcel as
the fill unless it is not reasonable or practicable to do so. In such cases,
the excavation shall be located in the same drainage basin and as close as
possible to the fill site, so long as the proposed excavation and fill will not
increase flood impacts for surrounding properties as determined through
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
E. The excavated area must meet the following excavation grade design
standards:
1. For excavated areas identified by the city or county to remain dry
in the summer, such as parks or mowed areas, the lowest elevation shall be
at least 6 inches above the winter "low water" elevation, and sloped at a
minimum of two percent towards the Protected Water Feature. One
percent slopes will be allowed in areas of -acres or less;
2. For excavated areas identified by the city or county to remain wet
in the summer, such as a constructed wetland, the grade shall be designed
not to drain into the Protected Water Feature.
F. Minimum finished floor elevations must be at least one foot above the
design flood height or highest flood of record, whichever is higher, for new
habitable structures in the Flood Area
G. Short-tetra parking in the floodplain may be located at an elevation of no
more than one foot below the ten-year floodplain. Long-team parking in the flood
plain may be located at an elevation of no more than one foot below the 100-year
floodplain so long as the parking facilities do not occur in a Water Quality
Resource Area.
17 9/4/97
t
583 H. New culverts, stream crossings and transportation projects shall be
584 designed as balanced cut and fill projects or designed not to raise the floodplain.
585 All culvert crossings shall be oriented at 30 degrees of perpendicular to a
586 Protected Water Feature. Bridges shall be used instead of culverts wherever
587 practicable.
588
589 I. The following uses and activities are not subject to the balanced cut and
590 fill standards of Subsection D:
591
592 1. Excavation and fill required to plant any new trees or vegetation;
593
594 2. Excavation and fill required for the construction of structures and
595 other facilities specifically designed to reduce or mitigate flood impacts
596 and improve water quality;
597
598 3. Restoration or enhancement of flood plains, riparian areas,
599 wetland, upland and streams that meet federal and state standards. These
600 activities are exempt from all provisions of Section 4,
601
602 Section 5. Density Transfers
603
604 A. The purpose of this section is to allow density accruing to portions of a
605 property within the Water Quality and Flood Management Area Overlay Zone to
606 be transferred to other portions of the property outside the overlay zone.
607
608 B. Development applications which request a density transfer must provide
609 the following information:
610
611 1. A map showing the net buildable area to which the density
612 will be transferred.
613
614 2. Calculations justifying the requested density increase.
615
616 C. Density transfers shall be allowed if the applicant demonstrates
617 compliance with the following standards:
618
619 1. The density of the buildable area is not increased to more than two
620 (2) times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units
621 shall be rounded down to the next whole number.
622
623 2. Minimum density standards will not increase due to the density
624 transfers.
625
18
9/4/07
X26 D. The area of land contained in a Water Quality Resource Area and
627 Protected Water Feature may be excluded from the calculations for determining
628 compliance with minimum density requirements of the zoning code.
j 629
630 Section 6. Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
631
632 A. The requirements of this Section shall be carved out by the
j 633 (Bureau/Departrnent/Director).
634
635 B. The purpose of this section is to require erosion prevention measures and
636 sediment control practices for all development inside and outside the Water
i 637 Quality and Flood Plain Management Area Overlay Zone during construction to
638 prevent and restrict the discharge of sediments, and to require final permanent
639 erosion prevention measures that may include landscaping after development is
640 completed. Erosion prevention techniques shall be designed to protect soil
! 641 particles from the force of water and wind so that they will not be transported
642 from the site. Sediment control measures shall be designed to capture soil
643 particles after they have become dislodged by erosion and attempt to retain the
644 soil particles on site.
645
646 C. Prior to, or contemporaneous with, approval of an application that may
-j47 cause temporary or permanent erosion on a development site, the applicant must
-'648 obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit.
649
650 D. Erosion which occurs on a development site which does not have an
651 Erosion and Sediment Control Permit or which results from a failure to comply
652 with the terms of such a Permit constitutes a violation of this ordinance.
653
654 E. An application for an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit shall include
655 an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which contains methods and interim
656 measures to be used during and following construction to prevent or control
657 erosion. The plan shall demonstrate the following:
658
659 1. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meets the requirements of
660 the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans, Technical Guidance
j 661 Handbook (Handbook) attached and incorporafed by reference as part of
662 this ordinance;
663
! 664 2. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will:
665
666 (a) Prevent erosion by employing prevention practices such as
667 non-disturbance, construction schedules, erosion blankets and
i
-.668 mulch covers; or
669
19 9/4/97
1
i
1
r
i
x'670 (b) Where erosion cannot be completely avoided, the sediment
671 control measures will be adequate to prevent erosion from entering
672 the public stormwater system, surface water system, Protected
673 Water Features and Water Quality Resource Areas; and
674
675 (c) Will allow no more than a ten percent cumulative increase
676 in natural stream turbidities, as measured relative to a control point
677 immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity. However,
678 limited duration activities necessary to address an emergency or to
679 accommodate essential dredging, construction or other legitimate
680 activities and which cause the standard to be exceeded may be
681 authorized provided all practicable turbidity control techniques
682 have been applied. OAR 340-41-205 and 340-41-445.
683
684 3. The applicant will actively manage and maintain erosion control
685 measures and utilize techniques described in the Permit to prevent or
686 control erosion during and following development. Erosion and sediment
687 control measures required by the Permit shall remain. in place until
688 disturbed soil areas are permanently stabilized b landscaping,
689 approved mulch or other permanent soil stabilizing measures;
690
691 4. No mud, dirt, rock or other debris will be deposited upon a public
`..1692 street or any part of the public stormwater system, surfacewater system,
693 Protected Water Feature or Water Quality Resource Area, or any private stormwater system or surfacewater system which drains or of a
695 connects to the public stormwater or surfacewater system.
696
697 F. The city or county may inspect the development site to determine
698 compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Permit.
699
700 G. If the Director finds that the facilities and techniques approved in an
701 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Permit are not sufficient to prevent
702 erosion, the Director shall notify the permittee. Upon receiving notice, the
703 permittee shall immediately install interim erosion and sediment control measures
704 as specified in the Handbook. Within three days from the date of notice, the
705 permittee shall submit a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the city or
706 county. Upon approval of the revised plan and issuance of an amended Permit,
707 the perminee shall immediately implement the revised plan.
708
709 Section 7. Variances
710
711 A. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that compliance with this
712 ordinance does not cause unreasonable hardship. To avoid such instances, the
13 requirements of this ordinance may be varied. Variances are also allowed when
714 strict application of this ordinance would deprive an owner of all economically
20 9/4/97
Z
^715 viable use of land. This Section applies in addition to the standards governing
L
716
proposals to vary the requirements of the base zone.
717
718
B. To vary from the requirements of Sections 3-6 the applicant must
719
demonstrate the following:
720
721
1. The variance is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed use
722
or activity;
723
724
2. The variance does not increase danger to life and property due to
725
flooding or erosion;
726
727
3. The impact of the increase in flood hazard which will result from
728
the variance will not prevent the city or county from meeting the
729
requirement of this ordinance. In support of this criteria the applicant
730
shall have a qualified professional engineer document the expected
731
height, velocity and duration of flood waters, and estimate the rate of
732
increase in sediment transport of the flood waters expected both
733
downstream and upstream as a result of the variance;
734
735
4. The variance will not increase the cost of providing and
1736
maintaining public services during and after flood conditions so as to
737
unduly burden public agencies and taxpayers;
738
739
5. Without the variance, the applicant would be denied all
740
economically viable use of the subject property.
741
742
C. If a variance is granted to reduce the width of a portion of the Water
743
Quality Resource Area, the variance shall conform to the following:
744
745
1. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet on each
746
side of a Primary Protected Water Feature, except as allowed in Section 3
747
F;
748
749
2. No more than 25 percent of the length of the Water Quality
750
Resource Area within a development site can lie less than 30 feet in width;
751
752
3. In either case, the average width of the Water Quality Resource
753
Area shall be a minimum of 30 feet for Secondary Protected Water
754
Features, a minimum of 50 feet for Primary Protected Water Features; or
755
200 feet in areas with slopes greater than 25%. The stream shall be
756
allowed to meander within this area, but in no case shall the stream be less
757
than 10 feet from the outer boundary of the Water Quality Resource Area.
_,.758
21 9/4/97
J
759
(Note: this was an advisory vote by the Water Resources Policy Advisory
760
Committee and will be discussed further).
761
762
763
Section 8. Map Errors
j
764
i
765
(Note: It is recognized that there will be mapping errors in the Title 3 map.
766
Whether these are errors of omission or errors where the map shows a resource
767
where a resource does not exist, the jurisdiction shall develop and implement a
768
public process whereby property owners, local stream groups, watershed
769
councils and the affected public may submit suggested mapping corrections
770
through a full and open public process. Process for correction of map errors
771
should be included unless the general map error provision of the zoning code is
772
sufficient)
I 773
j 774
Section 9. Enforcement
775
776
A. No person shall engage in or cause to occur any development, use or
777
activity which fails to meet the standards and requirements of this ordinance.
778
Development, uses or activities which are not specifically allowed within the
779
Water Quality Resource Area are prohibited. All activities which may cause
780
J
temporary or permanent erosion from a
property or site proposed for development
v 781
are prohibited prior to the applicant obtaining an Erosion and Sediment Control
782
Permit.
783
j 784
B. In addition to other powers the city or county may exercise to enforce this
785
ordinance, the city or county may:
I 786
787
1. Establish a cooperative agreement between the (enforcement
788
authority) and the applicant (or responsible party).
_
789
790
2. Issue a stop work order.
j
791
792
3. Issue a code violation citation to the permittee, contractor or
793
person responsible for carrying out development work, subject to a civil
794
penalty for each citation issued and providing for administrative review
795
and appeal.
796
797
4. Cause an action to be instituted in a court of competent
798
jurisdiction.
799
800
5. Authorize summary abatement and subsequent recovery of costs
801
incurred by the city or county.
_ 802
22 9/4/97
-
I
l03 C. Upon notification by the city or county of any violation of this ordinance
? 804 the applicant, permittee, contractor or person responsible for carrying out
I 805 development work may be required to immediately install emergency erosion and
j 806 sediment control measures which comply with Section 6.
t
608 Section 10. Deflations
309
810 Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this section
811 shall be interpreted to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and to
812 give this classification its most reasonable application.
813
814 Architect - An architect licensed by the State of Oregon.
815
816 Banl:ful Stage - Defined in OAR 141-85-010 (definitions for Removal/Fill Permits) as
817 the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of a stream or other
818 waters of the state and begin to inundate upland areas. In the absence of physical
819 evidence, the two-year recurrent flood elevation may be used to approximate the bankfu
820 stage.
821
822 Created Wetlands - Those wetlands developed in an area previously identified as a non
823 wetland to replace, or mitigate wetland destruction or displacement. A created wetland
824 shall be regulated and managed the same as an existing wetland.
825
826 Constructed Wetlands - Those wetlands developed as a water quality or quantity
827 facility, subject to change and maintenance as such. These areas must be clearly dcfine
828 and/or separated from naturally occurring or created wetlands.
829
(~~830 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Quality Standards - The
831 numerical criteria or narrative condition needed in order to protect an identified benefrci
832 use.
833
834 Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
835
836 1. Grading, filling, cutting or other earth-moving activity involving mr
837 than fifty (50) cubic yards on any lot;
838
839 2. The removal of three or more living trees of over six (6) inches
840 diameter at breast height (DBH), or the removal of five percent (5°/
841 of the total number of living (or dead trees) over six (6) inches DBf
842 whichever is greater, on any lot within any one (1) calendar year, or
843 any form of commercial logging; -
844
845 3. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other
846 structure;
847
848 4. Culverting of any stream;
I
1
849
850 5. Development does not include any activity in the protected water
851 feature below ordinary mean low water.
852
0
:53 Development Site - [ ]
854
855 Division of State Lands Wetland Determinations - As defined in OAR 141-86-200
856 (definitions for Local Wetland Inventory Standards and Guidelines), "wetland I
857 determination" means identifying an area as wetland or non-wetland.
858 f
i
a
1
e
i
a
I
859 Emergency Activities - Those activities that are needed to respond to an unexpected
860 situation or sudden occurrence of a serious and urgent nature that demands immediate
861 action, such as a burst sewer line.
862
863 Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed by the State of Oregon.
864
865 Engineering Geologist - A registered professional engineering geologist licensed by the
866 State of Oregon.
867
868 Erosion - Erosion is the movement of soil particles resulting from actions of water or
869 wind.
870
871 Fooodway Fringe - The area of the floodplain, lying outside the floodway, which does
872 not contribute appreciably to the passage of flood water, but serves as a retention area.
873
~74 Floodplain - The land area identified and designated by the United States Army Corps
875 of Engineers, the Oregon Division of State Lands, FEMA, or (identify name) €
876 county/city that has been or may be covered temporarily by water as a result of a stone
877 event of identified frequency. It is usually the flat area of land adjacent to a stream or
878 river formed by floods.
879
880 Floodw•ay - The portion of a watercourse required for the passage or conveyance of a
881 given storm event as identified and designated by the (identify name) City/County
882 pursuant to this Ordinance. The floodway shall include the channel of the watercourse
883 and the adjacent floodplain that must be reserved in an unobstructed condition in order to !
884 discharge the base flood without flood levels by more than one foot.
885
886 Long-term Parking - [ ]
887 -
888 Lot - Lot means a single unit of land that is created by a subdivision of land. (ORS
889 92.010(3)).
890
891 ODFNV Construction Standards - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife construction
892 guidelines for building roads, bridges and culverts or any transportation structure within
893 a waterway.
894
495 Open Space - Land that is undeveloped and that is planned to remain so indefinitely. j
X96 The term encompasses parks, forests and farm land. It may also refer only to land zoned
897 as being available to the public, including playgrounds, watershed preserves and parks. j
-898
899 Ordinary Mean High Water Line - As defined in OAR 141-82-005 as the line on the
900 bank or shore to which water ordinarily rises in season; synonymous with Mean High
901 Water (OAR 274.005).
902
903 Ordinary Mean Low Water Line - As defined in OAR 141-82-005 as the line on the on
904 the bank or shore to which water ordinarily recedes in season; synonymous with Mean
905 Low Water (OAR 274.005).
906 (907 Owner or Property Owner - The person who is the legal record owner of the land, or
908 where there is a recorded land sale contract, the purchaser thereunder. .
909
910 Parcel - Parcel means a single unit of land that is created by a partitioning of land. (ORS j
911 92.010(7)). f
912
913 Plans - The drawings and designs which specify construction details as prepared by the
914 Engineer.
915
916 Post-Construction Erosion Control - Consists of rc-eswolishing ground cover or
917 landscaping prior to the removal of temporary erosion control measures.
918
919 Protected Water Features -
(920
921 Primary Protected Water Features shall include:
922
923 a) wetlands; and
924
925 b) rivers, streams, and drainages downstream from the point at which 100
926 acres or more are drained to that water feature (regardless of whether it carries
927 year-round flow); and
928
929 c) streams carrying year-round flow; and
930
931 d) springs which feed streams and wetlands and have year-round flow.
932
933 Secondary Protected Water Features shall include streams and seeps downstream
934 of the point at which 50 acres are drained and upstream of the point at which 100
i 935 acres are drained to that water feature (regardless of whether it carries year-round
936 flow).
937
938 Redevelopment - Development in which the estimated value of the proposed
939 improvements as shown on the building permit is more than fifty percent of the assessed
940 value of the existing improvements on the property as shown in the County tax assessor
941 records.
942
b
M
43
` 944
945
946
947
i 948
t 949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
3 960
961
962
963
s ~ 64
3 X365
966
967
968
969
970
971
i 972
! 973
974
t 975
976
977
978
979
f 980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
"Resource" versus "Facility" - The distinction being made is between a "resource", a
functioning natural system such as a wetland or stream; and a "facility" which refers to a
created or constructed structure or drainage way that is designed, constructed and
maintained to collect and filter, retain, or detain surface water run-off during and after a
storm event for the purpose of water quality improvement.
Riparian - Those areas associated with streams, lakes and wetlands where vegetation
communities are predominately influenced by their association with water.
Set-back Adjustment - The placement of a building a specified distance away from a
road, property line or protected resource.
Short-term Parking - [ j
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Oregon's statewide planning goal that addresses open
space, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources. The purpose of the goal is to
conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Oregon's statewide planning goal that addresses air, water
and land resources quality to "maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the state" as implemented by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC).
Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Oregon's statewide planning goal that addresses areas
subject to natural disasters and hazards to "protect life and property from natural disasters -
and hazards" as implemented by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC).
Steep slopes - Steep slopes are those slopes that are equal to or greater than 25%. Steep
slopes have been removed from the "buildable lands" inventory and have not been used
in calculations to determine the number of acres within the urban growth boundary which
are available for development.
Streams - A river or creek that carries flowing surface water, including perennial stream
and intermittent streams with defined channels. Streams do not include excluding
manmade irrigation and drainage channels.
Structure - A building or other major improvement that is built, constructed or installed,
not including minor improvements, such as fences, utility poles, flagpoles or irrigation
system components, that are not customarily regulated through zoning codes.
Top of Bank - The same as "bankful stage" defined in OAR 141-85-010(2).
Visible or Measurable Erosion - Visible or measurable erosion includes, but is not
limited to:
27 9/4/97
1
989 a. Deposits of mud, dirt sediment or similar material exceeding one-half cubic foot in
990 volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or onto the storm and surface
i 991 water system, either by direct deposit, dropping discharge, or as a result of the action
992 of erosion.
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
_'1009
`•,,,1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden
flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes, where the
now of water is not filtered or captured on the site.
c. Earth slides, mud flows, earth sloughing, or other earth movement which leaves the
property.
Water Quality and Floodplain Management Area - The area that identifies where the
Water Quality and Floodplain Management Area Overlay Zone is applied.
Water Quality Facility - Any structure or drainage way that is designed, constructed
and maintained to collect and filter, retain, or detain surface water run-off during and
after a storm event for the purpose of water quality improvement. It may also include,
but is not limited to, existing features such as constructed wetlands, water quality
swales, and ponds which are maintained as stormwater quality control facilities.
Watershed - A watershed is a geographic unit defined by the flows of rainwater or
snowmelt. All land in a watershed drains to a common outlet, such as a stream, lake or
wetland.
Wetlands - Wetlands are those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands are
those areas identified and delineated by a qualified wetland specialist as set forth in the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, January 1987.
28
9/4/97
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Property Acquisition Update
PREPARED BY: /Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY MGR OK
i
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
What is the status of the city acquisition of various properties idenifced by Council for purchase? .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
INFORMATION SUMMARY
j An update of staff acquisition efforts is attached.
i
y
r
~
~
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTES
i
Several sales are close to closing, but no funds have been expended as yet.
i
i i:4ityMide\sum.iandacq
I
1
i
Proper- y Transaction Status Report
Cache
The county, city, and owner have agreed to terms for the purchase of this property. The contract
recently has been finalized. At Mr. Cash's request, the city will be a signatory to insure that the
city will honor sewerage, roadway, and construction easements that are included as agreement
conditions. The city attorney expects the transaction to close until early next year.
b. North Dakota
According to the city attorney, this transaction for the purchase of two acres of creekside
property should be out of escrow sometime this week.
c. Country Club
On 10/28, Council approved the purchase document. Don Palmer, Club Secretary, signed the
final documents on the club's behalf. On 10/21 the USA Board of Directors approved the City's
request for a 30-foot wide access easement connecting from Cook Park to the eastern tract. In
September, the City of Tualatin approved Tigard's request to partition the two tracts, subject to
the granting of this easement. The last remaining step is the required survey of the parent parcel
and the recording of the final plat with the county. John Hadley has completed a portion of the
survey.
d. USA
On 10/21, the Board of Commissioners approved a resolution declaring as surplus the seven
acres of the former Thomas Dairy property of interest to the city and authorizing the agency
director to negotiate the sale of this property to the city. No price was specified. The agency
director will send a letter to the city regarding the transaction.
Late last month, Council President Hunt led an on-site tour and discussed the city's Cook Park
expansion and riverside trail extension plans with two family representatives. The family 1
members are supportive of the city's plans and agreed to move forward on the dedication of the
family-owned property. John Hadley will survey and stake the property boundary.
i
f. Lowery
Metro has completed purchase of the property. An IGA relating to the property has been
submitted to the city. The development of a management plan will follow approval of the IGA.
The Metro property manager has offered to support low intensity uses on the site, without the
city having to purchase any portion of the property. These uses could include light grading for a
playfield, the placement of soccer goals and/or a backstop, a small gravel or paved parking area,
and the liming or removal of one or two trees. The Metro offer represents a potential $200,000
savings in park SDC funds to the city. This amount is included in the current CIP budget for the
acquisition of the Lowery parcel and, if not needed, could be reallocated to other park system
improvements.
MIG, the firm selected to carry out the park system master plan, will assist in develcping the site
plan. The process will include extensive public involvement.
The city has received a petition (attached) signed by some 30 surrounding residents opposing the I
development of a playfield or parking area on the property.
ODOT has identified this property as a potential mitigation site for the filling of a small wetland
within the proposed I-5/217 interchange project area. Details of this proposal were received last
week and include the creation of approximately one acre of wetland adjacent to the creek.
ODOT's timeline calls for submittal of the DSL permit by late spring or early summer.
The city's negotiator has talked with each of the remaining property owners along the Tiedeman
t _ to Main trail section. The reception has been positive in general. Verbal authorization has been
received for access to these properties for the necessary survey work and trail easement location
identification. Because city crews are overloaded at present, a contract for the survey work has
been negotiated with David Evans and Associates.
Negotiations are underway with the owner of a six-acre trailhead parcel. A preliminary
engineering study to determine approximate development costs and the number of lots that can
be created followed by a formal property appraisal are the next steps.
M.
Park and Greenspace Target Properties
j ~
I
11 ii
_ tad Pr f ~,('r!`'
I r
L-
j I _ oft
1 / -
- 09
I ■
t
}rim i ■ tt
I - i
i
~ ND RD -A
/
BEEF iL~ _J j i r1 T DURFWM RD-~~ d~a0
I I
i i
r
sFAverzrorr -
-r
eg,
17
I
it
i
i
I '
6
I
-
I
t~
I
1
i
E
I FF
II
I
i
j
I
I
JJI
1
I
I ~
._..I cmamuo ;
L
# I
City of Tigard
Planning SEQ
Planning Department 22 1997
RE: The expansion of Woodard Park onto the George Lowery property
We the undersigned are residents of the area adjacent to Woodard
Park and the Lowery property. It is our understanding that Metro w
be purchasing the Lowery property and reselling a major part of tha
j property back to the City of Tigard for expansion of Woodard Park. I
the City of Tigard does indeed have plans to expand Woodard Park wi
would like the following conditions to be part of that expansion:
Condition 1 The area should be maintained in as much of a natura
state as possible with all trees being undisturbed and native plants
j being restored.
Condition 2 Rny development in the area should consist of a path
system, play structures and picnic tables only.
Condition 3 Development of any playing fields and parking space
on the Lowery property is completely unacceptable.
DRTE NRME RDDRESS
1
i
v ~
ti. F
n ~s
to r<~
.AC
tea.?s-`,
:
r
4)
c a1
'o~.c5 S•l{
{
1~
l T~clluN~
4 / .
ill
t
City of Tigard
Planning Department
RE: The expansion of Woodard Park onto the George Lowery property.
We the undersigned are residents of the area adjacent to Woodard
Park and the Lowery property. It is our understanding that Metro will
be purchasing the Lowery property and reselling a major part of that
i property back to the City of Tigard for expansion of Woodard Park. If
f the City of Tigard does indeed have plans to expand Woodard Park we
would like the following conditions to be part of that expansion:
Condition I The area should be maintained in as much of a natural
state as possible with all trees being undisturbed and native plants
being restored.
1 Condition 2 Rny development in the area should consist of a path
system, play structures and picnic tables only.
i
a
Condition 3 Development of any playing fields and parking spaces
on the Lowery property is completely unacceptable.
5 DRTE NRME RDDRESS
3- cl
/0/ 3o
923 -
- I- -1
w sa
2 l LEI'
i;
L
_ Q i Z73
\A ci~
j
j
G a S 4,; 2141.1 L
7G. , o:;. $712 7
® City of Tigard
Planning Department
RE: The expansion of Woodard Park onto the George Lowery property.
We the undersigned are residents of the area adjacent to Woodard
Park and the Lowery property. It is our understanding that Metro will
be purchasing the Lowery property and reselling a major part of that
property back to the City of Tigard for expansion of Woodard Park. If
the City of Tigard does indeed haue plans to expand Woodard Park we
would like the following conditions to be part of that expansion:
Condition 1 The area should be maintained in as much of a natural
state as possible with all trees being undisturbed and natiue plants
being restored.
Condition 2 Rng development in the area should consist of a path
system, play structures and picnic tables only.
Condition 3 Deuelopment of any playing fields and parking spaces
on the Lowery property is completely unacceptable.
DRTE NRME RDDRESS
Item No.
PaF!Semell NOW8100, dated
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
TO: Mayor Nicoli and City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx llu)rl-o
DATE: November 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 122
E
I. ICOADMUERREEW IMISB I22C C. MEM
The 1993 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 122, the Urban Services Bill, codified as ORS
195. This legislation requires units of local government and special districts to develop two types
of agreements: 1) cooperative agreements that specify how the cities and county will involve
,special districts in comprehensive planning and what their responsibilities will be, as well as the
roles and responsibilities of districts with regard to approval of new development; and 2) urban
service agreements that identify who, where, and how providers of an "urban service" within an
urban growth boundary will provide urban services in the future. Urban services are defined as:
a) Sanitary sewers
b) Water
c) Fire Protection
d) Parks
e) Open space
f) Recreation, and
g) Streets, roads, and mass transit
Washington County applied for a second TGM grant to develop urban service agreements in the
Beaverton-Tigard area of eastern Washington County, to serve as a model for the remaining
urban area which will follow the Beaverton-Tigard area. Within this area, there are 13 service
providers representing nine services. The nine services include storm water management and law
enforcement, not required by ORS 195 but added by Washington County and the participating
jurisdictions.
Council will be considering the intergovernmental agreements at its November 25, 1997, meeting.
Basically, the agreements acknowledge the cooperation that exists among the various service
providers. Notification and coordination is the bv-Droduct of the intergovernmental agreements.
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Managerk-L
DATE: November 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Schramm Property
Background
At the October 28, 1997 Council meeting, the City Manager discussed the possibility of
leasing the Schramm property, with the intent to purchase. Council directed staff to come
back with a proposal as to how the building could be used.
The Schramm building, repaired after the fire, contains 650 square feet of office space facing
Burnham, and approximately 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. There is some
unfinished office space in the warehouse portion. The office space facing Burnham is not
carpeted, but very suitable for use as offices. A copy of the building layout is attached.
Each City department submitted information for use of the space. After reviewing the
information, I determined the most cost efficient use of the space was to use the warehouse to
meet current and future storage reeds and minimize the need to improve warehouse space for
offices. In addition, since the Niche may be removed in the near future for buildings or
parking, relocating the uses in that facility was another priority.
Recommendation
1. The office space be occupied by the Risk function. Two people currently staff this
division; the Risk Manager/Senior Analyst and the Risk Technician. They are
presently located in the Niche. This office space is too small for a larger staff. The
Risk function serves all City departments, but doesn't necessarily need to be physically
next to any particular department. This location is easily accessible to Public Works as
well as employees in the Civic Center complex. This space needs carpet, but is
suitable for offices.
Memo to City Council
November 14, 1997
Page Two
2.
City-wide records occupy 2,000 square feet of the warehouse space. Currently, City
records are stored at Canterbury, the Niche and behind the Council chambers. These
are not current records, but records that still need to be accessed periodically. The
j
Records Division has been notified that the Canterbury building is not structurally
i
capable of supporting the dead weight of records, so the Records staff has been
investigating office site storage in a commercial facility. Attached is a memo detailing
the costs. Storage of records at the Schramm property has these advantages; one
location for all records that is centrally located, and no monthly charges for storage or
retrieval. The existing warehouse space would need to be heated sufficiently to prevent
records from becoming damp. An area to accommodate the use could be sectioned off
and shelved for probably a minimal cost.
3.
Surplus property storage occupy 3,000 square feet. Currently, surplus property
(furniture, large and small office equipment and computers) is stored at the Niche, at
Summerlake Park and at Canterbury. When appropriate, the items are declared surplus
and disposed of. Having items stored in one location would allow the items to be
organized for inventory control purposes, and also to allow staff to easily view surplus
items for use before purchasing new items.
4.
Create a small storage space for Engineering. Approximately 150 square feet is needed
to store survey supplies, traffic counters, and other equipment and supplies. Most of
these items are currently stored at Summerlake Park. Consolidation of storage at this
i
location would provide convenient access to those items for staff working out of City
Hall.
5.
Storage of Library items in 400 square feet. Currently, the Library stores books in the
i
Niche, and program materials in the storage room behind Town Hall. Storage at the
Schramm building would allow materials temporarily removed from the collection, due
to lack of space in the current Library, to be stored until they could be added back into
the collection in a bigger facility. Storage of program materials would allow staff
convenient access to items as needed.
6.
Improve approximately 2,000 square feet for Network Services. Currently, Network
Services is located at the Niche, with inadequate space for training, parts storage and
repair, and the servers. Renovating a portion of the Schramm building that currently
has office space will provide adequate facilities for Network Services.
7.
Provide 2,000 square feet of storage for Police. Currently, the Police Department
leases approximately 1,228 square feet for storage of evidence and records at $660 per
month. A larger storage area would allow for storage of evidence and records and an
area for processing vehicles. The Police storage area needs to be separated from other
storage.
L-
Attached is a diagram illustrating the general layout of the proposed uses. I am working with
an appraiser to develop a proposal to discuss with Council regarding lease cost and terms.
That information, provided it is available, will be presented Tuesday evening.
is
LAN\jh
attachments
ltd
rte.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Liz Newton
FROM: Dee Wise, Sr. Records and Information Specialist
DATE: November4, 1997 ,
SUBJECT: Space for Records Division j
I.
Currently, the Records Division has three storage areas for storing approximately 1000 storage
boxes of records. These areas are: Canterbury Property, the NICHE, and behind the City Council
Chambers. The Records Division has looked into offsite storage with a commercial storage facility.
Approximate costs for this offsite storage is as follows:
• Initial Setup (transfer and data entry) $1.30/cu.ft $1,300.00 I
• Inventory (optional) $0.35/box 350.00
• Monthly Storage (200 box minimum) $0.231box 230.00 '
• Retrieval/Reshelving $1.25rtem
• Interfiling (new files in existing boxes) $2.00/item `
• File Search $2.00/box searched
• Permanent Removal $2.001box
• Courier Services:
• Next Day $ 8.00 base rate -
• Same Day $15.00 base rate
• Express (8:30A - 4:OOP) $30.00 base rate
Emergency/After Hours $55.00 base rate
• Special Projects $20.00/hr.
• Destruction $1.50/box
Figures taken from Iron Mountain service quotes. Inventory figure is from PRC as a service
they provide. .
r
® The Records Division would utilize the available 2000 square feet of floor space by dividing the
room between the two bay style doors in the West comer of the building. This division could be
either with fencing or a fire resistant wall. A need for a smaller, lockable enclosure in the South
l portion of the room would be needed to secure boxes confidential in nature. Shelving would be
purchased and erected throughout the floor space to keep boxes off the concrete.
i
t
l
i C: R. Wayne Lowry
® j Nadine Robinson
~ e W
d6 ~es U
e
{
M
U.
E
~i
w
W)
w
r
-
-
TEL:505 ??l 4875
-03' 9
~SEP
'(WED) 15
:03 CD COMMERCIAL
TEL:503 221 4873 P
006
.
.
)
1 Oil L~
~
E'( Wok
-
5~R-J t c E5
-
'
STOCZP~ E
i
\
- -
=
ui
7a,
OC
L16 0
5 ~~-pc. v s
i
0 0
w
•
®
~
c
•
jZE~o ~,p s
Item No. p5 J j E
n
For Council Newsletter dated /
6
MEMORANDUM
I
r
i
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager~~
DATE: November 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Schramm Property
Backeround
At the October 28, 1997 Council meeting, the City Manager discussed the possibility of I
leasing the Schramm property, with the intent to purchase. Council directed staff to come
back with a proposal as to how the building could be used.
The Schramm building, repaired after the fire, contains 650 square feet of office space facing
Burnham, and approximately 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. There is some
unfinished office space in the warehouse portion. The office space facing Burnham is not
carpeted, but very suitable for use as offices. A copy of the building layout is attached.
Each City department submitted information for use of the space. After reviewing the f
information, I determined the most cost efficient use of the space was to use the warehouse to
meet current and future storage needs and minimize the need to improve warehouse space for
offices. In addition, since the Niche may be removed in the near future for buildings or
parking, relocating the uses in that facility was another priority.
Recommendation
1. The office space be occupied by the Risk function. Two people currently staff this
division; the Risk Manager/Senior Analyst and the Risk Technician. They are
presently located in the Niche. This office space is too small for a larger staff. The
Risk function serves all City departments, but doesn't necessarily need to be physically
next to any particular department. This location is easily accessible to Public Works as j
well as employees in the Civic Center complex. This space needs carpet, but is
suitable for offices.
Memo to City Council u
November 14, 1997
Page Two
2. City-wide records occupy 2,000 square feet of the warehouse space. Currently, City
records are stored at Canterbury, the Niche and behind the Council chambers. These
are not current records, but records that still need to be accessed periodically. The
Records Division has been notified that the Canterbury building is not structurally
capable of supporting the dead weight of records, so the Records staff has been
investigating office site storage in a commercial facility. Attached is a memo detailing
the costs. Storage of records at the Schramm property has these advantages; one
location for all records that is centrally located, and no monthly charges for storage or
retrieval. The existing warehouse space would need to be heated sufficiently to prevent
records from becoming damp. An area to accommodate the use could be sectioned off
and shelved for probably a minimal cost.
3. Surplus property storage occupy 3,000 square feet. Currently, surplus property
i
(furniture, large and small office equipment and computers) is stored at the Niche, at 1
Summerlake Park and at Canterbury. When appropriate, the items are declared surplus
and disposed of. Having items stored in one location would allow the items to be
organized for inventory control purposes, and also to allow staff to easily view surplus
items for use before purchasing new items.
4. Create a small storage space for Engineering. Approximately 150 square feet is needed i~
to store survey supplies, traffic counters, and other equipment and supplies. Most of '
these items are currently stored at Summerlake Park. Consolidation of storage at this i
location would provide convenient access to those items for staff working out of City
Hall.
5. Storage of Library items in 400 square feet. Currently, the Library stores books in the
Niche, and program materials in the storage room behind Town Hall. Storage at the ¢
Schratn*n building :would alloy: materials temporarily removed from the collection, due ~
to lack of space in the current Library, to be stored until they could be added back into
the collection in a bigger facility. Storage of program materials would allow staff
convenient access to items as needed.
6. Improve approximately 2,000 square feet for Network Services. Currently, Network
Services is located at the Niche, with inadequate space for training, parts storage and
repair, and the servers. Renovating a portion of the Schramm building that currently j
has office space will provide adequate facilities for Network Services.
i
7. Provide 2,000 square feet of storage for Police. Currently, the Police Department
leases approximately 1,228 square feet for storage of evidence and records at $660 per
month. A larger storage area would allow for storage of evidence and records and an
area for processing vehicles. The Police storage area needs to be separated from other
storage.
f J _
M
Attached is a diagram illustrating the general layout of the proposed uses. I am working with I
an appraiser to develop a proposal to discuss with Council regarding lease cost and terms.
That information, provided it is available, will be presented Tuesday evening.
N
i
I
MEMORANDUM
n CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I
TO: Liz Newton
FROM: Dee Wise, Sr. Records and Information Specialist
1
DATE: November 4, 1997
j SUBJECT: Space for Records Division
Currently, the Records Division has three storage areas for storing approximately 1000 storage
boxes of records. These areas are: Canterbury Property, the NICHE, and behind the City Council
Chambers. The Records Division has looked into offsite storage with a commercial storage facility.
Approximate costs for this offsite storage is as follows:
• Initial Setup (transfer and data entry) $1.30/cu.ft $1,300.00
• Inventory (optional) $0.35/box 350.00
• Monthly Storage (200 box minimum) $0.231box 230.00
• Retrieval/Reshelving $1.25(item
• Interfiling (new files in existing boxes) $2.00fitem
. File Search $2.00/box searched ,
. Permanent Removal $2.001box
. Courier Services: E `
• Next Day $ 8.00 base rate
• Same Day $15.00 base rate
• Express (8:30A - 4:OOP) $30.00 base rate
• Emergency/After Hours $55.00 base rate
j • Special Projects $20.001hr.
• Destruction $1.50/box
a Figures taken from Iron Mountain service quotes. Inventory figure is from PRC as a service
they provide.
g
j The Records Division would utilize the available 2000 square feet of floor space by dividing the
room between the two bay style doors in the West comer of the building. This division could be
I either with fencing or a fire resistant wall. A need for a smaller, lockable enclosure in the South
portion of the room would be needed to secure boxes confidential in nature. Shelving would be
purchased and erected throughout the floor space to keep boxes off the concrete.
SEP
. -03' 9'IWEDI 15:03
CB COMMERCIAL
1
j
I
O
K
/YO/
It
• 1~--~
- / v-
~
W
U
116
LL
M_
O
®
rn
U
cn eD
r
o
i
®
o
r
~
I
i~~ t
_
i ":Cc
-1 1
SEP. -0;' 97IWEDi !5:03
CB COMMERCIAL
i
POLL
~a
n
bar°~